Japan CH-101 crash
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Don't forget that a significant amount of the EH101 is composite materials which don't handle impact damage well.
I suspect that cat 5 is more likely since you can't just bend that stuff back into shape and carry on.
I suspect that cat 5 is more likely since you can't just bend that stuff back into shape and carry on.
There are more marks that start at the edge of the pad that interest me, do they match the undercarriage?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
They certainly seem to but would seem to indicate the aircraft's problems started with the wheels on the ground and pointing the other way from where they came to rest.
I am trying to visualize the meaning of the gaps/changes in direction. Perhaps an attempt to lift/correct but then dragged by the USL still attached?
If they landed on to hook the load but forgot to re-engage the AP before lifting, it could surprise an unwary crew into believing they had a control problem - cue some panicked overcontrolling and lots of shouting and then it all goes horribly wrong.
Just a scenario I have seen before but without the crashing part
Just a scenario I have seen before but without the crashing part
Tail Rotor drive failure?
There are multiple impact marks from the main rotor under drive but the tail rotor scrape is only 1/4 rev.
There is, however, the possibility that the main rotor held the fuselage off the ground as it rapidly reduced in size. Something I know from personal experience.
There are multiple impact marks from the main rotor under drive but the tail rotor scrape is only 1/4 rev.
There is, however, the possibility that the main rotor held the fuselage off the ground as it rapidly reduced in size. Something I know from personal experience.
Combine transport with the Wessex logger from NZ!
Cheers SLB