Sideways quick stops
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sideways quick stops
Looking for the pros/cons of sidways quick stops. I have been told you can stop the helicopter quicker.
You start in normal forward flight. At the start of the quick stop apply left peddle as the ship reaches 90 degrees to direction of flight start a left cyclic flare. Collective use is same as forward quick stop.
Being a low time rotor guy I've never seen this done.
You start in normal forward flight. At the start of the quick stop apply left peddle as the ship reaches 90 degrees to direction of flight start a left cyclic flare. Collective use is same as forward quick stop.
Being a low time rotor guy I've never seen this done.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: yxcapt
Please do not perform this maneuver in a Robinson as you will be in violation of section 4 of the POH and you might also encounter mast bumping.
But then again I'm not a pilot and I don't muster cattle.
Please do not perform this maneuver in a Robinson as you will be in violation of section 4 of the POH and you might also encounter mast bumping.
But then again I'm not a pilot and I don't muster cattle.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly Bell 47s. I was told about this maneuver from a high time Bell 206 pilot. Recently there was a R44 accident in which the ship hit a wire sideways. Some people think he did this sideways quick stop in an attempt to avoid the wire.
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked my instructor years ago about this and SHE said, never do it, now wether that was because of what we now know will happen in the R22 or some other reason I cannot add, but hopefully some greater experienced flyers may add to this thread and explain why, but I would say, it look's and feel's wrong, so why go there!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: Vfrpilotpb
During the certification of the R-22 the Normal category Rotorcraft Certification requirements stipulated that among other maneuvers the helicopter had to demonstrate the following:
1) At flight speed .96 or .69 VNE (I don’t remember which and I’m too lazy to check the document) the pilot had to hit the left pedal to the stops and hold the helicopter in that position for a period of time. He would then return the pedals to the flight neutral position and then hit the opposite pedal to the stops and hold the helicopter in that position for a period of time. This maneuver is the first part of the quick stop as described above.
2) At flight speed (see above) the pilot was required to fly the helicopter 10-degrees out of trim first left and then right holding the helicopter in that position for a period of time.
The purpose of this demonstration was to ensure that the helicopter would not enter into or encounter any dangerous conditions. That was when the helicopter was certified.
Now, let’s fast forward to 1995 when section 4 of the POH was modified to restrict the R-22 and R-44 from sideslipping and flying out of trim.
If you remember way back when I first posted on this form I indicated that the Robinson helicopter as presently restricted could not be certified since it could not demonstrate the above maneuvers.
The reason for the restriction was that these maneuvers could result in high flapping loads and excursions and result in mast bumping.
Now, try and tell that to cattle mustering pilots in Oz.
During the certification of the R-22 the Normal category Rotorcraft Certification requirements stipulated that among other maneuvers the helicopter had to demonstrate the following:
1) At flight speed .96 or .69 VNE (I don’t remember which and I’m too lazy to check the document) the pilot had to hit the left pedal to the stops and hold the helicopter in that position for a period of time. He would then return the pedals to the flight neutral position and then hit the opposite pedal to the stops and hold the helicopter in that position for a period of time. This maneuver is the first part of the quick stop as described above.
2) At flight speed (see above) the pilot was required to fly the helicopter 10-degrees out of trim first left and then right holding the helicopter in that position for a period of time.
The purpose of this demonstration was to ensure that the helicopter would not enter into or encounter any dangerous conditions. That was when the helicopter was certified.
Now, let’s fast forward to 1995 when section 4 of the POH was modified to restrict the R-22 and R-44 from sideslipping and flying out of trim.
If you remember way back when I first posted on this form I indicated that the Robinson helicopter as presently restricted could not be certified since it could not demonstrate the above maneuvers.
The reason for the restriction was that these maneuvers could result in high flapping loads and excursions and result in mast bumping.
Now, try and tell that to cattle mustering pilots in Oz.
IIRC, one of the important points of any fast stop/quick stop is to finish up into wind. The entry can be at any point off the wind, and bringing the helicopter around into wind during the flare will add a further 'braking' action by virtue of the roll element added to the nose up. Properly executed, an application of up collective during the rolling turn will be needed, which will really assist the slowing down process. Be prepared for a faster stop than you may be used to, and especially prepared to input collective and pedal to bring in a smooth hover at the finish, otherwise you may well run out of power, pedal and ideas at the crucial moment.
As did one of our instructors demo'ing a downwind fast stop in a Wessex 1, who managed to scoop out on the flare and remove the tailwheel and a couple of feet of the lower tail boom. The RTB and subsequent landing on a pile of sandbags was skillful, but the near loss of the tail fold pin emphasised that an immediate landing out at Predannack would have been a better option!
As did one of our instructors demo'ing a downwind fast stop in a Wessex 1, who managed to scoop out on the flare and remove the tailwheel and a couple of feet of the lower tail boom. The RTB and subsequent landing on a pile of sandbags was skillful, but the near loss of the tail fold pin emphasised that an immediate landing out at Predannack would have been a better option!
Funnily enough I was watching a doco on tellie 2 nights ago and saw a Nam pilot in a huey showing off to a camera as he hooked into a very very low level, 60 degree+, 4G (you get the idea...)turn to pickup a wounded GI. He was so low and so aggressive that I knew the flare would be interesting.
Well a whole lot of dust and dirt went flying as he dug the tail in, but it was most effective in slowing the huey enough to land before running into the camera. I commented to my cojoe that what was needed was a sideways quickstop arrest his inertia and clear his tail.
I was trained to do them and often practice them but have only used the method during a little bit of mustering. Mustering and venison recovery pilots seem to fly more aggresively and thus are exponents/masters of the technique.
I found on the B47 that it didn't really appreciate a RH quickstop and you had to be careful not to stall the TR.
Other than that, its an effective technique to slow in a hurry and save your tail as long as the engine keeps running. An engine failure traversing sideways tends to be a negative experience.
Well a whole lot of dust and dirt went flying as he dug the tail in, but it was most effective in slowing the huey enough to land before running into the camera. I commented to my cojoe that what was needed was a sideways quickstop arrest his inertia and clear his tail.
I was trained to do them and often practice them but have only used the method during a little bit of mustering. Mustering and venison recovery pilots seem to fly more aggresively and thus are exponents/masters of the technique.
I found on the B47 that it didn't really appreciate a RH quickstop and you had to be careful not to stall the TR.
Other than that, its an effective technique to slow in a hurry and save your tail as long as the engine keeps running. An engine failure traversing sideways tends to be a negative experience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu is wrong again! The maneuver he so poorly describes is known as the "yaw kick" maneuver, and is a Design Requirement, which means that an analysis of the aircraft's structure is required so that the strength of the rotorcraft to withstand this hypothetical maneuver is documented. NO flight test of this maneuver is required, it is not done for civil certification. Check this web site, and note the design reference:
<a href="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgfar.nsf/CurrentFARPart/19BD64232E706CBE85256613006B2C8C?OpenDocument" target="_blank">http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...06B2C8C?OpenDo cument</a>
Lu is wrong further above when he says the sideways quick stop is "in violation" of part 4 of the POH because only the operating limits section, section 1, is Required for compliance, the other parts are guidence but not legally required, so you cannot "violate" them.
The sideways quick stop is stressful, but usually not for the tailcone, because of that design requirement. The tail rotor blades, hub and shaft are highly stressed in a big sideslip, so one should be careful to stay inside the sideslip envelope of the aircraft (not easy, since it is usually not published. Use the crosswind limits as an approximation, and do not exceed the crosswind speed while at 90 degrees to the flight path.
Sideways quick stops can and do work, but they make LTE easier to enter for marginal rotorcraft (I would define "marginal" as those that regularly get into LTE, and also those that have only 17 knots sideward envelope).
The aircraft actually stops very little different in sideways quick stops, the drag of the tail cone is miniscule at low speeds (a 4' x8' piece of plywood at 17 knots broadside generates about 85 pounds of drag, a Robbie tailcone must be 10% of that, and 8 pounds of stopping force is not much!) Most of a helo's stopping force is the tremendous decel brought about by the tilting of the lift backwards when the nose is raised. The virtue of a sideways quick stop is that the lift can then be tilted with bank angle instead of pitch up. You can get more roll angle easier than pitch up, with better visibility and no danger to the tail rotor from the ground. For example, it is easy to bank 30 degrees in a side flare, still see where you are going. A 30 degree nose up is most unwise in most helicopters.
<a href="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgfar.nsf/CurrentFARPart/19BD64232E706CBE85256613006B2C8C?OpenDocument" target="_blank">http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...06B2C8C?OpenDo cument</a>
Lu is wrong further above when he says the sideways quick stop is "in violation" of part 4 of the POH because only the operating limits section, section 1, is Required for compliance, the other parts are guidence but not legally required, so you cannot "violate" them.
The sideways quick stop is stressful, but usually not for the tailcone, because of that design requirement. The tail rotor blades, hub and shaft are highly stressed in a big sideslip, so one should be careful to stay inside the sideslip envelope of the aircraft (not easy, since it is usually not published. Use the crosswind limits as an approximation, and do not exceed the crosswind speed while at 90 degrees to the flight path.
Sideways quick stops can and do work, but they make LTE easier to enter for marginal rotorcraft (I would define "marginal" as those that regularly get into LTE, and also those that have only 17 knots sideward envelope).
The aircraft actually stops very little different in sideways quick stops, the drag of the tail cone is miniscule at low speeds (a 4' x8' piece of plywood at 17 knots broadside generates about 85 pounds of drag, a Robbie tailcone must be 10% of that, and 8 pounds of stopping force is not much!) Most of a helo's stopping force is the tremendous decel brought about by the tilting of the lift backwards when the nose is raised. The virtue of a sideways quick stop is that the lift can then be tilted with bank angle instead of pitch up. You can get more roll angle easier than pitch up, with better visibility and no danger to the tail rotor from the ground. For example, it is easy to bank 30 degrees in a side flare, still see where you are going. A 30 degree nose up is most unwise in most helicopters.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sideways quick stop is in my opinion sometimes a more comfortable way of slowing the ship in certain circumstances. The times I have done them usually came about due to my need to see what and where was in the direction of travel and the natural tendency to protect my tail rotor.
Nearly always it was instinctual, I definately felt more compfortable doing it. I have to admit it was usualy when working the machine reasonably hard in the mustering environment.
As an add on, I have also flared during auto's in the same manner, and as John E mentioned, it is a top way to terminate into wind which was usually the reason for doing it. I find I can judge my landing area at the end of an auto better using a turning flare. I think maybe this is because I have a natural tendency to overshoot the landing area slightly (more options than undershooting). Using a 'turning' type flare I can do more corrections at the last moment, and see the area more clearly, to nail the landing point. Of course the ability to level out at the appropriate time is important to say the least. RRPM is also a winner from a turning type of flare.
This is a personal preference thing and I have to admit that I have lost count of the number of times I have done auto's to the ground so I would not try to tell others to go and try it out on a whim.
Cheers.
Nearly always it was instinctual, I definately felt more compfortable doing it. I have to admit it was usualy when working the machine reasonably hard in the mustering environment.
As an add on, I have also flared during auto's in the same manner, and as John E mentioned, it is a top way to terminate into wind which was usually the reason for doing it. I find I can judge my landing area at the end of an auto better using a turning flare. I think maybe this is because I have a natural tendency to overshoot the landing area slightly (more options than undershooting). Using a 'turning' type flare I can do more corrections at the last moment, and see the area more clearly, to nail the landing point. Of course the ability to level out at the appropriate time is important to say the least. RRPM is also a winner from a turning type of flare.
This is a personal preference thing and I have to admit that I have lost count of the number of times I have done auto's to the ground so I would not try to tell others to go and try it out on a whim.
Cheers.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, I will have to revise my interpretation of the maneuver itself.
However in another thread, I believe I'm not ready to begin trying out such a maneuver yet.
Though others may disagree, and it might be benificial to me at somepoint, I'll work on not getting into a situation where I need it for the moment. I'll have to see if anyone here CFI wise has done them.
Cannot argue with that logic! Planetary tail strikes do seem to suck, don't they?
I wished to ask though, if we were talking about the side slip portions of flight, then there is another maneuver for combat heli's and civilian as well (wouldn't see why it may not be used) and that is the "return to target". where you bring the nose around to bear. Can anyone expand on this type of maneuver as it pertains to the current thread? (Just for grins, etc.)
However in another thread, I believe I'm not ready to begin trying out such a maneuver yet.
Though others may disagree, and it might be benificial to me at somepoint, I'll work on not getting into a situation where I need it for the moment. I'll have to see if anyone here CFI wise has done them.
The virtue of a sideways quick stop is that the lift can then be tilted with bank angle instead of pitch up. You can get more roll angle easier than pitch up, with better visibility and no danger to the tail rotor from the ground. For example, it is easy to bank 30 degrees in a side flare, still see where you are going. A 30 degree nose up is most unwise in most helicopters.
I wished to ask though, if we were talking about the side slip portions of flight, then there is another maneuver for combat heli's and civilian as well (wouldn't see why it may not be used) and that is the "return to target". where you bring the nose around to bear. Can anyone expand on this type of maneuver as it pertains to the current thread? (Just for grins, etc.)
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: Nick Lappos
“Lu is wrong again! The maneuver he so poorly describes is known as the "yaw kick" maneuver, and is a Design Requirement, which means that an analysis of the aircraft's structure is required so that the strength of the rotorcraft to withstand this hypothetical maneuver is documented. NO flight test of this maneuver is required for civil certification”.
“Lu is wrong further above when he says the sideways quick stop is "in violation" of part 4 of the POH because only the operating limits section, section 1, is Required for compliance, the other parts are guidance but not legally required, so you “cannot “ violate them”.
Response:
Once again you have twisted my words. I stated that the maneuver should not be performed in a Robinson helicopter because the pilot would violate the requirements of the unnumbered page of the POH. The first part of the maneuver is to kick the pedal to the stop, which places the aircraft in a side slip. Paragraph number 4 of the unnumbered page in section 4 of the POH states: Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain in-trim flight at all times. This point which is one of 5 was to clarify the paragraph immediately above which stated that that each of the conditions described in the 5 points would lead to excessive flapping and result in mast bumping or, rotor incursion.
It would appear that if the first part of the maneuver caused severe flapping loads and excursions then a cyclic flare should be the last thing on the pilots mind as excessive control input under these conditions would ensure the pilots demise.
I read the information on the web site provided in your post. It is similar in wording in the description of the sideslip and out of trim tests for normal category rotorcraft. In the Certification document for noirmal category rotorcraft it states that the helicopter demonstrate the capability of entering into an instantaneous side slip at a stated speed relative to Vne and also to demonstrate an out of trim condition of 10-degrees +/- at rated speed relative to Vne. However on smaller helicopters the test is performed to demonstrate controllability and not structural integrity.
If you read my previous posts on this subject I never stated that a “Yaw Kick” test is in the certification requirements. I indicated in a previous post that the first part of the “Yaw Kick” maneuver (sidslip) is not allowed on the Robinson helicopter. There are no other restrictions in the limitations section of the POH that refer to the restrictions on the unnumbered page of section 4 of the POH.
I also indicated in another post that the UK CAA determined that the instructions on the unnumbered page were in support of the mandatory restrictions placed in the UK version of the Robinson POHs but otherwise did not matter relative to the contents of the CAA approved POHs.
That means that Frank Robinson got a free ride relative to mandatory restrictions placed on the Robinson’s with an “N” registration.
What would you think if the CAA placed a restriction on the flight envelope of one of your helicopters after you had demonstrated the capability of the helicopter to safely perform that maneuver during certification trials?
My main point in bringing this subject up so frequently was to show that the R-22 and R-44 are at this time not certifiable since they cannot meet the FAA requirements to demonstrate an instantaneous sideslip or out of trim flight. The question that arises from this is if the helicopter had to demonstrate these maneuvers to gain certification and are now restricted from performing those maneuvers then how did they pass the test in the first place as to do so would result in mast bumping? Now put on your test pilots hat and respond to the question.
“Lu is wrong again! The maneuver he so poorly describes is known as the "yaw kick" maneuver, and is a Design Requirement, which means that an analysis of the aircraft's structure is required so that the strength of the rotorcraft to withstand this hypothetical maneuver is documented. NO flight test of this maneuver is required for civil certification”.
“Lu is wrong further above when he says the sideways quick stop is "in violation" of part 4 of the POH because only the operating limits section, section 1, is Required for compliance, the other parts are guidance but not legally required, so you “cannot “ violate them”.
Response:
Once again you have twisted my words. I stated that the maneuver should not be performed in a Robinson helicopter because the pilot would violate the requirements of the unnumbered page of the POH. The first part of the maneuver is to kick the pedal to the stop, which places the aircraft in a side slip. Paragraph number 4 of the unnumbered page in section 4 of the POH states: Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain in-trim flight at all times. This point which is one of 5 was to clarify the paragraph immediately above which stated that that each of the conditions described in the 5 points would lead to excessive flapping and result in mast bumping or, rotor incursion.
It would appear that if the first part of the maneuver caused severe flapping loads and excursions then a cyclic flare should be the last thing on the pilots mind as excessive control input under these conditions would ensure the pilots demise.
I read the information on the web site provided in your post. It is similar in wording in the description of the sideslip and out of trim tests for normal category rotorcraft. In the Certification document for noirmal category rotorcraft it states that the helicopter demonstrate the capability of entering into an instantaneous side slip at a stated speed relative to Vne and also to demonstrate an out of trim condition of 10-degrees +/- at rated speed relative to Vne. However on smaller helicopters the test is performed to demonstrate controllability and not structural integrity.
If you read my previous posts on this subject I never stated that a “Yaw Kick” test is in the certification requirements. I indicated in a previous post that the first part of the “Yaw Kick” maneuver (sidslip) is not allowed on the Robinson helicopter. There are no other restrictions in the limitations section of the POH that refer to the restrictions on the unnumbered page of section 4 of the POH.
I also indicated in another post that the UK CAA determined that the instructions on the unnumbered page were in support of the mandatory restrictions placed in the UK version of the Robinson POHs but otherwise did not matter relative to the contents of the CAA approved POHs.
That means that Frank Robinson got a free ride relative to mandatory restrictions placed on the Robinson’s with an “N” registration.
What would you think if the CAA placed a restriction on the flight envelope of one of your helicopters after you had demonstrated the capability of the helicopter to safely perform that maneuver during certification trials?
My main point in bringing this subject up so frequently was to show that the R-22 and R-44 are at this time not certifiable since they cannot meet the FAA requirements to demonstrate an instantaneous sideslip or out of trim flight. The question that arises from this is if the helicopter had to demonstrate these maneuvers to gain certification and are now restricted from performing those maneuvers then how did they pass the test in the first place as to do so would result in mast bumping? Now put on your test pilots hat and respond to the question.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cut it out LU! the only one twisting words has been you.
I covered this in another thread that it is their suggestion (and I do not care about the UK)
and NOT a restriction, as it is not in part 2.
and I'll use your own words again:
[quote] when I mention these recommendations as contained in the POH I am repeating those words and not words I constructed to warn any Robinson pilots out there. The inclusion of an unnumbered page in the POH even though it shows FAA approval means that technically that page is not a part of the POH as it does not appear in the amendments index in the POH. Therefore the suggestions can be ignored.<hr></blockquote>
You did not repeat the POH as stated, you omit material as you see fit, specifically the word "recommendations."
DO NOT CONTINUE TO INTERPRET POH MATERIAL AS YOU SEE FIT. IT IS NOT A FLIGHT RESTRICTION, BUT A SUGGESTION. IT IS NOT IN SECTION 2 !!!!!
If it were so dire, it would also be included for low time pilots on the added limitations section page at the end of section 2, where wind limits gust spreads, etc. are layed out for SFAR73.
And I might add that all those suggestions made on that page are:
COMMON SENSE ITEMS
Common sense is something you seem to be lacking, as we continue on this merry go round.
So let's go thru it once again:
1) Maintain cruise speeds between 60KIAS and less than 0.9 Vne, but no lower than 57KIAS.
Gee, well who wouldn't (for most normal ops)? I cruise at 75-80 most of the time.
2) Use maximum "power-on" RPM at all times during forward flight.
Wowzers! The governor does that for us! And if not, pilots are perfectly capable of doing so, have done it prior to having a governor onboard.
Again, common sense: RPM = Life.
3) Avoid slideslip during flight, maintain in-trim flight at all times.
Well we do, unless we are performing a maneuver that will take us out for a moment. IT IS NOT A FLIGHT RESTRICTION, BUT A RECOMMENDATION.
4) Avoid large, rapid forward cyclic inputs during forward flight, and abrupt control inputs in turbulence.
HELLO!!!! DUH!!!! Please tell me a heli pilot who doesn't know this.
So again, here we are, the flight mishaps you want to contribute are due to people who are not flying sensably, or are in training mishaps. Period.
The ONLY reason I believe you return to this certification issue is that you have been beaten to death on the dreded 18 degree offset issue you dream of.
Give me all the recommendations or restrictions for sideslips you want, it's common sense to maintain trim whenever possible to begin with.
There is no sudden death waiting in the Robbie, even if I decide to fly in a sideslip all day long. Even reaching 10 degrees off my course, meeting the requirement for design, not certification.
Schedule that ride yet?
I covered this in another thread that it is their suggestion (and I do not care about the UK)
and NOT a restriction, as it is not in part 2.
and I'll use your own words again:
[quote] when I mention these recommendations as contained in the POH I am repeating those words and not words I constructed to warn any Robinson pilots out there. The inclusion of an unnumbered page in the POH even though it shows FAA approval means that technically that page is not a part of the POH as it does not appear in the amendments index in the POH. Therefore the suggestions can be ignored.<hr></blockquote>
You did not repeat the POH as stated, you omit material as you see fit, specifically the word "recommendations."
DO NOT CONTINUE TO INTERPRET POH MATERIAL AS YOU SEE FIT. IT IS NOT A FLIGHT RESTRICTION, BUT A SUGGESTION. IT IS NOT IN SECTION 2 !!!!!
If it were so dire, it would also be included for low time pilots on the added limitations section page at the end of section 2, where wind limits gust spreads, etc. are layed out for SFAR73.
And I might add that all those suggestions made on that page are:
COMMON SENSE ITEMS
Common sense is something you seem to be lacking, as we continue on this merry go round.
So let's go thru it once again:
1) Maintain cruise speeds between 60KIAS and less than 0.9 Vne, but no lower than 57KIAS.
Gee, well who wouldn't (for most normal ops)? I cruise at 75-80 most of the time.
2) Use maximum "power-on" RPM at all times during forward flight.
Wowzers! The governor does that for us! And if not, pilots are perfectly capable of doing so, have done it prior to having a governor onboard.
Again, common sense: RPM = Life.
3) Avoid slideslip during flight, maintain in-trim flight at all times.
Well we do, unless we are performing a maneuver that will take us out for a moment. IT IS NOT A FLIGHT RESTRICTION, BUT A RECOMMENDATION.
4) Avoid large, rapid forward cyclic inputs during forward flight, and abrupt control inputs in turbulence.
HELLO!!!! DUH!!!! Please tell me a heli pilot who doesn't know this.
So again, here we are, the flight mishaps you want to contribute are due to people who are not flying sensably, or are in training mishaps. Period.
The ONLY reason I believe you return to this certification issue is that you have been beaten to death on the dreded 18 degree offset issue you dream of.
Give me all the recommendations or restrictions for sideslips you want, it's common sense to maintain trim whenever possible to begin with.
There is no sudden death waiting in the Robbie, even if I decide to fly in a sideslip all day long. Even reaching 10 degrees off my course, meeting the requirement for design, not certification.
Schedule that ride yet?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu (again) said:
In the Certification document for noirmal category rotorcraft it states that the helicopter demonstrate the capability of entering into an instantaneous side slip at a stated speed relative to Vne....
Nick sez:
Lu is (again) wrong. That hypothetical maneuver is to analyse the design, and is NOT performed in flight for civil helicopters. It is NOT similar to any certification maneuvers, and is NOT a requirement. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
The issue is that you can't admit when you make a mistake! Why not try to learn from the others?
In the Certification document for noirmal category rotorcraft it states that the helicopter demonstrate the capability of entering into an instantaneous side slip at a stated speed relative to Vne....
Nick sez:
Lu is (again) wrong. That hypothetical maneuver is to analyse the design, and is NOT performed in flight for civil helicopters. It is NOT similar to any certification maneuvers, and is NOT a requirement. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
The issue is that you can't admit when you make a mistake! Why not try to learn from the others?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Central America
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey RW-1! Are you on EVERY thread?
Okay, I recommend you do not do sideways quickstops, until you have the straight ones down clean - a perfect qickstop is not as easy as it looks.
I do them (sideways) constantly on the filmingjob mentioned somewhere else in Rotorheads. No big deal as long as you donīt steer the cyclic all over the place. However I do them out of a sidways flight, so the camera gets to stop with the same view.
To turn a Robinson fully sideways from .98 or .90 vne is in my experience pretty impossible, as you run out of pedal at about 40 kts. However I donīt get Lu - who does? - A helicopter flies anyway you want!! Sideways it needs more pedal because you put all that drag in the wind, but I donīt see (or feel for that matter...) why you should get more flapping than for straight forward flight for the same conditions? (LU?)
On regular Flying I would not recommend to do them for the engine-out scenario. You would just have to do another chore before going on the "planet" - straighten out your flightpath to aline the skids.
If you need to do a sidewaysquickstop because the job or situation needs it, so......do one....!
Just remember when you start to do these maneuvers to start them slow and analyze your necessary control inputs before something goes upside down!!
Have Fun and Fly Safe,
3TOP <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Okay, I recommend you do not do sideways quickstops, until you have the straight ones down clean - a perfect qickstop is not as easy as it looks.
I do them (sideways) constantly on the filmingjob mentioned somewhere else in Rotorheads. No big deal as long as you donīt steer the cyclic all over the place. However I do them out of a sidways flight, so the camera gets to stop with the same view.
To turn a Robinson fully sideways from .98 or .90 vne is in my experience pretty impossible, as you run out of pedal at about 40 kts. However I donīt get Lu - who does? - A helicopter flies anyway you want!! Sideways it needs more pedal because you put all that drag in the wind, but I donīt see (or feel for that matter...) why you should get more flapping than for straight forward flight for the same conditions? (LU?)
On regular Flying I would not recommend to do them for the engine-out scenario. You would just have to do another chore before going on the "planet" - straighten out your flightpath to aline the skids.
If you need to do a sidewaysquickstop because the job or situation needs it, so......do one....!
Just remember when you start to do these maneuvers to start them slow and analyze your necessary control inputs before something goes upside down!!
Have Fun and Fly Safe,
3TOP <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To: Nick Lappos
“Nick sez:
Lu is (again) wrong. That hypothetical maneuver is to analyze the design, and is NOT performed in flight for civil helicopters. It is NOT similar to any certification maneuvers, and is NOT a requirement
“The issue is that you can't admit when you make a mistake! Why not try to learn from the others”?
Response:
I was addressing sideslip and out of trim flight not the kick turn or whatever it is called.
Why don’t you read what I post and not jump to conclusions and immediately say I am wrong.
AC-27-1 paragraph 27.177.b.2 recognizes that some helicopters experience excessive flapping of the main rotor and tail rotors when the helicopter is in a sideslip. To establish this side slip/flapping limits the respective rotors should be instrumented. CFR-14-27.177 requires testing of the controllability at side slip angles of plus ten degrees, left and right, and CFR-14-27.351 requires full deflection of the tail rotor pedals (left and right) while airborne from 0 to 0.6 Vne to attain a 90-degree sideslip.
If the R-22 demonstrated the maneuvers shown above and past then why did the Engineers at Georgia Tech state in their report to the FAA that sideslip and out of trim flight would result in high flapping loads and excursions and end up with mast bumping. This is what precipitated the FAA Priority AD.
Would you want me to wash my shorts in a flavored detergent before I ask you to eat them?
PS My spellchecker made a few corrections in your post shown above.
“Nick sez:
Lu is (again) wrong. That hypothetical maneuver is to analyze the design, and is NOT performed in flight for civil helicopters. It is NOT similar to any certification maneuvers, and is NOT a requirement
“The issue is that you can't admit when you make a mistake! Why not try to learn from the others”?
Response:
I was addressing sideslip and out of trim flight not the kick turn or whatever it is called.
Why don’t you read what I post and not jump to conclusions and immediately say I am wrong.
AC-27-1 paragraph 27.177.b.2 recognizes that some helicopters experience excessive flapping of the main rotor and tail rotors when the helicopter is in a sideslip. To establish this side slip/flapping limits the respective rotors should be instrumented. CFR-14-27.177 requires testing of the controllability at side slip angles of plus ten degrees, left and right, and CFR-14-27.351 requires full deflection of the tail rotor pedals (left and right) while airborne from 0 to 0.6 Vne to attain a 90-degree sideslip.
If the R-22 demonstrated the maneuvers shown above and past then why did the Engineers at Georgia Tech state in their report to the FAA that sideslip and out of trim flight would result in high flapping loads and excursions and end up with mast bumping. This is what precipitated the FAA Priority AD.
Would you want me to wash my shorts in a flavored detergent before I ask you to eat them?
PS My spellchecker made a few corrections in your post shown above.
I've told you before, guys: do NOT feed the troll. Ignore it, and it will go away 
(Nick, do yourself a favour and stop beating your head against a brick wall. It'll stop those blinding headaches before you go to bed.
)
(Nick, do yourself a favour and stop beating your head against a brick wall. It'll stop those blinding headaches before you go to bed.
)