To All,
It is obvious that the discussion is going nowhere, just as I originally feared it would.
My understanding remains as it always was. I have worked with many pilots of other nationalities, American pilots included and NONE of them has ever been at odds with my understanding.
Rotor blades are controlled by adjusting the aerodynamic forces affecting them. They are FLOWN around the disc by pilot inputs on the cyclic. The result of them being flown around is that forces are fed back to the swashplates which result in the hull of the aircraft experiencing those forces. The way in which the feedback forces act to alter the aircraft's flightpath depends on a number of factors.
Gyroscopic forces do of course exist by definition but they are NOT modified directly in order to control the helicopter (as Lu seems to prefer). An aircraft with lighter blades generally has a more responsive rotor, one with heavier blades less so because of the gyroscopic forces appertaining to each. Gyroscopic precession in the case of helicopter rotors is a result of aerodynamic effects, not the cause of them.
That is why we refer to cyclic PITCH, not cyclic GYROSCOPIC PRECESSION.
Lu's understanding of helicopter rotor dynamics is not the same as mine because he appears to put a different emphasis on the factors involved. I think his understanding is incomplete but I can't see him ever being prepared to accept this.
There is only one set of laws of physics and it doesn't actually matter what colour the cover of the book is.
I will now leave it to those of you willing to slug it out, I'm afraid.
ShyT
