• 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

New helo trainer at Rucker?

lowflier03

So no $hit there I was
pilot
To clarify, in all your years, even as a TPS grad, you have heard of two actual emergency autos? And, not to nit pick or require one to look into a crystal ball, are those 30 feet going to kill you, or will they allow you space to fix stepping on the wrong pedal or to pull the collective a good bit more? Not a rotor qualed pilot. Just was around them a lot and have ridden through some full autos (practice). Had a retired O-6 Army aviator demo an auto for me in an OH-58 where he had enough Nr left to lift up after touchdown and move the aircraft around. Also had a former Army aviator in the same agency do a full auto and smacked the tail hard enough to cause strike damage. He was told not to come back. Great guy. A B757 pilot for ATA. Died in a night NVG CFIT mishap flying a helo in a retirement job.

Having been through a no shit auto myself, (in what was deemed an "unsurvivable" situation) that 30 feet can kill, and likely almost did for us mainly because most pilots never hit 0 forward airspeed at the bottom. I can tell you that in my experience, doing autos in a -57 had 2 benefits: 1. It proved that if flown correctly the -57 could make a safe touchdown in an auto, and 2. it merely served as a warmup for getting used to autos in the -60.

None of that HT full auto stuff really mattered when it happened in real life in a -60. But then I have also argued that the way we practice autos in the -60 causes other problems because we never practice entry parameters from the profiles we actually fly.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
@wink, the OH-58/TH-57 (Bell 206) is a very high inertia system (tendency for rotor to keep spinning outweighs aerodynamic drag). The -60 has a low to low-mid ratio of those things compared to other birds; even a half-second long error in collective control can ruin your day. This is why the Bell 206 derivatives are so great as trainers - forgiving of student inputs.

@lowflier03, thanks for the story.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
Not to mention the Bell 206 is the safest single engine *aircraft* on record.

The autorotation qualities of the ‘57 are forgiving beyond compare - regardless of DA and GW almost - having successfully survived a power failure with a student in the back and near max GW.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Similar arguments raised when JPATS became T-6.

We are not a resource constrained military.

The cost of twin vs single are small minded problems. There are resources to overcome that. Time to stop the company grade thinking. The undergraduate helo pipeline is broke - the solutions are not evolutionary steps.
We are ABSOLUTELY a resource-constrained military. ESPECIALLY in CNATRA, there is a largely fixed pool of dollars for acquisition and a fixed pool for flight hours. If you buy an aircraft that's too expensive, you'll buy fewer of them. If they cost too much to operate, you will eventually see flights getting cut from the syllabus. Is one of the problems we have today TOO MUCH flight time for junior pilots? You know that the first thing to get cut will be mission-type flights--SAR, TERF, etc., which would be the whole rationale for getting a big aircraft.

I'm not sure what capabilities a twin gets you or what it's teaching you that a single doesn't. The idea that it's teaching "engine management" is marginal at best. A good part of the HT syllabus is teaching students to not die.

Every aircraft will have a glass cockpit and very similar configurations. The vast majority of Advanced Helo is blocking and tackling. You want a reliable, cheap aircraft that starts up every time and is cost effective enough to get the sets and reps the SNAs need.

@phrogdriver What did Baltimore have you doing wrt autos? Did you ever hear or see the story being told by the Columbus OH PD pilot who had an engine failure at night unaided in a MD 500 (?) over the city? Awesome story. Came down in a preplanned area he had driven every month or so to become familiar with it. Just two lanes with street parking. Street lights on just one side of the street. He touched down on one side of the street to avoid the street lights, then directed the sliding aircraft to the center of the street spinning rotors just under the lights to avoid parked cars and a guy on a bike. Good story. Good lessons. He always flew nights. Practiced autos (power on) 2-3 times a week for years. His agency allowed full down autos at requals. Had pre-identified several forced landing spots along the patrol route he flew over the city. Routinely drove each one day and night to memorize the details. Saw the pilot present at a public use aircraft safety stand down about 5 years ago.
Full autos were the standard at BPD. You were required to auto the shit out of that aircraft on your annual reviews and checkrides. They had a power failure ending in a fatality several years ago, so they treated it very seriously. You had to be able to land 0/0. A power failure in an urban area is challenging, to say the least.

Knowing that you can consistently do full autos is a huge confidence builder in the aircraft generally.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Four or five years ago a national guard UH-60 had a blade de-laminate at 6000 feet. The crew managed a full auto into a cornfield.
You're not going to believe it, but I know that guy too! LOL We just deployed with them. SC guard I believe.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
I just remember reading about. As I recall, one blade simply shredded itself.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/I_think_this_is_a_bad_rotor_blade_______/147-1693782/
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2014/12/10/black-hawk-rotor-fails-more-than-a-mile-high-pilots-land-safely/
Army Times article is pretty bad.

If I recall correctly, he said the aircraft felt like it would come apart when collective pitch was applied. So the auto wasn't so much a power off event in the traditional sense.
 

DanMa1156

Land of the Milk and Honey.
pilot
Contributor
@wink, the OH-58/TH-57 (Bell 206) is a very high inertia system (tendency for rotor to keep spinning outweighs aerodynamic drag). The -60 has a low to low-mid ratio of those things compared to other birds; even a half-second long error in collective control can ruin your day. This is why the Bell 206 derivatives are so great as trainers - forgiving of student inputs.

@lowflier03, thanks for the story.
Seconded. Was literally about the type the exact same thing. Not only are they forgiving - but you can see ways to lose and build Nr back, making it a great way to demo/teach some aerodynamics to SNAs. On the other hand, in the 60, if you lose it, it's probably not coming back unless you're up high on an instrument flight or something.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Can the -60 sim give good training in autos to touchdown?
Definitely not for the -60. I've been told by PMA-205 that the Sierra has a slightly upgraded flight model compared to the Romeo. But I was also told that the Romeo would be getting that upgraded flight model when the sims got upgraded (something that's on-going now). I was then later told that there was no plan for that and wasn't sure why that info was being put out. Good old -205.

But bottom line, no, the sims aren't very conducive to practicing anything but the entry, Nr control, and engine restarts/T/R EPs when it comes to autos.
 

fc2spyguy

loving my warm and comfy 214 blanket
pilot
Contributor
The
Definitely not for the -60. I've been told by PMA-205 that the Sierra has a slightly upgraded flight model compared to the Romeo. But I was also told that the Romeo would be getting that upgraded flight model when the sims got upgraded (something that's on-going now). I was then later told that there was no plan for that and wasn't sure why that info was being put out. Good old -205.

But bottom line, no, the sims aren't very conducive to practicing anything but the entry, Nr control, and engine restarts/T/R EPs when it comes to autos.
Most useless memory item in the yellow pages.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
@wink, the OH-58/TH-57 (Bell 206) is a very high inertia system (tendency for rotor to keep spinning outweighs aerodynamic drag). The -60 has a low to low-mid ratio of those things compared to other birds; even a half-second long error in collective control can ruin your day. This is why the Bell 206 derivatives are so great as trainers - forgiving of student inputs.

@lowflier03, thanks for the story.
I knew that the -58 was high inertia. That is what the pilot was demoing for me. I am surprised, to look at the -60, that it is lower inertia then the Bell. Thanks for the insight. Guess I don't know what to look for.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
I knew that the -58 was high inertia. That is what the pilot was demoing for me. I am surprised, to look at the -60, that it is lower inertia then the Bell. Thanks for the insight. Guess I don't know what to look for.
High inertia costs a lot more to build, simple as that.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I knew that the -58 was high inertia. That is what the pilot was demoing for me. I am surprised, to look at the -60, that it is lower inertia then the Bell. Thanks for the insight. Guess I don't know what to look for.
It's a bunch of math using a nondimensional number from the Buckingham Pi Theorem. Or... as a quick ballpark (not knowing rotor blade mass, etc.), you can compare rotor disc area to design gross weight to get an idea.
For the Bell 206: ~38 in^2/lb at 3,300 lb;
for the H-60: ~22 for 15k lb, ~14 for 23.5k lb
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
I knew that the -58 was high inertia. That is what the pilot was demoing for me. I am surprised, to look at the -60, that it is lower inertia then the Bell. Thanks for the insight. Guess I don't know what to look for.
Low inertia also provides better flight performance and is more responsive to inputs hence it's use on military helos.
 
Reactions: IKE

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Low inertia also provides better flight performance and is more responsive to inputs hence it's use on military helos.
Sure. Like high wing load vs low wing load. I am getting it.
 
Top