Military Training Wrong ... ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu, I don't have to get in an R-22 to predict the outcome of your obscure test.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.
2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.
3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.
4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.
5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.
Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.
Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).
There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.
2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.
3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.
4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.
5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.
Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.
Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).
There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To
den
Understanding the 18-degree offset can save pilots life. If my theory is correct then the pilots and passengers in 35 Robinson Helicopters were killed because of the 18-degree offset and the impreciseness of the control system that results from the offset. Because of the impreciseness of the control system the pilot can inadvertently introduce left or right cyclic input when countering zero G. This can cause the helicopter to roll violently to the right or to induce violent flapping excursions that result in mast bumping if the cyclic is moved to the left. If you read the Robinson POH the pilot is specifically warned not to move the cyclic in the way described above.
Check this site for diagrams that help explain the problem.
http://205467.homestead.com/diagrams.html
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
denUnderstanding the 18-degree offset can save pilots life. If my theory is correct then the pilots and passengers in 35 Robinson Helicopters were killed because of the 18-degree offset and the impreciseness of the control system that results from the offset. Because of the impreciseness of the control system the pilot can inadvertently introduce left or right cyclic input when countering zero G. This can cause the helicopter to roll violently to the right or to induce violent flapping excursions that result in mast bumping if the cyclic is moved to the left. If you read the Robinson POH the pilot is specifically warned not to move the cyclic in the way described above.
Check this site for diagrams that help explain the problem.
http://205467.homestead.com/diagrams.html
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Crab
Lu, I don't have to get in an R-22 to predict the outcome of your obscure test.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROBINSON MAST IS TILTED 2-DEGREES TO THE LEFT TO MINIMIZE IF NOT ELIMINATE TRANSLATION DUE TO THE PROPELLER EFFECT OF THE TAIL ROTOR .
2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.
I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE CYCLIC ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTERLINE BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. IF THE HELICOPTTER IS TRANSLATING TO THE RIGHT DESPITE THE MAST TILT THIS WILL DIMINISH WHEN YOU GET THROUGH TRANSLATIONAL LIFT WHEN THE TAIL ROTOR BECOMES MORE EFFECTIVE AND YOU REDUCE COLLECTIVE AND BRING THE TAIL ROTOR MORE TOWARDS NEUTRAL. EVEN IF THERE IS TRANSLATION, IS THIS A PROBLEM IF THERE ARE NO OBSTRUCTIONS?
3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.
THIS IS NORMAL. AS A PART OF THE TEST THE PILOT WOULD MOVE THE STICK ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTER LINE
4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.
THIS IS ALSO TRUE AND TO COUNTER THE RIGHT ROLL THE PILOT MOVES HIS CYCLIC TO THE LEFT. IF IT IS SAFE IN THE RECOMMENDED TEST THE PILOT IS ASKED TO TRANSITION THROUGH TRANSVERSE FLOW AND PASS THROUGH IT AS THE HELICOPTER WOULD I ASSUME RETURN TO ITS’ NORMAL POSITION. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, THEN THIS PART OF THE TEST IS INVALIDATED.
5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.
THIS PARTICULAR PART OF MY ARGUMENT IS A BIT DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLYING TO A LOT OF NEGATIVE POSTS I BEGAN TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE ORIGINAL PREMISE THAT I HAD IN WRITING MY REPORT TO THE NTSB. IF I WERE CORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTIONS THE HELICOPTER WOULD FLY TO THE LEFT BECAUSE OF THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. I STILL BELIEVE THAT AND, THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THE TEST. WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT WHEN THE PILOT COMPENSATES FOR TRANSVERSE FLOW EFFECT BY INPUTTING LEFT CYCLIC AND WHEN HE PASSES THROUGH THAT HE RETURNS THE CYCLIC TO A POINT WHERE THE HELICOPTER IS FLYING STRAIGHT AHEAD AND IN THE PROCESS HE HAS COMPENSATED FOR THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. A LONG TIME AGO A SIKORSKY TECH REP WAS VISITING AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. WHILE ON BOARD HIS ADAM HAT BLEW OVER THE SIDE. HE PUT IN A $10.00 CHGARGE ON HIS EXPENSE REPORT AND IT WAS REJECTED. HE DID THAT TWO MORE TIMES AND EACH TIME IT WAS REJECTED. ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL HE ADDED A NOTE SAYING THAT THE HAT WAS IN THERE, TRY AND FIND IT. THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET IS IN THERE JUST LIKE THE HAT. HOWEVER IF THE PILOT DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS HE CAN GET KILLED IF HE EVER ENCOUNTERS A ZERO G SITUATION OR, IF HE EVER GETS INTO A POSITION WHERE THE FLAPPINGLOADS ARE STARTING TO INCREASE.
Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.
CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TO FLY THE LYNX WITHOUT THE AID OF ELECTRONIC COMPENSATION FOR THE 15-DEGREE OFFSET?
BECAUSE OF THE IMPRECISENESS OF THE ROBINSON THE PILOT IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS CONDITION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO PUT THE STICK WHERE IT WILL MAKE THE HELICOPTER FLY FORWARD OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION.
The paragraph has been removed to protect the innocent.
Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).
I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE COMMENT.
There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
Lu, I don't have to get in an R-22 to predict the outcome of your obscure test.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROBINSON MAST IS TILTED 2-DEGREES TO THE LEFT TO MINIMIZE IF NOT ELIMINATE TRANSLATION DUE TO THE PROPELLER EFFECT OF THE TAIL ROTOR .
2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.
I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE CYCLIC ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTERLINE BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. IF THE HELICOPTTER IS TRANSLATING TO THE RIGHT DESPITE THE MAST TILT THIS WILL DIMINISH WHEN YOU GET THROUGH TRANSLATIONAL LIFT WHEN THE TAIL ROTOR BECOMES MORE EFFECTIVE AND YOU REDUCE COLLECTIVE AND BRING THE TAIL ROTOR MORE TOWARDS NEUTRAL. EVEN IF THERE IS TRANSLATION, IS THIS A PROBLEM IF THERE ARE NO OBSTRUCTIONS?
3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.
THIS IS NORMAL. AS A PART OF THE TEST THE PILOT WOULD MOVE THE STICK ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTER LINE
4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.
THIS IS ALSO TRUE AND TO COUNTER THE RIGHT ROLL THE PILOT MOVES HIS CYCLIC TO THE LEFT. IF IT IS SAFE IN THE RECOMMENDED TEST THE PILOT IS ASKED TO TRANSITION THROUGH TRANSVERSE FLOW AND PASS THROUGH IT AS THE HELICOPTER WOULD I ASSUME RETURN TO ITS’ NORMAL POSITION. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, THEN THIS PART OF THE TEST IS INVALIDATED.
5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.
THIS PARTICULAR PART OF MY ARGUMENT IS A BIT DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLYING TO A LOT OF NEGATIVE POSTS I BEGAN TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE ORIGINAL PREMISE THAT I HAD IN WRITING MY REPORT TO THE NTSB. IF I WERE CORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTIONS THE HELICOPTER WOULD FLY TO THE LEFT BECAUSE OF THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. I STILL BELIEVE THAT AND, THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THE TEST. WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT WHEN THE PILOT COMPENSATES FOR TRANSVERSE FLOW EFFECT BY INPUTTING LEFT CYCLIC AND WHEN HE PASSES THROUGH THAT HE RETURNS THE CYCLIC TO A POINT WHERE THE HELICOPTER IS FLYING STRAIGHT AHEAD AND IN THE PROCESS HE HAS COMPENSATED FOR THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. A LONG TIME AGO A SIKORSKY TECH REP WAS VISITING AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. WHILE ON BOARD HIS ADAM HAT BLEW OVER THE SIDE. HE PUT IN A $10.00 CHGARGE ON HIS EXPENSE REPORT AND IT WAS REJECTED. HE DID THAT TWO MORE TIMES AND EACH TIME IT WAS REJECTED. ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL HE ADDED A NOTE SAYING THAT THE HAT WAS IN THERE, TRY AND FIND IT. THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET IS IN THERE JUST LIKE THE HAT. HOWEVER IF THE PILOT DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS HE CAN GET KILLED IF HE EVER ENCOUNTERS A ZERO G SITUATION OR, IF HE EVER GETS INTO A POSITION WHERE THE FLAPPINGLOADS ARE STARTING TO INCREASE.
Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.
CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TO FLY THE LYNX WITHOUT THE AID OF ELECTRONIC COMPENSATION FOR THE 15-DEGREE OFFSET?
BECAUSE OF THE IMPRECISENESS OF THE ROBINSON THE PILOT IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS CONDITION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO PUT THE STICK WHERE IT WILL MAKE THE HELICOPTER FLY FORWARD OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION.
The paragraph has been removed to protect the innocent.
Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).
I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE COMMENT.
There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Joe Pilot
“Sufficient tangled metal bears witness to the fact that your suggestion is bad ... therefore you are a danger”.
Joe, has it ever entered your mind that maybe even if it were only one of the 35 crashes that resulted from mast separation or, rotor incursion that it may have occurred because of what I have been addressing in these threads? Just 1 not all.
------------------
The Cat
“Sufficient tangled metal bears witness to the fact that your suggestion is bad ... therefore you are a danger”.
Joe, has it ever entered your mind that maybe even if it were only one of the 35 crashes that resulted from mast separation or, rotor incursion that it may have occurred because of what I have been addressing in these threads? Just 1 not all.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't even begin detailing P of F, comprehension of it and the consequences because you are not even going to slightly impress me or anybody else. Your terminology is different but the subject you allude to is control rigging, advance angle and phase lag all of which i understand with absolute clarity more importantly I have a good practical working knowledge of them. You still seem think it's ok for pilots to mess with an aircraft and it's performance. In your unncessarily elaborate description you are pointing out "Mishandling" - which is really what you are referring to and instruction is key to demonstrating areas to avoid and how not to mishandle an aircraft.
What is also taught and I TRULY HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS .....is that YOU DO NOT DO THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF THE ORDINARY ...UNLESS YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DO SO - PLEASE, PLEASE stop setting a poor example.
If other PRUNERS disagree with me please feel free to stick your knife in but LU needs a few lessons himself I feel.
What is also taught and I TRULY HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS .....is that YOU DO NOT DO THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF THE ORDINARY ...UNLESS YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DO SO - PLEASE, PLEASE stop setting a poor example.
If other PRUNERS disagree with me please feel free to stick your knife in but LU needs a few lessons himself I feel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My biggest bitch is about you, not the Robinson, and not the issues surrounding it.
You preach and preach and yet again ask others to go prove something for you.
Let's go there yet again:
Go do it yourself, since you seem so up to giving Joe Pilot flight lesson's, you don't even need a CFI Mr. Big Shot.
You need to go do it, not joe Pilot, not me, not Offshore, not anyone else on the forum.
Why is it you continue to fail to realize a simple premise that has nothing to do with engineering, or flying in general is beyond any normal, non flying person, let alone the pilots here on the forum, however I already, in a canx posting gave reasons for why you won't ever do it.
The basic premise here is, in simple 6 year old terms for you, since you like to elict responses with 6 year old attacks is this:
You say it will drift. I say YOU go prove it.
Geez, you're like a broken record ... But again, it so much fun to watch you alienate anyone who still has cause to support you.
Your history of responses speak for me, I don't want, nor have to either:
Defend myself, nor answer to you on this subject any more.
(again, for the forum, Lu will follow this with either an "I'm chicken" dare of some sort, or a personal attack to go with his youngster psyche, go for it Lu, you'll only dig yourself in deeper
)
------------------
Marc
You preach and preach and yet again ask others to go prove something for you.
Let's go there yet again:
Go do it yourself, since you seem so up to giving Joe Pilot flight lesson's, you don't even need a CFI Mr. Big Shot.
You need to go do it, not joe Pilot, not me, not Offshore, not anyone else on the forum.
Why is it you continue to fail to realize a simple premise that has nothing to do with engineering, or flying in general is beyond any normal, non flying person, let alone the pilots here on the forum, however I already, in a canx posting gave reasons for why you won't ever do it.
The basic premise here is, in simple 6 year old terms for you, since you like to elict responses with 6 year old attacks is this:
You say it will drift. I say YOU go prove it.
Geez, you're like a broken record ... But again, it so much fun to watch you alienate anyone who still has cause to support you.
Your history of responses speak for me, I don't want, nor have to either:
Defend myself, nor answer to you on this subject any more.
(again, for the forum, Lu will follow this with either an "I'm chicken" dare of some sort, or a personal attack to go with his youngster psyche, go for it Lu, you'll only dig yourself in deeper
)------------------
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK enough is enough. No more discussion about the test. If I were to approach a Robbie pilot and buy an hour of his time he may feel the same way you do and tell me to piss off. That being said, the next time you strap on a Robinson Helicopter ask your self if the 18-degree offset is going to bite you in the ass on this flight. It did to at least 35 other pilots and, that's my opinion.
To: RW-1
My only comment is First Officer
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
To: RW-1
My only comment is First Officer
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To LU:
Your comment to RW-1 was totally uncalled for. I have many FO's who have more "Common Dog" about flying, in they're pinky than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking.
You were obviously trying to hurl an insult, but what you don't realise is that the position of FO is part of the logical progression in a pilot's career, not a demeaning position that you obviously believe it is.
Lu, have you ever once considered that when a new concept for an aircraft is theorized by people like you, that a real Engineering Pilot is required to go prove or disprove the theory? Do you really think that the paper jockies are the people who make it work?
The answer is a resounding "NO"!!!! Many an Engineering Test Pilot has risked His/Her life to be able to work out the bugs that the "Paper Engineers" could not even consider because they lack one thing, EXPERIENCE in flying.
Keep your theories LU, I'll stick with the opinions and knowledge provided by the "Hands On" people.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
Your comment to RW-1 was totally uncalled for. I have many FO's who have more "Common Dog" about flying, in they're pinky than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking.
You were obviously trying to hurl an insult, but what you don't realise is that the position of FO is part of the logical progression in a pilot's career, not a demeaning position that you obviously believe it is.
Lu, have you ever once considered that when a new concept for an aircraft is theorized by people like you, that a real Engineering Pilot is required to go prove or disprove the theory? Do you really think that the paper jockies are the people who make it work?
The answer is a resounding "NO"!!!! Many an Engineering Test Pilot has risked His/Her life to be able to work out the bugs that the "Paper Engineers" could not even consider because they lack one thing, EXPERIENCE in flying.
Keep your theories LU, I'll stick with the opinions and knowledge provided by the "Hands On" people.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
Guest
Posts: n/a
>>Keep your theories LU, I'll stick with the opinions and knowledge provided by the "Hands On" people.<<
Amen !
>>than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking. <<
Yeah, most people on this forum fall into this category.
Lu has acted in accordance with my predictions, his insults are not a suprise, nor do they bother me one bit, considering their source. Keep digging that hole Lu ...
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]
Amen !
>>than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking. <<
Yeah, most people on this forum fall into this category.
Lu has acted in accordance with my predictions, his insults are not a suprise, nor do they bother me one bit, considering their source. Keep digging that hole Lu ...
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu Z.
When you started to post on this forum, Helidrvr explained that he'd suggested you did so, that you'd effectively been driven off another Heli Forum by personal abuse, and he'd assured you that you wouldn't get the same treatment on Prune as you had previously. (I think the last part was a gentle hint to Pruners!)
It all seemed very odd. Why would people be abusive to you? I didn't understand it at the time.
Now I do.
Don't you realise that you drive people to distraction?
Your Robinson contributions were interesting at first, but it soon became clear that you had an obsession not only about Robinsons, but even against Frank Robinson personally.
You've even managed to alienate the people who at one time were defending your right to express your views, and asking others to be patient and polite! Helidrvr does his best to keep some sense of decorum. A lady PPL occasionally reminds us that you've increased the volume of posts etc.
But you get on most people's t*ts.
Most of the contributors to this forum have enormous practical experience flying all types of helicopters. Some seem to have fixed-wing experience as well. They've not only flown, but operated civil and military helicopters in many different spheres. There are instructors who, between them, must have trained thousands of pilots, on many different types. Individually and collectively, there is a wealth of talent to be tapped by anyone prepared to learn.
You are spoiling the forum, Lu.
Haven't you noticed that for months people have been asking you to back off?
To let things drop occasionally?
Not to spoil discussions?
Not to try to turn every thread into a Robinson debate?
Suggesting you stopped posting?
There's now even a suggestion that you ought to have a forum of your own where you can waffle on to your heart's content.
I'm not surprised you ended up being subjected to personal abuse on the other Heli Forum. You obviously drove people to distraction there, just as you have here. People start off responding politely, and then, eventually.......
Why not move on to some forum where people discuss theories instead of what actually happens in real life aviation?
Or start/find a forum which discusses your other interest, model aircraft?
You might be happier - it seems like a lot of people here would.
When you started to post on this forum, Helidrvr explained that he'd suggested you did so, that you'd effectively been driven off another Heli Forum by personal abuse, and he'd assured you that you wouldn't get the same treatment on Prune as you had previously. (I think the last part was a gentle hint to Pruners!)
It all seemed very odd. Why would people be abusive to you? I didn't understand it at the time.
Now I do.
Don't you realise that you drive people to distraction?
Your Robinson contributions were interesting at first, but it soon became clear that you had an obsession not only about Robinsons, but even against Frank Robinson personally.
You've even managed to alienate the people who at one time were defending your right to express your views, and asking others to be patient and polite! Helidrvr does his best to keep some sense of decorum. A lady PPL occasionally reminds us that you've increased the volume of posts etc.
But you get on most people's t*ts.
Most of the contributors to this forum have enormous practical experience flying all types of helicopters. Some seem to have fixed-wing experience as well. They've not only flown, but operated civil and military helicopters in many different spheres. There are instructors who, between them, must have trained thousands of pilots, on many different types. Individually and collectively, there is a wealth of talent to be tapped by anyone prepared to learn.
You are spoiling the forum, Lu.
Haven't you noticed that for months people have been asking you to back off?
To let things drop occasionally?
Not to spoil discussions?
Not to try to turn every thread into a Robinson debate?
Suggesting you stopped posting?
There's now even a suggestion that you ought to have a forum of your own where you can waffle on to your heart's content.
I'm not surprised you ended up being subjected to personal abuse on the other Heli Forum. You obviously drove people to distraction there, just as you have here. People start off responding politely, and then, eventually.......
Why not move on to some forum where people discuss theories instead of what actually happens in real life aviation?
Or start/find a forum which discusses your other interest, model aircraft?
You might be happier - it seems like a lot of people here would.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very well said Hoverman,
Considering that he did not wish to show himself as predictable as I made him, Lu decided to email me in private to tell me that "FO" meant "F--K Off" and we all missed it. Doesn't bother me one bit ...
That was the 6 year old response to my top post which has no real counter arguement, and was completely predicted/expected.
Of course, in so doing, he chose words that dug himself an even bigger hole with everyone who may not have made that connection. (or he meant that, and now uses it being a personal attack on me to minimize his blatent attack on 2P's everywhere)
In either case, your responses Lu are entirely within my prediction range.
It's still simply amazing to watch you dig that hole for yourself, and I haven't had to say a thing about the R-22 in the process
I again re-iterate to Lu that you read AND comprehend what Hoverman has so nicely stated.
I also stand by my posting describing my complaint with Lu in general at the top of page 4.
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]
Considering that he did not wish to show himself as predictable as I made him, Lu decided to email me in private to tell me that "FO" meant "F--K Off" and we all missed it. Doesn't bother me one bit ...
That was the 6 year old response to my top post which has no real counter arguement, and was completely predicted/expected.
Of course, in so doing, he chose words that dug himself an even bigger hole with everyone who may not have made that connection. (or he meant that, and now uses it being a personal attack on me to minimize his blatent attack on 2P's everywhere)
In either case, your responses Lu are entirely within my prediction range.
It's still simply amazing to watch you dig that hole for yourself, and I haven't had to say a thing about the R-22 in the process
I again re-iterate to Lu that you read AND comprehend what Hoverman has so nicely stated.
I also stand by my posting describing my complaint with Lu in general at the top of page 4.
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fantastic post Hoverman.
Says it all.
I think PPLs (like me) benefit most from reading what professional pilots have got to say about flying and operating the various helicopters, and to learn from their vast experience, not reading Lu's tedious theories.
The trouble is that Lu's seems to be so thick-skinned he probably won't take the hint!
Says it all.
I think PPLs (like me) benefit most from reading what professional pilots have got to say about flying and operating the various helicopters, and to learn from their vast experience, not reading Lu's tedious theories.
The trouble is that Lu's seems to be so thick-skinned he probably won't take the hint!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This has gone too far now. As a person who has strongly disagreed with Lu - I am content that making a point is fine, as is reinforcing the point if the message isn't received as we might think it should be.
Now - when some of you on this page start to become enveloped in your own self importance by insulting and attempting to alienate him from our forum or discussion, for no better reason other than you are bored or fed up then I think your suggestions are better left locked away inside your heads.
If we all agreed on issues,problems or principles then we wouldn't be looking at these pages or forums in the first place.
Lu - is a mature person who has amassed a vast wealth of knowledge throughout much of aviations' developing years and into today. Whilst we can all disagree with him on points and some of his methods of putting his point across....we would all be very foolish indeed not to respect the strength and depth of knowledge he brings to the forum.
Much of our problem with LU stems from our intolerance of another culture, their methods, ways and words. Shouldn't we (all his critics) be looking to ourselves to offer a hand in being able to considerately interpret or read between the lines and cast aside our poor comprehension or semantics?
For the most part it would seem that both LU and ourselves struggle to understand the same theory or point being made - using different words. If anything, the problems lay in the book we read or the tutor who taught us.
I would ask all of you to back down from your ill advised insults and understand that alienating people will only make our forum weaker.
A
"Patience is a virtue.....but waiting's a B***T**D"
[This message has been edited by eden (edited 29 January 2001).]
Now - when some of you on this page start to become enveloped in your own self importance by insulting and attempting to alienate him from our forum or discussion, for no better reason other than you are bored or fed up then I think your suggestions are better left locked away inside your heads.
If we all agreed on issues,problems or principles then we wouldn't be looking at these pages or forums in the first place.
Lu - is a mature person who has amassed a vast wealth of knowledge throughout much of aviations' developing years and into today. Whilst we can all disagree with him on points and some of his methods of putting his point across....we would all be very foolish indeed not to respect the strength and depth of knowledge he brings to the forum.
Much of our problem with LU stems from our intolerance of another culture, their methods, ways and words. Shouldn't we (all his critics) be looking to ourselves to offer a hand in being able to considerately interpret or read between the lines and cast aside our poor comprehension or semantics?
For the most part it would seem that both LU and ourselves struggle to understand the same theory or point being made - using different words. If anything, the problems lay in the book we read or the tutor who taught us.
I would ask all of you to back down from your ill advised insults and understand that alienating people will only make our forum weaker.
A
"Patience is a virtue.....but waiting's a B***T**D"
[This message has been edited by eden (edited 29 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Much of our problem with LU stems from our intolerance of another culture, their methods, ways and words.</font>
He was forced off Just Helicopters - an American Forum - because of his attitude.
"Some of you on this page start to become enveloped in your own self importance ..."
Self importance?? Speaking for myself, I have no delusions of "importance" in the world of aviation, I'm a PPL!!
Lu hijacks threads, and often good contributors give up and let him get on with it. I don't blame them but, what a waste!
Just look at the number of recent suggestions that he be given a forum of his own.
Stiff upper lip, we're British and tolerant is all very well, but why should we be dominated by this self-styled fount of all wisdom?
People have been polite in deference to his age and engineering experience, and have gently pointed out what causes problems, but it's not made a scrap of difference to his arrogance.
Now he's taken to e-mailing people telling them to F*** Off!
I suppose that's just a culture difference as well!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eden
I respect for you for trying, but I think Nomdeplume's reply to you is fair comment.
As Whirlybird says on the "Separate Forum" thread:
I agree.
Somebody had to say it. Hoverman has, extremely well. Straight facts, straight from the shoulder not shooting from the hip, no abuse, and a bit of humour thrown in for good measure.
I'm an ATPL, but only a PPL on helicopters. I read most threads, but rarely post - I have nothing worth saying. But, it's so frustrating when people with wide and varied practical experience to offer just give up and stop contributing to discussions because of Lu Z's absurd and arrogant attitude.
Some banter on a forum is great, and often very funny, but if you look at threads where bad feeling has built up, one common factor stands out like a beacon: Lu Zuckerman!
Hoverman is right, he drives people to post comments which are out of character.
Now it seems he's sending offensive e-mails direct to people. That's not on.
IMHO, enough is enough.
I respect for you for trying, but I think Nomdeplume's reply to you is fair comment.
As Whirlybird says on the "Separate Forum" thread:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"As far as Lu Zuckerman is concerned, Hoverman has summarised the general feelings of people here better than I could."</font>
Somebody had to say it. Hoverman has, extremely well. Straight facts, straight from the shoulder not shooting from the hip, no abuse, and a bit of humour thrown in for good measure.
I'm an ATPL, but only a PPL on helicopters. I read most threads, but rarely post - I have nothing worth saying. But, it's so frustrating when people with wide and varied practical experience to offer just give up and stop contributing to discussions because of Lu Z's absurd and arrogant attitude.
Some banter on a forum is great, and often very funny, but if you look at threads where bad feeling has built up, one common factor stands out like a beacon: Lu Zuckerman!
Hoverman is right, he drives people to post comments which are out of character.
Now it seems he's sending offensive e-mails direct to people. That's not on.
IMHO, enough is enough.