Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club
No they don't. TR control malfunction you should still be able to land the helicopter at a place of your own choice, without any particular urgency, and without putting a scratch on the aircraft. TR drive malfunction is far more serious, with far less options available, which can very quickly lead to loss of control.
No they don't. TR control malfunction you should still be able to land the helicopter at a place of your own choice, without any particular urgency, and without putting a scratch on the aircraft. TR drive malfunction is far more serious, with far less options available, which can very quickly lead to loss of control.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gullibell - sorry bud but you are missing an important point. TR Control Malfunction leading to a minimum power hard over is almost the same as Drive Failure and will force an EOL in most types of helicopters. Obviously most types with duplex hydraulics have design features to try to avoid hardovers, but if an input lever detaches...….blades throw off pitch...…..bye bye anti-torque thrust!
"s it me or is that wire locking incorrect in the pic above?"
I don't think so - looks as though the smaller bit on the end is part of the shaft and the big nut covered in blue is locked to it.
I don't think so - looks as though the smaller bit on the end is part of the shaft and the big nut covered in blue is locked to it.
For info, in the S92 incident referred to above by simfly and me, from the report it says: " it yawed rapidly to the right, reaching a maximum rate of 30° per second. " Bear in mind it was 4 ft above the deck and landed after only 146° of yaw, imagine how it would have developed from the same position that Eric found himself in!!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Scotland
Age: 69
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Bumpthump - at TDP, if using the AW confined area profile, the yaw offset to provide sight of the LS is taken out as the nose is pushed forwards to gain speed. thereafter it is as Shytorque says
you would still have your T/R drive all the way thru this event, and that would explain the strike damage in the picture we debated earlier.
Is the Tail Rotor designed to go to neutral pitch or some position such as the BK is which uses counter weights?
I would think most TR's would find their neutral spot. No idea what this TR assembly would do.
I look at item 90 as a part that might affect that point should it get cockeyed or jammed somehow once everything got loose. Pin 80 must get pinch fitted somehow under torque of the nut to prevent it from coming out under normal circumstances
No idea how it is put together though, so I'm only guessing
I look at item 90 as a part that might affect that point should it get cockeyed or jammed somehow once everything got loose. Pin 80 must get pinch fitted somehow under torque of the nut to prevent it from coming out under normal circumstances
No idea how it is put together though, so I'm only guessing
Mitch....we are talking about a 169....not a 92.
My question was very much Type specific.
How the Tail Rotor would react if this component came adrift would determine how the aircraft reacted to the failure.
Would the Servo(s) go hard over in one direction or another....or would there just be a loss of Pilot input and the Tail Rotor itself be free to find some position it liked?
Perhaps some Engineers that work on the 169 can advise us on that?
My question was very much Type specific.
How the Tail Rotor would react if this component came adrift would determine how the aircraft reacted to the failure.
Would the Servo(s) go hard over in one direction or another....or would there just be a loss of Pilot input and the Tail Rotor itself be free to find some position it liked?
Perhaps some Engineers that work on the 169 can advise us on that?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitch....we are talking about a 169....not a 92.
My question was very much Type specific.
How the Tail Rotor would react if this component came adrift would determine how the aircraft reacted to the failure.
Would the Servo(s) go hard over in one direction or another....or would there just be a loss of Pilot input and the Tail Rotor itself be free to find some position it liked?
Perhaps some Engineers that work on the 169 can advise us on that?
My question was very much Type specific.
How the Tail Rotor would react if this component came adrift would determine how the aircraft reacted to the failure.
Would the Servo(s) go hard over in one direction or another....or would there just be a loss of Pilot input and the Tail Rotor itself be free to find some position it liked?
Perhaps some Engineers that work on the 169 can advise us on that?
Last edited by FlightSpanner; 6th Nov 2018 at 13:20. Reason: Spelling!
Thank You!
That is very helpful insight into the mechanism of how this thing might have failed.
What drove my question is the BK-117, for example, in the event of a loss of pilot input (linkage failure for example) the tail rotor has counter balance weights that are supposed to return the Tail Rotor to somewhat a neutral position rather than it being able to hunt for a position it likes which could cause severe handling issues.
I was curious if the 169 was similarly designed in some way.
That is very helpful insight into the mechanism of how this thing might have failed.
What drove my question is the BK-117, for example, in the event of a loss of pilot input (linkage failure for example) the tail rotor has counter balance weights that are supposed to return the Tail Rotor to somewhat a neutral position rather than it being able to hunt for a position it likes which could cause severe handling issues.
I was curious if the 169 was similarly designed in some way.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts