Fixed Wing vs Rotor

jaybee said:
:eek:

:dunno:

couple hundred hours in Bell 47 and I've never heard of that before....
Click to expand...

Talk to the guys who learned to fly them before the G model came out (with the horizontal).

That "bump to dump" trick was one of the first things that I was taught, back in 1972 or so (in a 47D), and almost scared me out of rotors. My instructor was a former Army IP, dunno if that makes any difference.
 
I can't say that I see a huge difference in personalities between FW vs RW pilots. A wide spectrum for both groups. I didn't know it at the time, but my PP CFI (fixed wing) was an Army helo pilot. I found out when I was at an airshow gawking at one of the Army's display helicopters and the pilot came over and started talking with me. After a while he mentioned his buddy would be back shortly and they'd just returned from Iraq together where they were on some dangerous missions, and he told me a couple of stories. "here he is now. hey Kyle, come on over and say hi...." sure enough. This guy was fairly soft-spoken, good-natured and down to earth. Not a braggart, to be sure.

I've been flying Robinsons for several years and absolutely love them. The R-22 is to flying helicopters what flying a Cessna 150 is for fixed wing. Very light, very responsive and requires a lot of input to keep it stable. The 44 is heavier and more docile/stable. I've never flown anything heavier but I'd imagine they get a whole lot more fun after that.

I can't begin to explain why, but for me...and I love flying fixed-wing too...but even an R22 makes any fixed wing boring by comparison.
 
SoloEqs said:
Talk to the guys who learned to fly them before the G model came out (with the horizontal).

That "bump to dump" trick was one of the first things that I was taught, back in 1972 or so (in a 47D), and almost scared me out of rotors. My instructor was a former Army IP, dunno if that makes any difference.
Click to expand...

huh, never been in a straight D but my first 100 hours was in a D1, interesting to say the least. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Well the same one twice
Click to expand...

Actually, ONE went around the world twice - look at the second trip in 2000, she was accompanied by 3 other aircraft, including another R-44. Only one of them went through the paperwork process to apply for the recognition - but two R44's made a total of 3 trips around.
 
SoloEqs said:
The Scorpion is a nice little helicopter, that fills a unique place in the food chain -- the inexpensive, owner-maintained play-toy helo. The low-end Mosquito fills that now.
Click to expand...

With either of these the old adage applies "Never hover any higher than you are willing to fall".
 
SoloEqs said:
When they started putting horizontal stabilizers on them, that made the tail pop up enough to spill the air out. Once in controlled autorotation, you don't even notice a problem, but you have to get the nose down quickly enough to keep energy in the main rotor. This isn't difficult on heavy helos.
Click to expand...

So in helicopter aerodynamics, pushing the cycle forward in autorotation will decrease rotor RPM (assuming down collective) and pulling aft cyclic will increase rotor RPM.

I'm assuming you meant dropping collective to retain rotor RPM, correct?
 
RotorAndWing said:
So in helicopter aerodynamics, pushing the cycle forward in autorotation will decrease rotor RPM (assuming down collective) and pulling aft cyclic will increase rotor RPM.

I'm assuming you meant dropping collective to retain rotor RPM, correct?
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the cyclic in order to drop the nose for airflow purposes...:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I think he was referring to the cyclic in order to drop the nose for airflow purposes...:dunno:
Click to expand...

That would actually make Nr worse which is what RW is getting at. Getting the collective down quickly is what's important. If you're at zero airspeed at a high hover, then yeah, you better get the nose down to build AS or you won't have enough collective for cushion.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
That would actually make Nr worse which is what RW is getting at. Getting the collective down quickly is what's important. If you're at zero airspeed at a high hover, then yeah, you better get the nose down to build AS or you won't have enough collective for cushion.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, might want to read Little Book of Autorotations by Shawn Coyle or watch this in the meantime -

http://youtu.be/cpHMqvoD4j0?t=1m30s

While forward speed gives you more energy to work with it is not a necessity.
 
RotorAndWing said:
With either of these the old adage applies "Never hover any higher than you are willing to fall".
Click to expand...

Check the test pilot videos on youtube for the Mosquito, the guy does 25 ft hover autos no problem. The Mosquito actually has a ton of inertia for its size.
 
jaybee said:
Not necessarily true, might want to read Little Book of Autorotations by Shawn Coyle or watch this in the meantime -

http://youtu.be/cpHMqvoD4j0?t=1m30s

While forward speed gives you more energy to work with it is not a necessity.
Click to expand...

I said zero airspeed. He kept airspeed between 30-40 kts to stay above ETL. Also he had a 10 kt headwind to help. Does he have a vid of zero airspeed and no wind for this maneuver?
 
ummm, okay wasn't trying to diss you, just pointing out that pushing the nose over "to build AS" in the traditional manner for a flare isn't necessarily necessary.

im not going to split hairs and argue over semantics on the internet. the impression you gave me with your words is that you only know how to do an autorotation in the traditional manner.
 
jaybee said:
ummm, okay wasn't trying to diss you, just pointing out that pushing the nose over "to build AS" in the traditional manner for a flare isn't necessarily necessary.

im not going to split hairs and argue over semantics on the internet. the impression you gave me with your words is that you only know how to do an autorotation in the traditional manner.
Click to expand...

Is there a non traditional manner to do autos? I've done autos from all types of altitudes and airspeeds but I've never seen one from a high hover and kept 0 airspeed the whole way down. You can watch plenty of vids online that advertise 0 airspeed auto but in all of them they lower the nose to get airspeed.

That's what the whole avoid region is about. If you don't do something to get yourself out of it odds are your landing isn't going to have a favorable outcome.
 
jaybee said:
Check the test pilot videos on youtube for the Mosquito, the guy does 25 ft hover autos no problem. The Mosquito actually has a ton of inertia for its size.
Click to expand...

I've looked at them, and the construction. You couldn't pay me to sit in one with the engine running. :nonod:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've looked at them, and the construction. You couldn't pay me to sit in one with the engine running. :nonod:
Click to expand...

My understanding is they use a series of belts to drive the tail rotor. It's possible I'm confusing it with a rotor way though. It sounds sketchy.
 
Henning said:
I think he was referring to the cyclic in order to drop the nose for airflow purposes...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Nope.

I'm talking about making a rapid movement of the cyclic to the SIDE, to rock the cabin and put the flat underside at an angle, to prevent an air cushion from forming if you get power loss in a high hover.

Without that air cushion -- or if you have horizontals at the tail -- the nose will fall, you will have airflow, and can keep the rotors turning.
 
ClimbnSink said:
C'mon they gotta be twice as safe as a mini500.:D
Click to expand...

I dunno, all the minis I've seen were VERY safe. It's hard to crash something that only moves when you're pushing it around on its ground handling wheels . . .

Seriously, though, I've looked at the Mosquito -- starting with the first "ultralight" model, which reminded me more of the Rotorcycle than anything else -- and I didn't see anything to worry about. It is certainly a stronger aircraft than the Benson-type gyrocopters.
 
SoloEqs said:
Nope.

I'm talking about making a rapid movement of the cyclic to the SIDE, to rock the cabin and put the flat underside at an angle, to prevent an air cushion from forming if you get power loss in a high hover. .
Click to expand...

Are you talking about doing this in a hovering autorotation? :dunno:

SoloEqs said:
Without that air cushion -- or if you have horizontals at the tail -- the nose will fall, you will have airflow, and can keep the rotors turning.
Click to expand...

Your helicopter aerodynamics are, well let's just say amusing. :rolleyes:
 
jaybee said:
you're joking right :rofl:
Click to expand...

Oh please, we all get taught various flight profiles for autos. I've done thousands of them. You're trying to prove something that just isn't done in reality. It's apparent you don't know what the shaded region is for in your RFM. You rub the edges of it like your video shows but 0 airspeed is a world away from 30-40 kts.

I tell ya what. Go out in your R44, climb up to 1,000 ft hover, chop the throttle and descend at a 0 airspeed auto to the ground. Let me know how that works out for ya.
 
Velocity173 said:
Oh please, we all get taught various flight profiles for autos. I've done thousands of them. You're trying to prove something that just isn't done in reality. It's apparent you don't know what the shaded region is for in your RFM. You rub the edges of it like your video shows but 0 airspeed is a world away from 30-40 kts.

I tell ya what. Go out in your R44, climb up to 1,000 ft hover, chop the throttle and descend at a 0 airspeed auto to the ground. Let me know how that works out for ya.
Click to expand...

Okay studmuffin your e-penis is way huger than mine, you wins the internet !

Seriously, what your deal ? take a chill pill.
 
Last edited:
SoloEqs said:
Then go try it in a no-elevators model, your way and the way I was taught.

It's possible that the IP had it wrong, but I really doubt that.
Click to expand...

just said it was new, not that it wasn't possible #1 and number #2 have couple hundred hours in no elevator models as well as elevator models.
 
SoloEqs said:
Nope.

I'm talking about making a rapid movement of the cyclic to the SIDE, to rock the cabin and put the flat underside at an angle, to prevent an air cushion from forming if you get power loss in a high hover.

Without that air cushion -- or if you have horizontals at the tail -- the nose will fall, you will have airflow, and can keep the rotors turning.
Click to expand...



SoloEqs said:
Well, yeah . . .if you're moving forward, you already HAVE airflow from under the belly pan.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I got this right. :confused:

If the helicopter (Scorpion, Bell 47D, any ship with a flat bottom) has a engine failure in a hover (commonly know as a hovering auto) without rocking the cyclic side to side an "air cushion" forms and the MR slows down. Really?

Also in a hovering auto you drop the nose to gain airspeed and wind through the MR. Really?

What altitudes were you taught to do hovering autos?
"
 
RotorAndWing said:
So let me see if I got this right. :confused:

If the helicopter (Scorpion, Bell 47D, any ship with a flat bottom) has a engine failure in a hover (commonly know as a hovering auto) without rocking the cyclic side to side an "air cushion" forms and the MR slows down. Really?

Also in a hovering auto you drop the nose to gain airspeed and wind through the MR. Really?

What altitudes were you taught to do hovering autos?
"
Click to expand...

Wow I thought planes could be complex but this is getting serious.
 
LJS1993 said:
Wow I thought planes could be complex but this is getting serious.
Click to expand...

Helicopter aerodynamics are different. I find it more interesting and once you gain an understanding it's like anything else.

I taught in helicopters and also gave examinations in helicopters for certificates and Part 135 rides. It was always interesting during oral exams to get into aerodynamics and so forth. On a CFI initial I would have the applicant describe, aerodynamically, a helicopter flight around the pattern from pick up and hover to hover and landing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Helicopter aerodynamics are different. I find it more interesting and once you gain an understanding it's like anything else.

I taught in helicopters and also gave examinations in helicopters for certificates and Part 135 rides. It was always interesting during oral exams to get into aerodynamics and so forth. On a CFI initial I would have the applicant describe, aerodynamically, a helicopter flight around the pattern from pick up and hover to hover and landing.
Click to expand...

That's a very cool mental exercise. I really like this stuff, but paying for it... No. I should go do an intro ride just to do it but it frightens my wallet because it knows I would lose the ability to be rational about setting it on fire and throwing it in the helicopter training burn barrel. Ha.
 
denverpilot said:
That's a very cool mental exercise. I really like this stuff, but paying for it... No. I should go do an intro ride just to do it but it frightens my wallet because it knows I would lose the ability to be rational about setting it on fire and throwing it in the helicopter training burn barrel. Ha.
Click to expand...
The intro ride is worth it but you best have a bucket of cash because you WILL be hooked.
 
jaybee said:
just said it was new, not that it wasn't possible #1 and number #2 have couple hundred hours in no elevator models as well as elevator models.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm hoping you try it and let me know if it makes any kind of difference. My 47D experience was a long time ago, and I wasn't ready for any kind of experimentation (my IP would have adjusted my hat with a clipboard if I had tried).

Remember, those guys back then had to make it up as they went along -- if something looked like it worked, they did it until it didn't work, and he was one of the first Army rotor guys. I'd like to know if all of that thrill ride stuff was really necessary.
 
SoloEqs said:
From about 4 feet to the ground and from about 2750 - 3000 (simulating power loss with a hoist load) with power recovery after reaching fully developed and stable auto.
Click to expand...


The 4 foot hovering auto sounds about right, but even with that there would be no need to "rock the cyclic" back and forth on any helicopter to successfully put it down, it would only require cushioning with collective pull.

The higher up (3000') is a "zero airspeed" autorotation and different in as far as recovery technique which is different in various helicopters but essentially lowering the nose (most helicopters tend to drop nose on a power loss so it depends really on how much cyclic to pull back).

This is not a maneuver that is taught in any of the helicopter syllabus and is not demonstrated during any checkride. This is something that would be good to demonstrate to a student so they could see the effect. A maneuver such as this is for people who do commercial work and find themselves in such situations routinely.

Not sure where the "flat bottom" "rocking the cyclic" stories came from but honestly doesn't make any sense aerodynamically. Autorotation is dependent on blade disk area, twist of the blades between the driven region (tips) and the driven region (inboard).

http://www.copters.com/aero/autorotation.html
 
I have never been in a Bell 47, or a Scorpion, for that matter. But the old flat bottomed clunkers I flew, (HH52A, HH3F), had one thing in common that most helicopters share: 90% of the rotor disc was outside the wind shadow of the fuselage. And considering that any effort induced at the tips is vastly more effective in increasing rotor speed than effort nearer the root I cannot grasp the reason for this maneuver. But then I'm just an old has been. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top