Welsh airlift ends in crash (1949)

[Byker]

Westland-Sikorsky Dragonfly

Crash alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPF9OP7Jync&t=86s

British Pathé newsreel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-FskGz2XyI

No apparent injuries.

I've seen lots of B&W crash footage, but this is a new one on me...

[john szalay]

"Byker" > wrote in news:C6adnZkiOMRvwgHEnZ2dnUU7-
:

> Westland-Sikorsky Dragonfly
>
> Crash alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPF9OP7Jync&t=86s
>
> British Pathé newsreel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-FskGz2XyI
>
> No apparent injuries.
>
> I've seen lots of B&W crash footage, but this is a new one on me...
>
>

Sling loads are tricky any way, but in windy locations,such as valleys and
mountains sides, even more so.

[Miloch]

In article >, Byker says...
>
>Westland-Sikorsky Dragonfly
>
>Crash alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPF9OP7Jync&t=86s
>
>British Pathé newsreel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-FskGz2XyI
>
>No apparent injuries.
>
>I've seen lots of B&W crash footage, but this is a new one on me...
>

Flying rule of thumb:

"Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".





*

[Byker]

"Miloch" wrote in message ...
>
> Flying rule of thumb:
>
> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".

After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?





*

[Miloch]

In article >, Byker says...
>
>"Miloch" wrote in message ...
>>
>> Flying rule of thumb:
>>
>> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>
>After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
>why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?
>
>
>

Went thru flight school in the 60s and was assigned to fly TH-55s as my trainer.
The first models had a tail rotor that spun at close to the speed of sound...it
was OK unless it rained. The high speed of the tail rotors hitting the rain
drops could cause them to shatter!


*

[Bob (not my real pseudonym)[_2_]]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:23:50 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:

>"Miloch" wrote in message ...
>>
>> Flying rule of thumb:
>>
>> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>
>After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
>why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?

Also wondering how well the NOTAR idea is working out? Don't see that
many, percentage-wise.

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On Aug 24, 2017, Byker wrote
(in >):

> "Miloch" wrote in message ...
> >
> > Flying rule of thumb:
> >
> > "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>
> After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
> why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?
>
> *

The Kaman K-Max is impressive.
I first saw one in action last year, as one of the fleet of aircraft fighting
our massive local, 46,344 acre “Chimney� fire which destroyed 49 homes
and 21 other structures.
Our local airport at Paso Robles with its CalFire Air Attack base seemed to
have tankers landing to reload every few minutes. From take off they would be
in orbit over the drop zones out at Lake Nacimiento with the
controller/observers in OV-10’s. The helicopters would take water from the
lake with buckets, or pump filled tanks. That fire burned from August 13 to
September 6.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[john szalay]

"Bob (not my real pseudonym)" > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:23:50 -0500, "Byker" > wrote:
>
>>"Miloch" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> Flying rule of thumb:
>>>
>>> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>>
>>After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I
>>wonder why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and
>>Kamov?
>
> Also wondering how well the NOTAR idea is working out? Don't see that
> many, percentage-wise.
>

local PD flies one, sounds a little different, a little quieter. but not
silent.

[Byker]

"Miloch" wrote in message ...

In article >, Byker says...
>
>"Miloch" wrote in message ...
>>
>> Flying rule of thumb:
>>
>> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>
>After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
>why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?

Interesting observation:

"The US uses tandem rotor helicopters because they are easier to make and
maintain; its biggest requirement is a sophisticated transmission design
that needs to be placed between the two rotors to ensure they rotate evenly
and the blades never intersect (even when one engine fails).

"Co-axial helicopters are much harder to make and the entire engine and
rotor design is extremely mechanically complex.

"Just building a regular engine axel is difficult, and the finished axel is
virtually impossible to inspect for internal voids or cracks. Any internal
defects will result in a catastrophic failure when the engines spins up to
speed the first time. Even now, many turbine engine manufacturers do their
first engine start in something that looks like a giant steel bunker because
there's just no way to be sure the axel at the heart of that engine won't
explode; literally explode. You want to make axels that go inside axels and
spin in opposite directions? That's a lot harder...

"Personally, I have no idea why Russia chose such a complex and difficult to
manufacture helicopter design. Igor Markov may be able to explain the logic
behind that decision. He is very knowledgeable about Russia and has written
some of my favorite Quora answers about that part of the world. I'm sure
there is a reason; I just don't know it.

"Personally, it reminds me of the Russian booster rocket designs from the
race to the moon. The US built the Saturn V stage 1 rocket with five engines
that had to fire simultaneously and equally. The Russians designed the N1
lunar rocket that contained 30 (smaller) engines in stage 1 that had to fire
simultaneously and equally. The Americans got the the moon first (in part)
because it's much easier to control and balance 5 engines simultaneously
than it is to control and balance 30 simultaneously."

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-Russia-commercially-produced-any-tandem-rotor-helicopter-and-USA-any-co-axial-rotor-helicopter

[Savageduck[_3_]]

On 2017-08-25 18:03:55 +0000, "Byker" > said:

> "Miloch" wrote in message ...
>
> In article >, Byker says...
>>
>> "Miloch" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> Flying rule of thumb:
>>>
>>> "Anytime you can walk away from a landing...it was a good landing".
>>
>> After seeing so many crashes attributable to tail rotor failure, I wonder
>> why there aren't more twin-rotor manufacturers, like Kaman and Kamov?
>
> Interesting observation:
>
> "The US uses tandem rotor helicopters because they are easier to make
> and maintain; its biggest requirement is a sophisticated transmission
> design that needs to be placed between the two rotors to ensure they
> rotate evenly and the blades never intersect (even when one engine
> fails).
>
> "Co-axial helicopters are much harder to make and the entire engine and
> rotor design is extremely mechanically complex.
>
> "Just building a regular engine axel is difficult, and the finished
> axel is virtually impossible to inspect for internal voids or cracks.
> Any internal defects will result in a catastrophic failure when the
> engines spins up to speed the first time. Even now, many turbine engine
> manufacturers do their first engine start in something that looks like
> a giant steel bunker because there's just no way to be sure the axel at
> the heart of that engine won't explode; literally explode. You want to
> make axels that go inside axels and spin in opposite directions? That's
> a lot harder...
>
> "Personally, I have no idea why Russia chose such a complex and
> difficult to manufacture helicopter design. Igor Markov may be able to
> explain the logic behind that decision. He is very knowledgeable about
> Russia and has written some of my favorite Quora answers about that
> part of the world. I'm sure there is a reason; I just don't know it.
>
> "Personally, it reminds me of the Russian booster rocket designs from
> the race to the moon. The US built the Saturn V stage 1 rocket with
> five engines that had to fire simultaneously and equally. The Russians
> designed the N1 lunar rocket that contained 30 (smaller) engines in
> stage 1 that had to fire simultaneously and equally. The Americans got
> the the moon first (in part) because it's much easier to control and
> balance 5 engines simultaneously than it is to control and balance 30
> simultaneously."
>
> https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-Russia-commercially-produced-any-tandem-rotor-helicopter-and-USA-any-co-axial-rotor-helicopter

I
>
don't believe the K-Max K-1200 is dependant on a co-axial system, but
uses an inter-meshing "eggbeater" dual rotor.
<http://www.kaman.com/aerosystems/solutions/air-vehicles-mro/k-max>
<http://fireaviation.com/tag/k-max/>
<http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/kaman-restarting-k-max-k-1200-production>
<https://youtu.be/4dJyUFgY0a8>
--


Regards,

Savageduck