You act as if the majority of all aircraft worldwide aren’t single engine. They seem to get by fine over water, desert, mountains, forests, etc.
This isn’t 1940. Modern turbines are very reliable.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
You act as if the majority of all aircraft worldwide aren’t single engine. They seem to get by fine over water, desert, mountains, forests, etc.
This isn’t 1940. Modern turbines are very reliable.
Conceptually and logically I agree. My "ugh" was purely emotionally based on the fact that I always felt better flying around in a twin motor helo than a single motor one.
Same feeling I got when I left the S-3 ejection seat and climbed into my 1946 Luscombe.
The squadron wouldn't even send the duty van to pick you up?
Airbus amps up the PR duel:
Airbus Helicopters insists its offer for the US Navy's TH-XX trainer contest provides the "lowest risk" of any bid, despite proposing a twin- rather than single-engined rotorcraft.
[Airbus] argues that the flight-hour cost of the H135 is "pretty attractive" when compared with "at least one of our single-engined competitors".
Auto-rotation landings to the ground are notoriously expensive in twin-engined helicopters due to their higher weight and consequent wear and tear on the platform. Since the US Army adopted the Lakota as its training platform it has removed the requirement from its syllabus, but [Airbus] declines to comment if the US Navy can be persuaded to follow suit.
www.flightglobal.com
Airbus Helicopters insists its offer for the US Navy's TH-XX trainer contest provides the "lowest risk" of any bid, despite proposing a twin- rather than single-engined rotorcraft.
[Airbus] argues that the flight-hour cost of the H135 is "pretty attractive" when compared with "at least one of our single-engined competitors".
Auto-rotation landings to the ground are notoriously expensive in twin-engined helicopters due to their higher weight and consequent wear and tear on the platform. Since the US Army adopted the Lakota as its training platform it has removed the requirement from its syllabus, but [Airbus] declines to comment if the US Navy can be persuaded to follow suit.
Airbus Helicopters touts 'lowest risk' bid for US Navy trainer
Airbus Helicopters insists its offer for the US Navy's TH-XX trainer contest provides the "lowest risk" of any bid, despite proposing a twin- rather than single-engined rotorcraft.
www.flightglobal.com
Airbus amps up the PR duel:
Airbus Helicopters insists its offer for the US Navy's TH-XX trainer contest provides the "lowest risk" of any bid, despite proposing a twin- rather than single-engined rotorcraft.
[Airbus] argues that the flight-hour cost of the H135 is "pretty attractive" when compared with "at least one of our single-engined competitors".
Auto-rotation landings to the ground are notoriously expensive in twin-engined helicopters due to their higher weight and consequent wear and tear on the platform. Since the US Army adopted the Lakota as its training platform it has removed the requirement from its syllabus, but [Airbus] declines to comment if the US Navy can be persuaded to follow suit.
Airbus Helicopters touts 'lowest risk' bid for US Navy trainer
Airbus Helicopters insists its offer for the US Navy's TH-XX trainer contest provides the "lowest risk" of any bid, despite proposing a twin- rather than single-engined rotorcraft.
That article didn’t go that well for them....
But the article mentions a fly off (OK, “performance demonstration”) which is interesting! Assume it will be at NASWF...
Nope. Details are in the RFP.
Maintaining Autorotation Proficiency: Practice Vital To Helo Training
Avleak article about practice autos. Pretty good article, very long but very smart.
One point-
pilots of helicopters with low-inertia rotor systems may be unaware that aft cyclic must be applied when collective is lowered within seconds of losing engine power
This is generally true but it depends on type/model, especially the horizontal stab design. The H-60Sikorsky Rube Goldberg stabilator practically does it for you. The horizontal stab on some TH-55s had the opposite effect and would make the aircraft "bunt," when the collective was lowered entering an auto, which could result in disastrous Nr decay (that is why the stall strips on the Bells is in the peculiar location on the "bottom" of the inverted airfoil). Either way, this comes back to what is going on with that blade element diagram during the transition from powered to unpowered flight... helo aerodynamics isn't just some harassment package.
Avleak article about practice autos. Pretty good article, very long but very smart.
One point-
pilots of helicopters with low-inertia rotor systems may be unaware that aft cyclic must be applied when collective is lowered within seconds of losing engine power
This is generally true but it depends on type/model, especially the horizontal stab design. The H-60
I think the PBA had some sort of input, as well. I can't definitively say if it's CG or PBA, but the Bravo would typically need forward stick, especially around a corner, where as the Romeo likes to accelerate in the entry, requiring back stick. This would usually result in a messy 90 auto the first time with CAT IIs, since they had the muscle memory of having to push forward on the stick in the Bravo (myself included). It also seemed like I had to work harder on airspeed control for a straight-in in a Romeo than a Bravo.
Maybe @IKE has more knowledge.
To shoot good autos you have to say "leviOsa" not "levioSA."
Actually (I find all sentences are best started with this word; it makes me lots of friends), I think the pitch bias actuator (PBA) in the legacy birds was placed on the mixing unit to improve maneuvering stability and some other stuff. Inputs included airspeed, pitch attitude, and pitch rate. In general, it moved the cyclic forward with increased airspeed and also worked with the stab to force the pilot to pull back against trim as an artificial feel for Gs.
I just googled this quick read (280 pg). It's an Army report from 1986 testing the UH-60A with the PBA centered and disconnected to support an engineering change proposal to remove it.
I do remember autos being easier in the F/H than they are in the R. It could just be that I was younger and the birds were lighter, but I attribute it to what I think is unadvertised filtering (and resultant lag) in the Nr indication in the flight display. Autorotation airspeed control is definitely easier in the R than the S; I blame this on the placement of the pitot-static tubes on the S (over the pilot doors; air is dirty during descents).
Bell rumor came across my inbox today - that there is a Bell 429 option to be proposed in addition to the Bell 407 GXI - not sure if its a pure play 429 or a mix of 407 and 429's along the lines of the TH-57 B &C. But it will be a separate Bell proposal from an IFR 407 GXI. I just thought it was interesting.
The RFP specifically requires one aircraft configuration. No more B/C bullshit or only some birds being NVD-compatible.
This thing is a twin right?