Originally Posted by
nigelh
Realistically the power reduction needed for loss of t/r thrust will come from collective and not throttle?
Agree, that's how I was told. Stuck TR w/o churning noise:
Pick an airstrip within reach for a +40kts run-on landing, eating away all the landing gear glide pads.
Lacking an airstrip pick a "wide", straigth and level back country road.
Lacking a suitable road pick a flat, level meadow.
This is where
throttle control becomes important because roll-over dwells close by:
while zipping through grass at 1 ft AGL pitch up is nose to the right (e.g. bad) pitch down is nose to the left, wind from 11 'o clock preferred.
The key is to really have a very long stretch of grass (doh) and to approach ground inch by inch, keeping skids in parallel with trajectory by pitch control just described.
This is how I have to annually demonstrate "stuck TR landings", as the ATO would like to preverve carbid skid protectors' life.
So we do a couple of super shallow final approaches to an imaginary line some 30 yards off the centerline into the grass, till full stop, w/o touching them pedals.
Stuck TR accompanied by grinding noise or worse ("land immediately"), or hostile ground (in this case less than half a mile of level grass) as far as one's remaining fuel can reach
would command an AR landing.
I'm pretty sure during the very end, right after the flare, I'd be facing ugly spinning, although an unpowered MR "should" not create any torque on the fuselage.
Are these concepts about right, for a S300C?
note: I must admitt never to have been demonstrated let alone done myself a landing with the TR stuck at 100% or 100%.
Does this happen in real life?
For what AoA will the TR blades settle, when the TR control rod breaks/unscrews, leaving the TR pitch mechanism "freewheeling" w/o any control input?