On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
said:

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying Bells
was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as the
exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.


I don't care about the rest of your discussion here, so no comment.
But, you got it wrong about Allen Barklage an his accident in his
Mini-500. The Mini-500 has excellent engine-out characteristics, as
demonstrated at almost every major air show.

I recall one of them pranging at Sun n Fun, I think it was. A yellow
one? Indeed, it might have been your demonstrator? Engine seize led to
a hard landing and rolloever, IIRC, but I will look it up and get my
facts straight if you want to argue about it.

If properly set up by the builder, it could autorotate and land safely
as low as 40 mph.

What about the nose tuck? I have Rick Stitt's answer to that, and I
wonder what yours is.

Allen had great experience in his Mini-500 and was an expert at
demonstrating autorotations.

I'm aware of Allen's Mini-500 experience. He was probably the second or
third highest time pilot in type at the time of his death, wasn't he?
There was another fellow who had some 800 hours at the time, IIRC.

Where would lack of transition time from one helicopter to another have
anything to do about Allan's accident, in the way you just tried to
convey here? None whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that it was transition "time" but negative transfer
of skill, of experience, and of "muscle memory" under pressure, to use
the latest fad term. Allen had done at least five for-real autos in the
helicopters he was most familiar with, Bells.

The Bell teetering rotor system has, as you well know, some
similarities with the Mini and some rather pronounced differences. The
biggest difference being (IMHO) rotor inertia. A standard drill at Army
flight school is (or was in Allen's day, at least) to set the machine
down, pick it up, pedal turn it 180 degrees, and set it down again.

You wouldn't pull that off with a low-inertia design like the Mini --
or the R-22 for that matter. But you can do it with a Bell 47, UH-1, or
206/OH-58. Having had for-real autos in these machines, a pilot has a
"feel" for what he can do. Like stretch a "glide" over some wires.
Except you're not in the Bell, you definitely can't.

I think negative transfer also contributed to some of the Robbie
mishaps that led to the SFAR on training in the R-22.

(FWIW, F.R. now says that if he knew his helicopter would have become
the most popular trainer, he'd have designed it completely differently.
He intended it to be a light, responsive machine for the experienced
pilot seeking a sport or transport helicopter. He built the machine he
wanted to fly himself).

In a related matter, of fitness for purpose, I note that RHCI's very
effective ads stressed all the cool things you could do and places you
could go in a Mini-500. They imply it was easy as a bicycle and safe as
mother's milk -- neither of which is true, you'll admit, of any
helicopter.

Allen took off in his Mini-500 after it had an engine seizure due to
improper jetting a flight before. He didn't bother to inspect the
engine for seizure damage, and just flew it away as if nothing wrong
had happened.

NTSB does not mention any prior seizure, or anything to do with
carburettor jets. They do say: "A loss of engine power due to cold
seizure of the power-takeoff cylinder." They retained the engine for
examination after releasing most of the wreckage.

https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?...11X11011&key=1


Worse yet, he hugs the ground during his flight, and flies over a power
line complex without gaining altitude.

Witness: "It was approximately 200 feet above the ground."
Source:
https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp...FA353& akey=1

The


The engine finally failed over the lines, and he tried to milk the
rotor rpm for more than any helicopter could have offered, and nosed
into the ground after stalling the blades.

The witness also noted that "The helicopter did not do a nose tuck,"
which indicates some familiarity with the type, if he was expecting
that.

Simple as that. It had nothing to do with transition time from one
helicopter to another. It had already been determined that there is
probably no single engine helicopter built that could have lost it's
engine at that time and auturotated that distance at such a low
altitude and landed safely.

"It had already been determined" -- the passive voice is a bit evasive
sounding here? Who determined that no single engine could lose its
engine at 200 ft. and climbing (Witness: ""He was level and climbing,
going away from me when all of a sudden, the sound (engine sound) went
quiet, followed by a pop." - same NTSB narrative) and autorotated
safely?

I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.
Buit I don't believe RHCI folded until one or two big shows after
Allen's demise.

Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
newsgroups very often these days.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.