To: RW-1 and Helmet Fire
A quote from Helmet Fire relating to a statement I made in response to one made by Nick Lappos. “Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force academy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?
Nick made a statement as to why I constantly refer to training at the technician and pilot level relative to the teaching of POF. I replied that it is in the technical training environment for both pilots and mechanics that they learn about the basics of POF. Nick criticized the fact that I did not reference engineering texts and the interrelation of the dynamics of a rotor system in order to explain the basics of POF. My reply was that these texts might very well be used in the training of Air Force Academy students, University students and attendees at military test pilot schools. The reason for this is that these individuals are being trained at the engineering level and not the operational level. It does not matter to me if the engineering text addresses POF stressing aerodynamic precession or gyroscopic precession and I don’t believe I stated that at the engineering level they teach one theory to the exclusion of the other.
It comes down to this. I teach the principles of flight the way I do because it can be easily related to the actions of a gyroscope. This does not make me right and you wrong if you believe in aerodynamic precession because both theories work. There is one irrefutable fact in both theories and that is, both philosophies have a common thread and that is precession.
You can not explain away the design of most helicopter flight control systems as they are designed so that the maximum pitch input occurs 90 degrees ahead of the desired response. From this point on you can promote the idea that the response vs. input is caused by aerodynamics or it is caused by physical laws that govern gyroscopic precession. Both philosophies can be proven and both are valid. If this is the case, then why are we still beating this dead horse?
To: RW-1
Since you do such a good job of going through past threads and document all of my errors in theory or my unwillingness to admit my errors, I would request that you go through all of the threads if you haven’t done that already and list those elements that still need to be addressed. I would request that you not include any comments about Robinson certification or the precession angle of the Robinson Rotorhead. Regarding your constant reference to my not performing the necessary test to demonstrate my theory I will say this one more time and hopefully it sinks in. The only R22 in this area suffered a dynamic roll over and was written off for the hull insurance. When I have access to an R22 or, an R44 I will contract for one hour and have the pilot perform certain tests none of which will endanger him or the helicopter.