Entering autos: discussion split from Glasgow crash thread
A few thoughts:
a. You are a helicopter pilot. You fly with both hands and with your feet. Maybe that is Rule 0.
b. The collective and cyclic work together, even if the engine just quit. Know the cases for engine failure, there isn't just one. There are multiple.
c. Slamming the collective down isn't a technique any instructor I ever had would ever endorse, and certainly not me when I taught for a few years.
d. Keeping pitch on all four blades by not reducing collective will result in Nr decay if the drive from the engines goes away. To assert otherwise, particularly in a low inertia head, strikes me as curious. With pitch on the blades, you have lift and drag both. If you have drag, and no power driving the blades, they will slow down ... which is what we all want to avoid, reduce to as small a reduction as can be. Keep it in the green, or as close to as possible. The case of near the H-V operations that has been raised seems to be where Pete's recommendation has the most merit ... but the Nr preservation/maintenance is transitory, as that energy is used up. So long as it keeps your Nr in/near the green as you work your way back to Mother Earth, good. The pitch on the blades still needs (in most cases) to be reduced to reduce the drag that drags down Nr, until you flare and pull.
e. If above the "sweet spot" airspeed for autorotation, trading for Nr seems instinctive, but maybe it isn't. (Mosby? ) Autorotative descent has a range of airspeed sweet spots for a given helicopter .... as Dick tells us, 65 kts for R22. In the Seahawk we used to practice at 80 knots, but I found the RoD at 75 kts to be a bit less, DA dependent. We used to cruise at 120-130 frequently in teh Seahawk, but the desired airspeed range for autorotation was 80-100 knots. If you lost it in cruise, you'd need to lower the collective and flare for two reasons: that pitch on the blades at that speed would probably decay your Nr, and you need to transition to a better autorotational airspeed anyway ... win win. Controls work together.
f. Did we mention that you fly with two hands? Did we mention that both hands work together? Did we mention you don't manipulate the controls in isolation from one another? Is Rule 0 being lost with all of the fancy automation now available, even in helicopters? (Say it ain't so, Joe)
i. It seems that ops near the edge of H-V is where Pete's crusade is aimed (But maybe not, given the Mosby accident). The margin of error is narrow. Lack of airspeed (stored energy if you will) should the engines quit makes coordinated reduction of collective and loading of the head (cyclic is all that is left to do that) with such energy as is available the immediate concern. One does not have a hundreds of feet to sort out a sweet spot airspeed. Rotor energy maintenance needs to be almost reflexive, particularly for a low inertia head. The "cyclic back" benefit looks to be transient. You've still got plenty of work to do in order to get down and walk away form the landing.
What is agreed in all the pages of argument?
Unloading the head and pushing the nose over accelerates Nr decay when drive is lost.
Does anyone teach that?
Oh, also agreed by all parties: don't stall the main rotor blades.
Declare victory, off to the pub, I am buying the first round.
a. You are a helicopter pilot. You fly with both hands and with your feet. Maybe that is Rule 0.
b. The collective and cyclic work together, even if the engine just quit. Know the cases for engine failure, there isn't just one. There are multiple.
c. Slamming the collective down isn't a technique any instructor I ever had would ever endorse, and certainly not me when I taught for a few years.
d. Keeping pitch on all four blades by not reducing collective will result in Nr decay if the drive from the engines goes away. To assert otherwise, particularly in a low inertia head, strikes me as curious. With pitch on the blades, you have lift and drag both. If you have drag, and no power driving the blades, they will slow down ... which is what we all want to avoid, reduce to as small a reduction as can be. Keep it in the green, or as close to as possible. The case of near the H-V operations that has been raised seems to be where Pete's recommendation has the most merit ... but the Nr preservation/maintenance is transitory, as that energy is used up. So long as it keeps your Nr in/near the green as you work your way back to Mother Earth, good. The pitch on the blades still needs (in most cases) to be reduced to reduce the drag that drags down Nr, until you flare and pull.
e. If above the "sweet spot" airspeed for autorotation, trading for Nr seems instinctive, but maybe it isn't. (Mosby? ) Autorotative descent has a range of airspeed sweet spots for a given helicopter .... as Dick tells us, 65 kts for R22. In the Seahawk we used to practice at 80 knots, but I found the RoD at 75 kts to be a bit less, DA dependent. We used to cruise at 120-130 frequently in teh Seahawk, but the desired airspeed range for autorotation was 80-100 knots. If you lost it in cruise, you'd need to lower the collective and flare for two reasons: that pitch on the blades at that speed would probably decay your Nr, and you need to transition to a better autorotational airspeed anyway ... win win. Controls work together.
f. Did we mention that you fly with two hands? Did we mention that both hands work together? Did we mention you don't manipulate the controls in isolation from one another? Is Rule 0 being lost with all of the fancy automation now available, even in helicopters? (Say it ain't so, Joe)
i. It seems that ops near the edge of H-V is where Pete's crusade is aimed (But maybe not, given the Mosby accident). The margin of error is narrow. Lack of airspeed (stored energy if you will) should the engines quit makes coordinated reduction of collective and loading of the head (cyclic is all that is left to do that) with such energy as is available the immediate concern. One does not have a hundreds of feet to sort out a sweet spot airspeed. Rotor energy maintenance needs to be almost reflexive, particularly for a low inertia head. The "cyclic back" benefit looks to be transient. You've still got plenty of work to do in order to get down and walk away form the landing.
What is agreed in all the pages of argument?
Unloading the head and pushing the nose over accelerates Nr decay when drive is lost.
Does anyone teach that?
Oh, also agreed by all parties: don't stall the main rotor blades.
Declare victory, off to the pub, I am buying the first round.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ecton
Age: 71
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC. Hope all is well fine fellow. Yes and no, I am ex military but not as pilot. It may be a simple case of training platform. Mil' pilots tend to have been taught on medium to high inertia platforms and then go on to fly the same. The basic platform for so many pilots now is quite different, i.e. the R22, which as you know has a very low inertia rotor system. The low inertia system as we all know has a negative in as much as the energy stored in the rotor is small, therefore the rotor decay is rapid. However one of the great benefits is that by applying a small amount of aft cyclic the rotor response is very quick, instantaneous. There is absolutely no disagreement with lowering the collective as a must, it is just that the aft cyclic technique can extend the time the pilot has to lower the collective. We all agree; primary task post engine failure is to maintain RRPM above stall. We all agree, one size does not fit all. We all agree we have a number of areas of stored energy we can use to prevent Low RPM rotor stall and we should use what we have to survive. The platform you fly will go some way to determine your actions, however, there is one action that is common to all and that is " lower the collective lever". DS
As I look back over a few years of doing this.....I could sum it up this way:
Get the Collective down
Get the Rotor in the Green
Pick your Landing Spot
Adjust Airspeed and maneuver as required
Arrive at the Surface with the Maximum RPM possible
Use up all the RPM in Landing
We can argue about everything else....but simple concepts work too.
If you are a Helicopter Pilot....you should know how to accomplish those simple goals by manipulating the controls.
There are too many variables to be able to issue an Edict that requires exactly one response or method of moving the flight controls that will work in every single possibility.
Doing more than one of the steps I listed at one time works too and most Pilots are capable of doing that.
If you are not....perhaps you might want to consider alternative employment.
Get the Collective down
Get the Rotor in the Green
Pick your Landing Spot
Adjust Airspeed and maneuver as required
Arrive at the Surface with the Maximum RPM possible
Use up all the RPM in Landing
We can argue about everything else....but simple concepts work too.
If you are a Helicopter Pilot....you should know how to accomplish those simple goals by manipulating the controls.
There are too many variables to be able to issue an Edict that requires exactly one response or method of moving the flight controls that will work in every single possibility.
Doing more than one of the steps I listed at one time works too and most Pilots are capable of doing that.
If you are not....perhaps you might want to consider alternative employment.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
THE BIT AT THE BOTTOM
OK it seems we all know how to get into autorotation!!!!!
At the risk of starting another war (some of which was my fault), can I ask what the current Flight School teaching is for a standard EOL.
I have always been taught, and therefore taught:
Variable Flare, Check with Collective, Level, Cushion.
However I have had a lot of candidates leaving out the "Check" bit. Is this the new teaching or does anyone know where this has come from??
DB
At the risk of starting another war (some of which was my fault), can I ask what the current Flight School teaching is for a standard EOL.
I have always been taught, and therefore taught:
Variable Flare, Check with Collective, Level, Cushion.
However I have had a lot of candidates leaving out the "Check" bit. Is this the new teaching or does anyone know where this has come from??
DB
Sounds about right to me.
One question would be about the use of a "Check" every time.
The "Check" pull, with the aircraft in a nose high attitude, works to slow both ROD and Forward Speed.
If your forward speed and ROD is acceptable....omitting that "Check" is not necessarily wrong or improper is it?
That would allow maximum Nr for the Cushion Pull.
Recall my training early on was to aim for a maximum One to Two Skid length ground travel.....which usually necessitates a fairly aggressive deceleration (flare) at the bottom....and provides a good increase in Nr during that flare. By the end of my initial Army training....less than One Skid Length ground travel was the target.
I would consider the "Check" an option depending upon the ROD and Ground Speed as it works to reduce both at the cost of some Nr. Probably it would be useful more often to "Check" than not however.
We have to remember.....there is such a thing as a "Zero Pitch Pull" Autorotation and in a perfect World....that would be the Norm!
One question would be about the use of a "Check" every time.
The "Check" pull, with the aircraft in a nose high attitude, works to slow both ROD and Forward Speed.
If your forward speed and ROD is acceptable....omitting that "Check" is not necessarily wrong or improper is it?
That would allow maximum Nr for the Cushion Pull.
Recall my training early on was to aim for a maximum One to Two Skid length ground travel.....which usually necessitates a fairly aggressive deceleration (flare) at the bottom....and provides a good increase in Nr during that flare. By the end of my initial Army training....less than One Skid Length ground travel was the target.
I would consider the "Check" an option depending upon the ROD and Ground Speed as it works to reduce both at the cost of some Nr. Probably it would be useful more often to "Check" than not however.
We have to remember.....there is such a thing as a "Zero Pitch Pull" Autorotation and in a perfect World....that would be the Norm!
Last edited by SASless; 18th Dec 2013 at 14:10.
SAS: Bang on big guy 
DB: You are calm and collected for once Can you just move away from SAS a little more please - there thats better.
Now: bottom of the auto....
I do believe the check bit was peculiar to Gaz drivers in the mil on this side of the pond and is darned difficult to eliminate from my way of doing things today, but I understand it is not necessary in most helos nowadays.
Some even dont use the collective at all for the recovery
DB: You are calm and collected for once
Can you just move away from SAS a little more please - there thats better.Now: bottom of the auto....
I do believe the check bit was peculiar to Gaz drivers in the mil on this side of the pond and is darned difficult to eliminate from my way of doing things today, but I understand it is not necessary in most helos nowadays.
Some even dont use the collective at all for the recovery
DB, doesn't that depend on the model a bit? While we are talking incremental and fine bits of collective movement in the flare to pull transition, in your "check" there is a consideration, perhaps esoteric, about some of your Nr in the flare building due to a bit of coning from load and thus the old ice skater arms in arms out illustration. Since part of the flare is breaking the rate of descent, in some models a modest and brief bit of collective (which I think is what you mean by "check") keeps the Nr from running through the roof, but it has to be taken out. it's the old correction, counter correction ... and it all depends on the day, how your auto went before you got to the flare, are you heavy or not, are you into the wind or not, do you have only a spot or do you have a lot of room ... lots of factors.
My experiences is with high inertia heads, I don't have a point of reference compared to Dick's explanations on those fine points of how well it all works out at the end. (Dick, I appreciate your point on how in a low inertia head the cyclic can rapidly build Nr, which fits Pete's point ... )
If you are going to err, the consensus seems to be to err a bit on more Nr (hence a smaller or no "check") as you'll still bleed it off in a hurry when you at last pull ... if you need to and aren't in a perfect world of the no pull auto.
(Talked to an old Navy friend last week. He used to practice running autos to the deck in CH-46's (decades ago) which, when the GW was pretty low, they could do with virtually no collective at the bottom).
My experiences is with high inertia heads, I don't have a point of reference compared to Dick's explanations on those fine points of how well it all works out at the end. (Dick, I appreciate your point on how in a low inertia head the cyclic can rapidly build Nr, which fits Pete's point ... )
If you are going to err, the consensus seems to be to err a bit on more Nr (hence a smaller or no "check") as you'll still bleed it off in a hurry when you at last pull ... if you need to and aren't in a perfect world of the no pull auto.
(Talked to an old Navy friend last week. He used to practice running autos to the deck in CH-46's (decades ago) which, when the GW was pretty low, they could do with virtually no collective at the bottom).
Lone,
In the Chinook as well as the 46...."No Pitch Pull" Autorotations were not hard to to do or rare....provided there was room and proper surface contours to accept some ground run....well in excess of the one/two skid length done in the Hueys and other Army Single Rotor Helicopters. It did require a high nose up pitch attitude....but then the normal hover attitude was 5-7 degrees nose high to begin with. Touchdowns were limited to something like 23-27 Degrees (if my memory serves me right) before the Aft Rotors made contact with the surface.
As the Rotor RPM went away....and the Nose still well up....the sensation of sitting in a runaway elevator was quite strong when the Nose fell to the surface.
The Cyclic position at the stabilized at two inches aft of center....confirmed by the Cyclic Position Indicator.....which was the same position used to achieve the normal hovering attitude or during ground taxi on just the aft landing gear (known as two wheel taxi). In the Chinook.....Pitch Attitude in some ground maneuvers was controlled by the Thrust Lever (Collective) while the Cyclic was left stationary in the two inch aft position and centered laterally.
When you see those photos of the roof top or ridge landings where the Wokka is perched on just two aft gear and the Nose hanging in space....that is what is going on.
In the Chinook as well as the 46...."No Pitch Pull" Autorotations were not hard to to do or rare....provided there was room and proper surface contours to accept some ground run....well in excess of the one/two skid length done in the Hueys and other Army Single Rotor Helicopters. It did require a high nose up pitch attitude....but then the normal hover attitude was 5-7 degrees nose high to begin with. Touchdowns were limited to something like 23-27 Degrees (if my memory serves me right) before the Aft Rotors made contact with the surface.
As the Rotor RPM went away....and the Nose still well up....the sensation of sitting in a runaway elevator was quite strong when the Nose fell to the surface.
The Cyclic position at the stabilized at two inches aft of center....confirmed by the Cyclic Position Indicator.....which was the same position used to achieve the normal hovering attitude or during ground taxi on just the aft landing gear (known as two wheel taxi). In the Chinook.....Pitch Attitude in some ground maneuvers was controlled by the Thrust Lever (Collective) while the Cyclic was left stationary in the two inch aft position and centered laterally.
When you see those photos of the roof top or ridge landings where the Wokka is perched on just two aft gear and the Nose hanging in space....that is what is going on.
Lonewolf 50 - agree 100% with your last but one post, spot on the money
The check works with a reasonably high inertia rotor (why is was taught on the Gazelle) where it serves to reduce forward speed and RoD without leaving you with too little Nr to safely cushion once you have levelled the skids.
In an R22 however, the whole 'flare - check - level - cushion' happens much quicker and closer to the ground such that, unlike on the Gazelle, the check doesn't get time to have much effect and is pretty much rolled into the level and the cushion.
On the Lynx, the check was specifically excluded from the teaching - apparently due to the disc loading and needing to preserve the Nr for the landing. We don't teach a check on the Sea King because snatch engaging freewheels on practice autos doesn't do them much good.
Dick - you are an experienced pilot who is more than capable of dealing with an engine failure in the cruise in a Robbie - there are very, very many pilots bimbling along out there who aren't which is why I am so opposed to Peter's aft cyclic preaching.
The check works with a reasonably high inertia rotor (why is was taught on the Gazelle) where it serves to reduce forward speed and RoD without leaving you with too little Nr to safely cushion once you have levelled the skids.
In an R22 however, the whole 'flare - check - level - cushion' happens much quicker and closer to the ground such that, unlike on the Gazelle, the check doesn't get time to have much effect and is pretty much rolled into the level and the cushion.
On the Lynx, the check was specifically excluded from the teaching - apparently due to the disc loading and needing to preserve the Nr for the landing. We don't teach a check on the Sea King because snatch engaging freewheels on practice autos doesn't do them much good.
Dick - you are an experienced pilot who is more than capable of dealing with an engine failure in the cruise in a Robbie - there are very, very many pilots bimbling along out there who aren't which is why I am so opposed to Peter's aft cyclic preaching.
Well this is how I teach an EOL, do about 20 a week to the ground while teaching students. This is for a 300
Overhead airfield at 1000ft 65 kts
Close throttle shut. Ac will yaw about 30 degrees to left before student sticks in right boot. At the same time lever must go down and quick as rrpm is now down from 460 ish to about 410 ish ( min is 390 ) rear application of cylic will prevent the huge nose down attitude ( applied as lever goes down) This will bring ac back to a 50 ish kt attitude and rrpm back to 460/470 ( limit 504, best auto speed 48kts)
Once established in auto and if time Mayday call ( remember the guy on the end of the radio can do one of three things depending upon your actions, send a taxi, ambulance or hearse !!!so fly the fing thing !)
At about 30 to 40 ft ( can see blades of grass) flare hard, this will reduce horizontal and forward speed to near zero.
Now a check of about 3 inches of up lever. This is will stop the rotor over speeding and will further put the brakes on
Hold check until about 10 to 20 ft. Level ac with cylic
Then cushion ac on to ground by lifting lever
If doing with a 500 then
If in cruise speed 130 kts lower lever by about 50 to 60% at the same time rear cylic . As you load the disc rrpm is kept up but for about 10 secs you will have a rate of descent from close to zero to 500 fpm as speed comes back to 60 kts ( best auto speed )
The rest is the same for a 300 except start the flare earlier / higher
Done this for 15 years teaching and thousands of EOL's works very well and is easy for student to practise rather than a variable flare.
But it might not be the best for all types ( eg 206 is easier )
Overhead airfield at 1000ft 65 kts
Close throttle shut. Ac will yaw about 30 degrees to left before student sticks in right boot. At the same time lever must go down and quick as rrpm is now down from 460 ish to about 410 ish ( min is 390 ) rear application of cylic will prevent the huge nose down attitude ( applied as lever goes down) This will bring ac back to a 50 ish kt attitude and rrpm back to 460/470 ( limit 504, best auto speed 48kts)
Once established in auto and if time Mayday call ( remember the guy on the end of the radio can do one of three things depending upon your actions, send a taxi, ambulance or hearse !!!so fly the fing thing !)
At about 30 to 40 ft ( can see blades of grass) flare hard, this will reduce horizontal and forward speed to near zero.
Now a check of about 3 inches of up lever. This is will stop the rotor over speeding and will further put the brakes on
Hold check until about 10 to 20 ft. Level ac with cylic
Then cushion ac on to ground by lifting lever
If doing with a 500 then
If in cruise speed 130 kts lower lever by about 50 to 60% at the same time rear cylic . As you load the disc rrpm is kept up but for about 10 secs you will have a rate of descent from close to zero to 500 fpm as speed comes back to 60 kts ( best auto speed )
The rest is the same for a 300 except start the flare earlier / higher
Done this for 15 years teaching and thousands of EOL's works very well and is easy for student to practise rather than a variable flare.
But it might not be the best for all types ( eg 206 is easier )
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Energy - cyclic aft.
in the FAST CRUISE
on engine failure - lowering the lever would require aft cyclic movement to maintain attitude (due to the asymetric proportionate pitch change, since the advancing side pitch is MUCH lower already than the retreating side, and the collective pitch reduction would be proportionally greater on that advancing side, leading to a change of plan of rotation in the in the forward pitching direction)
Not moving the cyclic aft as the lever is lowered would become the equivalent of pushing the stick forward - since it would be further forward than the reference position which would result in no attitude change.
Pushing the stick forward results in lower g (which could be quite violent - and disasterous)
Lowering the lever also results in lower g.
Lowering the lever without simultaneous aft cyclic is the equivalent of 'bunting' forward at the same time as unloading due to lever lowering - potentially DISASTEROUS.
So (TC) aft cyclic should be hand-in-hand with lever lowering in the fast cruise - and it is potentially dangerous to suggest otherwise. Rapid lever lowering with no simultaneous aft cyclic could be a major problem. (agreed not as bad as not lowering the lever at all)
Also there is approximately as much Kinetic Energy in the 10kts from 120kts to 110kts as ther is in the first 50kts - good use of Energy is the second part of what autorotation is all about. You start with Energy distributed in Height, Speed and RRPM - you consume it at a rate that depends largley on your speed (and pitch) and the trick is to apportion the energy as appropriate for the circumstances - at the bottom the pilot decides whether he wants to apportion his remaining cushioning energy for a gentle vertical closure rate or spend some degree of it to reduce the horizontal componet of his Kinetic energy.
{Since Energy is the resource and Power required is the (time) Rate of Consumption of Energy , THEN: Energy becomes Time. In some cases time to establish steady autorotation , in other cases Time to cushion.}
TC I note that you have more than average Autorotations but if you had about 15 times that you would probably find that you still have some room to develop - THEN perhaps you should write your book on the subject.... You are very firm about your opinions - to the point of unjustifiable rudness IMHO
on engine failure - lowering the lever would require aft cyclic movement to maintain attitude (due to the asymetric proportionate pitch change, since the advancing side pitch is MUCH lower already than the retreating side, and the collective pitch reduction would be proportionally greater on that advancing side, leading to a change of plan of rotation in the in the forward pitching direction)
Not moving the cyclic aft as the lever is lowered would become the equivalent of pushing the stick forward - since it would be further forward than the reference position which would result in no attitude change.
Pushing the stick forward results in lower g (which could be quite violent - and disasterous)
Lowering the lever also results in lower g.
Lowering the lever without simultaneous aft cyclic is the equivalent of 'bunting' forward at the same time as unloading due to lever lowering - potentially DISASTEROUS.
So (TC) aft cyclic should be hand-in-hand with lever lowering in the fast cruise - and it is potentially dangerous to suggest otherwise. Rapid lever lowering with no simultaneous aft cyclic could be a major problem. (agreed not as bad as not lowering the lever at all)
Also there is approximately as much Kinetic Energy in the 10kts from 120kts to 110kts as ther is in the first 50kts - good use of Energy is the second part of what autorotation is all about. You start with Energy distributed in Height, Speed and RRPM - you consume it at a rate that depends largley on your speed (and pitch) and the trick is to apportion the energy as appropriate for the circumstances - at the bottom the pilot decides whether he wants to apportion his remaining cushioning energy for a gentle vertical closure rate or spend some degree of it to reduce the horizontal componet of his Kinetic energy.
{Since Energy is the resource and Power required is the (time) Rate of Consumption of Energy , THEN: Energy becomes Time. In some cases time to establish steady autorotation , in other cases Time to cushion.}
TC I note that you have more than average Autorotations but if you had about 15 times that you would probably find that you still have some room to develop - THEN perhaps you should write your book on the subject.... You are very firm about your opinions - to the point of unjustifiable rudness IMHO
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H500 - like
if time Mayday call ( remember the guy on the end of the radio can do one of three things depending upon your actions, send a taxi, ambulance or hearse !!!so fly the fing thing !)
Hughes.....does your 300 have the spoiler on the top rear of the rear bulkhead?
The TH-55A that I learned to fly on in the Army oft times did not and those without them really liked to tuck their noses upon entering autorotation. With the fairing....that tucking tendency was no where nearly so noticeable.
The TH-55A that I learned to fly on in the Army oft times did not and those without them really liked to tuck their noses upon entering autorotation. With the fairing....that tucking tendency was no where nearly so noticeable.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Thanks all. As I started on the Gazelle that's obviously where my "Check" has come from. It works well in the OEM SIM but obviously we can't throw euro 26m of real helicopter at the ground so I am not sure how this translates.
I only have Few OPCs on the B206 20 years ago so cannot really remember if we "Checked" or not.
TC and SAS - I have laid off the red meat for a while and feeling much calmer now thank you. I think SAS hates me now though
I only have Few OPCs on the B206 20 years ago so cannot really remember if we "Checked" or not.
TC and SAS - I have laid off the red meat for a while and feeling much calmer now thank you. I think SAS hates me now though
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H500 - like
if time Mayday call ( remember the guy on the end of the radio can do one of three things depending upon your actions, send a taxi, ambulance or hearse !!!so fly the fing thing !)
Sorry to disappoint you DB.....don't hate you now.....or before.
I much rather have you stuck in here.....as you have a lot to offer in our discussions.
I much rather have you stuck in here.....as you have a lot to offer in our discussions.
Hughes550, much obliged for the example.
crab: it seems that Pete's teaching point is as much about "don't forget to keep the head loaded with cyclic when reducing collective" as it is about the aft cyclic itself. I may be misreading or misunderstaning his emphasis, however.
crab: it seems that Pete's teaching point is as much about "don't forget to keep the head loaded with cyclic when reducing collective" as it is about the aft cyclic itself. I may be misreading or misunderstaning his emphasis, however.
Lonewolf 50 - yes, if only he had said exactly that instead of talking about 'best-kept secrets' and special techniques that fly in the face of conventional wisdom - we wouldn't have had a 20 plus page thread with insults and handbag swinging!
Now that we have the 1969 NASA Report on the OH-5 Autorotation Test Flights.....I am waiting for Pete to get back with us once he has had time to read through that document.
There does seem to be data in that report that presents a contradiction to some of the things he said. It would be nice to hear his comparison of his thoughts versus the Report.
A few others have made comments that do not necessarily coincide with the Report's data.
There does seem to be data in that report that presents a contradiction to some of the things he said. It would be nice to hear his comparison of his thoughts versus the Report.
A few others have made comments that do not necessarily coincide with the Report's data.