Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Bell 212 Collective rigging question

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Bell 212 Collective rigging question

Old 4th Mar 2013, 20:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bell 212 Collective rigging question

This is a question for my fellow Engineers.

I am bored at work today and was re-reading the maintenance manual (yes I am that bored) and It has always bothered me that I cannot come up with a good reason for why the manual states in paragraph 67-2 step 5 to shorten the servo input rod 3-5 turns for the collective servo while for both cyclic servos you are to shorten the input rod exactly 3 turns.

Obiously this is to protect the servos from being bottomed out and damaged at their extremes of travel but why is there a range allowed for the collective servo and a specific number for the cyclic servos?

I have had conversations with co-workers about this and haven't really been able to come up with a logical explanation, anyone on here have a fancy reason I can impress people with?

Last edited by cbox chip; 4th Mar 2013 at 20:56.
cbox chip is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2013, 23:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Dumb pilot input here, but could it be anything to do with allowing a range for an auto rev adjustment?
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 01:07
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Errrrrrrr.....that would be Pitch Change Links for that adjustment.
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 01:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
Yeah, just a thought that maybe there was some scope for adjustment at that end of the link too. Not particularly well founded, I'll grant you!
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 02:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,838
Received 50 Likes on 36 Posts
Maybe it is to ensure that the servo does bottom out and does not drive the collective sleeve into the stop and snap off the lever?

Read this

Albeit the 205/212 is slightly different with a 2 piece link.



RVDT is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 03:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gosport, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having been involved in this broken 412 collective lever from listening to the pilot trying to land the machine and the subsequent Bell investigation, I can categorically state that this failure has nothing to do with the collective being mis-rigged but metal fatigue possibly caused by overzealous shot peening during manufacture, if you had included the electron microscopic photo's of the shear plane it would give you a better understanding of that event.

S
stacey_s is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 03:22
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,838
Received 50 Likes on 36 Posts
Stacey - operative word being "Maybe"

As to your categorical statement - are you familiar with the total life and history of the lever in question?

It pays to keep an open view.

Dont get me started on control bolt heads coming off!
RVDT is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 03:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
...if that bit broke off in-flight, and the pilot has been able to land it in one piece, he's done a remarkable job
gulliBell is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 03:41
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,838
Received 50 Likes on 36 Posts
Clearly without doubt.

Having had a rotating control bolt head fly off and it remain only because of a tiny part of the radius under the head left it certainly makes you review things in depth!

I dont mind being a statistic - its the size that is the issue!
RVDT is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 03:57
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,218
Received 317 Likes on 176 Posts
It's fascinating to see that picture, as I had one of the bolts in the linkage shear and the resulting twisting meant the other bolt couldn't be removed conventionally. I spent a lot of time trying to work out what the effect would have been if and when the second bolt had failed
212man is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 12:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Ask Dog Breath.....as Monty isn't around to answer any questions.
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 12:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,218
Received 317 Likes on 176 Posts
SAS, different bolt! I'm more than well aware of Monty's bolt (with C.C.C who frequents here). ARK got off Scott free from that one! My bolt would have given the same symptoms as the link failure in photo.
212man is online now  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 13:18
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Different bolt...but much the same reaction if it had broken.

Scary stuff...."cast iron" failures in a helicopter!
SASless is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2013, 20:37
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's scary to look at, but I do not think that failure has anything to do with the control system being mis-rigged.

Shortening the input rod end is without a doubt to prevent servo and airframe damage.

If the input rod was too long AND the servo's bottom rod end bearing was not adjusted to the proper length to fit exactly in the bottom fitting the servo would be exerting force against the airframe between its upper mounting ladder beam and the lower fitting when at its fully extended position. Or at least that is my understanding.

My question is as to why the cyclic system gives an exact number of turns to shorten its servos' input tubes while the collective allows you a range of adjustment (which isn't really useful for any other part of the rigging procedure.)

It's not really important I guess, I just hate reading the manual and doing things "because that's what the book says" and not for a logical reason that I can explain to myself.

Last edited by cbox chip; 5th Mar 2013 at 20:42.
cbox chip is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2014, 14:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Santiago
Age: 50
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bell 212 airframe

Dear college


Anybody knows some web page or some person who has a complete 3D model airframe to Bell 212, like this details??
I need make a simulation in FEM to crash situation.
Thank´s for your time.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0ayufij6n57jnl/airframe.png
flavio.debarbieri is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.