Low and Slow is a catchy phrase we use to denote totally contact flying in small, relatively slow, aircraft that are pretty dirty (parasite drag, pull a lot of air. )

The phrase can be dangerously deceiving to pilots who think we mean low altitude and reduced airspeed. Except when dealing with unusual conditions like severe turbulence and or scud, we actually want to be low and fast.

Good energy management dictates that we store energy either in potential gravity thrust of altitude or kinetic energy of pressure airspeed. So when low we are without potential gravity thrust of altitude. That means we want as much kinetic energy of pressure airspeed as practicable. That means toward the end of a spray run, with the tall pines of Georgia coming up , we want full throttle. That means on the river, with tall trees and terrain on each side , we want lots of energy maneuverability whether we choose to make rudder turns in ground effect or energy management turns.

When our observations are not good and do not match our expectations, we want the energy maneuverability that will mitigate the dangerous possibility that we come unglued and hurt ourselves.

Contact, would you elaborate a bit on this? Low, Slow, and Fast in MVFR or severe turbulence seen a poor combination for longevity. I don't think MCA slow is a great idea, but certainly not Va ++ airspeeds either. Breaking off a wing is just as deadly as a snap entry into a spin at low altitude. I'm not following your written thoughts very well.

I imagine he's referring to maintaining speed in excess of bucket speed. Throttle takes to long to respond when you suddenly need it, but airspeed in the bank can be quickly cashed in, assuming you're carrying enough.

Flying NOE (technically, contour) in the H-60, I try to keep it between 100-120 KIAS. Any slower, I need power to climb/turn rapidly. Any faster, the aircraft has too much momentum and has too large of a turn radius. Also, there is a tendency to "mush" at faster airspeeds, which is merely the rotor blades stalling as the helicopter attitude changes abruptly. At least in our case, the wings usually stay attached.

I don't have too much time in my Tcart yet, but been doing a little ski flying and it feels like the little bird is a little more intuitive to feel her out than a helicopter. There a lot better signal to noise ratio than in that fifteen thousand pound vibrator.

That's a great combination of aircraft to be flying, and yeah I bet the T-Craft has more "feel." The very highest compliment I can give my RANS S-7S, is that it flies a lot like my old T Cart, except it has more power.

PapernScissors.

What kona4breakfast said about energy management. I hadn't considered flying anything that will snap a wing without gravity thrust. My limited exposure does not include jets with almost unlimited thrust. Doesn't the pilot pass out first?

kona4breakfast,

Retreating blade stall is a deadly serious limitation. And yes, helicopters will experience the same load factor mush as an airplane. Both appreciate the energy management turn, at least when radar guided antiaircraft is not a threat.

Contact

Got it. I thought that's what you meant, but...

Elsewhere I've seen discussions of Vb (Velocity of turbulence penetration) which some have suggested is close to Vy. That seems intuitively as a 'good' target for VFR in rough air, limited visibility conditions regardless of whether low or well above the terrain. Though, I think under those conditions I'd really rather have the wheels firmly planted ON the terrain and the aircraft tied down.

Kona4breakfast,

Your T-craft, because of slow top speed, can survive enemy air the same as your H-60. Just keep energy management turning into the jet fighter. He will have to increase his dive angle and, because of his much greater speed, will take much longer to return to target.

Contact

The Tcart would probably be harder to engage, as it has a far superior radar and thermal signature.