Rolling take offs in a Helicopter
If it won't even get off the ground with full up collective, you should be staying ON the ground.There are some exceptions, however, and it usually involves high speed pieces of lead proceeding in your specific direction
Winnie,
What prevents you from segregating helicopter and fixed wing operations to provide a safe distance that would eliminate the throwing of rocks?
As dust is a shallow and short radius issue at takeoff....why not do a Towering Takeoff as done for ages in the past with no hovering....do a quick very low hover to ascertain all is right with the aircraft....land back....then take off from the ground and climb out of the dust cloud on Instruments?
If there is no question of the aircraft being ready to fly.....skip the low hover and just do the ITO.
What prevents you from segregating helicopter and fixed wing operations to provide a safe distance that would eliminate the throwing of rocks?
As dust is a shallow and short radius issue at takeoff....why not do a Towering Takeoff as done for ages in the past with no hovering....do a quick very low hover to ascertain all is right with the aircraft....land back....then take off from the ground and climb out of the dust cloud on Instruments?
If there is no question of the aircraft being ready to fly.....skip the low hover and just do the ITO.
.the one question I would pose to that is if that "demand for more power" is a product of attempting to accelerate too quickly which would not matter if you were into wind or "down wind"....and as I recall Doctor Lappos correctly what he opined is the takeoff distance downwind is far greater than when done into wind and that if the control inputs are done properly there is no difference in the power required for the takeoff but rather just a much longer distance.
What I have seen catch pilots out is being in the downwind hover with ETL from behind at close to max Tq then convincing themselves they can transition downwind without further thought.
Then they get very close to max Tq in the zero airspeed condition having lost ETL and tilted the disc and actually overTq as they hit the rotor vortices just before gaining ETL
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've used the 'running take off' technique a few times in the AEW MKII Seakings of 849 to get off the deck of the (now old) carriers. We would wait for a clear deck, line up right at the back, perform a 'running' take off and flop off the left hand side of the deck just prior to the ramp, around '2' spot. The idea was to slightly over pitch the blades for the initial 'flop' as to clear the deck then use the height to accelerate into the ground cushion and translational lift.
The 'Bag' often required a fair bit of help off the deck in hot and humid conditions when the fuel load necessitated a long fighter controller sortie.
Fun times!
The 'Bag' often required a fair bit of help off the deck in hot and humid conditions when the fuel load necessitated a long fighter controller sortie.
Fun times!
The idea was to slightly over pitch the blades for the initial 'flop' as to clear the deck then use the height to accelerate into the ground cushion and translational lift
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say that you still achieved 'ground effect' over water.
Thankfully as it was pretty useful when conducting HIFR and Advanced single engine flight continued technique training.
Thankfully as it was pretty useful when conducting HIFR and Advanced single engine flight continued technique training.
If you were 'overpitching the blades' how did you not exceed Tq and PTIT limits?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi crab,
You would pull to the torque limit, whilst observing the PTIT limits as well, overpitching was probably the wrong terminology. That was enough to clear you off the deck with forward speed but would not have been adequate for a 'normal' lift into the hover and transition as, when you moved off the deck, you would not have enough lift as you would lose the ground effect of the deck.
Was a fair while ago but worked well.
You would pull to the torque limit, whilst observing the PTIT limits as well, overpitching was probably the wrong terminology. That was enough to clear you off the deck with forward speed but would not have been adequate for a 'normal' lift into the hover and transition as, when you moved off the deck, you would not have enough lift as you would lose the ground effect of the deck.
Was a fair while ago but worked well.
That makes more sense to me - a 'flop and drop' to gain speed
Similar to the S76A+ in the South China Sea. Beep the rotor up to 107%, pull hard up to 100%(+) on both and as it leapt into its tortured path into the air push forward steeply enough so that the boom wouldn't collect the deck as you hurtled over the side. You then plunged towards the sea hoovering up the 200 ft. or so available. 30 knots and the judder would follow and you pulled out of the dive at about 50 ft..
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
AKA as “The Dance of Death” in the 76A.
Similar to the S76A+ in the South China Sea. Beep the rotor up to 107%, pull hard up to 100%(+) on both and as it leapt into its tortured path into the air push forward steeply enough so that the boom wouldn't collect the deck as you hurtled over the side. You then plunged towards the sea hoovering up the 200 ft. or so available. 30 knots and the judder would follow and you pulled out of the dive at about 50 ft..
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar to the S76A+ in the South China Sea. Beep the rotor up to 107%, pull hard up to 100%(+) on both and as it leapt into its tortured path into the air push forward steeply enough so that the boom wouldn't collect the deck as you hurtled over the side. You then plunged towards the sea hoovering up the 200 ft. or so available. 30 knots and the judder would follow and you pulled out of the dive at about 50 ft..
Exactly what we used for rig work as well. Unfortunately the Seaking was 'computer' (not recognisable as such by the yoof of today
) controlled at 104% NR as set by the speed select levers. The collective pitch anticipators would help in maintaining rotor speed but you did still have a very small amount of transient droop at 100% twin torque in hot temps. Over speeding the NR wasn't an option sadly. (I can't remember the exact figure allowed in auto but I seem to recall 110%) Although, thinking back on it, you could have selected more than 104% but it wasn't the 'done' thing I assume.Distant memories of the windscreen filling with vision of sea wondering when the ground effect and translational lift would kick in!
Similar to the S76A+ in the South China Sea. Beep the rotor up to 107%, pull hard up to 100%(+) on both and as it leapt into its tortured path into the air push forward steeply enough so that the boom wouldn't collect the deck as you hurtled over the side. You then plunged towards the sea hoovering up the 200 ft. or so available. 30 knots and the judder would follow and you pulled out of the dive at about 50 ft..
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
American passengers in the back would go "Yee Haw". The Chinese passengers didn't worry. They had fallen asleep as soon as they had fastened their seat belts.
Avoid imitations
212man, yes flying the C, with the “B” gearbox was easier as the same engines topped out before the gearbox limits were reached so the “full power” scan was easier.
It didn’t really fly any better, though…especially as the MAUW was increased.
It didn’t really fly any better, though…especially as the MAUW was increased.
