ROBINSON FORUM NEEDED (URGENTLY)

[Earpiece]

To: Chief Pilot
PPRuNe Towers

Dear Sir,

Please, please, please, please, please, please could you open a new Forum for Robinson Helicopters, Robinson Pilots, Robinson Engineers, anything to do with Robinsons and especially Lu Zuckerman. In fact as a special treat please let Lu Zuckerman be the Moderator.

I am sure that if these topics were sent elsewhere (A Nursery Forum might be apt) more interest would be encouraged from other Rotorhead browsers and more intelligent offerings would result.

I (and many others I am sure)await with hope that this year's resolution will be de-Robinsoned.

In advance of your positive actions We all thank you.

"keeping an ear to the ground" (but all I can hear are ****** Robinsons)!



[This message has been edited by Earpiece (edited 01 January 2001).]

[leading edge]

Earpiece

You have my support. Robinsons and their problems caused mainly by people's inability to fly them properly should be moved to a separate forum or maybe to Jetblast since they are a bit of a joke anyway.

Perhaps there could be a Lu forum so that those who care can discuss Robinsons, preferably in private, so that they do not keep hi jacking this forum which is meant to be for professionals.

[chips_with_everything]

Robinsons are used for professional aviation aren't they?

Earpiece and Leading Edge.. if you don't want to read the threads then don't. Your choice.


OK I admit it I flew a Robbie today. I had fun, I was safe and giant eels did not eat my children.

[SPS]

Pretty much the same as TV really...

You have the choice to receive or not....

....and there is always the 'OFF' button.

Merry ivory towers to all (well, some anyway!)

[RW-1]

Then I wouldn't get suckered into what I feel is like arguing with an 11 year old.
You got my vote.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">A haven for professional helicopter pilots </font>

hmmm ....

Give him his own area and lets move on!

------------------
Marc

[SPS]

OK guys, I've read all of the thread that seems to have provoked all this.

Whilst my 'ivory towers' remark (aimed squarely at those that think the R22 is a 'Bit of a joke'is most definately not recinded, I have to say I see what you mean.

A 'Gyroscopic Precession' forum might do the trick. (Who will begin it?!)You should not seek to exclude the many good pilots that fly the R22 out of necessity or lack of choice from this forum.

We do have useful comments to make and the principles are all the same.

Hoping for more peaceful and sensible times... Happy New Year to one and all.

[Hoverman]

With you 100%, Earpiece.
A Lu Zuckerman Forum would probably be best, with an appropriate warning about what to expect if you enter.
I have nothing against Robbies or those who fly them - but I'm fed up of the number of rotary threads which are turned into pro/anti Robinson debates by those who don't like them.
Robinson pilots/enthusiasts aren't the problem.


[This message has been edited by Hoverman (edited 02 January 2001).]

[muffin]

Before Lu's arrival and the Robinson debates, this forum mainly consisted of complaining North Sea pilots and was growing smaller by the day. At least there is some lively discussion now and the post volume has leapt up.

OK, I fly Robinsons as well, but that is not the point!

Happy New Year everybody

[This message has been edited by muffin (edited 02 January 2001).]

[Night Sun]

"complaining North Sea pilots"...

Yeah but we're bloody good at it. :)


Keep Rotorheads general the more topics the better.

[Whirlybird]

So why doesn't everyone:
a)Stop arguing with Lu
b)Start some other topics

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[212man]

"complaining North Sea pilots".

Isn't that tautological?

------------------
Another day in paradise

[Rusty Cessna]

Why Does'nt everyone:

a) Listen to Whirly.
b)Be nice to each other and love one another.
c)Listen to Whirly.

Im now off to retire to my un-knowing and un-caring Hippy pit "Peace"!

Rusty

[This message has been edited by Rusty Cessna (edited 03 January 2001).]

[RW-1]

Whirly has certainly given me great advice.
We should heed that posted here.

------------------
Marc

[helidrvr]

To EarPiece:

Thanks for posting this. Coward that I am, I waited a while to see what others have to say before giving you my 'official' reply - God that sounds stuck-up.

This kind of request has come once or twice before when a topic got really hot. While I am not here to agree or disagree with anything Lu or any of his supporters' and detractors' post, I will say that I have gained a LOT of general knowledge from reading all of the R22 material. I have been around helicopters for the better part of 30 years now and never knew some of this highbrow stuff.

The basic purpose of a forum is to give people like you and me a way to bring our opinions out in the open AND DEFEND them ad nauseam, to the best of our ability. To move someone to another cubbyhole because some people object to the tenure of his/her argument just doesn't fit that lofty ideal.

Bottom line - I am not going to remove Lu or anybody else from this forum. The volume of responses generated by Lu only serves to support my notion that his subject matter is of great interest to many of our loyal PPRuNers.

There is only one thing that I won't tolerate and that is vitriolic personal attacs and other more blatantly offensive posts.

Whirly Bird, I always love your KISS contributions - pun intended. Once again you boiled it all down to the essential issue.

- If you are not interested in a subject
IGNORE it, go to the next thread
- If you don't like particular PPRuNers
IGNORE them, go to the next thread

If on the other hand you have a point to make, no matter how controversial, you will know that you can come here to publish it without fear of being cubbyholed, blocked or otherwise mistreated by Big Brother.

One final comment. On the whole I am very very proud of our little community. Lu was being treated with foul and very personal abuse on another forum, which went totally unchecked. I invited him to PPRuNe and promised that he would receive courteous replies and should also expect some very knowledgeable arguments in dissent.

Thank you all for proving me right and making my job so easy by keeping PPRuNe out of the gutter.

Happy New Year
Y'r obedient servant and Captain
helidrvr http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 03 January 2001).]

[Flying Lawyer]

Earpiece made some valid points.

Whilst it's theoretically possible to move to another thread when Lu is in full anti-Robinson flow, that's not always possible. Lu sometimes turns even the most "general" helicopter topic into a pro/anti robinson debate.

IMHO, comments about "complaining North Sea helicopter pilots" don't help the forum. True they complain from time to time. So what? They don't have a private or "company" forum, so why shouldn't they use PPRuNe to exchange views with colleagues in the same sphere of work. They perform some of the most difficult and challenging flying in the industry, and have a great deal to offer. They, like all other professional pilots, should be encouraged to post. Although the views of (fellow) PPLs are often interesting, the opinions of professionals are of enormous value, whether ATPLs or Professional Instructors.
Helidrvr:
There are relatively few contributions on this Forum from current Service helicopter pilots. That is a great shame. I wish I could offer a suggestion for improving the percentage but, unfortunately, I can't think of one.
Have they never contributed to Rotorheads? Or did they gradually leave?
On a separate point:
I've always been a JetRanger fan, and probably always will be, but have now completed my type conversion on the Gazelle. What a helicopter! If any PPL is interested in a flight, please feel free to e-mail me.

[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 03 January 2001).]

[Whirlybird]

I think Muffin's original comment about "complaining North Sea pilots" was more of a description than a criticism. That was how I saw things at the time too: virtually all posts were from pilots working on the North Sea, most of them had complaints, and the few other threads tended to be from rotary wannabes who were almost invariably told to see sense and go fixed wing. I didn't post here, and I stopped even coming to this forum.

Looking at the hugely increased number of people and threads and topics (yes, even with the Robinson-mania) since then, I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks it's an improvement. OK, not perfect, but getting there :)

Yeah, let's keep everyone, and get a few more too. Maybe someone should visit the Mil pilots forum and invite some of their helo pilots to come here once in a while.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[muffin]

Thanks for the clarification Whirly, that is exactly what I did mean. I was not being at all detrimental to North Sea pilots who I have every respect for - it was more of a description of the type of traffic that used to predominate in this forum.

Like you, I never posted here in those days as I felt that the subjects were too far removed from the world I was used to. Now however, this forum is the first thing I check after I have downloaded the e mail, and I have personally learnt a tremndous amount from the discussions, especially those following Lu's postings. I have been a contributor to several rotary wing forums in the last couple of years, and this one has developed to be the best of the lot IMHO.

Like Whirly, I am a humble PPL who just does it for fun, and I derive a lot of benefit from the discussions here even if I don't contibute myself very often.

Keep it up guys (and gals)

[Earpiece]

helidrvr - forgive me, I had completely forgotten that you were still around - otherwise I would not have gone to the top ie to the Chief Pilot.

You too seem to have forgotten that last February you "ordered" all those people who have or have had connections with the military to move to the Military Forum and Rotorheads nearly died.

In March, Cyclic Hotline told you that he thought Rotorheads had disappeared and in April you were berated by ANOrak for boring those Rotorheads who still checked in (occasionally). In June you gave your resignation speech but today you are still here and admit to introducing Lu Zuckerman who has been abused on the other Forums.

Well I agree with freedom of speech but your friend is worse than a politician because he only loves the sound of his own voice - sorry I mean the sight of his own words. Just take a look at his latest attempt "72 vs 90 was Frank Robinson being truthful?" QED.

If you cannot control him or Moderate this Forum in a sensible fashion then I shall retire and leave you to all your Robinson "professionals".

Hopefully there will another helicopter forum on PpruNe - soon.

"keeping no ears to the ground"

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Earpiece

Just what is it that you find offensive on my posting about 72 Vs 90-degrees, was Frank Robinson Telling the Truth? The purpose of the post was to give Helidrvr a place to post a diagram of mine that will prove that Frank Robinson was not very forthcoming when he said that he had considered a 90-degree pitch horn on the R22 rotorhead. I can only assume you have no idea of what a rotorhead is or what rotor aerodynamics are all about. Based on your postings you find it very boring. Could that be because you have minimal understanding of what is going on in those threads? Watch your threads disappear from the forum one by one. The only thing saving this one is that many of the postings are from individuals that disagree with my ideas.

I also feel that with your minimal participation and obvious lack of technical background on the subjects covered on this forum that it was a cheap shot at Helidrvr and then threatening to leave the forum if he didn’t reign me in. Did you act the same way when you played with other kids? From outward appearances you don't have to go very far to remember those days.

I have two questions, 1) how old are you and 2) what is your technical background? At least when I participate in a discussion with RW-1 (who seems to be your biggest supporter) I know where he is coming from.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 03 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 January 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RW-1

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A haven for professional helicopter pilots
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You want me off the forum because the forum is for professional helicopter pilots. If that is true, why are you participating on this forum? You are not a professional helicopter pilot. Right now, you are a wannabe EMS pilot in training. You will be a professional pilot when you get your first paycheck from an operator. Then and only then can you call yourself a professional.

Don't undercut your own position by badmouthing others just because you don't agree with their point of view. I can just see it when you respond to a knock at your door and when you open it you are face to face with a Jehovas' Witness


------------------
The Cat

[helidrvr]

To All:

I have to set the record straight on something. Lu said above that he was giving me a place to post a diagram. This is not quite how it is. For anybody who wants to post a diagram in THEIR posts, I will set up a URL free of charge and send it to them so THEY can use it their post. This is what I have done for Lu and a few others as well. They are HIS diagrams and HIS posts, not mine.

To EarPiece:

I tried to bow out a while back but Danny asked me to please stay on because he did not have another volunteer. I had hoped that my "resignation speech" of last year would bring one or two volunteers - not.

This is a volunteer effort on my part and takes up a considerable amount of my time. If you want it, it's all yours. Just say the word and I'll gladly hand over to you.

Cheers

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Earpiece

Regarding the forum alluded to by Helidrvr where I got beaten up. I survived but the forum didn't. The moderator of that forum closed it because of the verbal abuse heaped upon me and for some really nasty remarks made against other individuals and specific operators and managers. If you were to post on that forum at that time you would have been disected three ways from center and spit out. I survived and many of the people that supported me also contribute to these forums or, at least they read the postings. They also send me email messages telling me to keep up the good work.

The forum is open now but only after the moderator told everyone to cool it. That forum is JUST HELICOPTERS. Try it as there are minimal if no posts about Robinson Helicopters.

------------------
The Cat

[nomdeplume]

Earpiece's criticisms of Lu have my support.

I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favour of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations.
(Before you adopt your characteristic rude and patronising attitude Lu, I willingly admit your technical knowledge is far greater than mine will ever be.)

Flying Lawyer asked why there are so few posts by current military pilots - Earpiece has answered in part. Why were they "ordered" to leave? What a loss!

Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronising attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus.

If Helidrvr really wants to move on, surely there's another Professional Pilot willing and able to take his place?
A current ATPL(H)?
Perhaps a former military heli pilot now flying trucks?
212man?
Ark Royal?
ANOrak?
PurplePitot?
Any other professional?
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/revnet/flying/helicopter1.gif

[This message has been edited by nomdeplume (edited 04 January 2001).]

[helidrvr]

Oh my God, I don't believe this. The whole military debate of a year ago starts up again and totally out of context.

Come on Earpiece, the mils were never "ordered" off. I received some e-mails from people who were getting annoyed with all the post which contained - to them - unintelligible military lingo and dealt with topics of little interest to the civvies. Since there ALREADY IS a military forum I suggested that those topics might be better posted there. This created some strong reactions from a few of the military types but was settled amicably after post nr 13 or 14. Ironically, this experience taught us all a lesson about trying to pigeonwhole certain individuals. Go figure.

I believe that these forums should always remain meritocracies. If you have something to contribute and it merits attention it will get it otherwise let it fade into the sunset. On public forums, dictatorships of well organized minorities (sometimes referred to as democracy) is something to be avoided.

Yes I am a working ATPL with over 30 years in the game and do my best to encourage the younger types to get into the business. I consider us a community and as such am wiling to contribute where I can. After 2 years here, I am ready to move on. I just don't think that it is very sporting to run out on Danny without some form of succession. If EarPiece or somebody else has some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to better continue this forum I'll be more than happy to give him the gavel. I don't think however that Danny will be to keen on instituting thought control.

[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 04 January 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nomdeplume

Nomdeplume said:

“I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favor of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations”.

Lu responds:

The reason my original posts were as you say interesting was that there was a legitimate discussion of highly technical points. Then, typical of forums it only took one person to go off thread and then others joined in on that particular point and drove the primary subject of that thread into the tank. I was constantly trying to steer it back on point but I like others before me had to sit and watch the whole thing deteriorate. Regarding my posts on this thread, what do you expect me to do? Earpiece made some comments about me and the subject matter of my various posts and I replied. Regarding going off thread have you ever heard the story of the experiment where they placed ten individuals in a line? The first person was provided with some information and he was to relay that information to the next person in line and so on down to the tenth person in that line. That last person was then to repeat the information to the test conductor. The story had completely changed and was totally unlike the story told to the first person. This is what happens in a thread on a forum. If you want to see evidence of this, check out the military forum on the CH-47 crash in Scotland. In my threads I have to try to keep the thread in line while at the same time I have to deal with five other individuals who are discussing something not related to the original subject.


Nomdeplume said:

“Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronizing attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus”.


Lu Responds:

I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.

Within the next two weeks I expect to go out on another contract at any one of 7 companies that have expressed interest in my consulting services. Not bad, for a 70 year old man.

Regarding my patronizing attitude that stems from 1) a heavy background in teaching and, 2) sometimes I feel that I am dealing with ignorant individuals.

IN RESPONDING TO YOUR POST I AM GUILTY OF DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF. BEING LONG WINDED AND CONDECENDING. THAT IS THE POINT I TRIED TO MAKE ABOVE IN THAT THIS THREAD IS ON THE WAY TO THE TANK BECAUSE OF HAVING TO RESPOND TO AN ACCUSATION OR, BEING TOLD I AM WRONG.


------------------
The Cat

[212man]

Thanks for the invite nomdeplume, but I'm only in the uUK about 4 months a year. The other 8 I'm in a place where the ISP I use charges $10 per hour, so it can get rather pricey.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[helidrvr]

Why are people always volunteering OTHERS, rather than themselves for jobs THEY think could be done better or should be done differently? Go figure .....

[nomdeplume]

Helidrvr:
I "volunteered" others (ie suggested) because, in the helicopter world, I'm only a PPL and IMHO the Moderator should (like you) be a professional heli pilot.
I got the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you wanted out!

[Flying Lawyer]

Helidrvr:
Thanks for answering my question regarding the absence of military helicopter pilots on this Forum.
I'm amazed that some people complained to you because they couldn't understand the military 'lingo' and topics - instead of asking for explanations so they could follow and learn.

Lu:
As an enthusiastic amateur, I fall into your category of people who are ignorant / inexperienced in rotary matters.
I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you may find people less antagonistic if you don't patronise those who fall into that category.
Similarly, you sometimes appear to be rather intolerant of even well-informed/experienced PPRuNers who express an opinion with which you disagree. Your engineering credentials and experience are obviously beyond doubt, but the old saying that we're never too old to learn may be apposite. A contrary point of view may just be right?

[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 04 January 2001).]

[JoePilot]

LU FOR MODERATOR!

... NOT

Somewhere around page 1 or 2 of the LU-dick-russ 'Certification debate' it became obvious that Lu doesn't really understand the subject and often just regurgitates misunderstood snippets from text books - he's a painfully boring intransigent argumentative plane spotter - Helidrvr came down on Lu's side and the bore**** continued for way too long...

However surley in the spirit of PPrune it should be an inclusive forum with diversity and a wealth of experience - I, we, you! must just learn not to get roped into pointless drivel...

I can't believe anyone tried to exclude military pilots - some of them are quite good pilots, they often have their own independant views and whilst they may not be very experienced (on average) they are the product of aptitude selection (even if that does include 'compliant' as one of the criteria) .. and it is where most of the civil administrators started.

Inclusive tolerant discussion FANTASTIC ... there are some OUTSTANDING people in this forum and tolerating idiots like Lu is just the price we must pay for not disappearing into many closed minded little cliques.
... It's like TV

... Helidri - good job, not easy, hard work, well done, keep it up. etc...

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flying Lawyer Esquire

In order to respond I have to use a tennis analogy to explain my actions. When all of this started it was like my opponent was the machine that lobbed balls at me. The speed and trajectory were always the same, which allowed me to respond from a fixed position. The machine was replaced by one individual and he moved around which forced me to move around in order to hit the ball. Soon I was facing multiple opponents each hitting their own ball. After a while, all of the balls became the same ball and as each ball was lobbed at me I had to respond. However, when I was doing that two or three more balls were being sent my way.

After a while, I started to hit the balls twice as hard as they were sent my way. I became very angry and/or upset because the balls that were being sent towards me were all the same but they were different colors and that made me even more angry as I had to respond to each of those balls as if they were the only ball in play. That made me angrier as my opponents felt that they were the only opponents I was playing with and demanded that I should respond to his ball and only his ball. In several other cases some of my opponents got angry because I wouldn’t play by their rules and they took their ball(s) out of play only to return and play again but not by the rules of the game.

I played the same tennis game on Just helicopters and my opponents played with barbed tennis balls and whenever they could they would try to inflict injury on me. I got the same complaints as those listed in the fourth paragraph in your post (above).

The reason I come off as being pedantic is because I believe that a part of my function on these threads is to educate. The reason I come off as seeming to be intolerant is because I have to field the same questions from many different thread participants. Most of these are guys that don’t follow the thread on a daily basis and when they come in they ask a question that had been answered ten posts previous.

I think I am right in what I say but a lot of the guys don’t agree with me. Verbally they tell me I am wrong and when I challenge them to prove me wrong they clam up stating their opinions and tell me I’m still wrong. I don’t feel that I have to constantly prove that I am right but I feel that the oneness is on them to prove me wrong through their actions and not their words.

Another thing that really pisses me off is when someone tells me I am wrong and prove it by saying that Frank Robinson said I was wrong. Those that have taken that point of view are in my mind ignorant in the subject area and really don’t understand that what FR said was pure Bull S**t and did not relate to the subject being discussed.

Regarding being too old to learn as opposed to never being too old to learn I provide the following which comes from a previous post on this thread.

I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.

PS Why don't you join the Lawyer Pilots bar Association in the States. It's a good organization and you can get a US perspective in Aviation Law. I have belonged for over five years and as a non lawyer I have gained a great deal of knowledge.

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 January 2001).]

[helidrvr]

JoePilot,

The problem with the military last year was caused by a lot of post which appeared to be dealing with purely military issues and unit politics, i.e. not about pilotage, aircraft handling etc. The topics were about military issues rather than rotorcraft issues. This was the rub.

As far as Lu's posts is concerned. His opinion about the R22 appeared to focus on an apparently flawed CERTIFICATION process and not the quality of the product itself. As we all know it mushroomed out of control because of all the replies, but that's history. He specifically stated in one of his post that he found the R22 a well designed and well manufactured helicopter. From my own observation I totally agree - the engineering seems brilliant in its simplicity.

As I read it, Lu's beef has always been with the idea of certifying a helicopter to a more narrow flight envelope than is normally required by law and thereby setting us up for pilot error. R22's are everywhere.

So mostly out of curiosity I took an R22 course about 8 years ago. I was in for a shock though when I questioned why a high time pilot like me would have to take the full SFAR course. The reply was unequivocal and to me highly alarming: "Because an experienced pilot like you will expect the R22 to be capable of maneuvers which he has become accustomed to performing in other helicopters. In the R22 some of these might kill you if you don't watch out." I found this hard to believe and, my curiosity now even more aroused, decided to continue anyway.

I didn't know anything about 72 vs. 90 degree and understood gyroscopic presession not nearly as well as I do now thanks to Lu and all the others who posted on the subject. The idea that a production helicopter would be designed to a much narrower operating envelope than is expected of all others on the market (I also knew nothing about the certification requirements which Lu correctly describes) bothered the heck out of me. During training my instructor thoroughly convinced me of the special hazards alluded to and I decided then and there that any involvement with the R22 would for me remain restricted to my little SFAR adventure.

Back to what for me is the central and as a pilot ONLY significant issue raised by Lu. By allowing ONE helicopter design to be certified to especially unforgiving flight characteristics when compared to all others on the market the potential for PILOT ERROR is substantially increased.

To put it differently, what may be an acceptable maneuver in a 206 has the potential of becoming a killer in an R22. As those of you who have been working pilots for a few thousand hours know, we regularly switch from one aircraft type to another in the course of a regular work day.

Consider flying an B206 for 2 or 3 hours or, even worse, an MD500 and then jumping into an R22. Now add a little Murphy to the mix and get an engine failure 1 minute after lift-off. I now depend totally on reflex and what reflexes do you think those are going to be? Q.E.D.

All the other arguments are for me just so much fluff. If Lu and many others want to amuse themselves by thrashing out the finer points of aerodynamics, that's just fine by me. But the truth is that I really don't give a Rat's A.. about that. As a pilot I am going to do everything I can do to avoid getting set up for pilot error. This job is tough enough as it is and flying the R22 just doesn't seem worth the risk for me. I'll grant you that if I was 20 again and had to find a way to satisfy my desire to become a helicopter pilot on limited funds I might look at it differently. Blissfully I started flying when the B47 was the only training bird and also the major working machine of the day and didn't have to struggle with this.

Cheers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 05 January 2001).]

[Whirlybird]

helidrvr,
Many thanks for a useful summary of what Lu has been saying. It seemed that way to me too; what I've learned from the pages and pages of discussion is: Be careful; R22s may bite!

Lu,
I suspect this may illustrate what is annoying some people - your longwindedness rather than your arguments. Sometimes it may be necessary, but often not. For example, your tennis ball analogy is a good one, but could have been stated in two sentences - and would have had more impact. I may disagree with you, but I'd defend to the death your right to state your opinions. But please, state them briefly. Especially if you want them read.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

[neutral99]

Lu Z:
You say <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"I believe that a part of my function on these threads is to educate."</font>
Can't you see that attitude is just one of the things which irritates people about your posts? The rest of us give our opinion, and (generally) respect different opinions given by others when we reply to them. We don't presume to "educate" people. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand.
People might take you more seriously if you expressed your views in a more balanced way. Compare your style with Helidrvr's last post. We might agree with him, we might not, or perhaps we just can't decide. But it's a well-written, reasoned, personal point of view without any arrogance, or presumption to "educate" others.
You seem to have an obsession about Robinsons and to be waging a campaign against them, and possibly a personal vendetta against FR who you try to discredit at every opportunity. Your recent request for information from Robinson-trained personnel on the "Just Helicopters" Forum is a good illustration.
If you you don't like Robinsons, don't fly them. Others can make their own decisions.
You say the criticims made by Flying Lawyer have already been made by others on another Forum. Isn't it worth considering that the criticism might be valid?

[stopachoppa]

I thought that these forums were supposed to be a way for individuals to express their opinions, disseminate information and to act as an excellent global communications portal.

This particular thread started out as what I believed to be quite a reasonable request considering the number of Robinsons there are in the world now. But then would we also expect a Bell forum, an Agusta Forum, A Sikorsky Forum? Where do you stop? This thread has since been dragged into the gutter and become a personal attack on Lu.

There is no doubting Lu's credentials and experience in my eye's. He has constantly shown as in depth (sometimes deeper)an undertsanding and knowledge of systems than anybody who has replied to his comments. I for one have absolutely no Technical experience, but as an Operator who contracts out Maintenance, I do have an active interest in any aspect that may affect aviation safety. Not just my own but everybody's.

I have taken some of Lu's comments and used them as a basis for discussions / research with my primary Maintenance Organisation. I for one do not necessarily always agree with Lu, but his points of view always evoke passionate responses both privately and on this forum.

I have learnt an incredible amount from the topics discussed here, from Lu, Flying Lawyer, HeliDrvr and all the others who respond on a regular basis. Take the whole discussion and digest slowly and you come out with a very balanced viewpoint.

So stick to the ideals of PPrune and stop slagging off individuals.

Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are.

[stopachoppa]

Just found this little gem on another thread. Thanks to Ppruner known as SPS. Like your attitude.

quote - "It is good to be constantly reviewing your own knowledge.You must never think you know it all. You should never stop learning because you think you know it all. That stops you listening to anyone else's view.....And they might be right!"

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Stoppachoppa

That little gem stemmed from a personal email I sent to SPS and it was repeated in another way by Flying Lawyer.

You have to understand two things about me 1) my prime thrust in these threads and in the work I do is to make aircraft as safe as possible through sound design and 2) I am like a dog with a bone and the dog refuses to let go. However if the bone is eventually taken away from the dog he will not be angry, he will just get another bone.

As far as my hating Robinson Helicopters that was summed up in Helidrvrs' post above. But he didn't say it all. I think the rotorhead design causes problems that effect safety of flight and I think their rigging procedures SUCK. As far as my dislike for Frank Robinson I don't hate him.

It is like someone stating that Bill Clinton was a good President but he did (does) a lot of things that you don't like. In both cases the gentlemen under discussion don't always tell the truth.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 January 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Neutral99

I completely agree with you that my replies are long-winded. I find it necessary to be that way in order to properly explain my points of view relative to a very complex subject. If it were in an instructional situation and I had all of the participants in one classroom I could start with elementary flight theory and cover every subject on all of the Robinson threads in two hours because I could draw pictures to help explain the various point being covered. I could also field questions that related directly to that portion of the subject matter being taught at that time. I know that for a fact because I have done it before. This forum does no allow me that facility so I have to couch my responses in a long-winded technical manner. That is why I created the four diagrams that I constantly refer to.

The reason Helidrvr can be both eloquent and brief in his replies is because of his ability to synopsize material that has already been covered. Put him in my place and he will do it the same way. (I think). And why you might ask, it is because he is a person that will explain every point in detail because he wants to convey his point of view relative to complex subject matter.

I don’t have an obsession about Robinson. What I do have is an obsession about safety of flight because that is the line of work I am involved in.

Regarding my posting on Just Helicopters addressed to Robinson mechanics, I placed it there for the same reason I placed on the Rotor heads forum. I was soliciting facts from those mechanics about what they were taught in their respective training courses. I didn’t get a single reply from the Just Helicopters forum but I got a lot of replies from non-mechanics on the Rotorheads forum. The replies that I got were from individuals that carried their animosity/objections from another thread and none of the postings had a single thing to do with the subject of the post. Refer to the tennis analogy.

Hopefully this response is not long winded. Of course I could respond by parroting a certain individual and just say F. O.


------------------
The Cat

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Earpiece

If this thread keeps going you may get your own wish for a Robinson forum. But if it doesn't....

------------------
The Cat

[hover lover]

Helidriver -

Stick around, you're doing a fine job. Maybe even Bill K. could pick up a few pointers from you. Regarding threads + topics here, keep in mind that what you do as moderator is very little different from what a Prime Minister or President does - ANYTIME you voice an opinion or take a stand you will upset someone out there. So far you have been pretty evenhanded in the way you moderate.

[yogibear]

Helidrvr ,

Hi there....IMHO you are doing a sh*t hot job of moderating this forum.Us helo pilots are so diverse in our opinions and thoughts due to the wide and varying tasks that helicopters are used for and I think you are dealing with things very well.

To the rest of the helo ppruners ,
We fly or work with the best aircraft in the world...the helicopter.....so lets respect each others opinions and views and stop throwing our toys out of the cot everytime someone says something that we may not like.

Just remember helo pilots rule and plankies drool...

rgds

The bear.

------------------
..AD ASTRA PER NOSTRUM..
(Dont pick your nose on finals)

[helisphere]

When I first saw the comments made towards Lu I thought, thats a little harsh. Then I continued to read Lu's distorted understanding of physics and helicopter dynamics and how fiercely he defended this distorted view. Lu you really make youself look stupid. No one should argue so strongly on a subject that they know so little about. I agree that you should be free to post, but again, Lu, you have really embarrassed yourself to those of us who have a basic grasp on the subject of helicopter physics. Don't get me wrong, you obviously have a great deal of knowledge on many of the things we all discuss here and I enjoy reading many of your posts. But you made some statements that are just plain wrong.

[This message has been edited by helisphere (edited 13 January 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helisphere

I checked out you website and looking at your picture I would place you in the late twenties or at the most in your early thirties. At the most, you were born in or around 1970. At that time I had been working as a mechanic or an engineer on helicopters for 21 years. Also, on your website you have a link to the Helicopter History Site. On that site you can click on Sikorsky and the history of their helicopter accomplishment. If you click on the first Coast Guard helicopter detachment you will see a group of individuals. One is listed as Boone, another as Brzcki,another named Erickson and another named Berry. These are the people that gave me my introduction to helicopter mechanics and I served with ADC Oliver Berry for three years and learned more about helicopters during that time than anyone else in the Coast Guard. After discharge I went to college and fresh out of college I was hired by Sikorsky and put into an intensive 14-month training program leading to a senior field engineer position.

I personally feel that you think I am an idiot because of your Robinson bias. If that is not true, then please tell me why I am an idiot and please tell me what I said is wrong and or stupid. I responded to your comments on another thread along with comments by two other individuals whom I think are wrong in their conclusions.

On a personal note I find it strange that a person that knows absolutely nothing about me or my background would have called me stupid based on his own personal bias


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 13 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 13 January 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helisphere

Now that you have read my CV I await your answer to my question above. What is it that you consider stupid and ill informed?

------------------
The Cat

[HeliEng]

This is seems to have turned into a 'How much can we slag off Lu' debate.

I think that this is unfair and not justified.

Lu, you are obviously a very well educated man, who has worked hard for many years to develop such a broad and indepth knowledge. In my personal opinion, I think that the people who scathe your lengthy detailed replies perhaps do not understand to content, or wish that they were able to write in such a way.

Comparing knowledge, I am still very much a newbie. I could not even imagine knowing as much as it appears you do.
But, that is not a point of defeat, I hope that at some point in my career, I will be able to write such educational replies.

I think everyone should try to be a little more tolerant of each other and realise that we all have something valuable to give to all of these threads, whether it be in the depth of Lu's replies or not.
---------------------------------------------

THOSE WHO HAVE THE WILL TO WIN, CANNOT BE BEATEN!!

[helisphere]

To Lu:

First of all, I never called you an idiot. I said you have made yourself look like one by the
statements you have made. Obviously you have a lot of credentials. That makes you look even
worse. It's like a scientist going around saying the earth is flat and the planets, sun, and stars all
rotate around it as the center of the universe.

Yes I am biased. I happen to think that Frank Robinson has done as much to better the helicopter
industry as Sikorsky, Hiller, Piasecki, Young, Kaman or any of the other helicopter pioneers.
However, any bias, be it good or bad, cannot alter the physical laws of nature. My bias has nothing
to do with calling you on false statements.

On to your false statements. I'll start with your post to helo teacher on 04 Jan 2001 04:57.

Your statements are in capitals.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ILLUSTRATION IS TO DISPROVE FRANK ROBINSONS'
PREMISE OF CONSIDERING A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN IN THE DESIGN OF THE
ROBINSON ROTORHEAD.
IF HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOSE A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN THEN ANY
VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE BLADE (CONING) WOULD TURN THE BLADE INO A
FIRST CLASS LEVER WITH THE CONE HINGE AS THE FULCRUM. IN THIS CASE,
WHEN THE BLADE CONED UPWARDS, THE PITCH HORN WOULD MOVE
DOWNWARDS AGAINST A FIXED PITCH LINK.
THIS RELATIVE MOVEMENT WOULD CAUSE THE BLADE TO INCREASE PITCH AS IF
THE PITCHLINK HAD BEEN MOVED RELATIVE TO THE BLADE.


Ok, here I agree, this is pitch cone coupling. And with a 90 degree pitch horn it would certainly be a
factor.


IN ORDER TO CONE, THE PILOT HAD TO PUT IN ENOUGH PITCH TO LIFT THE
HELICOPTER OFF THE GROUND.

False. Any increase in collective pitch will produce coning. Coning is a function of centrifugal
force and lift produced by the blade. Therefore any amount of lift produced by even the smallest
amount of collective will produce a certain amount of coning.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONING ACTION WITH A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN WOULD
PRACTICALLY DOUBLE THE PITCH RESULTING IN BLADE STALL OR VERY CLOSE
TO BLADE STALL. IF THE PILOT HAD SUFFICIENT POWER TO GET THE HELICOPTER
OFF THE GROUND AND MOVED THE CYCLIC IN ANY DIRECTION HE COULD ADD
ANOTHER 5-6 DEGREES OR MORE TO THE ALREADY HIGH PITCH IN THE ROTOR
SYSTEM.

Wrong again. It would not double the amount of pitch in the blade as you will see later in this post.

You are saying this as if the blades won't cone at all until pilot has pulled in enough collective to
lift off, and then suddenly the blades will cone increasing the pitch just as suddenly nearly stalling
the blades and producing so much drag the engine can't produce enough power to maintain RPM.
This is ludicrous.

As for the cyclic. If the R22 had a 90 degree pitch horn there would be no pitch FLAP coupling.
When you apply cyclic the rotor tilts "flaps" in a direction. This means one blade goes up when the
other is down or vice versa. When this happens the coning hinges DO NOT move. The
TEETERING hinge DOES moves but our 90 degree pitch horns are in line with the teetering axis.
Therefore, there is NO resultant change in blade pitch from anything other than the actual cyclic
control input made by the pilot.

Now lets look at what would really happen if we were to try lifting off into a hover in an R22 with
a 90 degree pitch horn.

I am going through this step by step so there is no question about how I will arrive at my
conclusion. And it will be there for anyone to see in case I have made any errors.

First of all we need to establish some parameters.

1. how much do the blades actually cone when the R22 is in a hover?
2. how much will blade pitch increase from a given amount of coning with a 90 degree pitch horn.

Unfortunately I do not have the detailed specs for an R22 that I need to establish these parameters,
so they will be off a little, but they will be very close and if anyone wants to get the exact numbers
and run them, be my guest.

To calculate the coning we need to know two things.
1. the amount of centrifugal force acting on a single R22 blade at flight RPM
2. the amount of lift produced by a single R22 blade.

I will assume that an R22 blade weighs approx. 40 lbs. and that its spanwise center of mass is at
50% of the span.

Centrifugal force = Mass x Velocity squared. There are a couple of extras to go with that.
Velocity will be in the angular velocity unit of radians per second. And to put our blade weight into
the proper unit of mass we must divide the number of lbs by the acceleration force of 1g which is
32.2 ft/sec squared.

40 lbs divided by 32.2 = 1.2422

The R22 flight manual says, if I am not mistaken, that the 12.5 ft radius rotor has a tip velocity of
672 ft/sec at flight RPM.

Radians/sec = tip velocity divided by the rotor radius = 53.76 radians/sec

53.76 is of course the velocity so we have to square it.

2890.1376

multiply this by our mass.

1.2422

and we get

3590.1289

one last step, we must multiply this by the radius of the blade center of mass.

6.25 feet

Centrifugal force = 22,438.3058 lbs per blade

Now the lift part is simple, if we are at max gross weight that 1370 lbs. There are 2 blade so we
divide by two and find that we need to produce 685 lbs of lift per blade in order to hover.
Technically we need slightly more than that initiate the ascent into a stabilized hover.

Now we need some trig to figure out the coning angle from these two factors.

Lift divided by centrifugal force = 0.0305 ATAN = 1.7486 degrees of coning per blade.

whew! That solves our first problem. Now we need to know the pitch cone coupling ratio so we can
figure out how much more blade pitch we have at a hover with a 90 degree pitch horn.

Now, instead of running through exact numbers like: if the blade goes up 1.7486 degrees then the
pitch link will go down xx.xxx inches but since it can’t go down due to the swash plate then it will
rise relative to the blade feathering axis causing x.xxx number of degrees increase in blade pitch.

What I WILL do is establish a ratio for coning to feathering. And since I do not know the exact
dimensions of the pitch horn in relation to the coning and feathering axes. This will let us play with
a range of possibilities.

The pitch cone coupling ratio will depend upon two distances. The first distance is: from, the center
of the pitch link upper rod end bearing, to, the center axis of the coning hinge. The second distance is:
from, this same pitch link upper rod end bearing, to, the feathering axis about which the blade
changes pitch. I also must clarify that these distances are to be measured normal to, or
perpendicular to, the respective axes. By the way, if this gets hard for anyone to visualize from reading alone, draw it out, most of you probably know basically what a R22 rotorhead looks like.

The first distance decides how much the feathering axis will move below the pitch horn for a given
coning angle change. The longer the distance the more it would want to move. The second distance
decides how many degrees the blade will change pitch due to the feathering axis moving below the
pitch horn. The longer the distance the less the pitch angle will change. So if both distances are
equal, then one degree of coning will increase the pitch by one degree. If however the first distance
is let’s say half of the second, then 1 degree of coning will only produce 0.5 degrees of pitch
increase. So we can say that the ratio of the second distance to the first equals the ratio of coning to
pitch. Now, I don’t know the actual distances for the R22 but I would say from memory that the
pitch horn is farther away from the feathering axis than a 90 degree one would be from the coning
hinge axis. If this is the case then there would be less pitch change for an amount of coning. But lets
go with worst case and say they are the same. 1.7486 degrees of pitch would be compensated for by
the pilot unknowingly raising the collective I would guess about an inch and a half to 2 inches less
than he would for the 72 degree pitch horn without the pitch cone coupling properties. And of
course if the aircraft were to be certified this way they would simply have the controls rigged slightly
different. Remember I’m not using the real dimensions here, and more than likely the pitch cone
coupling ratio would actually be less and the pilot would probably have less than 1 inch collective
difference between the different pitch horn angles. If you must, find the actual dimensions and run
the numbers. See what you get.

[This message has been edited by helisphere (edited 14 January 2001).]

[Grey Area]

Helisphere,

BRAVO!

[Skycop]

I am fairly certain that I posted the first rotary topic on PPRUNE, when Danny used to individually email us the day's topics and replies. (There was only one forum in those days). I can't prove it as the site server crashed in 1996 and most of the stuff got lost forever. Since then the website has exploded logarithmically in both numbers, content and presentation. We are lucky to have our own forum now.

I kept away from this topic after the first few postings as I thought it would probably go rapidly downhill to a slanging match. Well I wasn't wrong was I?

I can see both sides of Lu's arguments. He has shown some courage in speaking out to many who can't believe that they may be flying an aircraft with quite severe limitations. I am one who will no longer fly in that particularly unforgiving type of helicopter, either as a pilot or as pax. My own decision, made a long time ago. However, IMHO Lu does "go on a bit" as my old mother would say..zzz.... It is obvious he is quite passionate about the subject...zzz.

As I am ex-military, I was one of the ones who complained when HELIDRVR suddenly appeared as if from nowhere and got a bit heavy-handed about the military stuff when it was mainly WE who got the rotorheads forum going in the first place...He is now forgiven; especially as he apologised and admitted his mistake! He did say that military stuff could come back, but some people prefer to forget that.

I am now a civvy professional pilot of thirty years experience, flying both fixed and rotary wing but mainly rotary at the moment. I am a qualified instructor, having graduated from both RAF Central Flying Schools (separate fixed wing and rotary wing instructor schools). However, I am not a mathematician and although I can follow the deeply theoretical stuff regarding heavy numbers, I do not enjoy reading it. For that reason I don't often comment on such matters but don't complain about its presence on the forum either. I certainly wouldn't email the moderator and request it to be removed, as HELIDRVR knows, see above about previous complainers on the military stuff.

I think we should just allow everyone to post whatever they like. If an individual doesn't like what is posted the best option is to ignore it. Without any dialogue the post goes to the bottom of the page and eventually drops off into an archive.

What I do find irritating lately is that so often a good topic begins but degenerates as contributor's egos get dented. Let's leave the forum as intended - to discuss matters rotary. Slagging off is catered for on a separate forum called Jetblast.

P.S. I've "gone on a bit" too. I don't want to moderate either - Helidrvr offered it me once and I turned it down. Just having my ten-penny worth.

[This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 14 January 2001).]

[cullcov]

Lu seems always trying to reduce the helicopter to a mathematical and exact computer produced bunch of formulae.If you read Prowty he most refreshingly admits that even the most modern machines are made to fly by trial and error.The final product most often bears no relation to the brilliantly formulatd drawing board model.Even Prowty himself admits that rotor blades do the darndest of things (quote) and trying to analyze their performance made him dizzy!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To:Cullcov

I try to read Ray Proutys’ columns in Rotor & Wing and find them extremely difficult to understand. He tries to bring his descriptions down to the lowest common denominator so that even helicopter pilots can understand. I would place myself in the middle or of average intelligence and with all of my experience still can’t understand much of what he says.

I used to have long conversations with him when I worked at Lockheed on the Cheyenne. When we talked about aerodynamics and the dynamic systems of the Cheyenne I understood everything he said. Maybe over time he did get a bit dizzy trying to solve the problems of helicopter aerodynamics.


------------------
The Cat

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helisphere

If you will note I made a post on another thread and I changed the wording relative to how coning is introduced. I also allowed that with coning, the blades would lead slightly but under those or any other condition would the leading cause the rotor system to accelerate enough to read the difference on your tach or percentage of power or, whatever.

What difference does it make how much the blades cone when the pilot puts the helicopter in a hover and 90-degree pitch horns are installed? And what difference does it make how much the pitch would be increased over the amount input by the pilot when he pulled collective when a 90-degree pitch horn is installed? You are trying to prove me wrong through the use of your calculations, which may in themselves be valid (excepting the figures used in those calculations).

You are beating the proverbial dead horse. Frank Robinson could never have considered the use of a 90-degree pitch horn on his rotorhead and if he did the FAA would not approve it. Aside from the collective pitch coupling adding pitch why don’t you run your calculations considering cyclic pitch change? I believe that either you or another individual stated that re-rigging the helicopter could solve the problem. The rigging procedures, as bad as they are, have been approved by the FAA. You want to change the the FAA approved rigging to accommodate a 90-degree pitch horn that the FAA would not approve of if Frank Robinson proposed it.

Another point made by you or another individual, related to the coning, once set by pulling collective would stay the same when cyclic was introduced causing the head to teeter and the coning relationship would remain the same relative to the head. First of all, the head is underslung just like on a Bell and this is done to minimize lead and lag. However the Bell just teeters but it does not have cone hinges. So, this underslinging works for the Bell. But, since the Robinson blades can flap on their cone hinges then you get lead and lag. However, the Robinson rotorhead does not have Lag hinges so the leading and lagging takes place via spanwise bending of the blades. This bending is reacted by the cone hinges and the teeter hinge which causes them to wear egg shape. Another reason for the cone hinge is to relieve blade bending and minimize the transmission of flapping loads into the airframe. So, if this is true then Frank Robinson admits to the blades flapping and we all know that when blades flap they lead and lag.

The cone angle does not remain constant. It changes due to cyclic input and blade loading and when this happens, the blades will try to lead and lag.

Your turn.


------------------
The Cat

[helisphere]

Back to Lu:

Again, your words are capitalized.

IF YOU WILL NOTE I MADE A POST ON ANOTHER THREAD AND I CHANGED THE
WORDING RELATIVE TO HOW CONING IS INTRODUCED.

I am not going to go trying to find what you have edited.


I ALSO ALLOWED THAT WITH CONING, THE BLADES WOULD LEAD SLIGHTLY BUT
UNDER THOSE OR ANY OTHER CONDITION WOULD THE LEADING CAUSE THE
ROTOR SYSTEM TO ACCELERATE ENOUGH TO READ THE DIFFERENCE ON YOUR
TACH OR PERCENTAGE OF POWER OR, WHATEVER.


What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?


WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE HOW MUCH THE BLADES CONE WHEN THE
PILOT PUTS THE HELICOPTER IN A HOVER AND 90 DEGREE PITCH HORNS ARE
INSTALLED?


Duh!? YOU are the one who said pitch cone coupling was going to practically double the amount
of actual pitch in the blade. Obviously, if we want to figure out the ACTUAL amount of exess pitch
then we need to know how much coning there is, because the amount of exess pitch is directly
dependent upon the amount of coning, hence, the term pitch-cone coupling. Have you been checked
lately for the possibility of alzheimers disease?


AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE HOW MUCH THE PITCH WOULD BE
INCREASED OVER THE AMOUNT INPUT BY THE PILOT WHEN HE PULLED
COLLECTIVE WHEN A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN IS INSTALLED?

YOU are the one who said pitch would practically double, remember? In fact, here is your exact
quote:

AT THE SAME TIME, THE CONING ACTION WITH A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN WOULD
PRACTICALLY DOUBLE THE PITCH RESULTING IN BLADE STALL OR VERY CLOSE
TO BLADE STALL. IF THE PILOT HAD SUFFICIENT POWER TO GET THE HELICOPTER
OFF THE GROUND AND MOVED THE CYCLIC IN ANY DIRECTION HE COULD ADD
ANOTHER 5-6 DEGREES OR MORE TO THE ALREADY HIGH PITCH IN THE ROTOR
SYSTEM.

And you are asking me what difference it makes? Well, Lu, explain to me how something that
makes no difference can result in “BLADE STALL” or very close to it. If it makes no difference
then what was your reason for pointing this out in the first place?


YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE ME WRONG THROUGH THE USE OF YOUR
CALCULATIONS, WHICH MAY IN THEMSELVES BE VALID, (ACCEPTING THE
FIGURES USED IN THOSE CALCULATIONS).


I have already proven you wrong, you just refuse to accept it. Who is beating the dead horse here?


YOU ARE BEATING THE PROVERBIAL DEAD HORSE. FRANK ROBINSON COULD
NEVER HAVE CERTIFIED THE USE OF A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN ON HIS
ROTORHEAD AND IF HE DID THE FAA WOULD NOT APPROVE IT.


Yes Lu, I've heard you say that like ten different times now, but you have given no valid evidence to
substantiate this claim. In fact the very reasons you did give as evidence that it could not be certified
are above and you are now asking me what difference they make. I don’t know, that is a good
question. What difference does it make?


ASIDE FROM THE COLLECTIVE PITCH COUPLING ADDING PITCH WHY DON’T YOU
RUN YOUR CALCULATIONS CONSIDERING CYCLIC PITCH CHANGE? I BELIEVE
THAT YOU OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL STATED THAT RE-RIGGING THE
HELICOPTER COULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THE RIGGING PROCEDURES, AS BAD
AS THEY ARE, HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FAA. YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE
FAA APPROVED RIGGING TO ACCOMMODATE A 90-DEGREE PITCH HORN THAT
THE FAA WOULD NOT APPROVE OF IF FRANK ROBINSON PROPOSED IT.


First of all, I am not talking about rigging PROCEDURES, I am talking about the rigging itself.
The PROCEDURE for setting up the length of control rods and the actual resulting lengths are two
different things. No, I don't want to change the rigging to accommodate a 90 degree pitch horn. I
am saying that if it had been done that way, the rigging would be slightly different. Actually, with
as little difference as the 90 degree horn makes it may not even need to be rigged differently.

Run my calculations considering cyclic pitch change? There is nothing to calculate in regards to
cyclic inputs as the flapping they produce does NOT induce a pitch change with a 90 degree pitch
horn. However, with the 72 degree horn, which it has actually been certified with, pitch change will
be induced by cyclic flapping. This is called Delta 3. The R22 flies just fine with it as have some
other helicopters.


ANOTHER POINT MADE BY YOU OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, RELATED TO THE
CONING, ONCE SET BY PULLING COLLECTIVE WOULD STAY THE SAME WHEN
CYCLIC WAS INTRODUCED CAUSING THE HEAD TO TEETER AND THE CONING
RELATIONSHIP WOULD REMAIN THE SAME RELATIVE TO THE HEAD.

Exactly! You’ve finally made a true statement but you don't even agree with it.

FIRST OF ALL, THE HEAD IS UNDERSLUNG JUST LIKE ON A BELL AND THIS IS DONE
TO MINIMIZE LEAD AND LAG. HOWEVER THE BELL JUST TEETERS BUT IT DOES
NOT HAVE CONE HINGES. SO, THIS UNDERSLINGING WORKS FOR THE BELL. BUT,
SINCE THE ROBINSON BLADES CAN FLAP ON THEIR CONE HINGES THEN YOU GET
LEAD AND LAG.


True, the Bell does not have coning hinges. But does this mean that the Bell blades do not cone? Of
course they cone. They cone by bending. Now you tell me, is it the coning hinge or coning itself
that generates the coriolis force to lead or lag the blade?

As for which hinges the movement will occur on due to cyclic flapping on an R22? Imagine if we
took an R22 and hooked a cable onto each blade tip. Then we fastened the lose end of one cable to
a point up high on a wall. Then we hooked the other cables free end to some sort of winch that can
pull 22 thousand lbs on the cable. We have set the fastening point and the winch at some height
above the top of the helicopter so that as we put tension on the cables the helicopter will lift off of the
ground. The tension on the cables connected to the blade tips will simulate the centrifugal force at
flight RPM. By picking the whole thing up we are simulating the lift that would be created in a hover.
Now, if you were to climb into the helicopter, coning would increase, movement would occur at the
coning hinges but not the teetering hinge (ok, the cg change from you getting in would cause
movement at the teeter hinge, but you see my point, and if we added the weight right where the cg is
then it would not move the teeter hinge). Now lets think about cyclic inputs. Cyclic tilts the rotor
tip path plane. That means that when one blade goes up the other goes down. If we could then tilt
our contraption holding the tension on the cables we would simulate tilting the tip path plane. With
this picture in your mind, which hinges do you think will have the movement? I think it is obvious
that the teeter hinge will move and the coning hinges will not. Imagine how much force it would
take to misalign the hub from the tip path plane with all of the centrifugal force pulling on it. Just as
a rotor blade gains stiffness from centrifugal force, so do the coning hinges gain stiffness. If they
didn’t the blades would simply fold up as the helicopter tried to attain flight. Granted, there
probably is a VERY small amount of movement at the coning hinges. But not I think any more then
there would be on the bell from flexing.


HOWEVER, THE ROBINSON ROTORHEAD DOES NOT HAVE LAG HINGES SO THE
LEADING AND LAGGING TAKES PLACE VIA SPANWISE BENDING OF THE BLADES.


This is true, but also true for the bell and all teetering rotor systems. Underslinging reduces the coriolis effect but does not
eliminate it. And coriolis force is what causes lead lag forces.


THIS BENDING IS REACTED BY THE CONE HINGES AND THE TEETER HINGE WHICH
CAUSES THEM TO WEAR EGG SHAPE. ANOTHER REASON FOR THE CONE HINGE IS
TO RELEIVE BLADE BENDING AND MINIMIZE THE TRANSMISSION OF FLAPPING
LOADS INTO THE AIRFRAME.


True, the coning hinge is there to reduce blade bending from coning. But where did you come up
with them minimizing flapping loads into the airframe? As for the coning hinges wearing, can you
name a helicopter that does not have wearing parts?


SO, IF THIS IS TRUE THEN FRANK ROBINSON ADMITS TO THE BLADES FLAPPING
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WHEN BLADES FLAP THEY LEAD AND LAG.


Of course the blades flap, but they flap on the teetering hinge. And yes they will lead and lag just
like they do on a bell or any other two-bladed teetering rotor system.


THE CONE ANGLE DOES NOT REMAIN CONSTANT. IT CHANGES DUE TO CYCLIC
INPUT AND BLADE LOADING AND WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE BLADES WILL TRY
TO LEAD AND LAG.

Coning does not change from just a cyclic input, it’s only when the cyclic input causes rotor
thrust (loading) to change. And also, with CONING, both blades lead at the same time or lag at the
same time which translates into RPM changes not bending stress. And in fact the RPM doesn’t
change much because the governer compensates.

Final Note:

My purpose here is not to prove you wrong. I was trying to get you to stop making a fool of
yourself. You were presenting theories that were so blatantly flawed and with little evidence to back
them up and then so strongly defending them. Multiple people on this forum tried to straighten you
out. But you just kept getting yourself in deeper. Then you present your credentials as evidence
that what you say must be true. Now that really makes you look like the buffoon that someone
called you earlier. But the fact is I’ve let myself get drawn into this silliness, and I see now that it is
pretty pointless. So I’m not going to keep going on with you. Besides, I don’t know enough to really do justice to how complex helicopter dynamics are in reality.
I’m just a high school drop out without a college education trying to make a living flying these silly
contraptions (I say that with the utmost affection). So, what do I really know anyway. I know how
much credentials mean to you, so I doubt I could carry much weight in your mind in convincing you
of your errors. Dealing with your irrationality is too frustrating as you can tell by the tone of my
responses. Everyone else has figured this out already, that is why no one is posting on this thread
anymore, I’m just a late comer, but I finally get it.

Bye Lu.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helisphere

Are you trying to resurrect the dead horse you were beating on a previous post when you tried to prove me wrong using mathematical formulae? Look at the response from Frank Robinson and you will find his reference regarding the consideration of a 90-degree pitch horn. That is where I came up with my statement. I was referencing his claim to have given consideration of the 90-degree pitch horn. Regarding my use of the term rigging it is true that it references the adjustment of the control system. However your use of the term as applied to the control system, as rigging is totally wrong.

You are trying to prove that by redesigning the control system you can compensate for a 90-degree pitch horn. This is a ludicrous assumption. Get it through your head that because of the massive pitch coupling related to a 90-degree pitch horn on a Robinson rotorhead the FAA would tell Frank Robinson to piss off and go back to the drawing board. The fact that you fly some pretty complex helicopters does not give you the background to discuss the certification of those helicopters. It is the requirements of (AC 27-1) that set the standards for certification and those standards would not allow the use of a 90-degree pitch horn on the Robinson rotorhead. How many times do I have to repeat this fact? It relates to controllability and that the use of a 90-degree pitch horn on a Robinson helicopter would render it uncontrollable.

The fact that AC-27-1 sets the standards for certification does not guarantee that the pilots that fly those helicopters get a properly designed and thoroughly tested helicopter. Read the NTSB report on the Robinson R22 and R44 and also read the posts on Just Helicopters about the Bell 407.

I have one question. Are you related to RW-1?


------------------
The Cat

[yogibear]

Jeez guys give it a rest already !!!.This thread is going the same way as many of the other ones involving the R22.......'You said' and ' No I did not'.

It's becomming a bit overbearing now.....Why cant you just respect each others point of view instead of slagging each other off at the drop of a hat.

Jeez.....

------------------
..AD ASTRA PER NOSTRUM..
(Dont pick your nose on finals)

[helidrvr]

And on that note I am going to exercise one of my prerogatives and close this topic.

On to bigger and better things.

My heartfelt thanks and warmest regards to all of you for contributing to this discussion.

Cheers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

------------------
feel free to visitHelidrvr here (http://www.helidrvr.homestead.com)