Helicopters are useless and dangerous!!

[TIMTS]

No..not really.
But I have had the "pleasure" of having to argue this point with some fixed wing people lately, and even a couple of rotorheads!!

Arguments like "they are useless because they are slow, and ugly" and "if the engine fails below 400' you are DEAD" came up with some regularity. The latter from a heli pilot.

In the end I chose to ignore the ignorance, but is this a common theme out there...or did I just stumble into the wrong place??

[Haggis Hunter]

The reason they're saying that is because they're jealous!

HH:cool:

[TIMTS]

Thats what I thought, until a heli pilot came up with the argument that below 400' an engine failure will kill you.
Scary

[SASless]

No deader than maybe an engine failure in a fixed wing under 400 feet. Given a choice I would certainly opt for the helicopter in that situation. No forward speed and a very slow vertical rate of descent at landing beats the airplane alternative.

The success rate would hinge more on the terrain and obstacles that one lands on and in more than anything.

[Whirlybird]

In the UK, one can rarely fly legally below 500 ft anyway. :(

When I flew in the US, where most of our flying was low level, we regularly practised auto-rotations from around 400 ft. I somehow don't remember being dead after any of them. Or did the experience do in my memory, and am I now a flying ghost? :confused: :eek:

[cyclic_fondler]

I wonder how many people who have been winched off ships or off mountains by these "slow and ugly" machines would think that they're useless!! :ok:

[slowrotor]

In the case of private ownership, I think there is a good bit of truth to the idea that helicopters are "useless".
Mostly because of the noise, the majority of owners could not base the heli in their back yard nor can a heli land in very many places in populated areas. Most of the heli flights are to or from airports for that reason (noise).
A personal heli needs to be almost silent like any automobile if wide use is to occur in my opinion.
The fact that a heli cant be safely hovered at 200 ft also limits the only reason one would want to choose a heli in the first place, the ability to hover low and fly slow.

Thats why fixed wing out number helis for personal use by about 1000 to 1 (just guessing).... and fixed wings are not really useful either if you really think about the problems of weather and lack of transfer from the distant airport to where you need to go.
For personal use, flight is mostly just to "commit aviation" as an old friend said.
I understand that helis have no practical use but I still want one as a toy.

As for power loss in the so called dead zone at say 200ft, is death a given? or is it possible to survive with major damage? Anybody have actual experience?
Thanks for your attention,
slow

[Salty123]

We used to do turning autos at 250 in the 206. Of course, too many of them were to overshoot and a couple thundered in but everyone walked away. I think terrain and obstacles would be the biggest factor.

[chopperpilot47]

Safe autorotations at low level are all about speed. If you have height you can gain speed. If you have speed it really does not matter what height you are when you enter an autorotation. 50' would be fine as long as you have forward speed.

A hovering autorotation with no airspeed is a different matter. The Bell 47 is great up to 20' or so, the 206 is better than that.

I presume reference to the "dead zone" is the height/velocity curve. I do wish people wouldn't call it the dead zone. I do lots of autorotations every day in my job and I have never felt that I'm risking death.

Chopperpilot47

[rotornut]

below 400' an engine failure will kill you.
Well, I'm still alive! I was a pax in a 206A that flamed out at about 45' and very little airspeed. It came down hard but we all walked away. The bathtub and skids were damaged, though.

[SASless]

Chopper pilot....

High speed at too little height can also be a problem....back in another life...in a land far far away...when among God's Own Lunatics, we used to return with green streaks on the chin bubbles and rice straw hanging from the landing gear and cargo hook.....from flying at minimum height.....an engine failure could have put us onto the ground long before we could use a cyclic climb to both slow and ascend. I always thought I would yank the collective and follow with cyclic....hoping Nr droop could be reversed by a hard flare type deceleration....then proceed with a "normal" autorotation. That kind of flying was trading one set of perils for another....

[maxspeed]

well having had 3 fixedwing engine faliures all below 150ft , i'm confident that as a green rotorhead and when my "numbers up" as far as engine faliure in a heli goes (and knowing me it will be below 150ft!) my ongoing nagging to my instructor to continually practicse autos with me will pay off!

[Dave_Jackson]

slowrotor,

You're demanding a lot.
low "noise"
"base the heli in their back yard"
"hover low"
"fly slow"
"lack of transfer from the distant airport to where you need to go"
no "dead zone"


Fortunatly there is a free lunch! :D


http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/Slow_Low1.gif

` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/Slow_Low2.gif


Dave :ok:

[slowrotor]

Chopperpilot47,
I should have asked : Will a power loss at 200ft and no airspeed result in death?
You are correct when you said "if you have speed then it really does not matter what height you are when you enter autorotation". But in that case you are not in the avoid zone of the height /velocity curve anyway.

For cases that were in the avoid zone of the height/velocity curve some may have survived. If you happen to be just barely inside the avoid zone then theoretically a good pilot could land with minor damage if any. But if you are smack in the middle of the avoid zone then I suppose death is likely.
Another curve could perhaps be drawn that would show the limit between death and just totalling the helo. That would be the part of the envelope to avoid with more purpose.

Rotornut said "I survived a flameout from 45ft without injury and some damage". Has anybody survived a power loss even higher inside the avoid zone of the height /velocity curve without airspeed?

Thanks,
slow

Dave J.
Thats not the first time you have suggested I take up ballooning.

[bugdevheli]

Would I be correct in saying that if a rotor system were available that would permit engine off landings from around 50 feet ,that there might well be a worldwide demand and that the inventor of such a device might well make a few pounds out of it. By"engine off", I mean sudden loss of engine power, no warning, little or no foreward speed. As a matter of interest would anyone having experienced an engine failure under the above circumstances please enlighten us together with details of any structural damage inflicted. Thank you so kindly. Bug.

[CyclicRick]

Why would you even crash at 200' after an engine failure? (apart from terrain problems) What would the longliners among us say to that? The last company I worked with it was fairly normal to practice autorotations from all sorts of heights and speeds, including simulating hovering over a load, and yes above 50'....I'm still here.

[SASless]

The other issue is what kind of rotor system you have when you begin this autorotation exercise......give me the wonderful old Huey or 212 anytime.

[Dave_Jackson]

slowrotor,

Please don't think that I'm suggesting you consider ballooning as an alternative to rotorcraft or other potential means of VTOL. :{. It is only meant to be humor from the free-thinking of a demented mind.

On further thought, if the Russians can do something to the surface of the torpedoes so that the travel at 200 knots per hour in water, perhaps something can be done to the surface of dirigibles so that they travel at 200 knots per hour in air. :rolleyes:

Dave :ok:

[chopperpilot47]

Slowrotor asked "I should have asked : Will a power loss at 200ft and no airspeed result in death?
You are correct when you said "if you have speed then it really does not matter what height you are when you enter autorotation". But in that case you are not in the avoid zone of the height /velocity curve anyway".

I really don't think so although I haven't tried it. I would have thought that from 200' you could gain enough airspeed to make a reasonable touchdown out of it in the right helicopter. Bell 47/206 would be OK I think. I have certainly done vertical autos to touchdown but in a reasonable wind so I suppose you could argue they were not nil airspeed.

In any event I'm talking about an undamaged helicopter, I am confident that a quick auto from 200' would not result in death or injury.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[oldbeefer]

Our militery students practice EOLs from 100ft and 90kts and 120kts. No problem with either - some height can be gained if at 120. BUT these are always preceeded by 'practice engine failure GO'. I think an engine failure with no warning would be hugely different - the amount of Nr decay during the pilot's reaction time would be significant (depending on type - think of a R22!). However, with sufficient forward speed most aircraft types would recover Nr during a flare. From then on it's all down to what's underneath you!

[Devil 49]

Helicopters are useless and dangerous?

I flew'em in Viet Nam. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are alive today, because of helicopters.

I fly helo EMS.

I'll tell you with complete assurance that there is no truth to the engine failure below 400 feet statement BS. Yes, you can put yourself in a non-survivable situation in a helicopter- as you can in an airplane, automobile, canoe... However, there's an argument to be made that the safest single engine aircraft in the world is a helicopter. I know I feel safer, at least from a power failure aspect,in a helo.

The reason that there aren't more personal helos? Expense, and to a lesser extent, noise. I know professionals who can justify the cost of the few minutes saved and operate personal helos, but they are few and far in between. For ordinary mortals, $3-4 dollars a mile to reduce and hour's commute to 30 minutes is impractical.

Now, airplanes- they are truly ugly, impractical and dangerous. But they are cheaper.

[MaxNg]

Dave

200 kt torpedo!!!!!!!

You drinkin again?:)

[CyclicRick]

SASless:

Yes indeedee, we did it in 205's most of the time but 206's are also ok

Rick

[slowrotor]

OK, the responses seem to indicate that the so called "dead man curve" or height velocity envelope is really not always a situation that ends in death. Hmmm. thats very interesting. My idea about buying an enstrom for low level fun is looking better.
Anybody else have thoughts on just what part of the height/velocity envelope will really kill you?

Dave J,
Actually I looked at balloons with some interest, I considered "thermal airships", a hot air balloon with a motor for propulsion. They actually exist, and have some advantages over the heli, such as, silent hover, no down wash, portable in pickup truck and, of course, no "height velocity envelope". Top speed 15kts to 30 kts for the high performance models (I think). Do a google search on "thermal airship", sorry, I dont know how to post a pic here. They use em for sport events.

regards,
slowrotor

[chopperpilot47]

The height/ velocity curve should be avoided where possible. Yes, I know that there are always situations where we creep into it to get the task done. As I said "avoid" it. If you do, you should not have any problems at all. I would not recommend hovering at say 80 or 100'. That would be a problem to say the least.

I have never thought that flying a helicopter is dicing with death. There are risks of course but a well maintained machine in the hands of a competent pilot should come back for dinner. I have had 3 engine failures in fixed wing aircraft in my time and none in helicopters but I know which I prefer. Helicopters every time when it goes quiet.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[bugdevheli]

Can we get back to the 50 feet situation. 50feet in a Robinson, Rotorway Exec, or any two seat very light helocopter. No airspeed. Sudden engine failure, .No warning. Has anyone ever been in this situation?. A friend of mine had a power failure at about fifteen feet whilst accelerating through that part of the height velocity chart that indicated one had a reasonable chance of making a landing in an emergency. It required a JCB to extract the machine from where it was embedded in the ground, and this was in a three bladed machine with reasonably heavy blades, but the unexpected caught him out. Dont worry Slowrotor in was not an Enstrom.

[Dave_Jackson]

MaxNg,


"200 kt torpedo!!!!!!! You drinkin again?"


Naughty, naughty you; to think that anyone on this forum would try to distort information. :D

Russian 'Rocket' Torpedo Arms Chinese Subs (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/220813.shtml)


Dave

[tall and tasty]

TIMTS

"they are useless because they are slow, and ugly" and "if the engine fails below 400' you are DEAD" came up with some regularity. The latter from a heli pilot……
but is this a common theme out there...or did I just stumble into the wrong place??

I don't normal come into Rotorheads but this caught my eye. I don't fly but had the pleasure ?? of working with fixed wing flyers for 10 years and unfortunately the general consensus on the flight line was exactly that!

In fact I have been told they are “a piece of piss to fly” and what is the big deal from someone who fly’s B757/767 and never to my knowledge flown one!

But after spending an lovely evening in the company of ppruners who fly helis and having a good friend who has convinced me otherwise. I watched the film posted on here where they fly everyway including sideways/backwards and upside down I would love to see a commercial Boeing chap do that with his 757!

Each machine is an engineering feat whether fixed or roto and should have its own merits for how it flies and what is it used for! Don’t think a fixed wing other than harrier can hover while rescue is being carried out or airlift those off burning ships/buildings and used to get RTA’s to the ER department when necessary etc! But it does upset a layman like myself, hearing that sort of thing from professional pilots who should have respect for their fellow flyers and they do seem to refuse to budge their view!

TnT

[slowrotor]

This business of a power loss at 50 feet is of interest to me and Bugdevheli also.
If I buy an enstrom and keep it in my yard like Gaseous does, it will be in a confined area about 100ft diameter with about 50ft high trees on all sides.
How dangerous is that? Survivable? Should I clear more land?

your comments appreciated,
slowrotor

p.s. I read several old postings about cattle mustering... these guys appear to fly in the avoid zone almost continuous and I guess they get special training (on the job) from experienced pilots.

[chopperpilot47]

Hovering at 50' with no airspeed is really not a good idea. An engine failure at that height in most helicopters will result in a crash. Whether it will kill you or not is not predictable as it depends on lots of factors. If you intend to operate out of an area that requires a vertical descent and a vertical takeoff you need to find somewhere else. It is not safe to routinely fly in and out like that in a single engined helicopter. I haven't even mentioned settling with power or vortex ring state.

I don't know what else to say. You would not dream of flying an airplane at stalling speed or over VNE would you? In the same way stay out of the height/velocity curve and you'll be safe. Your training will teach you all about safe flying.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[slowrotor]

Thanks Chopperpilot47,
Info on results of power loss inside the dead man curve is hard to pin down.
Here is article about surviving in that situation by Ray Prouty. http://safecopter.arc.nasa.gov/Pages/Columns/RayProuty/ColPrty.html

I think because of the H/V limitations most helo operations(single engine) are restricted to areas with wide open approaches for an airplane like approach.
Yes, the helo can finish the approach with a hover and that is useful but a small ultralight airplane might be better in a power loss situation if 100ft or so of clear area is available to land. Both helo and ultralight have a similar glide so the same clear approaach area would be needed.
But the helo needs to establish autorotation, maybe the ultralight would win.

So we are back to the original posters question: are helicopters useless?

For search and rescue there is no question of the value.
For private use..... well that depends.
thanks
slowrotor

[Devil 49]

100 foot square LZ and 50 feet of trees, surrounding, is a serious situation. It's not a death sentence, but the pistol's certainly cocked- I would not operate routinely from such a pad (I fly EMS). If and when something happens, you will have nowhere to go, except the trees or vertical into the hover hole. Worse, the smallish LZ makes distractions and error particularly unforgiving. If I had a penny for all the trees I've seen hit...

Specifically:
First, a 100 feet is not a lot of room, in spite of how it looks on the ground, It is small from the air.
Next, the trick to surviving a power failure from 50 feet is having the opportunity to hit the ground a glancing blow, and use aircraft structure to absorb energy. You can't do that in a hover hole. You're going to hit the ground vertically (bad), or tumble through the trees.
Power failures are what we all worry about, but urgent situations, and emergencies, come in zillions of varieties. You have no space to develop options in your planned base- you have up, down, and into the trees.

[Dave_Jackson]

slowrotor,

In all seriousness, perhaps the solution to your quest is the UltraSport helicopter. It appears that the craft is very capable of vertical descents. In addition, $7,000,000.00 was spent in its development and yet they were selling the 254 for around $30,000.00.

" Date: 13-Dec-01 23:26 ~ Author: CA BEATY ~ Subject: UltraSport

As an engineering exercise Gary, this machine is state of the art and thoroughly professional. I understand the design team was mostly moonlighting Boeing engineers.

The rotorblades are built around a carbon fiber "D" spar with syntactic foam core and Kevlar skins over a milled Nomex honeycomb afterbody. Expensive.

A purpose built planetary gear reduction drive. No bicycle chains but again, expensive.

The feathering bearings are music wire torsion packs encapsulated in polyurethane.

Whether a Hirth engine and an overhead stick are appropriate is a matter of some controversy. "

The Hirth engines were mounted vertically and they had problems getting oil to the upper crankshaft bearing, but since then their 'H' models are said to eliminate this problem. A floor-mounted stick was available.

Perhaps a 'personalized' helicopter could be built using some of the UltraSport's components.

Just a thought.

Dave

[slowrotor]

Devil49
Great comments.
I have 100ft cleared now with another 200ft of land to clear. I did not want to clear every tree but maybe a corridor for approach will improve the site. Also working on a buyout of the ajoining lot, that would give about 600ftx75ft or so.

Dave J.
Not sure how much I should post here about the Ultrasport heli but I will say this:
1)I called two builders with phone numbers provided by the company. First one said "I do not fly higher than 15ft above the surface" also "vibration makes my left hand go numb"
2) Second owner said "Main gearbox lasted only 10hrs instead of the 500hrs advertised"... " as a machinist I have made numerous changes because of poor design of the rotor head etc."... "had several engine failures"
3) The company has not improved the design as far as I know. When this was brought to their attention the person said: "well you know, it is sold as experimental".
4) It is not shown at Oshkosh. I think they have some difficulty keeping a demo ship flyable.
The Ultrasport does seem to have amazing autorotation, on the video they demonstrate a throttle chop at 25ft!
Dave, there may be some good parts of use in the Ultrasport but I think a clean sheet design is best.

I found that several companies are offering heli products to people with no aviation experience and I see glowing reports in Kitplanes magazine where the author never mentions any defects.Some of the designs in the magazines feb2005 directory have not and can not fly. Maybe thats a good thing.
slowrotor

[quadrirotor]

What could be a dependable and unexpensive helico for private use?:confused:

[Heliport]

There are lots of 'dependable' helicopters.
'Inexpensive' is a relative term.
The cheapest, in relative terms, are probably the R22 and Schweizer 300, but there's no such thing, in absolute terms, as inexpensive helicopter flying.

Good value for money if you can afford it though. :)

[quadrirotor]

Let's say 35000$, two seats, homebuilt...
I meant the best concept.:O

[Heliport]

For me, flying in a homebuilt helicopter will always be a 'concept' .... never a reality.

Even the thought makes me shudder! :eek:

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

slowrotor, if you've got 600ft x 75ft you're almost in fixed wing territory (Aviat Husky A1B?) :)

[chopperpilot47]

I have nothing against experimentals or homebuilts per se but, I have had three students in the last 18 months who had a Rotorway and a Safari. We use Bell 47's for training, the two Rotorway pilots bought Bell 47's and the Safari pilot went back to flying it. I have to say it looks very nice and it seems well built with a factory Lycoming engine. The problem they all had was with insurance. They could not get insured on the Rotorway or the Safari with anyone for any price. No problem with the Bells. I think insurance is important. I really could not fly anything that I could not insure.

Your landing area seems fine now in terms of size. Have you considered a Bell 47? $60,000 should get you a good D1 or G model.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[slowrotor]

Chopperpilot47,
Hmmm... Bell 47 D1
I guess my thinking on Bell 47 was that of very old and out of support from factory. Maybe 50-60 years old I guess. I owned a Hiller UH-12B back in 1978. I was too young and could not find an instructor back then so I sold it without flying it. Probably should have kept it. It was old back then and now its 27 years older.
I understand wood blades are hard to keep balanced, but they do have unlimited life (on condition).
Do you train in the older model?
Are parts still available?
And one other question if you have a moment.

An old mechanic told me that you can remove the Bell flybar and throw it away. Saves 65lbs or so.
Is that true?
Thanks
slowrotor

[chopperpilot47]

Slowrotor. We have 2 D1's, a G model and a G3B1. All the parts are still available although some can be expensive. The age of the helicopter means nothing. The only thing on our helos of any age is the data plate. Everything else has been replaced many times. Two of our helos were completely rebuilt in the last year and the third is just about to go in so everything will be zero time.

The wood blades are not really wood. There is wood in them but they have a metal spar, different types of wood in the core a fibreglass coating, gel coat, stainless steel leading edges and steel butt plates and straps. They are easy to balance and track and are still available at a reasonable price.

We use the D1's and G for training. You can have the stabiliser bar removed with an approved mod but I don't recommend it. The helicopter becomes a bit twitchy and the wear can be high. Not worth the effort of getting it converted.

We use Bell 47's for training because we like them but they not cheap to run. We think the direct operating cost is around $170 per hour. It would be a lot less for a private owner. We do 1,000 hours a year per helicopter so maintenance is an issue for us although we now do it in house.

There are still over 1,000 Bell 47's flying in the USA so that tells you something.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/BellsDutchCountry.jpg

[slowrotor]

Chopperpilot47'
Those guys look nice.
I went to your website but could not get anything to work other than the home page.
I would like to take a intro lesson in the Bell 47.
Maybe you could recommend a company on the west coast if there is any.

There is a company in B.C. Canada thats pretty close, but I thought the price was ....well a little high at $300 or more, I think. I better check again. They are set up to train working pilots, which is fine, but I am interested in personal use just for fun.
thanks
slowrotor

[chopperpilot47]

Slowrotor,

I just tried my web site and it worked fine. On the West Coast try Zemlock helicopters in Chino, California. www.zemlock.com
There are lots of Bell 47's on the West Coast.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[Dave_Jackson]

quadrirotor,

A couple of contestants for 'The Perfect Homebuilt Helicopter'. ;)

Paddle wheel rotorcraft (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5265827.html)

Cyclorotor composite aircraft (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4482110.html)

:D

[quadrirotor]

Anyway, i you are involved in rotorcraft, your wife must follow!:} http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4665&stc=1&thumb=1

[slowrotor]

Dave,
Interesting patents. I was thinking, must be a crackpot inventor, until I noticed it was Northrop. Wonder if they will build a paddle chopper.
Do you have a picture of a cyclogiro?

I saw a balloon- rotor machine on a video. I think it was in Tillamook Oregon, intended to be used for logging. Didn't seem to work very well.

[Dave_Jackson]

slowrotor,

You mean this thing?
http://www.UniCopter.com/Temporary/cyclogiro.jpg

Wasn't this the first entrant for the American Helicopter Society's Human Powered Helicopter (HPH) Competition? :D


Dave

[Dave_Jackson]

_Here's a use for helicopters that ain't dangerous._ (http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Helicopter_20Blow_20Football)

http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/many_laughing.gif http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/many_laughing.gif http://www.unicopter.com/Temporary/many_laughing.gif