Awesome! Congrats!

Ur gonna have a blast at WOCS, promise, lol.

Yo bro, I’m working on mine rn please please please lmk how the board went and like the stuff they asked you! Good luck man!!

@@loganrasmussen6320 good luck bro. Have you taken the SIFT?

Hope you go all the way man! Get that bread!

I use a variety of sources and first hand experience. But I link the books used in most of the video descriptions.

Hard to speak for all helicopters but they can vary in design and could possibly be either one of those.

@@helicopterlessonsin10minut10 Interesting! Sounds like similar systems that would be in large jets.

Late, but in the CH47 airframe the flight controls are mechanically linked directly to the servocylinder's via push/pull tubes & bellcranks to a two-way push/pull valve on the servo to allow hydraulic pressure expand or contract the servocylinder. There are only two per rotor system, a pivoting and swiveling servo. When the system is pressurized you can move the servo's by hand ONLY by this valve. So, swashplate movement only happens through the mounted servocylinders & the electromechanical screw-type trim actuators (by-wire) for fwd flight trim. Engineers could easily convert this system to fly-by-wire to reduce weight & cost but that would impose more safety hazards & vulnerability. Rigging is complicated enough, cables won't work well in a heavy lift due to stretching. A lot of 47's fail rig checks because they were improperly rigged from the beginning or the maintainers improperly verify the rig (very common, this is one of the most tedious & technical tasks for mechanics). But once properly mechanically rigged, I believe only the servocylinders can cause flight control rigging to move out slightly over time & that's easy to adjust. (I also believe this has to do with pump pressures and fluid losses, I don't buy the "rod ends fatigue over time, causing the rig to go out" you may hear from others, in this beefy design.) I can't imagine how bad it would be with cables. After inspecting various other airframes they definitely vary by design but essentially operate nearly the same way and always have redundancy when it comes to the hydraulic system. There is no redundancy in the mechanical linkages. You cannot move flight controls with hydraulic power off, it is a fully hydraulic system. These lessons are absolutely great for pilots but if you want to dig into the more technical details (which are not very applicable to pilots as this knowledge won't help you in flight), you'll need a engineer to show you or spend a lot of time reading technical manuals. I say engineer because a lot of mechanics know how to replace & fix stuff but few truly understand how they work. Pilots have the upper-hand of how helicopters operate over most mechanics IMO. Engineer's are the gods. I'm not an engineer.

I’m not an engineer. But I believe it comes down to cost and design. Boosted systems are more expensive than no hydraulics. But fully hydraulic systems are more expensive than boosted. As more and more performance is demanded on the helicopter, more rugged and expensive systems must be put in place. By switching away from push-pull rods to fly-by-wire controls, fully hydraulic systems made the most since. At the point of fly-by-wire all flight controls are moved via electric signals instead of push-pull rods. To try and incorporate a boosted system on this would mean installing hardware that otherwise wouldn’t have to be there and extra weight. But once again, I’m not an engineer so that’s my best guess. Great question though! Thanks for the feedback.

With an ultralight weight class you probably wouldn’t need hydraulics. The R22 should have info in its operators manual that covers its systems.

Check out the Rotorcraft flying handbook and even my eBook if you’re looking for good study references. I put the links in the descriptions of most of my videos

@@helicopterlessonsin10minut10 Thanks for the help. Happy flying. 👍