High-altitude autorotations?

[Bill McClain]

Not terribly military, I know, but...the local TV channel's news
helicopter (a Bell Jet Ranger) and its pilot appeared in a commercial
in which the stated ceiling was 22,000 feet. I remarked to my
aircraftwise 8-year-old, "Twenty-two thousand feet? I wouldn't do
that!" When Joshua asked why, I explained about the difference
between helicopters and airplanes when it comes to gliding and
dead-stick landings.

And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?

[Bob McKellar]

Bill McClain wrote:

> Not terribly military, I know, but...the local TV channel's news
> helicopter (a Bell Jet Ranger) and its pilot appeared in a commercial
> in which the stated ceiling was 22,000 feet. I remarked to my
> aircraftwise 8-year-old, "Twenty-two thousand feet? I wouldn't do
> that!" When Joshua asked why, I explained about the difference
> between helicopters and airplanes when it comes to gliding and
> dead-stick landings.
>
> And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
> can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?

Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to autorotate,
you will very soon be much lower.

Bob McKellar

[Bill McClain]

> > And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
> > can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?
>
> Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to autorotate,
> you will very soon be much lower.

Ummm, yeah, I guess so, but...seriously, is it even possible to try
and keep the RPMs up by diving and turning...I guess WITH the
direction of rotor spin...trying to maintain as much inertia in the
mast and blades before they lose so much torque as to be unable to
provide any lift to pull out of the dive and try to flare close to the
ground? I'm pretty much talking through my hat speculating like this;
I don't really know all that much about helicopters (other than that
I'm not all that keen on riding in one).

[John‰]]

In article >, Bill
McClain > wrote:

> > > And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
> > > can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?
> >
> > Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to autorotate,
> > you will very soon be much lower.
>
> Ummm, yeah, I guess so, but...seriously, is it even possible to try
> and keep the RPMs up by diving and turning...I guess WITH the
> direction of rotor spin...trying to maintain as much inertia in the
> mast and blades before they lose so much torque as to be unable to
> provide any lift to pull out of the dive and try to flare close to the
> ground? I'm pretty much talking through my hat speculating like this;
> I don't really know all that much about helicopters (other than that
> I'm not all that keen on riding in one).

Believe it or not, the problem is just the opposite.

In a high altitude autorotation the rotor tends to overspeed if you
don't keep an eye on it and a small application of collective pitch is
necessary from time to time to keep it within limits. Turning and
diving are unnecessary.

When I was instructing at Fort Rucker many moons ago we would take
students to 10,000 MSL in a UH-1H and let them play with the
autorotative characteristics. The airspeed for minimum rate of descent
in the UH-1 is 63 knots indicated while the maximum glide distance is
attained at 98 knots. From 10,000 feet the student has lots of time to
vary the airspeed and get a feel for different rates of descent before
a power recovery is required.

We did touchdown autorations every day in the training cycle, but were
limited to six per student per day because they are so intense to a
student that any training benefit beyond that is negligible. On days
when I had three students, I would do eighteen touchdown autorotations
from 1000' to a concrete runway and not think a thing about it.
************************************************** **********************
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/helicopter.htm

What is autorotation?

Autorotation is a condition where the main rotor is allowed to spin
faster than the engine driving it. How is that achieved? It is actually
quite simple.
All helicopters are fitted with a free wheeling unit between the engine
and the main rotor, usually in the transmission. This free wheeling
unit can come in different forms but one of the most popular is the
sprag clutch. The free wheeling unit will allow the engine to drive the
rotors but not allow the rotors to turn the engine. When the engine/s
fail the main rotor will still have a considerable amount of inertia
and will still want to turn under its own force and through the
aerodynamic force of the air through which it is flying. The free
wheeling unit is designed in such a way to allow the main rotor to now
rotate of its own free will regardless of engine speed. This principle
is the same reason that if you are in your car and you push your clutch
in, or put it into neutral while the car is still moving, the car will
coast along under it's own force. This occurs regardless of what you do
to the accelerator pedal.


Controlled Descent ?

The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot
retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will
still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The
majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on
the main transmission. As the rotor will still be turning the
transmission, the pilot will still have hydraulically assisted flight
controls. The pilot will be able to control his descent speed and main
rotor RPM with his collective control stick. He will be able to control
his main rotor RPM by increasing the collective pitch, which will
increase drag on the rotor blades and thereby slow the main rotor. If
he needs to increase his rotor RPM, he can decrease his collective
pitch therefore decreasing drag.
The pilot will usually be able to find a suitable area for a safe
landing by normal manipulation of his cyclic control stick and his
directional, or tail rotor pedals.
Larger helicopters will usually have a generator mounted on the
transmission that will still provide electrical power for flight and
communication systems.


What happens to Torque Effect ?

Torque effect is the aircraft's tendency to rotate in the opposite
direction to the main rotor due to Newton's third law "Every action has
an equal and opposite reaction". This is the reason why we need a tail
rotor or some other form of anti-torque control. The question at hand
is what happens to torque effect during autorotation? Well torque
effect is directly proportional to the amount of force driving the main
rotor, so when when the engine fails the amount of force driving the
main rotor instantaneously decreases and therefore the torque effect
decreases. This being the case the fuselage of the helicopter will tend
to rotate due to the sudden lack of torque effect. The pilot will
therefore have to immediately manipulate his directional pedals to
overcome this problem and retain control of his aircraft.

Conclusion

So in conclusion if your helicopter's engine/s should fail it is not
just possible, but quite easy for the pilot to retain control and land
safely and gently. This is the reason I believe that helicopters are
far safer and more fun to fly in than fixed wing aircraft. A fixed wing
aircraft will always need forward speed to safely land, with or without
an engine operating. A helicopter can be made to land with zero forward
speed whether the engine is operating or not.

[John Keeney]

"Bill McClain" > wrote in message
m...
> > > And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
> > > can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?
> >
> > Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to
autorotate,
> > you will very soon be much lower.
>
> Ummm, yeah, I guess so, but...seriously, is it even possible to try
> and keep the RPMs up by diving and turning...I guess WITH the

Yes.

> direction of rotor spin...trying to maintain as much inertia in the
> mast and blades before they lose so much torque as to be unable to
> provide any lift to pull out of the dive and try to flare close to the
> ground? I'm pretty much talking through my hat speculating like this;
> I don't really know all that much about helicopters (other than that
> I'm not all that keen on riding in one).

Any altitude the coptor is controllable at can be autorotated from.
During the decent the rotor is spun by the vertical air flow, storing
some of the energy in the form of rotation inertia in the rotor system.
Instead of the rotor pushing the air down, the air pushes the rotor around.
Doing this slows the helicopter some, but not enough to save you.
What saves you is that near the ground the pilot can take the energy
back out of the rotor system -by changing the blade pitch- to generate
lift and gently set you on the ground. Now obviously you don't want
to wait too long to do this but you also don't want to do it too soon
and not have enough stored energy in the system to reach the ground
gently. If you are really high when the flair is done, when you fall
again you can put the energy back into the system and do it all over.


The trick is not to flair too early, unless it's *really* early.

[[email protected]]

In article >,
(John‰]*
> Boulet's return to earth becomes the longest autorotation in helicopter
> history.
And resulted in the dirtiest underpants on record.

[John Hairell]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:06:46 GMT, "John‰]*
************************************************** *************"
> wrote:

>In article >, Bill
>McClain > wrote:
>
>> > > And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up you
>> > > can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for this?
>> >
>> > Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to autorotate,
>> > you will very soon be much lower.
>>
>> Ummm, yeah, I guess so, but...seriously, is it even possible to try
>> and keep the RPMs up by diving and turning...I guess WITH the
>> direction of rotor spin...trying to maintain as much inertia in the
>> mast and blades before they lose so much torque as to be unable to
>> provide any lift to pull out of the dive and try to flare close to the
>> ground? I'm pretty much talking through my hat speculating like this;
>> I don't really know all that much about helicopters (other than that
>> I'm not all that keen on riding in one).
>
>Believe it or not, the problem is just the opposite.
>
>In a high altitude autorotation the rotor tends to overspeed if you
>don't keep an eye on it and a small application of collective pitch is
>necessary from time to time to keep it within limits. Turning and
>diving are unnecessary.
>
>When I was instructing at Fort Rucker many moons ago we would take
>students to 10,000 MSL in a UH-1H and let them play with the
>autorotative characteristics. The airspeed for minimum rate of descent
>in the UH-1 is 63 knots indicated while the maximum glide distance is
>attained at 98 knots. From 10,000 feet the student has lots of time to
>vary the airspeed and get a feel for different rates of descent before
>a power recovery is required.
>
>We did touchdown autorations every day in the training cycle, but were
>limited to six per student per day because they are so intense to a
>student that any training benefit beyond that is negligible. On days
>when I had three students, I would do eighteen touchdown autorotations
>from 1000' to a concrete runway and not think a thing about it.

I used to watch students at Rucker flare and sometimes hit their tail
stingers on the ground after autorotations at tac fields, and one day
I saw an instructor gesticulating wildly at a WOC and grabbing the
controls as the Huey went skidding down a paved strip in a
semi-controlled run-on landing. Another day I saw a near mid-air
between a WOC-flown UH-1 and a Flatiron bird - if they would have hit
they would have landed right on top of the old hospital.

The last autoration I was involved with was due to a fuel-pump fire in
a Huey in Korea, with the end result that we landed on a sandbar in a
river up near the DMZ, nearly hitting some high-tension lines in fog
and drizzle, and spent a long cold winter night waiting for rescue.

John Hairell

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:06:46 GMT, "John?]
> "
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Bill
> >McClain > wrote:
> >
> >> > > And this got me wondering: Does anybody test to see how high up
you
> >> > > can successfully autorotate from? Is there an actual record for
this?
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like a self correcting problem. If you are too high to
autorotate,
> >> > you will very soon be much lower.
> >>
> >> Ummm, yeah, I guess so, but...seriously, is it even possible to try
> >> and keep the RPMs up by diving and turning...I guess WITH the
> >> direction of rotor spin...trying to maintain as much inertia in the
> >> mast and blades before they lose so much torque as to be unable to
> >> provide any lift to pull out of the dive and try to flare close to the
> >> ground? I'm pretty much talking through my hat speculating like this;
> >> I don't really know all that much about helicopters (other than that
> >> I'm not all that keen on riding in one).
> >
> >Believe it or not, the problem is just the opposite.
> >
> >In a high altitude autorotation the rotor tends to overspeed if you
> >don't keep an eye on it and a small application of collective pitch is
> >necessary from time to time to keep it within limits. Turning and
> >diving are unnecessary.
> >
> >When I was instructing at Fort Rucker many moons ago we would take
> >students to 10,000 MSL in a UH-1H and let them play with the
> >autorotative characteristics. The airspeed for minimum rate of descent
> >in the UH-1 is 63 knots indicated while the maximum glide distance is
> >attained at 98 knots. From 10,000 feet the student has lots of time to
> >vary the airspeed and get a feel for different rates of descent before
> >a power recovery is required.
> >
> >We did touchdown autorations every day in the training cycle, but were
> >limited to six per student per day because they are so intense to a
> >student that any training benefit beyond that is negligible. On days
> >when I had three students, I would do eighteen touchdown autorotations
> >from 1000' to a concrete runway and not think a thing about it.
>
> I used to watch students at Rucker flare and sometimes hit their tail
> stingers on the ground after autorotations at tac fields, and one day
> I saw an instructor gesticulating wildly at a WOC and grabbing the
> controls as the Huey went skidding down a paved strip in a
> semi-controlled run-on landing. Another day I saw a near mid-air
> between a WOC-flown UH-1 and a Flatiron bird - if they would have hit
> they would have landed right on top of the old hospital.
>
> The last autoration I was involved with was due to a fuel-pump fire in
> a Huey in Korea, with the end result that we landed on a sandbar in a
> river up near the DMZ, nearly hitting some high-tension lines in fog
> and drizzle, and spent a long cold winter night waiting for rescue.
>
> John Hairell

John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding autorotations.
My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside
getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds zing
through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a
Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from
the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a
couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was also
a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the
post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the
300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when my
brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the
controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its side
(he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the
lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea
what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take control?
And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident, so I
gather that his side of the story was the way it happened.

Thanks.

Brooks

[David Windhorst]

John‰] wrote:

>much interesting info snipped
>

>
>Controlled Descent ?
>
>The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot
>retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will
>still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The
>majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on
>the main transmission.
>
Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant
failure?

[David Windhorst]

John0] wrote:

>In article >, David Windhorst
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>John0] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>much interesting info snipped
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Controlled Descent ?
>>>
>>>The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot
>>>retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will
>>>still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The
>>>majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on
>>>the main transmission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant
>>failure?
>>
>>
>
>Absolutely.
>
>The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from
>the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main transmission
>continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise.
>
>John
>
>
Did Igor work out all this stuff early on, or did it evolve with each
new generation of helos? I mean, were the VS 300 and R4 capable of
controlled autorotation, etc.?

[Kevin Brooks]

"John?] "
> wrote in message
. net...
> In article >, David Windhorst
> > wrote:
>
> > John?] wrote:
> >
> > >much interesting info snipped
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >Controlled Descent ?
> > >
> > >The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the pilot
> > >retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot will
> > >still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls. The
> > >majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted on
> > >the main transmission.
> > >
> > Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of powerplant
> > failure?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from
> the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main transmission
> continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise.

On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail rotor
actually a titanium chain?

Brooks

>
> John

[Krztalizer]

>> Did Igor work out all this stuff early on, or did it evolve with each
>> new generation of helos? I mean, were the VS 300 and R4 capable of
>> controlled autorotation, etc.?
>
>Yes sir....

We certainly owe a lot to Uncle Igor. BTW, I haven't seen anyone include the
actual definition of an autorotation in this thread:

Autorotation, (n)., a method of keeping the pilot's hands and feet busy as he
plummets to his death.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Kevin Brooks]

"John?] "
> wrote in message
. net...
> In article >, Kevin Brooks
> > wrote:
>
> > "John?]
"
> > > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > In article >, David Windhorst
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > John?] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >much interesting info snipped
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Controlled Descent ?
> > > > >
> > > > >The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does the
pilot
> > > > >retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot
will
> > > > >still have complete control of his descent and his flight controls.
The
> > > > >majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump mounted
on
> > > > >the main transmission.
> > > > >
> > > > Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of
powerplant
> > > > failure?
> > >
> > > Absolutely.
> > >
> > > The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output from
> > > the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main
transmission
> > > continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise.
> >
> > On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail rotor
> > actually a titanium chain?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Nope.
>
> The driveshaft is an actual driveshaft which drives two gearboxes and
> the tail rotor.
>
> http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/tr1.jpg
>
> The titanium chain you have in mind is in the tailrotor control system
> as opposed to the drive system and controls the pitch of the tailrotor
> blades.
>
> http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/specs509.jpg

So the breakage of that chain renders the tail rotor of little use? Honest
question here-- I used to have a chunk of one of those chains; my brother's
crew chief braved a growing fire and ammo that had started cooking off to go
snatch the chain from their Dustoff bird after being shot down, and later
broke it up into pieces for each crewmember as a momento. I just never knew
the actual role it played in the control of the tail rotor, thinking instead
it was a drive chain.

Brooks

>
> John

[Kevin Brooks]

"John?] "
> wrote in message
. net...
> In article >, Kevin Brooks
> > wrote:
>
> > "John?]
"
> > > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > In article >, Kevin Brooks
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John?]
> > "
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > . net...
> > > > > In article >, David Windhorst
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > John?] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >much interesting info snipped
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Controlled Descent ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The next question you are probably asking yourself is: "Does
the
> > pilot
> > > > > > >retain control of the helicopter?" The answer is yes. The pilot
> > will
> > > > > > >still have complete control of his descent and his flight
controls.
> > The
> > > > > > >majority of helicopters are designed with a hydraulic pump
mounted
> > on
> > > > > > >the main transmission.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this how the anti-torque rotor is driven in the event of
> > powerplant
> > > > > > failure?
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely.
> > > > >
> > > > > The tail rotor is powered by a driveshaft which receives output
from
> > > > > the main transmission. As long as the main rotor and main
> > transmission
> > > > > continue to rotate, the tailrotor will do likewise.
> > > >
> > > > On the UH-1 isn't part of that "driveshaft" linkage to the tail
rotor
> > > > actually a titanium chain?
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > The driveshaft is an actual driveshaft which drives two gearboxes and
> > > the tail rotor.
> > >
> > > http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/tr1.jpg
> > >
> > > The titanium chain you have in mind is in the tailrotor control system
> > > as opposed to the drive system and controls the pitch of the tailrotor
> > > blades.
> > >
> > > http://incolor.inebraska.com/iceman/data/specs509.jpg
> >
> > So the breakage of that chain renders the tail rotor of little use?
Honest
> > question here-- I used to have a chunk of one of those chains; my
brother's
> > crew chief braved a growing fire and ammo that had started cooking off
to go
> > snatch the chain from their Dustoff bird after being shot down, and
later
> > broke it up into pieces for each crewmember as a momento. I just never
knew
> > the actual role it played in the control of the tail rotor, thinking
instead
> > it was a drive chain.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Bracelets made of tail rotor chain are a popular memento in helicopter
> units. If it breaks, the tail rotor continues to function but you no
> longer have any control over the pitch in the blades so the aircraft
> will yaw and eventually spin left or right as you increase or decrease
> collective pitch. Your hole card is the fact that the throttle can be
> controlled manually in an emergency and the yaw can be controlled by
> increasing or decreasing throttle to keep the nose straight. Hovering
> is not possible, so students are taught to execute a low speed running
> landing and to control the yaw with throttle. They practice landings
> with the pedals fixed both in a nose left and nose right configuration.
> The landings can be a little hairy sometimes but like anything else
> it's practice, practice, practice.

Ah. Clearer now. Thanks.

Brooks

>
> John

[John Hairell]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


>
>John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding autorotations.
>My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside
>getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds zing
>through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a
>Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from
>the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a
>couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was also
>a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the
>post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the
>300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when my
>brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the
>controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its side
>(he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the
>lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea
>what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take control?
>And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident, so I
>gather that his side of the story was the way it happened.
>

Kevin,

I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot
and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a
TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The
Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to
touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you
have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and
see what the official cause was.

John Hairell

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding
autorotations.
> >My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside
> >getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds
zing
> >through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a
> >Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from
> >the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a
> >couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was
also
> >a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the
> >post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the
> >300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when
my
> >brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the
> >controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its
side
> >(he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the
> >lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea
> >what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take
control?
> >And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident,
so I
> >gather that his side of the story was the way it happened.
> >
>
> Kevin,
>
> I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot
> and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a
> TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The
> Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to
> touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you
> have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and
> see what the official cause was.

I am guessing around the '88 to '90 timeframe. Pretty sure the accident
occured at the Schweizer plant location in Elmira, NY (he was employed by
Schweizer up until he died of cancer in '93). Thanks.

Brooks
>
> John Hairell

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:30:44 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >John, you might be able to answer a question I have regarding
autorotations.
> >My late brother experienced exactly one serious mishap in a helo (outside
> >getting shot down once in Vietnam and having various small arms rounds
zing
> >through the cabin on other occasions). It involved an autorotation in a
> >Schweizer 300C (read as Hughes 300/TH-55). He was checking out a cop from
> >the (unnamed big city) police department, which had recently purchased a
> >couple of 300C's for law enforcement work. Apparently the cop, who was
also
> >a part-time ARNG Cobra pilot, had come through flight school during the
> >post-TH-55 days. During the autorotation, the guy apparently treated the
> >300C like it was a Cobra, which I gather is a bad thing to do, and when
my
> >brother tried to take back over the guy froze up and fought the
> >controls--resulting in a hard landing and rolling the aircraft onto its
side
> >(he compounded that by stomping all over my brother, who was left on the
> >lower side, in his haste to depart the now-stationary aircraft). Any idea
> >what the guy could have done that led to my brother trying to take
control?
> >And FYI--the accident investigation cleared my brother in the incident,
so I
> >gather that his side of the story was the way it happened.
> >
>
> Kevin,
>
> I've been talking about this with a well-know Vietnam-era cav pilot
> and he says that there's not a whole lot of difference between a
> TH-55/Hughes 300 "Mattel Messerschmitt" as far as autorotation. The
> Cobra flares higher and longer, and TH-55s level the skids prior to
> touchdown. He says it sounds like a late "recovery" to him. If you
> have a date and location we could dig out the NTSB accident report and
> see what the official cause was.
>
> John Hairell

Your message got me to scrounging on my own and I found the NTSB report
(20001211X16230 --not easy to find, as the NTSB for some reason labled the
aircraft as a Hughes 269, instead of Schweizer 300C, which they use
elsewhere in their database). Looks like they dinged my brother for
supervisory failures (i.e., failing to sufficiently prepare for "NO TRANSFER
OF CONTROL PROCEDURES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE TAKEOFF", but noted the
copilot as a cause for "improper" touchdown. Interestingly, they also dinged
Larry for failing to take over the aircraft "in a timely manner", but as I
recall it he indicated the problem arose rather abruptly as they were
approaching touchdown, and when he tried to take over the copilot refused to
relinquish control (the report indicates *both* were on the controls at
impact). Beyond the data in the report, all I can remember him indicating
was that the investigator assured him he nothing to worry about in terms of
any regulatory/punitive actions. I was surprised to note that the incident
occured only about seven months before he passed away--I had thought it a
bit earlier.

Thanks for the heads up.

Brooks

[John Hairell]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:01:35 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


>
>Your message got me to scrounging on my own and I found the NTSB report
>(20001211X16230 --not easy to find, as the NTSB for some reason labled the
>aircraft as a Hughes 269, instead of Schweizer 300C, which they use
>elsewhere in their database). Looks like they dinged my brother for
>supervisory failures (i.e., failing to sufficiently prepare for "NO TRANSFER
>OF CONTROL PROCEDURES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE TAKEOFF", but noted the
>copilot as a cause for "improper" touchdown. Interestingly, they also dinged
>Larry for failing to take over the aircraft "in a timely manner", but as I
>recall it he indicated the problem arose rather abruptly as they were
>approaching touchdown, and when he tried to take over the copilot refused to
>relinquish control (the report indicates *both* were on the controls at
>impact). Beyond the data in the report, all I can remember him indicating
>was that the investigator assured him he nothing to worry about in terms of
>any regulatory/punitive actions. I was surprised to note that the incident
>occured only about seven months before he passed away--I had thought it a
>bit earlier.
>

Yeah, the NTSB database needs some cleaning up. The FAA civil
registry database is even worse - they've got many, many examples of
the same aircraft type listed under multiple model numbers. And they
should stick with the manufacturer's model number versus the sales
name, which may not be the same, for example there's no such thing as
a Hughes model 500C or 500D or 500E (it's a model 369HS/HC/HM/D/E or
530 variant). OH-6As are model 369A but they have some listed as
500s. Doing civil registry searches I have to look under 12 different
model types to dig them all out, when I should have to look at the
most four or five. Some of the model numbers have typos in them, so
you have to also think of all of the possible errors they could have
made. I keep running into N-numbers that should belong to a known
model type but when I look them up I find they have been mis-filed.
Unless you know the specific N-number of that aircraft you would never
find it using a model search.

John Hairell