Why Helicopters are hard to fly v1 11272022

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024
  • While it may look like helicopters fly like airplanes, the fact is they don't. The controls and instrumentation in the cockpits may look like a fixed wing airplane, but there are significant differences. In this video, you'll learn a bit of history about helicopters, the types of helicopters, how they are "flown" by the pilot, and why they are difficult and harder to fly than a fixed wing airplane and often dangerous.

ความคิดเห็น • 54

  • @rvrrunner
    @rvrrunner 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Fantastic video! I've flown fixed wing aircraft for over 50 years but recently took helicopter lessons just for the experience. They fly totally different as you so clearly explain. Thanks for providing the details for all the possible scenarios you can encounter in a helicopter.

  • @marcliebman3847
    @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Greg, you are absolutely correct. If you have altitude and clear air in front of you when hovering out of ground effect, one can dive out and recover. The problem is that most HOGE accidents occur because there is no clear path or enough altitude to dive away. If, for example, you were approaching a rooftop heliport in a metro area and have a problem, you are SOL!!!

  • @paststeve1
    @paststeve1 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great Video Sir! I thoroughly enjoy your presentations for their depth of information transmitted and your matter-of-fact style. I am a USMC Mustang officer brat. While we were stationed in Hawaii, (1963-68) my best friend's father was a USMC Aviator flying an F-4. Whenever he was deploying, we were permitted to go to the field to watch him take off to join the carrier at sea. His father was one of the first Black USMC fighter pilots. I believe he flew in the front seat. Twice his father took us to "Dependent's Day" aboard his carrier where they launched and recovered various aircraft while we watched from the superstructure. Super-cool. Thanks again for your videos.

  • @PObermanns
    @PObermanns ปีที่แล้ว

    CAPT Liebman - Great video - But as a retired Navy helo driver myself and a CFII in civil helos (R-22, Bell Longranger, S-76), there is one thing incorrect. Specifically, your discussion of "settling with power". First off, in all of the NATOPS manuals I followed (UH-1L, UH-1N, SH-2F, TH-57), the phenomenon that you described was called "power settling". The term "settling with power" was used for a different thing, which is better described by the term "power required exceeds power available", which is what is used in FAA and civil manuals. Secondly, the fact that you mistook one for the other is why the civil term - also used by the Army - "vortex-ring state" is much better; it;'s unambiguous, eliminates pilots confusing one phenomenon with the other, and actually describes the situation that the pilot is in. Thirdly, the crash during the raid was caused by the wall of the compound forcing the downwash back upwards, outside of the rotor arc, thus creating the recirculation of already-accelerated air, which is the cause of "vortex-ring state, rather than the disruption of the ground-cushion.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      I think you make great points, but I also think as time goes on, we make things more complicated than need be. I have very little time in civilian helicopters other than the S-76A/B and the whole HOGE issue is really simple. Stay out of that part of the envelope whenever possible. Yet, every time I came aboard a carrier or a small ship or a platform, we were in that part of the envelope. What I think has happened that is a benefit is that we are generating "tools and techniques" to mitigate the risk.

  • @randallbriggs256
    @randallbriggs256 ปีที่แล้ว

    In the Army version of the Bell JetRanger, the OH-58, we had to be aware of "loss of tail-rotor effectiveness." This refers not to a mechanical failure but to a situation where the tail-rotor is not generating enough thrust to counteract the torque being produced. Usually, it would occur when flying very slow or hovering in high, hot, and/or downwind conditions. I experienced it in Grenada flying uphill on the eastern (windward) side of the island. I was able to get out of it by reducing power slightly, letting the nose come around to the right, and pushing forward on the cyclic so that I was flying downhill, generating forward airspeed.

  • @mrsunshine2204
    @mrsunshine2204 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great video, I very much enjoyed the presentation style with the slides. More please.
    I am PPL H flying student and even though I knew all the things you talked about it was really interesting to see them put together in such a real-world way. Have subscribed.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanx for your kind words. There's more videos coming on aviation.

  • @stachowi
    @stachowi 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    This was awesome, thank you for sharing your experiences.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanx. There will be more coming on flying helps as well as videos of flying WWII airplanes.

  • @jamesmiller8591
    @jamesmiller8591 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You’re absolutely right Mark, I had almost $6000 of fixed wing time got into our our 22 and it almost had me for lunch it’s a different animal but so much more fun when you finally learn take care great presentation

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanx for your comment. My time is split almost evenly between both and I think that jets are the easiest to fly....

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      I got PVT airplane, then went to helicopters all teh way to CFI-I, and hovered on my first flight. My CFI never even eased me into it. he gave me all three controls right away. It was just like flying an airplane in forward flight. Hovering was harder at first, but there is a simple trick to it. I then went on and did CFI-I airplanes too. Helicopters have unique risks, but they are actually easier to fly in many ways than airplanes.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@SoloRenegade let us agree to disagree, In a helicopter, your options are fewer in an emergency

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marcliebman3847 You can disagree all you like. Helicopters have more landing options in an emergency than an airplane, as they can land into tighter places at lower forward airspeeds.
      Stuck flaps, split flaps, loss of elevator, loss of rudder, stuck landing gear, VMC roll, loss of aileron, and many other emergencies can occur in aircraft as well.
      I can, and have, go through all the emergency procedures in the helicopters I've flown and reduce them all to either loss of tail rotor control, or loss of power to the main rotors. And if not, then I still have tail rotor and main rotor power/control and can make a normal powered landing.
      All landings terminate in a hover (other than run-on), where as airplanes have numerous different ways to land and factors to consider. Hovering is far easier than landing an airplane. people get descent at hovering faster than they get descent at airplane landings.

  • @marcliebman3847
    @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thanx for your comment. Actually, helos are so ugly, the earth repels them. Or, they beat the air into submission. There are many more, but none that I want to post.

  • @simonpage3899
    @simonpage3899 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    What a great, interesting and informative video. Thank you 🙂

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Glad you like it. Stay tuned. More are coming.

  • @Allan_aka_RocKITEman
    @Allan_aka_RocKITEman 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    _"Helicopters don't fly. They vibrate so badly the ground rejects them."_
    -- Author Tom Clancy
    🤭🤭🤭

    • @dennyliegerot4021
      @dennyliegerot4021 ปีที่แล้ว

      Great quote...

    • @randallbriggs256
      @randallbriggs256 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Another one, pretty widely seen at Fort Rucker, the home of Army Aviation, is similar: "Helicopters don't fly; they beat the air into submission."

  • @TheRailroaddan
    @TheRailroaddan 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The dead mans curve you mention I understand it as the HV Diagram and in my understanding the gray area is where an autorotation would not be possible, or has not been tested? also you mentioned settling with power, and diving in a helicopter sounds like a bad idea, have you not heard of the Vachard maneuver ? anyway just trying to understand and be a better Rotorwing Pilot .

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, the shaded areas of the height velocity diagram are portions of the envelop where an autorotation will not be successful. I don't know if they tested it or not, but I'll bet that the designers have calculations that suggest one should not try to do an auto in that portion of the flight envelop. Having said that, us rotor heads fly in this portion of the envelop all the time, i.e. when making approaches to rooftop heliports, hovering alongside ships and oil platforms, etc.
      If you get into a situation where the helo is settling with power, depending on the altitude, one can dive out depending on where the helicopter is. If you are hovering close to a building or a cliff, then ones options are limited. It is when one is close to the ground that one cannot dive out of the situation. Best option is to land.
      No, I have not heard of the Vachard maneuver.

    • @scottmonk
      @scottmonk 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      My instructor always said the HV diagram is for takeoffs more than anything. Naturally, if you're in IGE/OGE hovers, you can easily be inside the shaded portions of the HV diagram.
      The Vuchard manuver is simply diving away from SWP/VRS situations, but instead of diving forward, the dive is to the side away from MR rotation.

    • @Maverickib
      @Maverickib 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@scottmonk It isn't as applicable on descents because one thing that's factored into H/V diagrams is the amount of time it would take for a climbing helicopter transition from climbing to descending, then entering autorotation. If you're already descending, the process of entering autorotation is much faster. Descending also requires significantly less engine power which means it is actually extremely rare for engines to quit during descent. So yeah, they're generally designed around the worst-case scenario of engine failure during takeoff.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      Some companies like Robinson did test their HV diagrams, and have video footage of the tests.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Maverickib " it is actually extremely rare for engines to quit during descent. " while generally true, students have been known to accidentally kill the engine on descent. Happened at the flight school I was at, but the instructor landed it safely.

  • @SoloRenegade
    @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

    forward flight: pitch and power, same as an airplane.
    Pedals: you can train your brain to automatically keep teh nose pointed in a specific direction no matter what, and your subconscious handles that then.
    Hovering: the helicopter is actually rather stable, and you need to let it hover and only correct perturbations due to wind.
    Autorotation: same as flying an autogryo, and just like landing an ultralight airplane after engine failure.
    Almost every emergency in a helicopter ends with either a loss of power to main rotor or control of the tail rotor. 2 emergencies to master basically. And if it doesn't result in either of those, then just find a spot to land and do so. Oversimplification, but far simpler than the myriad of things that can go wrong in a fixed wing airplane.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      If you say so, but let us say, experience flying both disagrees.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@marcliebman3847 Yet you offer no counter arguments. simply declaring something untrue doesn't make you right.
      Explain how pitch and power in forward flight doesn't apply to a helicopter.
      Explain why helicopters aren't stable in a hover (balancing a broom on your finger is 100% the wrong explanation).
      How is flying an autorotation different in a helicopter than an autogyro (aside from autogyros typically lacking blade pitch control)? Autorotation landings are also Just like landing a really poorly gliding airplane, other than the final hover touchdown.
      Bear in mind, I am a CFI-I in both Helicopters and Airplanes. I too have experience flying and teaching both. And I'm also an engineer, designing aircraft and teaching others how to design aircraft. If you have logical arguments, you can sway me, but you have to actually make a compelling argument.

    • @randallbriggs256
      @randallbriggs256 ปีที่แล้ว

      As I posted in a response to you upthread, forward flight in an airplane or a helicopter is indeed similar. After that, what you describe does not correlate to my experiences at all. I've got about 1,000 hours in the OH-58A/C (like a Bell JetRanger without the SAS), and it is not "rather stable" in a hover, regardless of the wind. Quite the opposite, even on a calm day. Many modern helicopters (like an AH-64) have a "hover hold" feature that does most of the flying for you in a stationary hover, but that's because there is a computer doing the flying, not because the helicopter is inherently stable. Autorotation just like flying an autogyro? I've never flown an autogyro, but the helicopters I've flown, in the flight regimes I've usually flown, you've got very few seconds between the engine failing and you being on the ground, just as CAPT Liebman described. Is that like flying an autogyro? If it were as easy as you describe, nearly every autorotation would end up with the helicopter sitting upright and the rotor coasting down to a stop. But that's not the case. Most total engine failures in a helicopter end up with significant structural damage at the very least, and way too many end up with the helicopter rolled up into a ball. A practice autorotation from traffic-pattern altitude does not closely equate to what happens when the engine fails in the middle of a real-world helicopter mission. And then there are tail-rotor failures, which you do not describe and are not like anything one might encounter in an airplane.

    • @SoloRenegade
      @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

      @@randallbriggs256 " I've got about 1,000 hours in the OH-58A/C (like a Bell JetRanger without the SAS), and it is not "rather stable" in a hover, regardless of the wind. Quite the opposite, even on a calm day. Many modern helicopters (like an AH-64) have a "hover hold" feature that does most of the flying for you in a stationary hover, but that's because there is a computer doing the flying, not because the helicopter is inherently stable. "
      clearly you don't understand how it is stable and how my hovering trick works. it's so easy even kids can figure it out. And while I've not flown the Jet Ranger, I have flown teh R66 which has the same engine, similar performance, etc. Never had an issue hovering rock steady with no autopilot. And I've even flown/hovered in winds over 40kts.
      "Autorotation just like flying an autogyro? I've never flown an autogyro, but the helicopters I've flown, in the flight regimes I've usually flown, you've got very few seconds between the engine failing and you being on the ground, just as CAPT Liebman described. Is that like flying an autogyro?" yes, they are the same. an autogyro is just a helicopter that can't hover and is flying in a perpetual state of autorotation.
      "If it were as easy as you describe, nearly every autorotation would end up with the helicopter sitting upright and the rotor coasting down to a stop." airplane landings are easy, but watch videos and see when the engine quits everyone still dives to the ground and pile drives the airplane into the ground needlessly. it's not a matter of ease of flying, it's a matter of people panicking constantly. Many successful autorotations occur every year.
      "A practice autorotation from traffic-pattern altitude does not closely equate to what happens when the engine fails in the middle of a real-world helicopter mission. " which is why our instructors were all required to go to an extra factory flight school with test pilots and practice all manner of unusual autorotations from many airspeeds and altitudes. hovering autos, stuck pedal autos, zero airspeed, 180, 360, etc.
      "And then there are tail-rotor failures, which you do not describe and are not like anything one might encounter in an airplane."
      I describe them many times in my comments. Yes, they are not like airplanes, and never claimed they were. you have to actually read and comprehend what I actually say to win an argument with me. I said that helicopters have less emergencies to know how to deal with, primarily loss of main rotor or loss of tail rotor. if you can deal with those most of your emergencies are covered, as most result in one of those two conditions.
      If you know nothing about gyroplanes, don't argue them If you can't be bothered to read what I said on tail rotors, then don't try to argue it. You can't win an argument you don't understand, and can't win an argument when your arguing the wrong things.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      Randall, you hit the nail on the head. From 1,000 feet, an H-3 autorotates at between 4,000 and 6,000 feet per minute. So, at 1,000 feet, you have 12 seconds to bottom the collective; lower the nose; get to best autorotation airspeed (70 knots); flare starting at about 150 feet; level off at 30 - 40 feet with 3 - 5 knots of forward airspeed; and then cushion the landing with whatever energy one has in the rotors. I'd rather be in a fixed wing airplane with a total engine failure.

  • @Pork-Chopper
    @Pork-Chopper ปีที่แล้ว

    It cannot be over emphasized, to do a
    thorough Pre-Flight inspection on the helicopter you're about to fly. Look at everything on the checklist, as well as things not on the checklist. Welds, joints,
    fasteners on the frame structures etc. And also listen n feel for unusual noises during
    Hover power checks before lift off or taking
    off. This is your last chance to save your ass,
    passengers, and a very expensive aircraft. 😳

  • @ndrjskrbnk
    @ndrjskrbnk 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    why coaxial helicopters are easy to fly?

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thanx for your question. Helicopters with co-axial rotor systems do not generate any torque left or right since the blades rotate in opposite directions. this makes them easier to hover, however, until recently, co-axial helicopters couldn't fly as fast as conventional single and tandem rotor helicopters. For example, the KA-25/27/32s ostensibly could go as fast as 127 knots. Real world, they flew around 100 or less. The Kaman H-2 easily cruised at 120 - 125 and the H-3 at the same speeds and could, on a good day, if you were light and low, get to the 140s. Co-axial rotor heads are taller than a conventional rotor head which could make fitting them into a hangar on a ship problematic.

  • @SoloRenegade
    @SoloRenegade ปีที่แล้ว

    flying a helicopter is largely just like flying an airplane, other than hovering. Saying this as a CFI-I in both helicopters and airplanes. And there are pretty much only 2 major types of emergencies a helicopter pilot primarily needs to understand. 3 if you add VRS.
    Helicopters are fascinating, but I have a trick to teaching people how to understand hovering a helicopter that I can even teach to kids in mere minutes. Lots of myths and old wives tales in aviation.

  • @Rehook2
    @Rehook2 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's funny, i always thought this was a spanish invention from the civil engineer Ricardo de la Cierva who patented it in 1920.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanx for your note. Cierva invented the autogyro, not the helicopter. They are, from an aeronautical engineering perspective and flying perspective, two totally different machines. The autogyro needs forward motion to turn the rotors. In some models, the engine had a shaft with a clutch so that the pilot could advance the throttle and spin the rotors on take off, after which he de-clutched the shaft and the engine was no longer powering the rotors. Second, the autogyro is flown with conventional airplane control surfaces, rudder, elevator and aileron. Third, an autogyro can fly slowly, i.e. around 15-20 knots, but cannot hover. Or fly backwards or sideways. Is this helpful?

    • @Pork-Chopper
      @Pork-Chopper ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marcliebman3847
      Cierva did not invent the Autogyro, he was instrumental in inventing the "hinges" on the main rotors blades which allowed the blades to flap n lead n lag on the Auto Gyros... His hinge design was later incorporated into most helicopters in production today, some with lead n lag dampeners, some without. Main Rotor systems can be Rigid, Semi-Rigid, n fully Articulating designs. The Rigid n Semi-Rigid systems are usually Teetering Rotor systems.

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Pork-Chopper FYI, I have several sources starting with Wikipedia and George Townson's book "Autogiro, the Story of the Windmill Plane," plus others who say that Cierva created the autogyro. Pitcairn, Kellett and several others tweaked or made improvements on his design.

    • @Pork-Chopper
      @Pork-Chopper ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marcliebman3847
      No argument from me. Thats more information I didn't know.
      I had read from Shawn Coyle's book
      Cylclic and Collective, More Art and Science of Flying Helicopters that Cierva was credited for inventing the "hinges" for the Auto Gyro, but I did not know that he actually was the man who invented the Auto Gyro.
      In either case it's fascinating stuff.
      I have flown the R22'S and presently flying the
      Bell47G n Bell47G2.
      I'm sorry, I wrote Claude Viuchard, when it was
      Shawn Coyle's book. Claude Viuchard is credited with the technique to get out of the
      Vortex Ring State or settling with power situation. I've read many books including a several written by Vietnam Huey Pilots. I've learned alot by reading their personal stories.
      Presently I'm reading Principles of Helicopter Flight, second edition. I'm working towards my Private Pilot's license. I have over 40 hours of flying in helicopters and doing well at it. It's not as easy as it looks, it's a machine you have to finesse n be gentle with. There is no need to be aggressive with the controls. And very important to know it's limitations n your own.
      There are high performance helicopters out there like the OH-1, known as the "Loach" or the Magnum PI helicopter, but most of us Grunts cannot afford them, though I'm sure they'd be a blast to fly!
      Clear Blue n 22
      Pork Chopper
      out

    • @marcliebman3847
      @marcliebman3847  ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Pork-Chopper I have never flown a helicopter with a piston engine so my hat is off to you. I have a few hours in an OH-6 and you are right, it is/was a blast to fly. Very minimal instruments, but very, very maneuverable and rugged.