Oh for the love of God...
Here's FAR 23.337 which applies to civilian rotorcraft:
27.337 Limit maneuvering load factor.
The rotorcraft must be designed for—
(a) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or
(b) Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which—
(1) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and
(2) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.
Never mind a 47 - it's history. Okay Jeff, how does 337.(b)(1) and (2) - since they both must apply - let the makers of a Bell 206 off the hook for meeting 337(a)?
Oh, that's right, there's that "extremely remote" wording. But that would never fly, no pun intended. A Bell 206 is going to be subjected to the same flight loads as every other production helicopter.
Thus, a Bell 206, which I fly, must be designed and certified for a MANEUVERING limit of -1.0g. I'm not sure I would have wanted to be the 206 test pilot who did those conformity flights, but I personally knew the Hiller test pilot who did it for the FH1100, which had to meet the same requirements. And it did.
But even if Bell invoked 23.337(b) (1) and (2), the negative limit is still -.5g, which is the same as the V-22 in helicopter mode.
That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers. It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited!
Unlike the V-22. Now, you V-22 apologists keep saying that our information is out of date and incorrect. Okay. So you guys tell us: what are the
real limits? Or are you going to pull that, "If I tell you I'll have to kill you" thing? I've shown you mine; you show me yours.
Relying on military
pilots to tell the government what they need for national defense is folly. They are in no position to make such assessments. They may love it, and they'll come up with every reason imagineable that we should make
more! of them. Indeed, the V-22 may do certain things very well. But it is not a revolutionary, magical aircraft unlike anything else before. It is a bad, very flawed design which has cost this nation far too much money already. It is high time it was put to rest once and for all. We don't need it.