PDA

View Full Version : Flying Pumas


heli1
17th Jan 2008, 08:19
I hear that the RAF may revise its Puma training after concerns that the narrow undercarriage is causing roll overs far too frequently .Any pilots with Puma experience can confirm that and any other handling problems ?

bolkow
17th Jan 2008, 08:31
I am not a Puma pilot but I have heard of that particular tendency with them, I first noticed instances of this happening with Bristows or Bond, they use them extensively in the North Sea and it has been an issue in that they have had wheels go airborne after landing if not taxying quite carefully. Its noticable that the beam is very narrow on those aircraft, very much so if yoyu compare it with a S61.

Tail-take-off
17th Jan 2008, 09:07
At Bristows we used to taxi the S61 with the stick laterally neutral but it was noticeable how much lateral tilt the super-puma pilots were using.

OverTq
17th Jan 2008, 09:41
With 3000hrs + on Pumas - I only know of one roll over, and that was on take-off to the hover (wrong pedal, I believe). There is a tendency to lift the inside wheel if cornering tightly and too fast - inside cyclic stops that and has been taught to Puma studes for donkey's years.

FredFri
17th Jan 2008, 12:21
At Bristows we used to taxi the S61 with the stick laterally neutral but it was noticeable how much lateral tilt the super-puma pilots were usingTotally agree, it really depends on the type of undercarriage.

I don't know the S61, but I have flown 330's and 332's : you (almost) don't need any lateral input with the 330 whereas you definitely have to put some with a 332.

Since the RAF operates 330's, I am surprised they have "frequent" roll-overs.
I have flown 330's for 15 years and I only recall 2 near-misses (one due to ice on the apron).

Hippolite
18th Jan 2008, 04:23
I think there was a rollover on taxying in Aberdeen in around 1996 to a Bristow aircraft (G-TIGT) if I remember going onto stand 1 in their ramp area?

There was also a rollover on the helideck of the West Navion Drillship caused by the vessel's DP system failing in around 2003 (although the aircraft was not moving)

Variable Load
18th Jan 2008, 04:42
There was also a Bond AS332L that rolled onto it's side at Aberdeen when it was being towed in strong winds. So it doesn't need too much force to topple one of these machines!!

JimL
18th Jan 2008, 07:08
See if HC can be tempted into this discussion; he might be able to provide a rounded evaluation of this issue.

There have been a number of roll-overs: some due to environmental conditions; and others due to mechanical forces. In the latter case, the limits of operability are well know and are emphasized during training sessions. The limits are reached on too many sorties - a fact known because of the routine collection of operational data.

Jim

obnoxio f*ckwit
18th Jan 2008, 21:40
I hear that the RAF may revise its Puma training after concerns that the narrow undercarriage is causing roll overs far too frequently .Any pilots with Puma experience can confirm that and any other handling problems ?

No we're not. Where did you hear that from?

There is a tendency to lift the inside wheel if cornering tightly and too fast

and especially if the wind is blowing from the into turn direction, however

- inside cyclic stops that and has been taught to Puma studes for donkey's years.

and we still teach it now.

Since the RAF operates 330's, I am surprised they have "frequent" roll-overs.


You and me both, because we don't!

ShyTorque
18th Jan 2008, 22:05
Quote:
- inside cyclic stops that and has been taught to Puma studes for donkey's years.

and we still teach it now.


The Puma was the first aircraft I flew operationally. Having been taught to use in-turn cyclic whilst ground taxying I still do it on every other wheeled aircraft I fly, just comes naturally to do it.

It did cause some puzzled laughter when I went back to fixed wing and used in-turn aileron on the ground :E

The only taxying roll-over I know of occurred nearly thirty years ago on a first solo on type.

BedakSrewet
18th Jan 2008, 22:31
There have been several Puma ( SA330 series ) roll -over cases since commencing service in the early seventies, of which the first one occurred in Sumatra / Indonesia around '72, where Schreiner operated 10 or so on behalf of Pelita, the aviation arm of state oil company Pertamina.

The Puma was originally designed for a military role and had to be 'transportable' in the ( also French designed ) C-160 Transall.

Hence the narrow body and landing gear, which caused the roll over problem.

Voila !

Rotorhead77
19th Jan 2008, 00:58
We've been flying a 332 in Halifax for one year now. Taxiing is certainly different from the 61 but our biggest issues would be with taxiing on the ice.

The double nose wheel can be difficult to turn when it's icy so we've found (after some slipping and sliding) that it's safer to engage the autopilot and hover taxi. The high C of G and hefty tail rotor don't help on the ice either.

norwyreq
19th Jan 2008, 20:46
I've flown(and taxied) 330's and 332's. When on the ground they both have a tendency to roll out of the turn, especially the 332 due to the longer wheel base.

HOWEVER!!! If you don't taxi like like race car diver trying to qualify on pole in a touring car race!:} You should be fine.

Impress to inflate
20th Jan 2008, 00:48
Leed with cyclic dear boy ! 7000+ hours on AS332's. I was always taught to leed with cyclic especially in strong winds and a light load. The Bristows originaly had 330's with a shorter wheel base that made them more top heavy but when the 332L arrived on the scene, it has a longer wheel base thus lowering it's c of g.

Fareastdriver
20th Jan 2008, 07:41
it has a longer wheel base thus lowering it's c of g.

Nothing to do with the CofG. The fuselage plug means that up to 40% of the aircraft's weight is on the nosewheel, that's why it is so difficult to turn compared with a short version. SOPs at Marignane when towing during the Mistral was to open both cabin doors to stop it being blown over. Unfortunately they did not tell Bristow or Bond.

heli1
20th Jan 2008, 09:49
The roll over/fall over ? tale I read was more to do with actual Puma landings ,especially in poor visibility, than taxiing .There does seem to have been a lot of this type of incident ?

Cim Jartner
20th Jan 2008, 15:46
I think the chance of a Puma rolling over during taxi is very limited - however the chance of one rolling over on a 'heavy' landing caused by any sort of power failure, mishandling is almost guaranteed.

I know someone who has had hard landings due to power 'failure' in both a Wessex and a Puma. In the Wessex incident he had a little sideways movement on landing and was full of troops - the ac stayed upright. On the Puma he landed with only forward movement, reasonably light etc but went over on its side - he states to this day that had the second incident happened in a Wessex it would have stayed upright!

serf
20th Jan 2008, 16:10
Why dont you just hover taxi?

Fareastdriver
21st Jan 2008, 01:06
To ruddy noisy. British Caledonian Helicopters took delivery of their Bell 214STs with skids. In less than a year they had been replaced with a wheeled undercarriage.

Bristow had one blown over being towed crosswind at Newcastle and the one that fell over on the deck North West of Shetland was blown over because the ship altered its heading unexpectedly.

As one poster mentioned before. The fuselage had not only to fit into a Transall and but also a railway truck. That's where the Turmo came from, it was used in high speed express trains.

BedakSrewet
21st Jan 2008, 04:31
The Turbomeca Turmo IIIC series engines were actually first installed on the SA321 "Super Frelon' in the early / mid 60's, and the IIIC4 model was then installed on the SA330 Puma's.

The industrial / railroad traction version was -and probably still are-, being operated on trains including a number in Iran for many years.

ShyTorque
21st Jan 2008, 07:32
The good old Turmo IIIC4. A faithful, reliable gas guzzler. Despite its lack of sophistication (or perhaps because of it) I never personally had a failure in 10 years on the Puma. Can't think of any suffered by anyone else, either. The one so-called failure on take off I can recall about 25 years ago might have been a "man/throttle positioning interface" issue.

Had at least one big wood pigeon (it might have been two at the same time) go down an intake, at low level in Germany (PIPS not then fitted). The engine never coughed or burped, everything just carried on working. We landed on to have a look. Lots of partly cooked pieces of pigeon and burned feathers in the exhaust can and a smell of barbeque. Nothing to be seen on the compressor. Engineers said it looks OK, so if it starts and it works OK, take it home for a compressor wash. We did, and there was no damage.

Attila
21st Jan 2008, 19:55
As Fred Fri stated, when taxying the S61, the cyclic was laterally stable.

When taxying the 332, the cyclic was used in the turns, as was the collective. This was following the rollover incident in Aberdeen, when Aerospat pointed out a CofG graph to Bristows.

Mike Betts spent a happy(?) morning doing handbrake turns on the dispersal exploring the envelope (I believe is the correct term) whilst taxying around.

Furthermore, Bristow had another incident in Scatsta around October '06 when a 332 was blown over whilst being towed back into the shed.

Can't remember the Captains' name of the 332 which rolled over, but the P2 remembers getting a boot in the face as the P1 exited the aircraft!!

Fareastdriver
21st Jan 2008, 22:57
Turmo IIIC4s eating pigeons was a standard occurrence in NI. Homing pigeons caused problems because their leg rings would nick the compressor. Five minutes with a half moon file would round it off.

Coming out of Wildenrath fully loaded with Seckt, including two cases pre-ordered by customs, we went IMC in sparrows. The noise was incredible, just like heavy flak. We turned back because the screens were covered in blood and guts so we needed them cleaned so we could see where we were going.

These were the days when if a dragonfly went into a Harrier’s intake it was instant Cat 5 so we had the whole show out to meet us when we got back. After shooing away the blokes in the asbestos suits we started to clean up the aircraft.

Whilst we were prising carcasses out of the rotor head the SEngO arrived. We levered him up to the engine panels and he was horrified see the multiple skid marks in the intakes. I spun the engines a couple of times but it took a lot of persuading to convince him that there was nothing wrong with them. He did insist that we swept out the debris in the intakes before we started it up

Reading some technical manual on the Turmo it was cleared to run on any fuel, ranging from petrol, through Avtur, diesel and even liquefied coal. Birds were just another form of portable energy.

The same time on them than Shytorque, and again I never had a failure. Others not so lucky, I lost a couple of friends in Aberdeen when the good engine failed during a training sortie.

Fareastdriver
21st Jan 2008, 23:00
As we are on about taxiing, imagine the following scenario.

You are taxiing a Super Puma very close to a set of hanger doors on your starboard side. You marshaller gets very concerned about how close your rotor tips are to the obstacle. He signals you to turn away from it and you do. You apply full left pedal and brake, the brakes on the port wheel lock and you pivot through 90 degrees on the mainwheel.

What and when will happen to the tail rotor.

Impress to inflate
22nd Jan 2008, 01:37
Bristows had one role over in Aberdeen in the early 90's on there dispersal area, strong winds and a light fuel load I believe. Bts of the blades were found in the main terminal car park.

Snarlie
22nd Jan 2008, 23:39
Far East Driver is quite close but no coconut. The Turmo as fitted to the 330 was indeed tried in the Super Frelon. He confuses it with the Makila which was originally intended exclusively for the TGV but when it proved successful and reliable was adapted for use in the 332 to good effect.

I know there were many dodgy moments associated with the 330`s based in Sumburgh due to the narrow undercarriage track and one of the design changes stipulated by Bristow prior to considering the initial purchase of 332`s was the need to widen the track.

Fareastdriver
23rd Jan 2008, 06:26
I don’t think I’m confused. The French railways started experiments with the Turmo IIIF in 1966, well before the Makila was thought of. They started running the first turbine powered trains in 1970 between Paris-Cherbourg/Caen.

The first Puma with ‘Super Puma’ painted on the side was at Marignane when I looked over it in 1977. It was one of the original mid 60s 330 prototypes with the semi flat windscreens and big snout a la Huey. It had Makilas, single wheeled U/C, and interestingly, a fuselage plug at the back instead of the front. They also had a Puma with a fenestron but they didn’t seem to want to talk about that.

Bristows didn’t have a lot of choice with the undercarriage, that’s how it came. A French Navy requirement, it was standardized throughout the range. That is why it has a 5 metres/sec (900 ft/min) landing capability, kneeling U/c to fit into ships' hangers and lashing hooks on the side.

But it still had to fit inside a railway truck.

23rd Jan 2008, 19:35
I think of all the Pumas we have lost in the last few years, rolling over due to the narrow undercarriage has been bottom of the list of causes:(

heli1
24th Jan 2008, 08:30
...So what's high on the list ???

AusWhirlyBusDriver
24th Jan 2008, 13:06
About 99% of my time is on wheeled helicopters. A reasonable percentage is on the AS332L. I cannot comment on the SA330J, I was not lucky (or unlucky some might say) enough to fly her.

A few interesting facts have been highlighted in the thread, of which I am sure a few are contributing factors to rollover (high CofG, narrow wheel base and weight being an issue with light fuel load).

One that I was taught (& subsequently now teach) & which has not been mentioned is that fact that a large tail rotor force exists (up to 2 tonnes of thrust I have been told) when applying excessive right pedal duing a ground taxi turn.
Pretty well the worst case scenerio would be with a very light fuel load, a ground taxi right turn with a wind from your right, therefore producing an excessive rolling moment to the left (especially if too much right pedal is applied in the turn). Is that clear?:\

Like I was alwasy taught;

"When your light & turning right, best be careful else you'll get a fright!"

Someone else pointed out lead with cyclic. I agree. Combine this with keeping a level frame and going easy on the right turns with pedal & you should be right. (I also avoid right turns with low fuel and no pax where possible).
Good luck.:ok:

Fareastdriver
24th Jan 2008, 23:43
"When your light & turning right, best be careful else you'll get a fright!"

and don't be afraid to use differential braking.

It always amazes me to watch pilots boot a Puma around the ground with legfulls of tail rotor. The manufacturers went to a great deal of trouble to but brakes in for the pilots (for Bristow read pilot) to use for maneuvering on the ground. There is nothing unusual about it, thousands and thousands of single piston or jet aircraft HAVE to do it.

The original tail boom/pylon attachment fitted to the Puma was more than adequate to cater for the aerodynamic loads but it been pilots trying to twist the pylon off ground taxiing that has led to the doubling, and now, trebling plates on the joint.

Don't throw in the old chestnut that the manufacturer did not expect the aircraft to taxi so much on offshore work. The French military taxi theirs for miles.

I personally always initiate any sort of an appreciable turn with brake and normal a couple of toefuls will do. Slight correction with the tail rotor to control the rate of turn but large elements need more brake.

If the brakes don't work properly or the nosewheel resists the turn. Get them fixed.

HeliComparator
3rd Feb 2008, 13:39
Missed this thread due to holidays. As AWBD says, the problem arises from the large amount of tailrotor thrust that can be generated by right pedal. The couple between the high tailrotor and the wheels can be enough to cause rollover. Taxy speed has nothing to do with it- you can make it roll over when its stationary if you try hard enough, esp. with a crosswind, deck motion etc

Lateral cyclic can be used to make the articulated head generate a couple in the opposite direction to cancel out (or at least reduce) the rollover couple - ie move cyclic and pedals in the same direction. One problem can occur is that there is no indication for dumb pilots as to what is the neutral position for the cyclic - thus its possible for someone to have right pedal and left cyclic without realising it. Not a good situation!

As others said, best to limit right pedal - use differential braking and avoid tight right turns, esp when light (vertical centre of gravity rises when there is not much fuel and no pax - high centre of gravity = more likely to roll over).

Interestingly on the EC225 they have changed the "gearing" between collective and pedals so that with the lever down, full right pedal gives less thrust than on the 332 and 330. For taxying straight ahead, pedal position is about 30% to the right from centre, but as you raise the lever it becomes more in the middle so pedal authority in the hover in undiminished (in fact more thrust due to increase weight / power). The undesireable side effect of this is that when you do a running landing, you have to feed in a lot of right pedal as you lower the lever after touchdown, otherwise it hurtles off to the left!

HC

170'
2nd May 2009, 07:44
Can anyone advise if an STC exists for installing makilas on the puma?
Thanks..170'

mtoroshanga
2nd May 2009, 07:53
I am almost certain that Makilas were installed in a number of 330 models used by the South African Air Force and I also read somewhere that MoD bought 6 of them from that source. Company involved would be Atlas or Dennel I think.

victor papa
2nd May 2009, 08:31
EC has established a team as far as I know who now only works with the "older generation" pre Eurocopter designs. On their last visit I was told they are looking at certifying a optional SB for the Makila. It will involve more than the engine itself as I do not think the 330 drivetrain left standard will handle the Makila's rate of acceleration once she gets going.

As to the taxi issues. If a Squirrel had wheels it would probably behave the same with too much right pedal. So, do we adjust our behaviour and do not use that right pedal too much or do we want the manufacturer to provide us with a less effective tail rotor. When I go hot and high and heavy-I'll adjust my taxi and take all the tail rotor I can get.

170'
2nd May 2009, 08:35
VP....Any chance you have contact details for this 'team' ? PM if preferable
Thanks...

victor papa
2nd May 2009, 08:54
170, will pm you on Monday with their details-just need to remember.

drakkar
2nd May 2009, 12:37
Several SA 330 have been upgraded by a Roumanian company for UAE Air force.
The modifications comprised Makilas + chain of transmission plus upgrade with digital display. I am not sure about the number of helos (15 ??)

170'
3rd May 2009, 08:08
Thanks for the input and PM's...

Regards ...170'

212man
3rd May 2009, 10:41
As to the taxi issues. If a Squirrel had wheels it would probably behave the same with too much right pedal.

I very much doubt it - the Squirrel doesn't have the TR at the top of a vertical fin, so would most likely ground-handle like a 365/155, which handles pretty benignly. Difficult to beat the 76 though for all round ground handling.

The 332 has trailing arms (like a 2CV!) whereas the 330 has vertical oleos, so much of the difference in handling probably lies there.