Calling Nick Lappos - Blade Stall
As I said before, barring any unusual events, all of the information needed to analyze, recreate, and animate the accident will be available when the MDR is downloaded.
Thread Starter
So why postulate that there is an ultimate coning angle? Do designers use it? No. Could or would pilots use it? No. Do engineers consider it? No.
So therefore, on the subject of irrelevance - where does your rather muddled argument and proposed theory stand????
So therefore, on the subject of irrelevance - where does your rather muddled argument and proposed theory stand????
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megan
"The aerofoil on a Tiger Moth has an MCRIT, but it's of absolutely no concern to anybody"
Great news! I guess that means you do understand it now? and just can't see its relevance?
You don't have to find it interesting. but I propose step 1 understand the point step 2 work out if there are interesting implications
dcl/da's post understanding it and going on to point out the intersting implications is useful reading in terms of determining whether it is interesting.
i would not have chosen to open so many other fronts in the implications, but then I have to fight hard to get points past my stalker.
but yes
"The proposition ultimately leads to a concept that any rotor is self-limiting in flap allowing any amount of blade pitch to be applied at whatever Nr% and the physics just takes care of it as CLmax is always reached at approximately the same angle, close enough that it doesn't matter. "
that's slightly extreme but it is the nature of the physics, and then the POWER AVAILABLE would in practice most often become the limiting factor (as NLappos rightly says) which is why we rarely look for this as the limiting factor,
normally if you pull harder than UCA the energy is just washed out by the additional drag and so helicopters generally have very docile characteristics in the extremes (with lot's of fatiguing vibration)
but to go back to the begining:
you do see quite a few of these accidents where UCA has been reached and so increased pitch rate does not help the pilot (xept to wash off energy)
megan I guess it would be interesting to some of the pilots who not knowing this have crashed ?
{{{{{ Crab only Crab such a shame that you are allowed to degrade debate here
"even I, who greatly enjoys pricking your pomposity whenever it rears its ugly head, have tired of your pointless, circular arguments."
Crab self appointed judge of pomposity! Circular arguements!!! 90% of which are to address your pointless and stupid goading how much time did you waste on your pointless parallax? no body else has to contend with this level of moronic and insincere deliberate sabotage. You either understand the point or not, whether you think it is interesting or not is opinion you are welcome to. "I, who greatly enjoys pricking your pomposity" the reason that you are upset is that over the last 10yrs you have repeated demonstrated that you have an IQ problem stalking me on any topic just try re-reading your (Crabs) post in this thread very little content mostly insult }}}}}
Crab pops up everywhere I do, just trying to pop away, continuously demonstrating his moronic MO total waste of time
"The aerofoil on a Tiger Moth has an MCRIT, but it's of absolutely no concern to anybody"
Great news! I guess that means you do understand it now? and just can't see its relevance?
You don't have to find it interesting. but I propose step 1 understand the point step 2 work out if there are interesting implications
dcl/da's post understanding it and going on to point out the intersting implications is useful reading in terms of determining whether it is interesting.
i would not have chosen to open so many other fronts in the implications, but then I have to fight hard to get points past my stalker.
but yes
"The proposition ultimately leads to a concept that any rotor is self-limiting in flap allowing any amount of blade pitch to be applied at whatever Nr% and the physics just takes care of it as CLmax is always reached at approximately the same angle, close enough that it doesn't matter. "
that's slightly extreme but it is the nature of the physics, and then the POWER AVAILABLE would in practice most often become the limiting factor (as NLappos rightly says) which is why we rarely look for this as the limiting factor,
normally if you pull harder than UCA the energy is just washed out by the additional drag and so helicopters generally have very docile characteristics in the extremes (with lot's of fatiguing vibration)
but to go back to the begining:
you do see quite a few of these accidents where UCA has been reached and so increased pitch rate does not help the pilot (xept to wash off energy)
megan I guess it would be interesting to some of the pilots who not knowing this have crashed ?
{{{{{ Crab only Crab such a shame that you are allowed to degrade debate here
"even I, who greatly enjoys pricking your pomposity whenever it rears its ugly head, have tired of your pointless, circular arguments."
Crab self appointed judge of pomposity! Circular arguements!!! 90% of which are to address your pointless and stupid goading how much time did you waste on your pointless parallax? no body else has to contend with this level of moronic and insincere deliberate sabotage. You either understand the point or not, whether you think it is interesting or not is opinion you are welcome to. "I, who greatly enjoys pricking your pomposity" the reason that you are upset is that over the last 10yrs you have repeated demonstrated that you have an IQ problem stalking me on any topic just try re-reading your (Crabs) post in this thread very little content mostly insult }}}}}
Crab pops up everywhere I do, just trying to pop away, continuously demonstrating his moronic MO total waste of time
Originally Posted by AnFI
Crab pops up everywhere I do, just trying to pop away, continuously demonstrating his moronic MO total waste of time
Take a step back and look what you two have produced on this thread.
I guess 50% of the other rotorheads has stopped long ago following your "discussion". 80% of the ones still following this thread, do this to see how far and how big the pieces of dung fly either way.
It even came to my mind how big the surprise would be if ANFI would turn out to be the alter ego of Crab? (Or the other way around, which is of course the same)
I will duck for incoming dung.
Cheers SLB
the aerofoil on a Tiger Moth has an MCRIT, but it's of absolutely no concern to anybody
Contrast that with coning angle - the designer will select his rotor design, size, shape, aerofoil section or sections based on a host of criteria which won't include the ultimate coning angle - the rotor will be tested in a wind tunnel without worrying about coning angle and the manufacturers test pilots will fly a fully instrumented aircraft which won't have a coning angle gauge. The certification process won't include testing or measurement of coning angle and when the pilot flys the aircraft he isn't able to measure coning angle or prevent himself exceeding a mythical coning angle.
megan I guess it would be interesting to some of the pilots who not knowing this have crashed ?
BTW have you considered that many modern rotor systems have different aerofoil sections along the blade - with different CLmax for each section which will, of course mean that stall not only occurs at different points on the radius of the blade but also at different AoA depending on the section. How do you factor in high lift element such as a BERP tip?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLB
quite funny, some of the conversation has been good , but engagement with Crab has not been productive, by his own admission he is only trying to goad me, not very helpful.
The productive elements i suggest from this are
1 the idea that coning really doesn't have the capacity to continue smoothly to very large values but rather has an approximate coning angle band (UCA) that does not get exceeded regardless of RRPM
2 Rotor heads need only accommodate a coning range, plus a suitable margin, I am sure designers do consider this, anyone confirm that?
3 Pilots should understand that the load they can pull hit a sort of brick wall beyond which pulling harder will not give greater TRT, it will just wash off energy (agressively possibly, probably with stressfull vibration) and if there is insufficient supply of energy RRPM will reduce but the coning angle won't keep increasing at that point. (despite the wrong intuitive idea that it does). It has undoubtably resulted in many of the accidents where the pilot expected to be able to pull suffieciently, but could not, sometimes due to high DA or heavy weight, or indeed reduced RRPM
4 A photograph of a helicopter showing a 10deg coning angle can tell you it was at limiting load, regardless of whether the RRPM had drooped or not. if 3degrees is normal cone and the helicopter can pull only 3g in that condition (at normal RRPM) then it'll reach it's limit thrust at 9deg cone, regardless of the RRPM (although obviously that will not represent 3g at the lower RRPM, it'll still be essentially the same Cone Angle UCA (this is subject to some small second degree variations for actual circumstances (like the reduction in Ct/sigma with Speed, and to some small extent the subtle variation for different induced flow conditions))
Beyond that it is only interesting as a curiosity of understanding.
I don't hold out that it should be an instrument for the pilot, but it might be interesting.
It might for instance show you a Thrust Reserve (equivalent) for different weights and DAs for instance. FWIW
(Crab I don't think the BERP blade will make significant difference to the essential quality of this observation since the first order variables are still the same. I wish you'd try and understand it since i think you'd like the idea if you could see beyond trying to diss me!)
quite funny, some of the conversation has been good , but engagement with Crab has not been productive, by his own admission he is only trying to goad me, not very helpful.
The productive elements i suggest from this are
1 the idea that coning really doesn't have the capacity to continue smoothly to very large values but rather has an approximate coning angle band (UCA) that does not get exceeded regardless of RRPM
2 Rotor heads need only accommodate a coning range, plus a suitable margin, I am sure designers do consider this, anyone confirm that?
3 Pilots should understand that the load they can pull hit a sort of brick wall beyond which pulling harder will not give greater TRT, it will just wash off energy (agressively possibly, probably with stressfull vibration) and if there is insufficient supply of energy RRPM will reduce but the coning angle won't keep increasing at that point. (despite the wrong intuitive idea that it does). It has undoubtably resulted in many of the accidents where the pilot expected to be able to pull suffieciently, but could not, sometimes due to high DA or heavy weight, or indeed reduced RRPM
4 A photograph of a helicopter showing a 10deg coning angle can tell you it was at limiting load, regardless of whether the RRPM had drooped or not. if 3degrees is normal cone and the helicopter can pull only 3g in that condition (at normal RRPM) then it'll reach it's limit thrust at 9deg cone, regardless of the RRPM (although obviously that will not represent 3g at the lower RRPM, it'll still be essentially the same Cone Angle UCA (this is subject to some small second degree variations for actual circumstances (like the reduction in Ct/sigma with Speed, and to some small extent the subtle variation for different induced flow conditions))
Beyond that it is only interesting as a curiosity of understanding.
I don't hold out that it should be an instrument for the pilot, but it might be interesting.
It might for instance show you a Thrust Reserve (equivalent) for different weights and DAs for instance. FWIW
(Crab I don't think the BERP blade will make significant difference to the essential quality of this observation since the first order variables are still the same. I wish you'd try and understand it since i think you'd like the idea if you could see beyond trying to diss me!)
Whilst I hesitate to get involved in your love-in with crab, can I just check a few things?
Are you saying that as the blades flap up ie cone, that the stall AoA (CLMax) is reached along the whole blade as a result of that flapping/coning.
If so, are you saying that because the blades stall they will stay at the same coning/flapping angle.
If so, why won't they flap down again as they stall?
I just want to be sure I understand where this argument has been heading - its been rather difficult at times.
Are you saying that as the blades flap up ie cone, that the stall AoA (CLMax) is reached along the whole blade as a result of that flapping/coning.
If so, are you saying that because the blades stall they will stay at the same coning/flapping angle.
If so, why won't they flap down again as they stall?
I just want to be sure I understand where this argument has been heading - its been rather difficult at times.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sorry AnFI, but you really have to be called on that lot.
1. No-one had this idea, except possibly you. Most people thought and still think that coning increases with reducing rrpm until the blades stall at which point the disc blows back and cuts off the tail.
2. Designers will presumably confirm this one way or another, but those we've heard from on this thread don't seem to see this as important.
3. Pilots already understand that there is a limit to how much they can pull. Beyond that they call it overpitching, and they are warned they have reached that point by the low rotor warning.
4. At least one person with a great deal of credibility on this thread has said that coning angle without knowing rrpm is unlikely to be a proxy for limiting load factor.
I profoundly disapprove of the bullying you've had on this thread and others but you do rather bring it on yourself.
1. No-one had this idea, except possibly you. Most people thought and still think that coning increases with reducing rrpm until the blades stall at which point the disc blows back and cuts off the tail.
2. Designers will presumably confirm this one way or another, but those we've heard from on this thread don't seem to see this as important.
3. Pilots already understand that there is a limit to how much they can pull. Beyond that they call it overpitching, and they are warned they have reached that point by the low rotor warning.
4. At least one person with a great deal of credibility on this thread has said that coning angle without knowing rrpm is unlikely to be a proxy for limiting load factor.
I profoundly disapprove of the bullying you've had on this thread and others but you do rather bring it on yourself.
The other thing i wanted to clarify was are we talking forward flight or no-wind hover?
If we are talking forward flight, which I presume because of the apache video, then surely the retreating side must stall first which must make for all sorts of complications with flapping/coning.
If we are talking forward flight, which I presume because of the apache video, then surely the retreating side must stall first which must make for all sorts of complications with flapping/coning.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lala
1 You are effectively correct with a few small clarifications it's not so much that the whole blade anywhere in the disk stalls more that there is a CLmax for the whole disk, it's quite 'soft' because as some parts of the disk reduce the lift they can make other parts still have tha capacity to increase. So it's like the whole disk plateaus
2 and that will happen at more or less a CA that is not dependant on RRPM* so effectively there is a CAmax ie 'UCA'
3 why they don't flap down again there are considerations of whether they do and that could give rise to another vibration mode where that sets up an oscillation but lets leave that complication out of it the 'softness' of the arrival at CLmax refered to above should answer that well
4 sorry it hasn't been easy for me either !
(just saw, crossed post, about speed, that is delt with by the curve that NL kindly posted, Ct/Sigma)
Punt thank you
1 yes coning increases for a helicopter with a constant weight as the RRPM is reduced, but that is not what we are saying here (though some seem to think that's what it is). What we are saying was illustrated by the example of taking a light helicopter and reducing it's RRPM until it is at CLmax (measure THAT coning angle) Increase RRPM and add weight to the helicopter such that the heli remains at CLmax , measure the CA at those increased weights and we see that they are about the same. ie Coning angle is independant of RRPM, but not independant of CL which is why there is increased coning in your example. Your example has a changing CL (this was the point Ascend Charlie perceptively identified, but was lost in the noise) (it's only an example for illustration of the point, there are other qualifiers, not important for this purpose)
2 I think designers are aware of this and maybe we'll hear from one. They do at least need to know what coning they should accommodate (pitch links etc) some people presume that there are upper flapping stops, (maybe some types actually have them?)
3 sure BUT careful here it's not always the RRPM droop at this overpitching, if there is sufficient energy available we don't get an RRPM drop but we still get a CLmax (at about the UCA) this is the surprise to a pilot that thinks maxing out is allways indicated by RRPM droop. You don't have to be drooping RRPM to have reached the limit of how much g you can pull. (try 30degrees pitch up per second at 120kts in an Apache for instance). Therein is an important point.
4 I know he did, but I think that if he had a moment of clarity he might agree that it in fact does, hopefully
( I thinking he is thinking about Coning in the context of reduced RRPM, like you were, whereas really it 'doesn't matter' how you get to that Coning Angle, whether by low RRPM to reach CLmax, or with the normal RRPM and CLmax for any other reason, like pulling g).
we are really talking about circumstances where you do not run out of energy to fund the manoeuver, but the idea still holds
hope that helps? as Crab kindly said "the pig is getting tired"
1 You are effectively correct with a few small clarifications it's not so much that the whole blade anywhere in the disk stalls more that there is a CLmax for the whole disk, it's quite 'soft' because as some parts of the disk reduce the lift they can make other parts still have tha capacity to increase. So it's like the whole disk plateaus
2 and that will happen at more or less a CA that is not dependant on RRPM* so effectively there is a CAmax ie 'UCA'
3 why they don't flap down again there are considerations of whether they do and that could give rise to another vibration mode where that sets up an oscillation but lets leave that complication out of it the 'softness' of the arrival at CLmax refered to above should answer that well
4 sorry it hasn't been easy for me either !
(just saw, crossed post, about speed, that is delt with by the curve that NL kindly posted, Ct/Sigma)
Punt thank you
1 yes coning increases for a helicopter with a constant weight as the RRPM is reduced, but that is not what we are saying here (though some seem to think that's what it is). What we are saying was illustrated by the example of taking a light helicopter and reducing it's RRPM until it is at CLmax (measure THAT coning angle) Increase RRPM and add weight to the helicopter such that the heli remains at CLmax , measure the CA at those increased weights and we see that they are about the same. ie Coning angle is independant of RRPM, but not independant of CL which is why there is increased coning in your example. Your example has a changing CL (this was the point Ascend Charlie perceptively identified, but was lost in the noise) (it's only an example for illustration of the point, there are other qualifiers, not important for this purpose)
2 I think designers are aware of this and maybe we'll hear from one. They do at least need to know what coning they should accommodate (pitch links etc) some people presume that there are upper flapping stops, (maybe some types actually have them?)
3 sure BUT careful here it's not always the RRPM droop at this overpitching, if there is sufficient energy available we don't get an RRPM drop but we still get a CLmax (at about the UCA) this is the surprise to a pilot that thinks maxing out is allways indicated by RRPM droop. You don't have to be drooping RRPM to have reached the limit of how much g you can pull. (try 30degrees pitch up per second at 120kts in an Apache for instance). Therein is an important point.
4 I know he did, but I think that if he had a moment of clarity he might agree that it in fact does, hopefully
( I thinking he is thinking about Coning in the context of reduced RRPM, like you were, whereas really it 'doesn't matter' how you get to that Coning Angle, whether by low RRPM to reach CLmax, or with the normal RRPM and CLmax for any other reason, like pulling g).
we are really talking about circumstances where you do not run out of energy to fund the manoeuver, but the idea still holds
hope that helps? as Crab kindly said "the pig is getting tired"
AnFi - this soft clmax is where I start to get confused, if the reality is that the retreating blades stall, causing pitch up and roll then how can you have a coning angle that is significant in any way.
Whether the coning is caused by too much collective - ie overpitching - or too much load factor - from flaring with the cyclic it will surely always be the retreating side that stalls first, followed by a flap down, maybe some dynamic stalling and unstalling.
Just how is the coning angle in this case relevant or a limiting factor?
Confused.com.
I believe this Ct/sigma also has to do with rotor solidity (which I think means the number of blades) does that factor into your equations somewhere?
many thanks
Whether the coning is caused by too much collective - ie overpitching - or too much load factor - from flaring with the cyclic it will surely always be the retreating side that stalls first, followed by a flap down, maybe some dynamic stalling and unstalling.
Just how is the coning angle in this case relevant or a limiting factor?
Confused.com.
I believe this Ct/sigma also has to do with rotor solidity (which I think means the number of blades) does that factor into your equations somewhere?
many thanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
1. You have postulated a thought experiment to illustrate your aerodynamic point. AC found it interesting, maybe even insightful. I thought it was an attempt to describe a real world situation, but I think that has to wait 'till point 3.
2. Nothing to add on that one.
3. Isn't that what G limits are about ? The designers here are more than capable of designing an 'UCA' meter that made all the appropriate allowances so that your approximation wouldn't be required. But they chose to install G limits instead.
4. Nothing to add on that one.
2. Nothing to add on that one.
3. Isn't that what G limits are about ? The designers here are more than capable of designing an 'UCA' meter that made all the appropriate allowances so that your approximation wouldn't be required. But they chose to install G limits instead.
4. Nothing to add on that one.
Punto - I think you are starting to see the nonsense being peddled here.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Punt
1 the thought experiment helps to see the real world example, the only reason for it is to illustrate the point, lest it be thought of as just standard low rrpm extreme cone
3 well a light helicopter may be able to pull 3 g whereas a heavy helicopter only 2g but in either case the 'UCA' indicator would be valid. I am not suggesting a UCA meter other than it might be interesting.
LaLa , sorry if I confused you but untill the rotor stall is well developed the characteristic is a 'soft' arrival at a CLmax, it becomes dirty and stressful but probably not catastrophic.
Crab, I am trying to help in a serious way, you are not.
1 the thought experiment helps to see the real world example, the only reason for it is to illustrate the point, lest it be thought of as just standard low rrpm extreme cone
3 well a light helicopter may be able to pull 3 g whereas a heavy helicopter only 2g but in either case the 'UCA' indicator would be valid. I am not suggesting a UCA meter other than it might be interesting.
LaLa , sorry if I confused you but untill the rotor stall is well developed the characteristic is a 'soft' arrival at a CLmax, it becomes dirty and stressful but probably not catastrophic.
Crab, I am trying to help in a serious way, you are not.
LaLa , sorry if I confused you but untill the rotor stall is well developed the characteristic is a 'soft' arrival at a CLmax, it becomes dirty and stressful but probably not catastrophic.
You say the whole disc stalls but that is quite clearly not the case - every book I have read says the stall will start on the retreating side because the AoA there is higher - are you disputing that?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lala
Sorry "what is a soft arrival at CLmax supposed to mean versus a dirty and stressful one???" what happens when you pull hard is that you hit a Ct that no longer increases, when you pull harder you get 'stuck' at about the same Ct, the whole disk doesn't stall in the sense that it actually stalls , nore like part of it does and locally Cl reduces but other regions have capacity to increase still. So the effect is a 'soft stall' compared to an aeroplane where they also try to make stall 'soft' by arranging higher angle of incidence on the inborb part of the wing.
The whole disk arrives at a Max Ct and that doesn't drop off significantly despite pulling harder (or trying to!) it just gets 'dirtier' and absorbs more energy/s it's one of the pretty things about a helicopter. It makes it 'docile' except for when the pilot thought he might be able to extrapolate his experience and pull out before the ground, and finds that embarrassingly and inconveniently he cannot
Anyway in the 'real world' they dont have a CA meter because it is rarely usefull for normal sensible handling, it's only relevant at 'the edges', where a pilot should take this concept into account anyway.
Punto
are you being serious or pulling my leg? (i might be getting oversensitive sorry) if a helicopter can pull 3g when light and Ctmax is reached (UCA is reached also) then the same helicopter when at heavy weight might reach Ctmax at only 2g but it will be about the same UCA.
So UCA would be more relevant than a g-meter for a helicopter.
If YOU want to suggest a CA meter then that's up to you, I'm not suggesting it, but it is a fair suggestion, I just think it would be interesting, and should be a fairly intuitive instrument in a helicopter.
Punto incidentally I'd like to thank you for engaging seriously and concisely i'm not particularly 'hung up' on this observation and am happy to receive sincere challenge to help me improve
as dc/da has rightly and fairly done
i think there is a serious point in there.
but the thread is 'Calling Nick Lappos etc' !!!!!! I don't blame him for checking out it is tedious and if i were he i would also have let this thread roll on alone but has he now understood the point?
Sorry "what is a soft arrival at CLmax supposed to mean versus a dirty and stressful one???" what happens when you pull hard is that you hit a Ct that no longer increases, when you pull harder you get 'stuck' at about the same Ct, the whole disk doesn't stall in the sense that it actually stalls , nore like part of it does and locally Cl reduces but other regions have capacity to increase still. So the effect is a 'soft stall' compared to an aeroplane where they also try to make stall 'soft' by arranging higher angle of incidence on the inborb part of the wing.
The whole disk arrives at a Max Ct and that doesn't drop off significantly despite pulling harder (or trying to!) it just gets 'dirtier' and absorbs more energy/s it's one of the pretty things about a helicopter. It makes it 'docile' except for when the pilot thought he might be able to extrapolate his experience and pull out before the ground, and finds that embarrassingly and inconveniently he cannot
Anyway in the 'real world' they dont have a CA meter because it is rarely usefull for normal sensible handling, it's only relevant at 'the edges', where a pilot should take this concept into account anyway.
Punto
are you being serious or pulling my leg? (i might be getting oversensitive sorry) if a helicopter can pull 3g when light and Ctmax is reached (UCA is reached also) then the same helicopter when at heavy weight might reach Ctmax at only 2g but it will be about the same UCA.
So UCA would be more relevant than a g-meter for a helicopter.
If YOU want to suggest a CA meter then that's up to you, I'm not suggesting it, but it is a fair suggestion, I just think it would be interesting, and should be a fairly intuitive instrument in a helicopter.
Punto incidentally I'd like to thank you for engaging seriously and concisely i'm not particularly 'hung up' on this observation and am happy to receive sincere challenge to help me improve
as dc/da has rightly and fairly done
i think there is a serious point in there.
but the thread is 'Calling Nick Lappos etc' !!!!!! I don't blame him for checking out it is tedious and if i were he i would also have let this thread roll on alone but has he now understood the point?
Last edited by AnFI; 23rd Oct 2016 at 23:13.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but I don't see any bites from the designers, aerodynamicists, or test pilots.
you're right no original thought? Do you think its right?
"is a serious point if CA is limiting"
the CA doesn't actively stop anything, its just indicative
restatement test
The more coned the blades the closer to Ct max you are regardless of RRPM.
So coning shows how close to Ctmax you are. When you get to Ctmax then you are also at the UCA,
the CA doesn't actively stop anything, merely indicates how close to Ctmax you are.
you're right no original thought? Do you think its right?
"is a serious point if CA is limiting"
the CA doesn't actively stop anything, its just indicative
restatement test
The more coned the blades the closer to Ct max you are regardless of RRPM.
So coning shows how close to Ctmax you are. When you get to Ctmax then you are also at the UCA,
the CA doesn't actively stop anything, merely indicates how close to Ctmax you are.
Last edited by AnFI; 24th Oct 2016 at 07:05.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well there are two possibilities at this point:
1. There is a collective failure of imaginative thought and/or wilful concealment of the truth by designers, test pilots, and trainers, allowing pilots to enter the pull more get less zone without warnings or;
2. Helicopter designers, test pilots, and trainers have considered these questions and are satisfied that other limits and warnings (low rotor and G) are sufficient to keep us away from that zone.
You've made your point, and the rest of us (including the designers, test pilots and trainers who generously share their time and expertise here) will no doubt make up our minds.
1. There is a collective failure of imaginative thought and/or wilful concealment of the truth by designers, test pilots, and trainers, allowing pilots to enter the pull more get less zone without warnings or;
2. Helicopter designers, test pilots, and trainers have considered these questions and are satisfied that other limits and warnings (low rotor and G) are sufficient to keep us away from that zone.
You've made your point, and the rest of us (including the designers, test pilots and trainers who generously share their time and expertise here) will no doubt make up our minds.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 24th Oct 2016 at 08:52.