[S-92] Autorotation Video
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[S-92] Autorotation Video
the quote says "S-92 performing full power off touchdown autorotation landings at max gross weight. Two were performed that day. The engines are running but idle"
S-92 helicopter autorotation (power off landing)
high nose up , but still long ground run, at least in the second shot
any thoughts?
S-92 helicopter autorotation (power off landing)
high nose up , but still long ground run, at least in the second shot
any thoughts?
Those autos were performed as part of the certification process.
These vids have come up before so if you do a search, you will find some comments from a certain Nick Lappos (who was S92 Project Manager at the time, I believe.)
HTH
These vids have come up before so if you do a search, you will find some comments from a certain Nick Lappos (who was S92 Project Manager at the time, I believe.)
HTH
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You asked for "any thoughts", well in my very limited thought process I can only say that with a little practice I'm sure those would be performed a lot better than what is shown in the video . . . . 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blender is absolutely right, and there is no need to practice when all you have to do is land from autorotation to meet the FAR/JAR. Also, the 92 is a Cat A twin, so a full auto is a pretty rare occurrence, and the crashworthy fuselage (almost like a Black Hawk) plus the basic autorotative capability should be quite satisfactory.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick tapped away: "the crashworthy fuselage (almost like a Black Hawk) plus the basic autorotative capability should be quite satisfactory."
Let us hope that in the unlikely event, the crew manage to be near a nice flat runway.
Let us hope that in the unlikely event, the crew manage to be near a nice flat runway.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
psyan,
Don't judge based on one set of autos filmed for posterity!
The 92 and the 76 at high weight have somewhat similar autorotation characteristics, and the 76 has (unfortunately) been in a few quite successful autos with fleet pilots at the wheel.
For the sake of all of us, keep hoping, however, no real dual flameout is fun.
Don't judge based on one set of autos filmed for posterity!
The 92 and the 76 at high weight have somewhat similar autorotation characteristics, and the 76 has (unfortunately) been in a few quite successful autos with fleet pilots at the wheel.
For the sake of all of us, keep hoping, however, no real dual flameout is fun.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: @home
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by psyan
Let us hope that in the unlikely event, the crew manage to be near a nice flat runway.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while the S92 is approved as a Cat-A twin, it was also approved for Category B. hence the requirement to demonstrate a full touchdown autorotation for certification, since engine isolation requirements can't be guaranteed for Cat-B...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lutefisk,
Unless you get out a cutting torch and hack saw, with the S-92 you get the engine isolation as part of the design!
And you are wrong, EVERY rotor craft must demonstrate a satisfactory autorotative capability, not just Cat B rotor craft. Just as the S-92 has done.
Unless you get out a cutting torch and hack saw, with the S-92 you get the engine isolation as part of the design!
And you are wrong, EVERY rotor craft must demonstrate a satisfactory autorotative capability, not just Cat B rotor craft. Just as the S-92 has done.
psyan said,
"Let us hope that in the unlikely event, the crew manage to be near a nice flat runway."
The EOL landing requirements for both FAR 27 and 29 helicopters only require the following (from AC27-1B, FAR 27.75 and AC29-2C, FAR 29.75):
"Demonstrated compliance with this requirement is intended to show
that an autorotative descent rate can be arrested, and forward speed at touchdown can be controlled to a reasonable value (less than 40 KTAS is recommended) to ensure a reasonable chance of survivability for the all engine failure condition."
The notion that a no ground-slide EOL can be easily accomplished, especially at the higher DAs, could indeed bite someone not used to those conditions.
"Let us hope that in the unlikely event, the crew manage to be near a nice flat runway."
The EOL landing requirements for both FAR 27 and 29 helicopters only require the following (from AC27-1B, FAR 27.75 and AC29-2C, FAR 29.75):
"Demonstrated compliance with this requirement is intended to show
that an autorotative descent rate can be arrested, and forward speed at touchdown can be controlled to a reasonable value (less than 40 KTAS is recommended) to ensure a reasonable chance of survivability for the all engine failure condition."
The notion that a no ground-slide EOL can be easily accomplished, especially at the higher DAs, could indeed bite someone not used to those conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick: not sure I need a cutting torch...
the S92 has a limitation that allows use of cross-feed ONLY during Cat-B ops. am told this is because of the cross-feed valve design, which could result in flameout of BOTH engines if the cross feed valve fails. since this represents a single-point failure resulting in loss of both engines, it isn't allowed for Cat-A (that is, there's no engine isolation during cross-feed).
autorotation isn't considered an acceptable means of landing for Cat-A cert...so don't think full auto landing is required if the aircraft is FULLY certifed for Cat-A. stabilized flair/arrest probably OK for full Cat-A, as Tweedles alludes.
all that said...I think the autos in the video are impressive...it's a BIG aircraft to auto. land it level, and you'll walk away.
the S92 has a limitation that allows use of cross-feed ONLY during Cat-B ops. am told this is because of the cross-feed valve design, which could result in flameout of BOTH engines if the cross feed valve fails. since this represents a single-point failure resulting in loss of both engines, it isn't allowed for Cat-A (that is, there's no engine isolation during cross-feed).
autorotation isn't considered an acceptable means of landing for Cat-A cert...so don't think full auto landing is required if the aircraft is FULLY certifed for Cat-A. stabilized flair/arrest probably OK for full Cat-A, as Tweedles alludes.
all that said...I think the autos in the video are impressive...it's a BIG aircraft to auto. land it level, and you'll walk away.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lute,
I've been doing this for a while, so bear with me.
The crossfeed mixes one fuel tank's gas into both engines, which is true of all aircraft, and that makes use of crossfeed a cat B operation for any helo. Cat A separation defined in 29.903 says there must be total isolation of the two engine/fuel systems:
(b) Category A; engine isolation. For each category A rotorcraft, the powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or the failure of any system that can affect any engine, will not—
(1) Prevent the continued safe operation of the remaining engines; or
(2) Require immediate action, other than normal pilot action with primary flight controls, by any crewmember to maintain safe operation.
Regarding autos, all rotorcraft must make at least one full stop auto to the ground, or else there is no type certificate issued.
§ 29.79 Landing: Category A.
(b) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared landing surface after complete power failure occurring during normal cruise.
Thomas,
Not a nice thing to say! The next time an experimental helo needs touchdown autos, for the first time, with no practice, at maximum gross weight, in nil wind and with the entire world watching (including folks years later who make pot shots), maybe we'll ask you to do it! The number of ExP's injured in autos and HV curve landings is appreciable, even for pilots with 10,000 hours and 25 years of test experience.
I've been doing this for a while, so bear with me.
The crossfeed mixes one fuel tank's gas into both engines, which is true of all aircraft, and that makes use of crossfeed a cat B operation for any helo. Cat A separation defined in 29.903 says there must be total isolation of the two engine/fuel systems:
(b) Category A; engine isolation. For each category A rotorcraft, the powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or the failure of any system that can affect any engine, will not—
(1) Prevent the continued safe operation of the remaining engines; or
(2) Require immediate action, other than normal pilot action with primary flight controls, by any crewmember to maintain safe operation.
Regarding autos, all rotorcraft must make at least one full stop auto to the ground, or else there is no type certificate issued.
§ 29.79 Landing: Category A.
(b) It must be possible to make a safe landing on a prepared landing surface after complete power failure occurring during normal cruise.
Thomas,
Not a nice thing to say! The next time an experimental helo needs touchdown autos, for the first time, with no practice, at maximum gross weight, in nil wind and with the entire world watching (including folks years later who make pot shots), maybe we'll ask you to do it! The number of ExP's injured in autos and HV curve landings is appreciable, even for pilots with 10,000 hours and 25 years of test experience.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nick:
Totally agree with what the rule states...but the associated advisory material (which is now 29.75, btw) allows other means to demonstrate compliance--
The intent of this rule is to demonstrate controlled touchdown conditions and freedom from loss of control or apparent hazard to occupants when landing with all engines failed. In these cases compliance can be demonstrated by leaving throttles in the idle position and assuring no power is delivered to the drive train. Also, computer analysis may be used in conjunction with simulated in-flight checks to give reasonable assurance that an actual safe touchdown can be accomplished. Another method may be to make a power recovery after flare effectiveness of the rotorcraft has been determined. Other methods may be considered if they lead to reasonable assurance that descent can be arrested and forward speed controlled to allow safe landing with no injury to occupants when landing on a prepared surface with all engines failed. ...
So if I were lawyer parsing this, I wouldn't require a full touchdown...
I see your point with regards to engine separation and Cat-B. But that raises an interesting question: Why allow cross-feed at all, except for emergency operations? Operationally, allowing crossfeed for only Cat-B means it could only be used is when the aircraft is configured for 9 pax or less (I presume VIP configuration)... I'll have to muse that one.
Totally agree with what the rule states...but the associated advisory material (which is now 29.75, btw) allows other means to demonstrate compliance--
The intent of this rule is to demonstrate controlled touchdown conditions and freedom from loss of control or apparent hazard to occupants when landing with all engines failed. In these cases compliance can be demonstrated by leaving throttles in the idle position and assuring no power is delivered to the drive train. Also, computer analysis may be used in conjunction with simulated in-flight checks to give reasonable assurance that an actual safe touchdown can be accomplished. Another method may be to make a power recovery after flare effectiveness of the rotorcraft has been determined. Other methods may be considered if they lead to reasonable assurance that descent can be arrested and forward speed controlled to allow safe landing with no injury to occupants when landing on a prepared surface with all engines failed. ...
So if I were lawyer parsing this, I wouldn't require a full touchdown...
I see your point with regards to engine separation and Cat-B. But that raises an interesting question: Why allow cross-feed at all, except for emergency operations? Operationally, allowing crossfeed for only Cat-B means it could only be used is when the aircraft is configured for 9 pax or less (I presume VIP configuration)... I'll have to muse that one.
Lute,
An interesting discussion because it mixes the two concepts of Certification and Operation (as may the S92 RFM); consider this, when an S92 is cruising at 10,000ft with 19 passengers and large amounts of fuel such that it cannot meet a 50ft/min ROC, under what conditions is it operating.
Alternatively, under what conditions is the S92 operating for take-off and landing on a helideck (in the tropics)?
Jim
An interesting discussion because it mixes the two concepts of Certification and Operation (as may the S92 RFM); consider this, when an S92 is cruising at 10,000ft with 19 passengers and large amounts of fuel such that it cannot meet a 50ft/min ROC, under what conditions is it operating.
Alternatively, under what conditions is the S92 operating for take-off and landing on a helideck (in the tropics)?
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL
i never saw the S92 RFM (but i liked to see it
section 2 and 5 could be enough to me anyone??
so i can be wrong
but, if it's possible to drop some fuel, and/or passengers (ok, the last one, maybe they don't like so much ) or drift down to some altitude were the requirement of ROC can be meet, i think will be on PC1 (on JAA land)
helideck in the tropics??
maybe, thanks god, there isn't JAA land there
and from my very limited(very in did
) experience, there are a couple of "problems" that can need a "fixing problem" autorotation , even when both engines (both can be 2, 3, ...) are working 100% perfect
pilot experience apart (from the guys that flown the helicopter in the video), what catch my eye (and my asking comment) was the long ground run, even for that high pitch up attitude (lots of horizontal lift vector pointing backwards)
i've tried to find videos from other (similar size) helicopter, so it doesn't turn in "all against S92" thing, but without luck
i never saw the S92 RFM (but i liked to see it
section 2 and 5 could be enough to me anyone?? so i can be wrong
but, if it's possible to drop some fuel, and/or passengers (ok, the last one, maybe they don't like so much
) or drift down to some altitude were the requirement of ROC can be meet, i think will be on PC1 (on JAA land)helideck in the tropics??
maybe, thanks god, there isn't JAA land there and from my very limited(very in did
) experience, there are a couple of "problems" that can need a "fixing problem" autorotation , even when both engines (both can be 2, 3, ...) are working 100% perfect pilot experience apart (from the guys that flown the helicopter in the video), what catch my eye (and my asking comment) was the long ground run, even for that high pitch up attitude (lots of horizontal lift vector pointing backwards)
i've tried to find videos from other (similar size) helicopter, so it doesn't turn in "all against S92" thing, but without luck
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS,
I agree with you reference the long run-on distance after the deceleration high pitch attitude. Nick can probably offer a more articulate answer; however, the answer to stopping or significantly reducing the ground run distance at touch down is to perform the autorotation similar to the way the US Coast Guard used to teach the manuever for the H-52 (S-62 civilian version).
The coast Guard had a full instrument package and radio altimeter, which were all necessary to properly perform the maneuver. The decelration would start at 200 feet AGL, as the airspeed decreased below 50 knots, the nose was leveled with the horizon. By this point the aircraft was somewhere around 50 feet off the water, The pilot had to control rotor rpm by reducing collective as the nose was being leveled. At an appropriate point above the ground (as I vaguely recall 20 to 25 feet) the rest of the collective pitch was positively nicreased to allow the aircraft to settle in the water without forward airspeed.
We used to do the same manuever with our S-62s in the GOM, but wuithout SAS or radar altimters. The maneuver is a cheap thrill on the first try, but it works. We modified the maneuver to reflect more of a profile like the US Army would perform with the UH-1H (B205). Deceleration somwhere around 75 feet, hold to 30 feet, take out most of the decelration attitude and tounchdown in the water with an approximate2 degree pitch up attitude. Same result and still floating.
Army pilots rule!
Nick,
Any suggestions on an autorotation profile to the water to minimize forard movement on landing?
I agree with you reference the long run-on distance after the deceleration high pitch attitude. Nick can probably offer a more articulate answer; however, the answer to stopping or significantly reducing the ground run distance at touch down is to perform the autorotation similar to the way the US Coast Guard used to teach the manuever for the H-52 (S-62 civilian version).
The coast Guard had a full instrument package and radio altimeter, which were all necessary to properly perform the maneuver. The decelration would start at 200 feet AGL, as the airspeed decreased below 50 knots, the nose was leveled with the horizon. By this point the aircraft was somewhere around 50 feet off the water, The pilot had to control rotor rpm by reducing collective as the nose was being leveled. At an appropriate point above the ground (as I vaguely recall 20 to 25 feet) the rest of the collective pitch was positively nicreased to allow the aircraft to settle in the water without forward airspeed.
We used to do the same manuever with our S-62s in the GOM, but wuithout SAS or radar altimters. The maneuver is a cheap thrill on the first try, but it works. We modified the maneuver to reflect more of a profile like the US Army would perform with the UH-1H (B205). Deceleration somwhere around 75 feet, hold to 30 feet, take out most of the decelration attitude and tounchdown in the water with an approximate2 degree pitch up attitude. Same result and still floating.
Army pilots rule!
Nick,
Any suggestions on an autorotation profile to the water to minimize forard movement on landing?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is an example of why you dont see and hear more from test teams and why nobody releases video.
The video shows two autos, the first done in the type. From this, this group has focused on one aspect, the ground run, which was not optimized, because it did not have to be. I will bet nobody who has posted here has ever autorotated a 10 ton helo at max gross weight to the ground, and I will bet nobody here has seen any such auto done by any other such helo, but the thread moves on, regardless!
The auto capability of the typical large helo is about like the 92, in fact the 92 is probably better than most in its size range. It can be stopped and it can make a good auto entry to the water, but the test pilot on that day was just trying to land without harming a $100 million asset! Had he bent that machine, the program would have been set back by at least 6 months, and he would also have had visitors while in the hospital. He did a great job, and you got a peek into the test world. Deal with it!
The video shows two autos, the first done in the type. From this, this group has focused on one aspect, the ground run, which was not optimized, because it did not have to be. I will bet nobody who has posted here has ever autorotated a 10 ton helo at max gross weight to the ground, and I will bet nobody here has seen any such auto done by any other such helo, but the thread moves on, regardless!
The auto capability of the typical large helo is about like the 92, in fact the 92 is probably better than most in its size range. It can be stopped and it can make a good auto entry to the water, but the test pilot on that day was just trying to land without harming a $100 million asset! Had he bent that machine, the program would have been set back by at least 6 months, and he would also have had visitors while in the hospital. He did a great job, and you got a peek into the test world. Deal with it!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albeit not helicopters, i can vouch that testing any vehicle exposes the machine to difficulties that might not have been anticipated. Serious respect to crew for having the guts to do it in an untried, and very expensive, prototype.
Interesting discussion about Cat A / Cat B. As a powertrains man i still wonder about the tail rotor drive. This is not a pot shot at any helicopter, but i do wonder how long before there is an electric motor or two with power taken from generator for each engine. TR failure is another situation requiring autorotation, and there is only one drive. E-drive fits right in with FBW.
Interesting discussion about Cat A / Cat B. As a powertrains man i still wonder about the tail rotor drive. This is not a pot shot at any helicopter, but i do wonder how long before there is an electric motor or two with power taken from generator for each engine. TR failure is another situation requiring autorotation, and there is only one drive. E-drive fits right in with FBW.