You're really doing it wrong if turbulence is a big enough part of your life to cause back problems. I don't think that is real
-
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
Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation (Part 3)
- Thread starter Top_Gun_1_0_1
- Start date
You're really doing it wrong if turbulence is a big enough part of your life to cause back problems. I don't think that is real
Your understanding is wrong.
Not sure where you're getting that understanding from. Never heard about turbulence wreaking havoc on spines
Others can chime in, but my airframe had stroking seats to absorb some of the force from a "hard landing", same for pax seats in the cabin. I'm guessing -60's have similar seats (could be wrong). But yeah, there aren't any springy seats to counter turbulence. ?
So I got hammered a bit in the Bulging Disc thread when I asked how does aviation wreck the spine (LINK) and one of the things mentioned was bad weather and vibration. I must have in my memory mixed that up as turbulence. But for the issues of bad weather and vibration, I would think a seat with shock absorption would help.
You’re not incorrect that vibration can be harmful, you’re just looking at the wrong type. Turbulence is not a constant during flight, and some flights don’t feel it whatsoever. The short duration and intensity isn’t enough to cause problems.
What you’re referring to is the term is ‘whole body vibrations’. While it is true that every aircraft has a bit of a vibrating tendency, it’s much more prevalent in rotary wing aircraft.
If you do some googling you’ll find quite a bit about what those kinds of vibrations can do to a back, neck, etc.
As to your question about shock absorption, historically military aircraft had ergonomics as an afterthought. The designs were more about enabling the pilot to max perform the aircraft. Examples are a reclined seat in fighters, which gives the pilot more G tolerance, or a titanium seat in a helo to keep the pilot safe from ground arms.
Shock absorption in a rotary wing aircraft typically is for mishap survival and not physical longevity. Shock absorption in fixed wing really isn’t a thing outside of landing gear struts.
I’m not an engineer so I don’t know if designing seats to combat that vibration problem is feasible. I imagine with enough money and time it would be solvable. Right now though, it’s not something that (as far as I know) is being incorporated into military aircraft design.
Last edited:
Finally caught one doing bounces in the daylight and it does indeed have a bat on the tail
You just got World Watched
It automatically programs (at least in the R) based off your airspeed. At low airspeeds, it automatically programs down because as you slow, there is an increased amount of rotor downwash on the stab. If it were to stay horizontal in that case, you get a more nose-up attitude which restricts visibility at critical parts of flight e.g. landing (especially on the back of a CRUDES).
Similarly, the stab becomes more horizontal as your airspeed increases. If if stayed in the down position, the amount of lift it generates at high airspeeds can actually cause uncontrollable nose-down attitudes that can lawn-dart you straight into the ground. Each stab position has it's own airspeed limit, and we have an emergency procedure that we execute in case the automatic mode fails (we have the ability to manually slew it).
Last edited:
VMO4
Well-Known Member
Since this is the stupid question thread, my hangar neighbor, and owner of a beautiful Ercoupe, is a former frog driver, he said it flew faster slightly yawing, because the rear blades ate more clean air.....No stab required
....although I was a UH-1N guy, I did ride in one once, compared to the huey, it made sounds I thought not natural.
I think it was once known as the "Whistling Shit-Can of Death".
Max performance on takeoff/climb was 15 degree right yaw.
There was a good deal of high frequency noise from transmission x2, engine output drives, oil cooler shaft and sync shaft suspended in Lord mounts.
No direct pitch authority tied to the primary flight controls. It programs automatically and it's position is based primarily on airspeed (and a few others). The intent is to keep the nose close to level on the horizon. Without the stab, the helo would get into fairly large and uncomfortable pitch attitudes based on the flight regime it was in. In a hover, it'll be full down, in forward flight it's horizontal to slightly above.
FCFs had to be really challenging on those birds.