Another rotor break off in flight
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's really odd. It's like the fuselage ascended through the rotor disc. A rotor blade strikes the roof of the forward fuselage, buckles mid span then hits the windscreen and separates. Then the rest follows.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to use caution in determining rpm from video, aliasing can produce strange (even static) perceived rpm, as we see often on videos of rotors or props. It may be valid to say theres an rpm change, but whether it's positive or negative or how much is not really possible.
For me the accident sequence is:
- Sudden collective pitch change.
- 1 blade strikes fuselage & departs
- Out of balance rotor over-stresses the shaft and fractures
For me the accident sequence is:
- Sudden collective pitch change.
- 1 blade strikes fuselage & departs
- Out of balance rotor over-stresses the shaft and fractures
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realise video can be deceptive with RRPM but there did look like a seizure & shock loading in the transmission just before the tragic detachment, the Tail rotor change may have been a signature of that. Tragic all the same.
By private message....a suggestion was made a Swashplate Bearing failure could also be a possible cause for such a tragedy.
Whatever it was, it’s hard to imagine it happening on a test flight following major maintenance being anything to do with previous events.
Meaning there is a reason they are called "Test Flights"?
The spindle fracture tells a big story.
This was not a repeat of the planetary failure chain of events, as I mentioned earlier, blades stay attached even after powered impact. Look at the tail rotor broom sticks, still attached. The separation is in a completely different spot, not at the conical housing, with struts and all.. No, I would strongly suspect that this started with the blade attachment shown broken in the photo.
fracture surface, even at the view shown, is not a clean shear, it has some jagged features on the aft side, and the area near it is clean from paint.
Then, there is an inward crushed area below and forward. This could be the indication of blade twist overload of the remaining segment of metal.
In this theory, crack exists, and is not detected, rigidity holds the geometry. Initial collective load is a "push" on push rod, blade twists, and crack opens further, BTM (Blade Twisting Moment). Damper loads contribute, possible to be complicit in root cause.
Airspeed increases, transitional lift allows collective to drop. Push rod "pull" begins local crushing, blade now unstable and flutters, before separating from rotor.
main shaft fractures from massive overload.
This was not a repeat of the planetary failure chain of events, as I mentioned earlier, blades stay attached even after powered impact. Look at the tail rotor broom sticks, still attached. The separation is in a completely different spot, not at the conical housing, with struts and all.. No, I would strongly suspect that this started with the blade attachment shown broken in the photo.
fracture surface, even at the view shown, is not a clean shear, it has some jagged features on the aft side, and the area near it is clean from paint.
Then, there is an inward crushed area below and forward. This could be the indication of blade twist overload of the remaining segment of metal.
In this theory, crack exists, and is not detected, rigidity holds the geometry. Initial collective load is a "push" on push rod, blade twists, and crack opens further, BTM (Blade Twisting Moment). Damper loads contribute, possible to be complicit in root cause.
Airspeed increases, transitional lift allows collective to drop. Push rod "pull" begins local crushing, blade now unstable and flutters, before separating from rotor.
main shaft fractures from massive overload.
That was a difficult video to watch. I've never seen that before. I don't wish to see it again. Small mercy it was all over quickly for those aircrew on board. Only thing worse I can think of is the same thing happening from great height.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 51
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we didn't have enough whatching a 225 rotor autorotating alone.....now this. What's the chance to caption that on video?
Anyway, whatever are the causes, I find hard for Airbus to recover from these images. It's more emotional than rational now.
RIP
Anyway, whatever are the causes, I find hard for Airbus to recover from these images. It's more emotional than rational now.
RIP
These kinds of videos are akin to watching a Mid-Air Collision occur.....have seen two of those!
Once seen.....they cannot be un-seen....ever.
Once seen.....they cannot be un-seen....ever.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One per rev,
. I am intrigued by the loss of paint. It is unusual to completely remove paint like this. I am not familiar with this structure, but is there a chance it was bonded at that location?
Blakmax
the area near it is clean from paint.
Blakmax
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Europe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the reason for the mainrotor to detach, it's a known fact that Airbus is heavily involved in designing and delivering main components to this aircraft programme.
How many airbus designed rotor disk detachments can be accepted within a relatively short timeframe? Regardless of the root cause, I belive airbus has a MAJOR problem.
The design of this main rotor mast looks very like the 225 mast, but with only four blades. It seems only to have small differences with the drag dampers, de-ice arrangement and dome fairing.
Pitch links, MRH sleeve and blade horns seems identical to the EC225.
This is my take on this accident:
What can cause a pitch link failure? Pitch link damage? Swashplate seizure/failure? Scissor failure?
edit: I also noticed that the pitch link connected to the blade horn of the ruptured sleeve has sheared off at the top, while the other two visible pitch links has sheared off/got the eyebolt pulled out of the pitch link tube at the bottom.
Again Airbus will put the blame on the maintenance crew involved in maintaining the aircraft as usual or they're gonna rule this out as a military prototype crash not in any way related to any other aircraft on the market today. Case closed!
Rest in peace fellow aviators.
Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) is the prime contractor. As the primary partner, EADS Eurocopter will provide technical assistance, and supply the rotor mast, transmission, and autopilot subassemblies. Eurocopter has a stake of 30% in the development phase, and 20% in the production phase
The design of this main rotor mast looks very like the 225 mast, but with only four blades. It seems only to have small differences with the drag dampers, de-ice arrangement and dome fairing.
Pitch links, MRH sleeve and blade horns seems identical to the EC225.
This is my take on this accident:
Watch closely at the photo in post 12, you will see the lower blade horn nut sheared off, most likely due to direct hit from a ruptured pitch link. The same pitch link has impacted the MRH blade sleeve and caused
a major deformation of the sleeve tube which subsequently ruptured sending the fwd blade at the time flying. The MRH can no longer sustain the vibrations and it detaches from the aircraft.
a major deformation of the sleeve tube which subsequently ruptured sending the fwd blade at the time flying. The MRH can no longer sustain the vibrations and it detaches from the aircraft.
edit: I also noticed that the pitch link connected to the blade horn of the ruptured sleeve has sheared off at the top, while the other two visible pitch links has sheared off/got the eyebolt pulled out of the pitch link tube at the bottom.
Again Airbus will put the blame on the maintenance crew involved in maintaining the aircraft as usual or they're gonna rule this out as a military prototype crash not in any way related to any other aircraft on the market today. Case closed!
Rest in peace fellow aviators.
Last edited by workhorse22; 20th Jul 2018 at 21:20. Reason: pitch links
It's similar technology. The gearbox integration and rotor system are KAI's design, according to an AH subsidiary.
Correction: the rotor hub is KAI's design.
Correction: the rotor hub is KAI's design.
Last edited by Jimmy.; 21st Jul 2018 at 15:48. Reason: Mistake
This is my take on this accident:
What can cause a pitch link failure? Pitch link damage? Swashplate seizure/failure? Scissor failure?
edit: I also noticed that the pitch link connected to the blade horn of the ruptured sleeve has sheared off at the top, while the other two visible pitch links has sheared off/got the eyebolt pulled out of the pitch link tube at the bottom.
Again Airbus will put the blame on the maintenance crew involved in maintaining the aircraft as usual or they're gonna rule this out as a military prototype crash not in any way related to any other aircraft on the market today. Case closed!
Rest in peace fellow aviators.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pablo 332.
This is my concern as well. I fail to see how paint can fail in this manner. I am a specialist in adhesive bond failure forensics and such a failure in an adhesive bond should ring alarm bells even if it is not a direct cause of the failure. I ask again if any part of that structure is adhesively bonded? If it was bonded then adhesion failures such as that are an extreme warning of exceptionally poor bond strength. If not, then questions must be asked about how paint can just peel off like that. Such a surface finish provides absolutely no environmental protection whatsoever. Adhesion failures in adhesive bonds or paint are indicative of exceptionally poor preparation processes. And before anyone suggests it, a crash event can never change the failure mode in adhesive bonds or paints. The interface is already exceptionally weak and impact can not cause such a change in failure mode.
Regards
Blakmax
Surface finish looks a bit bright for paint adhesion.
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Europe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be discussed any further here, but my trust in airbus has worn very thin after the 225 accident in Norway.
Can agree that the last assertion is a bit cheap, but the first is a fact from the 225 accident.
Not many similarities with the L2 on this one, more similar to the 225 but with only four blades.
Sleeves, pitchlink, blade horn, droop restrainer support seems by looking at the pictures very similar to the 225.
The sleeves are actually shorter on the this aircraft compared to the 225, if you compare to the photo of the rotor head of the norwegian crash you will see it.
At last it's no doubt where they adopted the design from.
Paint peeling off is not uncommon in this area, at least not on the 225 which by the pictures seems to have used the same paint type, AH replaced this with a glossy light gray color after a while. Maybe they replaced the paint type only for civilian aircraft, I don't know.
Can agree that the last assertion is a bit cheap, but the first is a fact from the 225 accident.
Not many similarities with the L2 on this one, more similar to the 225 but with only four blades.
Sleeves, pitchlink, blade horn, droop restrainer support seems by looking at the pictures very similar to the 225.
The sleeves are actually shorter on the this aircraft compared to the 225, if you compare to the photo of the rotor head of the norwegian crash you will see it.
At last it's no doubt where they adopted the design from.
Pablo 332.
This is my concern as well. I fail to see how paint can fail in this manner. I am a specialist in adhesive bond failure forensics and such a failure in an adhesive bond should ring alarm bells even if it is not a direct cause of the failure. I ask again if any part of that structure is adhesively bonded? If it was bonded then adhesion failures such as that are an extreme warning of exceptionally poor bond strength. If not, then questions must be asked about how paint can just peel off like that. Such a surface finish provides absolutely no environmental protection whatsoever. Adhesion failures in adhesive bonds or paint are indicative of exceptionally poor preparation processes. And before anyone suggests it, a crash event can never change the failure mode in adhesive bonds or paints. The interface is already exceptionally weak and impact can not cause such a change in failure mode.
Regards
Blakmax
This is my concern as well. I fail to see how paint can fail in this manner. I am a specialist in adhesive bond failure forensics and such a failure in an adhesive bond should ring alarm bells even if it is not a direct cause of the failure. I ask again if any part of that structure is adhesively bonded? If it was bonded then adhesion failures such as that are an extreme warning of exceptionally poor bond strength. If not, then questions must be asked about how paint can just peel off like that. Such a surface finish provides absolutely no environmental protection whatsoever. Adhesion failures in adhesive bonds or paint are indicative of exceptionally poor preparation processes. And before anyone suggests it, a crash event can never change the failure mode in adhesive bonds or paints. The interface is already exceptionally weak and impact can not cause such a change in failure mode.
Regards
Blakmax