Chicken Wings Forum

Roost Air Lounge => The Classroom => Topic started by: Mike on March 01, 2006, 02:01:34 AM

Title: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 01, 2006, 02:01:34 AM
You can ask them all in here now, and I will do my best to answer them.
For the really tricky ones I will see if I can't volunteer Roland to join me since
he is the Master when it comes to helicopters. I just drive them...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Sleek-Jet on March 01, 2006, 04:35:24 AM
Best training helo??

Robinson, Entrom, or Schweiser?? I've looked at getting my swing wing rating, but I'm not to keen on the Robinsons.  Especially since you need 100 hours PIC to carry a passanger (I think  ??? )
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Paper-Airplane on March 01, 2006, 05:12:58 AM
Is the learning curve steeper than an airplane? Or is it easier?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 01, 2006, 01:21:32 PM
Best training helo??

Robinson, Entrom, or Schweiser?? I've looked at getting my swing wing rating, but I'm not to keen on the Robinsons.  Especially since you need 100 hours PIC to carry a passanger (I think  ??? )

Personally (and this is really personally only!!!) the Robinson R22 seems to me to be a dangerous helicopter, especially for students. It was never planed to be a trainer but is widely used due to its low costs. If one can afford to spend more money I would recommend to train on an other type as there are Schweizer or Bell 47. I would not let my son train on a Robinson R22.

But I would recommend to train on a piston-engine helicopter. Here you learn to use available (or not available) power properly.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 01, 2006, 01:25:07 PM
Is the learning curve steeper than an airplane? Or is it easier?

A learning curve will always be steep, wouldn’t it? But for sure there is a lot more to learn on helicopters due its specifics like turning wings, transmissions, different power supply, …
To some helicopters are easier. Don’t ask why …
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: FlyingBlind on March 01, 2006, 02:43:57 PM
Can the rotor slice a tomato ? :P or something rougher like a stone ? and what happens when the main rotor shuts down ? and what happens when the tail-rotor shuts down ?  ???
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 01, 2006, 06:45:59 PM
Best training helo??

Robinson, Entrom, or Schweiser?? I've looked at getting my swing wing rating, but I'm not to keen on the Robinsons.  Especially since you need 100 hours PIC to carry a passanger (I think  ??? )

I have to totally agree with Roland on this one. The Robinson was not designed to be a training helicopter. It just ended up being so cheap that flight schools bought them as well. I would recommend the Schweizer. I love that little machine and it's very forgiving if you make your beginner mistakes.
The Robinson is like a little sportscar. It's fast and pretty unforgiving compared to the Schweizer.
You have a manual throttle on your collective on the 300 which teaches you a lot about power management and it's actually a lot of fun to fly. The Enstrom is not a good training machine either. I have never flown one but friends of mine said because it has a turbo-charger it's broken a lot since the turbo doesn't like doing autorotations and hovering autos becuase of the shock-cooling...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Sleek-Jet on March 01, 2006, 09:18:27 PM
Thanks Roland and Mike... The problem being that the place here in town runs Robinson equipment.  The closest I could find a 300C at was all the way up in Phoenix.  If I end up doing this, I wanted to fly once a day.  We'll see what happens I guess.  :D   
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Stef on March 01, 2006, 10:57:15 PM
Can the rotor slice a tomato ? :P or something rougher like a stone ? and what happens when the main rotor shuts down ? and what happens when the tail-rotor shuts down ?  ???

Ooooo! Let me explain! I know! I know! This is one of the rare occasions that I can answer an aviation related question...

1) It can.
2) It can't. At least not slice... would get a bad dent, depending on the size of the stone.
3) Then you're "made love to". ;D The main rotor can't really shut down... If the engine shuts down, the rotor keeps spinning and has enough momentum to give you one attempt at landing. This is called autorotation and is practiced throgoughly in your training.
4) Well... if the tail rotor is blocked for some reason, you'd start spinning and would eventually crash. Here's a question for the real experts: If you're in forward flight, does the fin stabilize you enough to enable you to land the helicopter like an airplane?  ???
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 02, 2006, 03:06:25 AM
Good one little brother!
It seems some of the stories I kept telling over and over did stick after all, he he ;D

The main rotor doesn't just "shut down". The key is to keep it turning if the engine quits like my brother already mentioned by entering an autorotation. Long story and lots of aerodynamics involved but it makes you able to land the thing in a parking lot if you have to.

The tailrotor can get tricky. It can get stuck, or you lose it (driveshaft failure or something). There are many different maneuvers you can do depending if it happens to you in forward flight or in a hover. I have friends who walked away from things like that. But if it fails right when you're pulling max pitch lifting an a/c unit off the roof 150feet in the air, ...you can pretty much kiss your @$$ good-by...

I do think though that a helicopter is a very safe machine if maintained and operated within the limits...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 02, 2006, 03:08:53 AM
Thanks Roland and Mike... The problem being that the place here in town runs Robinson equipment.  The closest I could find a 300C at was all the way up in Phoenix.  If I end up doing this, I wanted to fly once a day.  We'll see what happens I guess.  :D   

Don't get me wrong. I trained on a Robby myself back in the days and turned out alright. They are nice little helicopters and if that's what you have and you have a good CFI then go for it. (then you just have to worry about the SFAR's)
But you asked what the best one would be...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 02, 2006, 07:27:49 AM
As Mike said there is nothing wrong in getting a helicopter training on a Robinson 22. But to my experience with helicopters of different types the R 22 actually is a helicopter for advanced pilots. And dangerous because there are very little reserves in the whole thing. I flew it myself, also the Schweizer. Personally I prefer the Schweizer, it gives e better feeling of safety and confidence. But if there is a R 22 available only, so train with that. BUT STAY VIGILANT ALL THE TIME!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Sleek-Jet on March 03, 2006, 01:38:16 AM
Thanks Roland and Mike... The problem being that the place here in town runs Robinson equipment.  The closest I could find a 300C at was all the way up in Phoenix.  If I end up doing this, I wanted to fly once a day.  We'll see what happens I guess.  :D   

Don't get me wrong. I trained on a Robby myself back in the days and turned out alright. They are nice little helicopters and if that's what you have and you have a good CFI then go for it. (then you just have to worry about the SFAR's)
But you asked what the best one would be...

It's that SFAR that has my attention.  I have no doubt that the Robinson is a safe heli when operated in the correct way. 

Thanks for your input guys.  ;D 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 18, 2006, 08:13:13 PM
I got a question, I was just looking thrue the RDAF sites trying to see what kind of helmet the danish F-16 pilots used and I found this site about the EH-101 Merlins that are to finally replace our age-old Sikorsky S-61 Sea King rescue helicopters, one of which I saw just two days ago, sounded more like a small old GA plane than a helicopter actually.

http://forsvaret.dk/FMK/Nyt+og+Presse/Kom+t%C3%A6ttere+p%C3%A5+EH-101.htm
My question is: What does it use wirecutters for? That's what it says, where the line points in front of the rotoheard, between the rotorblades and the cabin-roof.
Edit: I just noticed there's another one under the nose.
The first EH-101 arrived in january this year.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: MO on March 19, 2006, 01:31:05 AM

Hi Frank, et al,

The wirecutters are precisely that: devices to cut wires (Electrical, telephonic, etc.). Those come handy when you are flying low and accidentally find them on your path. The devices cut the wires before they hit any vital part of the chopper like the rotor mast or get entangled on the skids.

Most helicopter types have them, although I'm not sure if they are mandatory. Mike? Roland? Can you guys help us out here?

Cheers!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 19, 2006, 03:15:58 AM
Ag planes have them as well.  I've heard of them being used more than once.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 19, 2006, 04:40:20 AM
Wire cutters are not mandatory as far as the FAA is concerned in the US (right now).
BUT they have become mandatory for the forest service and we have them on almost all of our helicopters.
I am sure that sooner or later everybody will need to have them. The funny thing I thought was something I read recently. I read that there are more accidents with planes and wires than with helicopters. It seems like helo pilots are constantly trained about them and are therefore more aware when it comes to wires. Going slower than most fixed wing planes helps as well...

And yes, just like MO said, they keep you from getting your skids get hung up in the wires as well as your rotor-system. On some tradeshows they have demonstrations on how good they work and it's pretty impressive I have to say. They can cut through 1/2'' steel cable like butter!!

Most pedestrians think they are antennas!! HA HA   ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 19, 2006, 04:44:44 AM
The funny thing I thought was something I read recently. I read that there are more accidents with planes and wires than with helicopters. It seems like helo pilots are constantly trained about them and are therefore more aware when it comes to wires. Going slower than most fixed wing planes helps as well...

And the fact that you can go up and down in shorter distances over the ground...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 22, 2006, 05:13:50 PM
Aha, but a cutter between the roof and the rotor? That would be extreme luck/skill if a wire came right between that and didn't hit the rotor uintil it came to the cutter right infront of the rotor-head wouldn't it? The nose-one is more understandable. Thanks for the info, one more thing though, what's a "Ag" aircraft?

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: MO on March 22, 2006, 05:21:03 PM

Ag Aircraft = Agricultural Aircraft (i.e. Crop Dusters)

Cheers!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 22, 2006, 05:30:57 PM
Man, I actually did think it was that but I never heard the term before so I thought I'd just save typing-space and ask, thanks for confirming it :)

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 22, 2006, 05:32:12 PM
Aha, but a cutter between the roof and the rotor? That would be extreme luck/skill if a wire came right between that and didn't hit the rotor uintil it came to the cutter right infront of the rotor-head wouldn't it? The nose-one is more understandable. Thanks for the info, one more thing though, what's a "Ag" aircraft?

Frank

Well, they are there in case you hit the cable with your nose and it rides up all the way across the bubble. Then the cutter will take care of it before it goes into the swashplate. If you hit the wire with the top of the rotors it could go both ways, it will either bounce off or take a chunk off your blade...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: BoB on March 23, 2006, 03:23:10 AM
I was just in a helicopter manager workshop where a bunch of Forest Service and BLM people were discussing ground resonance as we had a crash last year they are tentatively blaming it on. What are the emergency procedures they teach pilots when experiencing this? Doesn't sound like you have much time to respond.... ??? ???
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 23, 2006, 04:06:47 AM
I can't see how a helicopter can "crash" because of ground resonance.

In order for a helicopter to get into ground resonance you need to be in contact with the ground to transfer the shock into the rotor system and then back into the skids and then back up and so on...
So there is an easy fix if you feel ground resonance coming on while touching down. Lift the ship back up!
The centrifucal forces will straighten the blades out again.

What kind kind of aircraft are they talking about? An AStar?

I have never seen an AStar get any real problem with ground resonance. They do get into the onset of GR every now and then especially when the feather at the back of the skid doesn't make good contact or the dampers are shot but for the helo to "crash"?!?!...unlikely.
A Hughes 500 or 300 maybe. I have seen one of those come apart because one of the dampers on the rotor system was sticking but they did something stupid to begin with to even get into this situation.

  So here is the procedure:
- If you set the ship down and it starts bouncing...pick it up again, wait till everything calms down and try again!
- Or if you are starting up or slowing down the rotors already....go to flat pitch!
  (not having any pitch on the blades will make it easier for the blades to strighten out)
  That's all there is to it procedure wise....
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 23, 2006, 03:24:03 PM
I think there was a fatality at UND a number of years ago due to this (or something similar).  I think a kid in a Schweizer somehow started bouncing from skid to skid.  One of the rotor blades ended up coming through the cockpit and took off part of his head.
Title: Re: Coincidence??
Post by: Mike on March 24, 2006, 04:26:11 AM
Woah!
How weird is that? The "real" Jason just sent me this right as we were talking about it:

Apparently a lead lag hinge broke on the rear rotor system (Chinook) and ground resonance took over from there.....
 
http://www.break.com/index/tiedheli23.html  (http://www.break.com/index/tiedheli23.html)
 
In this case something on the rotor broke and since the ship was tied down (don't ask me why) the pilot couldn't lift off the ground. During ground resonance the shock "knocks" two out of three blades closer together and this shifts the center of rotation with the weight of the blades not pulling evenly on the mast anymore. If the "center of rotation" shifts and isn't directly over the center of the mast anymore, the mast now starts rotate around the new center of rotation which, as you can see in the video, makes things worse...
Does this make sense?!?!

If you look closely at the very end you can see two of the blades flying almost together on one side while the third single blade opposes it. Doesn't take a lot of math skills to figure out there is more weight pulling on one side of the mast than on the other...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 24, 2006, 04:40:17 AM
Wow.  Is that something that's repairable, or does that just go for scrap?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on March 24, 2006, 09:44:18 AM
WHOA DUDE,
That Chinook is in a world of hurt---MIKEY, repeat after me---"If the wing is going faster then the fuselage, something can go wrong-go wrong-go wrong-go wrong!!!!!!

Your stuck wing pal, Jim  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 24, 2006, 04:55:31 PM
Wow.  Is that something that's repairable, or does that just go for scrap?

Hehe, no way!
You're talking destroying the whole running gear AND the fuselage structure.
If you roll a helo over you can sometimes rebuild it by replacing the running gear and keeping the airframe, but in this case it's better to just call the insurance and take your radios out...

To Jim:
You have a point. But I still like being able to land in a parking lot! ;)
A Chinook by the way is a little like the V-22 we talked about, too many blades and gearboxes...
Title: Re: Coincidence??
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 24, 2006, 05:00:16 PM
Woah!
How weird is that? The "real" Jason just sent me this right as we were talking about it:

Apparently a lead lag hinge broke on the rear rotor system (Chinook) and ground resonance took over from there.....
 
http://www.break.com/index/tiedheli23.html  (http://www.break.com/index/tiedheli23.html)
 
In this case something on the rotor broke and since the ship was tied down (don't ask me why) the pilot couldn't lift off the ground. During ground resonance the shock "knocks" two out of three blades closer together and this shifts the center of rotation with the weight of the blades not pulling evenly on the mast anymore. If the "center of rotation" shifts and isn't directly over the center of the mast anymore, the mast now starts rotate around the new center of rotation which, as you can see in the video, makes things worse...
Does this make sense?!?!

If you look closely at the very end you can see two of the blades flying almost together on one side while the third single blade opposes it. Doesn't take a lot of math skills to figure out there is more weight pulling on one side of the mast than on the other...


Funny... I was going to send you the same video!  It was apparently too large for the upload area here in regular WMV format.

The story I heard about this was that it was a test run up on a maintenance pad at a CH-47 USMC unit, hence why it was tied down.  Not sure if that is the correct scoop on it though.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 24, 2006, 05:08:31 PM
That UND accident sounds horrible :(
But that Chinook did not look very well either! And now the question to get the asnwer I couldn't find: Was anyone hurt?`

Now we're discussing all those different types of twirlybirds, what about the Hughes/McD NOTAR helicopters? Is the NOTAR system good to reduce accidents and still having a simple plane (a twin-rotor regardless of the type requires more gearboxes right? Wether it's tandem or co-axial). I also read the modern NOTAR's has automatic directional control, IE. you don't have to adjust the NOTAR when applying more force to the rotor to keep the nose in the same direction.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 24, 2006, 05:11:33 PM
Wow.  Is that something that's repairable, or does that just go for scrap?

Hehe, no way!
You're talking destroying the whole running gear AND the fuselage structure.
If you roll a helo over you can sometimes rebuild it by replacing the running gear and keeping the airframe, but in this case it's better to just call the insurance and take your radios out...

To Jim:
You have a point. But I still like being able to land in a parking lot! ;)
A Chinook by the way is a little like the V-22 we talked about, too many blades and gearboxes...

The flexibility of landing in a parking lot is nice, though I still tend to agree that a chopper is a collection of parts doing it's best to tear itself apart  ;D  Ok... maybe not that bad... and I DO enjoy flying on them.... but they are mechanically more complex than their fixed wing world counterparts.

We had a really great chopper pilot here in St. Louis.  His name was Alan Barklage.  He was a Vietnam chopper pilot, and decorated.  When he went civi he got into news helo flying.  He had a number of incidents over the years.  One where he was taking off of a landing pad at our riverfront, with one skid still hooked by a tie-down rope.  The chopper ended up on it's side in the river on that one.  Another where he was landing in a parking lot during Christmas time (I think with a Santa on board), and his tail rotor clipped a parking lot light pole.   And one time he was taking a passenger on a flight with him and she hijacked him, trying to get him to fly her boyfriend out of a jail here!   That one didn't end well for her, as he kept a .357 under his pilot's seat.  Ironically, he survived all that, and then died in a crash of his personal chopper, a Robinson, when he had delayed putting on an A.D. required retrofit part.  He got up to 300 ft AGL, then his engine siezed up and he dropped out of the sky.   His brother still flies helo's and does news reporting locally.  Just amazing how a guy can go through Vietnam, all those accidents and incidents, and then, something seemingly minor that "should have been" able to wait came up to bit him in the tail rotor compartment!

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on March 24, 2006, 05:40:55 PM
"land in a parking lot"   :o

Mike, I can do that too----it's just that that the pieces need to be trucked off afterward.   :P
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 24, 2006, 10:27:28 PM
To Ted: Not to sound arrogant, but I am not sure how good of a pilot that guys was to be honest. (or were you being sarcastic?)
All the things you said happened to him were pilot-induced. Not looking around your aircraft before take-off (preflight!) and clipping a pole (low recon! slow approach!) and not taking care of an AD.... Being a good pilot also includes other things other than just motorskills....

I think if you do it right and work with the right people, a helicopter can be a very safe machine.

To Frank:
The NOTAR system hasn't really added safety in my mind. They are actually getting away from that again because it's sluggish and slow and doesn't have as much power as they thought it would have.
The only cool thing about it that you can't get your T/R hooked in anything (see Ted's post). I don't know what "automatic directional control" is supposed to mean in a helo anyways but it doesn't sound like a safety thing either...

 The latest craze in that area is the "Fenestron" from Eurocopter (an enclosed tailrotor).
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 24, 2006, 11:05:57 PM
To Ted: Not to sound arrogant, but I am not sure how good of a pilot that guys was to be honest. (or were you being sarcastic?)
All the things you said happened to him were pilot-induced. Not looking around your aircraft before take-off (preflight!) and clipping a pole (low recon! slow approach!) and not taking care of an AD.... Being a good pilot also includes other things other than just motorskills....

I think if you do it right and work with the right people, a helicopter can be a very safe machine.

To Frank:
The NOTAR system hasn't really added safety in my mind. They are actually getting away from that again because it's sluggish and slow and doesn't have as much power as they thought it would have.
The only cool thing about it that you can't get your T/R hooked in anything (see Ted's post). I don't know what "automatic directional control" is supposed to mean in a helo anyways but it doesn't sound like a safety thing either...

 The latest craze in that area is the "Fenestron" from Eurocopter (an enclosed tailrotor).

Mike,
I agree with you!  The guy was a well liked news chopper guy, and he was a terrific military pilot from his Vietnam days, but I suspect he was rather ... hmm... arrogant... in terms of safety anyway.  I would never dream of flying any aircraft without a very thorough preflight (just ask my FBO where I shedule a plane 30 minutes in advance of my planned takeoff time :) ), and it sounds like this guy either had lapses of judgement or care in his preflight at times, or let his "It's not going to happen to me" arrogance get him in trouble.  Possibly a combination of both.  I say he was a good pilot in terms of his ability to handle emergencies, and still live to tell about it... well.. until that last time.  Actually, had he not been in a hover, he could have auto-rotated and probably landed the thing had he had some forward momentum and some more altitutde.  Things never happen when it's convienient though.  So, not to worry... I feel his skills were excellent... but his judgement on preflighting... not the best.  I have no idea why the guy felt the A.D. didn't need immediate compliance.  Maybe it was a money issue with him, who knows.  In any case, he paid the ultimate price for his poor safety attitude.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 24, 2006, 11:21:38 PM
Poor description on my part sorry, I'm a bit tired. I heard it described as a system that meant you only used the torque-pedals (that's the correct name for them right?) when wanting to rotate the helicopter where in a conventional helicopter you had to adjust manually every time you changed the thrust of the main rotors since that would turn the helicopter, which I guess is like an airplane needing trim for different airspeeds.

Btw, where did the term Sling-Wing come from?

Sad to hear about the other pilot :(

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on March 24, 2006, 11:41:34 PM
Mike,
I agree with you!  The guy was a well liked news chopper guy, and he was a terrific military pilot from his Vietnam days, but I suspect he was rather ... hmm... arrogant... in terms of safety anyway.  I would never dream of flying any aircraft without a very thorough preflight (just ask my FBO where I shedule a plane 30 minutes in advance of my planned takeoff time :) ), and it sounds like this guy either had lapses of judgement or care in his preflight at times, or let his "It's not going to happen to me" arrogance get him in trouble.  Possibly a combination of both.  I say he was a good pilot in terms of his ability to handle emergencies, and still live to tell about it... well.. until that last time.  Actually, had he not been in a hover, he could have auto-rotated and probably landed the thing had he had some forward momentum and some more altitutde.  Things never happen when it's convienient though.  So, not to worry... I feel his skills were excellent... but his judgement on preflighting... not the best.  I have no idea why the guy felt the A.D. didn't need immediate compliance.  Maybe it was a money issue with him, who knows.  In any case, he paid the ultimate price for his poor safety attitude.

And everyone in unison:

"The 5 hazardous attitudes are..."
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 25, 2006, 12:51:23 AM
Hmmm...
I hope some of our student pilots in this forum read this thread. Very nice reply Ted.

To Frank:
Btw, where did the term Sling-Wing come from?

"Sling Wing" is a U.S. slang term for rotorcraft. The "stuck wing" guys give us Chopper Jockeys a hard time about our wings getting slung around our airframe (and in the old days slung OFF the airframe)
I guess it came from somebody watching some of the videos you guys have been posting here  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 27, 2006, 11:44:52 AM
The reason for tying down a helo to the ground like the Chinook which gets destroyed in that video are power checks. To check the performance of a twin-engined powerful helo like the Chinook without wanting to fly one ether packs the helo full of weight or ties it down to the ground. Or one checks engine performance in-flight.

Ground resonances occur in situations when vibrations created in/by the rotor are not properly dampened against the ground. Dampening can be done within the rotor head/system, the landing gear (shock struts) or the skid gear (shock struts, spring plates). A soft ground like grass will also help to dampen vibrations. If one or more of the dampers fail, the fuselage has to deal with vibrations and, as you can see, mostly it is not build for that. On that video one can see the vibrations on the rear tower right from the beginning on. To me I would not let the engine run at full speed with this kind of vibrations. (But o.k. there is no heroism in being smart afterwards. Sorry.)

Avoiding ground resonance before rotor turning: Check all dampening devices. Especially after overhaul work.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: STL206 on March 30, 2006, 09:45:34 PM
Correction from up above:

Alan Barklage died in a Revolution Mini 500 kit helicopter, not a R22.

http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 30, 2006, 10:10:54 PM
Just to make sure I understood the problem correctly, the ground resonans is shock-waves from the rotors being bounced back towards the rotors right? Like the Thrust SSC had concerns with the sonic-book going back up from the ground and flipping the car.

That inclosed tail-rotor is not a new thing is it? The Gazelle has that, at least an inclosed rotor, I'm not if the name above also includes special designs for the rotors. The Apache and Commanche, that I believe was scrapped, also had this right?
And speaking of helicopters with native american names, and after reading a webcomic called 21st Century Fox, what about the Cheyenne? It seemed like an interesting concept for a fast helicopter, with a touch of auto-gyro and with NOTAR-systems and twin-rotors proved to be less than optimal for fast helicopters then how about that system?

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 30, 2006, 10:36:24 PM
Correction from up above:

Alan Barklage died in a Revolution Mini 500 kit helicopter, not a R22.

http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html

Yeah, that thing is a death trap. I would never fly in these, they freak me out.
Looks like no matter how good of a pilot you are, they can still kill you...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on March 30, 2006, 10:41:04 PM
Just to make sure I understood the problem correctly, the ground resonans is shock-waves from the rotors being bounced back towards the rotors right? Like the Thrust SSC had concerns with the sonic-book going back up from the ground and flipping the car.

That inclosed tail-rotor is not a new thing is it?
Frank

It's not much like a sonic boom I would say. It usually starts out with a shock that is transferred from the ground into the rotor knocking two blades out of phase and then gets transferred back to the ground (ie. that one pesky little faulty damper) and right back to the rotor knocking the blades together even further...

The enclosed T/R is not a new concept, but the "Fenestron" is in my mind. It's stronger and quieter thanks to some aerodynamic wonders the Europeans came up with. I understand Bell tried to make one as well but it isn't nearly as powerful and quiet as the Fenestron.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on March 30, 2006, 11:10:59 PM
Correction from up above:

Alan Barklage died in a Revolution Mini 500 kit helicopter, not a R22.

http://www.mini500.com/oldmini/channel4.html

Thanks for posting that!  I had heard differently via a third-party.  Glad to see the full detail on the incident and setting the record straight.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 31, 2006, 09:15:32 AM
To the fenestron:
This is a shrouded tail rotor with the benefit, that it has nor advancing and retreating blade in forward flight (the main aerodynamic problem of a turning rotor in forward flight). So the layout of the tail rotor can be easier. Disadvantage is that it takes more power from the engine(s) and is heavier on the end of the tail-boom. One needs a shroud around the rotor at last.

I loved the fenestron on the Dauphin. Easy to maintain, no problems, hard to damage and a lot, lot, lot saver than the normal tail rotor layout.

Mike is right, first helicopter fitted was the Gazelle. So it is a patent of Aerospatiale, i.e. Eurocopter. Sikorsky had used this concept as a trial for the Comanche project on a modified S76. Why could they? Aerospatiale and Sikorsky work together from time to time and shear patents. Bell tried a sort of ducted tail rotor but it was more likely a ring around a conventional tail rotor. They stopped it.

To the ground resonance:
Frank, you are a technical man. So, let’s say the sinus wave of a vibration is even. It is constantly the same. The vibration will stay as it is. To dampen this sinus it has to be reduced. So the sinus wave declines. That is done by a good dampener. But if the sinus wave increases, the dampener is no good and vibration becomes more and more. Until the source of the vibration is destroyed.

Any rotation mass creates vibrations, relevant to the displacement of the centre of gravity to the centre of rotation and the revolutions. Think of your tyres on the car. To get rid of this vibrations you to put the centre of the mass exactly to the centre of rotation. If this is not enough or impossible, you try to dampen it. Here we are.  Ground resonances on helicopters occur slowly but increasingly. You have to be vigilant to catch it before it comes out of control. How? By controlling the revolutions, i.e. the main rotor speed. Can a pilot do this? Yes, of course. That is one of the reasons why a FADEC ( full authorised digital engine control) controlled engine always has to be observed during start up.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on March 31, 2006, 12:17:40 PM
Thank you for the explanation, I'm sure now that I did understand what was going on, I just wasn't good at understanding it, and my example with the Thrust SSC was misunderstood I think, but it all worked out in the end so nothing for me to be sad about :)

I just looked in my Combat Aircraft book about the Apache that it does not have a enclosed t/r, I think I was thinking too much of the Commanche when writting the former post. I googled fenestron and it does indeed look a lot different than a normal rotor and from you it seems like the benefits outweigh the problems (weight and power-use) and that's great since I heard that a lot of accidents with helicopters were due to t/r problems, either failure or ground-strikes.

Btw, where did Mike write about the Gazelle? The only mention of it I can find is in my post, although I didn't know it was the very first with a enclosed t/r just that it was early, and one of a very few types with it which is why I mentioned it.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on March 31, 2006, 12:47:18 PM
@ Frank

Ahh, gosh, you’re right. It was YOU mentioning the Gazelle. Sorry, mate! I’m an elderly, you know … ::)

The Gazelle was, as to my knowledge, the first helicopter build in series with this fenestron (“fene-“ comes from the French “fenetre” = window). Another reason why other, especially bigger helicopter do not use the fenestron concept has to do with stability, mainly in hover. If you look at bigger helicopters like the Huey, Apache, any Sikorsky and so on you will notice the tail rotor is mounted on top of the vertical stabilizer. This brings the point of all forces for the thrust to the side (created by the tail rotor, that is what it is for) into the same level as the point of all forces for the thrust down (created by the main rotor, that is to lift the helo from the ground*). This guarantees me an equilibrium of this two main forces an the helicopter does not tilt to one side. It makes it easier to hover (somehow).

You can understand that it is not so easy to place a fenestron-concept on top of a vertical fin. But you are right. A fenestron is well protected not only against ground strike. On one of the Dolphins we had a huge bird strike on one of our fenesrton’s which took out one of 13 blades. The pilot only realised an increase of vibrations in flight. On a  conventional tail rotor system this bird would have taken out the whole tail rotor with all its consequences in this case. All we did was a structural fibre-glass repair on the shroud and put in the new blade, some balance, that was it.


 *) As everyone can see now, it is not the ugliness which is repelled from earth. Helicopters are NOT ugly.

Writing this I see the saluting smily! Thanks, Stef!  |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 09:30:46 AM
Best training helo??

Robinson, Entrom, or Schweiser?? I've looked at getting my swing wing rating, but I'm not to keen on the Robinsons.  Especially since you need 100 hours PIC to carry a passanger (I think  ??? )

You will never see me in a Robinson.  I like Enstroms, Bell and Hughes.  For that matter, I like the Rotorway Exec and the Scorpion II, and the Scorpion single-seater was a fun ride.

You can learn in anything. 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 09:33:27 AM
Is the learning curve steeper than an airplane? Or is it easier?

As much harder as it was to learn to fly after learning to drive, it's that hard to learn to fly rotors after learning fixed-wing.

That is, yes, it's harder but you pick it up fast and get comfortable soon.  However, if you are learning rotors, DO NOT FLY FIXED-WING during the process.  You want to develop your motor skills for the new way of doing things without confusing them with the other way.  Once you are comfortable with rotors, then you can go back and forth easily.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 09:39:09 AM
Can the rotor slice a tomato ? :P or something rougher like a stone ? and what happens when the main rotor shuts down ? and what happens when the tail-rotor shuts down ?  ???

No.  The leading edge of the rotor is just a smaller version of an airplane wing, rounded and blunt.  The trailing edge is sharper.  And hitting anything hard with the rotor, the rotor generally loses.  The real strength in a rotor blade is the long way, from the hub to tip.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 09:48:22 AM

Hi Frank, et al,

The wirecutters are precisely that: devices to cut wires (Electrical, telephonic, etc.). Those come handy when you are flying low and accidentally find them on your path. The devices cut the wires before they hit any vital part of the chopper like the rotor mast or get entangled on the skids.

Most helicopter types have them, although I'm not sure if they are mandatory. Mike? Roland? Can you guys help us out here?

They are not mandatory, and most helos don't have them, but they have become popular, with good reason.  Helos spend a lot of time near the ground, where wires may be found.  Cutters are even more popular on crop dusters.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 09:54:10 AM
Aha, but a cutter between the roof and the rotor? That would be extreme luck/skill if a wire came right between that and didn't hit the rotor uintil it came to the cutter right infront of the rotor-head wouldn't it? The nose-one is more understandable. Thanks for the info, one more thing though, what's a "Ag" aircraft?

Frank

Look at the shape of the helo.  A wire that hits the nose can only go two ways, down into the landing gear or skids, or up into the rotor mast. 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 10:35:18 AM
I can't see how a helicopter can "crash" because of ground resonance.

In order for a helicopter to get into ground resonance you need to be in contact with the ground to transfer the shock into the rotor system and then back into the skids and then back up and so on...
So there is an easy fix if you feel ground resonance coming on while touching down. Lift the ship back up!
The centrifucal forces will straighten the blades out again.

Think about this. Remember the Four Basics of Powered Flight: Stall, Spin, Crash and Burn -- I mean, Lift vs Weight, Thrust vs Drag.  In the case of a rotor, Thrust = Energy = Power.  Increasing lift increases drag, which requires more power.

Let's play the numbers in ground resonance.  Imagine that your helo weighs, say, 2000 lbs.  In order to lift off the ground, your rotors have to provide MORE than 2000 lbs of lift, to land you need less than that.  To fly you pump a lot of power into the rotors so that they turn fast, then increase lift by increasing pitch, getting light on the skids but not getting off the ground (say, 2100 lbs of lift).  This increases drag.  If you don't provide enough EXCESS power to the rotors, they will slow down because of the drag.  Slower rotors provide less lift, so your helo get heavy again (1800 lbs of lift).  When the weight transfers back onto the skids, drag on the rotors decreases, so they can speed up again.  They speed up, develop lift (2100 lbs), and your helo gets light again, just as the rotors slow down again from the increased drag (1800 lbs), and the cycle repeats.  After a few of these cycles (which can happen several times per second), the high (skids-light) curve can have enough power to lift the helo off the ground, and the low (skids-heavy) curve may come while the helo is still a couple of inches up, slamming the aircraft back down hard -- and slingshotting into the next cycle!  Another factor is the elasticity in the rotor system, both practical (flex of the blades) and virtual (mechanical tolerances of the control system and rotor-tilt).

If, as you suggest, you roll on more power to overcome the drag and take off, it takes time for the rotors to speed up (there is a MASSIVE amount of centrifugal force to oversome).  During that period, the rotors will pick up enough power to lift you several inches or even a couple of feet during the high curve (2200 lbs), so when the low curve arrives (1900 lbs) you have lot farther to fall (and hit the ground harder, even if you have more lift). 

Worse, the rotor disc will tilt one way or another, and the pilot has NO CONTROL over where it will go (remember, the cyclic only changes the angle of attack of the rotors, and is only effective when you have sufficient, even lift).  Thus, the impact point may only be one end of one skid, so the effect is like bouncing a football, or exceeding the weight-carrying capability of that part of the structure.

Instead of trying to take off, what you do is ROLL OFF power -- it's a lot less likely to slam into the ground when you're firmly sitting on it -- then zero your pitch and wait for the rotor disc to flatten out.  When you have full control again, keep your pitch zero, THEN add power, pumping enough energy into them to overcome the drag before you bring in any pitch. 

Whether taking off or landing, you want to cross through this portion of the lift range steadily and rapidly.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 10:42:46 AM

The NOTAR system hasn't really added safety in my mind. They are actually getting away from that again because it's sluggish and slow and doesn't have as much power as they thought it would have.
The only cool thing about it that you can't get your T/R hooked in anything (see Ted's post).

Actually, the really cool thing about NOTAR systems is that you eliminate the major failure points in the antitorque system.  No belts, shafts, clutches, swash controls or 4-foot rotating curb feelers.  The antitorque drive is part of the main transmission and all that goes back into the tail boom is air and the director control cables.

The sluggish feel is eliminated with the addition of a "booster fan" in the tail.  If the booster fails, you still have control, but with the booster turning you have a very high pressure into the director cone, right where you want it.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 10:51:01 AM
Ag planes have them as well.  I've heard of them being used more than once.

I'm here to tell ya!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on April 07, 2006, 10:58:56 AM
The guy was a well liked news chopper guy, and he was a terrific military pilot from his Vietnam days, but I suspect he was rather ... hmm... arrogant... in terms of safety anyway.

Unfortunately, military training induces this.  In the same way that cops are generally not as accurate shooting as private citizens, military aviators are not as motivated as private pilots.  They are training in a compartmentalized environment, while the guy (or gal) who paid for flying lessons by fishing coins out of the piggy bank with a knife is far more likely to be familiar in detail with the aircraft.  Yeager mentioned in the first book that he was interested in how things work, while most of the other Army pilots he knew during WWII had the mindset that it was the mechanic's job to know that stuff.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on April 07, 2006, 05:13:12 PM
The guy was a well liked news chopper guy, and he was a terrific military pilot from his Vietnam days, but I suspect he was rather ... hmm... arrogant... in terms of safety anyway.

Unfortunately, military training induces this.  In the same way that cops are generally not as accurate shooting as private citizens, military aviators are not as motivated as private pilots.  They are training in a compartmentalized environment, while the guy (or gal) who paid for flying lessons by fishing coins out of the piggy bank with a knife is far more likely to be familiar in detail with the aircraft.  Yeager mentioned in the first book that he was interested in how things work, while most of the other Army pilots he knew during WWII had the mindset that it was the mechanic's job to know that stuff.



I would concur.  But then again, it's true of any such discipline.  If you have an active interest in it, one tends to excel at things.  Some things can be institutionally ingrained, as with some of the bad habits one can carry in with them from a prior intensive training experience, such as military aviation.

By the way, I like your posting name!  SkyKing was a great program! 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on April 08, 2006, 12:51:22 AM
Say SkyKing, are you a rotor pilot?

I have to say, I have never heard anybody explain ground resonance the way you do in all my years of flying. I have to admit though that I never went deep into the physics and aerodynamics about the whole thing. However I gotta tell you, I have gotten into resonance a couple of times for all kinds of different reasons and it happened each time on the landing and everytime I pulled the ship back into the air and was fine. I have to mention there though that it was only the onset of resonance (the-skid-to-skid bounce) every time and I never let it go far. A couple of times it happened in a Schweizer after touching down when the student doesn't fall through with putting the collective down all the way and as soon as you do it goes away, so I agree with you there.
Your explanation also doesn't explain how the blades would get knocked together and shift the center of rotation away from the mast...

So can you elaborate on your theory a little?
I am eager to learn!

Also, how come you're preferring to be a guest instead of signing up. You're definetly invited !!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on April 08, 2006, 12:53:45 AM

Actually, the really cool thing about NOTAR systems is that you eliminate the major failure points in the antitorque system.  No belts, shafts, clutches, swash controls or 4-foot rotating curb feelers.  The antitorque drive is part of the main transmission and all that goes back into the tail boom is air and the director control cables.

The sluggish feel is eliminated with the addition of a "booster fan" in the tail.  If the booster fails, you still have control, but with the booster turning you have a very high pressure into the director cone, right where you want it.


Have you ever flown a NOTAR?
If yes, please elaborate! I have only a few hours in them and I never see them anymore, especially not longlining and on fires....
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 10, 2006, 08:32:18 PM
I was wondering, how does the classic Bell 206 and 222/230 compare to helicopters like the Eurocopter 120 Colibri, Sikorsky S76 and Augusta 109? Are Bells like old Cessna and Pipers vs Lancairs and Cirrus' ?

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on April 11, 2006, 04:03:59 AM
In my mind they are. The AStar is new technology and the Bell, although proven, hasn't changed much since before the Vietnam war. I'd take an AS350 over any 206 or 407 model any day!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 14, 2006, 06:29:13 PM
I still think the Bell 222/230 looks so awesome, take a look at this danish one (that company also has a 222U with skids that came from the NYPD and I got a picture of it hover-taxiing at Odense Airport still in the blue and yellow colours, that must've been one heck of a long ferry-flight). http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0688178/M/

How about a Gazelle, that's not that new but they say it's very fast and appearently it has a system called SAS that according to the sales article in Pilot magazine could make a average pilot look good. Speaking of the Gazelle, the Eurocopter 120 Colibri actually looks a bit like the Gazelle when looking at it from several angles, just a big chunkier and wider proportion-wise.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Plthijnx on April 21, 2006, 07:25:17 PM
I was out at the school yesterday and noticed a new FlightSim simulator........with software for a Schweizer 300!! Mike, the owner of the school, is in Dallas today looking at one to add at the flight school!! I toyed with the sim for a few minutes and flew it and although i spun around a few times I didn't crash! that would be sooooo cool if Mike gets it because then I can go after my sling-wing! ssssuuuuuuhhhhhhhweeeeet!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on April 26, 2006, 02:13:39 PM
@ Frank:

Slow down, Frank, slow down. Many questions here.

The good ol’ Bell 206 compares very well to the “new” helicopters. We will see this type for another decade or two. Simple, reliable, cheap helicopter. The Colibri is set to replace the 206 but that will take some time, if it ever happens.

The Bell 222/230 is not so lucky. The 230 is made out of the 222 by generally replacing its engines, LTS 101 to Allison 250 C-40. And then Bell gave the 230 four rotor blades an named it 430. In this class of helicopters competition is hard: Agusta 109, AS 365, Sikorsky S76 and you play with six to twelve passengers, twin engined helicopters, IFR, complex systems like retractable landing gear, dual electrics and so on.

The Gazelle is an old helo too. And no wonder the Colibri looks like the Gazelle, they shared the same drawing board. SAS (stabilisation augmentation system) you will find from this class of helos up. Nice to have.

The European helicopters are different to the US helicopters. It is a different approach to the same problems. Finally the cost of purchase and operation will decide the type of helicopter for the segment it should work in. You will not use a K-Max for offshore transport of people and a S76 for wood logging. And of corse new technology wants to be applied to new products, too
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 27, 2006, 11:14:33 AM
I read an article in an english aviation magazine that had a test of the R44 Raven II and the pilot said that with his experience in both aircraft then he would take a Raven II over a 25 year old JetRanger for the same money without giving it an extra thought. The controls, performance, reliability, warranty etc. was overwhelming. He described it like the JetRanger was an old VW Golf-I vs a new Golf-V almost but I guess that could be a matter of oppinion and circumstance. If you know a JetRanger and can keep them serviced and you are content with how they fly and what they can do then there's nothing wrong with keeping it even though newer aircraft designs appear (at least that's how I feel about cars and I'm sure it can go for aircraft too, especially since aircraft have a much much longer lifespan than cars both for the specific vehicle and the design).

I think the 222 looks pretty good, especially the tri-gear version but the 430 has a new big ugly engine section and it ruins the elegance of the helicopter and if the performance and quality isn't good vs the competition then there's nothing to do. Another interesting feature about the 222 besides the wheel-boxes is the, uhm, what's-it's-name, the handle you contorl the rotor-pitch with, I used to know it but just now I forgot it. The handle is transverse and seems to move much morehorizontally instead of up and down and longitudal like on just about all other helicopters, I wonder if there's any benefit of that system for the pilot.

If the AS350 is in class with the Jet/LongRanger and the Bell 222/230/430 is in class with the Augusta A109 and Sikorsky S76 then where does the Gazelle and Colibri fit in? I'm not sure about that since I haven't had much exposure to this field of aviation yet.

Thank you for the great replies, it's a true pleasure  |:)\
Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on April 27, 2006, 11:29:09 AM
The simple question first:
The Colibri, Jet Ranger, Gazelle, Hughes 500, and so on art he class of simple, single engine, single systems helicopters. In military speak they are “light observing helicopters”. They are easy to operate and maintain. VW Käfer even.

On the 222/230/430 Family they use a unique collective lever (that’s the word you did know but forgot I suppose). This kind of lever is to be pulled towards the pilot to raise the helicopter into the air instead of pulling the leaver up, as it is on the other types of helos. This idea of a collective lever you can see in the Bell 214 ST. An impressive helicopter btw. :o

A Jet Ranger is a Jet Ranger is a Jet Ranger. I’ve met people which preferred the R 44 to the Bell 206. One of them was called Frank. Frank Robinson. ;)

Naw, ok ok, just kidding. Every helo has its niche to perform and that is good so.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on April 28, 2006, 04:10:41 PM
Thanks for the information once again, I love learning about aircraft and such :)

I found some pictures of the 222-series on Airliners.net and I can see the collective (yes that was the word thanks) is even more vertically then I saw from other pictures and of course the Airwolf show. I coudln't find a picture of a ST cockpit but the helicopter sounds and looks interesting though from what I found about it.

I also agree that vehicles in the same class are often not quite as comparable as some people think but maybe that's also because I'm an enthusiast both for aircraft and car although the later is more faded than ever before in my life. One special thing about the Robinsons is the strange control-stick which remind me a bit of the control for a old danish KZIII which have a Y-shaped stick in between the two seats.
Funny joke about Frank Robinson  :D

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: wbarnhill on May 01, 2006, 04:49:21 AM
So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks :)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 01, 2006, 11:47:27 PM
I think most of the conversation here is a bit of insiderish and will seem exagerated to some others. They are certified and sell well so complete deathtraps they can't be, but what the talk was about was which one was best for training and therefore some exagerated comments might come. Furthermore people are different both of the body and the mind so naturally when vehicles are designed by dfifferent people as well then there are going to be different preferences. I've sadly never even been close to a helicopter but I'm not sure the type of cyclic the Robinson uses will be that good for me to use, but that doesn't mean anyone won't be able to use it well.

Best wishes for your training, hope you'll have a great time :)

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 02, 2006, 06:53:18 AM
So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks :)

Frank is right. There is a lot insiderish knowing-better in here. Nothing wrong with it learning to fly helicopter on an R 22. The teacher, the flight instructor, is the important link here. Every young student should go fully confident into its training. The “knowing” of thing all around here in the forum with all the “experts” should not frighten newcomers at all.

The R22 has its certifications for training and that is ok so. Have fun, welcome to the helicopter world.  ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 02, 2006, 03:52:28 PM
Amen brother!!
Roland is right. I did all my training up to commercial in a Robinson and I turned out allright... ;)
I guess the previous discussion was about preferance not safety.
The Robinson will make you a good pilot. I have found back when I was giving transition training in the Jet Ranger, that people coming from the Robinson had a much easier time learning how to fly the Ranger than the ones coming from the Schweizer.
The Robby has a bad reputation mainly because any idiot with a littlebit of money and lot-of-bit self confidence can go out and buy one and get oneself in trouble because it's fairly cheap to operate.
Like Roland said, the CFI and his attitude and behavior, is the key here....
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 02, 2006, 06:47:15 PM

  I have no doubt that the Robinson is a safe heli when operated in the correct way. 
 

You mean as a static display . . ?

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 02, 2006, 07:00:21 PM
Say SkyKing, are you a rotor pilot?

I've been flying a loooooooong time.  The only classes that I have no time in are powered LTA and glider (at least, they weren't gliders when I TOOK OFF . . .).

The ground resonance comments are what I remember from a class many years ago, in which we dissected a GR experiment on high-speed film.  You could see the Interpid Birdman doing everything but the right thing (intentionally) to prove that his company's chopper could survive a severe and long-duration case of GR. 

Quote
I have to say, I have never heard anybody explain ground resonance the way you do in all my years of flying. I have to admit though that I never went deep into the physics and aerodynamics about the whole thing. However I gotta tell you, I have gotten into resonance a couple of times for all kinds of different reasons and it happened each time on the landing and everytime I pulled the ship back into the air and was fine. I have to mention there though that it was only the onset of resonance (the-skid-to-skid bounce) every time and I never let it go far. A couple of times it happened in a Schweizer after touching down when the student doesn't fall through with putting the collective down all the way and as soon as you do it goes away, so I agree with you there.
Your explanation also doesn't explain how the blades would get knocked together and shift the center of rotation away from the mast...

I don't remember anything about the center of rotation, but if I said it, I probably meant center of lift.


Quote

Also, how come you're preferring to be a guest instead of signing up. You're definetly invited !!


Not a matter of preference, I don't get here all that often and wasn't signed up at that point.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 02, 2006, 07:06:00 PM

Actually, the really cool thing about NOTAR systems is that you eliminate the major failure points in the antitorque system.  No belts, shafts, clutches, swash controls or 4-foot rotating curb feelers.  The antitorque drive is part of the main transmission and all that goes back into the tail boom is air and the director control cables.

The sluggish feel is eliminated with the addition of a "booster fan" in the tail.  If the booster fails, you still have control, but with the booster turning you have a very high pressure into the director cone, right where you want it.


Have you ever flown a NOTAR?
If yes, please elaborate! I have only a few hours in them and I never see them anymore, especially not longlining and on fires....

Yes, I've got some time in the Hughes -- er, MD -- NOTAR (aka "Fat Sperm").  An organization that I was part of was considering the NOTARs to replace our 500s.

We did a low-altitude, high-speed full auto-rotation during orientation, and firmly planted the end of the boom into a pile of sand . . .then took off again after a look to make sure that nothing back there had been deformed.  Don't try this at home, or with anything that's got sharp spinning stuff back there.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 02, 2006, 07:18:12 PM
So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks :)

The early Rs were unforgiving and had some design or mfg challenges. 

I was on the scene not long after a fatal in which an R pilot was shuttling his helo home from the plant/training center in SoCal and the thing came apart over Santa Ana.  It seemed that there were still little bits of composite drifting down from the sky when the company president was in front of the TV cameras, pronouncing that the pilot had "tried to go too far too soon" -- he had about 25 hours in that particular helo, I don't remember how many in rotors, 70 or 80 IIRC, and a lot of fixed-wing time.

Whether he was or was not competent in the type, the reflexive "It-can't-be-our-product" response significantly cut my trust in RR, and eliminated any chance that I would be transitioning into them.

They have a decent reputation these days, but there are a lot of really good helo designs out there, so I never saw any need to reconsider the issue.   

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 02, 2006, 09:55:29 PM
So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks :)

The early Rs were unforgiving and had some design or mfg challenges. 

I was on the scene not long after a fatal in which an R pilot was shuttling his helo home from the plant/training center in SoCal and the thing came apart over Santa Ana.  It seemed that there were still little bits of composite drifting down from the sky when the company president was in front of the TV cameras, pronouncing that the pilot had "tried to go too far too soon" -- he had about 25 hours in that particular helo, I don't remember how many in rotors, 70 or 80 IIRC, and a lot of fixed-wing time.

Whether he was or was not competent in the type, the reflexive "It-can't-be-our-product" response significantly cut my trust in RR, and eliminated any chance that I would be transitioning into them.

They have a decent reputation these days, but there are a lot of really good helo designs out there, so I never saw any need to reconsider the issue.   



True, but you seem to be a high time pilot. Keep that in mind.
I can pretty much get in any helicopter on any certificate right now and on one occasion it even helped the owner lower his insurance because of all my experience.
But put yourself in the shoes of one of our young guys in the forum here. They are the most sold and usually cheapest helicopter out there....
They DO have to consider the issue.
Why talk a young guy out of a helicopter you have never even flown yourself?  ???

( I have seen other helicopters crash too. What about things like the tailrotor issue on the Bells, hydraulics on the AStar, T/R AD on the 500C, and so on....)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 03, 2006, 01:32:25 AM
The early Rs were unforgiving and had some design or mfg challenges.

I was on the scene not long after a fatal in which an R pilot was shuttling his helo home from the plant/training center in SoCal and the thing came apart over Santa Ana. It seemed that there were still little bits of composite drifting down from the sky when the company president was in front of the TV cameras, pronouncing that the pilot had "tried to go too far too soon" -- he had about 25 hours in that particular helo, I don't remember how many in rotors, 70 or 80 IIRC, and a lot of fixed-wing time.

Whether he was or was not competent in the type, the reflexive "It-can't-be-our-product" response significantly cut my trust in RR, and eliminated any chance that I would be transitioning into them.

They have a decent reputation these days, but there are a lot of really good helo designs out there, so I never saw any need to reconsider the issue.

Would you say the same thing about Cirrus?  New airplanes have issues.  Cirrus had an aileron flaw, if I remember right, but it's been resolved.  A lot of the time pilots fly in conditions they shouldn't. Cirrus, and to a smaller extent Lance, are awesome airplanes that are just affordable enough that any idiot can get in and go. 

Now, Cirrus isn't totally blameless.  They're forcing instructors to sign off on buyers at 10 hours whether they're ready or not.  But, these airplanes are crashing after going VFR into IMC.  That's a PIC decision, not the manufacturers.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 03, 2006, 05:48:18 AM
I stated it in this somewhere forum before. Frank Robinson intended to create a helicopter for experienced pilots to fly on their private purposes. It was not intended to create a training helicopter.

But the helo is cheap in purchase and operation. So many, many schools took up this type. They got many students and made some money (still make). Fatal accidents, however they occurred, lead to safety regulations.

I’ve learned my helicopter skills on the Bell 206 Jet Ranger. That is my type of measurement. As I got involved into Robinson helicopters I saw that there are other limits possible. Officials decided that this limits are save. So my understanding of safety, reserves, limits, is a private one.

I can only repeat myself again: it depends on the people flying the machine. The decisions made in any situation. It is the man, who flies, not the machine. The machine is the tool only. And it depends on how this tool is used.

To me it is important that young students get the best possible training to know about the possibilities of this tool, the range of decisions possible, how to apply them (and stand for it!) and finally to survive the flying.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: wbarnhill on May 03, 2006, 07:42:07 AM
I guess now I'm kinda iffy on the whole Robinson thing... but I'll try one of their demo flights and see how things go.......  :-\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 03, 2006, 01:06:39 PM
Yes, I think you should try it also before passing final judgement, and with a good instructor that you can work with. I can't comment on an aircraft but a Peugeot 206 is for me a bad car, soft unprecise brakes, rough engine idle, horrible knotchy gearlinkage and that compared to a old Ford Escort but other people will probably have the exact opposite opinion, maybe partly because I had a good Escort and a Mondey-Peugeot and they didn't but still.
So try to get some facts and then make the final judgement be based on your own actual try-out. Good luck and best wishes  |:)\

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 03, 2006, 05:23:42 PM
I guess now I'm kinda iffy on the whole Robinson thing... but I'll try one of their demo flights and see how things go.......  :-\

See, this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. Go on a demo flight and just check it out. All my pilots have flown between 500 and 2000(!) hours in the Robinson at one time or another before their careers got them into bigger machines and they all had been fine.

The fact, that you're not a doctor or lawyer and take this thing seriously enough to log in and ask questions tells me that you will be fine as well.
You might not have the option of starting in a Bell 206 like some of us so just go for it.
In the 4 years I was teaching I have seen 2 Robinsons crash and 2 Schweizers and in all 4 crashes nobody got hurt.
Why do you think the Bell 206 has a better safety record? It's because it isn't flown by beginners in general (for ours you would have to have 1000hrs minimum to be even considered for the insurance....)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 03, 2006, 07:07:53 PM
Mike is right. My chatting didn’t help you ether, did it? Sorry please.  :-\

Please make your own picture, take a ride with the Robie. You will enjoy the magnificent view out of this helo. You will see thing go perfectly and you will forget about all the writing  of us “experts” here.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on May 04, 2006, 03:36:12 AM
AAAARGH!!!!  You fling wing drivers---If God had meant for wings to rotate, He would have put axles in the middle of a Cessna !  ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 04, 2006, 01:41:47 PM
AAAARGH!!!!  You fling wing drivers---If God had meant for wings to rotate, He would have put axles in the middle of a Cessna !  ;D
I can't wait to see your reaction to this: God did! http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/CessnaCH-1.jpg  ;D

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 04, 2006, 06:30:05 PM
Good one Frank!

God DID want the wings to rotate...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 04, 2006, 07:36:16 PM
Everything I've ever known and believed to be true...gone...   :-\  How can a world exist where Cessna wings whirl around above the fuselage? 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 05, 2006, 12:26:51 AM
Good one Frank!

God DID want the wings to rotate...
It was an inspired moment :D Actually I did read that Cessna had bought a small helicopter company before that was made so I don't know much of it was a Cessna, you know like a MD500 is/was actually a Hughes, Sud Aviation to Aerospatiale to Eurocopter and not to forgot, Daweoo now called Chevrolet in Europe.

Frank

P.S. Mike did you forget about the PM or are you just busy?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on May 05, 2006, 01:00:59 AM
AAAARGH!!!!  You fling wing drivers---If God had meant for wings to rotate, He would have put axles in the middle of a Cessna !  ;D
I can't wait to see your reaction to this: God did! http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/CessnaCH-1.jpg ;D

Frank
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH !!! ;D
OMIGOD---SUCH HERESY, I am sooooooooo disapointed that I could have forgotten that Cessna did venture to the dark side at some point!!!!
Frank, I almost spit wine on my keyboard when I read your post-----you got me to the max !!  |:)\

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 06, 2006, 10:30:42 AM
ROFL, sorry about the wine but glad you took it with the good sense of humour I expected  :D  |:)\

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Firegirl on May 06, 2006, 05:09:41 PM
So, does anybody know why the rotors on a Bell turn one way and the ones on the french helicopters turn the other?
Is this a stupid question?

And, which way did the rotors on the Cessna helo turn?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 07, 2006, 07:29:13 PM
@ firegirl: there are no stupid questions! :)

The way of rotation on the main rotor is actually a matter of gearing. Should mean, the output direction of rotation after all the speed-reductions within the gearbox and all its gears. (Well, does that explain anything? I doubt it) :-\

Ok. Another try. There is one standard: all turbine engine output shafts turn the same way. Viewed from the rear to front of the helicopter the output shaft turns clockwise (cw). Most of the turbine engines turn around 6000 rpm which is quite some high speed and useless on the rotor. Far too fast. So this speed has to be reduced. Down to approximately 300 to 400 rpm. This reduction depends on the diameter of the rotor and is done within the main-gearbox. So engineers sit down and calculate some things like ratio of reduction, weight of the gearbox, available size of the gearbox and will end with any direction of rotation of the main-rotor. Viewed from above it ether turns clockwise (the European and Russian way) or counter clockwise (ccw).

European and US American companies tried to stick with the direction of rotation and had spent lots of money and efforts to do so. But with more modern times the direction of rotation is just a result of the gearing within the main gearbox. Btw, almost all tail rotors turn with the upper blade back. This has aerodynamic reasons. 8)

It is hard to tell but it seems the rotor on those Cessna turns ccw. Please don’t beat me if it’s wrong. :P
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 07, 2006, 08:37:34 PM
Firegirl: I never ever thought about what direction they turned so I think it's a very good question and Roland gave a great answer, especially about the tailrotor too  |:)\

And speaking of rotors, what's the purpose of checking the rotor-torque? In sims you can go well over 100% but I read an article about a person flying both FS2004 helicopters and real life fixed wing planes that tried a real Jet Ranger and he said it flew smooth and fine and didn't need to go over 85%.

Also, is there a checklist for a real helicopter, like a Gazelle, AStar or JetRanger available for the public like I've seen with GA planes? I'd like to see one because I downloaded an add-on to the std FS2004 JetRanger that gave a much more detailed start-up sequence and extra gauges and switches, like generator output, CO (I think) throttle settings etc. that had to be followed to start up and that was a lot more than the default start where the aircraft is running. That's the really bad thing with FS2004, almost no emphasis on the real start-up and shut-down sequences and per default all planes are running when the sim starts.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 07, 2006, 10:11:10 PM
So, does anybody know why the rotors on a Bell turn one way and the ones on the french helicopters turn the other?

I always thought when the Americans and the Russians took over Germany at the end of the war, they took one of those German Focke-Wulf FW-61 the Germans used to fly around with indoors and split it in half.

The Americans got the left gearbox and the Russians the right one (or vice versa) and that's how they went from there . . .

TA DA !!   ;D :D

Explains it, doesn't it?!?  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 07, 2006, 10:39:05 PM
ROFL that's a good one!

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 07, 2006, 11:42:36 PM
Frank, you should be able to find Flight Manuals (FM's) or Pilot's Operating Handbooks (POH's) for helicopters as well as fixed-wing at larger FBO's.  Unfortunately, they can be expensive, but they have everything you need to know about the aircraft.  If your FBO doesn't have the one you're looking for, they should be able to order it for you.  Unless you know a nice helo pilot (*cough* Mike *cough*) that would be willing to make some copies of the important pages for you...   ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 08, 2006, 12:16:57 AM
I have all the checklists of course.
We usually use "abreviated" checklists and I am sure I can get you some. And then there are always the pages out of the POH. Let me know what you want.
How much detail are you looking for?

About the torque thing:

It's usually a transmission limit. All the helicopters I fly (Rangers and AStars) have some sort of a hover limit (5min or under a certain speed and so on...) and that's usually 100% torque but not always.
That limitation would be the top of the "yellow arc" on the gage.

For forward flight we have the "green arc" with the limit being called "maximum continous power" which happens to be 85% on the Jet Ranger. So your friend is right, it flies quite nicely at 85% torque.
In the Ranger if you would pull the power (collective) in forward flight (above 80kts) past 85% you would get into what they call "mast bending" (pretty much self-explanatory) due to the high speed and torque forces on the mast.
So, it should be avoided. (actually MUST, not should)
In a hover (and I am now talking about the Ranger only) you can pull 100% torque for 5min (sling loads, high performance take-offs, and so on). If you overtorque the aircraft then (and I have seen it done) you will most likely start making metal in your gearboxes because you're stressing them past their limits.

There is a lot of other things to know and watch out for and I am guessing that a simulator, even a good one, probably won't take all that into account.

And why isn't there a stop on the collective that would keep you simply from overtorquing?
Any good guess?  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 08, 2006, 12:44:43 AM
I noticed one single thing about the sim Gazelle, it was a FS2002 version but I found a complete and FS2004 upgraded version and it doesn't overheat so at least that's done. Back to reality then thank you very much for you info, and yes Mast Bending does explain itself very well, yikes! About the lack of a stop on the collective then my guess here shortly before I need to sleep is that the torque isn't a constant but varies due to speed, altitude, load (a part of the first two) and maybe also other factors. And now it's time to get some sleep, I got a long drive tomorrow.

Frank

P.S. Mike, just in case you didn't see the other post, there is still that PM in case you forgot it due to an overload of more important work. One reason to keep reminding you is that I want to be sure I didn't say something you took badly in the first one.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 08, 2006, 01:13:10 AM

True, but you seem to be a high time pilot. Keep that in mind.


Care to guess how I got that way?  ;)

Quote
I can pretty much get in any helicopter on any certificate right now and on one occasion it even helped the owner lower his insurance because of all my experience.
But put yourself in the shoes of one of our young guys in the forum here. They are the most sold and usually cheapest helicopter out there....
They DO have to consider the issue.
Why talk a young guy out of a helicopter you have never even flown yourself?  ???

The first answer that comes to mind is that I've never jumped into a shark tank, either . . .   ;)
 
Quote
( I have seen other helicopters crash too. What about things like the tailrotor issue on the Bells, hydraulics on the AStar, T/R AD on the 500C, and so on....)

You missed my point.  My major problem is the official stance of the company, that the pilot was automatically the failure point, not the helo.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 08, 2006, 01:16:27 AM
Everything I've ever known and believed to be true...gone...   :-\  How can a world exist where Cessna wings whirl around above the fuselage? 

Never see the "Aerobat" models, did you . . ?

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 08, 2006, 01:17:18 AM
So, does anybody know why the rotors on a Bell turn one way and the ones on the french helicopters turn the other?
Is this a stupid question?

And, which way did the rotors on the Cessna helo turn?

Toward bankruptcy.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 08, 2006, 01:24:57 AM
Everything I've ever known and believed to be true...gone... :-\ How can a world exist where Cessna wings whirl around above the fuselage?

Never see the "Aerobat" models, did you . . ?



Actually, I flew one of those little 150 Aerobat bastards from Fargo to Riverside, CA.  My ground speed the first two days never got above 60 kts.  Got stuck in Amarillo for two nights due to T-storms.  It was "technically" an IFR bird, but had been spun so much the gyros didn't work.  Luckily, the last two days were clear and a million, I was able to get from Amarillo to the west side of Phoenix in one day, then kicked on into Riverside 5 days after I left.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on May 08, 2006, 01:29:32 AM
Do you guys have white, green, and yellow arcs on your airspeed and torque guages?  Are the limitations the same as fixed wing?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 08, 2006, 02:09:33 AM
Do you guys have white, green, and yellow arcs on your airspeed and torque guages?  Are the limitations the same as fixed wing?

Hmmm... could be. I haven't flown stuck wing in so long...

We have:
green: normal operating
yellow: some sort of limit range (either 5 min, or below a certain speed, or smthg)
red line: never exceed
red triangle: transient limit

The Rangers have a blue line for max. Autorotation Speed which is different I believe.
The AStar has a white and red hatched line for max. auto.

I don't think we have white arcs (maybe because we don't have flaps...)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 08, 2006, 02:17:01 AM

You missed my point.  My major problem is the official stance of the company, that the pilot was automatically the failure point, not the helo.

Sorry, I might have.
I still believe the R22 is reasonable safe to fly.

About the stance of the company. I ran into the same thing with Eurocopter about the collective lock that seems to wear and makes the aircraft take off uncommanded (long story)
They never changed anything in the POH or the maintenance recommendations and I think it's because if they do, they would admit that there is a problem and all the companies who crashed one of their ships because of that reason will sue them...

Can it be that Robinson was afraid of a lawsuit?

(again I don't get paid by Robinson nor do I want to defend what they did, I just didn't want talk a young guy out of a career which seems to get pretty good lately. (my guys make $68,000 a year and up) We NEED more helicopter pilots right now. I am sure you are aware of that as well)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 08, 2006, 06:23:18 AM
@ Torque: let me complete Mike’s statement. On most helicopters the measured (and indicated) torque value is the torque produced by the engine BEFORE it goes to the gearboxes. Boxes? Yes, there are at least two boxes: main rotor gearbox (MGB) and tail rotor gearbox (TGB).

The power available from the engine, indicated as torque, is to be shared between those two boxes. In hover the TGB takes a lot of this available power. Depending on the weight, wind and so on it can be up to 30%. In forward flight the vertical fin takes a lot of load off the TGB and the available power can be sent to the MGB.

On some other helicopters, mainly more modern series like the Bell 412EP, the measured torque is the true mast torque. This indicates the true torque on the main rotor mast produced by the power of the engine(s) to overcome the drag of the main rotor blades.

100 points out of 100 go to Frank. The answer to Mike’s question of the collective-stop is right. (Medal icon placed here)
To my knowledge there are no flight manuals for helicopters available on the web. The companies creating and handling these manuals make an awful big money with these manuals. Therefore I cannot imagine finding those for free somewhere. And, most important, these manuals are to be kept on the latest status by amendments. Mike can make copies, I can do so too. Let me know and I will try to send it to you.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 08, 2006, 12:48:53 PM
Quote
( I have seen other helicopters crash too. What about things like the tailrotor issue on the Bells, hydraulics on the AStar, T/R AD on the 500C, and so on....)

You missed my point.  My major problem is the official stance of the company, that the pilot was automatically the failure point, not the helo.
Quote

If it comes down to that point you can forget all manufacturers!!!

I’ve seen and experienced situations, where manufacturers will do everything within their might to avoid confession that the failure or the problem is on their side. I don’t wand to go to deep into this, because this is no fun at all and has nothing to do in this forum. But if there is money, reputation and might involved things become ugly.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 08, 2006, 06:38:15 PM
Ah, if the helicopter checklist is copyrighted etc. then I'll try it the other way around, I'll post the expanded JetRanger checklist from the FS2004 add-on and ask just how much is missing.

I have a downloaded pdf POH etc. for both a 74 Reims Cardinal RG and most versions of the Single-engine Aero Commander respectively from the flying club I flew with and the Commander Aircraft owners club.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 08, 2006, 11:47:00 PM
Hmmm, I don't think they have a true "copyright" on the manual so to speak. The First 4 sections get submitted to the FAA and approved by them and that should be pretty public....

Show us what you have and we will add on to it I guess...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on May 09, 2006, 02:49:51 PM
Just to add my two cents in... Beechcraft had similar issues with the V-Tail Bonanza when it came out.  The P.O.H. had bad numbers published for the Vne speed, and as a result, a lot of them went down.  That's how it got the moniker "Doctor Killer" (the plane was expensive, so only doctors could afford it back then... or so it was said).

It took a long time before the numbers were magically updated in the P.O.H. a very, very, long time later.  Beechcraft didn't admit fault, but clearly there were issues and the FAA eventually mandated mod kits to bring up the tail's structural strength, or forced placarding of the plane to keep people safe.

Fear of litigation drives a lot in aviation... unfortunately.  Though the Bonanza was safe so long as you stayed under the lower Vne speed or had the mod kit, or even a T tail conversion put on.  I think the R-22 is safe so long as one keeps up on the maintenance, and knows about the week spots to keep an extra eye on.  The way the FAA is today, they'd likely have an AD out forcing either their grounding, or immediate repair if they thought there were major issues.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: wbarnhill on May 09, 2006, 05:24:18 PM
Thanks to everyone's posts.  I'm not scared off of the R-22 (Can't help it... the spinning blades have me hypnotized.)  I'm just going to be extra wary when I start training.  Still hoping to get that demo flight in a week or so.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: SkyKing on May 12, 2006, 02:23:59 AM
Just to add my two cents in... Beechcraft had similar issues with the V-Tail Bonanza when it came out.  The P.O.H. had bad numbers published for the Vne speed, and as a result, a lot of them went down.  That's how it got the moniker "Doctor Killer" (the plane was expensive, so only doctors could afford it back then... or so it was said).


Actually, the Bonanza became known as the Fork-Tailled Doctor Killer for an entirely different reason.

After World War Twice, a couple of dozen airplane companies were firmly convinced that the world of the 1950s and 1960s would be one in which the light plane took the place of the family car.  Beech say themselves as the builders of the flying Cadillac, and they marketed the Bonanza as such.

The people who bought them were largely professionals, including (of course) doctors.  The problem is that most professionals have little time for proficiency flying (and they are convinced that they're smarter than the average person, thus they don't NEED to fly to keep up their skills!). 

Put a smug, self-confident, rusty and semi-skilled pilot into a high-performance plane which has been sitting for a few months, then add a passenger or two, and you have the recipe for a newspaper headline.  This is how, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Group 15 of the California CAP Wing got more searches than a lot of whole WINGS got.

There were just so many searches for doctors, lawyers and so on, who had taken off in Bonanzas, that we all began to assume that a Saturday SAR warning would be for someone with MD, DDS or whatever after his name.

Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on May 18, 2006, 02:05:55 AM
Hey SkyKing---ever flown a Tierra T-bird??? Just curious to know what you think about what speed to use when rolling one.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 21, 2006, 10:09:53 PM
Ah I completely forgot about the checklist, here it is, directly from the add-on.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 22, 2006, 02:31:06 AM
Ok, I didn't look at all of it (time crunch, I'll get to it later, I promise) but the start procedure stuck out as COMPLETELY OFF and NOT MAKING SENSE AT ALL....
N2 stabilized at 12-14%    ???  ???  ???  :P  ::)
I'll see what I have for you, ok?!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 22, 2006, 06:02:46 AM
Yeah, well, its kinda simplified. In the “START” sequence it should read N1 (gas generator speed). And if you open the throttle at 12-14% on a real Jet Ranger (Allison engine) you can check your bank account if there is enough money left to buy a new turbine section.  :oI’ve seen this far too many times. So it should read “IDLE”. And you know there is no “HUD” on a real Jet Ranger but in the computer game. On a real Jet Ranger you WILL stay below 130 kts. :P In the “SHUT-DOWN” sequence again it should read N1.

All in all this check list fits to a computer game. The real one reads a little different (there is no escape-key if something goes wrong). I’m sure Mike gets you one. ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 24, 2006, 12:51:59 AM
Here is the starting sequence for the Jet Ranger.
Right out of the manual ( I am bored waiting for a bank-run I have to fly tonight....)



ENGINE STARTING

Collective pitch  -  Full down.

Throttle  -  Full closed

Rotors  -  Clear.

Starter  -  Engage (observe Eingine Starter Limitations, Section 1).

Engine oil pressure  -  Indication of increase.

Throttle  -  Open to flight idle at 15% gas producer RPM
with Turbine Outlet Temperature (TOT) at or below 150C.

            CAUTION
A START SHOULD NOT BE ATTEMPTED
AT N1 SPEEDS BELOW 12%


(*** I am skipping an explanation here about
different N1's versus OAT and max TOT limits)


           CAUTION
IF THE MAIN ROTOR IS NOT ROTATING BY 25%
GAS PRODUCER SPEED (N1), ABORT THE START.

Starter  -  Release at 58% gas producer RPM (N1).

Engine and transmission oil  -  Check pressures increasing.


(*** skipping more stuff here not pertinent to the sim)

Gas Producer ROM (N1)  -  Check for 60 to 62%.

External power  -  Disconnect; BAT On.

Throttle  -  Open to 70% gas producer RPM.

GEN switch  -  On.

Radio Equipment  -  On.

*** and then it goes into the hydraulics check which you might not do on the sim either....



BEFORE TAKEOFF

Electrical equipment  -  Check; reset as required.

Lighting  -  As desired.

INST LT switch (rheostat)  -  As desired.

Radio  -  Check as required.

Throttle  -  Full open.

Power and flight instruments  -  Normal operating range.

Generator load  -  Below 70% (Note - normal load is 10%-20%).

Power turbine N2  -  Set for 100% in flat pitch

and off you go! tada ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 24, 2006, 10:35:33 PM
Ok, I have removed the argument because it's dragging down the funny...

SkyKing and I are working this out per email rather than in public.

I hope nobody got offended or "turned off" from the forum because of this.
If so, I apologize. Write me a message with your thoughts.

@Frank:
Were you able to make something out of that checklist?
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on May 24, 2006, 10:40:08 PM
Oh, and about the copyright issue. SkyKing is right. I was not clear on my statement.
But since I am neither selling the checklist to Frank nor putting my name on it claiming it's my info, there is no infringement. If anything it will help Bell ...
We treat similar cases the same way. So far we have been pretty lucky (well we are also very well protected, especially our name) but I guess SkyKing had some problems in the past. He (just like us and Ted Stryker) is a published author as well.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 25, 2006, 01:59:30 AM
Uhm, what did I miss? If there is anything wrong then by all means don't post anything, and I hope anything I said wasn't misunderstood as asking for anything illegal.
I've had some very bad days so I'm not so clear as what has been going on here so sorry for not being that active at the moment.

In any case what I could see was that MSFS is not much good for learning to operate a helicopter, especially not since a helicopter is very much a seat-of-the-pants vehicle and that's where any sim fails.
EDIT: I haven't posted a while since I've been under a lot of pressure with problems that I can't fix. For those that read the post last night I'm sorry if my post sounded a bit frantic (in lack of a a better word) I just wanted reply to Mike's post now he asked for it but I guess I didn't need to give that many details to describe that it was bad. I really need a vacation and get all those worries off my back, but when my mom can't get a nice quiet home without stairs and near grocery-stores then it's not easy and when I'm the last of the friends and family that's anywhere near us.

Thanks for the PM Gulfstream.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on May 25, 2006, 10:12:41 PM
Relax, Frank, you're among friends.   We all get tied up with our problems at times and sometimes we just need to vent, that's OK.
There's no need apologize and no need to worry, if there is one thing I've learned in 65 years of living it's that worries and problems are transitory and that focusing on the positive aspects of your life is the best solution till things work themselves out.  Stay cool. 8)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Skygal on May 25, 2006, 10:28:04 PM
65 YEARS!!  Deary, you just made my day!   No wonder you sound grandfatherly, you probably are one.  As a mature pilot myself I find it refreshing to be among my peers!   Frank, fireflyr just gave you some sage advice based on a viewpoint only years can teach.  Just relax honey because things happen the way they do for a good reason and no amount of fretting will help.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 27, 2006, 10:42:59 PM
Thanks for the replies, the thing is that I try to take care not bothering people, and since I'm well aware of the fact that people are different then my biggest problem when I have problems is mostly that I have no way to figure out if I'm bothering someone. Furthermore I try to take responsibility for my actions, like making sure I don't behave badly.
My friend Chey and I talked and she convinved me that I should try again with my commercial gameproject and I've posted in a gamedev forum and gotten a reply, ordered the book that might help and then went on a cleaning spree and got a ton of old note-papers thrown out after saving what notes I need, cleaning up magazines, computerpart boxes etc. and 24 hours after I still feel the pain in my weak muscles. Man I need to get to California (that's where Chey lives, and Fireflyr and Mike, and another guy from the racegame forum me and Chey frequent that's also of a more mature age but is young at heart still and is active in everything from racing-games, r/c gliders, real motorbikes and cars (just sold a 350Z and Caterhams Super 7 and got a new Corvette Z06)).

I'd like to see a US-version of the Track-Race with a sportscar vs a helicopter like Tiff Needell did with a Porsche 911 GT3 vs a ex-RAF Gazelle.

Mike, to get back on topic, I've thought about how much is needed for your types of flights over the normal flying of a helicopter, like the trouble with hovering to drop off firefighters in heavy winds or water-drops etc. have you ever thought about writting an article about that? And wasn't it you that flew a Ranger with a camera crew to film a flight of fighters passing under you where you weren't ascending as fast as hoped and only cleared them by a small margin, do you have a clip of those recordings made of it?

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 28, 2006, 08:42:26 PM

EDIT: I haven't posted a while since I've been under a lot of pressure with problems that I can't fix. For those that read the post last night I'm sorry if my post sounded a bit frantic (in lack of a a better word) I just wanted reply to Mike's post now he asked for it but I guess I didn't need to give that many details to describe that it was bad. I really need a vacation and get all those worries off my back, but when my mom can't get a nice quiet home without stairs and near grocery-stores then it's not easy and when I'm the last of the friends and family that's anywhere near us.


Frank, you are a very honest person. And I mean it. Live has some hurdles for us we are not prepared for. The difference between the Barbar and the civilized person is the way how one handles the weaker, the ones in need.

We here in the forum cannot help you with the problem itself. But be can try to cheer you up and give you some funny moments, answer to your questions (which I miss here, btw) and have a laugh with you over all the distances and problems. We are here to be bothered, we are friends. |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on May 31, 2006, 05:27:12 PM
Thank you so very much, I really appreciate it. You guys here and my best friend Chey are all that's keeping me up, but you are also really doing well :) My mom is getting some good new dentures from a very friendly specialist that's in fact giving my mom the very best work he's ever done and that's despite the fact that it's paid for by the county so he's not making a profit, he's even giving better parts than ordered at no extra charge. On the way home though we had to do an emergency stop for an old man rolling slowly in front of us doing a left turn from a intersection in a forrest where there are a lot of cars turning right that block the view of us for them, good thing I saw him rolling and knew he couldn't see us, and I know by experience they take chances so I was already started to slow down as he kept rolling right into the lane and then drove but slowly across forcing a stop to avoid a side-collission. I gotta say thanks dad for those inhearited reflexes and common sense. And then afterwards it's great to come home for a nice meal and some good news on the two forums I visit and now I'm finally  catching up on my posts.

And I'll think of some more intelligent questions soon :D

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Roland on May 31, 2006, 07:16:43 PM
You see Frank, now you sound (read) a lot better. Good to see things turn out ok for your mother and you. And I think you are a little bit one of this persons which attracts all sorts of catastrophes, regarding to the story with that old man.  ;)

I had a VEEERY nice college down in Port Harcourt who attracted all kinds of catastrophes. If there was a helicopter to be hijacked (yes, this happened, and not only once) it was his. If there was a night rescue on a ship with bad weather and a lousy co-pilot, it was his night duty. If there was no food in the staff-house, it was his late return from being offshore. Not that those things did not happen to us as well, but he could make a REAL catastrophe out of it. And that was one of the reasons we all loved him so much. He is retired by now and back home. You think he is free of catastrophes now? Naw, never!  ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: happylanding on May 31, 2006, 11:33:40 PM
........And then afterwards it's great to come home for a nice meal and some good news on the two forums I visit and now I'm finally  catching up on my posts.

I've not visited a lot of forums, but here I can easily see your point of view: this coop and the chickens trapped here makes you happy!!!  :D :D :D :D :D
And good luck with your misfortunes, lately. there was an historical figure (it should have been Elizabeth empress of Austria) who once said "you must sometimes see clouds to appreciate sun". It's not bad as a reminder........Good nite!
 
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: YawningMan on September 26, 2006, 11:09:20 PM
That swing-wing Cessna bit made me bust a gut.   :D

Also, if helicopters flew by deflecting ugly, then I wouldn't need a pilot's license or a plane to fly!

But, I have heard it said that helicopters fly because they beat the air into submission.   ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on September 28, 2006, 09:12:00 PM

But, I have heard it said that helicopters fly because they beat the air into submission.   ;)

Damn right they do!!! It's awesome!!!

And it's actually the reason why they are a lot smoother in turbulence than their stuck-wing-sisters contrary to common believe. Those slim and very flexible blades chop right through that nasty stuff !!

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said "Wow, I had no idea helicopters were that smooth" ....
(Hueys excluded)

..... well....

...I'd have a s#&t load of nickels!!!!  :D ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on September 28, 2006, 09:18:58 PM

But, I have heard it said that helicopters fly because they beat the air into submission.   ;)

Damn right they do!!! It's awesome!!!

And it's actually the reason why they are a lot smoother in turbulence than their stuck-wing-sisters contrary to common believe. Those slim and very flexible blades chop right through that nasty stuff !!

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said "Wow, I had no idea helicopters were that smooth" ....
(Hueys excluded)

..... well....

...I'd have a s#&t load of nickels!!!!  :D ;D

Having ridden in a number of choppers, I'll concur as to their being smooth, maneuverable, and fun!  If I had the money I'd buy one... along with a good A&P certification.  One of the other sayings for choppers, in case anyone hadn't heard, is "A helicopter is a collection of moving parts in close proximity trying to shake themselves apart!"    ;D |:)\    But they work beautifully!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on September 28, 2006, 11:58:48 PM

But, I have heard it said that helicopters fly because they beat the air into submission.   ;)

Damn right they do!!! It's awesome!!!

And it's actually the reason why they are a lot smoother in turbulence than their stuck-wing-sisters contrary to common believe. Those slim and very flexible blades chop right through that nasty stuff !!

If I had a nickel for every time somebody said "Wow, I had no idea helicopters were that smooth" ....
(Hueys excluded)

..... well....

...I'd have a s#&t load of nickels!!!!  :D ;D
You're not kidding about flying in turbelence---I remember one day in Utah when we grounded ourselves and the SEATS because of winds gusting to 40 Knots that were knocking the crap out of us and the swing wing drivers just kept on trucking...... |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on September 29, 2006, 03:48:23 AM
So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks :)

I was responsible for a small fleet of DA-20 (Katana and Eclipse) used by our flight school, and saw some really hairy landings. None of them qualified as an 'emergency landing' (meaning: crash. The only crash I encountered in my time there was a gear-up C172RG... right after I pulled the actuators for a 500 hour inspection... AUGH!... turned out he just forgot to drop the gear WHEW)
Back to the Diamond... the worst landing I saw was a young solo student who gave the gear a *real* workout, made sure they were nice and supple (rather, I thought she was going to retract 'em), and I drove the cart out to the line and reminded her that she
wouldn't be able to log all six landings if they were from the same approach.
I went over the plane carefully after dragging it back to the shop, and found no damage.
I can't vouch for 'em in a crash, but those DA-20s can sure soak up some crappy landings.
[/ threadjack off]

By the way, (and back on topic) I haven't had time to read through the whole thread... The Chinook video had a bit more footage (from different angles), and was shown to us in my A&P school in order to demonstrate G.R. The instructor told us that the footage was actually a test run on a retired bird, and that they intentionally destroyed it to get information on the phenomenon.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on September 29, 2006, 04:43:15 AM
As far as the DA-20s, the flight school I went to got DA-20s after I started (never flew the 20s, but did get an hour or so in a 40).

Anyway, they had a few of them actually crash on landing.

Let's see.... one person bent the nose gear enough to strike the prop, another ripped a main gear *off* the aircraft and another bent one of the main gear (the latter two were due to running off the runway).

The chief pilot, who is no longer there, was probobly a contributing factor in them all IMO.


Anyway, I promise they can be broken... although even the one that completely lost a gear was repaired (however, that one required that it be shipped to Canada to the facilities).


Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on October 05, 2006, 09:52:27 PM
UND had Katanas for a while (both DA-20 and C models).  I started in them, but they were always down for maintenance and were eventually pulled off the line.  Part of the problem was UND's fault (didn't follow "suggested" maintenance), but they couldn't take the abuse of primary students flying them every day with tons of cycles.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Firegirl on October 06, 2006, 12:37:42 AM
Now which thread was the one we talked about pilots having A.D.D. and us never staying on the same topic for more than a page?
HA HA  ;D

From smooth helicopter rides to Katanas in UND....

btw: that's a Japanese Sword, right?!?  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on October 06, 2006, 02:06:24 AM
btw: that's a Japanese Sword, right?!? ;)

Probably would have been more useful that way.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on October 06, 2006, 02:55:59 AM
UND had Katanas for a while (both DA-20 and C models).  I started in them, but they were always down for maintenance and were eventually pulled off the line.  Part of the problem was UND's fault (didn't follow "suggested" maintenance), but they couldn't take the abuse of primary students flying them every day with tons of cycles.

Now, there are multiple types...  The Katana is the 2stroke.  There's the C1 "Exclipse" which is a DA-20, but it's a later model.  The early ones were 2 stroke and temp limited on the wings.  The C1s aren't and have real airplane engines.  ;)

MTSU has had good luck with the diamonds.  The DA-40 will fly like a 172 if you treat it right, but you do need to learn airspeed control.   The 20s are supposed to be harder to fly than the 40 though (never flown a 20), and I don't know if they are so good for initial students or not.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on October 06, 2006, 05:03:19 PM
UND had Katanas for a while (both DA-20 and C models).  I started in them, but they were always down for maintenance and were eventually pulled off the line.  Part of the problem was UND's fault (didn't follow "suggested" maintenance), but they couldn't take the abuse of primary students flying them every day with tons of cycles.

Now, there are multiple types...  The Katana is the 2stroke.  There's the C1 "Exclipse" which is a DA-20, but it's a later model.  The early ones were 2 stroke and temp limited on the wings.  The C1s aren't and have real airplane engines.  ;)

MTSU has had good luck with the diamonds.  The DA-40 will fly like a 172 if you treat it right, but you do need to learn airspeed control.   The 20s are supposed to be harder to fly than the 40 though (never flown a 20), and I don't know if they are so good for initial students or not.

The FBO that I fly out of has DA-20's, DA-40's and a host of other planes from Cessna and Piper, etc., with more coming on the line.  I know a lot of people that fly the DA-20's and DA-40's as primary students and like them a lot.  They seem to do well for the FBO too, though their maintenance department is top-notch and keeps everything flying beautifully no matter what model plane it is.  If anyone is interested, it's Skyline Aeronautics based at KSUS (Spirit of St. Louis Airport, Chesterfield, Missouri, USA)  http://www.skylineaero.com/.

One of these days I'm going to have to take some actual, loggable, chopper lessons.  There's a school for that at this airport too.



Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Firegirl on October 06, 2006, 06:57:15 PM
Owee!!!  :o
You said "chopper" !!!!!

Mike's gonna be maaaaad!!!  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on October 06, 2006, 07:48:47 PM
Owee!!!  :o
You said "chopper" !!!!!

Mike's gonna be maaaaad!!!  ;) ;D

Heheh... I didn't think it was a derogatory term....   Uhm... Mike... if you read this... no denigration intended my friend!
 :) |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Turbomallard on October 06, 2006, 08:58:38 PM
Owee!!!  :o
You said "chopper" !!!!!

Mike's gonna be maaaaad!!!  ;) ;D

No no no no no.... he meant motorcycles... uh, right Ted? Yeah, yeah... that's what he meant...

How many points do I get for the save?

TM
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on October 06, 2006, 11:53:37 PM

grrrrr *@$##@  >:(  >:( a "CHOPPER" is a motorcycle!!!!

Firegirl is right, and yes, good save Turbo!!   :P ;D

Way to go though if your plan was to take HELICOPTER lessons, Ted !!  |:)\  |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Ted_Stryker on October 06, 2006, 11:56:31 PM

grrrrr *@$##@  >:(  >:( a "CHOPPER" is a motorcycle!!!!

Firegirl is right, and yes, good save Turbo!!   :P ;D

Way to go though if your plan was to take HELICOPTER lessons, Ted !!  |:)\  |:)\

Pardon the faux pau, Mike :)  I work around military types here at Boeing, and many of them are Vietnam era vets, and they use that term with affection for the Huey's and such that were used so heavily.

Of course, I meant that I'm going to take motorcycle lessons... AND Helicopter instruction :D :D  Ahem :D
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on October 07, 2006, 03:12:55 AM
Owee!!!  :o
You said "chopper" !!!!!

Mike's gonna be maaaaad!!!  ;) ;D
OHHHHH, I DIDN"t KNOW THAT !!!!!   <suppressing grin>
Gotta remember that next time I talk with Mike (the chopper pilot guy)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on October 10, 2006, 08:03:04 PM
It's possible I'm not remembering correctly.  I thought we had both DA-20 models (I know we had the C1), but either way we called them Katanas.  Diamond may have changed the name after we sent them back, too...
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on October 11, 2006, 05:09:12 AM
It's possible I'm not remembering correctly.  I thought we had both DA-20 models (I know we had the C1), but either way we called them Katanas.  Diamond may have changed the name after we sent them back, too...

You called it a C model before... could be the 1 denotes the change.   It might have also been early models that didn't yet have all the improvements.


I do really like cessnas, but the modular design for the diamonds is pretty impressive.   Something I'm not fond of is that the 20s can't be IFR certified because they don't have the wire mesh in the wing  like the 40's do (to conduct electricity if there is a lightning strike.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Gulfstream Driver on October 11, 2006, 06:43:23 PM
That could be.  It was almost 8 years ago.   :o
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on October 11, 2006, 09:15:04 PM
It's possible I'm not remembering correctly.  I thought we had both DA-20 models (I know we had the C1), but either way we called them Katanas.  Diamond may have changed the name after we sent them back, too...

You called it a C model before... could be the 1 denotes the change.   It might have also been early models that didn't yet have all the improvements.


I do really like cessnas, but the modular design for the diamonds is pretty impressive.   Something I'm not fond of is that the 20s can't be IFR certified because they don't have the wire mesh in the wing  like the 40's do (to conduct electricity if there is a lightning strike.

We'd pull the wings at 1000 hrs, getting lots of comments from passersby. Yep, they are VFR, though there was quite a bit of instrument training (simulated) still going on in 'em. They're fun to fly, fast, and don't use a lot of gas. Heck, it'd be a great little
two seat cross country bird... if you could only fly in weather it'd be even better. We also had really good service out of the
Continental IO-240, going well over TBO before pulling the mills. Even then, the pull was more of a cautionary thing. We stayed in touch with Teledyne and sent in oil samples on a regular basis as they wanted data on this relatively new engine.
I liked it. Very reliable and packed a pretty good punch.
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on October 12, 2006, 03:10:30 AM


We'd pull the wings at 1000 hrs, getting lots of comments from passersby. Yep, they are VFR, though there was quite a bit of instrument training (simulated) still going on in 'em. They're fun to fly, fast, and don't use a lot of gas. Heck, it'd be a great little
two seat cross country bird... if you could only fly in weather it'd be even better. We also had really good service out of the
Continental IO-240, going well over TBO before pulling the mills. Even then, the pull was more of a cautionary thing. We stayed in touch with Teledyne and sent in oil samples on a regular basis as they wanted data on this relatively new engine.
I liked it. Very reliable and packed a pretty good punch.



The DA-40 is fun to fly too and is IFR with weather certs, but it means you have to get the 4 seater to fly in the weather.  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on December 03, 2006, 04:59:42 AM


We'd pull the wings at 1000 hrs, getting lots of comments from passersby. Yep, they are VFR, though there was quite a bit of instrument training (simulated) still going on in 'em. They're fun to fly, fast, and don't use a lot of gas. Heck, it'd be a great little
two seat cross country bird... if you could only fly in weather it'd be even better. We also had really good service out of the
Continental IO-240, going well over TBO before pulling the mills. Even then, the pull was more of a cautionary thing. We stayed in touch with Teledyne and sent in oil samples on a regular basis as they wanted data on this relatively new engine.
I liked it. Very reliable and packed a pretty good punch.


Someone mentioned fixing that in future models. It's a shame, as it'd be a great, economical light cross country bird.
...as well as a heck of a lot cheaper.
I figure I'd go ahead and build a CH601 for that purpose. It'd end up being a little less expensive, I can build it to LSA specs,
and I'm currently working on an 801 with identical materials and techniques.


The DA-40 is fun to fly too and is IFR with weather certs, but it means you have to get the 4 seater to fly in the weather.  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: switchtech on December 03, 2006, 09:08:34 AM


We'd pull the wings at 1000 hrs, getting lots of comments from passersby. Yep, they are VFR, though there was quite a bit of instrument training (simulated) still going on in 'em. They're fun to fly, fast, and don't use a lot of gas. Heck, it'd be a great little
two seat cross country bird... if you could only fly in weather it'd be even better. We also had really good service out of the
Continental IO-240, going well over TBO before pulling the mills. Even then, the pull was more of a cautionary thing. We stayed in touch with Teledyne and sent in oil samples on a regular basis as they wanted data on this relatively new engine.
I liked it. Very reliable and packed a pretty good punch.


The DA-40 is fun to fly too and is IFR with weather certs, but it means you have to get the 4 seater to fly in the weather.  ;)

Someone mentioned fixing that in future models. It's a shame, as it'd be a great, economical light cross country bird.
...as well as a heck of a lot cheaper.
I figure I'd go ahead and build a CH601 for that purpose. It'd end up being a little less expensive, I can build it to LSA specs,
and I'm currently working on an 801 with identical materials and techniques.


I'm looking at building a Zodiac XL over the next few years.  I want to fly to Missouri to the Zenith HQ to take their hands on Shop and maybe take a demo flight.

jbs
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on December 04, 2006, 02:51:05 AM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

(http://static.flickr.com/64/158890060_db2727b381.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on December 04, 2006, 04:19:09 PM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

(http://static.flickr.com/64/158890060_db2727b381.jpg?v=0)
How much extra is the helper with the smile that lights up the room? |:)\
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: switchtech on December 05, 2006, 02:00:26 AM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

Good looking work there, velojym!  You got a construction page going?  (I tried to find you on flickr - but no luck)
  (Ha, never mind - I did find you on flicker - used "Rudder Kit" !! ;)

jbs
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 12, 2006, 05:14:21 AM
I was just wondering, can't remember if I've asked it before but here goes: While a stuck wing's pedals probably have some centering force due to aerodynamic forces then what about helicopter pedals? Do they have a centering force in them? And what about the stick (cyclic)? I wonder if one can make better sim control by having a small gyro spinning underneath the stick, I know an important feel is the movement of the helicopter but just thinking about what can be done, and how to know more about real helicopters.

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on December 12, 2006, 08:30:47 AM
Stef will do a lot better around this, but...

Especially hovering, helicopters are inherently unstable.   There isn't really a set "centered" position to keep you from turning.  You are on the controls all the time.  As far as I know, unless you have an autopilot you don't want to just let go of the controls and let it fly itself like you can with an airplane.

I won't try to get any more specific becuase there are a lot better people on this forum for it.  All my stuff is second hand from talking to chopper pilots anyway.  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on December 12, 2006, 05:09:37 PM
I was just wondering, can't remember if I've asked it before but here goes: While a stuck wing's pedals probably have some centering force due to aerodynamic forces then what about helicopter pedals? Do they have a centering force in them? And what about the stick (cyclic)? I wonder if one can make better sim control by having a small gyro spinning underneath the stick, I know an important feel is the movement of the helicopter but just thinking about what can be done, and how to know more about real helicopters.

Frank

Baradium is right, there aren't really any "centering forces" on a helicopter. The Hughes helicopters have a bungy spring system in the cyclic called "trim" which sort of helps you out a little with centering so to speak. Bigger helos have something called "forced trim".
They aren't really what I would call "centering" though, since your "center" in a hover is different every day depending on crosswind, CG, and so on.
Basically you have to find your own center every time....

What they try to do with the rudder pedals and tailrotor-blades is to mostly stabilize them so it doesn't take too much force to put them in the desired position and then keep them there with minimum force. Most of them do it with counter weights.
The helicopter is a very unstable machine, that's true, but the funny thing is that you have a lot of gyroscopic laws acting on all rotating surfaces and one of them is that a gyro likes to keep it's position in space. It actually takes quite a bit to initially get anything going on a helo (that's why all the big ones have hydraulics)

There is a friction on the cyclic and the collective you can set on every helicopter. Every pilot likes them different. I like the collective friction slightly higher so I can let go of the control without it changing position and so I don't move it too much which makes me look smoother. The cyclic I have what we call "wet noodle", no friction at all, which in an AStar (thanks to hydraulics) would just make it "fall over" if I was to let go of it. So when I take my hand off I have to hold it with my knees . . .

Clear as mud?  ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on December 12, 2006, 05:11:00 PM
I won't try to get any more specific becuase there are a lot better people on this forum for it.  All my stuff is second hand from talking to chopper pilots anyway.  ;)

AHEM!!! (*cough*)  >:(

We like to call them "helicopters" !  ;D

Sincerely,
Chuck
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 12, 2006, 11:57:31 PM
Thanks for the replies, it was as I suspected, and that also means that I can't learn much good from flying helicopters in FSX with the Logitech joystick I have since it has a very stiff centering spring. I do still have my old Logitech forcefeedback joystick, maybe that work better since it doesn't have a centering spring.

Mike, in your experience, what helicopter would be good for stable flights (for the pilot)? JetRanger, 500 or AStar? Speaking of helicopters and learning, I saw a Robinson today, and several other planes around Roskilde on our way home from shopping, man there were a lot of planes there today, just too bad I was being tailgated and couldn't stop and look (it was a tiny twisty backroad but the van driver didn't care, they never do). I also read an article in the novemeber 2006 issue of Flying that the writers plane had a light cover busted by a mechanic and they repaired it perfectly before he was to pick up the plane from it's service, but his Lexus got dented, scratched etc. at his garage and not even a sorry let alone repairs, this sounds a lot like what I experience here so I still say flying is better than driving. The other articles btw are also very enlightening about what mistakes not to make, even by veteran pilots, very educational and potentially life saving.

Oh yeah, about helicopters, is it more expensive to learn to fly a sling wing than a stuck wing?

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Mike on December 13, 2006, 01:43:47 AM
Mike, in your experience, what helicopter would be good for stable flights (for the pilot)? JetRanger, 500 or AStar? Speaking of helicopters and learning, I saw a Robinson today . . .

. . .Oh yeah, about helicopters, is it more expensive to learn to fly a sling wing than a stuck wing?

First of, YES, helicopters are WAY more expensive to run so therefore more expensive to learn in.
Here is the rule of thumb on this: find out what a stuck wing license costs and the multiply by 3 . . . :'(   sorry!

As for the most stable:
In my experience the Hughes 500 is pretty much the easiest helicopter to fly but the AStar is a very stable platform in out-of-groundeffect hovers and turbulence (but you do have to get the hang of how to fly it first, heh heh  ;) )

I haven't flown Robinsons in a while. I remember them being pretty squirly...
Here is a picture of the last Robinson I have flown last year !!  ;D
I was on the controls the whole time (but technically I wasn't touching the Robinson controls . . . . HA HA)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 13, 2006, 06:21:32 AM
I guess the old saying is true: you get what you pay for. Anyway, thanks for answering my questions, and posting a really cool photo  |:)\

Frank
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: Baradium on December 14, 2006, 04:14:34 AM
Hmm,  I sense a story that you're holding out on there Mike!

It also looks like there are some parts missing.  ;)


Sorry, I don't have to call them "choppers"  I can also use whirly bird, egg beater, helo, and thingy.    ;)
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on December 20, 2006, 11:41:53 PM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

Good looking work there, velojym!  You got a construction page going?  (I tried to find you on flickr - but no luck)
  (Ha, never mind - I did find you on flicker - used "Rudder Kit" !! ;)

jbs

I'm keeping it on Flickr until I get organized enough to do a nice page. (which I plan to do eventually)
I'll let Mrs. Velo know what ya said, fireflyr... I'm sure she'll be tickled. By the way, that smile is how she snared me...
I was innocently riding my bicycle on the river trail when she hit me with it.

...and like the end of those popular credit card commercials... priceless!
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: fireflyr on December 21, 2006, 05:22:51 PM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

Good looking work there, velojym!  You got a construction page going?  (I tried to find you on flickr - but no luck)
  (Ha, never mind - I did find you on flicker - used "Rudder Kit" !! ;)

jbs

I'm keeping it on Flickr until I get organized enough to do a nice page. (which I plan to do eventually)
I'll let Mrs. Velo know what ya said, fireflyr... I'm sure she'll be tickled. By the way, that smile is how she snared me...
I was innocently riding my bicycle on the river trail when she hit me with it.

...and like the end of those popular credit card commercials... priceless!

Men are such suckers for a wide smile----my soulmate lured me to the snare with the same strategy---with the same results ::bow::
Title: Re: Helicopter Questions
Post by: spacer on December 22, 2006, 03:29:24 AM
The workshop is well worth it, and it comes with the price of the rudder kit.

Good looking work there, velojym!  You got a construction page going?  (I tried to find you on flickr - but no luck)
  (Ha, never mind - I did find you on flicker - used "Rudder Kit" !! ;)

jbs

At least it wasn't 'used rudder kit'... cheap!
 ::eek::

hmm... maybe a strip idea... or something about a used kit (re-kitted is a term to mean wrecked homebuilt)
Real Time Web Analytics