Second helicopter crash test


[ UNINTELLIGIBLE ] [ RATCHETING ] [ CRANE ] Five, four, three, two, one, release!
[ CABLES RELEASE ] [ HELICOPTER SLAMS INTO CONCRETE
AND SKIDS, SCRAPING TO A STOP ] [ MUFFLED ] …one, release!
[ HELICOPTER SLAMS CONCRETE, SKIDS ] [ NO AUDIO ]

61 Replies to “Second helicopter crash test”

  1. At such a height and speed, it doesn't give much data. But as such, the helicopter isn't something you want to crash in that's for sure…

  2. Millions put into this test, just to find out what we all knew. Your ass will get hurt if your helicopter falls out the sky. Good work geniuses!

  3. Thanks all for commenting. The idea behind this crash test was that it replicated a relatively severe but potentially survivable crash. That takes into account auto-rotation. As one of our engineers said we could have dropped the helicopter from the top of the gantry, but then all we would have had were pieces to pick up .. but not much useful data.

  4. When was the last time you saw a helicopter crash like this?? Usually they have lost the rear rotor and are spinning like a frakking top in the air….at the same time they are dropping like a stone! Or, when they hit the ground, they fall sideways and the spinning rotors hit the ground throwing shit…and people….and people parts flying everywhere. Results of this test: all occupants, who once had 3' spinal columns, now have 12" spinal columns….OUCH!

  5. Yeah and you will probably be kissing their ass if that 5% chance or whatever aircraft (plane, heli, etc) crash lands and you live

  6. It appeared the landing skid suspension was too soft. he seats did not start collapsing until the bottom of the heli hit the ground. The seats then collapsed quicker than they would have if the gear had been a bit stiffer. JMHO.

  7. Results are still being assessed, but the injuries to the dummies in this test were quite severe, possibly spine crushing or even fatal.

  8. @thatonebeone We did a previous crash test that tested an energy absorbing system sort of like an airbag, but a honeycomb cushion You can find it on the NASALANGLEY channel.

  9. aww this is not cool
    that hell should have went soi-soi-soi-soi-soi first, not like this 'release,bang!' method lolololol soisoisoisoisoi

  10. For those of you saying this isn't a realistic crash. Vortex Ring states could crash like this or if there's engine failure and the pilot doesn't autorotate properly it would fall that way.

  11. @thatonebeone I think the airbag in front thing (like a car) isn't going to help. The strike is from the bottom (not he front like a car). I figure if the seats could elevate before impact and then give a longer cushion it might reduce injury.

    Or the landing struts. That seems like a no brainer. Why not have them take up more of the impact. Perhaps have them another foot longer and have them bring the speed down smoothly rather than just snap.

  12. @X0Pete if the tail rotor gets damaged then this will happen for sure but the forces on impact should still be the same so there is no need for nasa to test it while adding spin to it plus it would make recording the results 100 times harder

  13. to add something to the system NASA are testing I feel that harnesses might be beneficial rather than the lap strap only plus it seems that the seats might benefit from a shock absorbing system as well as under the fuselage

  14. Helicopters are impossible to eject from. But what if so made it so before you eject straight up, you make the blades release. Of course this is for like war. You can't release blades into a city lol.

  15. I fly a Robinson R-44 Raven I. The seats absorb energy as do the skids and I can tell you its a really nice helicopter to fly and with all the new safety systems, should do well in this crash test. How well I dont really know. I fly both Robbies and find them to have nice full down characteristics. No hard landigs should develop if auto's are done correctly or near correctly. Nice to see the NASA boys trying to improve the rotor community's safety. Thanks fella's.

  16. I live across the river in Titusville. Have you also considered the hazard of rotor blade intrusion into the cockpit as this is also one of the most dangerous phenomenon from an uncontrolled touch down?

  17. ill be honest with you all,, i think the crash will be way more dangerous because if theyre really flying they have the propellers to worry about swinging verry violent and it all depends on how high theyre in the air but good wreck thoo…

  18. Lol the dummy sitting in the pilot seat , yess ive just been in a crash , i think ill just get my head down on my collegues shoulder lol

  19. @X0Pete Yeah what if the helicopter was way higher and got hit and went down? I'm sure it'd flip over the Soldiers die in little helicopter crashes either way but it doesn't happen too much cause' it's a small target.

  20. WOULD ATTACHING SHOCKS FROM BOTTOM OF COPTER TO LOWER SKID HELP? REBOUND COULD BE CONTROLLED BY LOCKING SHOCKS TO ONLY ACCEPT IMPACT , NOT RECOIL IT . IT WOULD SAVE BREAKING OF HINGED SKIDS . AND THE FULL BODY IMPACT . RESULT.
    GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER /2/2011

  21. @MrBJC1996 Choose the first helicopter drop test with the deployable energy absorber – a lot more survivable!

  22. What was the initial helicopter height?
    What was the VVI showing at the momoent of the crash?
    What was the maximum G's attained?

    Thank you in advance for the info (a concerned helicopter pilot…)

  23. @vassdel Helicopter height was 35 feet. The flight path angle was about 33 degrees and the combined forward and vertical speeds were about 48 feet per second or 33 miles per hour. Have to doublecheck G forces and get back to you.

  24. @thewaterfalloflove Good question. We have a call into one of our researchers and will hope to have an answer soon.

  25. @thewaterfalloflove If you look carefully on that video, you will see the main rotor hitting a hanging cable. The cable was wrapped around the revolving rotor hub and mast, bringing the rotor to a complete and violent stop. This created a massive spinning force, wich along with the vibrations caused by the dissolving rotor, forced the tail boom to bend. The tail shaft was spinning with more than a thousand RPM and was doomed to snap off.

    So, not a design, nor a flaw. Just Neutonian physics…

  26. It took engineering degrees, an entire fuselage, and paid NASA employees to "predict" this? Thank god we pay the government to do all this valuable testing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *