PPRuNe Forums

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th Mar 2017, 03:16   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 530
Did AW/Leonardo plagarise, or ask permission to use?

AW also do the BEST static balance job on their rotor blades. I don't know what they use for blade static balancing or how they do it, but they do a damn fine job of it. As do RBI (or whatever they're called now) as they also repair and balance AW139 blades.

Those blades will easily fly on any 139. The worst I've had is a botched job that took a couple of flights to figure out that the inboard and outboard tabs were in opposite directions!

Took Pitch Links and Tabs to nominal, emptied out all the weight and had it below 0.1 IPS from FPOG to VNE in three flights. The third flight was to confirm that HUMS was actually correct with the prediction.

That has to have something to do with how well the static is done.

I'm not going to comment on 500's. I used to try and avoid them as much as possible!

noooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 13:26   #22 (permalink)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,246
A well tracked 500 is one of the smoothest aircraft out there, but it can take some time and practice. We had a 500 come to us for a Cof A that had been maintained elsewhere.
It was decided to carry out the airtest prior to maintenance. The vibration level was so bad that the airtest was abandoned. As part of the process it was tracked and balanced with the old vibrex system.
The owner came to collect it, took off flew a circuit, and came straight back.
He just couldn't believe how smooth it was. Apparently the previous maintenance company had told him that 500's vibrated much worse than a 206 and he had just accepted what they said.

Over the years I have found that the biggest problem normally lies with the skill level and the lack of knowledge of the individual doing the job. On commercial operations throw in time and crew availabilty.

I remember my first day on the North Sea with Bond. Job to do was tracking and balancing a 105. Thinking I was going to the leading edge of the helicopter business I was horrified to be told that we would wait for dark as "the chadwick doesn't work in daylight".
I soon found out why they had this problem. They were using the dolls eye reflectors supplied by MBB which were not compatible with the chadwick gear. This carried on for some time (as nobody was interested in what I had to say) until the vibrex packed up and the rep from Environmental Equipment (who I knew) came up from Coventry. I cornered him before he got into the hangar and told him what was going on. He produced a set of of reflectors and all was well. As the aircraft was starting up for a tracking run I turned to the quality manager and said that I had used this type of reflector on 500's and they were great. He snarled at me "HOW DO YOU KNOW ITS THE SAME ON A BOLKOW" and walked off.
Pretty much summed up the attitude and why the 105's were shaking to bits.

Oddly enough a few years later I had to use the MBB supplied gear and the dolls eyes on a job in Africa. Worked fine in daylight!!!!

Last edited by ericferret; 20th Mar 2017 at 13:58.
ericferret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 16:55   #23 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: global
Posts: 20

Appreciate your support.....totally agree with you.

Nooby, If you are talking about RBI in Dubai they use the same Static Balance approach as does Avion....just that Avion made it much earlier than RBI did and is probably backed by a little more research. RBI built theirs themselves if I'm not mistaken. However I think you will find the Avion USBF far more flexible and operator friendly.....useable on any hanger floor or flight line not requiring air conditioned environments tor draft free area.

All I strongly suggest is you do the research and tell me who is correct.

To clarify the your inference that AW/Leonardo sought permission I am prepared to stand on stack of bibles and can prove one of their engineers in Apr 2008 downloaded the same information from the web site. AW even admitted to it in email to the offence and said they would change their documentation. If you like I can email you the letter of demand and their email replies if you remain of the belief they sort permission.....far from it....

Be very very careful about believing in OEMs as if they are Gods. Don't believe all the information they release as unchallengeable facts or unassailable truths....they are after all, protecting their bottom line. Treat everything with healthy scepticism and always ask that magic question.........."why"....then wait for the answer and ask if it makes sense or is it B/S..t.

Once again....read the web sites and tell me I'm wrong.

Sorry to Steve for highjacking your thread...I hope you have got some info to help you with your original Q ref the types and the equipment you mentioned

ring gear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 17:13   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,338
Also what problems you are experiencing with RADS or Chadwick in balancing these aircraft.
As the FSE for ACES Systems I guess that would be of interest?

Looking for ammo?
RVDT is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 22:29.

1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1