Wingovers at DHFS
pba:
May I suggest you re-read carefully the first paragraph of my Post?
I was there: not 'on the fringes'. What I wrote is a true summary. The MoD 'view' at the time was that the FAA definition of aerobatics would not unduly restrict the Griffin syllabus.
May I suggest you re-read carefully the first paragraph of my Post?
I was there: not 'on the fringes'. What I wrote is a true summary. The MoD 'view' at the time was that the FAA definition of aerobatics would not unduly restrict the Griffin syllabus.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAHHH
The happy days of the Whirlwind 7 when you had a manual throttle to wind it around the top of the turn....................Torque turns............Oh yes!
The subsequent recovery of RRPM, attitude et al if you got it slightly wrong was perhaps even more interesting.
We learned about flying from...............etc etc. Laughs? Oh yes
The happy days of the Whirlwind 7 when you had a manual throttle to wind it around the top of the turn....................Torque turns............Oh yes!
The subsequent recovery of RRPM, attitude et al if you got it slightly wrong was perhaps even more interesting.
We learned about flying from...............etc etc. Laughs? Oh yes
Last edited by bast0n; 30th Aug 2009 at 14:40. Reason: Full Stop!
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
This story is strangely reminiscent of the AAC Gazelle display back in IIRC about 1991. Despite clear instructions in the POH that all pitch and roll manuoevres were limited to 90 degrees, for a least one season the AAC Gazelle was flying an immaculate display including a full loop. When the dots finally got joined back at Puzzle Palace central in Middle Wallop, three Gazelle airframes had to be rebuilt due to alignment errors and a bunch of other stuff. Needless to say, not under the manufacturer's warranty. Again, the display had been signed off and everyone and his dog in MW had seen it, but somehow the "detail" of it being outside the RTS never got picked up.
PS.
...Unless it's the Saudi Desert in GW 1 and the Gazelle Stunt Team let Sooty do the recovery at the bottom of the wingover - or not.
PS.
I never met a sqn pilot who didn't have a go at a wingover.......and they can be mighty interesting done at low level in a helo! Hoping that drivers will shy away from overly dynamic manoeuvres if they are not taught them is real cloud cuckoo land stuff - esp when it is the sort of flying that may well keep them alive in the desert - train the way you expect to fight?
Idle - apologies, missed your para. Mine related to the kefuffle in more recent years, not the original award, and the views held in the office at the time. This is obviously one issue with everyone changing post every 3 years, unless everything is very clearly documented, and those documents easy to find, such discussions are often lost in the ether! And apparently the same happened at the Bell end, if they approved our syllabus!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crabb.
One reason I was very involved with the 412 was because I was on record, and on film, of exploring the JSP 318 definition. It went something like " Sir, here is a new promotional video of SARTU we think its rather good". I have to say it was not my first episode with Senior Officers going various colours of the rainbow but this one was mildly funny! The cover picture was actually not me - JH - but it was a 412 at 89 deg nose down - just when the new restrictions had come into force. I then had to prove its was technically legal - it was - although the OEM wouldnt like it!
As to the Sea King, you know full well I am blacker than coal in a coal skuttle rather than whiter than white as I loved doing wing overs in anything I flew! Still do too! Which brings me on to my point where we I think agree. They should be taught not because they are needed but because they bring confidence and can teach sympathy for the airframe - a well flown wing over should feel like it hasnt put that much strain on the aircraft. Of course without measuring it .....
I do believe Boscombe did measure this at one point I was told by, I think TALL SAR, that they found the most stress was actually lifting to the hover - makes sense. Closely followed by an auto to a full flare recovery. The wing over didnt even come close.
30 degrees AOB in a Sea King! Was that really the limit! Tut tut must have missed that page.
One reason I was very involved with the 412 was because I was on record, and on film, of exploring the JSP 318 definition. It went something like " Sir, here is a new promotional video of SARTU we think its rather good". I have to say it was not my first episode with Senior Officers going various colours of the rainbow but this one was mildly funny! The cover picture was actually not me - JH - but it was a 412 at 89 deg nose down - just when the new restrictions had come into force. I then had to prove its was technically legal - it was - although the OEM wouldnt like it!
As to the Sea King, you know full well I am blacker than coal in a coal skuttle rather than whiter than white as I loved doing wing overs in anything I flew! Still do too! Which brings me on to my point where we I think agree. They should be taught not because they are needed but because they bring confidence and can teach sympathy for the airframe - a well flown wing over should feel like it hasnt put that much strain on the aircraft. Of course without measuring it .....
I do believe Boscombe did measure this at one point I was told by, I think TALL SAR, that they found the most stress was actually lifting to the hover - makes sense. Closely followed by an auto to a full flare recovery. The wing over didnt even come close.
30 degrees AOB in a Sea King! Was that really the limit! Tut tut must have missed that page.
