Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Stick skills v airmanship

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Stick skills v airmanship

Old 4th Feb 2021, 05:44
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,454
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
Thanks fdr - it seems that some people still think having enough power in hand in the hover to make a fast transition allows you to perform advanced and wacky manoeuvres with no problems.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 11:45
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Thanks fdr - it seems that some people still think having enough power in hand in the hover to make a fast transition allows you to perform advanced and wacky manoeuvres with no problems.
And exactly how did you come to that assessment, crab? Where did anyone post in this topic that they think there is no element of risk, or that a safe landing could be made in the event of an engine failure during some of those maneuvers? Nowhere, that's where. So stop throwing shade where there is none to be thrown
aa777888 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 11:56
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
rotational or translational movement with the skids near any obstacle is a high-risk exercise, may look exciting but it is not far away from an RUD, and that puts spectators at risk. DK did that over surveyed areas, where he was aware of the surface, and away from giving the crowd a face full of blades 'n bits.
The people at this show looked plenty close enough to get a face full of debris if he had rolled it:


How far do MRB bits fly?

The rest of your post was quite extensive, thank you, but already evident to me with two exceptions:

I've flown an R22 in a test at 56kts to the right and 55kts to the left, and yes, the helicopter can do it...It was also not done with the off the shelf R22, which hit the limit in flight to the right much earlier.
That's extraordinary. I would not have thought even a not-off-the-shelf R22 could do that. I am curious about the rest of this story. What were the modifications?

Final comment, note when you come out of the right-hand high-speed flight, that suddenly unloading the TR which swings the nose into the direction of flight will most times give a prompt overspeed of the engine (and MR) the governor is good, but not that good.
That is something I had not considered. In your professional opinion, from the video evidence, do you feel that there were such over-speed events during the flight in question?

Last edited by aa777888; 4th Feb 2021 at 11:58. Reason: Formatting
aa777888 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 16:31
  #44 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aside from all the well made points about the aerodynamic, power, and control aspects of being this reckless in a helicopter when you don't need to be, there is another obvious reason why this genius is well on his way to killing himself or others. A very superficial glance at any accident database will reveal plenty of instances containing the words: "while performing the manoeuvres in front of friends/relatives, the accident pilot...". It is a well documented and established fact that when spontaneously showing off your superior airmanship skills to others, your chances of being the first to arrive at the smoking hole are increased exponentially. The howling Jackasses on the nearby vehicles tell you everything you need to know about this pilot's preparedness, risk awareness, and professionalism.
Two's in is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 19:44
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've always had the opinion that I'm a weak pilot trying to get better. At no stage have I ever thought "I know it all now - I'm a flying god". It seems to have paid off so far.
Variable Load is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 19:47
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,454
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
aa777888 -here
To answer your question in one word: None.

The R44 Raven II has plenty of power-to-weight, and with 1-up these routines are well within MAP and other limits of the aircraft.
from hot and hi just above my post so back in your box
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 19:56
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,454
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
The people at this show looked plenty close enough to get a face full of debris if he had rolled it:
He kept a safe and mandatory distance from the well defined crowd line and was flying over a very large flat area.

If you can't see the difference between Dennis' well rehearsed and very precise flying and the yeehaa in the main video stunting for his mates then there is no hope for you.

That is something I had not considered. In your professional opinion, from the video evidence, do you feel that there were such over-speed events during the flight in question
not a question I expect fdr can answer since he wasn't in the cockpit and the video 'evidence' doesn't have cockpit instruments and indications.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 20:22
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm,...the spam on that site is so ridiculous that all I saw was the "turns about a point" type stuff he did higher up, but now I finally saw the begining. So I guess to add to my previous reaction,...

He could have at least of done a hover check first.

,...by the way, if "Stick skills" is taking "airmanship" to court, for what exactly is he suing?
Robbiee is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 21:06
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: England
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LOL, not so much litigation (interesting you are USA based and that is your first thought &#128516, more as competition. In a fight off (or indeed a flight off) which one is going to save your ass?
Mutley1013 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 21:21
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 46
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is just a doofus going in circles. Overall, I'm far more impressed by the precision demonstrated at the World Helicopter Championships.


slacktide is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2021, 21:51
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mutley1013 View Post
LOL, not so much litigation (interesting you are USA based and that is your first thought &#128516, more as competition. In a fight off (or indeed a flight off) which one is going to save your ass?
Over here that would be Stick skills vs. airmanship.
Robbiee is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 05:34
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,454
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 1 Post
The point is to use your airmanship to avoid situations where you need your stick skills to save your ass.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 05:50
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It appears the director of the local authority has made a statement.

A regulation enforcement investigation is under way regarding this incident. The manner in which the helicopter is flown goes against all characteristics of good airmanship, and possibly also against flight operations law and aircraft limitations. Regardless, the investigation will reveal the real facts regarding this matter
Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 05:59
  #54 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post

How far do MRB bits fly?

The rest of your post was quite extensive, thank you, but already evident to me with two exceptions:


That's extraordinary. I would not have thought even a not-off-the-shelf R22 could do that. I am curious about the rest of this story. What were the modifications?

That is something I had not considered. In your professional opinion, from the video evidence, do you feel that there were such over-speed events during the flight in question?


Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post

How far do MRB bits fly?

A good question.

For the safety case for research flying, I was asked that and came up with a rough estimate, without having to go test out my maths. The MRB and TRB are going to come off with a fair amount of surface area and modest inertia and will develop their very own lift in most but not all cases. Occasionally it will be pure ballistics, in most there will be some lift related to the rotation of the part, A Magnus effect will usually occur to some extent. So we plotted pore ballistic estimates given worst-case and expected altitudes and used also the assumption of rotational lift to give a wind drift outcome. In the end, Magnus effect is more pronounced at altitude, down low, ballistic will control. Other bits were not of as much concern, but we looked at lightweight panels, not a factor but have large spread, and high-density stuff, which is going to be ballistic. In the end, for a couple of the flights that ended up with a particular corridor that was approved, for the area stuff, there was a lot of open country with no one about. Not Mojave level, but not far away.
Down in the weeds, a rotor blade coming off is going to give debris out a long way, its coming off at a tip speed of around 230m/sec, from about 3m from the ground, so it will drop to the ground in around 0.78 seconds assuming no lufting going on. so, thats around a touchdown at 200m from the shaft, and then it's still got inertia, and is going to ping off further. Add another 50% of the first distance for stamps.... expect your MR blades within 300m of the wreck flaming datum. The TR is going to be a parabolic arc potentially but is going to lose energy quickly, it has relatively low density, so, it will still come down short of the 200m and will tend to ricochet less. Anyone with a better answer, I'm all ears.

Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post

That's extraordinary. I would not have thought even a not-off-the-shelf R22 could do that. I am curious about the rest of this story. What were the modifications?
The out of the box R-22 has a very good TR authority. First up,
WARNING
please note that anyone flying at high speed sideways or rearwards in a helicopter near the ground needs to have a good reason to do so, the chances of a successful autorotation are unquantified by the OEM other than for forward flight, per the H-V curve in the Performance section of the POH.

Going right, your out of the box TR is good to around 26-28kts, and that is dependent on limit cases, but I was flying worst-case CH and weight, and high DA... you may get different outcomes, but there is a limit to the TR authority. Going to the left, there is also a point that you will run out of nerve.

Part 2 to follow shortly... got a flight to do...

27.87 Height-speed envelope.(a) If there is any combination of height andforward speed (including hover) under which a safe landing cannot be made under the applicable power failure condition in paragraph (b) of this section, a limiting height-speed envelope must be established (including all pertinent information) for that condition, throughout the ranges of -
(1) Altitude, from standard sea level conditions to the maximum altitude capability of the rotorcraft, or 7000 feet density altitude, whichever is less; and
(2) Weight, from the maximum weight at sea level to the weight selected by the applicant for each altitude covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For helicopters, the weight at altitudes above sea level may not be less than the maximum weight or the highest weight allowing hovering out-of-ground effect, whichever is lower.

(b) The applicable power failure conditions are -
(1) For single-engine helicopters, full autorotation;
So, going rapidly backwards, or sideways, there is no H-V curve, y'all are on y'own.

27.143 Controllability and maneuverability.

(a) The rotorcraft must be safely controllable and maneuverable -
(1) During steady flight; and
(2) During any maneuver appropriate to the type, including -
(i) Takeoff;
(ii) Climb;
(iii) Level flight;
(iv) Turning flight;
(v) Autorotation;
(vi) Landing (power on and power off); and
(vii) Recovery to power-on flight from a balked autorotative approach.

(b) The margin of cyclic control must allow satisfactory roll and pitch control at VNE with -
(1) Critical weight
(2) Critical center of gravity;
(3) Critical rotor r.p.m.; and
(4) Power off (except for helicopters demonstrating compliance with paragraph (f) of this section) and power on.

(c) Wind velocities from zero to at least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must be established in which the rotorcraft can be operated without loss of control on or near the ground in any maneuver appropriate to the type (such as crosswind takeoffs, sideward flight, and rearward flight) -

(1) With altitude, from standard sea level conditions to the maximum takeoff and landing altitude capability of the rotorcraft or 7000 feet density altitude, whichever is less; with -
(i) Critical Weight;
(ii) Critical center of gravity;
(iii) Critical rotor r.p.m.;

(2) For takeoff and landing altitudes above 7000 feet density altitude with -
(i) Weight selected by the applicant;
(ii) Critical center of gravity; and
(iii) Critical rotor r.p.m.

(d) Wind velocities from zero to at least 17 knots, from all azimuths, must be established in which the rotorcraft can be operated without loss of control out-of-ground-effect, with -
(1) Weight selected by the applicant;
(2) Critical center of gravity;
(3) Rotor r.p.m. selected by the applicant; and
(4) Altitude, from standard sea level conditions to the maximum takeoff and landing altitude capability of the rotorcraft.

(e) The rotorcraft, after (1) failure of one engine in the case of multiengine rotorcraft that meet Transport Category A engine isolation requirements, or (2) complete engine failure in the case of other rotorcraft, must be controllable over the range of speeds and altitudes for which certification is requested when such power failure occurs with maximum continuous power and critical weight. No corrective action time delay for any condition following power failure may be less than -
(i) For the cruise condition, one second, or normal pilot reaction time (whichever is greater); and
(ii) For any other condition, normal pilot reaction time.

(f) For helicopters for which a VNE (power-off) is established under 27.1505(c), compliance must be demonstrated with the following requirements with critical weight, critical center of gravity, and critical rotor r.p.m.:
(1) The helicopter must be safely slowed to VNE (power-off), without exceptional pilot skill, after the last operating engine is made inoperative at power-on VNE.
(2) At a speed of 1.1 VNE (power-off), the margin of cyclic control must allow satisfactory roll and pitch control with power off.
You are assured of TR authority per the certification up to 17kts from all azimuths.... with CG and RPM worst cases within the weight/height and envelope chosen by the OEM. [side note... the (f)(2) case is very unpleasant to fly from my experience. Even with a parachute on. If your POH states a high-speed limit for being in auto, that is there for good reasons.]


Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post

That is something I had not considered. In your professional opinion, from the video evidence, do you feel that there were such over-speed events during the flight in question?
Hmmm.

The audio of this is rubbish, presumably a 44K sampling rate but that could be wrong. My sampling of that to use to get a useable sample also sucks, but is not as bad as all that, it is only a 44K sampling rate though. The spectra is shown below. The first one is more or less the whole video audio output sampled. There are obvious dopplers happening, no surprise there. There is also some acoustic far-field aspect variation, which is not very high. In the near field, the exhaust note and TR are the most significant signal sources, in the far-field, the TR is still a big factor, the MR less so but determinable as a signature and the most significant noise source is the BVI or rotor slap. In far-field, the exhaust is adding little to the spectra, but it can still be isolated. That comes from my reading and my testing, including flyover, etc, but I will gladly defer to any acoustics DER input and will be set straight on my thoughts. I near field testing there is quite a prominent lobeing of the noise SPL that was measured (in my testing at least) coming from the exhaust and from the aspect to the TR disc.

Anyway, as this chopper picks up and pirouettes to the right, the spectra shift noticeably. There is no doppler of note, it appears to be a blade rate harmonic,

NML MIN 101% (404 RPM 6.68Hz)
(99% 398 RPM 6.63Hz on appropriate tachos)
MNL MAX 102% (408 RPM 6.8Hz)
ENG MAX105% (2800 RPM 46.66Hz)
108% (432 RPM 7.2Hz)

The TR and MR have 2 blades, so reinforcement lines will occur at 2 times shaft rate.
A reinforcement will occur for the MR and engine at around 6.73x. The engine is also a 6 cyl, so there is a reinforcement as well due to exhaust impulse and the power pulse, half that as it is a 4 stroke.

Anyhooo, the sampling sucks, and which spectral line we are picking up is questionable, but it is showing a marked rise where there would be no major doppler from the source towards the recorder/observer. So, best guess is, yup, that engine will have had a rough ride as would the MR bearings. The engine would show characteristic markings from a really good Overspeed, the coning bearings could show some dust around the outside of the bearing to the head hole, but would not necessarily show damage from an overspeed. A sound lab could do a much better job of analysis, but I would be happier not to ride or rent that machine without inspection. The rise is seen in the second spectrogram below. I would say it is possible to probable that the aggressive rotation to the right through unloading the left pedal gives the rise that may have beaten the governor, just as the left mitt of the pilot can do at any time.

The owner may know, but the pilot should know what he got. Down low though, his eyes are outside or should be, so... maybe not. When I was doing testing, the engine, performance, attitude, MRB tensile loads, pitch link loads, TR flapping, MR flapping, and control positions were being recorded. And as stated previously, I wouldn't start the engine without Nomex, gloves, and an MSA Gallet or Alpha dome. It takes too much effort to put Humpty Dumpty back together when you screw up.

sorry.







fdr is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 06:17
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pewsey, UK
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I seem to remember an accident report looking at an AS350 (from memory) dynamic rollover outside a hangar at Fairoaks. One segment of TRB went through the hangar door (again from memory) and embedded itself in a toolbox or similar well inside the hangar.

Anyone else remember the same, and a reg so I can find the accident report? Really to see how far that blade went, and the amount of energy a segment of blade contains...
The Nr Fairy is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 07:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 55
Posts: 5,322
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Nr Fairy View Post
I seem to remember an accident report looking at an AS350 (from memory) dynamic rollover outside a hangar at Fairoaks. One segment of TRB went through the hangar door (again from memory) and embedded itself in a toolbox or similar well inside the hangar.

Anyone else remember the same, and a reg so I can find the accident report? Really to see how far that blade went, and the amount of energy a segment of blade contains...
I'm not familiar with that one, but I do know a Bristow AS332L rolled over while parking on their ramp in Aberdeen in the 90s and one blade embedded itself in teh airport terminal roof (as well as several cars in the car park being hit I think). That's several hundred metres.
212man is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 09:20
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Europe
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
G-CLPR R44 rolled over at Goodwood in 2009 and in addition to severely injuring a third party 60m away, launched a piece of the MRB about 300m.
ApolloHeli is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 09:27
  #58 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
back to Venice and more gondolas;


Back when aways, torque turns and pedal turns were a topic of concern, particularly with mustering use of the helicopters. Looked way too much like fun to not have issues. for the run of the mill maneuvers, the loads were not high, where the speeds were not high anyway. What passes for a torque turn or a pedal turn depends on the eye of the beholder; the manoeuver can be done at the appogee of a climb, with positive g throughout the process, and loads are low. It is also possible to whack on full pedal at cruise speed and watch the feathers fly, The machine washes speed off promptly, and, as the tail swaps with the nose, the tail starts to rise from the reverse flow over the stabilizer, and a lot of back cyclic is needed to stop the tail rising too far, but, you get to see a face planter full of dirt in front of you, including having to look up through the top of the windscreen to see the horizon. As you are reaching a cyclic control limit, the control path/TPP gets to be a big point of interest. The machine seems to sit in space for a while (like a particular scene on a Bond, James.... Bond movie with a -350) and then whistles downward in the opposite direction. The first time that one was demonstrated, I wanted to hop out immediately, as in, RFN!!. The questions that it raised on TPP clearance to the tail boom, inflow to the TRB, and pretty much everything in-between was interesting, in a morbid manner. Equally, the prior studies on torque turns and pedal turns did not appear to have covered someone doing such an extreme manoeuver. The boom takes a fair old lateral bending load for the force applied from the tail to overcome the air load of the boom and fin, with the maximum load aft of the center of the boom. K, not brilliant, but measurable. The TR takes a high blade angle in the pedal turn which was the usual way that was done except for one certain sheriffs department who were making a torque turn with a bucket of right pedal (equivalent...a euro thingy) to get the nose around smartly. from 120Kts, it was certainly entertaining. That one particularly is interesting as the change from a right pedal needed to get the nose around, to a hard reversal of pedal leads to some wild inflow angles, and some questions on what is flapping where (think "where did who go?"): with the delta-3 offsets in that case. along those lines, reversing the loads that much on the pitch links on the TR seemed to be worth a bit of a look. At that point I went off playing with the 737, so never answered the extended questions fully, but wanted to go back someday. Dunnunda, a number of funnies happened with Robbies doing mustering in the main, with the "improved single piece" pitch links shearing. Now, I think that the design of the links on a TR should not have a lot of cyclic loads being applied; they are after all a collective device only, and the only independent blade angle change arise from the built-in delta-3 hinge offset. As far as I am aware, there have been at least 3 of those sorts of failure occur, one being detected in flight with some associated antics of having a free to pitch blade... the failures may be from machining (tooling marks etc), or materiel (inclusions, embrittlement or other) but they did not. The failure was concluded to have come from the binding of the bearing due to excessive axial wer, well outside of limits. Given where they have occurred, I suspect that the TR pitch links don't like what they are seeing. The low-speed manoeuvers didn't appear to add much load, so it may be that the higher speed, higher blade angle/higher inflow is happening. Or it is just a coincidence. The reports show extensive wear of the spherical bearings, which is not a good thing. The photos show the condition of the control system...


Dunnunda had 3 of those cases... the curious point in the report relevant to mucking about in a pond over the Transvaal is:

"The factors that influence the rate of wear in the spherical bearing that attaches the tail rotor blade to the pitch link would not be expected to vary from helicopter to helicopter".

But the reports appear to come from an area where ag stuff is a common factor.

Suggestion: if you are going to use large applications of control inputs, then do good post flights and preflights.
fdr is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 10:15
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Several thousand hours reliance on rotary wing flight (similar on fixed wing) convince me that both forms can offer sufficient challenges to not need adding to. This would appear to be a concept foreign to the wazzock in the Robbie. Apart from the incidents mentioned above, personal knowledge recalls blades plus MRG departing a Whirlwind in Cyprus (undrilled grease nipple), similar at Valley (faulty distance judgement) and blade weight departure at Boscombe on early model Lynx plus sundry other unplanned 'earth returns'. A 'catalogue' which might give pause for thought, - a process which the subject has managed to avoid !
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 11:34
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
A good question.

For the safety case for research flying, I was asked that and came up with a rough estimate, without having to go test out my maths. The MRB and TRB are going to come off with a fair amount of surface area and modest inertia and will develop their very own lift in most but not all cases. Occasionally it will be pure ballistics, in most there will be some lift related to the rotation of the part, A Magnus effect will usually occur to some extent. So we plotted pore ballistic estimates given worst-case and expected altitudes and used also the assumption of rotational lift to give a wind drift outcome. In the end, Magnus effect is more pronounced at altitude, down low, ballistic will control. Other bits were not of as much concern, but we looked at lightweight panels, not a factor but have large spread, and high-density stuff, which is going to be ballistic. In the end, for a couple of the flights that ended up with a particular corridor that was approved, for the area stuff, there was a lot of open country with no one about. Not Mojave level, but not far away.
Down in the weeds, a rotor blade coming off is going to give debris out a long way, its coming off at a tip speed of around 230m/sec, from about 3m from the ground, so it will drop to the ground in around 0.78 seconds assuming no lufting going on. so, thats around a touchdown at 200m from the shaft, and then it's still got inertia, and is going to ping off further. Add another 50% of the first distance for stamps.... expect your MR blades within 300m of the wreck flaming datum. The TR is going to be a parabolic arc potentially but is going to lose energy quickly, it has relatively low density, so, it will still come down short of the 200m and will tend to ricochet less. Anyone with a better answer, I'm all ears.
That's what I thought, in general terms, anyway. Hence the example video of Dennis' air show routine not being anywhere near that far from the crowd. No matter how good you are, and he was great, and how much you practice, and how carefully you plan, you can still crash, and even he did once, famously. And the same is pretty much true of many air show performances. Don't forget the crowds want to be part of the show, too. Standing 500M away is not going to cut it for them. They have their own personal risk assessments. Many an air show spectator has been killed over the years.

The out of the box R-22 has a very good TR authority.
Agreed.

Part 2 to follow shortly... got a flight to do...
Lot's of typing in this post, and your following post, but I did not see a single sentence about how you went 50+ KN sideways in an R22. Or did I miss that? So still waiting for the rest of that story, please.
aa777888 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.