Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Nodrama - great post, very informative 
Thank you.
Pozidrive - I think you are getting too hung up on the wording in the report. My diagrams are of a 139 TR setup which is near identical.
if you replace the word 'which' with the word 'and' then it might make it clearer.
Thank you.Pozidrive - I think you are getting too hung up on the wording in the report. My diagrams are of a 139 TR setup which is near identical.
if you replace the word 'which' with the word 'and' then it might make it clearer.
Pozidrive - The input lever is attached to the end of the control shaft (with the nut that did come undone) - then the shaft runs through the TR servo assembly with the piston section as an integral part of the shaft - the shaft then runs out the other side, through the TR drive tube, through the duplex bearing and is attached to the spider with the nut that didn't come undone.
A TR control input moves the input lever, but only enough to displace the pilot/spool valve in the servo - this directs the hyd fluid to move the piston (which is part of the control shaft) which moves the spider and changes the TR pitch.
The feedback/followup movement of the control shaft recentralises the spool/pilot valve in the servo, fluid stops being directed and the TR pitch stops changing.
The whole system is designed to have hydraulic assistance and that allows the autopilot to create inputs to the spool/pilot valve without the TR pedals needing to be moved.
I don't think the input lever has enough mechanical advantage/leverage to move the control shaft in a manual mode, even if you and the control runs were strong enough to move the pedals.
A TR control input moves the input lever, but only enough to displace the pilot/spool valve in the servo - this directs the hyd fluid to move the piston (which is part of the control shaft) which moves the spider and changes the TR pitch.
The feedback/followup movement of the control shaft recentralises the spool/pilot valve in the servo, fluid stops being directed and the TR pitch stops changing.
The whole system is designed to have hydraulic assistance and that allows the autopilot to create inputs to the spool/pilot valve without the TR pedals needing to be moved.
I don't think the input lever has enough mechanical advantage/leverage to move the control shaft in a manual mode, even if you and the control runs were strong enough to move the pedals.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Hoistop - if the bottom diagram in my last but one post doesn't explain it then I have run out of ideas to show you.
The input lever from the yaw controls moves the pilot/spool valve which allows hyd pressure to one side or other of the piston - that piston is part of the control rod.
The input lever from the yaw controls moves the pilot/spool valve which allows hyd pressure to one side or other of the piston - that piston is part of the control rod.
I am (still) wondering if piston is trully part of control shaft, or control shaft passes thru the hydraulic cylinder and is clamped/attached... to (hollow)piston somehow - in other words, did rotation of (undone) control shaft strain seals of hydraulic cylinder in a way they are not designed to or not? It is an important question.
If answer is yes, it means that in case this failure occured in cruise and pilot managed to somehow maintain (some) control, he might be soon faced with massive hydraulic leak - loss of hyd. system as a consequence. If this servoactuator is powered by both hyd systems, (two pistons one on top of other and dual spool valves as in standard dual servoactuators) both systems would probably soon leak hyd. fluid, rendering helicopter uncontrollable.
Hoistop - as I mentioned earlier, look at a MR servo jack - the piston is part of the control rod that moves the swash plate - why would you make it more complex by having to clamp a piston to a control rod when you can just machine it in one piece?
If there had been evidence of a hydraulic leak, it would have been mentioned in the initial report.
If there had been evidence of a hydraulic leak, it would have been mentioned in the initial report.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoistop - As I've said before, I've never seen the inside workings of one of these servo actuators.
The diagram is a schematic of what I think the TR actuator looks like judging by the shape of the one fitted to an AW169. I've also provided an AW169 'technical' description that I have found. I am assuming that 'connected by a flange' is describing how the cylinders are connected together.
"A Linear Tandem Hydraulic Actuator, consisting of a single jack with two pistons housed in two different cylinders mutually connected by means of a flange; the two cylinders receive the control flows from the two control valves and provide the force necessary to drive the pitch control mechanism of the tail rotor blades."
The diagram is a schematic of what I think the TR actuator looks like judging by the shape of the one fitted to an AW169. I've also provided an AW169 'technical' description that I have found. I am assuming that 'connected by a flange' is describing how the cylinders are connected together.
"A Linear Tandem Hydraulic Actuator, consisting of a single jack with two pistons housed in two different cylinders mutually connected by means of a flange; the two cylinders receive the control flows from the two control valves and provide the force necessary to drive the pitch control mechanism of the tail rotor blades."
After all the excellent information about duplex bearings and preload offsets , we are still left to find a reason for the bearing failure and the excess torque on the spider end nut.
Unless the split pin at the spider end had come adrift, the control rod can't have rotated relative to the nut to tighten it - is the initial report wrong when it says that the torque is a result of that rotation and if so, how?
Unless there is a clear explanation of that process you come to the conclusion that the nut had been overtightened either on assembly or during servicing. Whether that excess torque directly affected the operation of the duplex bearing or just exacerbated an existing problem with it is one of the questions the AAIB will hopefully answer.
Unless the split pin at the spider end had come adrift, the control rod can't have rotated relative to the nut to tighten it - is the initial report wrong when it says that the torque is a result of that rotation and if so, how?
Unless there is a clear explanation of that process you come to the conclusion that the nut had been overtightened either on assembly or during servicing. Whether that excess torque directly affected the operation of the duplex bearing or just exacerbated an existing problem with it is one of the questions the AAIB will hopefully answer.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
After all the excellent information about duplex bearings and preload offsets , we are still left to find a reason for the bearing failure and the excess torque on the spider end nut.
Unless the split pin at the spider end had come adrift, the control rod can't have rotated relative to the nut to tighten it - is the initial report wrong when it says that the torque is a result of that rotation and if so, how?
Unless there is a clear explanation of that process you come to the conclusion that the nut had been overtightened either on assembly or during servicing. Whether that excess torque directly affected the operation of the duplex bearing or just exacerbated an existing problem with it is one of the questions the AAIB will hopefully answer.
Unless the split pin at the spider end had come adrift, the control rod can't have rotated relative to the nut to tighten it - is the initial report wrong when it says that the torque is a result of that rotation and if so, how?
Unless there is a clear explanation of that process you come to the conclusion that the nut had been overtightened either on assembly or during servicing. Whether that excess torque directly affected the operation of the duplex bearing or just exacerbated an existing problem with it is one of the questions the AAIB will hopefully answer.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
... in other words, did rotation of (undone) control shaft strain seals of hydraulic cylinder in a way they are not designed to or not? It is an important question. If answer is yes, it means that in case this failure occured in cruise and pilot managed to somehow maintain (some) control, he might be soon faced with massive hydraulic leak - loss of hyd. system as a consequence. If this servoactuator is powered by both hyd systems, (two pistons one on top of other and dual spool valves as in standard dual servoactuators) both systems would probably soon leak hyd. fluid, rendering helicopter uncontrollable.
I.e. a catastrophic loss of the TR hydraulic servo would not in itself lead to a loss of main rotor hydraulics. Such a leak would however lead to a loss of system #2 pressure as there is no TRSOV on that system, so you would lose MR hydraulic redundancy.
Last edited by Aucky; 14th Dec 2018 at 08:31.
Surely the bearing failed first?, so the inner race turned on the shaft, tightening the nut and shearing the pin? A bit of extra torque on the nut would not make any difference to the bearing clearance unless it deformed the inner races, which is unlikely. As above, the clearance is set by the machining process, the nut only has to apply enough pressure to hold the inner races firmly together.
Aucky - just like the 139.
Crab,
The excess torque could be for a number of reasons and it is only the effort required to remove the nut.
It is easily conceivable that the clamp up was correct.
At first glance in the picture in the report, the TR end of the control shaft there appears to be burnt grease that has migrated along the shaft.
It woudnt surprise me if it migrated to the nut end as well. As you can see it can get in to very small places as there are traces between the outer part of the inner race and the shaft.
The thread seems to be full of it as well. You dont need much friction in the thread to change the torque requirement in the nut. Ever used Loctite? It doesn't have much inherent strength but spread over the area of the thread?
The excess torque could be for a number of reasons and it is only the effort required to remove the nut.
It is easily conceivable that the clamp up was correct.
At first glance in the picture in the report, the TR end of the control shaft there appears to be burnt grease that has migrated along the shaft.
It woudnt surprise me if it migrated to the nut end as well. As you can see it can get in to very small places as there are traces between the outer part of the inner race and the shaft.
The thread seems to be full of it as well. You dont need much friction in the thread to change the torque requirement in the nut. Ever used Loctite? It doesn't have much inherent strength but spread over the area of the thread?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not really one for speculating, so the picture below is inferring nothing (except that I drew on it with my foot!). The diagram of the spider assembly to the pitch change rod (shaft) in the report isn't entirely accurate. It doesn't show the metal spacer that is between the nut and the duplex bearing. My picture shows that- nut, washer, spacer, duplex bearing. Note the step, where the spacer couldn't move any further despite what torque was applied to the nut. Maybe this is purposely designed to prevent crushing of the inner race?
RVDT - I see what you are saying.
Crab,
The excess torque could be for a number of reasons and it is only the effort required to remove the nut.
It is easily conceivable that the clamp up was correct.
At first glance in the picture in the report, the TR end of the control shaft there appears to be burnt grease that has migrated along the shaft.
It woudnt surprise me if it migrated to the nut end as well. As you can see it can get in to very small places as there are traces between the outer part of the inner race and the shaft.
The thread seems to be full of it as well. You dont need much friction in the thread to change the torque requirement in the nut. Ever used Loctite? It doesn't have much inherent strength but spread over the area of the thread?
The excess torque could be for a number of reasons and it is only the effort required to remove the nut.
It is easily conceivable that the clamp up was correct.
At first glance in the picture in the report, the TR end of the control shaft there appears to be burnt grease that has migrated along the shaft.
It woudnt surprise me if it migrated to the nut end as well. As you can see it can get in to very small places as there are traces between the outer part of the inner race and the shaft.
The thread seems to be full of it as well. You dont need much friction in the thread to change the torque requirement in the nut. Ever used Loctite? It doesn't have much inherent strength but spread over the area of the thread?
Agree. Already covered in my post #1096
OAP
I'm not really one for speculating, so the picture below is inferring nothing (except that I drew on it with my foot!). The diagram of the spider assembly to the pitch change rod (shaft) in the report isn't entirely accurate. It doesn't show the metal spacer that is between the nut and the duplex bearing. My picture shows that- nut, washer, spacer, duplex bearing. Note the step, where the spacer couldn't move any further despite what torque was applied to the nut. Maybe this is purposely designed to prevent crushing of the inner race?
The step is probably not designed as a stop, it is far too narrow. If you look, there also is a similar step undercut at the inboard end of the bearing seating. This is probably designed so that the inner races very slightly overhang the seating at each end and so, there is no chance of the inner race being wedged up on a radius at the inner end and at the outer end the spacer can also fit against the whole outer end face of the inner race. These bearing races are very hard but quite brittle. Any unequal or point loading can cause fracture.
OAP
So what caused the failure?
Since these duplex bearings are widely used in TR assemblies, their failure rate should be very low unless they are not installed properly.
Since these duplex bearings are widely used in TR assemblies, their failure rate should be very low unless they are not installed properly.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Since these duplex bearings are widely used in TR assemblies, their failure rate should be very low unless they are not installed properly.
I don't really see much of a functional difference between the duplex bearing and double or even single ball bearings which expands the installed base even further.