Visual situational awareness is greatly influenced by the apparent rate of closure with targets. Too fast will degrade quality. Door gunners understand this better than torques. Engaging targets at 100 KTS and 50' AGL is tough. O-10 KTS in the LZ works well for the door gunner, however.

The pilot and torque, in the loche, both sit on the right side in slow and tight right turns. This keeps the apparent rate of closure at a brisk walk.

In airplanes, the lower we are the greater our patrol effectiveness, until the apparent rate of closure becomes too fast. The more forward and to the front we patrol, the slower the apparent rate of closure. The slow and tight level turn of the loche is very dangerous in airplanes. Safe inadvertent stall altitude is way too high for effective visual reconnaissance.

Low patrol altitude looking forward and using 1g energy management turns for any return to target is both effective and safe.

I think you need to switch to a lower potency of whatever it is your taking. Your posts get more confusing with every passing day.

Having flown many hours as an observer for wildfire detection and suppression in fixed wing and helicopters. I think I understood most of that.

Having never hunted moose, I am reluctant to criticize the moose turn. From various posts here, it seems not to be the safer 1g energy management turn. Charlie, or moose, could be safely hunted with an articulated rotor helicopter using level turns. Airplanes need to allow the nose to go down naturally in turns. Pulling up a bit for more vertical space to turn in, and at a slower airspeed, helps.

Ok, I’ll will try to help the historically challenged out here. The Loch or Loach is/was a Hughes OH-6A Cayuse helicopter used as a scout in a hunter-killer team in Nam. Both the pilot and the torque ( M-60 Machine gunner, I think) sat on the right side; the torque behind the pilot. (The observer sat left seat next to the pilot). Jim can correct me on this.

The Loch’s took terrible losses...

In my Petersen Canard 182 I fly slow 60 knot patterns (1.3 Vso = 45 knots) and have great awareness out front because I an not going fast and my apparent rate of closure with targets in the pattern and on straight-in approaches is lower. Big difference from flying 90 knot patterns.

Hope this helps...

Best,

Tommy

TommyN wrote:Ok, I’ll will try to help the historically challenged out here. The Loch or Loach is/was a Hughes OH-6A Cayuse helicopter used as a scout in a hunter-killer team in Nam. Both the pilot and the torque ( M-60 Machine gunner, I think) sat on the right side; the torque behind the pilot. (The observer sat left seat next to the pilot). Jim can correct me on this.

The Loch’s took terrible losses...

In my Petersen Canard 182 I fly slow 60 knot patterns (1.3 Vso = 45 knots) and have great awareness out front because I an not going fast and my apparent rate of closure with targets in the pattern and on straight-in approaches is lower. Big difference from flying 90 knot patterns.

Hope this helps...

Best,

Tommy

Okay, Tommy, I’ll bite: What is it you are calling a “pattern”?

MTV

English guys please your making my head hurt, I'm just a dump peelot

The higher the fewer

I regularly get to FL350 is that high enough !!

Looking out the front, the rate of closure appears to be a brisk walk at cruise airspeeds until around 400' AGL and lower. Out the side window, the rate of closure appears to be faster. This optical phenomenon is helpful for slowing down as we get closer and lower on short final. It doesn't help when patrolling out the side window.

Patrolling pipeline out the side window using level turns will require a wide, medium banked turn to avoid load factor stall. The radius of the turn won't allow continuous visual contact with the target (problem needing further investigation). Even the pipeline right of way will have to be re-engaged.

Patrolling pipeline out the front left windscreen will allow target acquisition at what appears to be a brisk walk rate of closure. Fewer return to target is required.

Energy management return to target: considering terrain and wind, fall off the target downwind, pitch up to decrease airspeed and increase altitude, turn at near 1g (release back pressure) to pick up the right of way going back in the upper windscreen, continue turn to place target between legs.

Mapleflt wrote:I regularly get to FL350 is that high enough !!

Gee, the highest I've been in my plane recently is about FL035... And that's PLENTY high enough for me!

contactflying wrote: continue turn to place target between legs.

Huh? Don't you want to put the target on the lower left or lower right so the gunner can get a shot?

Another old expression from 'Nam, about firing at things on the ground from a helicopter,
"Regardless of what you were really aiming at, remember to call whatever you actually hit, 'the target'."

For those familiar with (book/movie) Full Metal Jacket, that line about shooting women and children ("easy, just don’t lead them so much") is something a real heli-gunner said to (Michael) Herr (the author/screenwriter/war correspondent)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwUyu-Lr1Y

After getting a job as a pipeline patrol pilot and flying 1100hrs in the last year, alot of it which looks like this, most of what Jim says makes alot of sense. If it didn't, there would be a couple of awfully sick people inside.

Perhaps the Beav’s Mom can help.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... rZlWw8Di10


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Noodles,

Gathering systems will make one appreciate what a rudder is for. Slow and level would be dangerous, and fast would be peeing in the wind. Energy management turns are just right.

Contact

"Okay, Tommy, I’ll bite: What is it you are calling a “pattern”?
MTV"

I am talking about the normal landing traffic pattern. I fly from KCMA which is a (training) towered field. Usually land on 26, right traffic, 800 ft AGL. Standard if arriving from NW. Other option for me is to land from E where I would get a straight-in.

When on right downwind, the IFR straight-ins angle from the N so that they are fairly in my frontal vision when I look for them. Much easier to see when I go slow and/as they go fast (often jets). I never rely on the controllers to see oncoming traffic for me as in call my base. The normal tendency is to fly a tight downwind so as to not cause noise problems over the city. Last month had a tower controller talk to our EAA chapter and he mentioned the intersection point of the line of a plane on tight downwind and the angling IFR straight in as a point of concern aka collision.

Blue skies,

Tommy