MD600
This thread started off with news of the demise of a Canadian Notar machine RN011.
Then [within hours of that incident] we whizzed off to San Jose and revisited a 1999 accident.
There is a tenuous connection I can see in that both were police machines, but arn't we getting ahead of ourselves here?
I know that MD were sleep-walking from 1999 until 2005 and regularly nothing serious was done to develop the product line. Indeed they may still be asleep.
If there was an identifiable problem post San Jose 1999 I would expect the NTSB and the FAA will have addressed it in some way in the last 5 years - even if they have not done it well, and no-one is suggesting that.
So where does this fit in with RN011?
Notar helicopter falls out of sky = Notar failure? or
Notar helicopter falls out of sky = YSAS failure? or
No connection.
Then [within hours of that incident] we whizzed off to San Jose and revisited a 1999 accident.
There is a tenuous connection I can see in that both were police machines, but arn't we getting ahead of ourselves here?
I know that MD were sleep-walking from 1999 until 2005 and regularly nothing serious was done to develop the product line. Indeed they may still be asleep.
If there was an identifiable problem post San Jose 1999 I would expect the NTSB and the FAA will have addressed it in some way in the last 5 years - even if they have not done it well, and no-one is suggesting that.
So where does this fit in with RN011?
Notar helicopter falls out of sky = Notar failure? or
Notar helicopter falls out of sky = YSAS failure? or
No connection.
PANews:
It did? Gee, I don't recall that. I seem to recall a question of a more general nature posed by a guy called, I think, Fun Police:
Fun Police never mentioned the Canadian accident in his original post. Now, from there it did talk specifically about it, and then the SFPD accident.
What's the problem, PANews? I'm sorry if the thread violated your standard of strict progression, but I don't know why you seem upset about it. I find this whole NOTAR issue interesting, from whether a YSAS malfunction can cause the tail to break off to the different and RFM-vague procedures for a thruster cable failure. And I actually learned something from this thread - something, alas, that happens less and less often these days.
This thread started off with news of the demise of a Canadian Notar machine RN011.
i am curious about what knd of Stability Augmentation System the MD600N might have, if any. if any one could explain what it does and how it does it i'd be very grateful. and if anyone could answer a "hypothetical" question for me;
if the system was unservicable (or disabled) would it cause any undue oscillatory loads on the tailboom mounting hardware which may cause it to fail?
if the system was unservicable (or disabled) would it cause any undue oscillatory loads on the tailboom mounting hardware which may cause it to fail?
What's the problem, PANews? I'm sorry if the thread violated your standard of strict progression, but I don't know why you seem upset about it. I find this whole NOTAR issue interesting, from whether a YSAS malfunction can cause the tail to break off to the different and RFM-vague procedures for a thruster cable failure. And I actually learned something from this thread - something, alas, that happens less and less often these days.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to start pileing on here (an American football foul when one dives into a play that is already over) but the NOTAR is actually quite a bit more complex than a tail rotor, and has at least twice the number of critical components as a TR. On the other hand, it is quite well protected, and so is almost immune to failure from contact with things outside the helo.
The fan in the cone is a TR, with a full pitch change mechanism (controlled by the pilot's pedal), basically just like a fenestron. This makes the air that blows thru the Coanda slots, and also thru the real nozzel. The fan has a short drive shaft, as well. The yaw thrust nozzel at the back has a rotation mechanism that covers or uncovers the thrust nozzel to make more anti-torque, also controlled by the pilot's pedal. In addition, there are rudders that are also controlled by the pilot's pedal. In some models, there is a yaw sas that is required, and it controls one of the rudders. The sum of nozzel, rudder, and fan parts is several times more critical parts than a typical TR, IMHO.
Those TV shows that still circulate show the NOTAR as a simple device, and those web sites show only the Coanda slots, as if that is all the Notar needs to fly you home. Not at all true. A Notar is very quiet, and also well protected, and also less hazard to Pax, but TANSTAAFL.
The fan in the cone is a TR, with a full pitch change mechanism (controlled by the pilot's pedal), basically just like a fenestron. This makes the air that blows thru the Coanda slots, and also thru the real nozzel. The fan has a short drive shaft, as well. The yaw thrust nozzel at the back has a rotation mechanism that covers or uncovers the thrust nozzel to make more anti-torque, also controlled by the pilot's pedal. In addition, there are rudders that are also controlled by the pilot's pedal. In some models, there is a yaw sas that is required, and it controls one of the rudders. The sum of nozzel, rudder, and fan parts is several times more critical parts than a typical TR, IMHO.
Those TV shows that still circulate show the NOTAR as a simple device, and those web sites show only the Coanda slots, as if that is all the Notar needs to fly you home. Not at all true. A Notar is very quiet, and also well protected, and also less hazard to Pax, but TANSTAAFL.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PANews
This thread started off with news of the demise of a Canadian Notar machine RN011.
Then [within hours of that incident] we whizzed off to San Jose and revisited a 1999 accident.
Then [within hours of that incident] we whizzed off to San Jose and revisited a 1999 accident.
Sorry if you disagree about the relevance. Jeez.
We now whiz you back to your regularly scheduled rumor making
Dave Blevins
It was not a major 'complaint' ... but just to be pedantic Fun Police did start off this thread about YSAS and [in post 5] 'admitted' that the original post related to to questions he was posing about the Canadian accident.
It was just that I had not made that leap to the San Jose accident. Blave has answered that.
Right I am up to speed now and I will try and pay better attention in case I can start another rumour somewhere for Dave!
It was just that I had not made that leap to the San Jose accident. Blave has answered that.
Right I am up to speed now and I will try and pay better attention in case I can start another rumour somewhere for Dave!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: the great white north
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry about the confusion, guys, but out of respect for the victim and also because the official report has not been released i did not want to fan any specific flames but was curious about the YSAS due to a theory that i had heard.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
md 600 pilots
guys
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
what is the running cost per hour extra over a jetranger
how fast a they full fuel full pax.
what would i expect to pay for a 8 year old machine ok spec.
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
what is the running cost per hour extra over a jetranger
how fast a they full fuel full pax.
what would i expect to pay for a 8 year old machine ok spec.
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANews, I do think you are kinda jumping ahead of yourself on the police machine connection. I think that during that time, the 520/600 were mainly being operated by police departments, and as such you would see this.
A YSAS failure would not bring down a ship (when this ship was sold several years ago, it did not have a YSAS). The max deflection of the one vertical is not sufficient, and one can just shut off the system easy enough. But what is interesting is that if you have some kind of failure (thruster can, fan in the tail for the thrust/coanda effect) you do not want to get slow. Emergency procedures states that under 20 kts. bad things will happen that may not be recoverable. Book says to not attempt flight below 20 kts. or attempt an auto-rotation in forward flight unless an actual engine failure occurs with a anti-torque failure.
Could any of this be a factor?
A YSAS failure would not bring down a ship (when this ship was sold several years ago, it did not have a YSAS). The max deflection of the one vertical is not sufficient, and one can just shut off the system easy enough. But what is interesting is that if you have some kind of failure (thruster can, fan in the tail for the thrust/coanda effect) you do not want to get slow. Emergency procedures states that under 20 kts. bad things will happen that may not be recoverable. Book says to not attempt flight below 20 kts. or attempt an auto-rotation in forward flight unless an actual engine failure occurs with a anti-torque failure.
Could any of this be a factor?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 1 deg south, avoiding Malaria P Falciparium
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a bad 600 accident last month in Canada. Rumor ( this is a rumor network) and accounts from witnesses indicate mid flight break up. Tail boom was found seperated intact away from airframe. Pilot did not survive.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00392&key=1
word is AWD maybe in the pipeline.
rb
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00392&key=1
word is AWD maybe in the pipeline.
rb
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some 600 info
Originally Posted by Choppersquad
guys
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
?
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
can you tell me the following
what is the fuel burn per hour on a 600.
?
why is there very few around in the uk.
are parts easy to get .
any of the above questions answered would be great.
thanks
choppersquad.
210-254 for mx/hour
how fast a they full fuel full pax.
around 125kts
what would i expect to pay for a 8 year old machine ok spec.
high time 620-720, mid time760-910 low time 1-1.1 mio (blue book)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 1 deg south, avoiding Malaria P Falciparium
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD 600 AWD issued
Heard about this about a month ago, here she is:
12, 2002, the FAA published AD 2001-24-51, Amendment 39-12706 (67 FR 17934), applicable to MDHI Model 600N helicopters, that had been issued on November 28, 2001, to all known operators. That AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting both upper tailboom attachment fittings, nut plates, and both angles for a crack or thread damage, and repairing or replacing any cracked or damaged part before further flight. That AD also requires replacing the upper right tailboom attachment bolt with a new bolt, and if the upper right tailboom attachment bolt is broken, replacing the three remaining attachment bolts with airworthy attachment bolts before further flight. Adding a washer to each bolt and modifying both access covers was also required. Thereafter, inspecting the upper tailboom attachments at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS and repairing or replacing any cracked part is required by that AD. That AD was prompted by the discovery of a cracked attachment bolt on a helicopter. That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of a tailboom attachment, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Since issuing that AD, on March 21, 2006, an accident occurred in Alberta, Canada, involving an MDHI Model 600N helicopter, resulting in one fatality. That accident may have been caused by failure of the thread engagement between the nut plate and bolt, and/or by cracking in the attachment bathtub fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the tailboom attachment fittings, separation of the tailboom from the helicopter, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
On February 2, 2005, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), applicable to MDHI Model 600N helicopters, to supersede AD 2001-24-51. That NPRM, Docket No. 2004-SW-16-AD (70 FR 7065, February 10, 2005), proposed to require the same actions required by AD 2001-24- 51, and also proposed to require, before further flight, installing six additional inspection holes in the aft fuselage skin panels. The NPRM also proposed to require, within 100 hours TIS, inspecting the lower tailboom attachment fittings, inspecting the upper longerons at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight hours, and additionally proposed a terminating action of modifying the fuselage aft section to strengthen the tailboom attachments and longerons. We anticipate withdrawing that NPRM. We also anticipate issuing a subsequent AD to require, within 24 months TIS, modifying the aft fuselage to strengthen the tailboom attachments and the longerons.
We have reviewed the following MDHI service information:
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-036, dated November 2, 2001, which describes procedures for inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings, repairing damaged fittings, and installing inspection holes in the upper right and upper left access covers;
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-039, dated December 9, 2003, which describes procedures for installing additional inspection holes in the fuselage, and also describes procedures for recurring inspections of the tailboom attachment fittings and of the upper longerons for cracks; and
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-043, dated April 13, 2006, which describes procedures for inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings and attachment bolts, and replacing the nut plates, attachment fittings, and attachment bolts, if necessary.
MD Helicopters Technical Bulletin TB600N-007, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2006, which describes procedures for modifying the fuselage aft section to strengthen tailboom attachment fittings and upper longerons.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other MDHI Model 600N
helicopters of the same type design, this AD supersedes AD 2001-24-51 to require, within 5 hours TIS, installing six inspection holes in the aft fuselage skin panels. Then, using a borescope, inspect all four tailboom attachment fittings and the surrounding areas, the upper longerons, the upper nut plates and the upper angles for cracks. Add a washer to each bolt between the tailboom and the NAS1587 countersunk washer. If a crack is found on a right-hand angle, before further flight, install a new clip. If a crack is found on the left-hand angle, before further flight, replace the angle with an airworthy angle, or repair the angle in accordance with FAA-approved procedures. Finally, replacing the upper RH tailboom attachment bolt with a new bolt, and if the upper right attachment bolt is broken, replacing the three remaining attachment bolts with airworthy attachment bolts before further flight is required. Within 25 hours TIS, the following actions are also required:
Inspecting all attachment fittings and surrounding areas;
Replacing the upper right tailboom attachment fitting with an airworthy fitting;
Painting the inspection area;
Inspecting the attachment bolts for wear or damage;
Replacing worn or damaged attachment bolts; and
Replacing all existing nut plates with airworthy nut plates. Thereafter, inspect the upper tailboom attachment fittings, angles, and nut plates at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, and inspect the lower tailboom attachment fittings, angles and nut plates at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS. Modifying the aft fuselage to strengthen the tailboom attachments and the longerons constitutes a terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Accomplish the actions by following the specified portions of the service and technical bulletins described previously.
The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability and structural integrity of the helicopter. A portion of the helicopters operated in this fleet have high utilization rates. Drilling inspection holes and inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings and surrounding areas for cracks are required within 5 hours TIS, therefore this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
am]
12, 2002, the FAA published AD 2001-24-51, Amendment 39-12706 (67 FR 17934), applicable to MDHI Model 600N helicopters, that had been issued on November 28, 2001, to all known operators. That AD requires, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), inspecting both upper tailboom attachment fittings, nut plates, and both angles for a crack or thread damage, and repairing or replacing any cracked or damaged part before further flight. That AD also requires replacing the upper right tailboom attachment bolt with a new bolt, and if the upper right tailboom attachment bolt is broken, replacing the three remaining attachment bolts with airworthy attachment bolts before further flight. Adding a washer to each bolt and modifying both access covers was also required. Thereafter, inspecting the upper tailboom attachments at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS and repairing or replacing any cracked part is required by that AD. That AD was prompted by the discovery of a cracked attachment bolt on a helicopter. That condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of a tailboom attachment, loss of the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Since issuing that AD, on March 21, 2006, an accident occurred in Alberta, Canada, involving an MDHI Model 600N helicopter, resulting in one fatality. That accident may have been caused by failure of the thread engagement between the nut plate and bolt, and/or by cracking in the attachment bathtub fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the tailboom attachment fittings, separation of the tailboom from the helicopter, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
On February 2, 2005, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), applicable to MDHI Model 600N helicopters, to supersede AD 2001-24-51. That NPRM, Docket No. 2004-SW-16-AD (70 FR 7065, February 10, 2005), proposed to require the same actions required by AD 2001-24- 51, and also proposed to require, before further flight, installing six additional inspection holes in the aft fuselage skin panels. The NPRM also proposed to require, within 100 hours TIS, inspecting the lower tailboom attachment fittings, inspecting the upper longerons at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight hours, and additionally proposed a terminating action of modifying the fuselage aft section to strengthen the tailboom attachments and longerons. We anticipate withdrawing that NPRM. We also anticipate issuing a subsequent AD to require, within 24 months TIS, modifying the aft fuselage to strengthen the tailboom attachments and the longerons.
We have reviewed the following MDHI service information:
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-036, dated November 2, 2001, which describes procedures for inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings, repairing damaged fittings, and installing inspection holes in the upper right and upper left access covers;
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-039, dated December 9, 2003, which describes procedures for installing additional inspection holes in the fuselage, and also describes procedures for recurring inspections of the tailboom attachment fittings and of the upper longerons for cracks; and
MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB600N-043, dated April 13, 2006, which describes procedures for inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings and attachment bolts, and replacing the nut plates, attachment fittings, and attachment bolts, if necessary.
MD Helicopters Technical Bulletin TB600N-007, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2006, which describes procedures for modifying the fuselage aft section to strengthen tailboom attachment fittings and upper longerons.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other MDHI Model 600N
helicopters of the same type design, this AD supersedes AD 2001-24-51 to require, within 5 hours TIS, installing six inspection holes in the aft fuselage skin panels. Then, using a borescope, inspect all four tailboom attachment fittings and the surrounding areas, the upper longerons, the upper nut plates and the upper angles for cracks. Add a washer to each bolt between the tailboom and the NAS1587 countersunk washer. If a crack is found on a right-hand angle, before further flight, install a new clip. If a crack is found on the left-hand angle, before further flight, replace the angle with an airworthy angle, or repair the angle in accordance with FAA-approved procedures. Finally, replacing the upper RH tailboom attachment bolt with a new bolt, and if the upper right attachment bolt is broken, replacing the three remaining attachment bolts with airworthy attachment bolts before further flight is required. Within 25 hours TIS, the following actions are also required:
Inspecting all attachment fittings and surrounding areas;
Replacing the upper right tailboom attachment fitting with an airworthy fitting;
Painting the inspection area;
Inspecting the attachment bolts for wear or damage;
Replacing worn or damaged attachment bolts; and
Replacing all existing nut plates with airworthy nut plates. Thereafter, inspect the upper tailboom attachment fittings, angles, and nut plates at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, and inspect the lower tailboom attachment fittings, angles and nut plates at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS. Modifying the aft fuselage to strengthen the tailboom attachments and the longerons constitutes a terminating action for the requirements of this AD. Accomplish the actions by following the specified portions of the service and technical bulletins described previously.
The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability and structural integrity of the helicopter. A portion of the helicopters operated in this fleet have high utilization rates. Drilling inspection holes and inspecting the tailboom attachment fittings and surrounding areas for cracks are required within 5 hours TIS, therefore this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
am]
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complicated - maybe
[quote=NickLappos]I don't want to start pileing on here (an American football foul when one dives into a play that is already over) but the NOTAR is actually quite a bit more complex than a tail rotor, and has at least twice the number of critical components as a TR. On the other hand, it is quite well protected, and so is almost immune to failure from contact with things outside the helo.
Nick
While I have total respect for all you do and say, the concept that a Tail Rotor is less complex than the NOTAR is not that much of a slam dunk
(that's an engineer's term for ruining an important document by ramming a day-old donut into a full cup of coffee!). On the 900 series for example, there is only one short drive shaft - no multiple shafts, couplings, intermediate or tail gearboxes. That, sir, is a great savings in moving parts.
[And let's not forget Chan Morse's "incident" following the tailboom reduction maneuver!
]
Now, when will we see a rotor on a GV???
Nick
While I have total respect for all you do and say, the concept that a Tail Rotor is less complex than the NOTAR is not that much of a slam dunk
(that's an engineer's term for ruining an important document by ramming a day-old donut into a full cup of coffee!). On the 900 series for example, there is only one short drive shaft - no multiple shafts, couplings, intermediate or tail gearboxes. That, sir, is a great savings in moving parts.[And let's not forget Chan Morse's "incident" following the tailboom reduction maneuver!
]Now, when will we see a rotor on a GV???
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD-600N
Hi I am working on my first ever 3d model and wondered id anyone could help with some tech images of the helicopter esp the rotor head and notar /and a good 3 view as the tech pdf from the manufacturer is not very accurate..their own 3 views have different dimensions for the same parts...
If anyone have a link for a manual or could give me some guidance on the md-600 I would be very greatful..
Ethan
ps . I have some render images of my progress so far..
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288309651.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288331496.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288714103.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288847495.jpg
If anyone have a link for a manual or could give me some guidance on the md-600 I would be very greatful..
Ethan
ps . I have some render images of my progress so far..
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288309651.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288331496.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288714103.jpg
http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/...1288847495.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: US
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as the tech pdf from the manufacturer is not very accurate..their own 3 views have different dimensions for the same parts...
I told the guys there when they sold out to McDonnell Douglas that if they were gonna keep their civilian line going they needed to have something up their sleeve to take them beyond the 900 (their only viable product now). They never did!
I dunno what the future will be like for MDH but, I suspect, not that great. The 600 was perhaps one of the biggest screw-ups in recent commercial civilian helicopter history!
Anyway, if these are your first 3D models then you ain't doin too bad! Hope you get what you need.
HM
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we are a Chinese GA operator, will use MD600 to wire patrol, it is said below 10-20kts speed, flying is not good. pilot feel collective lever is very heavy, feel tired and hard to keep for more than one hour flying.