Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Losing a tail rotor isn't such a big deal, it could be nasty but there are ways to deal with it. The only thing that most likely will kill you is losing your main rotor. Although a 212 lost that a few years ago logging and that guy lived.

 

To be honest, the reason helicopters might be more dangerous than fixed wing is just because of the operational environment rather than any mechanical reasons.

 

What's safer? flying up at 35,000 feet or swinging drills off the tree tops down the leeward side of a mountain at red-line torque? For that matter, what sounds like more fun? :up:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

B)-->

QUOTE(Jet B @ Apr 1 2006, 08:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Losing a tail rotor isn't such a big deal, it could be nasty but there are ways to deal with it. The only thing that most likely will kill you is losing your main rotor.

Unfortunately doesn't losing the tail rotor usually also come with seperation of it and/or the gear box giving an unmanagable shift in CofG? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if you lose an aileron you still have another one but it'll take some correcting with rudder (somewhere near full deflection). if you lose both you can still roll with the pedals... something to do with adverse yaw. This was demonstrated on my first instructional flight, the pilot flew the plane using nothing but the pedals and throttle (not by any means reccomended, but if it has to be done, it can [also not sure how accurate ones landong would be with just 1 main control, and 1 ancillary])

 

probably would survive that... what you need in an aeroplane is the wings if those are gone youre screwed (a given). There was a video of a cessna 150 that overstressed on short final (how, I have no clue, my guess was that the student was AIMED at the runway, and then the instructor yanked back on the controls and SNAP) the website said that they both walked away (lucky much?)... This would be alot like loosing all your RRPM from what I understand.

 

Cole B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
B)-->Losing a tail rotor isn't such a big deal, it could be nasty but there are ways to deal with it. The only thing that most likely will kill you is losing your main rotor.

Unfortunately doesn't losing the tail rotor usually also come with seperation of it and/or the gear box giving an unmanagable shift in CofG? :huh:

 

 

I've had it happen about 30 times in the 412 (Griffon) simulator and even when you know it's coming the chances of survival are about 6.7% (2 successful out of 30 attempts...) B). The huge c of g change coupled with the tendency to tuck and yaw in an unrecoverable way means you need to have the throttles off at about the same time the gearbox thinks about departing the fix. There isn't even enough time to swear before you are in a very uncomfortable, inverted, nasty, unrecoverable attitude.

 

If someone has had one in a real ship and survived, they need to buy lotto tickets - like NOW (p.s. get me some too...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It happens in real life, and in this case, there was NO further damage to the aircraft upon landing. It's not luck, it's called "A very experienced Chief Pilot" ! ! !

 

--------------------------------------

 

NTSB Identification: SEA00LA097 .

The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division

14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation

Accident occurred Saturday, June 03, 2000 in EUGENE, OR

Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/18/2001

Aircraft: Bell 212, registration: CFHDY

Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

During a practice power recovery autorotation to a hover, at about 600 feet AGL, the two pilots heard a loud bang, followed by a severe vibration. The PIC lowered the collective and rolled both throttles off to continue the autorotation to the ground, which landed without further incident. Inspection of the helicopter revealed that the 90-degree gearbox with tail rotors attached had separated from the tail boom. Inspection of the tail rotors revealed that the tip weight in one of the blades was missing. Examination of the blade revealed evidence of adhesive debonding between the adhesive and the spar surface. As a secondary securing method, four countersunk screws are in line chordwise and offset in pairs on each side of the blade. All four screw holes showed no significant evidence of deformation. It was determined that the four countersunk screws were ineffective due to the limited amount of clamping provided by the machining, at the manufacturer, of too large a diameter in the countersunk hole relative to the diameter of the screw head, thus allowing the four secondary load path screws to slip behind the spar, resulting in the tip block separating from the blade. The manufacturer reported that although the bonding adhesive is identified as the primary securing method for the tip block, and the four countersunk screws as the secondary, either method independent of the other is capable of carrying the load.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

 

Inadequate quality control by the manufacturer during the manufacturing process, which led to the total failure of a fastener, and the separation of the tail rotor blade balance weight. An adhesive debond between the adhesive and the surface was a factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the Canadian military, don't they buy the cheapest thing they can get?? Yea, 2 died in a griffon(412) in Newfoundland, i believe in 98 when the tail rotor got separated.

 

If memory serves, it was one of the two t/r blades that delaminated in flight and departed the a/c. I don't think they lost the whole kit & caboodle. I recall that one of the pilots lost a foot to frostbite, left the Forces and is now flying civvie...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...