• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Fun Low Level in a Hornet

It
Harrier Dude said:
Fifteen posts. I'm surprised it took that long.

Please.....tell us all about life at 45 knots.
Click to expand...


That's 2x the speed of a boat!

That's VERY fast with a CPA of 25 to 35 yards abeam and a closure rate of 70 knots. Head on with PHM's mind you! That's only time I had a little pucker factor on the bridge of an FFG. It relaxed quickly though. Helo's are so much faster.
:(~


phm2foilborne.jpg
 
"The Brick" said:
Still doesn't impress me.......you guys need to TERF in a helo, that's B.A...."negative g" vs. pushover just doesn't do it for me....;)
Click to expand...

Different strokes for dissident folks!:p BTW, "negative g" IS pushover...and per previous posts, it doesn't do it for us either.:)
BzB
 
Low G pushover was all you had for ridge crossings in the hummer. .5 G I think was the limit. 60*AOB max so no inverted stuff.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2
 
When going the speed-of-heat, it takes G’s to continue to hug terrain while crossing over a ridgeline and back into a valley. Neither the airframe nor the machine’s operators are capable of the negative Gs necessary to accomplish same…. Besides, what is more fun?
 
MasterBates said:
Low G pushover was all you had for ridge crossings in the hummer. .5 G I think was the limit. 60*AOB max so no inverted stuff.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Pushover vs inverted positive pull isn't ALWAYS the choice to make. Maybe in a hornet with such high thrust, but in other airframes that rely on the lift vector much more, all it takes is reducing the net lift vector.

For example: underslung rotorhead of the two-bladed systems in vietnam caused mast-bumping for guys trying to pushover to get back into the TERF environment, so instead (since they can't go inverted, and their lift vector is very sensitive), they simply rolled it over to high AOB, dropping off the lift vector, causing a high descent rate, while pulling a decent positive G, accomplishing their quick descent back into the TERF environment while maintaining positive loading on the rotor system and no positive pushover.

Slow flying asymmetric airfoil airplanes are probably quite similar.

/talking out of my ass
 
OttoWrote8 said:
Pushover vs inverted positive pull isn't ALWAYS the choice to make. Maybe in a hornet with such high thrust, but in other airframes that rely on the lift vector much more, all it takes is reducing the net lift vector.

For example: underslung rotorhead of the two-bladed systems in vietnam caused mast-bumping for guys trying to pushover to get back into the TERF environment, so instead (since they can't go inverted, and their lift vector is very sensitive), they simply rolled it over to high AOB, dropping off the lift vector, causing a high descent rate, while pulling a decent positive G, accomplishing their quick descent back into the TERF environment while maintaining positive loading on the rotor system and no positive pushover.
Click to expand...

I would argue in that case that the would also have a decent heading change so they could keep the rotor head loaded. I'd say it's sort of a bastardized inverted pull instead of a pushover.
 
NightVisionPen said:
Low level flying is fun regardless of the platform or speed. The closer to the ground and/or the faster you go the more fun it is.
Click to expand...

Amen, very true... on the flip side, the lower you fly -the more big birds you encounter. The faster you go, the harder they hit!

We nearly lost a TA-4F in the VA-44 RAG in '69, when on a low nav over the Okeefenokee Swamp in GA, took a mallard drake hit in the rear of the canopy. Coming from the side, it shattered the canopy & the rear-seat IP's visor blinding him. Thinking they had suffered a mid-air collision at 200', the IP, badly hurt, ejected immediately. The RP stayed with the bird & calmly initiated rescue operations, then safely landed back at Cecil.

Eventially rescued, the IP (a RNZAF "hinge" exchange Pilot), recovered after lengthy hospitalization, having lost one eye and severely lacerated the other. Having been slated for command of the first RNZAF A-4 (75 Sqdn), Squadron Leader (O-4) Donaldson never could fly single-seat/engine A/C again; however, he remained on active duty, and retired from the service some 12 years later as a Group Captain (O-6), and CO of RNZAF Base, Blenheim, NZ where I visited with him in '79 after I had retired (a good friend, as I had been Sponsor Officer for Ross & family's arrival in VA-44 at Cecil).:)
SqLdr Ross Donaldson RNZAF @ VA-44.jpg
*Sqdn Ldr "Ross Donaldson, VA-44 Line 1969
Quite a story, I think you can read it by googling Sqdn Ldr W. Ross Donaldson ejection-bird strike 1969.:eek:
BzB
 
insanebikerboy said:
I would argue in that case that the would also have a decent heading change so they could keep the rotor head loaded. I'd say it's sort of a bastardized inverted pull instead of a pushover.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, which is why you approach the ridgeline (or obstacle) at an angle. If you reference a certain TTP, you'll notice it's actually a maneuver to get up and over an obstacle. We also have the bunt, but that's a lot safer to do with a fully articulated head.
 
BusyBee604 said:
Quite a story, I think you can read it by googling Sqdn Ldr W. Ross Donaldson ejection-bird strike 1969.
Click to expand...

Correction: For the complete hairy story from the tape made by the late Group Captain Donaldson in the NavHosp Jax, 9 days after the accident... google "Drama In The Skies", it's all there if interested.;)
SqdnLdr Ross Donaldson 1969.jpg
* SqdnLdr Donaldson @ VA-44 06/69
BzB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top