 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm no expert on helicopters but I guess the fuel burn necessary to overcome the challenge of thin air is very high. Much air pollution must have resulted.
This stunt is obviously of publicity benefit to the manufacturer, but majestic Everest suffers a lot of environmental degradation from those who exploit it - either through the dumping of litter or this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Wonder how long it will be before you can pay for a ride to the top 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I suppose you could design special wide blades to be used (and put on) only at very high altitudes and then it would be relatively easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It seems this landing has kicked up a bit of a storm.
The Nepalese wouldn't give permission for the heli to land, it was only supposed to hover so Eurocopter initially released footage of the practise attempt a week earlier where it landed on a slightly lower plateau. This set off allegations that spread across various mountaineering forums (who spotted the backdrop was wrong) that it was all faked as none of the footage actually showed the bird on top. Eurocopter were then forced to admit that whilst they did actually land (against the Nepali instructions) they couldn't prove it and as this was supposed to be a proving flight to convince India to buy 100 of the rescue variant of the bird it all seems to be a less than glorious acheivement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
I suppose you could design special wide blades to be used (and put on) only at very high altitudes and then it would be relatively easy.
|
You ARE joking I assume???? Sticking "wide blades" on a helicopter isn't like sticking a new set of alloys on your motor snowball!!!!
I'll believe it when it is independently corroborated. If it did make it, they would have needed to have stripped it down to the bare essentials, up-rated the engine to an even higher degree than is standard in high altitude conditions, and yes burned a lot of fuel. In which case it wouldn't have been in any condition for rescueing anyone, or ferrying extra passengers. BIG publicity stunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 424 of the special B3 versions of this particular helicopter arround the world, it's designed specifically for opperating at high altitudes with high loads and amongst other things does indeed have bigger blades and uprated mechanicals, this particular one was flown by a test pilot and yes it was a publicity stunt however in theory it could have probably rescued a single person, it might have problems rescuing more than that and it would definately have used a lot of fuel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
does indeed have bigger blades and uprated mechanicals
|
Fair enough, but it is certainly not an easy modification. Engine, gearbox, rotor hub hinge system, everything would have to be up-rated. Bigger blades/more power would also affect the amount of torque the tail rotor would have to cope with, so all that area would need modification too. Bigger blades means more weight, more inertia, means bigger rotor brake: the list goes on. Maybe even airframe strengthening. Certainly not as simple as just bolting bigger blades on.
Also it would only be able to fly that high in absolutely perfect weather conditions, so the moral is, don't get into trouble on Everest unless the sun's out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| nbt wrote: |
| Well, maybe not, but apparently a helicopter has managed to "land" on the top of Everest! That's quite some feat. |
I don't believe it did.....not unless it occured when I was lying in a ditch the other weekend sleeping off a particularly heavy skinful..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some feat indeed. As an ex-Army helicopter pilot and having flown in some climactically hostile environments, Rockies, Alps, Pyrenees, Snowdonia and the Grampians, I take my hat off to him.
I took a Gazelle to 12,000 ft pressure altitude once with practically no fuel on board and it became almost uncontrollable, as the air is so thin and the control surfaces have nothing to 'grip'. Manoeuvring was hard enough, landing or hovering would have been almost impossible. Hauling underslung loads in the Alps in summer in an AS350 Squirrel produced the same problems.
While not disbelieving this momentous display of courage, I find it extremely hard to believe that he was able to conduct a running landing onto the top of the mountain, which I am sure he would have had to unless he was able to use the wind to increase his apparent airspeed to a sufficient level that he never lost translational lift - flying speed caused by the wind over the rotor disc. Taking off again would have been equally exhilarating as I imagine he will have had to 'ski' it off the top and dive to gain speed. The area at the top is not large, not that I have been there myself, but my sister has, and she says it is pretty tight there. So that means it must have been a sloping ground technique landing... another manoeuvre hard to perform at sea level with unlimited power.
All in all, a very brave pilot, and an extremely good effort, especially if he did it twice!
As for fuel burn, as I recall the Squirrel/ASTAR/Ecureuil has a constant burn rate, which only demands fuel at a fixed injection rate, meaning that climbing at 50-60kts will burn the same amount of fuel per minute as flying straight and level at 120kts. I think this is true of all rotary aircraft, although I may be wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Powderhound, thanks for that, the kind of post that makes it really interesting to drop in here for the great variety of expertise and experience freely on offer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Powderhound wrote: |
While not disbelieving this momentous display of courage, I find it extremely hard to believe that he was able to conduct a running landing onto the top of the mountain, |
Great post powderhound. The film I saw on French TV showed that he didn't land as such but rested the front skids on the summit Apparenlty Everest is not flat enough to land properly without the 'copter falling off. The aircraft had larger rotors fitted for the attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eve Rest,
| Quote: |
I don't believe it did.....not unless it occured when I was lying in a ditch the other weekend sleeping off a particularly heavy skinful.....
|
Must of been whist you were in the ditch 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
