Certification of Robinson Helicopters (incl post by Frank Robinson)
Guest
Posts: n/a
EXACTLY!:
HeliFlight and 4Rvibes are saying exactly what the rest of us have been thinking for some time!
As much as I hate the little R-22 beasties too, JoePilot has obviously proven his points.
AS 4Rvibes said : 'a twin turbine IFR Captain who learned on the Robbie, said that he, "was demonstrated and taught low G, out of trim and sideslip manouevers" as part of his basic training.
If this doesn't count as disreputable behaviour (ie. conradicting the flight manual) I don't know what does.
Proving again that sometimes we do it to ourselves!
This thread is a good reminder that as much as we try to blame others, sometimes we have to 'do what the book says!'
HeliFlight and 4Rvibes are saying exactly what the rest of us have been thinking for some time!
As much as I hate the little R-22 beasties too, JoePilot has obviously proven his points.
AS 4Rvibes said : 'a twin turbine IFR Captain who learned on the Robbie, said that he, "was demonstrated and taught low G, out of trim and sideslip manouevers" as part of his basic training.
If this doesn't count as disreputable behaviour (ie. conradicting the flight manual) I don't know what does.
Proving again that sometimes we do it to ourselves!
This thread is a good reminder that as much as we try to blame others, sometimes we have to 'do what the book says!'
Guest
Posts: n/a
THE POINT IS NOT WHAT THE BOOK SAYS BUT, WHY IT SAYS IT. THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE POH WERE PUT IN TO COVER THE DESIGN DEFECT IN THE ROTORHEAD. IF THE ROBINSION HELICOPTERS WERE PUT UP FOR CERTIFICATION TODAY AND HAD TO BE OPERATED AS STATED IN THE POH THE HELICOPTERS COULD NOT MEET THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. SURE, JOE PILOT OFFERED SOME STRONG COUNTER ARGUMENTS BUT THEY WERE BASED ON HIS PERSONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE R22 AND THE FACT THAT HE ADMITTEDLY HAS FLOWN IT OUTSIDE OF THE RECOMMENDED LIMITATIONS. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT HE IS STILL ALIVE DOES NOT ADD CREDENCE TO HIS ARGUMENTS.
------------------
The Cat
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, now that this one seems to be drawing to a close, I am left with the impression that both sides have made valid and not necessarily contradicting arguments.
Joe Pilot has proven to his own satisfaction that the Robbie can be flown way outside the POH prescribed limitations. So be it. Most of us have accomplished similarly foolhardy feats in B47's, 206', 105's etc., usually by getting away with overgrossing, before we became old and wise enough to discontinue such practices. For whatever it's worth however, the Robbie can obviously be flown with a degree of impunity (by some). Lu Zuckerman's argument does not negate this and I doubt that he intends to.
On the other hand, one big question arises out of Lu's lengthy report (which I have read). If the FAA saw fit to place a set of unique restrictions on the Robbies and if indeed these restrictions contradict the basic criteria for certification of rotorcraft, then he raises a very troubling point indeed. Why this time and especially if Mr. Robinson was the signing authority of his own certification? Joe Pilot's arguments do not address this troubling question and I suspect he doesn't really want to.
Finally, a "mea culpa" from your moderator. As many of you probably know, Lu originally posted his missile on Justhelicopters where he was unfortunately hounded mercilessly by a pack of school yard bullies who had no meaningful arguments to offer. I wrote to Lu and promised him that if he presented his case here, he would get a civilized and knowledgeable response even from his opponents.
Thank you all very much for proving me right.
Thank you Lu for giving it another try here. I hope we didn't disappoint you.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 29 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 29 September 2000).]
Joe Pilot has proven to his own satisfaction that the Robbie can be flown way outside the POH prescribed limitations. So be it. Most of us have accomplished similarly foolhardy feats in B47's, 206', 105's etc., usually by getting away with overgrossing, before we became old and wise enough to discontinue such practices. For whatever it's worth however, the Robbie can obviously be flown with a degree of impunity (by some). Lu Zuckerman's argument does not negate this and I doubt that he intends to.
On the other hand, one big question arises out of Lu's lengthy report (which I have read). If the FAA saw fit to place a set of unique restrictions on the Robbies and if indeed these restrictions contradict the basic criteria for certification of rotorcraft, then he raises a very troubling point indeed. Why this time and especially if Mr. Robinson was the signing authority of his own certification? Joe Pilot's arguments do not address this troubling question and I suspect he doesn't really want to.
Finally, a "mea culpa" from your moderator. As many of you probably know, Lu originally posted his missile on Justhelicopters where he was unfortunately hounded mercilessly by a pack of school yard bullies who had no meaningful arguments to offer. I wrote to Lu and promised him that if he presented his case here, he would get a civilized and knowledgeable response even from his opponents.
Thank you all very much for proving me right.
Thank you Lu for giving it another try here. I hope we didn't disappoint you.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 29 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 29 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah, what is with those guys on justhelicopters? Poor old Bill keeps closing the forum because of the abuse it draws. He was saying that some operators are being disuaded from posting job adverts as a result.
------------------
Another day in paradise
------------------
Another day in paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've really enjoyed this thread, and have also noted that Lu and Jo are really singing from the same song sheet.
Jo is proof that you can use and abuse the Robbie if your skill is sufficient and your luck holds
Lu has shown that many peoples luck didn't hold because they're skill was insufficient ( and what do you expect from a beginner's machine?).
Both right, but if a helicopter is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG.
You won't get me up in one, and I think a lot of pax would change their minds if they read this thread.
er.... you still there Flying Lawyer? you've been missing from one or two threads recently. Give up the Robbie whilst you have the choice.
Jo is proof that you can use and abuse the Robbie if your skill is sufficient and your luck holds
Lu has shown that many peoples luck didn't hold because they're skill was insufficient ( and what do you expect from a beginner's machine?).
Both right, but if a helicopter is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG.
You won't get me up in one, and I think a lot of pax would change their minds if they read this thread.
er.... you still there Flying Lawyer? you've been missing from one or two threads recently. Give up the Robbie whilst you have the choice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Didn't want to keep the thread alive longer than neccessary but..
Ark: (Thanks BTW)Your point "...is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG."
SURELY if it DOES MEET the certification criteria. But the manufacturer wants to impose stricter criteria than that then SURELY that's OK ("...and stop calling me Shirley!!")
Ark: (Thanks BTW)Your point "...is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG."
SURELY if it DOES MEET the certification criteria. But the manufacturer wants to impose stricter criteria than that then SURELY that's OK ("...and stop calling me Shirley!!")
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Joe Pilot.
Robinson didn't impose the restrictions the FAA imposed them. If Robinson had in effect met the design criteria then the ammendment to the POH would never have been issued. The problem is that the rotor head is the same as it was when the certification process was going on and the question begs being asked, did the rotor head meet the original design specs, or did Frank Robinson say that it did, and signed it off without testing it as a new and unusual design?
------------------
The Cat
Robinson didn't impose the restrictions the FAA imposed them. If Robinson had in effect met the design criteria then the ammendment to the POH would never have been issued. The problem is that the rotor head is the same as it was when the certification process was going on and the question begs being asked, did the rotor head meet the original design specs, or did Frank Robinson say that it did, and signed it off without testing it as a new and unusual design?
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Too stubborn 4 me. I just don't want to add more.
(But:
1. I know the original test pilot, I know what the program, I know what these machines do.
2.If they were going to break in the way you suggest then there would be evidence of it and there is not.
3. If misrigging were a problem ... no evidence.
4.You don't seem to be able to acknowledge anything positive about what is a brilliant design in so many ways (can you name ANY?)(even if you did leave 'that' out) )
You are unreasonable!
And WRONG:
THERE IS NO SUCH LIMITATION ON THE ROBINSON
So it just COULD NOT have been the FAA who put it there because it's NOT THERE!
Please don't reply unless you can correct at least some of your errors - or just agree with anything I have said - if it's embarrasing do it privately -email.
Thanks for the support of even some 'anti's.
I want to stop this (now) pointless debate .... but I'm suffering from lastworditis.
Or let's just agree to disagree ..and be friends .. heh?
In good humor
(But:
1. I know the original test pilot, I know what the program, I know what these machines do.
2.If they were going to break in the way you suggest then there would be evidence of it and there is not.
3. If misrigging were a problem ... no evidence.
4.You don't seem to be able to acknowledge anything positive about what is a brilliant design in so many ways (can you name ANY?)(even if you did leave 'that' out) )
You are unreasonable!
And WRONG:
THERE IS NO SUCH LIMITATION ON THE ROBINSON
So it just COULD NOT have been the FAA who put it there because it's NOT THERE!
Please don't reply unless you can correct at least some of your errors - or just agree with anything I have said - if it's embarrasing do it privately -email.
Thanks for the support of even some 'anti's.
I want to stop this (now) pointless debate .... but I'm suffering from lastworditis.
Or let's just agree to disagree ..and be friends .. heh?
In good humor
Guest
Posts: n/a
About fifteen years ago I had my first flight in an R-22 when I was asked to help set up a flight training school using same.
I did not feel it was a good / suitable type for a training aircraft for a number of reasons and I have since read that Robinson himself stated that it was never envisaged to be used as such.
End of story. I have not flown in one since.
Just my opinion.
------------------------------------
The best insurance is flight safety.
I did not feel it was a good / suitable type for a training aircraft for a number of reasons and I have since read that Robinson himself stated that it was never envisaged to be used as such.
End of story. I have not flown in one since.
Just my opinion.
------------------------------------
The best insurance is flight safety.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SkyCop: Fair enough - but have another look at the hydraulic R44 ... (just maybe.).
ARK said
Jo is proof ... [agree]
Lu has shown ... [agree]
Both right, but if a helicopter is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG.
[Agree - 'if' but ... plse comment in light of the fact that it is NOT then...]
You won't get me up in one, and I think a lot of pax would change their minds if they read this thread. [you're not intransigent too are you]
Yes - Lawyer please...
Tootle-pip
ARK said
Jo is proof ... [agree]
Lu has shown ... [agree]
Both right, but if a helicopter is now restricted in use to a flight regime which is more restrictive than that used to certificate it, that is plain WRONG.
[Agree - 'if' but ... plse comment in light of the fact that it is NOT then...]
You won't get me up in one, and I think a lot of pax would change their minds if they read this thread. [you're not intransigent too are you]
Yes - Lawyer please...
Tootle-pip
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe,
I understand your bicycle wheel example (after reading it twice that is) but where it loses me is - why does a flapping blade reach its highest point before 90 degrees?
I fly R22/R44 (about 100 hours total) and have been in an R44 flown by an ex blue eagles pilot where we did an almost vertical stall turn. If the tail is much higher in a stall turn (similar to a push over) why does the helicopter not roll to the right?
A final question to anyone...I was always led to believe that a helicopter can fly in any direction so surely flying out of trim (I presume everyone means out of balance) is surely just trying to fly the tail boom against an airflow but that the rotor disk doesn't really care which direction the body is facing?
I understand your bicycle wheel example (after reading it twice that is) but where it loses me is - why does a flapping blade reach its highest point before 90 degrees?
I fly R22/R44 (about 100 hours total) and have been in an R44 flown by an ex blue eagles pilot where we did an almost vertical stall turn. If the tail is much higher in a stall turn (similar to a push over) why does the helicopter not roll to the right?
A final question to anyone...I was always led to believe that a helicopter can fly in any direction so surely flying out of trim (I presume everyone means out of balance) is surely just trying to fly the tail boom against an airflow but that the rotor disk doesn't really care which direction the body is facing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh DAMN it!!
Now I have to come in!
1 Thanks for understanding bicycle wheel!! (sorry if unclear)
2 Blade flaps up to try and get to where 'extra' pitch would dictate, but before '90' it has got there - so doesn't want to any more ... ok? (ie the 'extra' pitch is less than will support that 'flapped position' so it's actually on it's way down again)
3 Relatively inexperienced ex mil hotshot could well be very high risk catagory!
(a girl I dated's father, sim. profile (more exp 15,000hrs, no teetering head experience) killed himself exploring for the edge - if you look you WILL find - your choice)
Please do not try and emulate. (even, maybe, if embarrasment not too much then get him to privately email me - I don't mind looking stupid but really it is very easy for what you describe to be catastrophic unless it is VERY specific style)
It is worth reading Sikorsy test pilot's view of MD600 (fully articulated head) tail boom chop-off - (march rec.rotorcraft news group)
Approx: 90deg sideslip gives reduced disc/boom clearance. Sharp nose up like this (poss. with lowering lever) could explain the ensueing multi slicing.
Any sharp abrupt .... just read the safety notices at the back of the manual - please .. ok? promise.
Envelopes are complicated and some very good people don't know every corner of all of them
Please don't kill yourself till Monday - I have to go to bed!
Now I have to come in!
1 Thanks for understanding bicycle wheel!! (sorry if unclear)
2 Blade flaps up to try and get to where 'extra' pitch would dictate, but before '90' it has got there - so doesn't want to any more ... ok? (ie the 'extra' pitch is less than will support that 'flapped position' so it's actually on it's way down again)
3 Relatively inexperienced ex mil hotshot could well be very high risk catagory!
(a girl I dated's father, sim. profile (more exp 15,000hrs, no teetering head experience) killed himself exploring for the edge - if you look you WILL find - your choice)
Please do not try and emulate. (even, maybe, if embarrasment not too much then get him to privately email me - I don't mind looking stupid but really it is very easy for what you describe to be catastrophic unless it is VERY specific style)
It is worth reading Sikorsy test pilot's view of MD600 (fully articulated head) tail boom chop-off - (march rec.rotorcraft news group)
Approx: 90deg sideslip gives reduced disc/boom clearance. Sharp nose up like this (poss. with lowering lever) could explain the ensueing multi slicing.
Any sharp abrupt .... just read the safety notices at the back of the manual - please .. ok? promise.
Envelopes are complicated and some very good people don't know every corner of all of them
Please don't kill yourself till Monday - I have to go to bed!
Guest
Posts: n/a
And Rotor Nut sorry ... hi welcome! Enjoy your flying ... think long term ... no rush ... know your limits.
Yes of course a 22 is good for 60 side and back - very powerful t/r but many (some complex) implications ... some of which are in the standard texts. Others .... well.
(That goes for all helicopters - particularly some older types ..not so well designed ... they've all got their quirks)
Good night!
Yes of course a 22 is good for 60 side and back - very powerful t/r but many (some complex) implications ... some of which are in the standard texts. Others .... well.
(That goes for all helicopters - particularly some older types ..not so well designed ... they've all got their quirks)
Good night!
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Joe Pilot and the others,
Joe alluded to reading the safety notices at the back of the POH. The only safety notice that deals with what we have been addressing is Safety Notice SN-11 which is titled PUSHOVERS CAN BE CATASTROPHIC. Joe also stated if I understand him correctly that there is no restriction against sideslip or flying out of trim (balance) in the POH. That information is in both POHs for the 22 and for the 44. It is the last page in section 4 of the POH. There is another safety notice SN-24 that deals with LOW RPM ROTOR STALL CAN BE FATAL. On page two of this notice it addresses retreating blade stall. I have intentionally steered away from this subject because if you think there has been a lot of argument back and forth on the subject of certification the counter postings on retreating blade stall will most likely set a record for the Pprune forum. I will only say this, the information relative to retreating blade stall in the Robinson POHs is totally wrong. Read it and we can start another string dealing with retreating blade stall.
I’ll say it one more time, flying out of trim (balance) or in a side slip will result in extremely high flapping loads that can lead to eventual failure of the rotor and blades or it can result in mast fracture. Another thing that can result with the high flapping loads is that you can suffer what is termed a blowback. One other related point is that the FAA design guidelines require the demonstration of side slip while flying at approximately .6 VNE by pushing hard first on one pedal to its’ extreme and then do it with the other pedal. The certification regs. also require demonstration of out of trim (balance) flight by +/- 10 degrees. In order to get certification the Robinson design had to demonstrate those maneuvers. That was then. This is now; the FAA has placed a restriction on the 22 and the 44 saying that they must avoid flying out of trim (balance) and flying in any type of sideslip. Again I ask the question, did the helicopter meet those requirements or did Frank Robinson as the FAA DER say that it did and signed off for the test. The reason for the restriction resulted from a detailed engineering analysis by Georgia Tech Aeronautical engineering department. This report and analysis were done at the request of the FAA.
To any and all that wishes to contribute to this thread. I would advise you to read the whole thread, as this will give you a better idea of its'evolution.
------------------
The Cat
Joe alluded to reading the safety notices at the back of the POH. The only safety notice that deals with what we have been addressing is Safety Notice SN-11 which is titled PUSHOVERS CAN BE CATASTROPHIC. Joe also stated if I understand him correctly that there is no restriction against sideslip or flying out of trim (balance) in the POH. That information is in both POHs for the 22 and for the 44. It is the last page in section 4 of the POH. There is another safety notice SN-24 that deals with LOW RPM ROTOR STALL CAN BE FATAL. On page two of this notice it addresses retreating blade stall. I have intentionally steered away from this subject because if you think there has been a lot of argument back and forth on the subject of certification the counter postings on retreating blade stall will most likely set a record for the Pprune forum. I will only say this, the information relative to retreating blade stall in the Robinson POHs is totally wrong. Read it and we can start another string dealing with retreating blade stall.
I’ll say it one more time, flying out of trim (balance) or in a side slip will result in extremely high flapping loads that can lead to eventual failure of the rotor and blades or it can result in mast fracture. Another thing that can result with the high flapping loads is that you can suffer what is termed a blowback. One other related point is that the FAA design guidelines require the demonstration of side slip while flying at approximately .6 VNE by pushing hard first on one pedal to its’ extreme and then do it with the other pedal. The certification regs. also require demonstration of out of trim (balance) flight by +/- 10 degrees. In order to get certification the Robinson design had to demonstrate those maneuvers. That was then. This is now; the FAA has placed a restriction on the 22 and the 44 saying that they must avoid flying out of trim (balance) and flying in any type of sideslip. Again I ask the question, did the helicopter meet those requirements or did Frank Robinson as the FAA DER say that it did and signed off for the test. The reason for the restriction resulted from a detailed engineering analysis by Georgia Tech Aeronautical engineering department. This report and analysis were done at the request of the FAA.
To any and all that wishes to contribute to this thread. I would advise you to read the whole thread, as this will give you a better idea of its'evolution.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wouldn't bother if I were you!! ...
He can't even say anything positive about them ... he's not an engineer then! AND now he's trying to weazel his way out of admitting he is wrong.
THERE IS NO SUCH L I M I T A T I O N !!!
YES:Safety Notice SN-11 is titled PUSHOVERS CAN BE CATASTROPHIC.
YES:SN-24 LOW RPM ROTOR STALL CAN BE FATAL
If it didn't say those things a misguided American (McDonalds coffee cup) style prosectution might be launched, supported by a 'plausable enough' sounding bystander very alarmistly and apparently sincerely talking drivel...
The bit about sideslip in the context of mis handling pilots in turbulence is just after the bit that says avoid flying over ball games because of the noise .... in Section 4 NORMAL PROCEDURES !!!
Even ARK has the decency to say he doesn't know enough about them - he just doesn't like them ... that's fair enough.
This is information to help pilots who don't understand .... not intended for twisting by the ignorant - to terrify the ignorant.
Are you actually qualified in any academic sense in this field?
Could I please have some support from the anti Robbo fraternity here? It'd definately help me respect your views more.
There are lots of HAZARDS when you fly they are called FACTORS. Its what pilots do! They consider factors from a position of understanding - or even a position of understanding the limmit of their understanding!
Lu you didn't even bother to address the points I've made except for a very gentle and unacknowledged curve away from some of your WILD ASSERTIONS... You are wasting my time!
I am trying to make a balanced knowledgable input to help my fellow aviators.
HeliDriver! Yes I too welcomed the chance to discuss this in forum. Yes invite "missile" throwers. BUT in your post please retract: "Joe Pilot has proven to his own satisfaction that the Robbie can be flown way outside the POH prescribed limitations"
perhaps replace with: 'proven (to himself, [if you must])an adequate performance envelope' or some such (which I indeed have incidentally)
AND in PARA 3 Your point is correctly contingent on the words "if, then" - any view change?
AND sure I'd rather not comment on the Frank as D.E.R. issue except to say he IS GOOD at what he does.
As for Lu getting hounded out by schoolyard bullies ... well unless he can say something balanced and constructive what do y...? Wouldn't dream of that sort of behaviour here.... open forum all views welcome (surely a limit though ... HeliMod?)
Last chance for Lu from me I'm afraid. If you can't say something balanced I just can't talk to you ... I just hang on to the consoling hope that maybe you are just trying in some misguided way to help further the sum of human knowledge and inform and save the ignorant ... or something like that anyway.
Say something nice!
I: admire your tenacity!
Even in your last post you LIE: "This is now; the FAA has placed a restriction on the 22 and the 44 saying that they must avoid flying out of trim (balance) and flying in any type of sideslip" - JUST NOT TRUE - You must retract this statment starting with the words: I AM SORRY I MISLED(LIED) TO THIS FORUM AND THOSE PEOPLE ON IT WHO HAVE BELIEVED ME, I HAVE OVERZEALOUSLY OVERSTATED MY CASE THE TRUE POSITION IS ...
ok?
Say something nice!
I: admire your tenacity!
Note from helidrvr: Yesterday I asked JoePilot to remove some gratuitous nastiness from this post. He didn't so I had to.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 01 October 2000).]
He can't even say anything positive about them ... he's not an engineer then! AND now he's trying to weazel his way out of admitting he is wrong.
THERE IS NO SUCH L I M I T A T I O N !!!
YES:Safety Notice SN-11 is titled PUSHOVERS CAN BE CATASTROPHIC.
YES:SN-24 LOW RPM ROTOR STALL CAN BE FATAL
If it didn't say those things a misguided American (McDonalds coffee cup) style prosectution might be launched, supported by a 'plausable enough' sounding bystander very alarmistly and apparently sincerely talking drivel...
The bit about sideslip in the context of mis handling pilots in turbulence is just after the bit that says avoid flying over ball games because of the noise .... in Section 4 NORMAL PROCEDURES !!!
Even ARK
has the decency to say he doesn't know enough about them - he just doesn't like them ... that's fair enough.This is information to help pilots who don't understand .... not intended for twisting by the ignorant - to terrify the ignorant.
Are you actually qualified in any academic sense in this field?
Could I please have some support from the anti Robbo fraternity here? It'd definately help me respect your views more.
There are lots of HAZARDS when you fly they are called FACTORS. Its what pilots do! They consider factors from a position of understanding - or even a position of understanding the limmit of their understanding!
Lu you didn't even bother to address the points I've made except for a very gentle and unacknowledged curve away from some of your WILD ASSERTIONS... You are wasting my time!
I am trying to make a balanced knowledgable input to help my fellow aviators.
HeliDriver! Yes I too welcomed the chance to discuss this in forum. Yes invite "missile" throwers. BUT in your post please retract: "Joe Pilot has proven to his own satisfaction that the Robbie can be flown way outside the POH prescribed limitations"
perhaps replace with: 'proven (to himself, [if you must])an adequate performance envelope' or some such (which I indeed have incidentally)
AND in PARA 3 Your point is correctly contingent on the words "if, then" - any view change?
AND sure I'd rather not comment on the Frank as D.E.R. issue except to say he IS GOOD at what he does.
As for Lu getting hounded out by schoolyard bullies ... well unless he can say something balanced and constructive what do y...? Wouldn't dream of that sort of behaviour here.... open forum all views welcome (surely a limit though ... HeliMod?)
Last chance for Lu from me I'm afraid. If you can't say something balanced I just can't talk to you ... I just hang on to the consoling hope that maybe you are just trying in some misguided way to help further the sum of human knowledge and inform and save the ignorant ... or something like that anyway.
Say something nice!
I: admire your tenacity!
Even in your last post you LIE: "This is now; the FAA has placed a restriction on the 22 and the 44 saying that they must avoid flying out of trim (balance) and flying in any type of sideslip" - JUST NOT TRUE - You must retract this statment starting with the words: I AM SORRY I MISLED(LIED) TO THIS FORUM AND THOSE PEOPLE ON IT WHO HAVE BELIEVED ME, I HAVE OVERZEALOUSLY OVERSTATED MY CASE THE TRUE POSITION IS ...
ok?
Say something nice!
I: admire your tenacity!
Note from helidrvr: Yesterday I asked JoePilot to remove some gratuitous nastiness from this post. He didn't so I had to.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 01 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BTW in fairnes I've just re-read your bit about SN24 so I read page 2 - don't even start! 
Your bombshell, I predict, is this:
'Robbo book wrong b'cos stall on left side will cause roll left not aft'
- If it really is THAT then you definately need therapy! A little knowledge from a bystander is a really dangerous thing
- go and talk to a proper helicopter rotor system designer. Just b'cos all the basic text books copied each other in this mistake doesn't mean you have to follow suit .... and if it WAS that then please have the humility to say so 
... and I am definatly not getting myself into this one ... someone else please tell him .. unless he wants to politely back off first (much more respect that way)
Your bombshell, I predict, is this:
'Robbo book wrong b'cos stall on left side will cause roll left not aft'
- If it really is THAT then you definately need therapy! A little knowledge from a bystander is a really dangerous thing
- go and talk to a proper helicopter rotor system designer. Just b'cos all the basic text books copied each other in this mistake doesn't mean you have to follow suit .... and if it WAS that then please have the humility to say so ... and I am definatly not getting myself into this one ... someone else please tell him .. unless he wants to politely back off first (much more respect that way)
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: All concerned,
I sent Joe Pilot a copy of the page that he said was not in the pilots hand book. If any of you have access to a POH for the R22 or the R44 please look in section 4 on the last page. If you can't find that page in your POH take it up with your Robinson dealer or the local CAA rep.
------------------
The Cat
I sent Joe Pilot a copy of the page that he said was not in the pilots hand book. If any of you have access to a POH for the R22 or the R44 please look in section 4 on the last page. If you can't find that page in your POH take it up with your Robinson dealer or the local CAA rep.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding my comment about retreating blade stall it is the way they describe the stalling of the blade and how it drops over the tail. Can you imagine the blade dropping down over the tail
when the tip speed is around 600 feet per second and then rising back over the nose and then dropping over the tail once again. Can you imagine the vibratory forceds that would accompany this action. The entire scenario no matter what type of helicopter you fly the blade does no stall like a fixed wing wing. Now if you want to open this can of worms, I will start a new thread to explain my views on this subject.
------------------
The Cat
when the tip speed is around 600 feet per second and then rising back over the nose and then dropping over the tail once again. Can you imagine the vibratory forceds that would accompany this action. The entire scenario no matter what type of helicopter you fly the blade does no stall like a fixed wing wing. Now if you want to open this can of worms, I will start a new thread to explain my views on this subject.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
JoePilot, you obviously know your way around the Robbo. However, if the POH says "no sideslips" then performing one will definitely place you outside the FAA sactioned limitations.
You obviously have passionate views, but please do not allow this to drag you down to the kind of name calling we have seen so much of on Bill's forum. Let's please stick with the merits of the argument, no matter how frustrated you might feel at not being able to convince the Cat of your viewpoint. He must feel just as frustrated, if not more so, but I have never seen him get personal.
I think you will do a far better job at preserving the gist of your argument than I would. So please go back and edit the personal attacks out of your post of 03:14 yourself.
For the rest of us this is an educating and at times amusing debate between two passionate believers. Please let's keep it that way.
Don't let Lu or any of us get under your skin. You're to good for that.
You obviously have passionate views, but please do not allow this to drag you down to the kind of name calling we have seen so much of on Bill's forum. Let's please stick with the merits of the argument, no matter how frustrated you might feel at not being able to convince the Cat of your viewpoint. He must feel just as frustrated, if not more so, but I have never seen him get personal.
I think you will do a far better job at preserving the gist of your argument than I would. So please go back and edit the personal attacks out of your post of 03:14 yourself.
For the rest of us this is an educating and at times amusing debate between two passionate believers. Please let's keep it that way.
Don't let Lu or any of us get under your skin. You're to good for that.