Why not do 360 auto rather than backwards? One of my instructor demonstraded a 360 from hover at 500agl in a H-300, well we had with 15kts wind

so 360auto should be possible at 800agl when doing 50kts

or is backward auto better choice than 360auto?????

The advantage of zero spped or backwards is that you can keep the landing site in sight - a 360 can be disorienting. The other option if you are close but not past the site would be s-turns

221B

Agree with keeping landing area in sight. I teach on the 47 and demonstrate an auto backing up, if you do wish to transition to forward flight to finish the full down auto I have found not to push the cyclic forward to much, this has a tendancy to unload the head slightly, thus losing RPM. You can then bring the 47 to a zero forward speed auto. I must admit took me a while and a lot of practice before I tried a zero speed auto. Just nice to know you can land it in tighter spots if the donkey stops...

There seem to be two threads going on here:

Some posters are talking about autorotations with an element of rearward flight BUT a forward flare and touchdown.

Others describe a full rearward auto with rearward touchdown!!!

I think most pilots would have tried the first but hat off to anyone who has tried and survived the latter!! The Bell 47 seems an ideal aircraft to do this with plenty of inertia in the blades. Would not want to try this in an R22 - not much margin for error.

Woolf said:

I must admit to being confused too. I have done backup autos after entering auto in forward flight but for the life of me I can't imagine anyone flying backward at a speed that would allow succesful autorotation. Surely such speeds exceed the flight envelop for rearward flight and would create all sorts of tail rotor instability problems? Isn't it enough that you have to deal with one (major) emergency without adding to it be creating control problems?

And how does one judge the touchdown point? (or aren't we talking touchdown autos here?:confused:

You are all BARKING MAD!