DSS MicroVib 11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: U.K./nigeria
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DSS MicroVib 11
Does anybody have or used the track and balance kit made by Dynamic Solutions Systems, MicroVib 11? Is it worth looking at? Sounds cheap enough compared with Chadwick. Supposed to be one man (i.e. Pilot) operated. Will it do a proper spectrum analysis? Pro's/cons? Thinking about it for A109 and fixed wing propeller balance. Comments appreciated.
Blue Safari
Blue Safari
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have used it in the past, and found it to be exhausting.....
We had two settings:
"automatic", and "manual"-in automatic mode, it took the system hours and hours to "learn" the perfect path, and the recommendations were out of line most of the times, like "remove 142 grams from yellow blade" (although there was no weight on the blade, and the system knew about it)...
It worked in manual mode, but i find the chadwick much quicker.
In my opinion, if you have to do several ships with it, the "cheap" from the microvib will be eaten up by the extra amount of ground runs and maintenance flights you will end up doing...
(But then-at the end; each system is only as good as the guy who operates it...)..
We had two settings:
"automatic", and "manual"-in automatic mode, it took the system hours and hours to "learn" the perfect path, and the recommendations were out of line most of the times, like "remove 142 grams from yellow blade" (although there was no weight on the blade, and the system knew about it)...
It worked in manual mode, but i find the chadwick much quicker.
In my opinion, if you have to do several ships with it, the "cheap" from the microvib will be eaten up by the extra amount of ground runs and maintenance flights you will end up doing...
(But then-at the end; each system is only as good as the guy who operates it...)..
Does anybody have or used the track and balance kit made by Dynamic Solutions Systems, MicroVib 11? Is it worth looking at? Sounds cheap enough compared with Chadwick. Supposed to be one man (i.e. Pilot) operated. Will it do a proper spectrum analysis? Pro's/cons? Thinking about it for A109 and fixed wing propeller balance. Comments appreciated.
We started getting the Micro at my day job just before I retired and since the Micro was designed and built by 2 ex-Chadwick engineers I thought it would be the go to equipment. But have to say I much preferred any of our other vib equip like RADS, Chadwick 177/8500, and VXP over the Micro. From a price point, yes they're on the low side, but if price is a concern look to the ACES Systems line of equipment. Much better interface and by far much better support. I went with an ACES 2020 for a side business I had for props then added a strobe for some helicopter work I picked up.
All vib equipment can technically be considered a "one-man" ops, but practically it's better to have one person minding the aircraft and one person minding vibration equip. Regardless, unless you are a mx shop and/or plan to be performing a lot of track and balancing, it's usually a better option to rent a kit or 3rd party the vib checks due to the initial cost and up keep costs like yearly calibration, etc.
All vib equipment can technically be considered a "one-man" ops, but practically it's better to have one person minding the aircraft and one person minding vibration equip. Regardless, unless you are a mx shop and/or plan to be performing a lot of track and balancing, it's usually a better option to rent a kit or 3rd party the vib checks due to the initial cost and up keep costs like yearly calibration, etc.
With the old Chadwick 177m from the seventies it was simple, then came the other models and makes of equipment, many many times after days of balancing and adjustments I would rip the balance equipment off the aircraft, put the 177m on it and balance it in an hour or so. Plus nowadays helicopter service intervals are larger than they used to be, and engineers "forget" how to use equipment (including myself)
So after a significant amount of frustration it transpires that engineers are not being trained how to balance anymore, from basic training, type training, continuation training, its never covered. If you do not know what you are balancing, how you are balancing and why you are balancing there is not much chance of carrying out the task efficiently. I have been asked to visit customers who have had balance issues on helicopters, found things had been installed on MRH upside down, wrong way round, inside out, worn out, wrong places, list goes on.
How many times have I seen an engineer installing a balance kit on a helicopter due to customer saying " I have a vibration" without inspecting the helicopter first for wear or damage, it amazed me. Something must be causing the vibration, it was not there a 100 hours ago, what is it, adjusting pitch links, trim tabs and weights is not always the solution. The trim tab tool was always out, adjusting blade tabs, what, why, nothing on the blade has changed.
How many times have I seen an engineer plug the wrong leads into the sensors, mixing vertical with lateral readings, here goes a week of balancing.........
For many years I use to conduct "track and balance" training days for engineers, even experienced engineers, after the 1 day course an engineer could even draw his own basic vertical and lateral balance charts for all types of MRH and tail rotors, its so simple at basic levels. After the course the engineer had a clear understanding of what he was trying to achieve and passed his knowledge on the the younger engineers.
Now asking a pilot to take readings, no not really, unless its built into the helicopter. Its best an engineer takes the readings, relaxed, calm, and under no pressure to say it feels ok when it needs adjusting.
With all the balancing equipment on the market, and purchased by companies I worked for, there were so many issues with engineers (experienced) being able to carry out a simple track and balance that I had to get back to basics to find out why we were spending so much money on balancing equipment, and the more we spent, the longer it took to balance the machines.
With the old Chadwick 177m from the seventies it was simple, then came the other models and makes of equipment, many many times after days of balancing and adjustments I would rip the balance equipment off the aircraft, put the 177m on it and balance it in an hour or so. Plus nowadays helicopter service intervals are larger than they used to be, and engineers "forget" how to use equipment (including myself)
So after a significant amount of frustration it transpires that engineers are not being trained how to balance anymore, from basic training, type training, continuation training, its never covered. If you do not know what you are balancing, how you are balancing and why you are balancing there is not much chance of carrying out the task efficiently. I have been asked to visit customers who have had balance issues on helicopters, found things had been installed on MRH upside down, wrong way round, inside out, worn out, wrong places, list goes on.
How many times have I seen an engineer installing a balance kit on a helicopter due to customer saying " I have a vibration" without inspecting the helicopter first for wear or damage, it amazed me. Something must be causing the vibration, it was not there a 100 hours ago, what is it, adjusting pitch links, trim tabs and weights is not always the solution. The trim tab tool was always out, adjusting blade tabs, what, why, nothing on the blade has changed.
How many times have I seen an engineer plug the wrong leads into the sensors, mixing vertical with lateral readings, here goes a week of balancing.........
For many years I use to conduct "track and balance" training days for engineers, even experienced engineers, after the 1 day course an engineer could even draw his own basic vertical and lateral balance charts for all types of MRH and tail rotors, its so simple at basic levels. After the course the engineer had a clear understanding of what he was trying to achieve and passed his knowledge on the the younger engineers.
Now asking a pilot to take readings, no not really, unless its built into the helicopter. Its best an engineer takes the readings, relaxed, calm, and under no pressure to say it feels ok when it needs adjusting.
With the old Chadwick 177m from the seventies it was simple, then came the other models and makes of equipment, many many times after days of balancing and adjustments I would rip the balance equipment off the aircraft, put the 177m on it and balance it in an hour or so. Plus nowadays helicopter service intervals are larger than they used to be, and engineers "forget" how to use equipment (including myself)
So after a significant amount of frustration it transpires that engineers are not being trained how to balance anymore, from basic training, type training, continuation training, its never covered. If you do not know what you are balancing, how you are balancing and why you are balancing there is not much chance of carrying out the task efficiently. I have been asked to visit customers who have had balance issues on helicopters, found things had been installed on MRH upside down, wrong way round, inside out, worn out, wrong places, list goes on.
How many times have I seen an engineer installing a balance kit on a helicopter due to customer saying " I have a vibration" without inspecting the helicopter first for wear or damage, it amazed me. Something must be causing the vibration, it was not there a 100 hours ago, what is it, adjusting pitch links, trim tabs and weights is not always the solution. The trim tab tool was always out, adjusting blade tabs, what, why, nothing on the blade has changed.
How many times have I seen an engineer plug the wrong leads into the sensors, mixing vertical with lateral readings, here goes a week of balancing.........
For many years I use to conduct "track and balance" training days for engineers, even experienced engineers, after the 1 day course an engineer could even draw his own basic vertical and lateral balance charts for all types of MRH and tail rotors, its so simple at basic levels. After the course the engineer had a clear understanding of what he was trying to achieve and passed his knowledge on the the younger engineers.
Now asking a pilot to take readings, no not really, unless its built into the helicopter. Its best an engineer takes the readings, relaxed, calm, and under no pressure to say it feels ok when it needs adjusting.
A lack of understanding of the basic theory is prevalent and many times engineers will be chasing a vibe issue by blindly following the process of adjustments given by the more modern equipment.
I much prefer a basic system that just provides a phase angle, track and Lat/Vert IPS.
It's pretty simple to work out manually after that.
177 is a bit old hat but there are newer digital systems that will provide the same basic information with much more accuracy especially track data. Just recently used Dynavibe on a MD500E and was very impressed with ease of use and data provide. First time I used the gear and first time T&B on a 500.
Work it out manually after that and think laterally (pun intended) what is causing the vibe. Apart from routine smoothing /post maintenance etc, vibes are often an indicator of failure of another component.
I will give a nod to AW139 Heliwise and HUMS though. For routine smoothing works very well to follow the suggested moves.
Training is the key and is glossed over usually in my experience when it comes to T&B. It's not a black art, just needs some thought and gets easier the more you do.
I don't recall ever been trained in T&B basic theory and I consider myself to be lucky to have been professionally trained by a major international operator over 25 years ago.
In hindsight it was the old hands who explained the basic theory OTJ and picking it up from there.
Agreed 100% PEASCAKE.
A lack of understanding of the basic theory is prevalent and many times engineers will be chasing a vibe issue by blindly following the process of adjustments given by the more modern equipment.
I much prefer a basic system that just provides a phase angle, track and Lat/Vert IPS.
It's pretty simple to work out manually after that.
177 is a bit old hat but there are newer digital systems that will provide the same basic information with much more accuracy especially track data. Just recently used Dynavibe on a MD500E and was very impressed with ease of use and data provide. First time I used the gear and first time T&B on a 500.
Work it out manually after that and think laterally (pun intended) what is causing the vibe. Apart from routine smoothing /post maintenance etc, vibes are often an indicator of failure of another component.
I will give a nod to AW139 Heliwise and HUMS though. For routine smoothing works very well to follow the suggested moves.
Training is the key and is glossed over usually in my experience when it comes to T&B. It's not a black art, just needs some thought and gets easier the more you do.
I don't recall ever been trained in T&B basic theory and I consider myself to be lucky to have been professionally trained by a major international operator over 25 years ago.
In hindsight it was the old hands who explained the basic theory OTJ and picking it up from there.
A lack of understanding of the basic theory is prevalent and many times engineers will be chasing a vibe issue by blindly following the process of adjustments given by the more modern equipment.
I much prefer a basic system that just provides a phase angle, track and Lat/Vert IPS.
It's pretty simple to work out manually after that.
177 is a bit old hat but there are newer digital systems that will provide the same basic information with much more accuracy especially track data. Just recently used Dynavibe on a MD500E and was very impressed with ease of use and data provide. First time I used the gear and first time T&B on a 500.
Work it out manually after that and think laterally (pun intended) what is causing the vibe. Apart from routine smoothing /post maintenance etc, vibes are often an indicator of failure of another component.
I will give a nod to AW139 Heliwise and HUMS though. For routine smoothing works very well to follow the suggested moves.
Training is the key and is glossed over usually in my experience when it comes to T&B. It's not a black art, just needs some thought and gets easier the more you do.
I don't recall ever been trained in T&B basic theory and I consider myself to be lucky to have been professionally trained by a major international operator over 25 years ago.
In hindsight it was the old hands who explained the basic theory OTJ and picking it up from there.
After a couple of years using the later balancing machines, I took the basic readings lat / vert / ips from the equipment and gave the figures to (experienced) engineers in the hangar and asked them to plot them on the maintenance manual balance charts (they had to come into my office to plot them) and tell me the balance move to make on the helicopter.
Amazing results, nearly every engineer interpreted them differently (not necessarily wrong) , some could not plot the readings at all, and I mean AT ALL.
Just because you are a fully licensed engineer did not mean you like to track and balance, I think because they were never shown how to confidently, and that there is always a member of a team who likes balancing whilst paperwork is being done by the person who likes to do paperwork and so forth.
For information, I hated avionics, always have and always will, hated pilots reporting an avionic or radio defect to me when my avionic "expert" was not around, (my go to avionics engineers was great at avionics, but no good at balancing.)
So we all have different skills which is great in a larger company, but not so good in a smaller company.
Continuation training, my pet subject, defect reporting in detail, my pet subject.
4 foot square or four square feet......there is a big difference.............
Apologies if we have hijacked the first post.
PEASACAKE
How true
How true
How meany times have I seen an engineer installing a balance kit on a helicopter due to customer saying " I have a vibration" without inspecting the helicopter first for wear or damage, it amazed me".
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 11th May 2020 at 22:24. Reason: Quote inserts
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Hungary
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings,
Time has come to reactivate this thread, because I think my question is corresponds with the original thread starter.
So I'm considering buying a spectrum analyzer. For my price range there are two options, one is DSS Microvib and the other is Chadwick 192.
Obviously the smart choice would be the Microvib. BUT. As the upper comments mentioned, it's recommended to keep an "old but gold" 177m aroud the household. Is it also true for the 192 series?
My primary balancing equipment is a 177m, and do its job perfectly (R22/44, Md500, 269, 206).
The 192 would be used for monitoring these aircrafts, and maybe for old radials for troubleshooting. So if anyone is willing to share his/her experience that would be great.
Also whats's the difference between 192 and 192a? Did not find any info about it. My heart is leaning towards the 192, because I like the 177m and have the calibration tool for it, and really like the vintage stuff. But buying one in 2021...
Thanks in advance
Time has come to reactivate this thread, because I think my question is corresponds with the original thread starter.
So I'm considering buying a spectrum analyzer. For my price range there are two options, one is DSS Microvib and the other is Chadwick 192.
Obviously the smart choice would be the Microvib. BUT. As the upper comments mentioned, it's recommended to keep an "old but gold" 177m aroud the household. Is it also true for the 192 series?
My primary balancing equipment is a 177m, and do its job perfectly (R22/44, Md500, 269, 206).
The 192 would be used for monitoring these aircrafts, and maybe for old radials for troubleshooting. So if anyone is willing to share his/her experience that would be great.
Also whats's the difference between 192 and 192a? Did not find any info about it. My heart is leaning towards the 192, because I like the 177m and have the calibration tool for it, and really like the vintage stuff. But buying one in 2021...
Thanks in advance
All of the comments here hold weight and pretty much sun up the issue.
Used the Microvib pretty extensively in the past and found it pretty good. Really good at spectrum analysis and finding things causing harmonics.
I was lucky enough to spend some time with John Beach the developer and president of the company.
Only caveat is if you don’t understand the theory you will end up going down a rabbit hole.
That being said it has a lot more uses than just T&B. We used it mainly on AS350/355.
Great for drive shaft balance and finding things like duff starter/generator bearings, Arriel engine balance and HMU static droop, Nr out of whack etc etc.
Their website has a pretty good section on training and theory and you can get better results than other systems.
Bottom line is a lot of bang for your buck with the caveat that you need to understand what you are doing and why as previously alluded.
Would more than likely buy one again.
Although be careful these days as some AMM’s call up a specific brand and model which may be an issue.
2p.
Used the Microvib pretty extensively in the past and found it pretty good. Really good at spectrum analysis and finding things causing harmonics.
I was lucky enough to spend some time with John Beach the developer and president of the company.
Only caveat is if you don’t understand the theory you will end up going down a rabbit hole.
That being said it has a lot more uses than just T&B. We used it mainly on AS350/355.
Great for drive shaft balance and finding things like duff starter/generator bearings, Arriel engine balance and HMU static droop, Nr out of whack etc etc.
Their website has a pretty good section on training and theory and you can get better results than other systems.
Bottom line is a lot of bang for your buck with the caveat that you need to understand what you are doing and why as previously alluded.
Would more than likely buy one again.
Although be careful these days as some AMM’s call up a specific brand and model which may be an issue.
2p.
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Hungary
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious why you think you need a spectrum analyzer for your current fleet to include the radials? Regardless, if your intent is to troubleshoot a rogue vibration in the field, you can use your 177 with a simply modification provided you know the different RPM values of the component you are checking. You would need this same info if using an analyzer as well. But if your primary requirement is simply to monitor the health of your fleet then you may want to look into some sort of basic HUMS system instead.
One thing that is nice about a spectrum analyzer is that if you don't mind putting it on a machine that is either new or at least has no squawks from the flight crew, you can get a baseline over all frequencies for comparison when there are issues. I speak only to the 192 and 192a Chadwicks, although all spectrum analyzers could obviously fill this part of the bill.
As I recall, the only difference between the 192 and the 192A was a knob on the 192 that was labeled " broad band". On the 192A the knob in that spot was selectable between " track" or " balance ". I never even saw a 192 so cannot say what the broad band knob actually did. The knob on the 192A is obvious as far as function. AFAIK, everything else was similar if not the same.
I'm old, so I have a soft spot for the simplicity of the 177, but when the 192A showed up, the advantage of a spectrum analyzer took much of the quess work out of finding was was actually vibrating. It's the difference between having a handful of data points and having a complete boatload of all the data. The other reason I liked the 192A was that it was not driven by specialized software that was someone's best guess for make and model. It did have belts and gears, servo motors etc. but 192A was a rugged and reliable unit. The lack of all the monkey motion with the newer all solid state units and being able to download your data are marked advantages to the units that are built that way. I did find, over 35 years of t&b that if you were familiar with the model it was faster to not tangle with software driven devices. Your milage may vary and not everyone ( anyone?) would agree with me.
Having spouted all that, for those who may not realize it from the conversation, the 192A is not supported by Chadwick as it was when it was in production. There are some proprietary integrated circuits that may be difficult or impossible to find. There are several companies that do work on them and you'd be wise to talk to them before buying a bargain unit on ebay from someone who doesnt offer full support. Make sure you can still get the special pen nibs from someone. Not much good without them. I also used it for propeller balancing for many years and would give the chart to the operator to put in a logbook and show them as proof that even if they couldn't feel the difference, the machine could. It's amazing how insensitive some people are to aircraft vibrations. It's a whole other thread.
As I recall, the only difference between the 192 and the 192A was a knob on the 192 that was labeled " broad band". On the 192A the knob in that spot was selectable between " track" or " balance ". I never even saw a 192 so cannot say what the broad band knob actually did. The knob on the 192A is obvious as far as function. AFAIK, everything else was similar if not the same.
I'm old, so I have a soft spot for the simplicity of the 177, but when the 192A showed up, the advantage of a spectrum analyzer took much of the quess work out of finding was was actually vibrating. It's the difference between having a handful of data points and having a complete boatload of all the data. The other reason I liked the 192A was that it was not driven by specialized software that was someone's best guess for make and model. It did have belts and gears, servo motors etc. but 192A was a rugged and reliable unit. The lack of all the monkey motion with the newer all solid state units and being able to download your data are marked advantages to the units that are built that way. I did find, over 35 years of t&b that if you were familiar with the model it was faster to not tangle with software driven devices. Your milage may vary and not everyone ( anyone?) would agree with me.
Having spouted all that, for those who may not realize it from the conversation, the 192A is not supported by Chadwick as it was when it was in production. There are some proprietary integrated circuits that may be difficult or impossible to find. There are several companies that do work on them and you'd be wise to talk to them before buying a bargain unit on ebay from someone who doesnt offer full support. Make sure you can still get the special pen nibs from someone. Not much good without them. I also used it for propeller balancing for many years and would give the chart to the operator to put in a logbook and show them as proof that even if they couldn't feel the difference, the machine could. It's amazing how insensitive some people are to aircraft vibrations. It's a whole other thread.
The Microvib has a fairly cool feature with "harmonics" where you can roll the cursor along the peaks and the highest peak is not always the source but it will show you the lower order that is probably causing it.
Rumour is I think John Beach from Microvib used to work for Chadwick and I think fell out with them over the direction they were taking at one point.
Rumour is I think John Beach from Microvib used to work for Chadwick and I think fell out with them over the direction they were taking at one point.
FYI: John and several other engineers left Chadwick about the time Honeywell bought them mainly for HUMS system development. John and another guy started Microvib and another guy, Norm I think, developed a proprietary program that would take RADS data and make magic things happen with 412 and 407 blades. He even worked a lot with NASCAR on the vibration side. We used Norm a lot at the old day job and it was how I first heard of John and Microvib back in 02 or 03. While I wasn't a fan of the Micro interface back then it was the lack of support at the time that pushed me to an ACES system. Hopefully John fixed the support side and I'm sure Micro has matured into a decent product given the history of the developers.
Last edited by wrench1; 8th Sep 2021 at 00:59.
Recently used Microvib 2 for the first time on a Bell 212.
Lateral and vertical less than 0.1 after three flights following Hub change. I had the advantage of some advice from an experienced mate prior to using but overall was very impressed with the kit and its capability.
Optical tracker not strobe.. Both options are available if you buy the kit go for optical.
Only criticism is user interface not so friendly but overall excellent equipment once you iron out the kinks.
Will see how it goes on a MD500 soon.
Lateral and vertical less than 0.1 after three flights following Hub change. I had the advantage of some advice from an experienced mate prior to using but overall was very impressed with the kit and its capability.
Optical tracker not strobe.. Both options are available if you buy the kit go for optical.
Only criticism is user interface not so friendly but overall excellent equipment once you iron out the kinks.
Will see how it goes on a MD500 soon.
