There you go again, Lu. You offer to give me the "real" story. The "real" story is what I've read with my own eyes over a succession of posts over several months. I assure you the views I expressed have been formed over a long period, not just by your attitude on this thread. At first I found your posts interesting. Now my first reaction is to groan when I see your name on threads - and my first reaction usually (not always) turns out to be right if I read on. I've rarely experienced someone of your obvious intelligence being so intransigent, so reluctant to listen to what the guys who are actually flying the damn things daily are telling you. The guys with real PRACTICAL experience.
You always think you have the REAL story, Lu. That's part of the problem. You don't volunteer your views for consideration by others, you preach as if only your views could possibly be right.
Pilots show deference to your long engineering experience, yet you show none for their years of day to day practical experience.
I'm sorry to appear rude, but I'm really don't want to receive personal correspondence from you which is clearly prompted by this discussion.
Instead, why not just pause. Take a little longer to reflect upon the criticisms which people have made - before you say anything else. (The criticisms have been made before, many times, but you just carry on regardless.) When you've done that, you may even accept a few points. You may think it's best to say nothing.
[This message has been edited by dave_jones49 (edited 30 January 2001).]
Completely predictable, since Dave doesn't want Lu's email, Lu posts it here.
(for those seeing this on the 30th, his post was removed this morning)
Yup, you're right LU ! Totally spot on!
I was so irked by you that I threatened to quit .... I also called you those things, but don't try that "Poor LU, he's a victim" routine to dredge up support by posting it. all who saw those posts were also agreed that you pushed me to it with your own posts, I responded in kind. You even in those posts boasted that you enjoyed the process.
Now, that said. Let's examine my wanting to quit.
Unlike you, I don't have to dredge up emails sent to me, those who did know who they are, and I received enough of them asking I NOT quit, that I have had good things to say and add to the forum. So I stayed.
Now, because you take a email not even meant for you (That is why we have private emails, you have yet again sunk lower in that hole of yours And since you posted a private email to heli, why not ask heli to post his response hmm? You might not like what you hear.) I'll have to be slightly rude.
People here asked me to STAY when I said I'd quit.
People have basically asked you to LEAVE, and you won't quit.
I should say that you look in the mirror and examine that plain fact.
I can say with certainty that if you announced you were leaving, no one would be sending you mail saying "Please don't leave Lu, I like what you have to say." into YOUR email box.
You just don't get it:
I HAVE NO "SUPPORTERS"
You have alienated all these people all by yourself, there comments are their own, can you see the common thread formed by the posts? I certainly didn't write it for Hoverman, nondeplume, Joe Pilot, Crab or Dave J, who luckily had mail problems, and numerous others ....
>I deleted my postings from all of the active threads and now everybody is slagging me off because they can't attack my theories.<
But you still post just to distract. Your answer in the 407 post is yet another example of how you distract this forum to hear yourself preach.
Eden's "obvious response" to his post above, do you know what that is?, that is members of PPRuNe asking you be removed.
Think about it, This isn't a contest. And you are entirely responsible for the reception that you illicit.
Take the clue you have been given.
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 30 January 2001).]
OK, here it is Lu, I will debate it one point at a time, if you like. I juast got back from a job interview where I flew the R44 Raveon. I was very impressed. It was not a pleasure flight so I didn't try to go into all the detail of your 'test' but I can sddress the following:
CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TO FLY THE LYNX WITHOUT THE AID OF ELECTRONIC COMPENSATION FOR THE 15-DEGREE OFFSET?
BECAUSE OF THE IMPRECISENESS OF THE ROBINSON THE PILOT IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS CONDITION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO PUT THE STICK WHERE IT WILL MAKE THE HELICOPTER FLY FORWARD OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION.
As far as control impreciseness, the R22 / R44 are far easier and more precise to fly than the large aircraft I have flown with the electronic stabilization off (Bell 412, Sikorsky 76A). So I must DISAGREE with this statement. Practical experience vs. theory.
There is nothing uncomfortable about where to place the stick to achieve forward or any other flight. I had not flown a Robbie in months and did not find any difference in basic control sense.
Therefore, I must conclude that in regard to YOUR satement quoted above, and in the argument presented in your paper, the facts do NOT bear out the theory.
“As far as control impreciseness, the R22 / R44 are far easier and more precise to fly than the large aircraft I have flown with the electronic stabilization off (Bell 412, Sikorsky 76A). So I must DISAGREE with this statement. Practical experience vs. theory”.
When I used the term imprecise I was not referring to the responsiveness of the helicopter to control input as from what I have read in these posts the R22 and R44 are extremely responsive to control input. It is this responsiveness to control input that can create dangerous situations as outlined in the last page of section 4 of the POH as well as in other parts of the POH.
The bold-faced type comment that you had extracted from my post was directed specifically at the Lynx. This is because the Lynx is rigged with a 15-degree offset on the blade relative to the lateral and longitudinal axis of the helicopter and the Robinson is rigged with an 18-degree offset from the same axes of the helicopter. So, in theory the Robinson will fly to the left when the cyclic stick is moved forward. In real life, the Lynx without electronic stabilization will roll violently to the left. (Please Crab don’t jump my bones telling me why it does it. It just does).
Again since I have no direct experience on the 412 and the S76 I must hypothesize based on my experience on other helicopters that have ASE or Auto pilot control integrated into the flight control systems.
Most if not all ASE/Autopilots are configured to maintain the course and attitude established by the pilot and do not compensate for any control anomalies in the control system such as a blade offset with the exception of the Lynx. If the electronic system incorporates SCAS then this system working in conjunction with other electronic black boxes will protect the airframe from overstress due to a ham fisted pilot at the controls. The SCAS also does not compensate for any anomalies in the control system. So, when you flew the 412 and the S 76 manually you had full control of the helicopter and it was up to you as the pilot to maintain course and attitude.
“There is nothing uncomfortable about where to place the stick to achieve forward or any other flight. I had not flown a Robbie in months and did not find any difference in basic control sense”.
I don’t doubt that the Robinson is comfortable to fly once you get used to the “T” bar cyclic and that after some time you become accustomed to your arm position and hand position. At that time it becomes second nature to the pilot. However, it is what you do with your hand and arm prior to reaching that comfortable position. Again, since I haven’t flown a Robinson helicopter every thing from here on is theory. When you lift off and fly forward you encounter transverse flow effect, which causes your helicopter to roll right.*** You instinctively add left cyclic to counter the right roll and about the same time you are compensating for blow back due to differential of lift across the disc and you move the cyclic forward. When you have passed through these two phenomena you have moved the cyclic to the position that results in forward flight and your hand and arm are in that comfortable position. Again in theory when you are performing the above control inputs and ending up in the comfortable hand position / forward flight you in effect have masked the 18-degree offset and are in effect compensating for it by moving your cyclic to the right of the rigged neutral position.
Again, in theory you have entered the “Imprecise Zone” which places the pilot in jeopardy if and when he encounters Zero G. If the pilot encounters Zero G and he follows the POH instruction he will add to the right roll created by the tail rotor and lose the helicopter. If he moves the cyclic slightly to the left while pulling back on the cyclic he will not add to the right roll and if he moves it too far to the left he will encounter high flapping loads and as a result will suffer a mast bumping incident. This is what I refer to regarding the impreciseness of the control movement.
I know that the same thing would happen in a Bell when encountering Zero G but in a Bell when you pull straight back on the cyclic you are not adding to or compensating for the right roll. The Robinson POH and the training of Robinson pilots require that the cyclic be pulled gently and directly to the rear and they state nothing about moving the cyclic to the left and rearward. One poster on these threads indicated that he had taken a safety course conducted by Tim Tucker who did much of the certification flying on the R22. In the course of instruction he told his students to move the cyclic a “tad” to the left when pulling back on the cyclic. He knew of the anomaly in the flight control system but it is not officially stated in the Robinson training program and in theory that is what can kill a Robinson pilot.
*** If in fact you do encounter transverse flow effect I would suggest that you dig up Frank Robinsons’ response on the Certification thread. I believe he stated that his rotor head had a delta three hinge effect and this was incorporated to eliminate “WE WAH” or in other words transverse flow effect.
------------------ The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 30 January 2001).]
"Again, since I haven’t flown a Robinson helicopter every thing from here on is theory...............
"Again in theory ............"
"Again, in theory ............."
"......... and in theory that is what can kill a Robinson pilot."
PS: HeloTeacher, would you mind not cluttering up this forum with what actually happens in practice when you fly a Robinson, when Lu, who's never actually flown one, has explained what happens - "in theory"! After all, "in theory" he must know best.
I must add to this constructively.....LU on 2 occasions in this topic I have asked you to respond to my thread 'B.O.L.L.O.C.K' - you sent me some info on email, but have yet to respond with any input from your exeriences in aviation over your very broad career. It is hard to believe that there haven't been occasions where judgements and engineering decisions that you have made or been party to haven't had some further effect in both a positve or negative way.
Please respond to this thread and action some useful participation, this is my 3rd time of asking!
Your response to this may be a way of illustrating to people something about LU the person as opposed to LU the Tutor and engineer.
[This message has been edited by eden (edited 30 January 2001).]
I understand RW-1 , but I'm not talking to you so just let's see what happens ....if that OK with you?
You may come running back to me and say I told you so ...later. But, until then please permanently tx elsewhere......and in doing just this you too might wish to contribute to the same thread also....I would be pleased to learn more about your experiences and any important CRM issues that you have or have affected your flying operations.
[This message has been edited by eden (edited 30 January 2001).]
Please tell me what it is you want me to contribute to CRM. My last experience in the direct interface with pilots and other flight crew took place between 1947 and 1953 when I was a flight engineer on multi engine seaplanes or, as a flight mechanic on helicopters. I can tell you of my experiences but I already did that on an unrelated thread. Besides if I were to reveal my human side some ass bite would only slag me off.
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!! RW-1 wasn't "talking to you" either, Eden. He made a point which might interest others whilst complimenting Hoverman on his amusing, and accurate, post.
"But, until then please permanently tx elsewhere." Wow! That was rather rude.
Eden - I realise your heart's in the right place, but encouraging any further contributions from Lu is likely to achieve the type of forum which many have suggested. ie One where he can theorise to his heart's content with only kindly people like yourself responding - until even your patience runs out eventually.
Helidrvr Lu has endless engineering theories. He's obviously an accomplished and experienced engineer with much to offer - to other engineers. If anyone did this on any other forum on Prune, their posts would be transferred to the Engineers Forum where they belong. IMHO that is what should happen here.
Then perhaps pilots can get on with discussing helicopters, flying and the heli industry, not PoF and egineering theories. Plank pilots don't have to put up with constant engineering topics - why should we?
You've given him a fair chance, but enough is enough.
HeloTeacher: Bravo - for not responding to Lu's requests for a response.
Solari: Before you get involved too deeply...RW-1 and I have emailed each other, you will note that both our postings have been edited. We also must have written them at about the same time and they initially read as responses to each other. I believe we may have cleared up the confusion now....no rudeness was intended more a strong hint of .....hey let's just wait and see how thngs develop before entering the world of vitriol again.
There is a serious problem on this Forum. There is a clear majority view of what causes the problem. You are the Moderator. Please: Either do something about it, or at least respond to tell us that you refuse to do so. Lu always claims to have some "special relationship" with you. I doubt if that's true. Whether it is or not, Lu should not be allowed to ruin Rotorheads.
OK Lu, I am back and will further pare down my quote to try to force you to address my point without getting off topic.
CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL.
My point: even without recent R22 or R44 time, the control sense is natural and comfortable, hence it meets the criteria specified. To be blunt, F**K the rest of it, address this.
Your contention with reference to R22 control has D**K to do with the Lynx. If you cannot defend this contention, admit it.
I have a 1000 hr of medium helicopter time of various SAS / AFCS / Helipilot configurations, your long-winded explanations merely serve to clutter the posts without contributing. Stick to the point.
"I don’t doubt that the Robinson is comfortable to fly once you get used to the “T” bar cyclic and that after some time you become accustomed to your arm position and hand position. "
What in the H**L does the T-bar have to do with this discussion (BTW: the adjustment time to get 'accustomed' is in the neighbourhood of 5 seconds).
"Again in theory when you are performing the above control inputs and ending up in the comfortable hand position / forward flight you in effect have masked the 18-degree offset and are in effect compensating for it by moving your cyclic to the right of the rigged neutral position."
The rigged neutral position is an irrelevant concept. Any C of G shift will result in stick placement away from the neutral. If the displacement due to airspeed, rigging, c of G, etc. is NOT uncomfortable, the contention you have made above is false.
I have tried very hard to be civil throughout these threads, and have tried to return to the basic contention originally addressed in your report that started all this. It is not my fault you regularly get sidetracked by the personal attacks and get into lengthy off-topic discussions of personal worth. Your many statements about the lack of resect you have for the responses you have received is starting to tick me off, so this post is getting more of a rant flavour than I wanted but that's life.
If you want a debate of your concerns about the R22, which I understood was the reason you started the many Robinson threads, then refute the evidence with fact, or accept it.
Low-G recovery is a touchy manoeuver. The natural tendency for ALL individuals moving their right hand aft across their lap is to displace it slightly left rather than move the whole arm to effect a straight line movement. As an instructoryou encounter this tendency in student very often and must counsel them to anticipate it.
The written recovery procedure is a blanket statement that CANNOT address all situations. In advocating a left cyclic movement following or in conjunction witht the aft cyclic, a situation of probable overcontrolling would result, hence, it isn't there.
This is not textbook, it is a guide to help someone through a fluid situation in which all factors CANNOT be predicted.