When practicing vortex ring.........

[nellycopter]

When practicing vortex ring
Is the speed recovery time effected wether you are going into wind or down wind ?????

[Lonewolf_50]

What altitude are you doing this practice at?

I'd not do that too close to the ground. If you actually enter VRS, recovery may take some altitude to achieve.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

When practicing vortex ring .. don't inadvertently do this .......

Medical Helicopter Crash - YouTube

[ShyTorque]

Was that VR? Looks more like plain old running out of power /overpitching after an unstabilised and too fast approach.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Yep, looks like that. Just saying to be careful when recovering from the practice (especially you aren't so high).

[Hummingfrog]

The helicopter doesn't know if it is into/cross/downwind so the answer to your question is no.

HF

[hueyracer]

If you are IN VRS-no.

But trying to recover from it-it is different.

With tailwind it takes longer to get out of it again.

Always add at least another 500 ft if you are practicing this with a new student...

[Hummingfrog]

Huey Racer

With tailwind it takes longer to get out of it again.

are you sure of that statement!!

HF

[nellycopter]

I thought this might bring on some conflicting comments,

[Hummingfrog]

It is a simple concept - does a helicopter fly relative to the ground or air?

HF

[Camp Freddie]

I am on board with Hummingfrog, clearly the helicopter doesn't know or care if it's into wind or downwind, it's only interested in the relative wind, I think there are 3 points of interest here.

1) it's a matter of how it looks visually, into wind you are often moving backwards over the ground in order to get a good rate of descent in the incipient stage, whereas downwind you are still moving forward over the ground at the same point and that feels more normal .

2) while recovery clearly takes the same time, you are not so well placed downwind at the bottom of the recovery much nearer the ground if you run into a problem that may require an autorotation and engine off landing.

3) in my experience people are often shown the wrong technique for minimum height loss recovery, in particular they do not level the ship as they recover the airspeed through 30kts and as they pull power with the nose still down they accelerate the descent and lose far more height than they would otherwise.

Min 2000ft height is a good starting point I think with a student.

[[email protected]]

It will take longer to recover if you have a 5 kt tail wind compared to a 5 kt head wind because you have to accelerate through the zero airspeed condition to get positive airspeed.

[nellycopter]

Are you sure Crab....

[skadi]

It will take longer to recover if you have a 5 kt tail wind compared to a 5 kt head wind because you have to accelerate through the zero airspeed condition to get positive airspeed.

For VR you should have 0 kt airspeed, so its no matter were the wind comes from....
Just imagine, you do that in IMC with no GS Indication...

skadi

[Nedkelly123]

I always thought that :
1. Establish Out of ground effect hover. Induced Air is pulled directly through the rotor system
2. As we descend we add upwind component which opposes the induced airflow of our OGE hover.
3. This results in Vortices being created from the blade root and moving outwards along the blade if more power is added.

To get out of the VR we need to clear the vortices. The most common is to gain airspeed forward... but this may not always be possible.

So a movement to the front, side or even backward sufficient to clear the vortices will help get out of VR... pull pitch and recover.

For training its any indication of airspeed....

[fadecdegraded]

It will take more height and distance over the ground to recover from VRS downwind than it will by recovering into wind.
If in doubt try it but keep plenty of height on

[Geoffersincornwall]

...........IN THE HELICOPTER.......

If you are going to rehearse the recovery from VR (Settling with Power if you prefer) then do it in a simulator. You can crash all day and still go home for supper.

G. :ok:

[Hummingfrog]

Ah, Geoffers, the thought of all that delicious Italian pasta for supper! Though I prefer the suppers after a trip in a French sim:ok:

Only ever saw "Vortex Ring" once - in a Whirlwind on the climb to 10,000ft sortie when in was demoed on the way back down - decided I would avoid it at all costs - at that height I couldn't tell if we had a head or tail wind - neither could the old Whirly 10;)

HF

Crab - I am surprised at your answer - head and tail winds are only with reference to the earth not the the mass of air the helicopter is flying in!!

[[email protected]]

Yes, and if you are moving backwards within that mass of air ie with a 5 kt tail wind, and you want to move forwards in that mass of air ie to achieve a 30 kt headwind, then it will take longer to achieve than if you were already moving forwards in that mass of air ie a 5 kt headwind. It doesn't matter what the earth beneath you is doing, it's all about TAS and going from a negative to a positive rather than from a positive to a larger positive.

[Helinut]

In my book, Hummingfrog is right in what he says, but that is not quite the whole story. The helicopter is controlled and manipulated by the pilot, who uses visual cues to decide what to do and when.

As Crab suggests, a downwind demo of VRS will be likely to involve starting at a negative speed hover wrt the air (or at least a lower airspeed than into wind). There seems to me to be 2 possibilities:

The recovery is standard (i.e. does not vary depending upon the relative wind).
In this case, a "standard" amount of nose down will initiate the recovery. But with downwind the pilot will wait longer to see the positive (30+ kts) IAS that he requires before doing the rest of the recovery. Because he waits longer while descending, the aircraft will descend further.

The recovery is varied to take account of relative wind
Knowing that he is downwind with lower/negative air speed the pilot chooses a larger nose down attitude when downwind. That has the same net effect that the total descent will be greater than for into wind, before positive IAS is achieved.

[Burr Styers]

As someone who has experienced VR for real, in the "I learnt about flying from that" bracket, I'll share this with you. My circumstances were coming to a free air hover, at around 2000ft agl, at near mauw, in a light 5 seat military helicopter. Was in a bit of a hurry to get back "in position" following a racing re-fuel. So quite a bit of flare to get the speed off, lever coming up, and all sort of coming together for that, free air, Hi-Hover feeling. Suddenly the VSI went south, the ASI started going the wrong way round the dial, and I had a horrible sinking feeling. The two things I did, in this order, was to dump the lever fully, and apply an awful lot of fwd cyclic.

The vsi passed 2000fpm and the response from the cyclic input seem to be taking forever, But eventually the airspeed did start to build - slowly. Once I had got 30 knots indicated, I carefully raised the collective, and fell it starting to bite, and the cyclic (following a test wiggle) was also alive again. I bottomed out, climbed back up, and got back into position a very shaken (shaking) person.

I fell vertically over a thousand feet, and recovered in the next few hundred. It wasn't big, and it definitely wasn't clever.

If you want to practice this, please do it from several thousand feet, over a completely flat, empty, "run on" friendly area. (And not the densely populated - full of baddies place that I did) Also consider the proximity and availability of the emergency services, whose expertise with shovels and brooms may well be of use.

Stay safe

BS

[Nubian]

Surprisingly many here with the impression that wind-direction has no effect.. at least during practise VR, ie. ''onset VR'' and that's what the tread is about ''When practicing vortex ring.....''

As a flight-intructor I used to do this demo and practise onset VR with the students. If you enter full VR, it is almost impossible to recover from it without loosing 1000's of feet, and frankly that is a too great risk taking, when the point of the exercise is to recognize the symptoms of VR and aviod getting fully established.

I did it at 2000ft into the wind, and turned 180 degrees.... what was happening to the ground beneath me, was irrelevant, however the extra couple of hundred of feet lost during the exact same recovery-procedure was the interessting part of the exercise...

Now, allthough the helicopter don't have a mind of itself, I do!

I think it has been discussed more in detail in an older tread as well.

Cheers

[Hummingfrog]

Crab I think you have a mix up in nomenclature.

Yes, and if you are moving backwards within that mass of air ie with a 5 kt tail wind,

Into/down wind is measured relative to the earth - hence the word wind.

Positive/negative airspeed is measured relative to the helicopter and has nothing to do with wind.

Your statement would be correct when "5kt negative airspeed" is substituted for 5 kt tail wind

HF

[topendtorque]

If you enter full VR, it is almost impossible to recover from it without loosing 1000's of feet,


What sort of aircraft? Given that VRS is simply a set of vortices circulating around the blades in isolation of the surrounding air mass and therefore the aircraft is in free fall, it will accerarate at G whilst it stays in VRS. Can you then expain how those vortices remain with the rotor disc in the face of the accelarating resultant airflow? Surely the limiting coefficient of static friction of that surrounding airmass must have an effect on those pesky vortices quite quickly?

Perhaps the aircraft you are quoting falls or progresses into another type of 'failed lift scenario', other than VRS if I may use such a term? Did your aircraft have tapered blades for example?

I have always found 2,000 feet quite safe, higher if you wish to explore further, in and out of VRS.

I doubt there would be much difference between doing it all and recovery into the downwind or into wind condition, maybe a few feet, big deal, it is just that it easier to get caught if moving in the direction of the wind.

From the students achievement point of view I always see it as important to teach not only the actual characteristics of VRS and recovery, but to progress that strongly with many of the "circumstances" that will trap the unwary in low level flying.

A maneuvre I demonstrate and later ambush pilots with is to give the following set of three conditions. Travelling in the direction of the wind, I.E. Downwind, Decreasing airspeed and Descending, all at once. Feel the hairs rise up on the back of your neck just thinking about it.

I liken it to Drinking; Driving and Death; three D's together.

If one wishes to descend while travelling downwind, use collective only, keep the cyclic forward with positive airspeed.

The subtle hazard of light headwinds or nil wind is another, by projecting your downwash in front of you in a fairly fast approach with flare then descending into it or; as in not seeing a sudden wind vortice that changes your wind status from head wind to tailwind when decreasing airspeed and descending at low level.

The Downwind condition I classify as moving in the direction of the wind, regardless of helicopter heading but at a slower Ground speed than wind speed. I.E. A negative or tail wind. To accelerate to translation from that condition takes more power than commencing from a stationary ground speed in either a nil or a light head wind. It's simply a matter of the aircraft mass having to move further before it takes up the power saving extra lift from higher airspeed.

You can measure that on the ground in distance and power used in the simple hover downwind vs into wind excercises. How many measure the distance as well as note power?

All good fun
tet.

[[email protected]]

HF - I believe what I have stated is what the OP was questioning so maybe his terminology caused confusion.

If you are in a 2000' hover over the ground and the wind is blowing from behind you, are you downwind or do you have negative airspeed? The aircraft will handle the same and you are still further from a safe speed to avoid VRS than if you were hovering into wind/with positive airspeed.

However, meteorologists refer to system relative wind to explain the formation of warm and cold conveyor belts so the term wind can be used in a non-earth frame of reference;)

TeT - if the root and inboard section of the blade is stalled and the outboard section and tip are immersed in recirculating vortices then there isn't much of the disc left to produce rotor thrust to oppose weight - that is full VRS. If you raise the lever, you exacerbate the problem as the increase in rotor drag can exceed the rotor torque and Nr will decrease. The helo won't accelerate indefinitely but it will fall faster - if you don't have enough time/height to recover you are stuffed.

Theoretically, if you have a powerful enough helo you can pull through VRS but the best option is to lower the lever to achieve the windmill brake state or autorotation.

[Hummingfrog]

Crab In my opinion you have negative airspeed in the example you quote. I think the term into/downwind only applies when you are near to the ground and the wind can affect what you are doing ie landing/turning close to obstacles.

In all other modes of flight we don't modify how we fly due to the direction of the wind ie we cruise at a set speed irrespective of the wind direction. (ok I know we fly at Vne when into a strong wind but that is for fuel considerations not aerodynamic)

HF

[[email protected]]

Well hover at 10' then, stationary over the ground, with 10 kts on the nose - you have positive airspeed and are into wind. Now yaw through 180 degrees maintaining station, are you down wind or do you have negative airspeed? You can't have it both ways according to your definition;)

[Hummingfrog]

That is downwind with negative airspeed as you are close to the ground so using the term downwind is acceptable ( you will always have negative airspeed at some point when slowing down/hovering downwind) if you go up and hover at say 1000ft then you only have negative airspeed as what you are doing is not influenced by the ground unless there is a 1500 ft cliff just behind you that you could be blown into!!

I believe as I said in my previous post we should only use the term into/down wind when the ground is playing a significant role in what we are doing. Doing a negative airspeed approach to a cloud top at 2000ft won't end up in a crash if you mess up. Doing one to a HLS downwind and messing up could be expensive:eek:

HF

[eddietodd]

This is the perfect answer listen to this guy he knows what he is talking about the aim of teaching and practising incipient VR is to teach you how and when to look out for it DOWN WIND.

[eddietodd]

Look you wallies Humming frog got it perfectly correct in post 6 listen to him he knows what he is talking about. He probably talked to me in the past.

[Helinut]

Why is the downwind leg in a circuit called the downwind leg, if when it is flown at anything from 500ft to 1000ft+? I think your wish to limit the use of downwind as a description is too narrow (speaking personally, of course).

You need to know where you are, relative to wind direction for a whole host of reasons and heights, don't you?

[nellycopter]

So keeping things simple,
Who is a yes and who is a no ? To my origional question....
Think of it as a test question ... Multiple choice....
Yes or no ??

[Hughes500]

I always find it very difficult to put a 300 into incipient vortex ring if flying into wind ( about 15 kts plus), unless you go backwards ( relative to the ground) as the wind has an equivlent of 15 kts fwd airspeed, helping to keep the disc into clean air thus no vortex ring or limited effect. Turn heli the other way and bring back to 15 kts airspeed ( downwind and relative to the ground) and the heli will easily get into vortex ring, as effectively you are in a hover and hence the disc will be in its own downwash as you descend.
Well thats my experience anyway

[chopjock]

Wind direction is irrelevant so NO

[HeloDrvr]

For what it's worth, this accident occurred during a factory-demo flight (and we all know that things never go wrong on demo flights ugh:)

Heard it was heavily loaded (got to show off those capabilities) and they were landing at a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah- approx. 4,300'msl on a Summer day.

[[email protected]]

if you go up and hover at say 1000ft then you only have negative airspeed as what you are doing is not influenced by the ground yes it is because you use the term hover, which implies being stationary relative to the ground - unless you use the term relative hover - alongside a moving vessel for example.

This is turning into a circular argument (yes it is, no it isn't);) but you wanted to be pedantic about nomenclature;)

[Camp Freddie]

the fact of the matter is that

1) if you try to make it look the same i.e a 0 ground speed situation into wind/downwind, it isnt the same and recovery will take longer from the downwind position as you will be starting from a negative rather than a positive airspeed

2) if you forget about the groundspeed and just concentrate on 0 airspeed, then it is the same it will just look different out the window, as you will have a greater groundspeed in the downwind situation.

[AnFI]

The answer's 'no'. Hummigfrog and Camp Freddie:D

Helicopter knows if it has horizontal airspeed component not whether it has a horizontal groundspeed.

But there is a but ....

If near the ground when VRS fully established then wind-shear will cause an increase in airspeed more rapidly in the downwind recovery case than the into wind case (when some airspeed is robbed by the shear).

Same reason downwind auto (surprisingly) is energetically superior ('cept for the running on part:ugh:)

[eagle 86]

Adding fuel - settling with power/overpitching is not VRS!
GAGS
E86

[before landing check list]

Guys, wind is relative to the ground, not the helicopter. It is only when you are maneuvering relative to the ground ie pattern work does it make a difference. For example if it were completely dark, you cannot see the ground and there where no nav instruments to tell you otherwise, you would have no idea what your ground track is while you were doing constant standard rate turn (according to your turn indicator or compass with clock) while doing this in an airmass moving at 50 kts (relative to the ground). Your airspeed indicator would keep a constant indication, your altimeter would be unchanged, you would not feel a damn thing BUT your ground track would show weird loops moving in the direction of the wind.
You can be in a free balloon (untethered) in a hurricane and the ride in the basket would be overall quite. The helicopter does not care, the airplane does not care about wind UNTIL you are maneuvering relative to an object that is NOT moving ie runway, confined area, tree etc. Soooo your recovery from a VR state can be easily sideways, backwards, front (all relative to the wind of course) but front is easier since you can see where you are going which makes life easier.

[MightyGem]

in a light 5 seat military helicopter
A Gazelle over Belfast perhaps?

[Burr Styers]

.............Might have been.........it was a long while ago.....

[Burr Styers]

What stopped me from becoming an integral part of sovereign territory ?........Training ! Two parts to that. 1stly fixed wing stall training and recovery, (demonstrated and actual) and 2ndly rotary demonstration of incipient condition and hands on induction and recovery. Whilst all the "POF" is very interesting, even a generation on, much better and brighter heads than mine are still disputing the theory behind VR. From a practical point of view, trainers,..... do please keep this in the syllabus, It is a challenging exercise for all involved,............but from the box marked "Helicopters - things that will one day bite you on the bum", this has to be near the top of the pile

B rgds

BS

[Thomas coupling]

Wasn't ther another incidient in NI where a female RAF pilot got into incipient VRS?

[HueyLoach]

Geoffersincornwall wrote:
DON'T DO IT.........
...........IN THE HELICOPTER.......

If you are going to rehearse the recovery from VR (Settling with Power if you prefer) then do it in a simulator. You can crash all day and still go home for supper.
It is a required task in the FAA instructor pilot practical test standards. I had demo it dozens of times to my students. And it is required as part of my company annual proficiency evaluation in a real helicopter. If I remember correctly according to the FAA Rotorcraft handbook the minimum recovery altiitude is 1500 ft.

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately, your simulator needs to be setup with the right parameters for VRS pertinent to your aircraft. Ours seems to have the standard 30 kts and 500fpm so it puts you into VRS even when you are not even close.

Having said that, it does at least allow you to practise the recovery.

[Heli-Jock]

Totally agree with "Geoffersincornwall"! :D
If you keep practicing the "Downwind" VRS at some point you will end up in a whole lot of trouble trying to recover! I was always taught "Into wind" VRS, then on my instructors test, i had to do the "Downwind" way,,,,i absolutely **** myself and recovered from 2300 ft start point,, at around 800 ft,,,
From that moment on,,,,i teach upwind,,,its enough to demonstrate the problem without putting the fear of god up the students! No doubt you'll get away with it for so long but keep at it and one day,,,,it'll bite you.:sad:

[SASless]

VRS done intentionally is not the bugbear it is being made out to be....or should not for a competent pilot. Can it be interesting in aircraft response....maybe...but then it is an intentional maneuver and one should be prepared for "unusual" reactions.

It is unintentional entry into VRS and particularly when close to the ground that VRS becomes the bugbear it is known to be.

One man's opinion developed over almost forty years driving these wonderful machines we call helicopters.

BLC says it right.....VRS Demo's are not ground reference maneuvers.....simply air work....unless you are doing something horribly wrong.

In reality....could one not do this all by reference to instruments? During my US Army Instrument training....we did so as a part of unusual attitude exercises but did not call it VRS by name. Instrument indications can be fun to figure out while all this is going on....but just as doing it by eye looking outside the windows....attitude, heading, airspeed, and power are the keys to recovery followed by rate of climb once forward airspeed is regained.

On instruments the key is knowing how you arrived at the situation you find yourself in.....so it is not really a complicated concept or exercise to conduct.

[ShyTorque]

Hueyloach,

If I remember correctly according to the FAA Rotorcraft handbook the minimum recovery altiitude is1500 ft.

After which, if not recovered by then, what are you supposed to do next?

[Torquetalk]

It is also part of the JAR-FCL syllabus. The incipient stages, indications, and correct recovery are required to be taught.

1500ft (JAR-FCL 2000ft) is a minimum height at which incipient VRS and recovery are to be taught. And recovery action is to be taken immediately.

TT

[SASless]

No problem Shy.....one shall never go much below 0' AGL no matter how badly it turns out!:E

If one starts at 4,000 feet AGL....that gives you 2,500 feet before it becomes an issue. One would assume the entry altitude would vary by aircraft type....something like a Bell 47 would differ than say....an H-53E. The Demo is only to show Incipient VRS....not entry into full VRS.

What rules apply to such exercises in CAA/JAA/EASA or whatever-you-are calling-yourselves-this-week-land?

[Torquetalk]

SAS

I think it's EASA this week, but no-one is really sure.

Not sure about rules as such, but the regulations for licensing specify what is to be taught. The how bit comes from where you get taught. Some of the bigger schools have practice notes for their FIs/CFIs(e.g. Bristow).

In the wider world, practice can vary a bit more. I have met CFIs/FIs who don't teach it for PPL (and likely at all), seeing it as an "advanced manouvre" as opposed to preventative and emergency training; some who just let the aircraft fly a little bit itto it's own vortices at height then recover without allowing the incipient element to begin; some who aggresively put the TTP way below the horizon in the belief that you get more airspeed more quickly that way; others who teach auto as the way to get out. On the whole, though: most seem to do more or less the same, allowing the incipient state to begin indicated by a sudden ROD acceleration, then put the disk at the horizon, maybe lower the lever a bit, wait for indicated airspeed then pull pitch again to recover.

The point about type is may be important. Most civi training is done on light piston aircraft. In an earlier discussion, it was said that the lighter the machine, the lower the ROD required to get into VRS due to the relative masses involved. Following this, the incipient indications will develop with less loss of height in lighter machines. And this probably extends to the required height to recover.

TT

[[email protected]]

It's not weight specifically, it is disc loading that determines your downwash speed and hence the RoD required to encounter VRS.

As it happens the light pistons have relatively low powered engines and larger rotors so the disc loading is lower.

It seems that your downwash speed in the hover in feet per min is roughly equivalent to your RoD in autorotation so, once you know this you can avoid VRS by keeping RoD at slow speed to less than half of that figure.

[Shawn Coyle]

At this late point in this thread, may I interject?
The only way I could repeatedly get the symptoms for vortex ring state was, at a suitable height above ground, enter from a downwind deceleration. Determine the wind direction at altitude from cloud shadows, or pre-flight weather info.
Starting at 60 knots or so, use a power setting that is less than the power required to maintain level flight, but decelerate maintaining altitude. Passing through about 20 knots, the first symptoms of low frequency airframe vibrations (or buffeting) appears. As the speed passes less than 10 knots or so, the helicopter will start to settle, and the second symptom appears- uncommanded pitch, roll and yaw oscillations. (i.e. the ontrls aren't being moved and the helicopter is dancing around) The rate of descent at this stage should be 300-500 feet per minute. And the student should be told that this is the furthest point you should go before recovery, except here we may want to see what happens if power is applied to recover, instead of lowering the nose.
If the power is increased, the rate of descent may (and I must emphasize may) increase.
Recovery is made by positively lowering the nose to at least 20° nose down.
Typical height loss is less than 500 feet.
I have never been able to satisfactorily get the symptoms (the buffeting and uncommanded pitch, roll and yaw) when trying to do this entering from into wind.
And if you don't get the symptoms, the student isn't going to be aware of them for later life.

[before landing check list]

It will work better if you made your helicopter shadow follow the cloud shadows while being the same height AGL as the clouds. This will very closely approximate zero movement through the air which is what is needed. Forget about movement over the ground as it is irrelevant for this excessive. You can do this in any direction because zero is zero. To recover make the helicopter shadow move independently from the cloud shadow. Again any direction will do however forward feels much better.

[[email protected]]

Funny how many posters on here are convinced they know better than a very experienced test pilot and author of helicopter books;)

[before landing check list]

Crab, some references would be good.

[Torquetalk]

You are kidding surely?

So tempting to make a cheap remark about clouds and heads being in them. But I won't :E

[ShyTorque]

Crab, some references would be good.

Try here:

Shawn Coyle (http://eagleeyesolutionsllc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=10)

or here:

Cyclic & Collective Shawn Coyle (http://www.helicoptersonly.com/contents/en-us/p830.html)

[AnFI]

It seems that your downwash speed in the hover in feet per min is roughly equivalent to your RoD in autorotation so, once you know this you can avoid VRS by keeping RoD at slow speed to less than half of that figure. First part true - second part untrue and dangerous (since <900fpm will obviously not keep you safe)

Obviously bfcl is correct - zero airspeed is zero airspeed - makes no difference whether your ground speed is negative or positive at the time.
((except during the windsheer element perhaps at low level - where it counts and 'downwind' would be better ironically)).

VRS requires 2 elements:
Induced Flow (ie Powered flight)
and
An opposing airflow (ie combination of low airspeed (eg less than 3kts) and a RoD (eg more than 3 kts)

Fully developed VRS is elegant and the 'buffeting and random attitude changes' generally stop.

Also buffeting and uncommanded pitch, roll and yaw is a pretty poor warning indicator since although they most often do occur, you can just slip neatly into VRS without experiencing those first - if your really lucky.

[before landing check list]

So tempting to make a cheap remark about clouds and heads being in them. But I won't

LOL yes too funny. However since we have established that the practice of VR is not a ground reference maneuver and to practice this we need to achievea rate of decent that is vertical THROUGH THE AIR (Not in relation to the ground) zero airspeed with some power applied. To practice this you need no movement through the air right? Now how do you readily achieve zero movement THOUGH THE AIR? Airspeed indicator? No, since it is (1) unreliable at low speeds and (2) will not show sideways or back wards speed THROUGH THE AIR right? Now we have that ironed out. GPS? No again since it is just showing speed over the ground and we have figured out this is not a ground reference maneuver right? So we can play hit and miss trying to achieve zero airspeed with a rate of decent and some power applied and TRY to get into VR. Clouds to work when they are available at an appropriate altitude. Recovery is achieved with airspeed (movement through the air) in really any direction preferably foreword but if there is an Obstruction in front ie a cliff feel free to go sideways or backwards.

[Torquetalk]

So this tedious, self-justifying post is your idea of humility is it? Good grief.

To my mind, you are making this much too complicated. Of course you can use the airspeed indicator. It can be used to bleed off of airspeed until in a range where indications are unreliable. Beyond this the pilot will sense the aircraft losing translational lift. The airspeed indicator is used during recovery precisely because any clear indication of airspeed shows that the aircraft has flown clear of its own vortices and collective can be applied again without the risk of falling through the floor.

[before landing check list]

So this tedious, self-justifying post is your idea of humility is it? Good grief.

Nothing to do with humility at all. However that is fine with me. I was just making a point that it is nothing to do with the ground, and in relation to the ground you can get into inadvertent VR while you are moving across the ground. It is solely a movement (or lack of) in the air mass.

[Hughes500]

Shawn
Your post is spot on for a 300, having said that I find you need more than 500fpm rate of descent. The buffeting you talk about I think of as a loss of translatinonal lift, the pitching rolling can be the student not getting the ac into a slow speed much like hover taxying down wind. ( assumption we are flying downwind)
At a 500 fpm rate of descent the 300 will power out of the descent by using collective. This tells me that the ac has not " caught up" its own downwash. To actually achieve the symptoms of vortex ring I find you need more like 800 fpm at which point things do become more interesting.
Personally I think this subject ( lesson 15) is very badly taught in this country with instructors not really being shown waht it is

[ShyTorque]

I was first shown VR in a Whirlwind 10, as part of the RAF's basic rotary course.

This was on the same sortie as the retreating blade stall demo (which I'd in fact already seen, courtesy of my instructor who got to Vne running in for a quickstop then pulled too hard in a turn, at about 150 feet agl. Thankfully, the turn was a right handed one, so the Whirlybird flicked upright, rather than inverted, or I might not be here today.

Anyway, VR! We were required to climb to 10,000 feet and wear parachutes for this instructional sortie. My QHI must have chickened out at the incipient stage because I don't remember anything particularly exciting happening. He wouldn't do the demo again!

Next time I saw VR was about twelve years later in a Puma HC1, during a night operational sortie. We were doing a certain job where we were required to hover as high as we could to avoid detection from "unfriendlies" on the ground. Gaining the hover (more or less on instruments) involved flying a slightly climbing, into-wind quickstop (we found that we made less blade slap that way) at around 10,000 feet. If the aircraft fell out of the hover attempt due to lack of power, we were too high for the ambient conditions so we would fly a racetrack, flying forwards and down by a thousand feet or so, then try again. When we subsequently achieved a hover, we then checked max continuous engine power wasn't being exceeded (normally the limit was N1s, the Turmos ran quite cool). If it was, again we move fly forwards and down until we were in limits. If we had some spare power, and our own folks on the ground advised they could hear us, we would pull to the N1 limit and climb vertically until the aircraft settled at it's preferred altitude.

I was acting as co-pilot on this occasion and we had been flying for about four or five hours, so we were getting tired (we wore NVGs, too, which didn't help).

One of my ex-students from some years before was flying the aircraft and operating as captain. There was little or no wind (we would obviously try and find the wind if possible, to make the job easier and to get higher). We had a "cross hairs hovermeter" but as it was Doppler based it often was inaccurate at the altitudes we operated at.

As the aircraft partly "settled" in the first attempt at a free air hover, I felt through the seat of my pants that we were beginning to move backwards slightly, although we had no visual references. The aircraft then suddenly pitched slightly nose up (I think this was the rearwards airflow hitting the top of the stabiliser).

Suddenly, the instruments came alive. Unfortunately, not the ASI, but the altimeter began rapidly unwinding and the VSI needle went very rapidly to the bottom stop (2500 FPM plus). The aircraft then exhibited classic signs of VR, randomly pitching, rolling and yawing. I called "Airspeed!" twice, no apparent recovery action was taken. I then called it a third time, and gave a very strong hint by pushing forwards on the cyclic with the palm of my hand. The handling pilot then woke up to what was required and as the ASI was showing some action, he recovered as for an IMC "U.P."

We lost a lot more than 3,000 feet, in a very short time. The debrief was short as we were very tired after flying all night.

[SASless]

10,000 feet AGL? No wonder the Instructor chickened out! :roll eyes:

That violates the "Single Breath Scream Rule" by a bunch!:E

[rotorfossil]

Interestingly in the book "Dynamics of Helicopter flight" By G Saunders, there is a graph which shows, presumably as a result of tunnel investigation, that the most severe symptoms of VR occur when the helicopter is descending at angles between approximately 80 and 40 degrees to the vertical, not in true vertical descent relative to the air but without any explanation of why. He quotes a reference to J Wolkovitch and R P Walton, "Stability and Control of Helicopters in Steep Approaches. USAAVLABS Technical Report 70-74A.

[[email protected]]

Wind tunnel tests also show that your RoD has to be at least half of your downwash speed, preferably in excess of 0.6.

[Shawn Coyle]

rotorfossil:
Any chance you know where one can get a copy of said report?
(like I don't have a large enough pile of crap to scan now....)

[Peter-RB]

One of my past instructors(exRAF) who whilst on my check flight was quizing me on what I would do if I entered VR or SWP, my answer was the right one, but then he suggested he show me just what happens so I would understand more about it and always be aware of just how fast things happen when getting into that state, we ascended to about 2500 ft and purposely guided by him I entered into the realms of VR we needed, he talked me into the start of the problem and then pointed out the rate of descent, it was approaching 2000ft per min, he asked me to get out of it to see if my mind set could convert the problem into a safe area of flight, as you can see I am still here and really grateful for that positive lesson, even though in my original lessons the FTI had showed me this it was nothing like the thing my check pilot showed to me,.. the ease in which the VR state can be got into was a real jolt to my knowledge but equally if you have height you can always recover, providing you can dip ut and gain speed.
PETER R-B

[rotorfossil]

Shaun. No info beyond what was in the quote.

[AnFI]

Giant Vortex Cannon- YouTube (http://youtu.be/QrgTtZXuj4w)

and

Extraordinary Toroidal Vortices - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mHyTOcfF99o)

[topendtorque]

Mention of Crab's name this am reminded me of some unfinished businees in this thread, so here goes.
Plenty of ways or “situations” to get into VRS as we see by reading this thread and ‘visualizing the old balloon’ trick simplifies things. The easiest way is to hover in formation with an imaginary balloon. Forget about ground wind speed or direction, just stay in station laterally and then descend in a SWP mode into your own downwash at a rate to induce recirculation, bingo.
In effect your whole machine complete with its recirculating vortices as separate from the surrounding air mass is inside the balloon, in freefall, falls quick eh? Then all of a sudden the balloons skin cannot hold on any more and away it blows. Whoosh, the aircraft goes straight into Crab’s definition of windmill effect. Simple, that’s the sequence of ab initio training for VRS that I do. I may do that three or four times in the one exercise starting from say 2,000 feet. Other low level exercises complete the picture.
In that scenario you simply cannot fall thousands of feet, I have done it hundreds of times in R22, R44’s and B47’s. In each of those the freefall ‘bit’ accounts for no more than 120 feet or a bit more, that is the A/C is either balanced and or steered so that it remains level within the vortices and won’t automatically tip toward a C of G displaced from the C of L to take it out into fresh air during that ‘bit’.
At the point where the whoosh occurs is the one place that I worry about relative A of A and whether it may be enough to stall the rotor blade. R22 rotor blades stalled are not a pretty sight, we all know that. Perhaps as the power is still on with N/R top of green, allows them to resist any bending and maybe they do stall momentarily, I don’t know.
I do know there is no mention of limitation for the manoeuvre in any of those POHs, so the test pilots and gurus must have considered and accepted the procedure.
Let me turn to the statement “deep VRS”. This confuses me and may be something that confuses less experienced people if not is frightening as a phobia. As I explained above it is to me a furphy. Do some aircraft develop another flight characteristic that is frightening and thus would be dangerous from a low level entry through SWP into VRS? Let’s look.
The lift for most helicopters occur on the outer ends of the blade / disc not in at the roots of the blades, in fact various sections of the blades are driving or driven in normal flight and in the hover. One only needs to damage a small portion of blade tape on the outer end to see how much lift is lost and therefore how much lift occurs at the outer ends of the blade.
It is simply impossible for circulating vortices to remain attached to the disc in the face of say a 6,000fpm descent or more of directly opposing airflow. What I suspect happens in the case where aircraft that have entered as in a classic SWP thru to VRS manoeuvre and then fall for up to 12,000 feet or more have stalled the rotor blade tips.
A stalled airfoil always needs airflow to come from a different direction to displace the stall, which of course is an attached vortices that destroy lift and is on the upper side of the blade /airfoil out of the upcoming and relative airflow.
In VRS the blades / disc are always steerable, to wit the recovery, cyclic is moved forward or any which way, therefore they are not stalled. Stalled blades won’t be steerable.
This is a common phenomenon in various types of fixed wings; they get stalled, deep stalled where the tail plane is also stalled and the pilot can’t get out of the stall, because he can’t change the direction of the stalled airfoils. He must then either jump out or crash with it.
Perhaps a quickly developed blade stall not VRS, is what happens with the Sycamore type for example I think was mentioned, tapered blades rigid enough to resist bending but the pesky things are carrying their stalled condition for a long time, up to twelve thousand feet in fact and at a very high rate of descent, some of the accounts are. Sure as god make little green apples they won’t be carrying recirculating vortices will they?
That to me is not a condition of “DEEP VRS” it is a situation of stalled airfoil. Perhaps this deep VRS is nothing but a long held misconception covering a much more dangerous flight characteristic.
Of course anyone can go out with smoke generators and prove me wrong; it would be easy to see. Someone else can do it in those nasty drop-a-lot turnouts though.
VRS is a condition which must be learnt, it is possibly the major cause leading to the overpitched condition which claims most low level accidents. Pilots whistle around the corner all of a sudden fall out of the sky, get a fright and pull too much pitch instead of recovering, N/R and engine RPM and power decays, blades stall, A/C falls, end of story.
It’s easy enough to get into and with education for quick recovery you should never fall more than 80 feet in a light machine; remember if entry is at 50’ only the last 30’ hurt.
It is also easy enough to whistle around the corner chasing belligerent cattle and dammit straight into overpitch, those not trained to recover properly crash (happening regularly lately). Those better trained recover – and with more training again, they recover - and - manage to keep control of the belligerents. A good point is that nowadays we have lots less in the way of belligerence in the cattle, in itself a trap for when it suddenly looms and has to be controlled. “Situations” may develop that haven’t been seen.
Or people stuff up a simple quick stop, overpitch and crash, one of those at the Finke Desert Race recently.
As CAGS points out the other low level malady although much less likely with mustering pilots is the simple settling with power. He will surely remember the infamous Sydney city to surf B206 accident of quite some years ago where a fully serviceable machine was flown into the ground at a steady rate of descent = power settling.
VRS = dramatically fast ROD, is not a death dealing phobia, shooting the tube I call it, learn it and live.
My point of view is that when we do intentional training we first set up a SWP situation which is a slower but controlled descent rate, then increase descent rate until the tip vortices begin recirculating where we lose control of the descent rate and the aircraft thus enters VRS and falls – with those clinging vortices until they are either blown away by the fast resultant airflow or we tip the aircraft over so that it enters new clean air of its own accord and thus leaves the vortices behind.
Here this time we have not talked about another quick way of recovery from the very early onset of VRS, aircraft first sensed as sinking – quick flick up of collective to defeat the recirculating vortices – but be aware that immediately that may put you in an over pitched situation and you need to get the collective down sharply to recover that condition.
One thing I find disturbing and Shytorque has described it well, is that many students – now experienced pilots - have not developed that sense of preservation of being in control of the aircraft instead of the other way around, and will not show awareness of, or are sensing quickly enough the initial stage of the falling of it and the recovery necessary. Whether it is because they are not prepped into this chain of logical thought as students or not, I don’t know. But the correct circuitry of thinking – if I can put it like that - must be able to be brought up at random, because it can grab you at any time, real easy.
Crab, are you happy with those thoughts, have you done any in a R22? If not can you have a go at going up and developing this “DEEP VRS” thingy and let us know how you go because I am buggered if I can?

[eagle 86]

In VRS the outboard section of blade is producing little lift due to ingestion of tip vortices reducing the angle of attack. Inboard section is producing little lift due to reaching stalling angle of attack. Middle section of blade is struggling to provide lift. Pulling more pitch exacerbates the situation.
GAGS
E86

[CharlieOneSix]

Back in '66 I was taken up in a Wasp by an ETPS graduate and at 9000ft he demonstrated fully developed vortex ring. If I recall correctly we dropped nearly 5000ft before we were fully out of it :eek:. It absolutely petrified me at the time but was a good lesson although I wouldn't have wanted to experience it again.

[Ready2Fly]

I recently heard about such a 'demo' exercised by a very(!) experienced EC pilot many years ago in a BO105. Motto: Let me show you how this works.

Demo started with a clearance at 13.000' near Ottobrunn and ended .... at 2.800' ... the two POB did only survive because they both leaned forward as the aircraft had a complete loss of control ... pitch was through the floor (literally) and PF was definately not PIC anymore.

From my point of view for some things in life it is absolutely ok to know what can happen, to realise the beginning stage and the action you have to take not to really get into trouble.