F/Lynx all systems go at AW

[dangermouse]

sorry that's wrong

I don't get where you are coming from CRAB, you seem very confused with terminology

my point about providing 'solutions' is that if there is an IPT/customer requirement that AW can't meet then they often offer what they have available on the shelf which is usually far less capable than was actually required ( that's the way of the world, not everything is available off the shelf). Then, when the IPT/customer complains (it's hardly fair to register a complaint because what is wanted isn't available off the shelf) they are told that if they really want the required capability then it will cost more money and take longer (what's wrong with that? development to meet a specific requirement does take time and money, why should the manufacturer pay for that, it's the customer placing the requirement) The inevitable result is that the IPT/customer ends up having to concede capability because the manufacturer can't actually deliver what they promised. (there has been no promise made or broken!! the manufacturer said what he can deliver off the shelf, or what could be delivered if funded to change what is currently available, there is no promise anywhere until a contract is placed but I guess you are assuming that manufacturers always lie about deliveries in any case)

If you think that a response to a request stating 'we cant do it' is a Promise to say 'we CAN do it' you have a very poor understanding of the English language.

If AW (or anyone else) don't have anything available to fully meet any requirement of course it will take time and money to arrive at one that will, it's naive to think anything else. If what is available is acceptable within any given timescale and budget that's what is delivered, if it's not acceptable it's either not bought or incurs costs to make it acceptable, theres nothing new in that.

I also completely disagree with the assertion that a power on manoeuvre has nothing to do with engine control authority, by definition a power on state requires energy to be put into the system (by the engines) to maintain rotor speed and therefore it all comes down to engine control providing more energy than needed for any particular manoeuvre.

As I said a few posts ago a governing sytem without adequate authority will exacerbate the inherent trend of a highly loaded disc to accelerate during a disc off loading manoeuvre, that's basic physics:-

If energy demand at the time is lower than the sum of (the energy transfer by the manoeuvre plus energy supplied by the engines) = the rotor speeds up,

so

If the engine energy supply is lowered in time the energy sum balances = rotor speed won't change (or you are in auto), conversely if due to low authority control engine energy supply is not lowered in time the rotor upspeeds.

I am not confusing power off rotor control with power on and fully accept that the Lynx has a lively rotor when unloaded, however all the input so far appears to be from people experienced in Gem operations, not T800 so any comments made regarding Flynx Nr control are based on false assumptions.Theoretically as the T800 is isochronously governed it should be possible to keep the Tq at a very low value and still have the Nr governed (again when power off it's all down to the rotor) so that a nearly autorotative descent can be flown, that's one advantage of newer engines and their governing systems.

I agree with the views regarding compromises, but any 'compromise' in this case will be expensive as there is very little that can be done cheaply to change a rotor discs behaviour, a higher disc loading means a quicker rotor response when off loading the disc.....over to Scotty again I am afraid (at least the Flynx won't have the Gems governing to worry about)

DM