![]() |
Wire strike kit question
I assume the camera has made the installed lower cutting blade inoperative ?
Just curious if there are any options here that folks use. TIA https://tinyurl.com/y8fs2tfm |
How many Wirestrike kits have actually made a difference vs the weight compromise?
|
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 10041940)
How many Wirestrike kits have actually made a difference vs the weight compromise?
It makes a difference in some cases. And have personally seen the positive aftermath of that difference. Some additional reading.... http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar0825.pdf www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a086857.pdf https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/46...rotection.html |
Originally Posted by TylerMonkey
(Post 10041932)
I assume the camera has made the installed lower cutting blade inoperative ?
Was once told during a complex WSPS install that a wire would easily remove everything in front of the cutter, as the camera in your pic, then be severed by the lower cutter. In our case we added additional wire guides to ensure any wire would be directed as needed. W1 |
How many Wirestrike kits have actually made a difference vs the weight compromise? |
Well, with new Avionics, as long as the wires are in the databank, you wonˋt have any weight penalty, cause the software can warn you in advance of proximity....
|
We always have our customers at least leave the lower cutter installed. yes the camera is in front of the lower cutter, but dont remove the actual blade. in this picture i dont know why the lower cutter is removed. Bell always leaves the lower cutter installed as well from my experiences.
|
Not removed in this pic , or previous I believe.
https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/11/94/64/62/9846c510.jpg |
as long as the wires are in the databank |
No one has a global database. We build new lines every day and it takes years for them to show up in anyone's database. The database based Wirestrike protection options do as much harm as good (IMO) by creating a false sense of security.
On another note: I had a friend that wanted to install a camera on an AS350B3 that had an WSPS kit and there camera interfered with the lower WSPS cutter. His PMI at the FAA told him if he removed the lower cutter to install the camera he would have to remove the whole kit since there was no mention in the STC of an upper cutter only installation. I never heard what he did about that dilemma. |
Just a note here, the bottom cutter is made in 2 sections and here in Canada a lot of Companies will remove the last section (the pointy one) because they brake easy when a force is applied sideways on it landing or taking off from deep crusty snow, swamp, rocky places or toeing in somewhere etc. Of course not really a problem on concrete pads.
JD |
Originally Posted by southerncanuck
(Post 10042087)
We always have our customers at least leave the lower cutter installed. yes the camera is in front of the lower cutter, but dont remove the actual blade. in this picture i dont know why the lower cutter is removed. Bell always leaves the lower cutter installed as well from my experiences.
|
Thanks for the feedback , always learning here.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:10. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.