Bell 230(?) crash Huntington Beach

MikeD said:
Pitch change linkage. If one of the connecting ends came apart, it would remain attached to one side until that side failed too from the G-forces of spinning or the crash of the helo, whichever occurs first. What caused that failure, and what caused the entire 90 degree gearbox to separate from the mounting point on the tail, will be the focus.

One of the worst possible flight phases for something like this to happen, but it’s one of the flight phases where it’s most likely to happen IF it’s a material failure of its own.

Could also be a result of some previous damage or wear either internally or externally. But this is one of the phases of flight where it’s most likely to give out.

But I’m a NOTAR fan, I have no love for tail rotors.
Click to expand...

I mean isn't it one of the better phases of flight since the fall was apparently survivable? I feel like the aircraft yeeting its tailrotor at 2,000' would be worse since you're still going down - just harder.
 
Murdoughnut said:
aviation influencer
Click to expand...
snoopy-dog.gif
 
Murdoughnut said:
I mean isn't it one of the better phases of flight since the fall was apparently survivable? I feel like the aircraft yeeting its tailrotor at 2,000' would be worse since you're still going down - just harder.
Click to expand...

It’s the concept of being slow….takeoff/landing/hover….where the tail rotor is working its hardest, and a loss of tailrotor thrust will have the worst effect with regards to being able to counter it (nil to none). At altitude and with forward speed, the tail rotor is working a lot less due to the aerodynamic assistance the tail rotor disc is getting in addition to the stability provided by the tailboom and vertical fin. If the tail rotor is to give out then, the torque effects will still occur, but at a slower and generally more manageable rate, allowing reaction time to counter it. Not so in slow speed, where the effects of the anti-torque loss are instant and significant, as seen in the video, and the change to counter it are nil to none.
 
MikeD said:
It’s the concept of being slow….takeoff/landing/hover….where the tail rotor is working its hardest, and a loss of tailrotor thrust will have the worst effect with regards to being able to counter it (nil to none). At altitude and with forward speed, the tail rotor is working a lot less due to the aerodynamic assistance the tail rotor disc is getting in addition to the stability provided by the tailboom and vertical fin. If the tail rotor is to give out then, the torque effects will still occur, but at a slower and generally more manageable rate, allowing reaction time to counter it. Not so in slow speed, where the effects of the anti-torque loss are instant and significant, as seen in the video, and the change to counter it are nil to none.
Click to expand...

Got it - like rudder effectiveness at high versus low speed in an engine-out scenario in a twin.
 
mightynimbus said:
Bicycle hat dude is high on trust fence confidence
Click to expand...
Maybe he used to be a line guy on a ramp that was frequented by helicopters? I can recall standing out on a large expanse of concrete with a couple of lighted wands in my hands on some dark night to guide an arriving transient helicopter to their parking spot. The pilot of that helicopter was aware enough to extinguish their landing light once they approached their landing spot so they didn't blind me and I was just looking up towards a bunch of static electricity flitting around the blades and the nav lights on the largest version of the Bell Huey ever built. Turned out it was a search and rescue helicopter. All I had as far PPE was the wands and some foam earplugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top