Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't try this with a 212 (or a 205 with a 212 rotor system).......that rotor design doesn't like this.

 

Don't try this on a Hughes/MD 500.......their tail rotors stall if they slow down too much.

 

I have tried this on some models (within Flight Manual limits, of course). I found the lower RRPM lowered the torque...but it also lowered the lift. So then I had to raise the collective which brought the torque back to near where it was originally.

 

Now that I am older (wiser??) I leave it at 100%, and if it doesn't fly I put it back on the ground.

 

Just imagine your family is taking a sightseeing tour and some pilot is using this sort of technique to get them in the air. AAARGH!!

 

Just say NO. It's a lot more professional than beeping-down the RRPM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, torque and RPM are not related.......you can have a huge amount of torque with zero RPM. Think about taking a bicycle and putting the front wheel against a wall. Now stand on the pedals.....lots of torque. Any RPM?

 

The only thing that gives you torque is good old fashioned horsepower.....there is no substitute for ponies ;)

 

Some rotor systems do provide more lift at low speed with RRPM less than normal cruise value, the S76 being one of them. Nick Lappos gave a very good explanation about this in a post on another forum a few years back. He explained that when they design a rotor system it is all about trade-offs. Good lift in the hover vs high speed cruise. You can have a very efficient rotor system that will pull stumps, but will only be able to do 60 knots and vice versa.

 

As to the comment about the 212 rotor system, although it is a different airfoil than the 204/205, it is the infamous torque (HP) limiter that has it settling out from under you if you droop it off, not the rotor system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 412 in cruise responds positivley to having the RRPM reduced, which also requires you to increase the TQ slightly, and I beleive that it approved by the manufacturer, but I,ll check.

 

As per pre descent checks, RRPM must be returned to 100%, prior to final descent.

 

I,ve played with lowering it on the 204, and felt the same, if it,s that heavy, make another trip and let someone else be the hero!

 

As for the 212 and TQ limiter, obviously designed by a knob who never had to fly the thing, I,ll bet that one item led to more accidents than everything else on the 212.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm......I wonder how many RFM's state to beep down Nr for extra lift? :huh:

 

In helicopters........RPM = life.

 

 

Well that is the way I have always been taught, I agree completely A guy told me this, whom has very high time on the line, I do listen to the high timers however I do have to choose what to believe. I have never heard of reducing RPM to get more TQ to get more lift! seems like a crazy idea, THAT is why I posted this!!!!!

 

I would think reducing RPM reduces airflow which reduces lift?? I am not askiing either for an answer like take another load, I have no problem at all telling any client" if you don't like it, carry it yourself" That is not my question here.

 

the topic came up talking about astars and setting the RPM, I couldn't even beep it down if I wanted, and the last thing in the world I want particularly in a 350, is low rotor!!! I Respect what this guy tells me but I question this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...