S-92 Underslung Load Q:
Hola,
Any ideas why the S-92 max load on the hook is so low? 8000lb seems a tad low? |
Interesting question
Not a clue. Pretty sure someone will be along with a reply. Never even heard of anyone doing sling loads with a civilian 92. |
Originally Posted by Jetscream 32
(Post 10876820)
Hola,
Any ideas why the S-92 max load on the hook is so low? 8000lb seems a tad low? |
|
Originally Posted by 212man
(Post 10876891)
I think it's because the load is taken by the fuselage structure, unlike some types where a panel can be removed from the floor and the hook attached to the MGB itself. I recall that the hook itself has a limit of 10,000 lbs, but I'm a bit rusty these days!
|
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 10877089)
What makes you think its a structural issue?
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a7fcbea89b.jpg |
Originally Posted by Jimmy.
(Post 10877135)
Maybe because a PTM says the cargo hook has a 10,000 lbs capability.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a7fcbea89b.jpg |
Limits
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 10877195)
So if the "cargo hook has a 10,000 lbs capability" but it has only been "tested to 8,000 lbs", it doesn't seem its a structural issue.
TC data sheet: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8453100786.png |
A 10,000 lb hook attached to an 8000 lb capable structure?
Sounds about right. |
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 10877195)
So if the "cargo hook has a 10,000 lbs capability" but it has only been "tested to 8,000 lbs", it doesn't seem its a structural issue.
|
It might be a legacy from the Blackhawk, which had an 8,000 lb hook upgradable to 9,000 lb.
|
The M model has the 9k hook standard.
|
Is it possible that it is a dynamics of flight, flight controls and/or handling limitation? Such things might have an impact on the certified limits for the carriage of underslung load. In some cases flight test and evaluation may be the only obstacle to increasing such a limitation. A costly process that someone will have to pay for.
|
As I recall, the aircraft cargo hook design load includes a 2.5 G factor. Thats a number I definitely recall from the UH-60. The 92 will have the appropriate FAA requirement and that may include some variation that I cannot at the moment recall. Trying to check with someone.
|
There is a organization in Canada that utilizes the hook. Mainly to carry out flaretip changeouts and other jobs at times (although no frequent)
Regarding weights each A/C and manufacturer are quite different. Let's take a quick look at various types: BH06 / BH47 - both have hook attached directly and only to belly. The 206 would never have the power to do any damage to airframe. The 407 is similar but the weight permitted is quite low compared to what the AC could possbily pull and you end up running in to MTOW way early. BO105 is attached to four points on the airframe. It is acutually attached to the undercarriage if memory serves and the load is shared between each stanchion in the airframe. (The BowCow would never have enough power to damage any structure believe me) AS332 - Here is a different system which utulized two points of hook loading. The first is that the hook may be attached directly to the airframes underbelly but has a load 60% lower then the the prefered way. The most common way is that the hook is attached to a "stripper pole". The pole is attached directly to the bottom structure of the main gearbox and down though through a hole in the floor. Similar idea as that of the 212. Regarding longline with either of these airframes maybe my prefered AC was the 92 at times. It was a extremely stable AC to work. |
Originally Posted by JimEli
(Post 10877089)
What makes you think its a structural issue?
|
Hey thanks for the comprehensive replies - has anyone here actually flown it with 8000lb on the hook? Looking at a potential Helitack operation - so kick out the troops then clip on the bucket on a long-line then go dipping.. with the 900 US Gal bucket and throw some water at the ground.
|
You may wish to review the restrictions on the use of Power by the Hour components and engines in external load operations. Many helicopters have STC's permitting even greater external load capacity than those specified by the OEM - the limitation is the combined weight of the equipped helicopter and external load, and the certified ambient performance. If these factors are combined it is possible to lift loads in excess of the certified hook weight with a light aircraft, at dawn, flown by racing snake flight crews and very little gas and still be within the certified external gross weight limitation for the aircraft. The increased gross weights permitted for external loads with helicopters are a function of the ability to instantly jettison the load and immediately reduce gross weight and perform all kinds of recovery manoeuvres in the event of a power loss in a multi-engine aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by Cyclic Hotline
(Post 10877766)
The increased gross weights permitted for external loads with helicopters are a function of the ability to instantly jettison the load and immediately reduce gross weight and perform all kinds of recovery manoeuvres in the event of a power loss in a multi-engine aircraft.
|
And i you do exceed the `certified` load limit of the hook,and there is an incident,you may well have to do the `awkward carpet -shuffle`,with no biscuits,in front of an audience.....
You may also reflect ,if you are so `cavalier` to limitations ,that they may well fail whilst someone else is driving.....:= |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:49. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.