What does this mean? Is Q torque and are the numbers in %?

edited: Also thanks for those numbers... being fixed wing guy I know TAS increases with altitude, but I was surprised how the Vne decrease affects the max TAS with altitude. I probably won't be flying anywhere near Vne though.. will take my time and save a bit of fuel (that's gonna be another question soon...).

pilot and apprentice, all I'll say is- if the shoe fits...then I was probably talking about you. And truly, you sound like one of those paranoid types - as you yourself admit, when you fly high you've always got one eye pinned on what your gearboxes are doing. Why? Don't you trust them?

Oh, and a combining gearbox failure - I'm assuming you're talking about a PT-6 Twinpack here? A "C-box" failure is not the same as a MGB failure. A failure of the combining gearbox would just give you a complete loss of power, right? I mean, it wouldn't affect the ability of the rotor to turn. So in that case it would still be better to be high, to better select a proper forced-landing area.

Answer to Bob Denny's Question
 

I should have been clearer in my post.
Q is torque and the 10-15 is % of torque.
Long time since I have flown a 206 but have done some long ferries in them.
I have always found it strange that the RFM has no fuel flow VS alt / torque setting charts for cruise.

Bob:
I'll be teaching Ray Prouty's class, as he's retired, and graciously allowed me to take over the reins.

Albatross:
There are no range and endurance charts in the 'approved' part of the flight manual as there is no legal requirement for them. They are often in the 'Manufacturer's Data' section. PM me if you want more info.

You buying the Whisky this Year?

Thanks Shawn.
I highly doubt I will be flying a Jetbox anytime soon but thanks for the kind offer.

I have the charts for the machines I fly now. As you say sometimes you have to dig deep to find the charts. In the 92 I recall they are in "supplementary performance"

Due to the long legs we fly offshore we nearly always go high and upon occasion need to use best range power. Amazing how much range you can get if you really need it.

I recall that the AS350 D with the LTS101 would go a heck of a long way further down the road at 9000 -10000 ft using "best range" vs 500 AGL and 80% Q.
A lot of folks just don't know a lot about the use of altitude and best range power as they just never need to do it.

Cheers and all the best in 2014

I hate XC
 

Traveling by air is best by airplane. Cross country just doesn't have a lot of real flying: takeoffs, departures, approaches and landings.
En route legs are autopilot stuff. It's all I can do to stay awake after the first hour. Although there is something to be said for the occasional view from short leg altitudes, that low altitude view almost always comes with some increased risk.

I would plan for, in this order:
friendliest territory for forced/precautionary landings (higher expands the available area with highway access and waiting for maintenance coffee geometrically);
shortest ETE;
least fuel flow;
smoothest ride.
With GPS, efficiency is easy, one has quick access to ground speed information. I set up 600 fpm climb max continuous and watch that number until it starts to fall, then fiddle with cruise altitude and power, if fuel is an issue. Flight time is way more expensive than fuel, so unless I'm stretching the margin above minimum, I cruise as quickly as possible.
Weather complicates the issue, especially vis. The increased visual range at altitude can make weather issues easier to deal with.

Helo pilots fly low because that's what we mostly do on 2 - 20 minute legs, when it's not logical to spend a lot of time in the vertical. Lots of rationalization of phobias in that "what if you're on fire/transmission seizing" talk.

Also important factors.....who is paying the bill for the trip, is there a deadline for getting to the destination, and are you doing the trip for "work" or "pleasure".

One of my trips south took me along some very interesting country until I broke through the Rockies at Jasper....then it was 135 Degrees Heading for a couple of Days....and the further I went...the flatter and less attractive it got until I hit parts of Texas and Oklahoma where there were thousands of abandoned houses and those Wind Mill water pump things standing up everywhere.

Had I been at umpteen thousand feet....I would have missed all that....which would have been a shame as I would have missed a History Lesson.

Reading Town Names off Water Towers and Train Stations can be interesting as well....or getting the mileage to some City from an Interstate Highway Sign.

Stopping at a small airstrip and sharing a Cup of Coffee with the locals is not a bad thing either.

This business of Helicopter Flying is supposed to be "fun" and sometimes being able to just fly the machine and enjoy the scenery reminds us of why we took up this profession of ours. Those chances are rare.....don't waste them!

Shawn:

I will be in the accident investigation class that you and your business partner are doing. We can reminisce about the bent air frames I showed you under the tarps a few years ago.... :cool: I have the pictures prior to them being moved still.....

LOL - I know of what you speak SASless.
Once ferried a 205 in December to LA from Montreal via Dallas and El Paso due awful WX. all the way.
Never got above 1000 agl till past El Paso and had a 20 KT. headwind all the way.
Great flight sure saw a lot of neat stuff in folks back yards.
Met a lot of good people at all the small airports we stopped at along the way.
Made it home for Xmas too!

Helicopter pilots fly like they fly, if their day to day activity involves flying at low level, then that's how they manage their flights, all of them, because it's their comfort zone. Get away from the warm embrace of the "TAWS RED ZONE" and they'll feel naked. and exposed.
I agree with the OP, no reason to fly a cross country at 500 ago, perhaps if it's a short flight and you are extremely familiar with the terrain you can do that on a good VMC day.
I found that doing the scud running thing grossly reduces your situational awareness, increases the attention given to obstacle avoidance and, depending on where you are flying, may make communications with ATC more difficult; not to mention reducing the chances of a succesfull autorotation if one has to be performed.

In Un-Controlled Airspace....what requirement is there to communicate with ATC?

If you file a VFR Flight Plan what requirement do you have to do a Position Report?

In parts of the USA....it can be easy to avoid "having" to communicate with ATC for most of the day.

What's the point
 

of going fast and high? If you want to get handling experience in helicopters you want to spend as much time as you can doing it; 20 kts headwind is a bonus; more T/Os and Ldgs are a bonus; turbulence improves your handling skills and Situational Awareness; limited endurance = SA
;)
'Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
shouting 'Holy !!!!...what a ride!'

In the US, much of the airspace is "controlled" in that you must be on an IFR flight plan if weather is below visual. I assume you mean airspace within which you must be in 2-way communication with ATC, and in some cases (Class A/B/C) you must be under ATC control. I won't be in any class A ("A"bove ... FL180) ha ha, but if I'm not around any major aerodromes, or near any tower-controlled aerodromes (so in Class E for 'E'verywhere), then you are not required to talk to ATC. But flying out in the open desert southwest, I can easily be 20+ miles from anything and not have any mobile phone service. If I have a problem, it would be nice to have VFR flight following. Also, if operating within fixed wing altitude structure, in my mind it is entirely possible that a faster fixed wing aircraft could run up behind me and I would not see it. For this, radar following from the Air Route Traffic Control Center ("center") is something I'd like as well. So I would want to talk to ATC (center) if flying at a VFR altitude (odd thousands plus 500 for eastbound).
None. You simply have to close your flight plan with a Flight Service Station after landing (or sooner if you wish). But I won't file a VFR flight plan, rather just "pick up" VFR flight following from center.
Yes, but it has its advantages, not the least of which it can be entertaining, it can help you know the weather ahead, and useful in an unusual or emergency situation. I don't mind it.

http://solo.dc3.com/forumimg/WestAzDist.png

And to everyone, once again, thanks very much.

My life's aeronautical experience is pretty much validated here as far as the personalities and "concerns" ... I am of the "know the odds" persuasion ... irrational fears are not my thing! It's been really wonderful to hear from a variety of people, how you think and what is important to each of you.

I have never had the luxury of going flying just for the ride to enjoy the view. We are paid to get our pax to their destination as fast as reasonably possible, in good shape.

One thing hardly mentioned here in the discussion is wind effect. Climbing may be beneficial, or not, depending on the day. Generally speaking I simply aim to find the best available groundspeed.

If it means an IMC transit, so be it. We have the luxury of being able to fly VMC/VFR or IMC/IFR in Class G airspace more or less as we please (OAT/icing level permitting), although our maximum altitude is almost always below 4,500 feet, to stay below controlled airspace. Sometimes we will change from VFR to IFR a few times on the same flight.

Bob,

If one stays VFR, avoids Tower Controlled Airports, listens to ATIS and other Automated Weather sources, and files a flight plan.....as not having any flight following resource would be a very big NO NO in my book, the need to chat to someone gets rather insignificant. A Radio call each hour to make a position report is not very burdensome and a phone call during each refueling stop is simple enough to do.

A bit of creative thought....and a quelling of an internal need to get all formal and complex in a cross country trip....call it thinking outside the box if you will....grants one a rare opportunity to enjoy that sheer pleasure of flying much as it was done in the old days back when there was very little but Topographical data and some VOR/NDB or LF Airway data on the map along with the Airport data.

Now the VFR Sectional Maps are so cluttered it takes a Philadelphia Lawyer to figure it all out properly. When you get out West where things are far apart....and the Map starts getting less cluttered is where you can begin to revert to basic helicopter flying.

Why would you want to fly IFR and look at the same ol' thing when all that beauty lies below you?

Post-action report. I flew the first part high to cross the mountains then drifted down to 3500 across the Imperial Valley (Thermal) to Blythe for a fuel stop. Then I flew Blythe to Deer Valley at 1000 AGL along the I-10 freeway. I have to say I preferred the 1000AGL part and I had a place to auto all the way. 3:45 total and gorgeous weather. Winds aloft to 6000 were light and variable!! Bad luck there.

Thanks again, this was a most excellent discussion. I learned a lot by "listening" to all of you!!!

I've flown diagonally across North America several times and my preferred altitude is in the 1000' AGL range. Mostly because being at 6000' AGL is boring for 8+ hours a day :p

Interesting discussion.

As PIC, most of my time airborne has been 1000 AGL or below, I don't have a FW rating. On a ferry flight from the Robinson factory I spent a short time above 4,000 AGL from Northern Ca. into Oregon, what I found most notable was the loss of the sensation of speed that I was so accustomed to. The feeling of standing stationary on the edge of a building took some getting used to. I've been on a few solo X-country flights in a C172 and did not have the same sensation, possibly because of the limited view. I feel compelled to go upstairs and check things out again.

Mike