This is bad why?

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:19:52 GMT, Grumman-581
<grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:45:18 -0800, James Connell <jconnell@gci.net>
>wrote:
>> Well then what do you call that drop with the abrupt stop at the end?
>> Flying???
>
>A failed missed approach? <evil-grin>
>
>Interesting technical point though... At what point does a rapid
>vertical descent get classified as "falling" vs "flying"... Does it
>have something to do with the glide ratio perhaps? If so, one could
>argue that the shuttle falls instead of flies since it has a glide
>ratio of about 1.5-1 to 1... On the other hand, does it really matter
>whether you classify it as falling or flying since the most important
>part is the landing (or sudden stop) at the end...

Do helicopters get to play? (My brother says they don't really fly, the
earth repels them.)

>...
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:29:39 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Do helicopters get to play? (My brother says they don't really fly, the
> earth repels them.)

And during an engine out situation, they find out that gravity
sucks...

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:29:39 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
> <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Do helicopters get to play? (My brother says they don't really fly, the
>> earth repels them.)
>
> And during an engine out situation, they find out that gravity
> sucks...

you can still land them, but you only get one chance.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:08:50 GMT, bob crownfield <crownfield@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:29:39 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
>> <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Do helicopters get to play? (My brother says they don't really fly, the
>>> earth repels them.)
>>
>> And during an engine out situation, they find out that gravity
>> sucks...
>
>you can still land them, but you only get one chance.

I'm used to that, flying hang gliders you never get the chance to go around
or try again. It's just that a helicopter is the only aircraft that I can
think of that has a glide ratio of zero which can still make a controlled
landing with power or without power. Even controlled thrust Harrier-type
jets can only make a landing with a glide ratio of zero only under power,
if power goes out they glide (albeit rather poorly). Even a parachute has
a bit of a forward component, more with modern 'chutes but even the old
round canopies had a bit of a forward component.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

Galen Hekhuis wrote

>>you can still land them, but you only get one chance.

I don't know of any powered craft that gives you more than once chance at a
dead stick landing.

> I'm used to that, flying hang gliders you never get the chance to go
> around
> or try again. It's just that a helicopter is the only aircraft that I can
> think of that has a glide ratio of zero which can still make a controlled
> landing with power or without power.

Perhaps it's my ignorance of the meaning of the term, but I don't believe a
helicompter has a glide ratio of zero. If it has any forward momentum at
all, the rotating wing should work pretty much like a fixed wing. I've been
given to understand that is exactly what happens . . . provided you've got
enough altitude and there's something to land on where you need it to be.

Lee

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote

> I always figured the glide ratio as distance covered horizontally over
> loss
> of altitude. In other words, a ratio of 14:1 would mean that you traveled
> horizontally 14 feet while dropping one.

OK, we're talking about the same thing.

> Unfortunately, a rotating wing
> does not act like a fixed wing when you consider forward momentum. A
> helicopter (ignoring yawing by the tail rotor) moves horizontally by
> changing the pitch of the blades as they swing through a 360 degree
> circle.
> If the pitch of the blades over the tail is changed so that part of the
> circle gets more lift than the front, then the helicopter will fly
> forward.

I know how it flies. We're talking about how it crashes.

> Perhaps you are thinking of a gyrocopter or autogyro, in which the main
> rotor does
> perform more like a fixed wing.

I've been told, but do not know from any personal research, that a
helicopter acts like an autogyro when not under power. In other words, it
has a glide ratio. I'm not sure I'm right, only that this is what I was
told. The problem, which I think I was also told, is that the helicopter
has very little directional control during the glide. It can achieve an
acceptably soft landing, but does not have a lot of chioce about where that
landing happens.

I certainly could be wrong, but that's what I was led to believe.

Lee

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:17:00 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>I've been told, but do not know from any personal research, that a
>helicopter acts like an autogyro when not under power.

An autogyro behaves more like a fixed wing aircraft than a helicopter, both
under power and without power. There are more ways to screw up and crash a
helicopter that has lost power than a dead stick autogyro. For one, most
(all?) autogyros are steered by means of a rudder, something that is quite
absent from helicopters.

>In other words, it
>has a glide ratio. I'm not sure I'm right, only that this is what I was
>told. The problem, which I think I was also told, is that the helicopter
>has very little directional control during the glide. It can achieve an
>acceptably soft landing, but does not have a lot of chioce about where that
>landing happens.

My brother (who flies the things) said in email that some of them have
fairly impressive glide ratios, but that most seasoned helicopter pilots
say that when it comes to landing without power "it is best to look through
the nose bubble between one's feet" for a landing spot.

>I certainly could be wrong, but that's what I was led to believe.

Autogyros may look like helicopters, but they don't fly like them, not even
without power.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0400, "Lee Bell"
<pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Source: New York Times June 15, 2006 edition "Officials Seeking Source of
>Lethal Heroin Mixture" By Kirk Johnson
>
>Am I the only one that wonders why this is bad? There's a bunch of people
>out there taking illegal drugs, illegally imported from Mexico that they are
>deliberately seeking because it contains a chemical that kills them, and
>we're worried about it? Seems to me that drugs are becoming a self
>regulating industry.
>
>Am I the only one that wonders why statements that drug dealers are waving
>fliers advertising that they are selling the same drugs doesn't contain the
>words "arrested" or "killed"?
>
>Am I the only one that thinks that maybe, just maybe, if we were not to try
>so hard to distribute an antidote to the drug these people are taking on
>purpose, that there might actually be a reduction in the number of people
>buying and taking illegal drugs?
>
>Lee
>

more to the point, why aren't the pushers gettign arrested with
salable amounts of drugs getting put in the chair for assistance with
murder or whatever the legal term is for providing a leathal
product... hell, the business ombudsmen ought to prosecute them for
not providing adequate safty labels... "danger this may be hazardous
to your health" etc etc...

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:33:13 -0400, Galen Hekhuis
<ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My brother (who flies the things) said in email that some of them have
> fairly impressive glide ratios, but that most seasoned helicopter pilots
> say that when it comes to landing without power "it is best to look through
> the nose bubble between one's feet" for a landing spot.

Similar to what we said about gyros -- look between your legs, that's
where you're going to land... Not even as far away as your feet...
Gravity sucks...

> Autogyros may look like helicopters, but they don't fly like them, not even
> without power.

Nawh, a helicopter needs to transition to autogyro mode to survive an
engine out condition... A gyro is already in it... You do need to keep
the rotor RPMs up on the gyro though, otherwise the aircraft will not
be useable afterwards... You might not be in that great of a shape
either... A vertical descent on a gyro is probably a bit faster than
the old round canopy parachutes... Even with a 60 mph crash into the
concrete, I managed to walk ... uhhhh ... hobble ... away from the
crash ... uhhhh ... landing... Full coverage helmets are *good*...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:15:58 GMT, Grumman-581
<grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:

>Nawh, a helicopter needs to transition to autogyro mode to survive an
>engine out condition... A gyro is already in it...

Don't most autogyros change pitch and roll by actually changing the angle
of the hub of the main rotor? In other words, doesn't the axis of rotation
of the blades of the main rotor change relative to the aircraft body in an
autogyro? In a helicopter, the axis of rotation never changes. Lift
changes for pitch and roll control are the result of modifying the pitch of
each blade of the main rotor during each rotation. Roughly speaking, on a
helicopter the cyclic controls the pitch of the each of the main rotor
blades during each rotation independently (the collective controls the
pitch of the blades, uh, collectively). I'm pretty sure that on an
autogyro the entire angle of the hub of the main rotor is changed.

> You do need to keep
>the rotor RPMs up on the gyro though, otherwise the aircraft will not
>be useable afterwards...

That's pretty much true for helicopters too.

>You might not be in that great of a shape
>either... A vertical descent on a gyro is probably a bit faster than
>the old round canopy parachutes... Even with a 60 mph crash into the
>concrete, I managed to walk ... uhhhh ... hobble ... away from the
>crash ... uhhhh ... landing... Full coverage helmets are *good*...

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net
Hell hath no fury like a bird in the hand.