Helo Funnies
 

How to end a career:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qYExH8hpgXI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qYExH8hpgXI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

From a friend of mine:

HSL-41 MH-60R dual cross-country on the way home and decided to stop at Lake Tahoe and do …something. In the video, the aircraft on the left has already bounced off the water. Dual Class C (Overtorque, hard landing etc). I already sent it to Taylor as a morality play…

Update on the video: They were coming back from an airshow, and wanted to get pictures of each other with the mountains in the background. Don’t know why that had to be in a hover, but whatever. Someone in the program office did some rough calculations and came up with 120% Q power required to hover – no wonder they bounced off the water. It’s being reported as a Class B x 2 now…

When I first read the title of this thread, I saw "Hello Furries".

I only opened after I read the title correctly.

i still dont get WhyTF they were doing this on such a lake as tahoe, where there are no people and no cameras(yeah right!). and the FACT that anyone that lives there is anti pollution/anti-noise/anti-growth/anti-people/anti-sea plane and generally hate all things that use fossil fuels.


hell if they could ban scuba divers/swimmers/skiers/boats they WOULD!


if they had augered in and polluted that lake,they would have had WWIII on their hands.



headlines would have read.........." 2 helo crews beaten to DEATH by IRATE MEADOW MUFFINS!"

Absolutely...no reason. Below in head work.

Paul,

How did that helicopter even make it out. Obviously too far away to actually see the details but can a tail rotor survive a dunk?

thanks

I'm no expert on helicopters, but am I mistaken in my belief that the helicopter on the right came VERY close to finding the depth of that lake? I mean.....the rotating parts of a helicopter are not supposed to hit things, right?

Oddly, they both went in!

The tail rotor on an H-60 sits fairly high, and there is what is call a "stabilator" between the rotor and the, in this case, water.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1286228520.jpg

They were both sooo lucky: They went in flat at a tolerable rate of yaw, and the water was calm so they didn't roll, David...if the tail rotor hits, it's over.

They won't be flying again in any case...bye-bye Navy Wings.

And, it goes without saying... if the main hits, it's even more over... you've probably already seen this one...

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMVKEv3jcio&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SMVKEv3jcio&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&versi on=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

So what went wrong in the second video? Other than the rotor hitting water. Looked like he was trying to fly it into the water.

Some helos actually can do water landings and take-offs. The Navy flew H-3s for 30 years that had the capability...it is all in the design. The H-3 had a hull design that allowed for water ops...there are true stories of H-3s that lost an engine (they have two) and water taxied many miles to shore.

I always hesitate to critique another pilot, but it looks like the sea state prevented the helicopters hull from "breaking" the surface adhesion with the water...very similar to what float planes must do to take-off. He does look like he was practicing.

It then looks like he ran out of control authority on the cyclic, preventing him from bringing the nose back up.

Again, that is literally my arm chair observation. I'd love to read the accident report. When the big fan hits, it is swim call.

I do hope all survived unhurt.

How would you say that to someone with a confused and baffled look on his face?

Sorry;)

A helicopter of this design (main rotor/tail rotor) has three controls: 1) Anti-torque pedals (that look like rudder pedals on a regular aircraft). A pilot manipulates them to keep the nose of the helicopter pointed in the right direction when he makes adjustments to the 2) collective which controls the pitch of all the main rotor blades "collectively" or at the same rate at the same time. The collective also controls engine power: As the pilot increases pitch on all the blades collectively engine power is increased and the helicopter going flying. The collective control is in the pilots left hand.

3) The cyclic: Think the control stick in a jets. The cyclic "cycles" the pitch of the main rotor blades independently so the helo can pitch the nose up and down, bank and roll, etc.

Each of these controls has "authority" limits on the travel of the control and the ability to continue to control the aircraft effectively. It looks to me like the combination of collective setting and power as he tried to break the waters adhesion overwhelmed the cyclic "authority" to control pitch and the main rotor blades hit.



Again, I could be wrong. But there it is.

He couldn't pull back any more, as in: PULL BACK! PULL BACK! "OH ScHlITs!" The nose was actually underwater when he trid to lift.

Thanks Paul.......now I see.

Can you please explain this to the non-helicopter pilots in the class?

I'm supposing from the context you have provided, that this is not something you should be doing in a helicopter? :)

News story:

Navy investigating helicopter dip into Lake Tahoe | TahoeDailyTribune.com

Here is a good explanation: Settling with power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the case of these two idiots, the combination of density altitude (high in Tahoe, fairly hot and humid - all of which impact the power required to hover) and the weight of the aircraft (the MH-60 is heavy due to the electronics on board) means that the actual power required to hover was 120% torque available - a huge number. I made sure I calculated the power required to hover in ground effect (near the ground where the main rotor is most effective) and out of ground effect - saw 40 feet above the ground and up) for every section of the flight.

You can see in the video that the helo on the right is in a slow yaw, meaning at the really high power setting he has lost tail rotor authority, or the capability to overcome the main rotor torque...not by much, but it would suck to be him.

The Class C/B simply means a dollar level to repair damage...and both helos hit the water!

A good friend of mine is in that squadron, he said something to the effect that as soon as the fuselage hit the water it basically relieved the torque from the tail rotor allowing 100%+ to the main rotor allowing a takeoff / transition to forward flight. Both birds went in, only one got videoed.

Did your buddy say what kind of damage occurred?

Water intrusion on electronic equipment. He isn't really allowed to say anything more yet.