Hovering Downwind
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, no bet, but you have repeatedly qualified the power requirement with 5-10 knots. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm wondering what the difference is between light winds and higher winds. I've seen, at least hundreds of times, the difference in power required for takeoff by having a crosswind or being able to turn into the wind, and with a 20-knot wind or higher, the difference is very noticeable, sometimes the difference between being able to take off and not. I certainly don't claim it's the main rotor that makes a difference, but something certainly does.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer,
The tail rotor needs no more power to produce its thrust, regardless of the wind direction. In fact, at some cross winds, especially from the left, it needs less power and hover performance might be better than with wind off the nose.
Generally, the "extra" power needed at some azimuths in high wind is to overcome the drag of the fuselage, but the drag of the fuselage in side flight is inconsequential at relatively low speeds (say 10 to 15 knots or less, as I have previously posted). At much higher speeds, the fuselage drag begins to show itself, and power will rise in some azimuths. At 50 knots right side flight, the tail rotor power might double, for example, and at 70 knots of right side flight, the tail rotor might need almost what the main rotor does. At 50 knots left side flight, the tail rotor power is LOWER than in a hover!
Rearward is probably the lowest power point, roughly equivilent to forward, since the drag of the fuselage going backwards at speeds up to perhaps 30 or 40 knots is probably equal to the drag of that same fuselage going forward (the drag is mostly flat plate area, and a backwards helo has about the same cross section as forwards.)
The whole idea of my comments is to help folks recognize what is really happening to their machine, and to use their observations and experience in a positive way to understand the aerodynamics of the helo. I see you are an S-76 driver. Try to trim the 76 at each cardinal heading at the same hover height with a steady wind of 10 or 15 knots, and note the torque. If you want, just translate on a still day and point in different directions. As I have said, the helo never uses as much power in moderate winds from any direction as it does in still air at zero velocity, except for the slight power rise just as the ground vortex rolls into the main rotor - sometimes erroneously called ETL by some instructors.
The tail rotor needs no more power to produce its thrust, regardless of the wind direction. In fact, at some cross winds, especially from the left, it needs less power and hover performance might be better than with wind off the nose.
Generally, the "extra" power needed at some azimuths in high wind is to overcome the drag of the fuselage, but the drag of the fuselage in side flight is inconsequential at relatively low speeds (say 10 to 15 knots or less, as I have previously posted). At much higher speeds, the fuselage drag begins to show itself, and power will rise in some azimuths. At 50 knots right side flight, the tail rotor power might double, for example, and at 70 knots of right side flight, the tail rotor might need almost what the main rotor does. At 50 knots left side flight, the tail rotor power is LOWER than in a hover!
Rearward is probably the lowest power point, roughly equivilent to forward, since the drag of the fuselage going backwards at speeds up to perhaps 30 or 40 knots is probably equal to the drag of that same fuselage going forward (the drag is mostly flat plate area, and a backwards helo has about the same cross section as forwards.)
The whole idea of my comments is to help folks recognize what is really happening to their machine, and to use their observations and experience in a positive way to understand the aerodynamics of the helo. I see you are an S-76 driver. Try to trim the 76 at each cardinal heading at the same hover height with a steady wind of 10 or 15 knots, and note the torque. If you want, just translate on a still day and point in different directions. As I have said, the helo never uses as much power in moderate winds from any direction as it does in still air at zero velocity, except for the slight power rise just as the ground vortex rolls into the main rotor - sometimes erroneously called ETL by some instructors.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: W'n. USA--full time RV
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apples vs oranges: wind speeds < 9k vs >9k
How interesting, none of us have broached the subject of increased HIGE power required between 2 knots airflow-past-helicopter and about 9 knots airflow-past-helicopter!
Refer, if you will, to page 243 of Shawn's Cyclic and Collective, wherein the generic helicopter experiences an increase-in-hover-power-required as the ship moves slightly off the 'ground cushion' and the airflow gets . . . well, a little more complicated. (p. 58 also describes the effect BUT the illustration there falls short of accuracy, so use p 243).
Power required for a real-slow relative wind (head-, cross- or down-wind) is always greater than that for 0 speed simply because the ground cushion is less effective. Up until ETL (or even minor TL at speeds before it becomes "Effective") replaces the beneficial effect of a 0-speed cushion.
I suggest that indiscriminately mixing discussions of power required in "wind" without specifying HOW MUCH wind only serves to muddy the waters. We need to carefully distinguish between weak and strong winds, as they have different power-required effects depending on where we are on the curves of Shawn's p 243.
Weak winds, <9 knots, may be expected to increase hover power required (by about 8-9% if I can read the graph directly). Stronger winds (any direction) bring in ETL. For the power required in those stronger winds, I defer to the previous umpteen posts and posters on this thread!
Refer, if you will, to page 243 of Shawn's Cyclic and Collective, wherein the generic helicopter experiences an increase-in-hover-power-required as the ship moves slightly off the 'ground cushion' and the airflow gets . . . well, a little more complicated. (p. 58 also describes the effect BUT the illustration there falls short of accuracy, so use p 243).
Power required for a real-slow relative wind (head-, cross- or down-wind) is always greater than that for 0 speed simply because the ground cushion is less effective. Up until ETL (or even minor TL at speeds before it becomes "Effective") replaces the beneficial effect of a 0-speed cushion.
I suggest that indiscriminately mixing discussions of power required in "wind" without specifying HOW MUCH wind only serves to muddy the waters. We need to carefully distinguish between weak and strong winds, as they have different power-required effects depending on where we are on the curves of Shawn's p 243.
Weak winds, <9 knots, may be expected to increase hover power required (by about 8-9% if I can read the graph directly). Stronger winds (any direction) bring in ETL. For the power required in those stronger winds, I defer to the previous umpteen posts and posters on this thread!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as I said above, my experience is different. With a 20kt+ wind from the left, a nd a moderate load, sea level, OAT about 70F or so, many times, I've struggled to get to a high hover, with the torque at or above 90%, and then when high enough to clear the TR obstacles, turned 90 degrees left (which was very easy to do!) and as soon as the nose was within 30 degrees or so of the wind, went to an immediate 1000'/min climb, without any increase in power, from what had been a hover with little or no climb. This effect is more noticeable in a 412, but it's also present in the 76 to some extent. The 412 obviously has more fuselage drag when presented sideways to the wind, and that may account for all of what I've seen, but I'm not sure. I don't claim to know exactly why this happens, but it certainly does. I'm seldom in a level, obstacle-free environment when this happens, because flying from a large airport is a rarity. It's usually on a tanker or a drilling rig with the heliport in a bad location.
Jellycopter - yes I did instruct at Strawberry on 2 Sqn and CFS, 91-94 if that helps.
You will remember that the Gazelle hovered less nose-up when downwind than into wind, not because the stabilizer was producing upwards lift, but because the downwash from the MR was no longer pushing down on it - I suspect the stabiliser on the 206 has exactly the same problem and that neither aerofoil is capable of producing lift at 5 -15 kts in any direction.
As for the Sea King strake, the anti-clockwise (when viewed from above) swirl of the MR downwash hits the tail boom from the starboard side in a right crosswind and the air travels further, and therefore faster, around the port side creating lift in that direction. Since this right yaw (tail left, nose right) must be corrected with left (power) pedal then it is probably fair to say that the strake reduces power required in the hover only in right crosswinds. (I am not being condescending, just trying to explain for those less knowledgable than yourself)
As to Fenestron stall - it doesn't exist - all the pilots who have 'experienced' it have been used to SAS equipped aircraft and never developed the necessary feel for pedal requirement in the Gaz - try flying an Army one for a while and you realise that full application of right pedal is required sometimes - it feels unnatural but it stops the yaw just like the Aerospatiale TP showed in the video.
Gomer I think you are forgetting the premise of this thread, namely the respective power requirements when hovering intowind and downwind. The crosswind argument is muddying the waters as is the altering of the windspeeds when arguing a point. One moment we are talking about 5 kts then suddenly 20 or 30. Turning into or downwind is a different argument as you need more power to combat the weathercocking tendency of the fuselage.
Droopy - the ground vortex rollup is the reason for the burble you get just before the onset of ETL and also the reason that your maximum power demand when carrying out a level IGE transition is just before you get ETL.
You will remember that the Gazelle hovered less nose-up when downwind than into wind, not because the stabilizer was producing upwards lift, but because the downwash from the MR was no longer pushing down on it - I suspect the stabiliser on the 206 has exactly the same problem and that neither aerofoil is capable of producing lift at 5 -15 kts in any direction.
As for the Sea King strake, the anti-clockwise (when viewed from above) swirl of the MR downwash hits the tail boom from the starboard side in a right crosswind and the air travels further, and therefore faster, around the port side creating lift in that direction. Since this right yaw (tail left, nose right) must be corrected with left (power) pedal then it is probably fair to say that the strake reduces power required in the hover only in right crosswinds. (I am not being condescending, just trying to explain for those less knowledgable than yourself)
As to Fenestron stall - it doesn't exist - all the pilots who have 'experienced' it have been used to SAS equipped aircraft and never developed the necessary feel for pedal requirement in the Gaz - try flying an Army one for a while and you realise that full application of right pedal is required sometimes - it feels unnatural but it stops the yaw just like the Aerospatiale TP showed in the video.
Gomer I think you are forgetting the premise of this thread, namely the respective power requirements when hovering intowind and downwind. The crosswind argument is muddying the waters as is the altering of the windspeeds when arguing a point. One moment we are talking about 5 kts then suddenly 20 or 30. Turning into or downwind is a different argument as you need more power to combat the weathercocking tendency of the fuselage.
Droopy - the ground vortex rollup is the reason for the burble you get just before the onset of ETL and also the reason that your maximum power demand when carrying out a level IGE transition is just before you get ETL.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
Thanks for your reply, I am happy now. Like the ground vortex rollup explaination - makes more sense that the "falling off the ground cushion" that is what I was taught in my initial flying lessons.
Thanks for your reply, I am happy now. Like the ground vortex rollup explaination - makes more sense that the "falling off the ground cushion" that is what I was taught in my initial flying lessons.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopystop,
I agree. That is one of the reasons why I rather enjoy the controversy when it comes time to puncture a myth or two. Somehow knowing the real story makes us better at our game.
I agree. That is one of the reasons why I rather enjoy the controversy when it comes time to puncture a myth or two. Somehow knowing the real story makes us better at our game.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
I am glad that you find my education amusing. We are very luck to have the likes of Nick Lappos volunteering his knowledge to us all and I really appreciate him taking time to put us right. In a previous life I was a professional engineer and challenging the ideas of others and having your own challenged was part and parcel of getting the best solutions. As long as the likes of Nick are happy to educate us, I will continue to ask questions and present my own theories for scrutiny, however stupid they may seem. Hopefully it will make me a better aviator.
I am glad that you find my education amusing. We are very luck to have the likes of Nick Lappos volunteering his knowledge to us all and I really appreciate him taking time to put us right. In a previous life I was a professional engineer and challenging the ideas of others and having your own challenged was part and parcel of getting the best solutions. As long as the likes of Nick are happy to educate us, I will continue to ask questions and present my own theories for scrutiny, however stupid they may seem. Hopefully it will make me a better aviator.
Heights good: I dont think we'll hold our breath until you get back to work to give us a scientific appraisal of whats going on in the MR head! You're already talking bo**ocks.
Doesn't ANYONE understand that the main rotor:
DOESN'T KNOW NOR CARE WHERE THE BLOODY WIND IS COMING FROM .....
therefore it CANNOT alter its power requirements to suit
Please differentiate between the two:
aerodynamics of a rotating disc,
and,
drag effects of various bits of a helo.
Mix in with this cacophany of movement, your average pilots' mishandling traits and most helo drivers will misinterpret where the extra power demands are coming from
Gomer:
when your helo climbs away from your tanker (90 degrees out of wind) and then rotates 90 left INTO wind, the main rotor DOESN'T CARE, it's NOT INTERESTED, it will NOT cause you to increase/decrease power. What causes the change in power demand is:
change in profile drag.[From beam on in climb, to head on after the turn into wind].
change of tail rotor thrust from beam on (in the climb), to nil effect (into wind).
downwash effect (side on) to its effect (into wind).
Change in torque demand due to initial application in climb, to steady state climb.
Your imperceptable inputs into the controls.
and so on...............
In summary:
There IS an increase in power demand when pointing downwind in a helo, but it isn't because of the main rotor.
Doesn't ANYONE understand that the main rotor:
DOESN'T KNOW NOR CARE WHERE THE BLOODY WIND IS COMING FROM .....
therefore it CANNOT alter its power requirements to suit
Please differentiate between the two:
aerodynamics of a rotating disc,
and,
drag effects of various bits of a helo.
Mix in with this cacophany of movement, your average pilots' mishandling traits and most helo drivers will misinterpret where the extra power demands are coming from
Gomer:
when your helo climbs away from your tanker (90 degrees out of wind) and then rotates 90 left INTO wind, the main rotor DOESN'T CARE, it's NOT INTERESTED, it will NOT cause you to increase/decrease power. What causes the change in power demand is:
change in profile drag.[From beam on in climb, to head on after the turn into wind].
change of tail rotor thrust from beam on (in the climb), to nil effect (into wind).
downwash effect (side on) to its effect (into wind).
Change in torque demand due to initial application in climb, to steady state climb.
Your imperceptable inputs into the controls.
and so on...............
In summary:
There IS an increase in power demand when pointing downwind in a helo, but it isn't because of the main rotor.
boomerangben - of course you were a professional engineer - who would claim to be an unprofessional engineer, or pilot for that matter, especially on this forum.
You are right that having the likes of Nick on this forum is of great benefit to all, it just amuses me when people flatly tell him he is wrong about things when they clearly don't have a scooby about the point they are arguing about.
You are right that having the likes of Nick on this forum is of great benefit to all, it just amuses me when people flatly tell him he is wrong about things when they clearly don't have a scooby about the point they are arguing about.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas, I understand that, and never claimed that the main rotor is the reason for the increase in power demand - just that there is an increased demand. Perhaps I misunderstood Nick, but my understanding is that he was claiming that there is no requirement for more power to hover in any wind condition. I cannot agree with that, regardless of the reason for the increase.
hovering d/w
Nick, and all unbelievers,
I`ve just dug out a load of graphs of t/r tq, t/r pedal posn. and main rotor tq for steady state measurements on a Wessex1 at RAE in `72-73, IGE and OGE,and up to 10000ft, and in steady sideslips around each 30 deg up to 30 kts.
They do agree on all points, and show that with right sideslips, from 30 deg R to 150 deg R, there are the largest variations in pedal requirements and torque .They also show that for those conditions that, although t/r tq may have doubled from a steady hover condition, that there has been a greater (usually) main rotor tq. reduction.
The graphs also show that t/r tq increases with increase in altitude up to about 7000ft, with a similar reduction in m/r tq and then a reduction in t/r tq up to 10000-ft, with m/r tq increasing. These are for hover conditions OGE.
How do you establish a true hover OGE ? Well actually it`s done by SOTP, a cricket ball and clouds................ and leave the rest to your fertile imaginations !!
I`ve just dug out a load of graphs of t/r tq, t/r pedal posn. and main rotor tq for steady state measurements on a Wessex1 at RAE in `72-73, IGE and OGE,and up to 10000ft, and in steady sideslips around each 30 deg up to 30 kts.
They do agree on all points, and show that with right sideslips, from 30 deg R to 150 deg R, there are the largest variations in pedal requirements and torque .They also show that for those conditions that, although t/r tq may have doubled from a steady hover condition, that there has been a greater (usually) main rotor tq. reduction.
The graphs also show that t/r tq increases with increase in altitude up to about 7000ft, with a similar reduction in m/r tq and then a reduction in t/r tq up to 10000-ft, with m/r tq increasing. These are for hover conditions OGE.
How do you establish a true hover OGE ? Well actually it`s done by SOTP, a cricket ball and clouds................ and leave the rest to your fertile imaginations !!
Nick
My prime memory of an example of this was while teaching downwind transitions. I had demonstrated the procedure without any problem, however, when the student tried to hold a downwind hover, we were struggling for power. He was over-controlling like a goodun and I was sure this was the source of the power problem. I took control and, while it is too long ago for me to remember the actual figures, the power requirement dropped considerably.
I can't come up with any explanation for this other than power is being wasted by over-controlling, initially on the pedals followed closely by cyclic and collective.
Cheers
TeeS
My prime memory of an example of this was while teaching downwind transitions. I had demonstrated the procedure without any problem, however, when the student tried to hold a downwind hover, we were struggling for power. He was over-controlling like a goodun and I was sure this was the source of the power problem. I took control and, while it is too long ago for me to remember the actual figures, the power requirement dropped considerably.
I can't come up with any explanation for this other than power is being wasted by over-controlling, initially on the pedals followed closely by cyclic and collective.
Cheers
TeeS
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tees,
That sounds quite right to me. I think a bit of cyclic and pedal stirring can create about 5% power loss. In defense of the "other side" in this debate, the practical performance of the helo is what counts, so if the pilot uses more power due to handling issues, that detracts from the performance in a real way.
Next time I am aloft, I will carefully take some wind effect data and post it.
That sounds quite right to me. I think a bit of cyclic and pedal stirring can create about 5% power loss. In defense of the "other side" in this debate, the practical performance of the helo is what counts, so if the pilot uses more power due to handling issues, that detracts from the performance in a real way.
Next time I am aloft, I will carefully take some wind effect data and post it.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Back from a long winter's nap...
One of the problems with the discussion here has been stated before - we're not talking about crosswinds, but headwind vs. tailwind. And exactly how much wind are people talking about?
If the wind is less than 5 to 8 knots, I'd be very surprised to see a difference in power required. Above 8 knots, you could be close to the ground vortex starting to interfere with the tail rotor (giving small handling in yaw issues) and the horizontal and vertical stabilzers.
The slight increase in power required to hover downwind may be due to overcontrolling, particularly on the pedals, but also to the change in fuselage attitude caused by horizontal stablizers getting wind over them the wrong way and generally screwing things up, as well as causing some increase in drag.
And I never thought I'd be able to catch Nick Lappos out - and it is a minor point - civil helicopters don't require 10% control margin, just 'adequate margin' for control.
One of the problems with the discussion here has been stated before - we're not talking about crosswinds, but headwind vs. tailwind. And exactly how much wind are people talking about?
If the wind is less than 5 to 8 knots, I'd be very surprised to see a difference in power required. Above 8 knots, you could be close to the ground vortex starting to interfere with the tail rotor (giving small handling in yaw issues) and the horizontal and vertical stabilzers.
The slight increase in power required to hover downwind may be due to overcontrolling, particularly on the pedals, but also to the change in fuselage attitude caused by horizontal stablizers getting wind over them the wrong way and generally screwing things up, as well as causing some increase in drag.
And I never thought I'd be able to catch Nick Lappos out - and it is a minor point - civil helicopters don't require 10% control margin, just 'adequate margin' for control.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Control movement is certainly an issue. If you're trying to take off from an offshore platform at max weight, no wind, and 90+ degrees, you have to be very smooth. Any movement of the controls results in loss of lift, and can be seen and felt immediately, and I've seen pilots who were rough on the controls have to drop a passenger or two in order to get off. But after 35 years of flying, and something over 25,000 takeoffs, close to half of them from offshore platforms at max gross, I've learned to tell when the controls are being moved too much, and I see the effects of wind, from all angles, even if the pilot is being as smooth as possible. Anecdotal evidence points to high fuselage drag and high TR demand, but I have no actual empirical evidence to prove it. And it's not just crosswind, it's tailwind also which has an effect, albeit somewhat lower. Light winds have little effect, but higher winds have increasing effects. Given a 30+kt wind, I can hover a 206 with my feet on the floor, and it will never turn from the wind at all, even with the torque in the yellow. I've done it. The weathervaning tendency is very high, and doesn't like turning from the wind. Most models react similarly, although not all to the same extent. The main rotor may not know where the wind is, but the fuselage certainly does.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was out flying today in an R22 and decided to check the power required to hover upwind and downwind in a 15 kt wind so that I could post it on this thread tonight.
The hover height in each direction was 3 ft. skid height. The AUW was 1230 lbs.
The power required to hover downwind was the same as that required to hover upwind: 20.5 inches MP.
The hover height in each direction was 3 ft. skid height. The AUW was 1230 lbs.
The power required to hover downwind was the same as that required to hover upwind: 20.5 inches MP.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHK4,
Thanks for that!
As Igor Sikorsky told junior engineers at the company years ago,
"Young gentlemen, there will come a time in your career when you discover that the facts and the theory do not agree. At all times, I urge you to respect the facts!"
Thanks for that!
As Igor Sikorsky told junior engineers at the company years ago,
"Young gentlemen, there will come a time in your career when you discover that the facts and the theory do not agree. At all times, I urge you to respect the facts!"
On my initial instructor course i was taught to teach the increase in parasite drag means increase in power required in a downwind hover.
On a day with a constant wind I could never get it too work, on a gusty day it would.
I dropped it from the things I demonstrate until i could find some conclusive answers relaled to it.
This thread has awoken my interest so today I went out and tried albeit in a H300 not an R22.
Hovering into a 15Kt headwind 24"MAP.
Hovering downwind 15Kts again 24"MAP.
Windspeed not measured scientifically just a report from the Tower.
Skid height 3ft
with a constant heading in each direction.
I think you may be right (again) Nick.
I have however seen the increase in MAP in the R22 when downwind, and will try the same experiment next time i get in one (which may not be for some time)
.
I am not an engineer but is it possible that
a) the airflow from roughly downwind is restricting the exhaust outflow from the engine, reducing the throughput of air and increasing the MAP.
b) the R22 governor is partly to blame, on those occasions when this has been seen.
c) someone could try this, governor on and off, and let us know.
This would obviously have to be done as part of emergency procedure training as the RFM forbids governor off flight unless for this purpose.
Any thoughts ?
V.
On a day with a constant wind I could never get it too work, on a gusty day it would.
I dropped it from the things I demonstrate until i could find some conclusive answers relaled to it.
This thread has awoken my interest so today I went out and tried albeit in a H300 not an R22.
Hovering into a 15Kt headwind 24"MAP.
Hovering downwind 15Kts again 24"MAP.
Windspeed not measured scientifically just a report from the Tower.
Skid height 3ft
with a constant heading in each direction.
I think you may be right (again) Nick.
I have however seen the increase in MAP in the R22 when downwind, and will try the same experiment next time i get in one (which may not be for some time)
.
I am not an engineer but is it possible that
a) the airflow from roughly downwind is restricting the exhaust outflow from the engine, reducing the throughput of air and increasing the MAP.
b) the R22 governor is partly to blame, on those occasions when this has been seen.
c) someone could try this, governor on and off, and let us know.
This would obviously have to be done as part of emergency procedure training as the RFM forbids governor off flight unless for this purpose.
Any thoughts ?
V.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
veeAny,
thanks for the fresh info, and the understanding you help provide!
This is another example of the need to scrub our system of the old wives tales that pervade our "knowledge" of how helos operate. I do not want to be a gadfly, simply bursting bubbles, because that is both pointless and ego-centric. I do want all of us to have enough basic understanding that we do the right thing, for the right reasons, and also that we know how to get our aircraft to do what we want when we want it.
I think I would like to start a new thread - ten untrue urban myths about helicopters that "everybody knows" but that are siply untrue! Should spin a few electrons around the web!
thanks for the fresh info, and the understanding you help provide!
This is another example of the need to scrub our system of the old wives tales that pervade our "knowledge" of how helos operate. I do not want to be a gadfly, simply bursting bubbles, because that is both pointless and ego-centric. I do want all of us to have enough basic understanding that we do the right thing, for the right reasons, and also that we know how to get our aircraft to do what we want when we want it.
I think I would like to start a new thread - ten untrue urban myths about helicopters that "everybody knows" but that are siply untrue! Should spin a few electrons around the web!
