Originally Posted by
Scardy
Blakmax. Sorry you lost me right after
MRB SEPERATION HISTORY. 
"...Separation..."
Why would that have been an end to an intelligent discussion. BlakMax is a world renowned expert in an interesting field that gains relevance by the day. His treatise on bond physics is fascinating, and when considered in light of various kludge repairs that get done on composites or bonded metal structures is of more than passing interest. His Boron patches were pretty darn good... Following the physics of a bonded edge with "additional structural" rivets clears the mind on the state of the designs we fly.
For the subject UH1H event, the wreckage mapping will tell a story, as will detail analysis, but the conditions make rotor separation a possibility, to be disproved by the debris field analysis. The instrumentation is interesting, lots of possibilities there, however driving around dependent on geriatric gyros without comparators etc is not much worse off than an iphone or ipad taped to the panel with their own mems sensors or using a modern external AHRS sensor, all of which work well, until the batteries fail, you get an inbound call, the ipad times out.. etc. My little 2 seat jet has the same gyro that came out of the USSR in the middle of the Viet Nam war, and the ipad is a desirable safety enhancement to relying on a T&S to keep the blue side upper most.
My recollection of the UH1 separation sequence is that it would end up with a strike through the cabin quite often. which is similar to the RHC mast bump cases. MR-tail boom impact other than blade sailing, seemed to be more prevalent with heavier single rotor designs where the TPP can alter rapidly and the fuselage pendulous response is slower, thinking of CH-53's and similar (not a mast bump case of course, they could get to stop pounding but not a characteristic mast bump as such).
Wasn't a nice day to go fly by the sounds of it.