Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Air Crane in Scotland

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

Air Crane in Scotland

Reply

Old 7th Mar 2018, 11:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 46
Posts: 405
Air Crane in Scotland

Short video about Erickson helping to build a transmission line in Scotland.

https://video.buffer.com/v/5a9ea473f...ampaign=buffer
vaqueroaero is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Mar 2018, 12:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 879
I thought part SPO rules disqualified non EASA registered aircraft from doing aerial work in EASA land...
chopjock is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Mar 2018, 12:39
  #3 (permalink)  

Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 197
It's a shame none of the UK based large helicopter operators were able to do this work. In the "good old days", Bond Bristow and BIH would have been competing for this job. There have been a number of lifting jobs during the recent past which have ended up with a foreign operator being brought in to do the work.
HughMartin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Mar 2018, 21:47
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by HughMartin View Post
It's a shame none of the UK based large helicopter operators were able to do this work. In the "good old days", Bond Bristow and BIH would have been competing for this job. There have been a number of lifting jobs during the recent past which have ended up with a foreign operator being brought in to do the work.
Unfortunately there's not many helis or companies which can lift 8 tonnes in one go

Chopjock if memory serves me correctly EASA/SPO allows non EASA registered A/C up to six months to operate in EASA land before the requirement for reregistration comes in to force.

Cheers SS
staticsource is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Mar 2018, 00:24
  #5 (permalink)  

Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 197
Unfortunately there's not many helis or companies which can lift 8 tonnes in one go
I am amazed these structures weigh 8 tonnes. Are you sure? If so, my post is irrelevent. A bit I like me.
HughMartin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Mar 2018, 07:06
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 46
Posts: 354
Looking at the size of those structures, they would easily get up to 8 tn. The poles would be a good 3tn each, and all the joining structure would be close to 2 tn.

While there are very few machines that could do them in one go, there would be nothing stopping them from flying in the poles individually, and then hanging the supporting structure.

Doing it that way, would probably take 4-5 times as long, maybe longer, and possibly cost more! Also people up the tower while hanging the cross arms, not sure if the rules in the UK would let you do it...
SuperF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Mar 2018, 07:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 221
Out of interest how did they get it to Scotland? Fly or by ship(ping)?

HTC
herman the crab is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Mar 2018, 08:02
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 69
By sea to Montrose and then flown from there.
topoverhaul is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Mar 2018, 12:44
  #9 (permalink)  

Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 197
Have heard direct from the horse's mouth (SSE Networks) that the poles weighed between just under 5 tonnes up to 8.5 tonnes which puts it beyond any European civilian helicopter. Apparently SSE has more work for the Skycrane in the future.
HughMartin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 08:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 36
Originally Posted by SuperF View Post
Looking at the size of those structures, they would easily get up to 8 tn. The poles would be a good 3tn each, and all the joining structure would be close to 2 tn.

While there are very few machines that could do them in one go, there would be nothing stopping them from flying in the poles individually, and then hanging the supporting structure.

Doing it that way, would probably take 4-5 times as long, maybe longer, and possibly cost more! Also people up the tower while hanging the cross arms, not sure if the rules in the UK would let you do it...
You've pretty much got it, down to time, efficiency, easier process and men up the poles.

Task specialists are allowed up the poles as long as your procedures and risk assessments allow it. You just need a pretty good HESLO 4 longline pilot and there's not many of those about in the UK🤔
staticsource is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2018, 21:37
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 612
That is a 64F ( CH-54B ) with the JFTD12-5A engines ( 4800 SHP ) and a hook rated at 25000 lbs., so an 8 ton load would be well within their lift capability.
JohnDixson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2018, 09:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,375
It is so much easier if the person controlling the helicopter is sitting in a seat looking down at what he is positioning.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2018, 13:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 612
FED, that is what the thought was at SA, and what drove the initial design of the rear seat controls. The back seat collective was mechanical, connected to the front seat collective. The rear seat cyclic was a side-arm, three axis electrical, connected to the AFCS. It had 10% authority, but that authority could be “ recentered “ thru the Chinese hat beeper, on the CH-54A ( 64E ). As I recall, the AFCS control on the CH-54B ( 64F ) borrowed from the upgraded version of the CH-53 AFCS and the beeper was automatic.

In any case, there were a good number of pilots who preferred doing things from the left front seat, and had the left door and window modified accordingly ( and perhaps the left collective stick?? ). I’ve seen some movies of one of them and one could not argue with the excellence of their performance. If you’ve seen video of the CNN Tower construction, I do believe that Larry Pravacek did that from the rear seat ( Larry, along with Lee Ramage and John Holt, went directly to Erickson from Sikorsky when SA shut down our Commercial Crane Marketing operation, some years before selling the design to Erickson ).

One other note re the Crane: The US Army had interest in using it to lift the M551 Gen. Sheridan tank, and that was done, with a weight in the mid 50K as I recall. There are pictures on the internet. That was done with a B model Crane.
JohnDixson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2018, 16:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,375
Aerospatial tried a similar system in Puma in the 60s. The operator sat facing forwards in the very rear of the fuselage looking through the rear observation hatch with a side stick connected to the autopilot. I think the pilot still had the collective control but I never heard of it being used.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Mar 2018, 14:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 612
Future Sky Cranes?

Jack McKenna, former Exec VP at SA who pushed the Crane, ABC and S-67, wrote a 2010 book: " Sky Crane, Igor Sikorsky's Last Vision " and at the end proposes a new 20 ton payload Crane design based on the 53K drive train!

Here is US Army cost data from page 47: " The CH-54A's cost the Army $2,847,303 each and the CH-54B's cost $3,014,803 each." ( 1967-72 ). He goes on to write that 40 years later, a surplus CH-54 in remanufactured and updated condition has gone for $28 million.
JohnDixson is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Mar 2018, 22:23
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Stagnation Point
Posts: 9
John:


Originally Posted by JohnDixson View Post

One other note re the Crane: The US Army had interest in using it to lift the M551 Gen. Sheridan tank, and that was done, with a weight in the mid 50K as I recall. There are pictures on the internet. That was done with a B model Crane.
Doing the math...
CH-54B MGW.......... 47000 lbs
Sheridan approx..... +35000 lbs
54B max external.... -25000 lbs

= Tested GW approx 57000 lbs

I went straight to Mr McKenna's book after you posted, and was surprised to see it wasn't documented there, but as you say, the Web knows all.

Droop

PS... I think your finger strayed, you meant to say "CN Tower".
Droop Snoot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2018, 03:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 612
I thought the math was obvious. It was a test. Frank Tefft flew it and lives in Killingworth CT.


There are several events that escaped notice in the book besides the Sheridan lift. “ Twin Lift”, two Cranes picking up a spreader truss from which two cables went to a 35000 lb load was flight tested. Then there was a two point load stabilization system connected into the AFCS, which allowed IFR flight speeds of 80-90 KIAS with high volume/low density loads that went unstable at 30-40 KIAS*, and oh yes, a remote, radio controlled CH-54 with a Precision Hover system that was very successfully flown.
*this project was sponsored by the Army and they owned the technology, which they then gave to Boeing for inclusion in their HLH proposal. Now that was irony.







Sorry about the extra N.

Last edited by JohnDixson; 14th Mar 2018 at 04:10. Reason: Clean up verbage
JohnDixson is offline  
Reply With Quote

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service