Night Engine Failure

[dimit]

Oh great, an old fart pi$$ing match... To the tune of a popular children's taunt: "I've had more engine failures than you have". Stop waving the canes around fellas, someone might hurt!

 

Seriously, though, good discussion. I'd like to find out why OD and HL56 have formed such different opinions.

 

'Nuff from this peanut gallery!

 

Dick

[old dog]

Oh great, an old fart pi$$ing match... To the tune of a popular children's taunt: "I've had more engine failures than you have". Stop waving the canes around fellas, someone might hurt!

 

Seriously, though, good discussion. I'd like to find out why OD and HL56 have formed such different opinions.

 

'Nuff from this peanut gallery!

 

Dick

 

Dick, you seem unable to understand basic data from the performance section of a Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

 

And to answer the second part of your question - many thousands of hours of experience.

[Helilog56]

You just keep on talkin' .... son.

 

Certainly "dad".

 

The specs as published by Bell are can be achieved work under "ideal" conditions.

 

Put the machine under 50-55 kts, and things change.

 

Drop below translational lift or try an OGE hover and the aircraft performance "dramatically" changes.

 

As almost 100% or most of my/our flying is mountain, higher D.A. and,confined area operations on a line....... going OEI when in tight quarters close to the ground with bad winds make the published charts redundant, to say the least, especially working single pilot, in a multi engine aircraft from the left seat.

 

Cheers, H56

 

 

[2007]

"Seriously, though, good discussion. I'd like to find out why OD and HL56 have formed such different opinions."

 

One is a "realist" the other sounds like a BC Hydro consultant.

[Bullwinkle]

I'm with you Old Dog. How is it so many pilots are able to cruise around all day at gross weight with non-jettisonable loads.... I would need to be at least 50lbs over gross prior to start up to even get airborne at gross. Furthermore this started with reference to a 212 not being able to stay flying on one engine over sea ice at sea level to logging in the mountains at high altitudes with strong gusting winds. The sea level scenario would be a non-event and the logging scenario, well with a jettisonable load you would be at least 3000lbs below gross and while you may not be able to fly away that second engine would sure cushion the landing.

 

Cruise torque in a 212 that`s heavy (near gross) might be 65%. 30 minute single engine max torque on straight 3`s is 71.8% On a 3B it`s 79.4

[vortex]

"Seriously, though, good discussion. I'd like to find out why OD and HL56 have formed such different opinions."

 

One is a "realist" the other sounds like a BC Hydro consultant.

hahahhahaha

[splitpin]

Certainly "dad".

 

The specs as published by Bell are can be achieved work under "ideal" conditions.

 

Put the machine under 50-55 kts, and things change.

 

Drop below translational lift or try an OGE hover and the aircraft performance "dramatically" changes.

 

As almost 100% or most of my/our flying is mountain, higher D.A. and,confined area operations on a line....... going OEI when in tight quarters close to the ground with bad winds make the published charts redundant, to say the least, especially working single pilot, in a multi engine aircraft from the left seat.

 

Cheers, H56

 

Sounds about right to me, but what do I know. The last 212 engine change I did was interesting. Manning, Alberta. 9 pax, 1/2 fuel. OAT about 75F. 20,000+ hr. Pilot. He knew the 212 Very well!!

# 1 calved, machine ended up on the banks of the Peace River. End result, # 2 Engine fried, Combining Gearbox trashed, broken lift link and a few wrinkles. Nope, a 212 does not fly well on one engine in the real world.

Have been involved in several 212 engine changes and there was always problems afterwards with the surviving engine or C/G box.

[old dog]

"Seriously, though, good discussion. I'd like to find out why OD and HL56 have formed such different opinions."

 

One is a "realist" the other sounds like a BC Hydro consultant.

 

Sorry, you've got the wrong guy.

[Helilog56]

I'm with you Old Dog. How is it so many pilots are able to cruise around all day at gross weight with non-jettisonable loads.... I would need to be at least 50lbs over gross prior to start up to even get airborne at gross. Furthermore this started with reference to a 212 not being able to stay flying on one engine over sea ice at sea level to logging in the mountains at high altitudes with strong gusting winds. The sea level scenario would be a non-event and the logging scenario, well with a jettisonable load you would be at least 3000lbs below gross and while you may not be able to fly away that second engine would sure cushion the landing.

 

Cruise torque in a 212 that`s heavy (near gross) might be 65%. 30 minute single engine max torque on straight 3`s is 71.8% On a 3B it`s 79.4

 

I was thinking more along the lines of placing drills or general construction work with crews directly below.....nothing to do with logging.

[dimit]

Old Dog said, "Dick, you seem unable to understand basic data from the performance section of a Rotorcraft Flight Manual."

 

That's quite a leap to make from my (admittedly weak) attempt at humour!

 

Cheers,

 

Dick