I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

Bill

On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane?


IME the bags last a good few years without any obvious loss of
integrity. Its probably just the UV that gets them in the end.


Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

They might get washed through the village!

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.

A Chinook could probably do a dozen of those - perhaps more in ideal
conditions (i.e. not hot and high)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally £35
to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some sand
and some stone? What will happen afterwards? Will the bags
deteriorate, making it impossible for them to be picked up by a crane?


IME the bags last a good few years without any obvious loss of
integrity. Its probably just the UV that gets them in the end.


Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

They might get washed through the village!

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.

A Chinook could probably do a dozen of those - perhaps more in ideal
conditions (i.e. not hot and high)


4500 kg for CH47A according to Wikipedia although Quora claims a special
forces version CH47E can do over 11 tons in optimal conditions.

I wonder if they have load sensors on the winches? It would probably be
prudent to expect a wet, overfilled "1 tonne" bag might be well over a
tonne. IIRC our local supplier's bags are guaranteed to be 800 kg.

On 05/08/2019 16:21, newshound wrote:
On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally £35
to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some sand
and some stone? What will happen afterwards? Will the bags
deteriorate, making it impossible for them to be picked up by a crane?


IME the bags last a good few years without any obvious loss of
integrity. Its probably just the UV that gets them in the end.


Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

They might get washed through the village!

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.

A Chinook could probably do a dozen of those - perhaps more in ideal
conditions (i.e. not hot and high)


4500 kg for CH47A according to Wikipedia although Quora claims a special
forces version CH47E can do over 11 tons in optimal conditions.

I wonder if they have load sensors on the winches? It would probably be
prudent to expect a wet, overfilled "1 tonne" bag might be well over a
tonne. IIRC our local supplier's bags are guaranteed to be 800 kg.

The RAF site says they can carry "up to 10 tonnes of mixed cargo". I
guess there may well be operational rules that don't let you sling as
much as could be carried inside, properly fastened down. Might relate to
the strength of the winch fixings too.

On 05/08/2019 16:24, newshound wrote:
On 05/08/2019 16:21, newshound wrote:
On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally £35
to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some sand
and some stone? What will happen afterwards? Will the bags
deteriorate, making it impossible for them to be picked up by a crane?


IME the bags last a good few years without any obvious loss of
integrity. Its probably just the UV that gets them in the end.


Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

They might get washed through the village!

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.

A Chinook could probably do a dozen of those - perhaps more in ideal
conditions (i.e. not hot and high)


4500 kg for CH47A according to Wikipedia although Quora claims a
special forces version CH47E can do over 11 tons in optimal conditions.

Our more recent ones are based on the CH47F IIUC, although with more
powerful engines. Many of the yank versions they seem to rate for around
20,000 lbs

MoD seem to have a habit of buying perfectly good kit, and then changing
it to be "better" (and generate work for local defence contractors).

However that often means its more expensive and takes much longer to get
flight qualified. Sometimes that can work well (our Apache gunships
could fly with the Longbow RADAR fitted in Afganistan, whereas the US
needed to remove it to get off the ground in the high temperatures and
altitudes), but there was also a big fuss getting enough Chinooks into
service as they had to remove a bunch of upgrades from a set of
airframes just to get them into service quickly.


I wonder if they have load sensors on the winches? It would probably
be prudent to expect a wet, overfilled "1 tonne" bag might be well
over a tonne. IIRC our local supplier's bags are guaranteed to be 800 kg.

The RAF site says they can carry "up to 10 tonnes of mixed cargo". I
guess there may well be operational rules that don't let you sling as
much as could be carried inside, properly fastened down. Might relate to
the strength of the winch fixings too.

And having them flapping about below.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/08/2019 16:24, newshound wrote:
On 05/08/2019 16:21, newshound wrote:
On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally £35
to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some sand
and some stone? What will happen afterwards? Will the bags
deteriorate, making it impossible for them to be picked up by a crane?


IME the bags last a good few years without any obvious loss of
integrity. Its probably just the UV that gets them in the end.


Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

They might get washed through the village!

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.

A Chinook could probably do a dozen of those - perhaps more in ideal
conditions (i.e. not hot and high)


4500 kg for CH47A according to Wikipedia although Quora claims a
special forces version CH47E can do over 11 tons in optimal conditions.

I wonder if they have load sensors on the winches? It would probably
be prudent to expect a wet, overfilled "1 tonne" bag might be well
over a tonne. IIRC our local supplier's bags are guaranteed to be 800 kg.

The RAF site says they can carry "up to 10 tonnes of mixed cargo". I
guess there may well be operational rules that don't let you sling as
much as could be carried inside, properly fastened down. Might relate to
the strength of the winch fixings too.

A quick google shows the empty weight as 10,185kg and the max takeoff
weight as 22,680kg (HC.2 version), but you have to subtract the weight
of crew and fuel from that max to get the allowable load.

Presumably with multiple short flights and never being far from support,
the could get away with a minimal fuel load and carry more bags, but
that may make manouevring into place harder - or maybe, as they are
releasing one at a time, they only have facilities to carry and release
three?

Aha, it looks like it is a limit of having three releasable hooks!
Apparently the centre hook is rated for 20,000lb and the fore and aft
hooks for 10,000lb each.

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally £35
to £40.

Can be quite a bit cheaper loose in larger quantities.

Almost certainly from the nearest quarry.

We do a lot of work for a large builders merchants in Doncaster. Their
ballast arrives by truck (from a nearby quarry) and is put into their
labelled bags at the merchants. I assume the quarry also sell bagged
ballast.


--
Adam

On 05/08/2019 14:19, John Rumm wrote:
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from?

Probably the nearest quarry... either that or all the local builder's
merchants are have a good week!

Early on they were saying the local quarry was donating them.

--
F

On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

Bill

They are doing them nine at a time.
Chinucks can carry guns and stuff a few bags of gravel is not a lot.

On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

Bill

I read somewhere that the ballast is being donated for free.
There must be a big quarry fairly near.

On Monday, 5 August 2019 16:10:32 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
I read somewhere that the ballast is being donated for free.
There must be a big quarry fairly near.

That could be somewhere to put all the water ...

Owain

On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?


Won't they just be left there, and subsequently concreted over?


It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?


Then you should be amazed that it lift itself - it weighs 10 or 11
tonnes empty!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In article , Roger Mills
writes
On 05/08/2019 13:45, Bill Wright wrote:
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?


Won't they just be left there, and subsequently concreted over?


I would think so. I guess the original problem was water getting under
the concrete slabs and lifting them off rather than water coming through
the dam itself. Therefore replace what has been washed away with these
aggregate bags and then concrete over again.
It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?


Then you should be amazed that it lift itself - it weighs 10 or 11
tonnes empty!

--
bert

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 21:03:52 +0100, bert wrote:

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally
£35
to £40.

Peanuts compared to the cost of the chinook, the national reslience
highvolume pumps and the some what larger other pumps that have now
been brought in, and the new road...

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some
sand
and some stone?

I'd expect them to be something similar to MOT1 ie a mix of stones
down to dust. Packs together tightly.

What will happen afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it

impossible for them to be picked up by a crane? Will they be
removed
in fact? If so, where to?

The bags may deteriorate when exposed to day light. The dumpy bags
for the slate chippings started to have no strength after a year of
exposure. The bags that the fire logs come do not noticeably weaken
after several years.

I think they'll have to be removed, you don't know whats underneath
or how well bedded they are. The concrete that they are pouring
between them to stabilse the mass might present more of a problem.

Won't they just be left there, and subsequently concreted over?

See above...

I would think so. I guess the original problem was water getting under
the concrete slabs and lifting them off rather than water coming through
the dam itself.

If water had been getting through the dam in any appreachable
quantity the dam would no longer be there. As you say water got
between the slabs, washed out the earth behind them and they
collapsed into the void.

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three

tons.

I've seen pictures with 7 bags underneath the chinook.

Then you should be amazed that it lift itself - it weighs 10 or 11

tonnes empty!

A lot of air needs to be moved. Excellent flying as well, not only
close to the dam but also hardly any lurch upwards when they drop a
couple of bags...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" Wrote in message:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 21:03:52 +0100, bert wrote:

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally
£35
to £40.

Peanuts compared to the cost of the chinook, the national reslience
highvolume pumps and the some what larger other pumps that have now
been brought in, and the new road...

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some
sand
and some stone?

I'd expect them to be something similar to MOT1 ie a mix of stones
down to dust. Packs together tightly.

You offering to go up with a whacker plate?


The bags may deteriorate when exposed to day light. The dumpy bags
for the slate chippings started to have no strength after a year of
exposure. The bags that the fire logs come do not noticeably weaken
after several years.

I think they'll have to be removed, you don't know whats underneath
or how well bedded they are. The concrete that they are pouring
between them to stabilse the mass might present more of a problem.

Won't they just be left there, and subsequently concreted over?

See above...

Shurely once the damn is emptied to 25% they'll be rebuilding it
properly?

A load of bags of heavy **** dumped from a helo does not sound
like a proper repair.....


--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

In article , Jim K..
writes
"Dave Liquorice" Wrote in message:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 21:03:52 +0100, bert wrote:

I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast is normally
£35
to £40.

Peanuts compared to the cost of the chinook, the national reslience
highvolume pumps and the some what larger other pumps that have now
been brought in, and the new road...

Are they actually ballast (as commonly understood), or are some
sand
and some stone?

I'd expect them to be something similar to MOT1 ie a mix of stones
down to dust. Packs together tightly.

You offering to go up with a whacker plate?


The bags may deteriorate when exposed to day light. The dumpy bags
for the slate chippings started to have no strength after a year of
exposure. The bags that the fire logs come do not noticeably weaken
after several years.

I think they'll have to be removed, you don't know whats underneath
or how well bedded they are. The concrete that they are pouring
between them to stabilse the mass might present more of a problem.

Won't they just be left there, and subsequently concreted over?

See above...

Shurely once the damn is emptied to 25% they'll be rebuilding it
properly?

A load of bags of heavy **** dumped from a helo does not sound
like a proper repair.....


Not likely to need rebuilding. It is a very simple construction built
before whacker plates were invented.
--
bert

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
Excellent flying as well, not only
close to the dam but also hardly any lurch upwards when they drop a
couple of bags...

Yes I was amazed at how well the pilot was able to compensate the amount of
lift as he let go of a ton of ballast. I wonder how much "autopilot" type
assistance the pilot gets in maintaining a constant height as the load
varies and if there are any gusts. Particularly critical when a pilot has to
hover close to ground or close to a cliff face for a long time during a
winch-man rescue of a patient. Probably there's less need for really
accurate positioning with military Chinooks, but for air-sea rescue those
guys need phenomenal reactions - and a lot of good feedback from an observer
"forward one, right two, backwards one" (I wonder the units are - feet?
metres?).

I have a lot of respect for helicopter pilots. I became quite good at
"flying" various fixed-wing planes in MS Flight Simulator, but I never got
the hang of "flying" a helicopter. Of course, "flying" in FS is no
substitute for flying a real plane. I had a couple of lessons in a Cessna a
long time ago, before a medical condition meant that flying was probably not
a good idea, even if was still allowed by CAA, and the experience of feeling
the plane pitch, roll and yaw as the controls were moved cannot be
duplicated in a PC simulator! Nor can the mild vertigo when you look out of
the window and think "it's a *long* way down" - even at only 500 feet. One
thing that surprised me: we flew over a field where a farmer was
muck-spreading, and I was amazed at how much of the smell made it up to 1000
or 1500 feet.

"NY" wrote in message
...
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
Excellent flying as well, not only
close to the dam but also hardly any lurch upwards when they drop a
couple of bags...

Yes I was amazed at how well the pilot was able to compensate the amount
of lift as he let go of a ton of ballast. I wonder how much "autopilot"
type assistance the pilot gets in maintaining a constant height as the
load varies and if there are any gusts. Particularly critical when a pilot
has to hover close to ground or close to a cliff face for a long time
during a winch-man rescue of a patient. Probably there's less need for
really accurate positioning with military Chinooks, but for air-sea rescue
those guys need phenomenal reactions - and a lot of good feedback from an
observer "forward one, right two, backwards one" (I wonder the units are -
feet? metres?).

I have a lot of respect for helicopter pilots. I became quite good at
"flying" various fixed-wing planes in MS Flight Simulator, but I never got
the hang of "flying" a helicopter. Of course, "flying" in FS is no
substitute for flying a real plane. I had a couple of lessons in a Cessna
a long time ago, before a medical condition meant that flying was probably
not a good idea, even if was still allowed by CAA, and the experience of
feeling the plane pitch, roll and yaw as the controls were moved cannot be
duplicated in a PC simulator!

Yeah, can get interesting landing in a strong gusty crosswind
that's at the limit of what the plane is allowed to land in.

Nor can the mild vertigo when you look out of the window and think "it's a
*long* way down" - even at only 500 feet.

I never get that effect myself. Had an interesting result when
I took a glider pilot mate of mine for a fly in our 172. Flying
over a swamp where we had put a ****ing great water tank
in the swamp to measure the evaporation rate, just pushed
the nose down so he could see the tank, had him grab his
seat and shout "don't do that"

One thing that surprised me: we flew over a field where a farmer was
muck-spreading, and I was amazed at how much of the smell made it up to
1000 or 1500 feet.

Never saw that, but we don't muck spread much here.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 21:08:15 +0100, NY wrote:

Excellent flying as well, not only close to the dam but also
hardly any
lurch upwards when they drop a couple of bags...

Yes I was amazed at how well the pilot was able to compensate the amount
of lift as he let go of a ton of ballast. I wonder how much "autopilot"
type assistance the pilot gets in maintaining a constant height as the
load varies and if there are any gusts.

Don't know if a Chinook has any such automatics. In some ways I be
surprised if they do, such automatics have a habit of not letting you
"push the envelope" which an aircraft in a combat zone may wish to
do... It's also added complexilty thus something else to go wrong.

Being RAF it won't be the first time they have dropped underslung
loads and they'll know the aircraft very well and how much to reduce
the pitch of the rotors for a given weight loss. I guess that they
don't reduce the pitch until they feel the weight go rather than on a
count, just in case the release doesnt happen...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Bill Wright
writes
I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where
are they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of
ballast is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

Bill
They're bloody big blades and whizz round pretty quickly.
--
bert

On 05/08/2019 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:59 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

I doubt it's too important what's actually in the bags, just so long
as they're heavy. In one shot on the TV there looked like smoke coming
from a recently dropped bag, presumably dust blown up by downthrust
from the rotors.

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.


The American Sikorsky Skycranes could lift about 9 tonnes - i.e. just
about lift an empty Chinook. Allegedly still some flyable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-64_Skycrane

And the Russian Mi-26 once lifted over 56 tonnes - so could apparently
have have dropped several Chinook in one flight


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 05/08/2019 15:32, Robin wrote:
On 05/08/2019 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:59 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

I doubt it's too important what's actually in the bags, just so long
as they're heavy. In one shot on the TV there looked like smoke coming
from a recently dropped bag, presumably dust blown up by downthrust
from the rotors.

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.


The American Sikorsky Skycranes could lift about 9 tonnes - i.e. just
about lift an empty Chinook.Â* Allegedly still some flyable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-64_Skycrane

And the Russian Mi-26 once lifted over 56 tonnes - so could apparently
have have dropped several Chinook in one flight

The Mi-26 is rated for 20,000kg. What about the Mi-V12 - rated for 40,000kg?

SteveW

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:59 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

I doubt it's too important what's actually in the bags, just so long
as they're heavy. In one shot on the TV there looked like smoke coming
from a recently dropped bag, presumably dust blown up by downthrust
from the rotors.

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.

Wikipedia gives the payload as 24,000 lbs. so a bit over 10 tons. The sacks
are a nominal ton.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 05/08/2019 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.

One added complication they probably have is the ground upthrust(or
whatever it is called) being so near to the ground could affect the
lifting capacity, probable even more difficult on a slope.

On 05/08/2019 17:01, ss wrote:
On 05/08/2019 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.

One added complication they probably have is the ground upthrust(or
whatever it is called) being so near to the ground could affect the
lifting capacity, probable even more difficult on a slope.

Maybe the slope causes problems, but being near to the ground or "in
ground effect" increases the lifting capacity of helicpters.

SteveW

On 05/08/2019 14:43, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:59 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

I doubt it's too important what's actually in the bags, just so long
as they're heavy. In one shot on the TV there looked like smoke coming
from a recently dropped bag, presumably dust blown up by downthrust
from the rotors.

It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.

They have over 4000 hp available at each engine output shaft - so it
ought to have a fair bit of grunt!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/08/2019 17:24, John Rumm wrote:


They have over 4000 hp available at each engine output shaft - so it
ought to have a fair bit of grunt!


I reckon helicopters are some of the most remarkable bits of mechanical
engineering around. I used to know some of the guys at Imperial College
and at Westland who worked on the design of the Lynx gearbox, which was
a thing of true beauty. It is interesting how long the Sea King and
Chinook have remained in service: once you get it right, you stick with
the basic formula. I also knew the guy at Farnborough who figured out
why the oil rig Chinook went down in the North Sea, once they had got
the bits back to his lab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_B...hinook_cra sh

"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 17:24, John Rumm wrote:


They have over 4000 hp available at each engine output shaft - so it
ought to have a fair bit of grunt!


I reckon helicopters are some of the most remarkable bits of mechanical
engineering around.

I can never see a helicopter now without thinking of the (humorous)
description of how they work in the famous after-dinner speech by Dave
Gunson, an air-traffic controller: (I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You move the
stick like crazy and you watch what happens - because if you want it to to
that again, *that* is where you put the stick... It's a miracle a helicopter
ever takes off: it should, of course, screw itself into the ground."

The biggest helicopter I've been in was as a passenger on the Penzance to
Tresco (Isles of Scilly) service, a few years before it was discontinued.
Bloody noisy, and the downdraught and hot exhaust fumes when it was idling
during embarkation were quite incredible. But a hell of a lot quicker than
going by ferry.

The only other times have been in "Treasure Hunt" size Agustas (ie pilot and
front seat passenger, and bench seat for three rear seat passengers), as
pleasure flights. The first time was at a classic car show in Bracknell and
I got a very good view of the roof of the ICL building I worked in, and all
the open fields between Bracknell and Wokingham. It was decidedly un-nerving
when the pilot banked sharply (it felt as if he turned over with his right
side parallel to the ground) and I had to convince myself that the door
would *not* spontaneously open and that I would *not* fall out. The second
time was at Oxford airport in a very plush helicopter with leather
upholstery and deep-pile carpets, and I admired the pilot's skill in
hovering about five feet off the ground, barely moving from one spot, as he
was told to wait after he'd taken off until an aeroplane had landed so he
could cross the runway (I think the ATC gave the helicopter permission to
take off and cross, assuming that the aeroplane would land sooner than it
actually did!).

I'm glad it was only *after* flying in helicopters that I read Jerry
Grayson's account of how he managed to fly and land a helicopter with a
failed tail rotor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNkwk2d_DJ8 Gulp!

On 05/08/2019 22:33, NY wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 17:24, John Rumm wrote:


They have over 4000 hp available at each engine output shaft - so it
ought to have a fair bit of grunt!


I reckon helicopters are some of the most remarkable bits of
mechanical engineering around.

I can never see a helicopter now without thinking of the (humorous)
description of how they work in the famous after-dinner speech by Dave
Gunson, an air-traffic controller: (I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You move
the stick like crazy and you watch what happens - because if you want it
to to that again, *that* is where you put the stick... It's a miracle a
helicopter ever takes off: it should, of course, screw itself into the
ground."

The biggest helicopter I've been in was as a passenger on the Penzance
to Tresco (Isles of Scilly) service, a few years before it was
discontinued. Bloody noisy, and the downdraught and hot exhaust fumes
when it was idling during embarkation were quite incredible. But a hell
of a lot quicker than going by ferry.

Yup one of my disappointments is that in spite of having designed large
swathes of the software that runs all the comms and crypto in the EH101
Merlin, I never actually got to play with a real one.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 05/08/2019 22:33, NY wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 05/08/2019 17:24, John Rumm wrote:


They have over 4000 hp available at each engine output shaft - so it
ought to have a fair bit of grunt!


I reckon helicopters are some of the most remarkable bits of
mechanical engineering around.

I can never see a helicopter now without thinking of the (humorous)
description of how they work in the famous after-dinner speech by Dave
Gunson, an air-traffic controller: (I'm paraphrasing slightly) "You move
the stick like crazy and you watch what happens - because if you want it
to to that again, *that* is where you put the stick... It's a miracle a
helicopter ever takes off: it should, of course, screw itself into the
ground."

.... snipped

The only reason that helicopters can fly is that they are so ugly that
the earth repels them :-)

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:33:01 +0100, NY wrote:


It was decidedly un-nerving when the pilot banked sharply (it felt as if
he turned over with his right side parallel to the ground) and I had to
convince myself that the door would *not* spontaneously open and that I
would *not* fall out.

Yers, BTDTGGTS. Army Air Corps Lynx "borrowed" by the BBC as a camera
helicopter for the start of the Talls Ships race in the Solent. Quite
an memorable trip:

The view of the grass through the side, was enhanced by the fact the
door was locked open. Not quite sure how close the rotor tips were to
the ground... That was leaving Southhampton Airport after refueling
and dropping some tapes off.

Being an army pilot and there being rather a lot of other camera
helos, links helos and fixed wing stuff flying about he decided to
"keep away from all those bozos" and flew at 250 to 500' above the
sea. Great views of the tall ships, yes over water with the door
locked open. End up in the drink it would sink like a stone and you
can't bail out until the rotor has stopped.

Out just past the needles and alarm sounds, pilot instantly puts the
nose down, drops and heads straight for the mainland. Oil pressure
warning light had come on. Pilot spinning up the rotor by losing
height to get it closer to autogyro. Land is friendlier that water
with the door off.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 22:33:01 +0100, NY wrote:


It was decidedly un-nerving when the pilot banked sharply (it felt as if
he turned over with his right side parallel to the ground) and I had to
convince myself that the door would *not* spontaneously open and that I
would *not* fall out.

Yers, BTDTGGTS. Army Air Corps Lynx "borrowed" by the BBC as a camera
helicopter for the start of the Talls Ships race in the Solent. Quite
an memorable trip:

The view of the grass through the side, was enhanced by the fact the
door was locked open. Not quite sure how close the rotor tips were to
the ground... That was leaving Southhampton Airport after refueling
and dropping some tapes off.

Being an army pilot and there being rather a lot of other camera
helos, links helos and fixed wing stuff flying about he decided to
"keep away from all those bozos" and flew at 250 to 500' above the
sea. Great views of the tall ships, yes over water with the door
locked open. End up in the drink it would sink like a stone and you
can't bail out until the rotor has stopped.

Out just past the needles and alarm sounds, pilot instantly puts the
nose down, drops and heads straight for the mainland. Oil pressure
warning light had come on. Pilot spinning up the rotor by losing
height to get it closer to autogyro. Land is friendlier that water
with the door off.

The helicopter G-BHXU that was used as the Skyrunner helicopter in Treasure
Hunt ended up in a watery grave just off the Channel Islands when it
suffered a catastrophic engine or gearbox failure, requiring the pilot to
autogyro to the surface of the sea and then he and his passenger had to bail
out. They were wearing lifejackets but the pilot said it would have been
useful if the helicopter had had an oxygen supply (an optional extra on that
chopper) to help them breathe until they could leave the cockpit which
filled with water very quickly. I'm not sure whether they were flying it
with the doors off. Because the wreckage couldn't be recovered, the exact
cause was never determined.

In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 13:45:59 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I'm just musing.

The bags appear to be standard one ton bags. Hundreds of them. Where are
they coming from? I wonder how much they are costing. A ton of ballast
is normally £35 to £40. Are they actually ballast (as commonly
understood), or are some sand and some stone? What will happen
afterwards? Will the bags deteriorate, making it impossible for them to
be picked up by a crane? Will they be removed in fact? If so, where to?

I doubt it's too important what's actually in the bags, just so long
as they're heavy. In one shot on the TV there looked like smoke coming
from a recently dropped bag, presumably dust blown up by downthrust
from the rotors.

Lots of spray from the lake itself. Downthrust on any helicopter throws
up a load of dust and small pebbles but a Chinook is just fierce.
It amazes me that blades whizzing round in the air can lift three tons.
Aren't I silly?

I thought much the same thing - all that weight, including the
Chinook, supported by the downthrust from two sets of rotating blades
- seems verging on the impossible.


--
bert