For Crab
And it's great to know from an aerospace engineer and pilot that in ground effect isn't in flight!!!
And that we can envelop the flight envelope with such precision and with such Agile analysis.
For Agile, not sure what version of English that you grew up with (there are many variations of the mother tongue) but usually...
envelop is a verb that means
to wrap up, cover, or surround completely. And a flight
envelope is what we all understand it to be. I checked your posts and you consistently drop the
e, which makes me wonder if that is one of those terms that has attracted the "any old spelling will do" disease in modern usage.
Which leads me to the smart alec observation (an attempt at humor) that when one drops the e one also drops ground effect. I mean, what the hell is a
ffect, anyway?
Preserved for posterity:
Originally Posted by
Agile
Boy I really struck a nerve with all of you.
let me offer a couple of precisions to maybe calm dowm the opnion.
1/ you would NEVER do that in flight, this was done in ground effect.
3/ as an aerospace engineer and a pilot I found it quite educative that the rotor can get any working aerodynamic efficiency at that speed AND that the engine has suficient torque at that regime.
4/ I understand well the negative mechanical implicatiion on the airframe, rotor head coning, engine, transmission and the AC was never to be flown again.
I would say with the nominal envelop and the maximum envelop possibly closer to each other in robinson products I always value out of the box data. The next low RRPM mighr be unexpected, believed to be unrecoverable or needed to reach the only autorotation spot so far out of reach.
with all that said: Good pilots know and respect the nominal envelop
FWIW: were I to attempt what you suggest when I began to fly rotary wing aircraft, I am pretty sure that my instructor would have beaten me severely about my head and shoulders.