Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/17/2010 9:14:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:17:51 AM EDT
Think Russian......
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:18:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:27:29 AM EDT by KA3B]
There's a reason why there are no amphibious helicopters.

Helos with floats for skids or "boat plane" helos (like the H-3 and the H-52) don't count as they were not made for true amphibious operations.

I'll take that back about the H-52 not being an amphibious helo.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:20:12 AM EDT
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:20:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


It was not the approach that got them in trouble.....
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:21:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:22:36 AM EDT by SmilingBandit]
Originally Posted By KA3B:
There's a reason why there are no amphibious helicopters.

Helos with floats for skids or "boat plane" helos (like the H-3 and the H-52) don't count as they were not made for true amphibious operations.


Somebody forgot to tell the H-3.

Sure, discount my statement in your edit while I type.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:23:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
There's a reason why there are no amphibious helicopters.

Helos with floats for skids or "boat plane" helos (like the H-3 and the H-52) don't count as they were not made for true amphibious operations.


Somebody forgot to tell the H-3.


H-3's were not made for true water operations.

Because of its amphibious hull, the Sea King has the ability to land on water. However, this is a risky maneuver and used only in emergencies, as the hull can only remain watertight for a limited period of time.
The sponsons were fitted with deployable airbags to enhance floatation.

Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:24:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


It was not the approach that got them in trouble.....


Maybe not, but I bet it was the same pilot! He did not improve in skill between the bad decent rate and his take off attempt!!!!
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:25:32 AM EDT
CH-46s can water taxi. It was done during Frequent Winds by HMM-164.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:25:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:26:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


It was not the approach that got them in trouble.....


I wonder if that's why it had trouble taking off, maybe something got out of wack with that so called landing.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:26:57 AM EDT
That was some serious pilot fail.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:27:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paps-Zapf:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


It was not the approach that got them in trouble.....


Maybe not, but I bet it was the same pilot! He did not improve in skill between the bad decent rate and his take off attempt!!!!


The sea condition did not seem to help him. The nose was halfway in the water before he pulled up on the collective.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:28:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:29:20 AM EDT by Paps-Zapf]
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
looks like pilot error. pitched WAY forward on takeoff.


Pilot error for sure, but I think the forward pitch was due to water level at the nose of the helo, and not pitch control by the pilot. The forward movement drove the nose under the wave break cause by forward motion.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:31:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
looks like pilot error. pitched WAY forward on takeoff.


Yeah, that nose just didn't want to come out did it?
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:31:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Palm:
CH-46s can water taxi. It was done during Frequent Winds by HMM-164.


That does not make it an amphibious helicopter.


Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:33:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:35:46 AM EDT by doorgunner84]
Originally Posted By Paps-Zapf:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


It was not the approach that got them in trouble.....


Maybe not, but I bet it was the same pilot! He did not improve in skill between the bad decent rate and his take off attempt!!!!



no doubt... why would you plant that fucker like that in 2-3 foot swells. This reminds me of the "culture of safety" comment in the Chernoby thread. That whole maneuver was fucked from the get-go. I'm guess "go-arounds" aren't free in Russia and they had Air Show-itis.


Originally Posted By Paps-Zapf:
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
looks like pilot error. pitched WAY forward on takeoff.


Pilot error for sure, but I think the forward pitch was due to water level at the nose of the helo, and not pitch control by the pilot. The forward movement drove the nose under the wave break cause by forward motion.


And then Ivan went into full freakout mode and pulled more pitch driving the nose further under the water. Wonder what kind of power numbers that thing has at -3' sea level.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:34:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Seven-Shooter:
That was some serious pilot fail.

In Mother Russia, helicopter crashes you.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:35:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paps-Zapf:
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
looks like pilot error. pitched WAY forward on takeoff.


Pilot error for sure, but I think the forward pitch was due to water level at the nose of the helo, and not pitch control by the pilot. The forward movement drove the nose under the wave break cause by forward motion.





Your "U's" must be where my "Y's" are on my keyboard.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:35:16 AM EDT
The gear being extended is what kept him in the water.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:35:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Palm:
CH-46s can water taxi. It was done during Frequent Winds by HMM-164.


That does not make it an amphibious helicopter.




How are you defining an amphibious helo?
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:48:01 AM EDT
Primorsky will soon be here to explain that is part of the design it is actually a helosub. Only the Russians have the expertise to engineer helosubs and the video we just watched was actually meant to look like an accident so the US would not pursue that form of under/overwater terror.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:51:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


not only that but what kind of idiot would mash that cyclic forward that far when the green house is COVERED in water and diving?!?!
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:51:49 AM EDT
If i remember correctly, the cabin started filling with water on that helo. Pilot tried to take off, but was grossly over weight.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:53:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-James:
The gear being extended is what kept him in the water.


That too...
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 9:55:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 9:56:42 AM EDT by doorgunner84]
Originally Posted By LECH:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


not only that but what kind of idiot would mash that cyclic forward that far when the green house is COVERED in water and diving?!?!


Like I posted above... I'm sure Ivan was in full freak-out mode. "holy fuckski, holy fuckski, I need more powerski!" I've never landed in the water... well, full on landing, I was in one that broke through the ice once, but it would seem to me that had he let off the helo would have popped back up. Then, he could have tried to time the wave action and pulled pitch when the nose popped up.


Originally Posted By fireputrouter:
If i remember correctly, the cabin started filling with water on that helo. Pilot tried to take off, but was grossly over weight.


That would make sense too... Maybe it started to fill with water because of initial impact because of the high sink rate on the approach!
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:11:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LECH:
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Their decent rate was ridiculously high on that approach...


not only that but what kind of idiot would mash that cyclic forward that far when the green house is COVERED in water and diving?!?!

I can't tell if he was using forward cyclic or not. He may have just pulled collective when it was already pitched forward due to the swells. If that's what happened, I doubt there was anywhere near enough aft cyclic available to counter-act the nose being underwater.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:19:12 AM EDT
Guaranteed it was over its max gross weight. Look at the coning of the Main rotor.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:20:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Primorsky will soon be here to explain that is part of the design it is actually a helosub. Only the Russians have the expertise to engineer helosubs and the video we just watched was actually meant to look like an accident so the US would not pursue that form of under/overwater terror.


It was the stupid Ukrainian plot! Great Soviet Russian design allows for landing on water!!!! None of you western capitalist dogs can build a helo that can land on water!



Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:23:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Palm:
CH-46s can water taxi. It was done during Frequent Winds by HMM-164.

That does not make it an amphibious helicopter.

How are you defining an amphibious helo?


One that has a sealed hull, like the H-52 (as I edited).
Both the H-3 and the H-46 do not have a sealed hull, neither were built for "real" amphibious operations.

Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:25:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Primorsky will soon be here to explain that is part of the design it is actually a helosub. Only the Russians have the expertise to engineer helosubs and the video we just watched was actually meant to look like an accident so the US would not pursue that form of under/overwater terror.

lmao
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 10:35:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2010 10:37:15 AM EDT by uglygun]
In Soviet Russia...



we make new kind of submarine with propeller on top of you.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 4:49:50 PM EDT
Not an Mi-8, it's an Mi-14 Haze.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 5:07:19 PM EDT
The Navy Test Pilot School has their rotary wing pilots do a water landing and recovery. I know of a couple times that the craft have gone over.

Water tension is a bitch. They are trying to lift the craft off the water when the water is still holding it down. When it does let go, they've put so much power to the systems that it either shoots straight up, or rolls right over. I'll have to ask my BIL for a more technical explanation. He's there right now.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 5:10:10 PM EDT
If I remember correctly I think it was the co-pilot that died/drowned or something.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 5:48:36 PM EDT
Notice his undercarriage is out...thats a no-no for ampib aircraft, and usually results in what is shown...in this case operating in too much of a sea state for the aircraft, and the application of power, and keel/drag effect of the undercarrage made the nose tuck during transition to flight, ending up in rollover.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 5:52:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By realwar:
If I remember correctly I think it was the co-pilot that died/drowned or something.


Helos don't ditch well...to much weight on top.

That's why I'd carry one of those Helicopter Aircrew Breathing Devices, even if I was flying over Kansas.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:19:50 PM EDT
I ride on an Mi-8 about twice a week. It is kinda built like a boat when you're inside of it.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:22:06 PM EDT
fucking thing looks no where near sea worthy.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 6:24:50 PM EDT
One thing I do know flying overwater ops is hella hard and dangerous. Give me trees and powerlines any day. WJ
Top Top