flyhuey wrote:Here is a learning opportunity.
Some interesting questions here, flyhuey. I'm not sure of all of the answers, and I'm not sure of the ones that I will try and answer.
So, just wondering, about Antitorque Rotor efficiency hovering rearward versus forward?
I don't think that the anti torque rotor itself will care whether the wind is on the nose or the tail, however, the whole tailboom would want to weathercock, to put the nose into wind.
Wondering about Class 1 takeoff, what were the Winds above the Stadium Wall/Overhanging Roof?
Not sure of the winds above the stadium, that should be addressed in the accident report. Are you thinking that the tail rotor could have entered vortex ring state? It certainly is something to consider.
Wondering at what forward airspeed airflow over the Vertical Fin would improve directional control during LTE or complete loss of T/R Thrust?
Don't know. Is there anybody on here that is AW169 rated that can tell us?
Wondering in a foot ball stadium that size, could a Pilot taxi to the furthest end, downwind, then takeoff with some forward airspeed into the wind, with a steep rate of climb, up and over the roof and if one or both engines fail take it as it comes?
Then it most likely wouldn't be a Performance Class 1 (PC1) departure (as defined by ICAO). If the critical power unit failed after the defined point after takeoff it may result in a forced landing (therefore Performance Class 2) into the stands/seats. The owner of the aircraft possibly specified that he wanted the aircraft to be operated PC1 for departures and landings, and therefore a safe landing for both the aircraft and occupants. PC1/2 is only dealing with a failure of the critical power unit, nothing else.
Wondering when doing a Class 1 Takeoff, would a Pilot's control input be so precise as to land spot on or possibly with a bit of forward flight and overshot the spot?
I practice these in the simulator for the larger aircraft, and on grassed areas in smaller twins (eg. AS355, BK117). With proper emergency training I would say the answer to your question is "yes", precise landing to the spot or safe area.
Wondering how must thrust is required to hover vertically to say 500 feet OGE, then how much thrust would be required to overcome the Drag footprint of the entire fuselage whilst hover backwards, OGE?
Not sure, it would depend on airspeed backwards. I would hazard a guess and say "negligible" extra power required to overcome the parasite drag at slow speeds.
So, is that takeoff the best performance model and the safest takeoff option? Again, not all Multi-engine helicopters and not all Multi-engine helicopter Pilots use that takeoff.
The CAT A/PC1 profile is the one that the aircraft manufacturer has tested as part of the certification process. The aircraft that I currently fly has PC1 and PC2 profiles for clear areas, ground level helipads and elevated helipads. Again PC1 is only for a safe landing following the failure of the critical power unit at any time during the departure or approach. Do I fly PC1 for all of my departures, no. Why not? Because the client specifies PC2.
Where is it in the Regulations governing a specific takeoff profile to use?
Client driven?
Anybody else able to add to the discussion?