redboxer850:
raymundo:
would there not be less stress on internal g’box components while doing so ?You need more engine speed/collective to make a helicopter hover = more load/stress.
In forward flight the engine speed/collective are reduced = less load/stress.
^^^this,helicopters are designed to hover but usually as part of the take off/landing,hovering rather than flying uses more engine power and requires more concentration/input from the pilot-more stress on man and machine,hope this helps 
Case closed as csi trucknet is on shift or is it csi f**kwit
Typical fuel endurance for that type of helicopter is not much more than 2 hours.
It had been flying for about 2 hours…and hovering, which is thirsty work for a helicopter.
It has two turbine engines: if one fails the gearbox is like a diff, so the remaining engine will continue to power the rotors.
Engines were ‘popping’ and ‘backfiring’ before the helicopter fell out of the air, according to witnesses. This is a symptom of fuel starvation in turbine engines. The rotor blades sustained little or no impact damage, so they were not under power when the helicopter landed (they were subsequently removed prior to recovery).
Although the impact was hard enough to kill the crew, there was no fire. I haven’t seen any witness statement that mentioned fuel. I’ve seen no report of fuel having to be pumped out of the helicopter before is was craned away.
This doesn’t mean that they ran out of fuel, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility.
The air intakes for the engines are well buried in the structure of the helicopter which makes a bird being ingested an unlikely cause of engine failure. Both engines would have to ingest birds to knock them out. The other possibility is some kind of gearbox failure, and the pilot electing to shut the engines down as the helicopter fell. But would they ‘pop’ and ‘bang’ in those circumstances?
Perhaps it all comes down to something as mundane as a slightly sticky fuel gauge?
Some of you geniuses forgot to mention the possibility of a stall in your report…!?
nearly there:
Dieseldog you really are a grade a tube.people lost loved ones,many more sufferd life changing injuries but by all means dont let that stop you trying to rip the urine out them.whats your next comedy night,down the burns unit wae a lighter and plastic bag.■■■■■■
Nearlythere, I can’t find a post on this thread from “dieseldog”. Have I missed something?
Pimpdaddy:
Some of you geniuses forgot to mention the possibility of a stall in your report, could it be possible with no autorotation…?
I don’t know if a helicoptor can stall in the same way as a fixed wing aircraft. I suppose as a stall is loss of lift, then if the rotors aren’t turning it comes down like a brick.
Although having been in a helicopter that has been doing an autorotation test, I can tell you it also comes down pretty quickly until the pilot uses the energy stored up in the rotors to try and get a bit of lift and soften the landing. I was in a helicopter where the pilots where doing this in controled circumstances, in daylight and onto a nice big field, where the pilots could easily judge at what point to turn the forward speed into a landing. Not in an emergency, at night over a city. I’m sure if the pilot did have a bit of control he didn’t have a great deal of time to fully access the situation and plan the landing site.
muckles:
I don’t know if a helicoptor can stall in the same way as a fixed wing aircraft. I suppose as a stall is loss of lift, then if the rotors aren’t turning it comes down like a brick.
Neither do I, what would have happened for the main rotor to come to a standstill? I don’t think rotary stall the same as a fixed wing & the recovery is different, stall is all to do with angle of attack resulting in loss of lift etc. If the helicopter is moving there will be advancing & retreating blade effect which creates an imbalance of lift causing it to pitch & roll violently in a stall…I think.
Pimpdaddy:
muckles:
I don’t know if a helicoptor can stall in the same way as a fixed wing aircraft. I suppose as a stall is loss of lift, then if the rotors aren’t turning it comes down like a brick.Neither do I, what would have happened for the main rotor to come to a standstill? I don’t think rotary stall the same as a fixed wing & the recovery is different, stall is all to do with angle of attack resulting in loss of lift etc. If the helicopter is moving there will be advancing & retreating blade effect which creates an imbalance of lift causing it to pitch & roll violently in a stall…I think.
If the rotors stop turning the helicoptor drops out of the sky rapidly. The imbalance of the advancing and retreating rotors in forward flight was one of the problems the Pioners of helicopter design had to overcome. (I saw that it a program Chris Barrie) I think what they had to do was pivot each blade, this mean the advancing blade can lift bit instead of putting those forces into the fuselage. I still don’t think they are that easy to fly though. I’ve been told its like patting your head and rubbing your stomach whilst riding a unicycle. 
muckles:
If the rotors stop turning the helicoptor drops out of the sky rapidly. The imbalance of the advancing and retreating rotors in forward flight was one of the problems the Pioners of helicopter design had to overcome. (I saw that it a program Chris Barrie) I think what they had to do was pivot each blade, this mean the advancing blade can lift bit instead of putting those forces into the fuselage. I still don’t think they are that easy to fly though. I’ve been told its like patting your head and rubbing your stomach whilst riding a unicycle.
Id like to see this programme so I can learn more… I’ve seen a video on YouTube where those forces are transferred to the fuselage & the thing shakes itself to pieces:lol: Flying isn’t easy I think, doesn’t matter what it is…
GasGas:
Typical fuel endurance for that type of helicopter is not much more than 2 hours.It had been flying for about 2 hours…and hovering, which is thirsty work for a helicopter.
It has two turbine engines: if one fails the gearbox is like a diff, so the remaining engine will continue to power the rotors.
Engines were ‘popping’ and ‘backfiring’ before the helicopter fell out of the air, according to witnesses. This is a symptom of fuel starvation in turbine engines. The rotor blades sustained little or no impact damage, so they were not under power when the helicopter landed (they were subsequently removed prior to recovery).
Although the impact was hard enough to kill the crew, there was no fire. I haven’t seen any witness statement that mentioned fuel. I’ve seen no report of fuel having to be pumped out of the helicopter before is was craned away.
This doesn’t mean that they ran out of fuel, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility.
The air intakes for the engines are well buried in the structure of the helicopter which makes a bird being ingested an unlikely cause of engine failure. Both engines would have to ingest birds to knock them out. The other possibility is some kind of gearbox failure, and the pilot electing to shut the engines down as the helicopter fell. But would they ‘pop’ and ‘bang’ in those circumstances?
Perhaps it all comes down to something as mundane as a slightly sticky fuel gauge?
It could be the popping and banging was not even connected to the helicopter maybe? Isn’t it the case that eyewitness testimony often has to be taken with a pinch of salt? I gather the pilot was ex-RAF, it’s difficult to imagine he would let the thing run out of fuel.
Pimpdaddy:
muckles:
If the rotors stop turning the helicoptor drops out of the sky rapidly. The imbalance of the advancing and retreating rotors in forward flight was one of the problems the Pioners of helicopter design had to overcome. (I saw that it a program Chris Barrie) I think what they had to do was pivot each blade, this mean the advancing blade can lift bit instead of putting those forces into the fuselage. I still don’t think they are that easy to fly though. I’ve been told its like patting your head and rubbing your stomach whilst riding a unicycle.Id like to see this programme so I cal learn more… I’ve seen a video on YouTube where those forces are transferred to the fuselage & the thing shakes itself to pieces:lol: Flying isn’t easy I think, doesn’t matter what it is…
I think the program was something like mighty machines, presented by Chris Barrie, it the type of thing that gets regular repeats on the like of Quest or Dave or Channel 5.
emmerson2:
nearly there:
Dieseldog you really are a grade a tube.people lost loved ones,many more sufferd life changing injuries but by all means dont let that stop you trying to rip the urine out them.whats your next comedy night,down the burns unit wae a lighter and plastic bag.■■■■■■Nearlythere, I can’t find a post on this thread from “dieseldog”. Have I missed something?
it has deservedly been pulled
bazza123:
GasGas:
Typical fuel endurance for that type of helicopter is not much more than 2 hours.It had been flying for about 2 hours…and hovering, which is thirsty work for a helicopter.
It has two turbine engines: if one fails the gearbox is like a diff, so the remaining engine will continue to power the rotors.
Engines were ‘popping’ and ‘backfiring’ before the helicopter fell out of the air, according to witnesses. This is a symptom of fuel starvation in turbine engines. The rotor blades sustained little or no impact damage, so they were not under power when the helicopter landed (they were subsequently removed prior to recovery).
Although the impact was hard enough to kill the crew, there was no fire. I haven’t seen any witness statement that mentioned fuel. I’ve seen no report of fuel having to be pumped out of the helicopter before is was craned away.
This doesn’t mean that they ran out of fuel, but it certainly doesn’t eliminate it as a possibility.
The air intakes for the engines are well buried in the structure of the helicopter which makes a bird being ingested an unlikely cause of engine failure. Both engines would have to ingest birds to knock them out. The other possibility is some kind of gearbox failure, and the pilot electing to shut the engines down as the helicopter fell. But would they ‘pop’ and ‘bang’ in those circumstances?
Perhaps it all comes down to something as mundane as a slightly sticky fuel gauge?
It could be the popping and banging was not even connected to the helicopter maybe? Isn’t it the case that eyewitness testimony often has to be taken with a pinch of salt? I gather the pilot was ex-RAF, it’s difficult to imagine he would let the thing run out of fuel.
I wouldn’t imagine he would let it run out of fuel through neglect: there are low fuel lights and buzzers.
But I wonder if the fuel level senders failed in some way…and he thought he had more fuel than he did.
It can happen…it happened here
GasGas:
Perhaps it all comes down to something as mundane as a slightly sticky fuel gauge?
reading the pilot forum that someone linked earlier, people in the know are saying that there’s 2 fuel tanks, one for each engine, but one is slightly bigger than the other, so one engine will keep going for a short time after the other runs out of fuel
Pimpdaddy:
what would have happened for the main rotor to come to a standstill?
For the rotor to stop its almost got to be gearbox failure which can and does happen. The 'copter literally falls out of the sky.
With total loss of engine power for whatever reason and you have a chance of putting it down due to the autorotation muckles refers to. Given that a very limited amount of time & control is available and a very quick decision has to be made, a flat roof could appear to be an ideal (crash) landing spot. Its unfortunate the roof couldn’t support the impact.
Driveroneuk:
Given that a very limited amount of time & control is available and a very quick decision has to be made, a flat roof could appear to be an ideal (crash) landing spot. Its unfortunate the roof couldn’t support the impact.
So quick the poor guy didn’t have time to put a mayday call in…
Pimpdaddy:
Driveroneuk:
Given that a very limited amount of time & control is available and a very quick decision has to be made, a flat roof could appear to be an ideal (crash) landing spot. Its unfortunate the roof couldn’t support the impact.So quick the poor guy didn’t have time to put a mayday call in…
Would seem that way.
stevieboy308:
GasGas:
Perhaps it all comes down to something as mundane as a slightly sticky fuel gauge?reading the pilot forum that someone linked earlier, people in the know are saying that there’s 2 fuel tanks, one for each engine, but one is slightly bigger than the other, so one engine will keep going for a short time after the other runs out of fuel
I read that too.
That will only work if both tanks have been brimmed and both engines have burned fuel at the same rate…there’s only a few litres in it.
I’m just struggling to see what the other causes might be…if there’s a big mechanical failure in the rotor driveline then I’d have thought the power of the engines would physically rip pieces out (like when a prop-shaft snaps on a truck)…but the authorities are adamant that no parts of the helicopter detached before impact.
The other possibility is that the pilot shut the engines down in error…taken ill at the controls?
You wouldn’t necessarily expect him to make a Mayday radio call. If he was incapacitated he couldn’t and if he wasn’t he was probably concentrating on making a safe landing…which it seems he nearly pulled off.
Horrible accident, and all credit to those brave people who waded in to help from the start.
He would be too busy trying to retain any available control & looking down at where they were headed. I have absolutely no doubt the pilot put into full effect all his emergency training and tried his very best to put it down in as safe a manner as he possibly could.
(think driving an artic with no engine power, no power steering and 10% of usual braking power … oh and its doing 80mph down hill!)
but he had 2 pc’s with him didnt they have radios ?