Nick

This would probable qualify as the most comprehensive servey yet undertaken and I note some very interseting replies,I hope that you (we) are being listened to.

For me
1. One Very reliable and indistructable, damage tolerant,powerfull engine rather than two.

2. BMW to design the cockpit and instumentation, ergonomics,and crash prtection including heater controls and operation ( MK 11 Puma heating system is probably the most noisy and complicated piece of S**T that I have ever the misfortune to operate the heater must have been designed by someone with a grudge against pilots). Out of the 5 that we operate none work on the auto setting and in manual you play with the settings more than the radios.

3. We have more computors on the MK11 puma than in a "spotty geeks smelly bedroom" they tell us via the IFDS screens and air data units what our MaxNG is our Max TQ is, 2.5 min rating, and 30 sec rating, and blue line speed is ( IAS needed to fly straight and level single engine) then why in gods name do we have to refere to some hidden and cumbersome flight manual to determine T/O perfomence from paper sheets when this could be presented on screen.

4. ALL helicopters should have simple reliable and cheep to maintain Auto stabilization devices fitted, for christ sake you can by a $200 model helicopter with tail rotor gyros the size of a boe of matches yet pay $200,000 and you are luky to get radios fitted.

5. A new approach to the whole package.


Waiter more Beer

1. De Icing Gear
2. Better pilot seats
3. More power
4. EFIS/IIDS as stock fitting
5. Better cowl latches...:(

Nick

1. High tail and main rotor clearance for pax safety and confined area ops

2. Engine protection or better alarms for hot/hung starts. for eg, a detector that can sense the exponetial rate of temp rise that will give the driver a few extra seconds to initiate the shutdown or a battery voltage drop indicator (incorporated into the t4 dial?)

3. Survivability for crew and pax, airbags? instrument panel and cockpit levers(head). seats (spine)

4. Fewer hourly inspections for extended field operations

5. good external visibility for single pilot sling ops, such as the vertical reference window

Oops, up to number six

6. Fantastic, 24 hour, aimed to please the customer service, for all enquiries, parts and direct to factory questions to test pilots ( such as we have here with pprune with you)

7. Night Vision Glass ! ( thats just a wish list item, but thought id throw it in)

S L

Nick,

The one item I have is that helicopters need to have a fenestron or notar antitorque device. I have been flying helicopters for only four years now and know of four incidents/accidents where the the tail rotor has clipped some object. This has caused pilots to lose their jobs, owners have downtime and increased insurance premiums, passengers with injuries, and a lot of bad feelings to go around.

A fenestron/notar device may not prevent all accidents but can greatly reduce the number. I believe insurance companies will charge lower premiums for these kind of helicopters.

P.S. Nick, we should get together sometime for a cup of coffee. I live in CT. I also want to get a type in the S-92.

And if you could have a quiet word in Frank's ear...

Would it kill him to put an extra 6 inches of space around both seats in an R22? Its like a Mini with rotor blades! I love it, but would it hurt to move everything apart so we can at least breathe out on occasion?

And how about an R11? Single seat R22 for hour builders?

I've heard of rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous - didn't think they meant it literally.

what about a big parachute that deploys from a pod on top of the rotors for when the whole thing drops to the ground after a catastrophic component failure that prevents autorotation?

Allied to the airbags idea - got to be a winner

As regular SLF on planks it is really not my place to be saying anything, but I will anyway.

The above idea about deploying Parachutes in the event of a catastophic failure must be achievable. Maybe mast mounted like the Sight on the AH64D. Why has it not been done?

Same could be done on light planks especially gliders. The total Glider and driver combination must weighless than a Land Rover 90 that can easily be parachuted in.

Is it the weight penalty or what that prevents it being done?

If parachutes are incorporated, please make it an option. I don't want shroud lines to wrap around my rotor blades when they're deployed inadvertently.

While it sounds like a good idea, is used on hand gliders (ballistic parachute), the truth would be that it requires extra maintenance, comes with a weight penalty, and would rarely be used. For it to be useful, the engines must fail, autorotation must fail, and those problems identified prior to the helicopter being in an envelope that would preclude parachute deployment. Maybe if explosive bolts were on the blades as well....hmmmmmm.

Hey Nick,

Haven't seen you around since I changed ISPs and lost newsgroup access. (RAR). Anyway, some of this is redundant but:

1. More power, but more specifically: Don't just advertise your standard day specs but also your "high and hot" specs. Performance degradation at high DA varies among aircraft, and it would be nice to have an idea beforehand just how bad it's gonna be if you regularly operate at high DA. (Maybe the mfrs. could standardize on the Army's "high and hot" specification.) Every conventional helicopter sold today should have tailboom strakes like those sold by "BLR Aerodynamic Solutions". It's free power, why not take advantage of it? Surely it wouldn't cost that much to license the technology.

2. Less noise outside, less noise and vibration inside. The most prolific single-engine turbine helicopter in the world is the Bell Jetranger, and it also has one of the most objectionable noise signatures. Manufacturers have got to do better if we're going to improve our image amongst the public. I've had to deal with noise complainers in the past and it would sure be nice if perceived noise on the ground was less of a factor. For the interior, ANR should be a feasible option for noise reduction. Years ago I read in AAAA magazine that Hughes Helicopters had great success with a system tied into a SAS that reduced vibration by minimizing rotor-to-airframe interaction. (I.E. it would reduce the pitch of a blade as it approached overflight of the tailboom.) The system worked well in testing but then it just seems to have disappeared.

3. Reduced maintenance and DOCs. Another promising system that I read about in AAAA Magazine used electromagnetic sensors around the exhaust stack that could sense the passage of vaporized metallic particles in the exhaust. Once a database was established for each engine type, this sytem could accurately predict an impending failure to within a few hours. The idea was that you could eliminate virtually all scheduled maintenance and fly the crap out of the engine until it was about to fail. (We kinda do that anyway.) I think that HUMS was a somewhat lesser version of this. The reduction in scheduled maintenance would significantly reduce DOCs.

4. Hybrid analog/digital gauges. The supplemental digital display of engine parameters is a good thing, but combine it with an analog needle rather than those hated "chiclets". "Chiclet" indicators suck big time. It would be easy to drive an analog needle digitally with a simple D/A converter. While we're on the subject of ergonomics, keep the throttle on the collective, "twist grip" style. Engine Power Levers that are separate from the collective are a bad idea.

5. Increase Vne, which would also increase range. Remember the Cheyenne? A modern compound helicopter could be even less complex than that. Just allow the turboshaft engine to develop some thrust. Modern turboshaft engines go to great pains to ensure that they produce no thrust. Increase engine efficiency by straightening the gas flow up to the tailpipe. At the tailpipe, you would have a simple louvre system (similar to that on a Harrier) that would direct the exhaust gases 90 degrees while at a hover to assist with antitorque, but that path would straighten as airspeed increased, thus allowing engine thrust to contribute to overall forward thrust. (It's an idea anyway. It just seems like the present setup is too inefficient.)

6. Ensure that your twin-engine helicopters still retain an adequate autorotational capability to land without damage in the event of a dual engine failure. It's amazing how often both engines quit in twin-engine helicopters. (Fuel starvation, fuel contamination, etc. )

7. A large useful load and large internal volume, combined with a small overall exterior footprint. Look at the specs for the MD 902 (Explorer) to see what I'm talking about. The Explorer kicks butt in this category. (It carries a lot but fits in a small LZ.)

8. Will Sikorsky ever produce a light, single-engine helicopter? It seems like that category is a major piece of the overall market share. A little competition is "a good thing". (Apologies to Martha Stewart.)

200PSI

I didn't know you always disagreed with me, even when I said you were a good bloke?
:confused: :confused: :D

back to parachutes for a second.

Yes the pod would have a weight and maintenance penalty

But so do ejector seats. You only have to need them once, but you are bloody glad they are there when you do.

I would also expect such a device to have some sort of explosive deployment facility, to push the whole thing as far away as possible from the wildly flailing and now somewhat useless rotors.

There is, if I am not mistaken, a light plank fitted with a similar device.

The following 3 improvements must be made to have a reliable year round aircraft .


1)The ability to flying in icing conditions. To me there is nothing more frustrating than being stuck on the groud in a multi-millon dollar complex flying machine (like a 76) and see those little plank wing Beech Bonanzas and other crappy little, normally aspirated, reciprocating piston popping aeroplanes, safely launch into the cloud deck with temperatures below freezing just because they have 1930s technology pneumatic boots on the wings.

2) The ability to fly in ice.

3) The ability to fly in ice. (edited for spelling)

IHL,

Are you sure you would like ibility as a third choice? I thoroughly agree with choices 1 and 2, but I'm not so sure about that third one. :confused:

p.s. what does it mean? :D

Ah, spoilsport - you edited it!;)

what needs fixing
 

1.Gearboxes that are strong enough for any projected weight increase/power output,do not leak,will run for at least one hour,without any oil pressure and not constrained by a single engine input drive .
2.Twin-engined,but with enough power so that on longer sorties one can be shut down safely and re-started for landing-fuel economy in the cruise-wasted weight I hear you cry,*****cks,how many twins today are running at their design point in the cruise? probably nowhere near,therefore they are inefficient.
3.Proper Power Instruments-Big Tqmtr,Big RRPMgauge,RRPM is Life,Do not make RRPM needle less significant than N2,,Mr.Bell are you listening-get your act together and get it SORTED! NOW!!
4.Seating -up/down/tilt/recline,heat,armrests,cup-holder,map-stowage;with fly-by-wire stick/collective should also adjust fully--look at a modern corporate jet if you need inspiration!!
5.Full anti-icing and IFR capability for rotors and engines;look at the Russians if you need hints,and I know they copied what we were doing in the 60`s on the Sea-king,we just didn`t have the electrical power/electronics to get it right at that time.
6.A good air-con system,even slight pressntn,to stop the water coming in-every WA/Sik.(sorry Nick) that I have flown ,has leaked like a sieve-AHOY! ARE YOU LISTENING in the Glove Factory?? :mad:

No oil pressure or, no oil.
 

To: sycamore

There are several gearboxes presently being flown that have the capability of running for 30 minutes with no oil in the sump. At least two of these designs contain two isolated sumps that with one lost the other will continue to lubricate the gearbox.

The ability of a gearbox to run without any oil in the sumps is accomplished by inserting felt like substance inside of the gear. When the gearbox spins up oil will be directed to these felt inserts until they are saturated. With the loss of all oil in the sumps this stored oil will be excreted from the felt member into the gear mesh by centrifugal slinging. If properly designed this stored oil will allow approximately 30 minutes of continued flight.

:eek:

gearboxes
 

Lu,
Agree entirely, as far as I`m concerned gearboxes should be bullet-proof,ie should be able to survive overtorques,loss of oil/pressure and still continue to work.Manufacturers should not put bits like filters on the outside where they can chuck all the oil overboard in a short time-they don`t look outside of aviation for inspiration,or possibly how things may be done differently/better ,or how not to do it,even.There are always other ways of skinning a cat!!;)

TRPS (total recovery parachute systems) have been a feature of many microlight aircraft for years now. Limited use in rotary wing as far as I am concerned - pretty much the only emergency that would have my butt biting the seat cushion would be a main rotor transmission failure. For just about anything else I would rather stay with the aircraft all the way to the crash site!

...and another thing! I would expect intermittent wipers on the most basic new car costing £6000. Why then do we accept such cr*p systems on helicopters costing £1m or more? Or is it just me who hates flying towards a low sun looking through yet another scratched perspex?

-A small fly-by-wire collective mounted on the seat(s), fully adjustable to each pilot's preference of course, plus a scroll-knob mounted on it for doing slight pitch/speed changes.
-Cockpit doors with a small explosive charge for emergency landings in water.
-one more time:airbags everywhere; ceiling panel, 'a-pilar', underneath console(to protect legs and feet).
-smaller consoles to increase forward vis. (not like 76)
- as for the funky stuff: a helmet controlled searchlight (ah64)
- more (programmable) voice warnings,(let's say you can have a voice telling you you're pulling 100%, or whatever else).
-HUD
-monocoque pilot seats a la formula one.

yadda yadda yadda

Skinning the cat from the cats' perspective.
 

To: sycamore

Many of the ideas proposed in the previous posts have most likely been considered and rejected for one of the following reasons:

1) Too expensive and not applicable to every customers needs.
2) Too expensive and it adds weight and complexity.
3) Too expensive and we never did it on our other helicopters.
4) Too expensive and nobody else is doing it.
5) Too expensive but we might consider it if our customers are willing to pay for it.
6) Too expensive and if it is worth doing from a financial point of view some other outfit will get an STC for the change.
7) Too expensive to change an existing design but we may consider it on our next design if it is not too expensive.
8) And finally if it is not considered in our design it is not necessary and besides, it will be too expensive.

:D