Never mind a 47 - it's history
-
Then why do you keep bringing it up
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
Not exactly. Since you can’t seem to find the AC (or understand it, so I'll post it for other readers) here it is. I will only post AC27.337 but AC29.337 reads mostly the same:
AC 27.337 (Amendment 27-26) LIMIT MANEUVERING LOAD FACTOR
a. Explanation. The rotorcraft must be designed and substantiated to load factors as specified to provide a minimum level of structural integrity of the rotorcraft airframe
(1) A range of design positive load factors from +3.5 to +2.0 may be used.
(2) A range of design negative load factors from -1.0 to -0.5 may be used.
(3) Load factors inside the range of +3.5 to -1.0 may be used provided the probability of exceeding the design load factors is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote and the selected load factors are appropriate to each weight condition between design maximum and minimum weight.
4) Load factors exceeding these “minimums” may be used
b. Procedures.
(1) The applicant may elect to substantiate the rotorcraft for a design maneuvering load factor less than +3.5 and more than -1.0. Whenever this option is used, an analytical study and flight demonstration are required
(i) The maximum positive design load factor of +3.5 is generally at a
weight below maximum gross weight. The maximum thrust capability of the main rotor, combined with incremental lift of wings or sponsons, if installed, results in a maximum design positive load factor. An example of a load factor-gross weight curve is shown in figure AC 27.337-1. Note the minimum positive design load factor is +2.0 even though the required analysis and flight demonstration may prove the rotorcraft is not capable of achieving this load factor. This curve also illustrates compliance with § 27.321(b)(1) since the design load factor varies with gross weight.
(ii) The largest negative design load factor is -1.0; however, several
rotorcraft designs are not capable of achieving a negative load factor. Therefore, -0.5 has been an acceptable structural design negative load factor for certain rotorcraft designs.
(2) Whenever the applicant analytically substantiates the lower load factors allowed by § 27.337(b), the flight demonstration required by § 27.337(b) must be conducted. The flight test personnel should determine that the demonstration shows the probability of exceeding the selected design load factors (those factors less than +3.5 and more than -1.0) is extremely remote. (See Order 8110.4, paragraph 166c(2)(c)).(3) A numerical value has not been assigned to “extremely remote” in this standard.
That's the certification. Curiously, the 206 RFM makes no mention of actual numbers
No mention of the ‘actual numbers’ in the RFM because it would become a limit requiring some sort of indication to the pilot (g-meter, stick shaker, etc) that he was about to exceed the limit.
It doesn't even say that aerobatic flight is prohibited
Again, if you think that because your RFM doesn’t provide you with a g-limit or say you can’t do aerobatics, go for it! Please! If you’re not willing to then quit pretending that you can. Starting with the 206L3 and sub, aerobatic flight is a prohibited maneuver in the RFM. Do a quick search you will find it is also prohibited in the 407, 212, 412, EC135, EC 145 and if I remember correctly the B2/3. I’m sure there are many other helicopters in which it is prohibited. I know it is prohibited in most all USMC RW NATOPS manuals.
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
So questioning your depth of knowledge(or lack of) makes me a “V-22 apologists”? As I recall you implied that the “pathetic” limits the V-22 were unacceptable for a ‘combat aircraft’. All I asked was for you tell us what would be acceptable, how the V-22s limits compared to other ‘combat aircraft’, and if you understood how those aircraft were operated. As of yet you refuse to answer. Why? Because you don't know and you are trying to hide that little fact! Instead you try to compare the V-22 to the FARs and a Bell 47. I don’t need to tell you what the real limits are to prove you wrong in that regard, I did that with the limits you think the V-22 has. The fact of the matter FH is that you don't need to know. And if I were to tell you wouldn't believe it anyway. You're a conspiracy nut and will always be looking for the hidden secret even when it's not there. Furthermore don’t accuse anyone of not answering the question until you actually answer one yourself. I refer you back to my original post two or three pages ago. If you are so knowledgeable then you should be able to answer them easily. Let's hear those answers
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.
Then who should? You? Congress? The peace corps? The commissioner of the NFL? The winner of Top chef? Who? Honestly FH who knows more about the needs to accomplish a mission than those who fly it? If you think a bunch of pilots get together and 'tell the government' we want this and get it you're more naive than I thought. They do give advice and opinion but don't get to say "I want this".