Techniques to detect epicyclic gear fault were developed over 20 years ago, one of which was synchronous averaging with respect to the relative rotation of epicyclic gears. Not sure if any of these techniques was employed in Airbus's vibration health monitoring system.
I wonder if going to a cycloidal type of gearing would improve the reliability. I don't know if it would work or has ever bin tried before. Especially if they used a type of laminated gear. steel plates on top of steel plates kinda thing. so even if you had a crack it wouldn't travel through the entire gear.
The more complicated something is the more chance there will be a malfunction. Some of the most reliable machines are some of the most simple. Just think of all of the moving parts in this machine?, ): ?
Yeah? Double turboshaft helicopters have been in use since the 1960's. All using the same principle of gearbox. The only thing more simple than a double turboshaft is a single turboshaft. And epicyclic gears are way more reliable than a standard transmission.
EC225 is develop from stretching a medium lift helicopter to a heavy lift helicopter. Most probably all the parts design are to the max. The size of MGB is unsersize. Look at Cabin low and stretch to be long Airbus should design from ground up a heavy lift.. Just like problematic Boeing 737, stretch and telescopic landing gears, MCAS system all just to make a small plane to make it big.. All sorts of problems. H225 is same as MAx.
It was NOT an accident, it was a crash. An accident indicates no blame,someone along the human chain was to blame. By accepting a damaged gearbox,repairing it then installing is like playing Russian Roulette, it's only a matter of time before something happens. Common sense would prevail,that if a part arrives damaged; it's unsafe and needs to be returned and an exchange requested under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services act. The product has to be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose. If the gearbox had been dropped,it was neither fit for purpose nor of merchantable quality. Therefore the company that supplied the part is obliged to replace the part.
Keep in mind, Eurocopter have not made any huge changes to rectify this problem. The Turøy accident is the second of the same kind. This happened earlier in Scotland the same way. Eurocopter have not made any major changes to rectify this. Most if not all Norwegian oil companies have still banned Eurocopter and are exclusively using Sikorsky helicopters instead. If you are asked to board a Eurocopter like the Superpuma, you should resist to do so. Demand another helicopter instead. They are not safe even to this date.
I thought the lowered service intervals and periodic checks on this model practically grounded them, as it is cheaper to fly anything else? This was after the accidents of course.
Agreed I flew in the gulf of Mexico for nearly 10 years. Starting off in Bell and then going to sikorsky 76 and 92s. The only major sikorsky crash I knew of was in 2009 when a red tailed hawk went through the front windshield. The windshields were changed out by the contractor flying to reduce weight. Rip 7 of 8 died.
