Originally Posted by
Devil 49
Your ignorance and inexperience is showing. My memory is that we taught VRS as 'settling with power' in 68-70 US Army. I was taught to teach it in exactly the conditions of VRS, including the application of power accelerating the descent. It was hard to reliably induce the fully developed state in a TH55, as zero airspeed is hard to determine at the altitudes we did this. We, the pilots in my cohort, interchanged the terms until the late '70s early '80s when the recirculating rotor down wash was broadly taught. This I think lead to the confusion.
My memory may be wrong, but VRS signals subtly that something is happening, vibrations and uncommanded attitude changes and then when in the fully developed VRS, the aircraft feels 'sloppy', less crisp in response. SWP seemed to be more normal aircraft response in the descent, you ran out of power (or NR in the Huey) . We didn't intentionally fly into full SWP, but demonstrated it with power limitation.
Final point: In the real world, I have never had a textbook defined issue in flight. One teaches somewhat simplistic, defined issues in primary instruction to teach the most appropriate resolution clearly and emphatically. The flying part of the instruction is especially simplistic in my opinion, insisting on specific airspeed, altitude and approach procedures as though that kept hobgoblins away. It ain't that clear and easy when you're working the line...
,...and you just made my point!
You call running out of power "settling with power",...even a college dropout can tell that makes no sense!
,...but I know, keep stroking your egos and looking down your noses at the poor little, gullible, Robby guy who dares to believe the logical explanation given in the textbook!
