Jump to content

canukav8tor

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by canukav8tor

  1. And thanks once again for the service and sacrifice of those who have served our Nation, particularly those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Lest we forget. AV8
  2. Thoughts and prayers to the family of the pilot, and for a speedy and complete recovery of those injured in the crash. Regards AV8
  3. Boeing CH-147F Chinook for Canada Successfully Completes 1st Flight "Flight validates airworthiness of rotorcraft’s new electrical system, cockpit" http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2336
  4. Well handled, 412. Finding that balance between the desire to support the operation, yet ensuring that those who do (or should) understand the regs that go with operations are respected, would be key. I won't pretend to fully understand the relationship between a paying client and the operator, but I can only imagine the no-duff challenges and conflicts that result from some who have/had an "I'm paying you to do this, so get it done" attitude that could exist. In the subject case, it is indeed sad that litigation is inappropriately drawing attention away from the issues of principle.
  5. Very sad news. Thoughts and prayers to the families, both personal and at Bailey's, and to friends and colleagues of the three lost souls. RIP.
  6. Sadly, there would still be a big pile of paperwork waiting for me in the office...I'd flash her up and see if a bit of pitch would help the fog move on...dang, I'm not a fan of paperwork. Cheers, AV8
  7. Very sad news. Thoughts and prayers to the families, comrades and friends of the Marine aviators and Marines killed in the collision. Regards AV8
  8. Dick, I haven't had a look at a 58/206A RFM in a long time, I had thought min power required was somewhere in the 35-40 kt range. The points you raise are quite valid, so I'll have to dust off my Ray Prouty books and see if there's an answer hiding somewhere in them. I remember an old UH-1 instructor telling me about having plenty of stuck pedals, most of them ironically left, and he noted his preferred technique was to come in a little shallower than the school house taught at Fort Rucker, and gently roll the Nr down as well so that the stop and spin left at the end was less pronounced.
  9. Dick, it's probably because on the JR's power-required curve, the two points and 60 kts and at/or near IGE hover require the same t/r power (effectiveness). In the IGE hover regime the anti-torque is required to balance the effect of the main rotor working against induced rotor drag, while at speed (~60 kts for the JR as you note) the anti-torque is required to balance the power applied to the main rotor to maintain that cruise speed, less the straight aerodynamic positive stability due to the fin/boom. Aerodynamically, every single m/r helicopter should have two such points where hover powe
  10. The move from JP-4 (Jet B-ish, with FSII/CILI, aka NATO F-40) to JP-8 (similar but not exactly like Jet A-1, aka NATO F-34) was partially due to safety concerns as you noted, Jet B, but also because the US DoD was trying to reduce logistical cost with a single-fuel solution (less a few exceptions) to fuel both compression-ignition vehicles and turbine-powered vehicles and aircraft. The Canadian Forces followed suit, and both the DoD and CF further modified the fuel used by most military aircraft to a slightly reformulated JP-8, known as JP-8 +100 (NATO F-37), which burns slightly hotter than
  11. Freddie, I think you're right...the UH-1 also flew with the Lycoming T-53 in 1956, but I think the H-43 turbine equipped variant flew in early-'56, so I think they were a slight bit ahead of Bell being the first turbine chopper. Cheers AV8
  12. Once ran into an old HH43 Huskie pilot who loved Kamans...having a good-natured jab at me at the time, he swore that the lateral tandem was the proper way to intermesh two rotors. I've never seen a K-Max in person, but if it was anything like the Huskie, it's got to be a solid, no-nonsense machine. Freddie, have you ever seen a Huskie or spoken to those who have flown one? Regards AV8
  13. If by "them", you mean the Operators and Command staff, then yes, I do trust them. For those whom I don't know (politicians included), my trust starts with their demonstrated principles and conduct. For that, many of us are likely in agreement. Regards AV8 p.s. I guess someone figured the off-topic injection warranted the triple reputation ding...all's fair, I suppose.
  14. It's the official video assessed by and released by the Regiment and its parent Command. One could reasonably trust that they know what they are putting out on the web, and why they are doing so. It would not be unreasonable to imagine that actually operations might be a bit "higher speed, lower drag" and in more challenging 'environmentals'. Regards AV8
  15. For reference, 0:22-0:29 looks to be 10/5's, likely for training/practice. Regards AV8
  16. No, not poor control -- it is one technique we use for lower speed diver casting - drop, then oblique slide away. At higher fwd speeds, we'll be clear of the divers in a few seconds so no change to post-drop vector. Preference usually goes to speed, vice height, so a 10/20 or 15/20 insertion (10' or 15' AHO, 20 kts forward speed) is a more frequent option...vertical speed from height builds up pretty quickly. Regards AV8
  17. Very sad news. Mes condoléances les plus sincères à la famille Beaudoin.
  18. Regulations aside, the pilot was flying nice, reasonable speed profiles ending up with consistent 15/5 runs (15' skid to water, approx 5 kts fwd) and cleared away from the divers shortly after dispatch, so well flown. My biggest concern in the actual execution of the dives would be security of the passengers, as there isn't a rappelmaster/jumpmaster in the cabin to direct/control the removal of safety belts at the appropriate time. In one shot, it looked like a swimmer was unbelted and on the skid while there was still some notable forward speed...this wouldn't worry me if that was a fully t
  19. I was attempting not to judge, but rather to refer to pertinent parts of the CARs that relate to the recorded activity. Yes, the video does have a significant element of informality to it, but that doesn't mean the necessary operating certificate(s) wasn't/weren't secured in accordance with the CARs as I referred to above. That said, having conducted activities equivalent to CARs 602.16/602.17/702.19 thru 702.22 (and associated 622/722 Stds) over approximately two decades, the briefings I was involved in to conduct said operations were always extensive and both the crew and the passe
  20. Two of the pax looked to be complying with CAR 602.62(4), re: individual life jackets/PFDs, but the guy in the shorts and no t-shirt seems not to be one of them, depending on interpretation of the sub-section; although in fairness to the passenger, 602.62(4) just notes that the device must be stored and accessible to the passsenger when seated, it does not specifically state that the device must be worn. Benefit of the (visible) doubt might be given to the operator for CAR 602.63(4), assuming that there is in fact a raft in the aircraft, perhaps center-rear cabin, but not visible in the video
  21. Well done to the Canadian Helicopter Force - Afghanistan! Over 90,000 passengers and 7,000,000lbs of cargo lifted since they arrived in theatre in December 2008. Cheers AV8 -------------- Canada’s helicopters fly together for the last time in Afghanistan Aug. 25, 2011 By Captain Susan Magill Article link
  22. Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act. Departing troops praise hard-working Canadian choppers By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News July 3, 2011 [PHOTO: Aboard Blow Torch 62 over Panjwaii, Afghanistan -- Master Cpl. Lourenco Miguel mans a gun on the back ramp of a Canadian Chinook helicopter as a Griffon helicopter flying sentry flies in the distance.The Chinooks and their escorts were much loved by combat troops now making their back to Canada. The combat mission ends in the next few days, but the helicopters will still be flying cargo out of
  23. Interesting damage pattern on the t/r -- opposing blades destroyed, but the other two relatively intact. I wonder what the mechanics were to cause that? (and not to at least have some apparent damage to the remaining blades) Regards AV8
  24. OP, unless your 412 is flight tested and type certified for something other than basic certification, it would be as stated in your RFM. If your's says 60 kts, it's 60. The 412CF (~EP) has a rather specific Vne chart for the various configurations that can be flown doors off, due to a variety of mission kits that can be used with the various door configurations. Similar to the note by gwk re: 212s, the 412CF may not be flown in IMC or under IFR with any crew or cargo doors removed. Regards AV8
×
×
  • Create New...