PPU.

[asra]

[birdy]

.Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[asra]

I think its quite simple ! Birdy's so accutly attuned to the feral that he is feeling things no one has ever noticed before ! I think the chnge in the pengulim effect is probly what is most noticable,,, anyone that flys at 2 feet from the shoulder of a determened cow has got to be a might bit better than most just to do it ! .... of corse he's going to notice changes .... he better ! .... hurding cattle with a gyro is no easy task.... heck hurding cattle with a Horse is no easy task I can't amagon convinceing a determanded cow that she should realy go the other way in a gyro ! .... gott'a be one of the biggest thrill rides you could ever incounter ! ( i've seen some mighty determended cows in my time) Just take it easy Birdy till you get the feel of your new aircraft.... just a small change makes a big diference ... don't want you to end up eating the dust out there.... ( though the cows might love to see it ! HAHHAHA ) c ya !Bob......" Momm'a alwayse told me , Son the impossable is only a little bit Harder... and ya know I do believe She was RIGHT ! "

[birdy]

Lets be generous and say juggling your engine location has reduced the rotor load to 90% of its former value.The rotor speed would drop to 95% of its previous value (the square root of 0.9), say from 350 rpm to 333 rpm.Do you really believe that has accounted for all the things to which you have attributed rotor speed reduction?Sorry for the delay, Hope Chuck's still about.[]You reckon Chuck, that in lowering the engine 5", your be'n 'generous' in say'n the rotor load has reduced to only 90%.???Is that at S/L or in general. At S/L it wouldn't matter, but at lower ASs it's much more of a deal. Artificial weight, or lack of it, cums into play more at low ASs.When you'v got the machine on full power and starting to sink, the prop is taking alot of the weight off the rotors, especially now that theres less artificial weight, and slower AS. I'd say 10% 'weight' loss would be at the lower end of an educated gess. But lets say your right [ more chance you be'n right n me ay[]], wouldn't you say also that that 5% reduction in rrpm will 'feel' more like 10/15% in real life, considering your only 5' off the ground, starting to sink in a strong x wind with nowhere to go but between a couple o trees only 26'6" apart?IOW, any degree of responsiveness loss is going to be bad.[xx(]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[asra]

[birdy]

Hmmmm...............[xx(]I dunno Chuck. I'm not go'n to argue bout your numbers coz I reckon you know wot your on about, and supprisingly, I follow wot you say. But it definatly feels more than that.Mebe, I'm just too sensative.[]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[birdy]

Not want'n to flog a dead horse ere C Beaty, but I'd like to understand more the difference in the 'supposed' perceved difference in this machine.[]Another way of look'n at it is;You summise that I'v decreased the load on the disc by bout 10% at most, giving a 5% reduction in rotor rpm.Useing your numbers for the argument, I'v lost bout 17 rrpm.Don't sound much, easy to think it'd make buggerall difference, but, thats the 'top' 17 rrpm, which is more noticable than the bottom 17.Afterall, the lift/responciveness of the blades increase AT AN INCREASING RATE with increased rpms.ie; 1g= 350rrpm, 2gs= only 1.414 as fast, not twice as fast.The bottom 17 rrpm [17 on the rotor tack] wouldn't blow the ash of me smoke, but the top 17 rrpm will carry bout [by your numbers] 30kg, or 10% of the machine.Me RAF, [the one with a rotor tac] one up cruises at bout 340/350rrpm. Strap in a fat passenger [110kg or roughly 25% extra weight] and it only raises the rotor rpm by bout 20/25rpm or bout 6%. Again, the bottom 20rrpm on the RAF blades wouldn't blow the ash off me smoke either.I may have only decreased the rotor load by 10%, and lost only 5% of the rrpms, but the effect on lift/responcivness would have to be more than 5% or 10%, wouldn't it???? given the increasing rate of increase.[ or decreasing rate of decrease[]]Now I got a headake again.[xx(]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[birdy]

If the increased rate of increase thingy + decreased cycls per second + less lift from slower blades was how it works, I think I could get my meager mind to accept it.[][]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[asra]

Birdy, the most expeditious way of solving your problem is to strap on bag of sand and see it puts you back to where you were.Increasing weight does not increase agility.

[birdy]

"Increasing weight does not increase agility."Obviosly not. But a bag of sand has mass, artificial weight don't.Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.

[asra]

Got me!
..........

[birdy]

Wut!!!!!!!!![:0]Got ya?????[?]Must be time for me to finaly break out a big bottle o ****.[][}][xx(]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.You can always get the answer you want, if you ask enough experts.