What about helicopters needs fixing? [Archive]

Lu Zuckerman

8th Jul 2002, 00:58

1) Better quality control on the finished product. This will help improve the companies’ image in the eyes of the mechanics and pilots. Perform a FACI (First Article Configuration Inspection) on every helicopter and not just the first off of the production line to verify that the end product complies with the design drawing.

2) All helicopter blades should be dynamically balanced against a master. All helicopter companies should follow Sikorskys’ lead in pre-tracking their rotor blades. This will cut down on operational maintenance and put the helicopter back in the air a lot faster.

3) The designers should think the design through and explore what can go wrong in a specific maintenance procedure and to prevent injury to maintenance personnel and/or cause damage to the helicopter.

4) The engineers should make themselves aware of operational problems that stem from an incomplete design.

5) The helicopter should be tested to determine that it can be operated properly and safely under all operational conditions that apply to the helicopters end usage.

6) Factory training instructors should be expert on their area of instruction. They should follow up on students questions and never make reference to field expedient maintenance practices.

7) The designers must take into consideration how certain aspects of the design interfere with standard field maintenance procedures.

All of the above relate to actual incidents and are representative of several different helicopter designs.

Any one interested in the reality of items 1-7 above feel free to contact me via E-mail and I will provide the information.

:rolleyes:

buttline

8th Jul 2002, 02:31

In addition to cost (lack of payload), lack of speed and noise, part of the problem seems to be the public's perception of helicopters as noisy and dangerous (possibly due to the way helicopters are portrayed in movies).

This perception contibutes to us not having the political muscle to get good, rotary oriented facilities. If helicopters are largely restricted to airports or fields miles from the destination, their primary advantage is immediately negated. (i.e. if I have to drive to the airport and rent a car at the other end to get to the office, I may as well drive the 250 miles or so anyway).

Nigel Osborn

8th Jul 2002, 03:05

Nick,

1. Windscreen wipers that work.
2. No rain leaks above the pilot's head or auto pilot/ electrics.
3. Room for helmet so that small movements don't hit the switches.
4. Room for nav bags and my coffee cup.
5. Overhead panels further away so I don't have to keep putting my glasses on.
6. (extra one) Good instrument & cockpit lighting.
:D :D :p

BlenderPilot

8th Jul 2002, 03:28

As someone who's ramp is located at 7,400 FTMSL (usual temps are ISA +20) and rarely go below that.

I only want MORE POWER to be able to lift more, fuel, passengers, stuff, etc.

1.- More Power
2.- More Power
3.- More Power
4.- More Power
5.- Better overall performance, OEI, range, speed,

The reason why the Bell 407 (dozens at my airport) has become so popular around here is because you can carry more, with better range, in a 407 than in a Bell 412HP! (MMMX / 7,340 FTAMSL - MMTO / 8,445 FTAMSL usually +20ºC ISA)

Agusta Power and K2 are also popular, then as soon as the Bell 427 came out everyone wanted to get their hands on one, they gave deposits, and now years later they are asking for their money back since it is still not certified above 6000 FTAMSL I think.

heedm

8th Jul 2002, 05:29

Good idea for a topic Nick...or is this subtle research for the next Sikorski product? :) I hope the good ideas get royalties.

Can't speak for the industry so I'll speak only for what I use helicopters.

1) Range: increase it without airspeed/weight penalties.
2) Decrease weather susceptibility. Icing, Turbulence, wind speed on start up/shut down, etc. are big limiters now. Any improvements here will be nice.
3) Visibility. Lots of Glass in cockpit, but also synthetic vision for darkness and fog.
4) Endurance (pilot). Hands on C&C for almost all inflight functions, comfortable seats (adjustable...very adjustable), cup holders, good autopilot, comfortable cyclic positions (haven't tried sidestick yet, but...), inflight massage (okay, too far)
5) Reliability. I don't want them to break, ever. If they do break, they should let me know and I should have enough time after warning to make it to an airfield almost all the time (ie don't expect this after total power loss, do expect it when transmission bearings are beginning to fail and I'm 200 miles out to sea.)

(had to go over when I thought of this next one)
6) Performance Numbers I want every conceivable performance number available to me whenever I want them, and very accurately. If HOGE at max continuous claims to be 7300' I don't want to find out I could have hovered at 7400'. If after buying the helicopter I realize I need to calculate something else, then programming additional performance numbers should be cheap and easy.

I could give more ideas, if you like.

200psi

8th Jul 2002, 09:49

I dont think I have ever agreed with Nigel on anything much but ive gotta say for 7 million aussie pesos I want my Sikorsky product waterproof.:)

Lu Zuckerman

8th Jul 2002, 15:31

Many years ago the US Military wanted to minimize the types of lubricants on their helicopters. As a means of eliminating one type of lubricant they elected to use engine oil which is mainly synthetic in the transmissions of the helicopters. The engine oil was never made to hold up under the point contact loading found in helicopter transmissions and as a result the film strength at the point contact is at the absolute minimum. I would suggest that the manufacturers eliminate engine oil from the transmissions and replace it with mineral-based oils as used prior to the change to engine oil.

Here is another suggestion. Get rid of spherical elastomeric bearings in fully articulated rotor systems and replace them with the spherical bearing designed by Sikorsky many years ago. That bearing never made it into production due to leakage as the bearing was pressurized. The main problem was that the materials in existence at that time were not sufficient however there has been a quantum leap in materials technology (sealing technology and powdered metallurgy technology). Elastomeric bearings are susceptible to wear, deterioration, Ozone attack, and material breakdown due to solar radiation and high temperatures. Lord, the prime manufacturer of these bearings has stated that the bearing life can be shortened by 50% due to exposure to temperatures of 160-degrees F. The allowable limit at this temperature is one hour total for the life of a bearing.

:rolleyes:

SASless

9th Jul 2002, 05:47

200psi......one of aviations absolute rules.....All helicopters leak like the American Congress!

If it didn't leak....it would not be a helicopter.

That is why Mustang invented that lovely waterproof suit for helicopter crews......ditchings are so rare...couldn't possibly be for any other reason than to act as a very expensive rain suit.

Hughes500

9th Jul 2002, 06:04

Nic

A manufacturer who actually asks, I am impressed. The answers below refer to single engine VMC machines in Europe.

1. Payload - if it has 5 seats and 100 gallon tank let it be able to take off with 5 large people and a full tank eg EC120 can't, 206 has room for 5 but fuel for a wet weekend.
2. Knee room / head room for pilot and pax
3. Designers to build it so components are easily serviced or at least take advice from the field maintainers.
4. Do not overcomplciate the machine so only a limited number of companies can maintain it ( diagnostic computers etc )
5. Not only quiet outside but inside as well.

Nice one;)

S76Heavy

9th Jul 2002, 09:26

1. adjustable seats so we can use an eye reference point just like the plank drivers. That way we can see the instruments properly and save our backs.
2.more POWER! Cut the stress on those hot and calm summer days, give us a full N-1 flyaway capability.
3. wide CoG envelope, so we stop having to drop payload because it takes us out of CoG even though we could take the weight.
4. easy numbers for limitations.
5. make 'em comfortable, especially for pax as they have to pay for it in the end..
6. make them safe from a ground staff point of view. Too many fatalities caused by low S76 rotors.

Devil 49

9th Jul 2002, 12:55

1. "Hands on controls" switches, controls.
2. Lighting, inside and out. Provisions to minimise reflection and glare. Pilot serviceable bulbs would be nice, as well.
3. A dry, handy place for RFM, charts, etc.
4. "Boudreaux"-proof doors, windows, seat belts.
5. If I never saw another greased bearing in my life, I'd be happier.

Vfrpilotpb

9th Jul 2002, 18:14

Hi Nick,

All of what all the rest have requested, plus Reactive glass to stop the glare, allied to HUD to give basic info into field of view to help pilot, better seats and belts and a wind direction indicator like on the Harrier( rather than the piece of wool).

What about Scimitar shaped blades to reduce noise!;)

almost canadian

9th Jul 2002, 21:45

I wouldn't mind a small fly-by-wire sidestick in place of the cyclic.
If this sidestick would fold up or down it would drastically improve ingress and egress + the extra space would give a nice open area for the airbags (which should be in every helicopter) to deploy.
Better seats would also be a bonus.

Thomas coupling

9th Jul 2002, 21:45

...and re-heat:D

ShyTorque

9th Jul 2002, 21:54

Nick,

Speaking as a IFR operator of your product, I would be pleased to see the following:

Icing Clearance. Essential for safety and peace of mind for corporate ops in our winter / spring / autumn and SUMMER damnit, if the summer weather is such as this week! :rolleyes:

I really don't like the full glass cockpit using vertical strips for airspeed and altitude etc. There aren't big enough cues to hand fly the aircraft on instruments easily. Yes, I'm sure pilots get used to it eventually but I've only got 10 years or so before I retire ;) . PLEASE go back to round dial displays! Actually I much prefer the old round dials with partial EFIS as the best compromise. By all means use TV screens to achieve it, but just give us back our round dial displays. No gimmicks, just clear info with proper rate information.

Fewer sharp edges in the cockpit please. If helicopters were subject to the same safety regulations as cars they would fail big time on this. It's a great big worry for someone like myself who is required to fly (these days, ex-mil) without a helmet or gloves. The lower panels are also full of things to cut, catch and scratch one's self on. It's bad enough on a day to day basis, let alone alone should the worst happen i.e. an accident :(

An engine control / transmission system that the pilot can't bust. Build the gearboxes to take all the double or single engine power that can be produced so that there is only one set of torque figures to remember. Then we can worry about getting the "a to b's" and the "ins and outs" of the job done without having to worry so much about not busting limits.

Shawn Coyle

9th Jul 2002, 22:20

Nick:
Great question!!!
Hope you compile the answers.
My two cents worth (probably more than 5, sorry)

Seats that are comparable to a high end sedan.
Climate control that works automatically
Engines and transmissions that are useful pieces of metal into which one puts in fuel and gets all the power one needs
Well thought out procedures for profiles like Category A that don't scare the passengers or spill their martinis
No vibration or noise issues
True zero-zero capability (approach to a hover IMC like what you showed me several years ago)
Flight controls where the pilot doesn't have to supply the right mechanical characteristics.

Good luck!
Shawn

MaxNg

9th Jul 2002, 22:57

Nick

This would probable qualify as the most comprehensive servey yet undertaken and I note some very interseting replies,I hope that you (we) are being listened to.

For me
1. One Very reliable and indistructable, damage tolerant,powerfull engine rather than two.

2. BMW to design the cockpit and instumentation, ergonomics,and crash prtection including heater controls and operation ( MK 11 Puma heating system is probably the most noisy and complicated piece of S**T that I have ever the misfortune to operate the heater must have been designed by someone with a grudge against pilots). Out of the 5 that we operate none work on the auto setting and in manual you play with the settings more than the radios.

3. We have more computors on the MK11 puma than in a "spotty geeks smelly bedroom" they tell us via the IFDS screens and air data units what our MaxNG is our Max TQ is, 2.5 min rating, and 30 sec rating, and blue line speed is ( IAS needed to fly straight and level single engine) then why in gods name do we have to refere to some hidden and cumbersome flight manual to determine T/O perfomence from paper sheets when this could be presented on screen.

4. ALL helicopters should have simple reliable and cheep to maintain Auto stabilization devices fitted, for christ sake you can by a $200 model helicopter with tail rotor gyros the size of a boe of matches yet pay $200,000 and you are luky to get radios fitted.

5. A new approach to the whole package.

Waiter more Beer

Steve76

10th Jul 2002, 03:35

1. De Icing Gear
2. Better pilot seats
3. More power
4. EFIS/IIDS as stock fitting
5. Better cowl latches...:(

sling load

10th Jul 2002, 09:11

Nick

1. High tail and main rotor clearance for pax safety and confined area ops

2. Engine protection or better alarms for hot/hung starts. for eg, a detector that can sense the exponetial rate of temp rise that will give the driver a few extra seconds to initiate the shutdown or a battery voltage drop indicator (incorporated into the t4 dial?)

3. Survivability for crew and pax, airbags? instrument panel and cockpit levers(head). seats (spine)

4. Fewer hourly inspections for extended field operations

5. good external visibility for single pilot sling ops, such as the vertical reference window

Oops, up to number six

6. Fantastic, 24 hour, aimed to please the customer service, for all enquiries, parts and direct to factory questions to test pilots ( such as we have here with pprune with you)

7. Night Vision Glass ! ( thats just a wish list item, but thought id throw it in)

S L

ATPMBA

10th Jul 2002, 12:25

Nick,

The one item I have is that helicopters need to have a fenestron or notar antitorque device. I have been flying helicopters for only four years now and know of four incidents/accidents where the the tail rotor has clipped some object. This has caused pilots to lose their jobs, owners have downtime and increased insurance premiums, passengers with injuries, and a lot of bad feelings to go around.

A fenestron/notar device may not prevent all accidents but can greatly reduce the number. I believe insurance companies will charge lower premiums for these kind of helicopters.

P.S. Nick, we should get together sometime for a cup of coffee. I live in CT. I also want to get a type in the S-92.

RotorHorn

10th Jul 2002, 16:37

And if you could have a quiet word in Frank's ear...

Would it kill him to put an extra 6 inches of space around both seats in an R22? Its like a Mini with rotor blades! I love it, but would it hurt to move everything apart so we can at least breathe out on occasion?

And how about an R11? Single seat R22 for hour builders?

I've heard of rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous - didn't think they meant it literally.

STANDTO

10th Jul 2002, 20:07

what about a big parachute that deploys from a pod on top of the rotors for when the whole thing drops to the ground after a catastrophic component failure that prevents autorotation?

Allied to the airbags idea - got to be a winner

DeepC

10th Jul 2002, 20:29

As regular SLF on planks it is really not my place to be saying anything, but I will anyway.

The above idea about deploying Parachutes in the event of a catastophic failure must be achievable. Maybe mast mounted like the Sight on the AH64D. Why has it not been done?

Same could be done on light planks especially gliders. The total Glider and driver combination must weighless than a Land Rover 90 that can easily be parachuted in.

Is it the weight penalty or what that prevents it being done?

heedm

11th Jul 2002, 00:24

If parachutes are incorporated, please make it an option. I don't want shroud lines to wrap around my rotor blades when they're deployed inadvertently.

While it sounds like a good idea, is used on hand gliders (ballistic parachute), the truth would be that it requires extra maintenance, comes with a weight penalty, and would rarely be used. For it to be useful, the engines must fail, autorotation must fail, and those problems identified prior to the helicopter being in an envelope that would preclude parachute deployment. Maybe if explosive bolts were on the blades as well....hmmmmmm.

ax57

11th Jul 2002, 05:45

Hey Nick,

Haven't seen you around since I changed ISPs and lost newsgroup access. (RAR). Anyway, some of this is redundant but:

1. More power, but more specifically: Don't just advertise your standard day specs but also your "high and hot" specs. Performance degradation at high DA varies among aircraft, and it would be nice to have an idea beforehand just how bad it's gonna be if you regularly operate at high DA. (Maybe the mfrs. could standardize on the Army's "high and hot" specification.) Every conventional helicopter sold today should have tailboom strakes like those sold by "BLR Aerodynamic Solutions". It's free power, why not take advantage of it? Surely it wouldn't cost that much to license the technology.

2. Less noise outside, less noise and vibration inside. The most prolific single-engine turbine helicopter in the world is the Bell Jetranger, and it also has one of the most objectionable noise signatures. Manufacturers have got to do better if we're going to improve our image amongst the public. I've had to deal with noise complainers in the past and it would sure be nice if perceived noise on the ground was less of a factor. For the interior, ANR should be a feasible option for noise reduction. Years ago I read in AAAA magazine that Hughes Helicopters had great success with a system tied into a SAS that reduced vibration by minimizing rotor-to-airframe interaction. (I.E. it would reduce the pitch of a blade as it approached overflight of the tailboom.) The system worked well in testing but then it just seems to have disappeared.

3. Reduced maintenance and DOCs. Another promising system that I read about in AAAA Magazine used electromagnetic sensors around the exhaust stack that could sense the passage of vaporized metallic particles in the exhaust. Once a database was established for each engine type, this sytem could accurately predict an impending failure to within a few hours. The idea was that you could eliminate virtually all scheduled maintenance and fly the crap out of the engine until it was about to fail. (We kinda do that anyway.) I think that HUMS was a somewhat lesser version of this. The reduction in scheduled maintenance would significantly reduce DOCs.

4. Hybrid analog/digital gauges. The supplemental digital display of engine parameters is a good thing, but combine it with an analog needle rather than those hated "chiclets". "Chiclet" indicators suck big time. It would be easy to drive an analog needle digitally with a simple D/A converter. While we're on the subject of ergonomics, keep the throttle on the collective, "twist grip" style. Engine Power Levers that are separate from the collective are a bad idea.

5. Increase Vne, which would also increase range. Remember the Cheyenne? A modern compound helicopter could be even less complex than that. Just allow the turboshaft engine to develop some thrust. Modern turboshaft engines go to great pains to ensure that they produce no thrust. Increase engine efficiency by straightening the gas flow up to the tailpipe. At the tailpipe, you would have a simple louvre system (similar to that on a Harrier) that would direct the exhaust gases 90 degrees while at a hover to assist with antitorque, but that path would straighten as airspeed increased, thus allowing engine thrust to contribute to overall forward thrust. (It's an idea anyway. It just seems like the present setup is too inefficient.)

6. Ensure that your twin-engine helicopters still retain an adequate autorotational capability to land without damage in the event of a dual engine failure. It's amazing how often both engines quit in twin-engine helicopters. (Fuel starvation, fuel contamination, etc. )

7. A large useful load and large internal volume, combined with a small overall exterior footprint. Look at the specs for the MD 902 (Explorer) to see what I'm talking about. The Explorer kicks butt in this category. (It carries a lot but fits in a small LZ.)

8. Will Sikorsky ever produce a light, single-engine helicopter? It seems like that category is a major piece of the overall market share. A little competition is "a good thing". (Apologies to Martha Stewart.)

Nigel Osborn

11th Jul 2002, 06:12

200PSI

I didn't know you always disagreed with me, even when I said you were a good bloke?
:confused: :confused: :D

STANDTO

11th Jul 2002, 06:32

back to parachutes for a second.

Yes the pod would have a weight and maintenance penalty

But so do ejector seats. You only have to need them once, but you are bloody glad they are there when you do.

I would also expect such a device to have some sort of explosive deployment facility, to push the whole thing as far away as possible from the wildly flailing and now somewhat useless rotors.

There is, if I am not mistaken, a light plank fitted with a similar device.

IHL

12th Jul 2002, 15:44

The following 3 improvements must be made to have a reliable year round aircraft .

1)The ability to flying in icing conditions. To me there is nothing more frustrating than being stuck on the groud in a multi-millon dollar complex flying machine (like a 76) and see those little plank wing Beech Bonanzas and other crappy little, normally aspirated, reciprocating piston popping aeroplanes, safely launch into the cloud deck with temperatures below freezing just because they have 1930s technology pneumatic boots on the wings.

2) The ability to fly in ice.

3) The ability to fly in ice. (edited for spelling)

ShyTorque

12th Jul 2002, 16:59

IHL,

Are you sure you would like ibility as a third choice? I thoroughly agree with choices 1 and 2, but I'm not so sure about that third one. :confused:

p.s. what does it mean? :D

Ah, spoilsport - you edited it!;)

sycamore

13th Jul 2002, 00:47

1.Gearboxes that are strong enough for any projected weight increase/power output,do not leak,will run for at least one hour,without any oil pressure and not constrained by a single engine input drive .
2.Twin-engined,but with enough power so that on longer sorties one can be shut down safely and re-started for landing-fuel economy in the cruise-wasted weight I hear you cry,*****cks,how many twins today are running at their design point in the cruise? probably nowhere near,therefore they are inefficient.
3.Proper Power Instruments-Big Tqmtr,Big RRPMgauge,RRPM is Life,Do not make RRPM needle less significant than N2,,Mr.Bell are you listening-get your act together and get it SORTED! NOW!!
4.Seating -up/down/tilt/recline,heat,armrests,cup-holder,map-stowage;with fly-by-wire stick/collective should also adjust fully--look at a modern corporate jet if you need inspiration!!
5.Full anti-icing and IFR capability for rotors and engines;look at the Russians if you need hints,and I know they copied what we were doing in the 60`s on the Sea-king,we just didn`t have the electrical power/electronics to get it right at that time.
6.A good air-con system,even slight pressntn,to stop the water coming in-every WA/Sik.(sorry Nick) that I have flown ,has leaked like a sieve-AHOY! ARE YOU LISTENING in the Glove Factory?? :mad:

Lu Zuckerman

13th Jul 2002, 01:11

To: sycamore

1.Gearboxes that are strong enough for any projected weight increase/power output,do not leak,will run for at least one hour,without any oil pressure and not constrained by a single engine input drive .

There are several gearboxes presently being flown that have the capability of running for 30 minutes with no oil in the sump. At least two of these designs contain two isolated sumps that with one lost the other will continue to lubricate the gearbox.

The ability of a gearbox to run without any oil in the sumps is accomplished by inserting felt like substance inside of the gear. When the gearbox spins up oil will be directed to these felt inserts until they are saturated. With the loss of all oil in the sumps this stored oil will be excreted from the felt member into the gear mesh by centrifugal slinging. If properly designed this stored oil will allow approximately 30 minutes of continued flight.

:eek:

sycamore

13th Jul 2002, 01:30

Lu,
Agree entirely, as far as I`m concerned gearboxes should be bullet-proof,ie should be able to survive overtorques,loss of oil/pressure and still continue to work.Manufacturers should not put bits like filters on the outside where they can chuck all the oil overboard in a short time-they don`t look outside of aviation for inspiration,or possibly how things may be done differently/better ,or how not to do it,even.There are always other ways of skinning a cat!!;)

TqNrT4NgGreenlightCWP

13th Jul 2002, 03:02

TRPS (total recovery parachute systems) have been a feature of many microlight aircraft for years now. Limited use in rotary wing as far as I am concerned - pretty much the only emergency that would have my butt biting the seat cushion would be a main rotor transmission failure. For just about anything else I would rather stay with the aircraft all the way to the crash site!

TqNrT4NgGreenlightCWP

13th Jul 2002, 03:05

...and another thing! I would expect intermittent wipers on the most basic new car costing £6000. Why then do we accept such cr*p systems on helicopters costing £1m or more? Or is it just me who hates flying towards a low sun looking through yet another scratched perspex?

almost canadian

13th Jul 2002, 10:16

-A small fly-by-wire collective mounted on the seat(s), fully adjustable to each pilot's preference of course, plus a scroll-knob mounted on it for doing slight pitch/speed changes.
-Cockpit doors with a small explosive charge for emergency landings in water.
-one more time:airbags everywhere; ceiling panel, 'a-pilar', underneath console(to protect legs and feet).
-smaller consoles to increase forward vis. (not like 76)
- as for the funky stuff: a helmet controlled searchlight (ah64)
- more (programmable) voice warnings,(let's say you can have a voice telling you you're pulling 100%, or whatever else).
-HUD
-monocoque pilot seats a la formula one.

yadda yadda yadda

Lu Zuckerman

13th Jul 2002, 14:57

To: sycamore

Many of the ideas proposed in the previous posts have most likely been considered and rejected for one of the following reasons:

1) Too expensive and not applicable to every customers needs.
2) Too expensive and it adds weight and complexity.
3) Too expensive and we never did it on our other helicopters.
4) Too expensive and nobody else is doing it.
5) Too expensive but we might consider it if our customers are willing to pay for it.
6) Too expensive and if it is worth doing from a financial point of view some other outfit will get an STC for the change.
7) Too expensive to change an existing design but we may consider it on our next design if it is not too expensive.
8) And finally if it is not considered in our design it is not necessary and besides, it will be too expensive.

:D

sycamore

13th Jul 2002, 17:55

Lu, all points well taken,but nothing is cheap in this world.I once had a discussion with the Chinook policy staff officers at a certain Air HQ which used to be on a hill in Wilts. about fitting a small radar to the a/c when they went back to Boeing to have the engine/airframes modified."Don`t need it,too heavy ,too expensive,can`t use it in battle,got excellent new nav gear,so we know where we are!" The radar is about the size of a large ostrich egg,evenC-172`s have them,good range and if used correctly can prevent bumping into "cumulo granitus".I suppose most N Sea helos have radar,so any comments from them? A little expense in the right direction may have saved the Machrihanish accident- so ,sometimes it pays to look out from the cat`s a**s and view the outside world..:rolleyes:

Nick Lappos

13th Jul 2002, 19:24

Some comments on the excellent responses above:

I have copied all the comments and will compare tham, cross plot them and generally bend and twist them until they prove what I want . ;)

Seriously, I will use these answers as fodder, should I ever get a chance to again help develop a helicopter at Sikorsky (three so far has been a gift, could I wish for one more?)

I note lots of support for automatic parachutes to land safely if the rotor fails. There is an old joke about this from Boy Scout Days - the scoutmaster asked the young scout why he packed the eggs at the bottom of his pack, where they were likely to be crushed. The kid responded, "that way, when they break, they don't run all over everything!"

I would rather ask for a rotor design that was redundant enough so that even with failures, it wouldn't fail to do its job. That is my "parachute".

Regarding changes, costs and tradeoffs, I find that today's system in both Military and Civil development makes costs so high that we end up with too little innovation, and too much of samo-samo design. I wish it were less costly to develop and approve things, so that we could change them quickly and cheaply, and give you what you want.

Regarding safety, I wish we all would look at what actually brings us down, and not what could fail, and fix those problems. One poster above had the key when he asked for one big efficient engine that never failed, rather than two. We should try to specify the root cause of the problem or the worry, and not dictate a design.

Anyway, please keep this going, this is golden!!

widgeon

13th Jul 2002, 20:53

good article on MSNBC site about the microsoft jet that will sell for about 850K 6 seats . twin williams jets .

http://www.msnbc.com/news/779195.asp

Now if we could have a reliable all weather 6 pax helicopter that sold for that price who knows how many would be sold.

Shawn Coyle

13th Jul 2002, 21:13

To sycamore

Regarding Nr needles. both the Bell 407 and 427 have the Nr needle as the larger of the two...
They did listen.

sycamore

13th Jul 2002, 21:58

Thanks Shawn for that,I`ve just got into the saddle in a Jet-box,with bifocals,and its not the same as big Wessex/Sea-king gauges.Anyway ,why aren`t they a retrofit item? I`m still waiting for you to send me a copy of your new book!!(Big print I hope)..;)

John Eacott

13th Jul 2002, 22:27

Sycamore,

I'll lend you mine! Shades of the GM7B, lovely big R & Bearing display in the WIII, penny pinching HMG gave us a display smaller than a JetRanger's in the SK :rolleyes:

Nick, from an operator's (and one who pays the bills) point of view:

1. Set in concrete DOC's. Unscheduled maintenance is the pits for budgeting, and how often, when the machine in question is a more sophisticated twin, is the UM required because of an AD or manufacturer's bulletin, nearly always at the operator's expense. Watch a car company go out of business expecting the customer pay for it's mistakes.

2. Purchase price to be all inclusive. Smaller helicopters come with such a basic fit, by the time it's ready to be commercially operated the machine often costs 20-30% more than base price.

3. Better overhaul times (I realise this is already being addressed, but this is a wish list).

4. Comfortable, crashworthy and adjustable seating throughout the aircraft. The paying customer has a right to some comfort, and a decent bit of baggage space wouldn't be a bad idea. As for ECU's, when was the last time you paid a $million + for a car without a heater, let alone an aircon :eek:

5. More robust transmission systems, less likely to cause grief and pain.

Many of my other "wishes" have been well covered. I especially like the idea of BMW designing the cockpit :D

Dave Jackson

13th Jul 2002, 23:26

http://www.unicopter.com/temporary/complaint_department.gif

OK! Who's next?

:D :D :D

GLSNightPilot

14th Jul 2002, 00:50

1. More range & payload, always.

2. My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!

3. More power. The same thing happens to every helicopter - it comes out with a max gross wt. The customers complain about too little payload & range, so the gross wt gets raised. This continues until at max gross at sea level, it will barely fly. So, put in a bigger engine, & goto start. Repeat. There really isn't a solution here, except for putting in the bigger engine at the start.

4. More range & payload

5. More range & payload. I'm tired of flying IFR at the ragged edge of legality & safety. I have to fly IFR 150-200NM out offshore, & the current crop of helicopters don't cut it. This requirement isn't going away, it's just going to get larger & longer.

Nick Lappos

14th Jul 2002, 22:22

GLSNightPilot says:

"My $10k Toyota doesn't leak, even in a monsoon. Your $6bazillion SK76 pours water on me in a light mist. FIX THIS!"

Nick sez:

No sweat! If you bring the Toyota into our Stratford factory, I am sure we can make it leak.

;)

EDIT: I realize that this is an incredibly wiseguy answer, but with that set-up, I simply couldn't resist!! Can pprune ever forgive me? Will GLSNightPilot? :D

What-ho Squiffy!

14th Jul 2002, 22:36

Yep, I think if you start by putting the engine on the roof, you might see some leakage. :D

helmet fire

15th Jul 2002, 02:44

Great thread. I note the amount of range/payload/power increase requests but I think we are forgetting the axiom about nothing for free. If you want to take more payload further - then you buy a larger helicopter and pay the extra DOCs!! If we want our machines to take full fuel and full pax loads - then every time we fly with less we are paying DOCs that are too high. The CH47 is a great example here. By using it just to move troops (Afghanistan DAs are an exeption) you are wasting the asset. So if we want our smaller birds (206 & EC120 were mentioned above) to take off at full fuel and full pax, we cannot then also ask for lower DOCs. I think by asking for lower DOCs we are at the root cause because then we would be able to afford the bigger machines for those types of bigger jobs.

My 5:

1. Reduced DOCs.

2. Reduced noise.

3. Throttles back on to the collective with the arc of movement found on the 205/212/412 throttle. I reckon Bell got it right with the Huey throttle, and then when backwards with the 206 throttle by reducing the arc of movement. Collective mounted throttles with decent movement arcs offer so many more options to so many (although unlikely) emergencies - ie governor overspeeds/underspeeds, governor fluctuations, torque splits, tail rotor fixed pitch, tail rotor failure, etc etc etc.

4. NVG compatible cockpits as standard. As a dream - all IFR/night cockpits to have FLIR/NVG image projection onto the windscreen. But in reality, perhaps a cheap dash mounted screen that you can pop up on dark nights/IMC with a FLIR/NVG image projected from a small nose mounted sensor (like where the landing light is currently mounted in the AS350 series). I think this will GREATLY reduce one of our largest killers - CFIT.

5. Simple foolproof engine displays. As above - a large eye catching torque (or preferably "first limitation indicator") display and Rotor RPM display. These are our two most critical and watched displays - make 'em big! (Avoid the Longranger method of RRPM indication which is upside down). A tamper proof ETM should also be a mandatory standard fit to record all exceedences, flight time, etc. While I am bleating about this - "simple" would also mean making every limitation 100. Use of SDCs should be able to achieve this.

Um......just one more.....please??

6. A standard cyclic and collective switchology. No external load releases on the IFR trim release switch! No float activators in unusual places. No intercom/transmit switches on load release switches. No landing light switches on float activation switches - you all know someone whom climbed out after punching off a bucket or load or floats because of these issues.

I realise that requests 2,3,4,5,6 are not necessarily compatible with request 1, but who said the customer needs to be reasonable??
:D :D :D

John Eacott

15th Jul 2002, 03:59

Nick,

I'm going to have two bites of the cherry on this, the first list as an operator, this one as a pilot:

1. Comfortable seats, and a liveable environment. No one benefits by getting heat soaked or frozen because the cockpit was designed for a legless dwarf with no sense of hot or cold :p

2. Ergonomic control layout. The collective hinged behind the pilot's left buttock must be the No 1 backache culprit of all time.

3. A vote with Helmet Fire, for standardised switchery. Even the same aircraft type within the same company can be wired differently. The Military (IIRC) don't do it, for a very good reason!

4. Accessible inspection areas, oil tanks that can be topped up without needing three hands plus a right angled funnel, fold out steps or platforms to stand on without the risk of falling off, and grease free bearings (wish.........). If I wanted dirty hands before going flying, I'd have become an engineer :rolleyes:

5. A powerful, comfortable, vibration free, responsive and capable helicopter that can actually carry full load of passengers, plus baggage, with a full tank of fuel, with the airconditioner on during TO & landing, with all the radios that I need to talk to anyone, and a cup holder. That'll do me :D :D

PS regarding my "operator's" wish list, note: DoC's set in concrete. I don't need them reduced ('twould be nice), but I do need them to be absolutely predictable.

GLSNightPilot

15th Jul 2002, 04:46

How could I have forgotten the throttles???

It's just criminal negligence to have the throttles on the floor, or on the ceiling, or anywhere else but on the collective. So you might have to pay Bell a little for patent licensing - I feel for you, but I just can't reach you. That's my #1 complaint about Sikorsky - overall a great helicopter, but those throttles are just ridiculous.

Fix this, & I'll forgive you for the leaks. :)

weedflier

15th Jul 2002, 11:00

Nick,
These are just my wishlist, in no particular order, from a pilot's point of view, with no commercial considerations. I've flown, amongst others, Sikorskys, Bells and Eurocopter machines from the volume manufacturers, and most of my time is on twin-engine machines.

1. Decent, crashworthy, comfortable seats with a full range of movement, both vertically and fore/aft and with a decent fully adjustable lumbar support. This should be coupled with a good range of yaw pedal adjustment which can be accomplished without being a contortionist! S76 seats are awful! My $15,000 VW Polo has better seats than almost any (multi million $) helicopter I've flown! Almost any pilot over the age of 50 (and there are a heck of a lot!), who has probably got around 30 years of helicopter flying has some kind of back problems.

2. Collective mounted throttle levers. The best I encountered were on the old S58T which had no need for an electrical idle stop like the 212/412. The fact that Eurocopter were able to change from overhead to collective mounted throttles for military training contracts shows it can be done. Overhead throttles are much more difficult to handle for manual governor emergencies when single pilot and the linkages are more vulnerable to damage if the rotor impacts the cockpit roof (e.g. BHL S61N, North Sea ca. 1976).

3. Cockpit layout such as to provide a good field of visibility during landing/hovering, and view of the mirrors for underslung load work. (With the number of cheap video cameras available nowadays it surely ought to be possible to provide one which would be capable of providing a view of both hook and load, controllable by the pilot, and with a monitor in the cockpitg close to the torque and Nr guages - or possibly incorporating torque and Nr readings on the display) The S76 is one of the worst I've flown for that.

4. Decent ventilation for operations in hot climates. Again the S76 (and the SA365N) are particularly bad for this, especially since the noise level precludes operation with the cockpit windows open. The Bell 412/212 is particularly good.

5. Enough room to stow a pilot flight bag in such a position that it is easily accessible to the pilot in flight (again, Nick, I'm sorry but the S76 is particularly bad in this respect).

6. A simple, easy to maintain and smooth rotor system (SA 365 series particularly worthy of mention here).

7. Decent sized baggage compartments, placed so as to have minimal effect on C of G (difficult I imagine, but has any thought been given to electrically moveable ballast, controllable by the pilot to shift the C of G, coupled with a built-in computer to assist in aforementioned calculations?).

8. Full class one performance in twin-engine machines up to 40 degrees C at sea level.

9. An instrument layout that allows easy vision of the torque/Nr gauages at the same time when carrying out normal (i.e. not long-line) underslung load work.

10. A high tail rotor/NOTAR/fenestron to lessen the dangers from the back end and reduce pilot worries.

11. Cockpits that don't leak.

12. On machines with retractable undercarriages, run-flat, fat tyres which don't sink into soggy ground too far. Again, sorry Nick, the S76 is not too good in this respect (though I do like the wheel-levelling system on touchdown)

13. Cup holders.

I expect there are many others, but that's enough to be getting on with.

Edited for typo by Weedflier on 16 July - thanks Arraitch - must be getting old!Collective

Arraitch

16th Jul 2002, 00:07

Weedflier, I hope that was just a typo, when you requested CYCLIC mounted throttles!

Ventilation is an absolute necessity operating in Oz. The worst helo in this respect has to be the EC120 - all that glass, and the piddling fan only blows in your eyes to make them sore. Open the piddling side window, and this aerodynamically slick machine makes all the air go past without coming in. Try flying from Canberra to Sydney in 38 degrees plus, a full load of pax, sunlight beating through the glass, cyclic in left hand, right hand out the window trying to scoop some air in. T'aint pleasant. And your legs (in navy blue corporate-style trou) and feet (in black Doc Martens) are just roasting. :mad:

heedm

16th Jul 2002, 19:28

Arraitch, a little bit of left yaw should solve your airflow problem.

Arraitch

16th Jul 2002, 23:21

Heedm,
Yeah, that works for a short time - until the right cheek of your backside gets sore, and the passengers complain of leaning against each other. Besides, a perfectionist like me finds flying out of balance abhorrent.:cool:

helmet fire

19th Jul 2002, 00:32

arraitch,

I am with you on the EC120. Do NOT buy one in sunny climes without an airconditioner.

Although I am really trying not to keep adding to the list (why did you limit it to 5 Nick - in the hope of getting the REALLY important ones?) I will throw another vote into the ring for cowl latches as per above - this prompted by recent thoughts about another accident.

As I had mentioned on the S92 thread a while back, I think that any new helicopter MUST have a foolproof cowl latch system as far too many machines and people have fallen victim to an open cowl. The EC120 has a system that automatically latches when the cowl is in the closed position, and I have flown a BK117 that has a modified system to achieve the same result. It appears that most of the cowl accidents are caused by cowls that are closed, but not latched. Thus to overcome the obvious and reoccuring human failure by designing an error tolerant system, I think that all new cowl designs should incorporate a self latching mechanisim.

Bell214B

22nd Jul 2002, 19:20

I just want two things, a Eurocopter AS350B3 made by Bell with a Pratt&Whitney engine :)

Reason? My company is located in Europe and the Eurocopter customer support is lousy and the Turbomeca engine is much too expensive.

We also operate two Bell 214B's and the support from Bell is excellent but for our operation the other single-engine Bell products, with the exception of 204/205, is not practical. We need a helicopter with a flat floor in the cabin for easy loading of equipment.

ShyTorque

22nd Jul 2002, 23:03

Hey Nick,

Our tail rotor gearbox input seal is weeping oil again.

That needs fixing......:D

Nick Lappos

23rd Jul 2002, 23:01

Shy Torque-

That weeping oil is the Automatic Corrosion Protection Device (ACPD). Quit complaining!:D

RotorDroop

24th Jul 2002, 04:40

Hi all,

Here's my five.

1 Lower cost of acquisition and operation.

2 Make it hard to break and easy to fix.

3 Make it a generalist ie. good for O/S, EMS, ......but easy to specialize.

4 Standardize updates and options, where I work we have 4 412s and not one of them has the same electrical schematic, my mechs love this undocumented feature. Perhaps empty switch panels and CB's like on automobiles with designated relays and such for add ons.

5 Make it easy to sell. I can tell my customer that what they fly is the wrong aircraft for what they do but it's hard to tell them what the right one is. The current alternatives either have too many negatives or have priced themselves out of consideration.

An example of this at work would be the 407, the off-shore vendors could show that 2 407s replaced three or sometimes more 206s and though they cost more per air frame actually saved the customer money through greater capability and efficiency.

My specific wish would be for a single pilot IFR twin, room for two patients, two medics, or four medics with an isolette, 150 kt vh, 350 mi range w/reserves at vh. I'd like to keep it full of fuel on the pad and still be able to pick up two 300 lb patients 5 minutes away and climb vertically to 100' before accelerating. I'd also like to be able to see well outside day and night. Price this at 3.5 to 4.5 million and keep the DOCs low and I'd beat feet to the boss's door.

Sincerely,

Brian Long