|
I wonder how that's going to be removed? It's a long way up. A bigger helo to lift?
|
Originally Posted by Old Farang
(Post 10922981)
Going by the strange (oil) mess on the helideck, this makes the most sense.
|
The crashworthiness of that aircraft in the second video is quite impressive, it really did hit the heli-pad quite hard on its side which is not where the best impact cushioning for the occupants lies.
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like an AS350? |
Originally Posted by cattletruck
(Post 10923162)
The crashworthiness of that aircraft in the second video is quite impressive, it really did hit the heli-pad quite hard on its side which is not where the best impact cushioning for the occupants lies.
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like a B206 or AS350? |
Did you read Shy Torque’s post? |
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10922649)
If it wasn’t a driveshaft failure it must have been a hard right pedal input, or control runaway. It’s difficult to tell if the tail rotor rpm changed because we’re not watching in real time and camera frame rate masks what’s going on.
As per the previous post, the aircraft are totally different types (169 versus 109) and their tail rotor control systems are totally different. |
Originally Posted by cattletruck
(Post 10923168)
Yes, just trying to compare the effort required with something I already know.
The tail rotor blade pitch of the 109 is designed to revert to a neutral setting without hydraulics. However, to move them from that setting you have to use so much foot force on the pedals (to get limited effect) it feels like something is likely to bend or break. The good news is that the aircraft remains flyable in most circumstances, provided that it doesn’t happen at very low speed! |
Thanks ST, much appreciated.
Any horn (Fiat?) go off if you lose that hyd circuit? |
Originally Posted by cattletruck
(Post 10923304)
Thanks ST, much appreciated.
Any horn (Fiat?) go off if you lose that hyd circuit? The RFM advice for the 109 advises a slow reduction to 90kts and not using any AOB greater than 25*. It also warns against flight regimes needing high control inputs..... If this is what happened here, it just wasn’t the pilot’s day. At least they all escaped major injury, or worse. |
The #1 Hyd fail approaching the hover is something I regularly train on the A109 FFS. It is controllable, but you have to recognise it quickly, and give it a seriously hard load of left boot. If it takes you by surprise, it could easily give you a rapid right yaw before you can react.
|
Given the modest amount of damage to the aircraft, and that there were no injuries, the basic cause of this surely has to be known by now. Particularly for those of us that fly 109s, the most important thing is having this info asap so at least we/maintenance can know if there is anything that needs extra attention. Thankfully mechanical failures are very rare, but, if it was one, this could easily have had been an accident of as much tragedy and sensation as the Leicester 169.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10922820)
Having carried out a ‘Check A’ on the 109 every working day for the last decade and a half and having over 3,000 hours on type, I do have some idea of how the thing is put together.
One other “gotcha” on this type is that out of the two hydraulic systems, only #1 boosts the yaw servo. If #1 hydraulics drop off line, servo assistance is lost and the pedal feedback forces can be very high. It’s then very difficult to apply enough “boot” to keep the aircraft straight at low speed. The normal way to land in that condition is a running landing at about 30 kts, ideally with a crosswind from the left. |
Nooby, two years? You missed out the other half decade but I’m always grateful for an engineering point of view. ;)
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10924651)
Nooby, two years? You missed out the other half decade but I’m always grateful for an engineering point of view. ;)
Normally if Leo is concerned about the aircraft they would have communicated as such by now. But it is still silence. Which would SEEM to indicate that all was well with the aircraft, or at least that it wasn't a design/manufacturing defect. |
Did NTSB issue any report on this accident?
|
Originally Posted by gmrwiz
(Post 10994931)
Did NTSB issue any report on this accident?
Nothing further. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.