![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin: There is a section in Prouty where he reports on a series of tests
conducted at Cal Poly that claimed to demonstrate no change in hover power required over water. I've put that in the magazine once and received a bunch of howls from helo pilots claiming other wise. The Cal Poly guys did have some instrumentation with numbers to support their argument.?? -- Stuart Fields Experimental Helo magazine P. O. Box 1585 Inyokern, CA 93527 (760) 377-4478 ph (760) 408-9747 publication cell "The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:14:51 GMT, "Steve R" wrote: I know nothing about operating an aircraft off of water like that but I thought it strange how far he put the nose down in his attempt to lift off. I'd imagine that he was trying to achieve ETL but really?? He buried the nose, all the way over the windshield, "under" the surf. Once that happened, it's no surprise that he didn't have enough power to pull out, or cyclic authority to level the ship. Water will dissipate the downwash- kinda like "sorta ground effect". Same with tall grass.. The water ops I've seen always had the heli make a vertical pickup to a hover, then a normal takeoff.. I have to wonder if dumping the collective when the water started coming over the cockpit might have saved the heli. The pilot definitely made screwed the pooch on that one. The real tragedy is that someone had to die because of it. I think the pilot was the one who died... |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin: There is a section in Prouty where he reports on a series of tests
conducted at Cal Poly that claimed to demonstrate no change in hover power required over water. I've put that in the magazine once and received a bunch of howls from helo pilots claiming other wise. The Cal Poly guys did have some instrumentation with numbers to support their argument.?? Nice that somebody mentions! "Mike Baker and Jonathan Scarcello made ground effect measurements over astroturf and over water. The astroturf results tend to refute the pilots' observations. The ground effect at half a rotor diameter was roughly 30% stronger than over the smooth solid surface. Over water, however, there was _little_ measurable difference" Prouty in "More helicopter aerodynamics" Chapter 2. I got kicked in the ass on mentioning that towards some of my CFIs. And I noticed that I need little more power in hover over tall grass/bushes. However, that's not astroturf. I never hovered over water. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 7th 06 12:13 AM |
| Pilot claims no blame in July crash | Mortimer Schnerd, RN | Piloting | 48 | March 15th 06 10:00 PM |
| Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 05:40 AM |
| Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 06:58 PM |
| Is this chopper about to crash? | Trentus | Rotorcraft | 13 | January 12th 04 08:56 AM |