Lu, I don't have to get in an R-22 to predict the outcome of your obscure test.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.
2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.
3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.
4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.
5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.

Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.
Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).

There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.

To:Eden

Understanding the 18-degree offset can save pilots life. If my theory is correct then the pilots and passengers in 35 Robinson Helicopters were killed because of the 18-degree offset and the impreciseness of the control system that results from the offset. Because of the impreciseness of the control system the pilot can inadvertently introduce left or right cyclic input when countering zero G. This can cause the helicopter to roll violently to the right or to induce violent flapping excursions that result in mast bumping if the cyclic is moved to the left. If you read the Robinson POH the pilot is specifically warned not to move the cyclic in the way described above.

Check this site for diagrams that help explain the problem.

http://205467.homestead.com/diagrams.html

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]

To: Crab


Lu, I don't have to get in an R-22 to predict the outcome of your obscure test.
1. The R 22 naturally sits slightly nose up and left skid low in the hover due to C of G and the pilot compensating for tail rotor drift and roll (you call it translating tendency) - if you select a "wings level attitude ie do not correct for the above effects the helicopter will start to move right quite quickly.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ROBINSON MAST IS TILTED 2-DEGREES TO THE LEFT TO MINIMIZE IF NOT ELIMINATE TRANSLATION DUE TO THE PROPELLER EFFECT OF THE TAIL ROTOR .

2. If the cyclic is then moved forward along the centreline of the aircraft (almost impossible to do accurately without a stick-plotting setup) it will begin to transition into forward flight still moving right as well.


I AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN THE CYCLIC ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTERLINE BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE. IF THE HELICOPTTER IS TRANSLATING TO THE RIGHT DESPITE THE MAST TILT THIS WILL DIMINISH WHEN YOU GET THROUGH TRANSLATIONAL LIFT WHEN THE TAIL ROTOR BECOMES MORE EFFECTIVE AND YOU REDUCE COLLECTIVE AND BRING THE TAIL ROTOR MORE TOWARDS NEUTRAL. EVEN IF THERE IS TRANSLATION, IS THIS A PROBLEM IF THERE ARE NO OBSTRUCTIONS?

3. Translational lift will make the disc flap back and to keep accelerating the cyclic must be moved forward to overcome it.

THIS IS NORMAL. AS A PART OF THE TEST THE PILOT WOULD MOVE THE STICK ON THE RIGGED NEUTRAL CENTER LINE

4. Inflow roll (transverse flow) will cause the aircraft to roll towards the advancing side of the disc - RIGHT side on R22.

THIS IS ALSO TRUE AND TO COUNTER THE RIGHT ROLL THE PILOT MOVES HIS CYCLIC TO THE LEFT. IF IT IS SAFE IN THE RECOMMENDED TEST THE PILOT IS ASKED TO TRANSITION THROUGH TRANSVERSE FLOW AND PASS THROUGH IT AS THE HELICOPTER WOULD I ASSUME RETURN TO ITS’ NORMAL POSITION. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, THEN THIS PART OF THE TEST IS INVALIDATED.

5. As the aircraft started out moving right with wings level and has now rolled to the right as well - how can it ever go left as you suggest.

THIS PARTICULAR PART OF MY ARGUMENT IS A BIT DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS OF REPLYING TO A LOT OF NEGATIVE POSTS I BEGAN TO LOOK DEEPER INTO THE ORIGINAL PREMISE THAT I HAD IN WRITING MY REPORT TO THE NTSB. IF I WERE CORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTIONS THE HELICOPTER WOULD FLY TO THE LEFT BECAUSE OF THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. I STILL BELIEVE THAT AND, THAT IS WHY I SUGGESTED THE TEST. WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT WHEN THE PILOT COMPENSATES FOR TRANSVERSE FLOW EFFECT BY INPUTTING LEFT CYCLIC AND WHEN HE PASSES THROUGH THAT HE RETURNS THE CYCLIC TO A POINT WHERE THE HELICOPTER IS FLYING STRAIGHT AHEAD AND IN THE PROCESS HE HAS COMPENSATED FOR THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET. THIS IS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. A LONG TIME AGO A SIKORSKY TECH REP WAS VISITING AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER. WHILE ON BOARD HIS ADAM HAT BLEW OVER THE SIDE. HE PUT IN A $10.00 CHGARGE ON HIS EXPENSE REPORT AND IT WAS REJECTED. HE DID THAT TWO MORE TIMES AND EACH TIME IT WAS REJECTED. ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL HE ADDED A NOTE SAYING THAT THE HAT WAS IN THERE, TRY AND FIND IT. THE 18-DEGREE OFFSET IS IN THERE JUST LIKE THE HAT. HOWEVER IF THE PILOT DOES NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS HE CAN GET KILLED IF HE EVER ENCOUNTERS A ZERO G SITUATION OR, IF HE EVER GETS INTO A POSITION WHERE THE FLAPPINGLOADS ARE STARTING TO INCREASE.


Becauase of the way you say the R22 is rigged there may be some cross coupling between pitch and roll but this is likely to be an acceleration cross couple and only manifest itself when the cyclic is moved sharply and with considerable displacement.

CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TO FLY THE LYNX WITHOUT THE AID OF ELECTRONIC COMPENSATION FOR THE 15-DEGREE OFFSET?

BECAUSE OF THE IMPRECISENESS OF THE ROBINSON THE PILOT IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS CONDITION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO PUT THE STICK WHERE IT WILL MAKE THE HELICOPTER FLY FORWARD OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION.

The paragraph has been removed to protect the innocent.


Because of the nature of a teetering head (yes I know it technically has flapping hinges but it behaves the same way) the fuselage attitude does not change immediately following a cyclic input - there is a delay while the disc flys in the appropriate direction before the fuselage is dragged along behind it. (See previous R22 post regarding control power).

I AGREE WITH THE ABOVE COMMENT.

There is a basic flying lesson for you for free - try to understand it.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]

To: Joe Pilot

“Sufficient tangled metal bears witness to the fact that your suggestion is bad ... therefore you are a danger”.


Joe, has it ever entered your mind that maybe even if it were only one of the 35 crashes that resulted from mast separation or, rotor incursion that it may have occurred because of what I have been addressing in these threads? Just 1 not all.


------------------
The Cat

Don't even begin detailing P of F, comprehension of it and the consequences because you are not even going to slightly impress me or anybody else. Your terminology is different but the subject you allude to is control rigging, advance angle and phase lag all of which i understand with absolute clarity more importantly I have a good practical working knowledge of them. You still seem think it's ok for pilots to mess with an aircraft and it's performance. In your unncessarily elaborate description you are pointing out "Mishandling" - which is really what you are referring to and instruction is key to demonstrating areas to avoid and how not to mishandle an aircraft.

What is also taught and I TRULY HOPE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THIS .....is that YOU DO NOT DO THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF THE ORDINARY ...UNLESS YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DO SO - PLEASE, PLEASE stop setting a poor example.

If other PRUNERS disagree with me please feel free to stick your knife in but LU needs a few lessons himself I feel.

My biggest bitch is about you, not the Robinson, and not the issues surrounding it.

You preach and preach and yet again ask others to go prove something for you.

Let's go there yet again:

Go do it yourself, since you seem so up to giving Joe Pilot flight lesson's, you don't even need a CFI Mr. Big Shot.

You need to go do it, not joe Pilot, not me, not Offshore, not anyone else on the forum.

Why is it you continue to fail to realize a simple premise that has nothing to do with engineering, or flying in general is beyond any normal, non flying person, let alone the pilots here on the forum, however I already, in a canx posting gave reasons for why you won't ever do it.

The basic premise here is, in simple 6 year old terms for you, since you like to elict responses with 6 year old attacks is this:

You say it will drift. I say YOU go prove it.

Geez, you're like a broken record ... But again, it so much fun to watch you alienate anyone who still has cause to support you.

Your history of responses speak for me, I don't want, nor have to either:

Defend myself, nor answer to you on this subject any more.

(again, for the forum, Lu will follow this with either an "I'm chicken" dare of some sort, or a personal attack to go with his youngster psyche, go for it Lu, you'll only dig yourself in deeper :) )



------------------
Marc

OK enough is enough. No more discussion about the test. If I were to approach a Robbie pilot and buy an hour of his time he may feel the same way you do and tell me to piss off. That being said, the next time you strap on a Robinson Helicopter ask your self if the 18-degree offset is going to bite you in the ass on this flight. It did to at least 35 other pilots and, that's my opinion.

To: RW-1

My only comment is First Officer

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 26 January 2001).]

To LU:

Your comment to RW-1 was totally uncalled for. I have many FO's who have more "Common Dog" about flying, in they're pinky than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking.

You were obviously trying to hurl an insult, but what you don't realise is that the position of FO is part of the logical progression in a pilot's career, not a demeaning position that you obviously believe it is.

Lu, have you ever once considered that when a new concept for an aircraft is theorized by people like you, that a real Engineering Pilot is required to go prove or disprove the theory? Do you really think that the paper jockies are the people who make it work?

The answer is a resounding "NO"!!!! Many an Engineering Test Pilot has risked His/Her life to be able to work out the bugs that the "Paper Engineers" could not even consider because they lack one thing, EXPERIENCE in flying.

Keep your theories LU, I'll stick with the opinions and knowledge provided by the "Hands On" people.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

The Job Shop is still open...and they're running out of "Life's" pretty quickly!!

I'm assuming everyone has a licence, so didn't everyone research P of F before they took the exams? aarrrggghhh!! it's happening to me aswellllllllll.

>>Keep your theories LU, I'll stick with the opinions and knowledge provided by the "Hands On" people.<<

Amen !

>>than you have in you miriad af experience in "Paper Engineering" and armchair quarterbacking. <<

Yeah, most people on this forum fall into this category.

Lu has acted in accordance with my predictions, his insults are not a suprise, nor do they bother me one bit, considering their source. Keep digging that hole Lu ...


[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]

Lu Z.
When you started to post on this forum, Helidrvr explained that he'd suggested you did so, that you'd effectively been driven off another Heli Forum by personal abuse, and he'd assured you that you wouldn't get the same treatment on Prune as you had previously. (I think the last part was a gentle hint to Pruners!)
It all seemed very odd. Why would people be abusive to you? I didn't understand it at the time.
Now I do.
Don't you realise that you drive people to distraction?
Your Robinson contributions were interesting at first, but it soon became clear that you had an obsession not only about Robinsons, but even against Frank Robinson personally.

You've even managed to alienate the people who at one time were defending your right to express your views, and asking others to be patient and polite! Helidrvr does his best to keep some sense of decorum. A lady PPL occasionally reminds us that you've increased the volume of posts etc.
But you get on most people's t*ts.

Most of the contributors to this forum have enormous practical experience flying all types of helicopters. Some seem to have fixed-wing experience as well. They've not only flown, but operated civil and military helicopters in many different spheres. There are instructors who, between them, must have trained thousands of pilots, on many different types. Individually and collectively, there is a wealth of talent to be tapped by anyone prepared to learn.
You are spoiling the forum, Lu.

Haven't you noticed that for months people have been asking you to back off?
To let things drop occasionally?
Not to spoil discussions?
Not to try to turn every thread into a Robinson debate?
Suggesting you stopped posting?
There's now even a suggestion that you ought to have a forum of your own where you can waffle on to your heart's content.

I'm not surprised you ended up being subjected to personal abuse on the other Heli Forum. You obviously drove people to distraction there, just as you have here. People start off responding politely, and then, eventually.......

Why not move on to some forum where people discuss theories instead of what actually happens in real life aviation?
Or start/find a forum which discusses your other interest, model aircraft?
You might be happier - it seems like a lot of people here would.

Very well said Hoverman,

Considering that he did not wish to show himself as predictable as I made him, Lu decided to email me in private to tell me that "FO" meant "F--K Off" and we all missed it. Doesn't bother me one bit ...

That was the 6 year old response to my top post which has no real counter arguement, and was completely predicted/expected.

Of course, in so doing, he chose words that dug himself an even bigger hole with everyone who may not have made that connection. (or he meant that, and now uses it being a personal attack on me to minimize his blatent attack on 2P's everywhere)

In either case, your responses Lu are entirely within my prediction range.

It's still simply amazing to watch you dig that hole for yourself, and I haven't had to say a thing about the R-22 in the process :)

I again re-iterate to Lu that you read AND comprehend what Hoverman has so nicely stated.

I also stand by my posting describing my complaint with Lu in general at the top of page 4.



[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 28 January 2001).]

Top post Hoverman. There is another quaint British Army expression from the North of England "You can't educate pork" which I think applies to LZ.

Fantastic post Hoverman.
Says it all.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
I think PPLs (like me) benefit most from reading what professional pilots have got to say about flying and operating the various helicopters, and to learn from their vast experience, not reading Lu's tedious theories.
The trouble is that Lu's seems to be so thick-skinned he probably won't take the hint!

This has gone too far now. As a person who has strongly disagreed with Lu - I am content that making a point is fine, as is reinforcing the point if the message isn't received as we might think it should be.

Now - when some of you on this page start to become enveloped in your own self importance by insulting and attempting to alienate him from our forum or discussion, for no better reason other than you are bored or fed up then I think your suggestions are better left locked away inside your heads.

If we all agreed on issues,problems or principles then we wouldn't be looking at these pages or forums in the first place.

Lu - is a mature person who has amassed a vast wealth of knowledge throughout much of aviations' developing years and into today. Whilst we can all disagree with him on points and some of his methods of putting his point across....we would all be very foolish indeed not to respect the strength and depth of knowledge he brings to the forum.

Much of our problem with LU stems from our intolerance of another culture, their methods, ways and words. Shouldn't we (all his critics) be looking to ourselves to offer a hand in being able to considerately interpret or read between the lines and cast aside our poor comprehension or semantics?

For the most part it would seem that both LU and ourselves struggle to understand the same theory or point being made - using different words. If anything, the problems lay in the book we read or the tutor who taught us.

I would ask all of you to back down from your ill advised insults and understand that alienating people will only make our forum weaker.

A

"Patience is a virtue.....but waiting's a B***T**D"



[This message has been edited by eden (edited 29 January 2001).]

I thought Lu was American.
He was forced off Just Helicopters - an American Forum - because of his attitude.

"Some of you on this page start to become enveloped in your own self importance ..."
Self importance?? Speaking for myself, I have no delusions of "importance" in the world of aviation, I'm a PPL!!
Lu hijacks threads, and often good contributors give up and let him get on with it. I don't blame them but, what a waste!

Just look at the number of recent suggestions that he be given a forum of his own.
Stiff upper lip, we're British and tolerant is all very well, but why should we be dominated by this self-styled fount of all wisdom?
People have been polite in deference to his age and engineering experience, and have gently pointed out what causes problems, but it's not made a scrap of difference to his arrogance.
Now he's taken to e-mailing people telling them to F*** Off!
I suppose that's just a culture difference as well! :rolleyes:

Hoverman:

Excellent Post! I wish I had your eloquence and wit.

RW-1:

I received a similar e-mail!

What can I say!

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Hoveerman: well said...

Eden
I respect for you for trying, but I think Nomdeplume's reply to you is fair comment.

As Whirlybird says on the "Separate Forum" thread: I agree.
Somebody had to say it. Hoverman has, extremely well. Straight facts, straight from the shoulder not shooting from the hip, no abuse, and a bit of humour thrown in for good measure.
I'm an ATPL, but only a PPL on helicopters. I read most threads, but rarely post - I have nothing worth saying. But, it's so frustrating when people with wide and varied practical experience to offer just give up and stop contributing to discussions because of Lu Z's absurd and arrogant attitude.

Some banter on a forum is great, and often very funny, but if you look at threads where bad feeling has built up, one common factor stands out like a beacon: Lu Zuckerman!
Hoverman is right, he drives people to post comments which are out of character.
Now it seems he's sending offensive e-mails direct to people. That's not on.

IMHO, enough is enough.

Dave Jones

Your email address gets kicked back. Send me your correct address and I'll give you the real story.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 29 January 2001).]

Lu
I don't know what's wrong with my e-mail.

There you go again, Lu.
You offer to give me the "real" story.
The "real" story is what I've read with my own eyes over a succession of posts over several months.
I assure you the views I expressed have been formed over a long period, not just by your attitude on this thread.
At first I found your posts interesting. Now my first reaction is to groan when I see your name on threads - and my first reaction usually (not always) turns out to be right if I read on.
I've rarely experienced someone of your obvious intelligence being so intransigent, so reluctant to listen to what the guys who are actually flying the damn things daily are telling you. The guys with real PRACTICAL experience.

You always think you have the REAL story, Lu.
That's part of the problem.
You don't volunteer your views for consideration by others, you preach as if only your views could possibly be right.

Pilots show deference to your long engineering experience, yet you show none for their years of day to day practical experience.

I'm sorry to appear rude, but I'm really don't want to receive personal correspondence from you which is clearly prompted by this discussion.

Instead, why not just pause. Take a little longer to reflect upon the criticisms which people have made - before you say anything else. (The criticisms have been made before, many times, but you just carry on regardless.)
When you've done that, you may even accept a few points.
You may think it's best to say nothing.

[This message has been edited by dave_jones49 (edited 30 January 2001).]

Hey - look is there a way in which all our differences on this matter can be resolved? (Please don't repond to this Q with the obvious response!!!!!)

I have had one occasion to question LU - and I really disagreed with him...... he knows this and If you read back (a page) you'll see.

Can we all at least try to play the game....cos I just feel like enjoying myself in here and if I can..... perhaps learn something as well. This message is for ALL of US.

If you still disagree with me - I will shut up.

Completely predictable, since Dave doesn't want Lu's email, Lu posts it here.
(for those seeing this on the 30th, his post was removed this morning)

OK ...

Yup, you're right LU ! Totally spot on!

I was so irked by you that I threatened to quit .... I also called you those things, but don't try that "Poor LU, he's a victim" routine to dredge up support by posting it. all who saw those posts were also agreed that you pushed me to it with your own posts, I responded in kind. You even in those posts boasted that you enjoyed the process.

Now, that said. Let's examine my wanting to quit.

Unlike you, I don't have to dredge up emails sent to me, those who did know who they are, and I received enough of them asking I NOT quit, that I have had good things to say and add to the forum. So I stayed.

Now, because you take a email not even meant for you (That is why we have private emails, you have yet again sunk lower in that hole of yours And since you posted a private email to heli, why not ask heli to post his response hmm? You might not like what you hear.) I'll have to be slightly rude.

People here asked me to STAY when I said I'd quit.

People have basically asked you to LEAVE, and you won't quit.

I should say that you look in the mirror and examine that plain fact.

I can say with certainty that if you announced you were leaving, no one would be sending you mail saying "Please don't leave Lu, I like what you have to say." into YOUR email box.

You just don't get it:

I HAVE NO "SUPPORTERS"

You have alienated all these people all by yourself, there comments are their own, can you see the common thread formed by the posts? I certainly didn't write it for Hoverman, nondeplume, Joe Pilot, Crab or Dave J, who luckily had mail problems, and numerous others ....

>I deleted my postings from all of the active threads and now everybody is slagging me off because they can't attack my theories.<

But you still post just to distract.
Your answer in the 407 post is yet another example of how you distract this forum to hear yourself preach.

Eden's "obvious response" to his post above, do you know what that is?, that is members of PPRUNE asking you be removed.

Think about it, This isn't a contest. And you are entirely responsible for the reception that you illicit.

Take the clue you have been given.

------------------
Marc


[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 30 January 2001).]

OK, here it is Lu, I will debate it one point at a time, if you like. I juast got back from a job interview where I flew the R44 Raveon. I was very impressed. It was not a pleasure flight so I didn't try to go into all the detail of your 'test' but I can sddress the following:

CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL. WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE TO FLY THE LYNX WITHOUT THE AID OF ELECTRONIC COMPENSATION FOR THE 15-DEGREE OFFSET?

BECAUSE OF THE IMPRECISENESS OF THE ROBINSON THE PILOT IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS CONDITION BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TRAINED TO PUT THE STICK WHERE IT WILL MAKE THE HELICOPTER FLY FORWARD OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION.

As far as control impreciseness, the R22 / R44 are far easier and more precise to fly than the large aircraft I have flown with the electronic stabilization off (Bell 412, Sikorsky 76A). So I must DISAGREE with this statement. Practical experience vs. theory.

There is nothing uncomfortable about where to place the stick to achieve forward or any other flight. I had not flown a Robbie in months and did not find any difference in basic control sense.

Therefore, I must conclude that in regard to YOUR satement quoted above, and in the argument presented in your paper, the facts do NOT bear out the theory.

Gotta go fly, I'll be back.

To: Helo Teacher


“As far as control impreciseness, the R22 / R44 are far easier and more precise to fly than the large aircraft I have flown with the electronic stabilization off (Bell 412, Sikorsky 76A). So I must DISAGREE with this statement. Practical experience vs. theory”.


When I used the term imprecise I was not referring to the responsiveness of the helicopter to control input as from what I have read in these posts the R22 and R44 are extremely responsive to control input. It is this responsiveness to control input that can create dangerous situations as outlined in the last page of section 4 of the POH as well as in other parts of the POH.

The bold-faced type comment that you had extracted from my post was directed specifically at the Lynx. This is because the Lynx is rigged with a 15-degree offset on the blade relative to the lateral and longitudinal axis of the helicopter and the Robinson is rigged with an 18-degree offset from the same axes of the helicopter. So, in theory the Robinson will fly to the left when the cyclic stick is moved forward. In real life, the Lynx without electronic stabilization will roll violently to the left. (Please Crab don’t jump my bones telling me why it does it. It just does).

Again since I have no direct experience on the 412 and the S76 I must hypothesize based on my experience on other helicopters that have ASE or Auto pilot control integrated into the flight control systems.

Most if not all ASE/Autopilots are configured to maintain the course and attitude established by the pilot and do not compensate for any control anomalies in the control system such as a blade offset with the exception of the Lynx. If the electronic system incorporates SCAS then this system working in conjunction with other electronic black boxes will protect the airframe from overstress due to a ham fisted pilot at the controls. The SCAS also does not compensate for any anomalies in the control system. So, when you flew the 412 and the S 76 manually you had full control of the helicopter and it was up to you as the pilot to maintain course and attitude.


“There is nothing uncomfortable about where to place the stick to achieve forward or any other flight. I had not flown a Robbie in months and did not find any difference in basic control sense”.

I don’t doubt that the Robinson is comfortable to fly once you get used to the “T” bar cyclic and that after some time you become accustomed to your arm position and hand position. At that time it becomes second nature to the pilot. However, it is what you do with your hand and arm prior to reaching that comfortable position. Again, since I haven’t flown a Robinson helicopter every thing from here on is theory. When you lift off and fly forward you encounter transverse flow effect, which causes your helicopter to roll right.*** You instinctively add left cyclic to counter the right roll and about the same time you are compensating for blow back due to differential of lift across the disc and you move the cyclic forward. When you have passed through these two phenomena you have moved the cyclic to the position that results in forward flight and your hand and arm are in that comfortable position. Again in theory when you are performing the above control inputs and ending up in the comfortable hand position / forward flight you in effect have masked the 18-degree offset and are in effect compensating for it by moving your cyclic to the right of the rigged neutral position.

Again, in theory you have entered the “Imprecise Zone” which places the pilot in jeopardy if and when he encounters Zero G. If the pilot encounters Zero G and he follows the POH instruction he will add to the right roll created by the tail rotor and lose the helicopter. If he moves the cyclic slightly to the left while pulling back on the cyclic he will not add to the right roll and if he moves it too far to the left he will encounter high flapping loads and as a result will suffer a mast bumping incident. This is what I refer to regarding the impreciseness of the control movement.

I know that the same thing would happen in a Bell when encountering Zero G but in a Bell when you pull straight back on the cyclic you are not adding to or compensating for the right roll. The Robinson POH and the training of Robinson pilots require that the cyclic be pulled gently and directly to the rear and they state nothing about moving the cyclic to the left and rearward. One poster on these threads indicated that he had taken a safety course conducted by Tim Tucker who did much of the certification flying on the R22. In the course of instruction he told his students to move the cyclic a “tad” to the left when pulling back on the cyclic. He knew of the anomaly in the flight control system but it is not officially stated in the Robinson training program and in theory that is what can kill a Robinson pilot.

*** If in fact you do encounter transverse flow effect I would suggest that you dig up Frank Robinsons’ response on the Certification thread. I believe he stated that his rotor head had a delta three hinge effect and this was incorporated to eliminate “WE WAH” or in other words transverse flow effect.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 30 January 2001).]

Hello Teacher !!
We had only just got Lu back in his box!

I apologize...

And so you should!! :)

"Again, since I haven’t flown a Robinson helicopter every thing from here on is theory...............

"Again in theory ............"

"Again, in theory ............."

"......... and in theory that is what can kill a Robinson pilot."

:rolleyes:

PS:
HeloTeacher, would you mind not cluttering up this forum with what actually happens in practice when you fly a Robinson, when Lu, who's never actually flown one, has explained what happens - "in theory"!
After all, "in theory" he must know best. :)

To: Hoverman

I specifically prefaced my statements with the word theory to keep people like yourself from challenging me because you had perceived all of my statements were in fact, fact and not theory.

All of what I have stated in past threads about the Robbie relative to the offset was just theory and it can’t be proven one way or the other until a test can be performed.

My response was to Helo Teacher and although he chimed in a few posts ago he is yet to respond to my post.


------------------
The Cat

I must add to this constructively.....LU on 2 occasions in this topic I have asked you to respond to my thread 'B.O.L.L.O.C.K' - you sent me some info on email, but have yet to respond with any input from your exeriences in aviation over your very broad career. It is hard to believe that there haven't been occasions where judgements and engineering decisions that you have made or been party to haven't had some further effect in both a positve or negative way.

Please respond to this thread and action some useful participation, this is my 3rd time of asking!

Your response to this may be a way of illustrating to people something about LU the person as opposed to LU the Tutor and engineer.

[This message has been edited by eden (edited 30 January 2001).]

Lu, Heli Driver doesn't have to, and by now the reason should have been hammered in to you by now.

Hoverman, that was about the best Lu imatation I've seen yet! LMAO !
True to form, but missing

"It is my contention that..."

"What do I know, I saw it in the movies and on TV." (My favorite, it sums him up perfectly Don't care about the context Lu, it's pure U)

"What I was referring to, is..."


We refer back to the top of page 3,4, and my lengthy post on this page.

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 30 January 2001).]

I understand RW-1 , but I'm not talking to you so just let's see what happens ....if that OK with you?

You may come running back to me and say I told you so ...later. But, until then please permanently tx elsewhere......and in doing just this you too might wish to contribute to the same thread also....I would be pleased to learn more about your experiences and any important CRM issues that you have or have affected your flying operations.

[This message has been edited by eden (edited 30 January 2001).]

To: Eden

Please tell me what it is you want me to contribute to CRM. My last experience in the direct interface with pilots and other flight crew took place between 1947 and 1953 when I was a flight engineer on multi engine seaplanes or, as a flight mechanic on helicopters. I can tell you of my experiences but I already did that on an unrelated thread. Besides if I were to reveal my human side some ass bite would only slag me off.


------------------
The Cat

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!!
RW-1 wasn't "talking to you" either, Eden.
He made a point which might interest others whilst complimenting Hoverman on his amusing, and accurate, post.
"But, until then please permanently tx elsewhere." Wow! That was rather rude.

Eden - I realise your heart's in the right place, but encouraging any further contributions from Lu is likely to achieve the type of forum which many have suggested. ie One where he can theorise to his heart's content with only kindly people like yourself responding - until even your patience runs out eventually.

Helidrvr
Lu has endless engineering theories. He's obviously an accomplished and experienced engineer with much to offer - to other engineers.
If anyone did this on any other forum on Prune, their posts would be transferred to the Engineers Forum where they belong.
IMHO that is what should happen here.

Then perhaps pilots can get on with discussing helicopters, flying and the heli industry, not PoF and egineering theories.
Plank pilots don't have to put up with constant engineering topics - why should we?

You've given him a fair chance, but enough is enough.

HeloTeacher: Bravo - for not responding to Lu's requests for a response.

Solari: Before you get involved too deeply...RW-1 and I have emailed each other, you will note that both our postings have been edited. We also must have written them at about the same time and they initially read as responses to each other. I believe we may have cleared up the confusion now....no rudeness was intended more a strong hint of .....hey let's just wait and see how thngs develop before entering the world of vitriol again.

Solari,

>>If anyone did this on any other forum on Prune, their posts would be transferred to the Engineers Forum where they belong.
IMHO that is what should happen here. <<

He wouldn't last 2 weeks over there, they would toss him out on his rump.

Great thought though. And I do agree, let him play with his slide rule bud's. (I figure they ignored his theories, so now he's left trying to convince pilots. JAFW
W- for wannabee.

There has to be a comparison between "Teach" and "preach". We've heard plenty of the latter, none of the former.



------------------
Marc

Helidrvr

I agree with solari's suggestoin.

There is a serious problem on this Forum.
There is a clear majority view of what causes the problem.
You are the Moderator.
Please: Either do something about it, or at least respond to tell us that you refuse to do so.
Lu always claims to have some "special relationship" with you. I doubt if that's true. Whether it is or not, Lu should not be allowed to ruin Rotorheads.

LU : Please go and have a look in BOLLOCK....perhaps this might give you some idea about who we are and what kind of approach might work.

Hey I'm tryin - but you keep saying things that get up peoples noses....

I can and will only support you so far...I hope you understand this? Anyway give my thread a look.

OK Lu, I am back and will further pare down my quote to try to force you to address my point without getting off topic.

CROSS COUPLING OR PITCH COUPLING ARE ALLOWED IN THE CERTIFICATION OF A HELICOPTER BUT ONLY TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE PILOT TO MANAGE CONTROL.

My point: even without recent R22 or R44 time, the control sense is natural and comfortable, hence it meets the criteria specified. To be blunt, F**K the rest of it, address this.

Your contention with reference to R22 control has D**K to do with the Lynx. If you cannot defend this contention, admit it.

I have a 1000 hr of medium helicopter time of various SAS / AFCS / Helipilot configurations, your long-winded explanations merely serve to clutter the posts without contributing. Stick to the point.

"I don’t doubt that the Robinson is comfortable to fly once you get used to the “T” bar cyclic and that after some time you become accustomed to your arm position and hand position. "

What in the H**L does the T-bar have to do with this discussion (BTW: the adjustment time to get 'accustomed' is in the neighbourhood of 5 seconds).

"Again in theory when you are performing the above control inputs and ending up in the comfortable hand position / forward flight you in effect have masked the 18-degree offset and are in effect compensating for it by moving your cyclic to the right of the rigged neutral position."

The rigged neutral position is an irrelevant concept. Any C of G shift will result in stick placement away from the neutral. If the displacement due to airspeed, rigging, c of G, etc. is NOT uncomfortable, the contention you have made above is false.

I have tried very hard to be civil throughout these threads, and have tried to return to the basic contention originally addressed in your report that started all this. It is not my fault you regularly get sidetracked by the personal attacks and get into lengthy off-topic discussions of personal worth. Your many statements about the lack of resect you have for the responses you have received is starting to tick me off, so this post is getting more of a rant flavour than I wanted but that's life.

If you want a debate of your concerns about the R22, which I understood was the reason you started the many Robinson threads, then refute the evidence with fact, or accept it.

This is a seperate piont, hence a seperate post..

Low-G recovery is a touchy manoeuver. The natural tendency for ALL individuals moving their right hand aft across their lap is to displace it slightly left rather than move the whole arm to effect a straight line movement. As an instructoryou encounter this tendency in student very often and must counsel them to anticipate it.

The written recovery procedure is a blanket statement that CANNOT address all situations. In advocating a left cyclic movement following or in conjunction witht the aft cyclic, a situation of probable overcontrolling would result, hence, it isn't there.

This is not textbook, it is a guide to help someone through a fluid situation in which all factors CANNOT be predicted.