So.....

[mattpilot]

Matt, where are you doing your training? I am also interested in getting an add-on in a 47.

In Tulsa OK - $190/hr


still interested?

 

[Fox6]

In most sophisticated helicopters maintaining around 60 knots in autorotation will provide directional control in the event of a tail rotor failure. In the SH/UH-60 the tailrotor is even canted so that tailrotor thrust offsets it's weight should you lose the tailrotor entirely. In the Bell 47/ OH 13 Sioux, the helicopter just spins until impact with a tail rotor failure.

GV

If your "in autorotation", (the way I understand it) then there should be no power therefore no torque applied to the transmission, therefore no spinning. If anything, you would have transmission drag which will actually tend to turn the helicopter the opposite direction as torque. Looking at your flight time and aircraft flown, you may know something I don't. Did you mean that 60 knots in POWERED flight will mainain some semblence of directional control due to the vertical stabilizer (asymmetric in the Astar) taking the load off the tail rotor.
I've never had one myself. Had a friend lose a tail rotor in an OH-6 while in a OGE hover. He said that it was extremely fast and was on the ground before he knew it. He instinctively got the power out though as fast as he could and hit upright before rolling over.

 

[Fox6]

Why wouldn't an auto-rotation in a tailrotor failure situation save you?

In most everything that I have flown, which isn't much granted, this is the procedure outlined in the Flight manual for tail rotor failures. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually experience a t/r failure in a 47 or any other helicopter for that matter. My co-worker has a lot of time and two engine failures in the 47. Both had successful auto's fortunately.. He worked cattle with them back in the eighties.

f6

 

[cougar6903]

In most everything that I have flown, which isn't much granted, this is the procedure outlined in the Flight manual for tail rotor failures. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually experience a t/r failure in a 47 or any other helicopter for that matter. My co-worker has a lot of time and two engine failures in the 47. Both had successful auto's fortunately.. He worked cattle with them back in the eighties.

f6

Fox, Is that the Brantly B2 you mention in your profile? If so can you answer some questions about it?

 

[cougar6903]

In Tulsa OK - $190/hr


still interested?

I would be if Tulsa were in PA.

 

[Fox6]

Fox, Is that the Brantly B2 you mention in your profile? If so can you answer some questions about it?

Cougar, sorry not the Brantley B2. The Aerospatiale AS350-B2 (American Eurocopter now). I've never been in a Brantley. Saw one at HAI and it was a strange looking bird. You don't hear a lot of people training in those for some reason, but they might be great, who knows.

 

[mattpilot]

You don't hear a lot of people training in those for some reason, but they might be great, who knows.

Maybe because it is the most ugliest helicopter in existance?

Looking at the B2, i can see why someone would come up with the theory that "helicopters can fly, because they are so ugly the earth repels them"

 

[Fox6]

Well, I wasn't going to say it....... hopefully there is not too many offended B2 drivers out there., but it is ugly.

 

[cougar6903]

Well, I wasn't going to say it....... hopefully there is not too many offended B2 drivers out there., but it is ugly.

It looks to me like one of the only choppers i'd be able to afford to own one day. They sell for around $50k with good times. Looks like there back in production now. Most of the pilots selling them only have a PPL so I'm assuming there not amazingly hard to fly.

 

[mattpilot]

You can buy a B47 D model for 60k from my school, or a G model for 80K, or a G2 for, i think 100k. No real difference between the D & G model, but the G2 has a bigger engine & an extra seat (but no dual controls).

Or, if you want to go really cheap, buy a Safari kit helicopter - looks just like the B47, but smaller

 

[GVFlyer]

If your "in autorotation", (the way I understand it) then there should be no power therefore no torque applied to the transmission, therefore no spinning. If anything, you would have transmission drag which will actually tend to turn the helicopter the opposite direction as torque. Looking at your flight time and aircraft flown, you may know something I don't. Did you mean that 60 knots in POWERED flight will mainain some semblence of directional control due to the vertical stabilizer (asymmetric in the Astar) taking the load off the tail rotor.
I've never had one myself. Had a friend lose a tail rotor in an OH-6 while in a OGE hover. He said that it was extremely fast and was on the ground before he knew it. He instinctively got the power out though as fast as he could and hit upright before rolling over.

With a tailrotor failure some helicopters will streamline if sufficient airspeed is achieved and some measure of directional control will be maintained. In others this will not occur. I have included a representative Emergency Procedure for a tail rotor failure from the first helicopter -1 I found at my hacienda.



9-19. COMPLETE LOSS OF TAIL ROTOR THRUST.

This situation involves a break in the drive system, such as a severed driveshaft, causing the tail rotor to lose power.


a. Powered flight.


(1) Indications:


(a) Pedal input has no effect on helicopter trim.

(b) Nose of the helicopter turns to the right (left sideslip).

(c) Left roll of fuselage along the longitudinal axis.




NOTE


Degree of roll and sideslip may be varied by varying throttle and/or collective. (At airspeeds below 40 knots, the sideslip may become uncontrollable, and the helicopter will begin to spin on the vertical axis.)


(2) Procedures:


(a) If safe landing area is not immediately available, continue powered flight to suitable landing area at or above minimum rate of descent autorotational airspeed.

(b) When landing area is reached, make an autorotative landing.

(c) Use airspeed above minimum rate of descent airspeed.

(d) If landing area is suitable for run-on landing, touch down above effective translational lift.

(e) If run-on landing is not possible, start to decelerate from about 75feet altitude, so that forward ground speed is at a minimum when the helicopter reaches 1 0 to 20 feet. Execute the touchdown with a rapid collective pull just prior to touchdown in a level attitude with minimum ground speed.



b. Power off. (Autorotation).


(1) Indication. Pedal input has no effect on trim.

(2) Procedures:


(a) Maintain airspeed above minimum rate of descent airspeed.

(b) If run-on landing is possible, complete autorotation with a touchdown airspeed above effective translational lift.

(c) If run-on landing is not possible, start to decelerate from about 75 feet altitude, so that forward ground speed is at a minimum when the helicopter reaches 1 0 to 20 feet; execute the touchdown with a rapid collective pull just prior to touchdown in a level attitude with minimum ground speed.



GV









~

 

[helimech]

First of all, back to Matt's original question.....I've flown both the R22 and Bell 47 and have quite a bit of time in them. They both have their strong points. The Bell 47: Extremely stabil aircraft!! Very forgiving, even with loss of tail rotor thrust (IF!!!!) you have metal blades!!! If not and you have the wood blades, well then you have to be very cautious your last 75 feet down with your airspeed, but it is definately do able, I used to do it all of the time (on purpose and not on purpose). The R22 on the other hand... you have to watch everything a little closer and have to be right on it when you lose anything... engine, runaway governor or tail rotor if at low airspeeds. The only thing i can suggest Matt is to go up with an EXPERIENCED instructor on the R22 and he/she will show you exactly what the aircraft can and can't do... for the commercial checkride in any of the Robby's you have to demonstrate everything!!! Low G pushovers, loss of T/R, engine, electrical system, everything!! They are both fun aircraft to fly. As for the 300, I haven't had very good luck with those! All the ones I ever fly are because they were rolled over and have just come out of maintenance and they always suck after that!!! But try as many as you can!! Just to get your license out of the way, finish up with the Bell and then transition over to the Robinson. One of my customers told me the other day, that they would rather hire somebody with 200 hours in an R22 then somebody who has a 1000hrs flying any type of turbine, because you definately are on your toes when you fly an R22....

 

[mattpilot]

thx helimech - very useful advice!

I'm also glad i got you to post your first post in my thread

 

[GVFlyer]

First of all, back to Matt's original question.....I've flown both the R22 and Bell 47 and have quite a bit of time in them. They both have their strong points. The Bell 47: Extremely stabil aircraft!! Very forgiving, even with loss of tail rotor thrust (IF!!!!) you have metal blades!!! If not and you have the wood blades, well then you have to be very cautious your last 75 feet down with your airspeed, but it is definately do able, I used to do it all of the time (on purpose and not on purpose).

How would you simulate (on purpose) a loss-of-thrust tailrotor failure? Put in full right pedal and hope for the best? And maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd be flying a helicopter that had me doing tail rotor failure emergency procedures, "all of the time (...not on purpose)."

The R22 on the other hand... you have to watch everything a little closer and have to be right on it when you lose anything... engine, runaway governor or tail rotor if at low airspeeds. The only thing i can suggest Matt is to go up with an EXPERIENCED instructor on the R22 and he/she will show you exactly what the aircraft can and can't do... for the commercial checkride in any of the Robby's you have to demonstrate everything!!! Low G pushovers, loss of T/R, engine, electrical system, everything!! They are both fun aircraft to fly. As for the 300, I haven't had very good luck with those! All the ones I ever fly are because they were rolled over and have just come out of maintenance and they always suck after that!!! But try as many as you can!! Just to get your license out of the way, finish up with the Bell and then transition over to the Robinson. One of my customers told me the other day, that they would rather hire somebody with 200 hours in an R22 then somebody who has a 1000hrs flying any type of turbine, because you definately are on your toes when you fly an R22....

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you are maintaining that the Robinson R22 is somehow better than other helicopters, particularly turbine helicopters, because it is difficult to fly?

GV

 

[Fox6]

t/r failure

How would you simulate (on purpose) a loss-of-thrust tailrotor failure? Put in full right pedal and hope for the best? And maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd be flying a helicopter that had me doing tail rotor failure emergency procedures, "all of the time (...not on purpose)."


Our company had an instructor that would simulate a tailrotor failure in a hover in a OH-6. Basically by releasing pedal pressure on the left pedal. The recovery was to initiate a hovering auto by rolling the throttle off. He was the only instructor out of five that would do this though. His exprience level was high enough though to get away with it. This is only possible with a collective mounted throttle however. In the BA-B2 Astar, the "fuel flow control" is on the floor and the procedure for tail rotor failure in a hover is to, and I'm paraphrasing this, maintain level and lower the collective until you contact the ground. Hopefully the rate of turn won't be too extreme with that big vertical stablizer on back, but I'll bet it 's still pretty ugly.