Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New Chinook variant suffering from excessive vibration

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New Chinook variant suffering from excessive vibration

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th Jan 2021, 10:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,076
Received 2,942 Likes on 1,253 Posts
New Chinook variant suffering from excessive vibration

The new Advanced Chinook Rotor Blade, or ACRB, on the CH-47F Block II aircraft “produces excessive vibrations in ground, hover, and forward flight that may cause a safety of flight risk,” the report stated. “Aircrews reported prolonged fatigue and other physiological conditions due to excessive vibrations following a developmental test flight using the redesigned ACRB’s.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...to-major-test/
NutLoose is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 16:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Interesting article. Having flown the RAF Mk2 straight from the docks on delivery more years ago than I care to remember and another nation’s aircraft from the factory, I know that Boeing expect their product to vibrate significantly less at the crew stations than the RAF tolerates.
kintyred is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 17:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wilts
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kintyred
Interesting article. Having flown the RAF Mk2 straight from the docks on delivery more years ago than I care to remember and another nation’s aircraft from the factory, I know that Boeing expect their product to vibrate significantly less at the crew stations than the RAF tolerates.
On a couple of occasions, I had US Army pilots in the other seat of my RAF Chinook. Invariably, when I lifted to the hover, they would say that the vibration was so severe, to them, that in the US they would land back on and give it to the maintainers to fix. As I recall, the US Army changed whole (balanced) rotor blade sets, rather than one blade at a time in the UK. So the US comments about excessive vibration could probably be taken with a small pinch of salt. It could be SOP for us!

Vne for a US Chinook was 170 kts. RAF limited it to 160 kts. Flight at that speed tested the security of one's teeth fillings.
KG86 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 12:10
  #4 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 593
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
Excellent, another Chinook thread.

Could I ask that Tucumseh and Chualug2 immediately inform us that excessive vibration is, of course, the fault of the regulatory system and RAF VSOs?
MG is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 12:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 88
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
US Army didn't change entire blade sets in my day, with either metal or composite blades.

The old metal blades were easier to get smooth than the composite blades that replaced them in the 80's. If my memory is correct the goal was less than 0.2 IPS.
brett s is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 13:33
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Once a Squirrel Heaven (or hell!), Shropshire UK
Posts: 838
Received 11 Likes on 6 Posts
The RAF tried to persevere with the Chadwick-Helmuth tracking kit, which was the standard kit for Wessex, Pumas etc.On the Chinook, it seemingly could only track (and not really balance) one head at a time, and as soon as the other head was done the first one wolud go outside limits. I think the record was something like 50 hrs to get one aircraft (just) into limits. The introduction of Rotortune was like a game changer - once the engineers got their act together, The first track and balance I did with rotortune (and their own people) took about 1 hour and was then the smoothest Chinook on the fleet. (plastic bladed Mk1). Once our own engineers were up to speed most of the rest followed. I never flew a US one, but a Canadian one seemed worse, albeit subjectively.

Sorry, my bad - I should have said Helitune, not rotortune (it was a very long time ago it seems now). My thanks to Bonkey below

Last edited by Shackman; 31st Jan 2021 at 21:30. Reason: memory!!
Shackman is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 15:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by KG86
On a couple of occasions, I had US Army pilots in the other seat of my RAF Chinook. Invariably, when I lifted to the hover, they would say that the vibration was so severe, to them, that in the US they would land back on and give it to the maintainers to fix. As I recall, the US Army changed whole (balanced) rotor blade sets, rather than one blade at a time in the UK. So the US comments about excessive vibration could probably be taken with a small pinch of salt. It could be SOP for us!

Vne for a US Chinook was 170 kts. RAF limited it to 160 kts. Flight at that speed tested the security of one's teeth fillings.
Spot on! The RAF also changed the lubricants used by Boeing which was reputed to change the vibration characteristics. I'm sure the experts will say that the RAF rotirtuning regime works in terms of reducing vibration induced stresses on the aircraft, but the frames do seem to crack very frequently.
kintyred is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 15:24
  #8 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,264
Received 180 Likes on 106 Posts
Originally Posted by kintyred
Spot on! The RAF also changed the lubricants used by Boeing which was reputed to change the vibration characteristics. I'm sure the experts will say that the RAF rotirtuning regime works in terms of reducing vibration induced stresses on the aircraft, but the frames do seem to crack very frequently.
But the UK do also, iirc, use an increased Max AUM when compared to the US Army?
PPRuNeUser0211 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 17:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The best one I know of for Track and Balance is the Helitune product. Great support and those fellas really know what they are talking about. Great BRITISH company and product
Bonkey is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2021, 17:14
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pastures new
Posts: 354
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
But the UK do also, iirc, use an increased Max AUM when compared to the US Army?
RAF limit is 24500kg or 54000lbs (give or take)
kintyred 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



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.