I recently discovered Pathfinder Society is a thing. Did one module/campaign thingy. Am now excited for more and considering developing my own campaign to run with other friends who cant go do PFS.
What about when your partner is in the hospital and you can't see them because they aren't family? There's state benefits that are designed for married couples, nobody needs to be denied those rights.
LMAO! Obviously those hating on marriage have never had a good one or a strong relationship. And let's be honest, if your marriage ended, your relationship would have ended regardless. Marriage doesn't ruin a relationship. People in it do, for many reasons.
Those complaining that they don't have the same rights as married couples, too bad. If you want to be treated like a spouse/family/next of kin, then get married. There is nothing stopping anyone from making their relationship "official". And if you aren't comfortable with making your relationship official, then why on earth should you be considered family or a beneficiary?
The article itself is essentially about a young single man who gets depressed, goes to a bar, picks up a girl, and then literally fuses himself with her as she shoots him -- causing them to co-exist in a fusion of her living body and his corpse.
I'm convinced J F Sargent (one of my favorite Cracked writers) was trolling, looking to see if he could make exactly this happen -- and he did.
Well I'm just saying maybe the title "5 reasons why people who get married can suck it" isn't as clever and funny a title as Cracked might have thought.
I would bet just about any money that's Chuck Aaron flying that chopper. Failing that, someone he trained - Not many rotorheads with moves like that around, and about as many Bo105 CBs with the appropriate modifications.
I would bet just about any money that's Chuck Arron flying that chopper. Failing that, someone he trained - Not many rotorheads with moves like that around, and about as many Bo105 CBs with the appropriate modifications.
That move is crazy I messaged my cousin who is a helicopter pilot for an airforce and he said he wouldn't be allowed to even try that.
That move is crazy I messaged my cousin who is a helicopter pilot for an airforce and he said he wouldn't be allowed to even try that.
Yep - as far as I know, you could count the amount of rated civilian aerobatic helo pilots on the fingers of one hand, without running out of fingers. Chuck Aaron was the first, and as far as I know, he's trained most of the others. There are a few Military pilots, mostly on air force chopper display teams, but it's not common even there.
On top of that, few choppers are capable of it, and even fewer capable of pulling off the kind of moves Chuck Aaron does at airshows - that Bo105 is heavily modified. New Fuel and oil systems, rigid rotor system with custom swash plate and forged titanium rotor head, composite blades with an aluminum leading edge, modifications to the airframe for balance and rigidity. Which is also part of the reason why your cousin wouldn't even be allowed to try - unless he's flying a chopper with the right gear, it simply wouldn't be capable of moving like that without your cousin - and anyone directly beneath his landing zone, or more accurately, impact site - abruptly and loudly having a very bad day.
I can kind of explain the whys and hows, but I'm definitely no chopper pilot. I only know some patches of the basics.
He only does scouting missions over "contested" ground (Indian - Pakistani border patrols) or general patrols when he's stationed at other points in the country. I don't know the models of what he's flying but I suspect he doesn't have access to the most lightweight helicopters except possibly on border patrol.
Looking up the list of what aircraft they use over that way, he probably flies either a HAL Druv or a Russian MIL MI-8 or MI-17 on the regular. But I don't think any of them are capable of aerobatics(Especially not the big old Russian busses), barring maybe the Druvs that the Sarang display team use.
Flown by Karl "Charly" Zimmermann. There used to be lots of pilots who had that skill set, it was something both the US Army and the West German Army trained for in order to fight a Soviet tank force.
Most helicopters are capable of way more than the pilots are used to getting out of them, simply because they don't do those kinds of maneuvers on any kind of regular basis. That doesn't mean the helicopter can't do it. Logging and Fire fighting pilots routinely manuver thier aircraft in a way that will scare pilots who are doing it for the first time, until you get used to it and see that the aircraft can take it.
All the aircraft here have rigid hubs, but people have rolled and looped Cobra's and Huey's which have semi-rigid hubs.
Chuck Aaron's aircraft is able to do maneuvers that you just wouldn't want to in other helicopters, the distinction is that it's modified so you can fly it like that over and over as opposed to flying it once, exceeding the limits and having to replace parts every flights (which even Red Bull has to do on some parts). That isn't meant to diminish how awesome Chuck Aaron's flying is, he's a fantastic pilot and does amazing stuff. The main limiting factor for barrel rolls and any kind of momentarily upside down or negative G flying is not having fuel and oil systems that can function without positive G's or without gravity causing the fuel/oil to be at the bottom of the system where the pickup points are. It's possible to keep any aircraft with positive G's when flying upside down meaning you can keep you're rotor head / hub loaded (as in the famous pouring tea while upside down video)
There is no FAA Civilian aerobatic rating for helicopters.
The main limiting factor for barrel rolls and any kind of momentarily upside down or negative G flying is not having fuel and oil systems that can function without positive G's or without gravity causing the fuel/oil to be at the bottom of the system where the pickup points are. It's possible to keep any aircraft with positive G's when flying upside down meaning you can keep you're rotor head / hub loaded (as in the famous pouring tea while upside down video)
Wouldn't you also be risking mast bump and potentially separation with an articulated or semirigid rotor? Not disagreeing, just curious.
Genuinely surprised the stallion can manage it though. Figured they'd be a bit too cumbersome for that sort of thing.
There is no FAA Civilian aerobatic rating for helicopters.
I did find out about that afterward - it's the chopper, not the pilot. According to (The other) Aaron, the FAA went over it with a fine-tooth comb before clearing it to do aerobatics at airshows - articles regarding that got it wrong, and I followed. I got that one wrong, but only found out too late to edit the original, and failed to correct myself. I'm not familiar with most US ratings outside of commercial fixed-wing, so I should have double checked.
That isn't meant to diminish how awesome Chuck Aaron's flying is, he's a fantastic pilot and does amazing stuff.
True that. When you get a maneuver named after you - the Chuckcevak, basically a Lomcovak for choppers - it's usually a pretty good indicator you're the real deal.
Slightly amusing note - my first version of that post, which was longer and more explain-y, included the line "I'm rapidly reaching the limits of my knowledge here, so make sure you pay attention when ArronC shows up for my well-deserved upbraiding." I knew I'd mess something up, thanks for catching me dude.
You do risk mast bumping with the semi rigid rotors. The trick is to keep positive G on the rotor hub, usually done by keeping aft cyclic the whole maneuver. The Immelmannturn, aka the return to target, aka the ag turn is a great example. You can do the maneuver with negative G or positive G, Cobra's which are semi rigid, can do this maneuver if you keep aft cyclic to keep the rotor loaded.
In this vid the guy misjudged how much altitude he would loose, he also did the turn to slow so his time to stop loosing altitude was to little. At the end he is spinning like a top because the tail rotor was damaged.
The 53 and other large helicopters are very acrobatic, it's just something you don't see very often. here is a Swedish 107 (CH46) doing a bunch of interesting maneuvers.
The difference here between this guy and the Apache is practice, rather than aircraft design. Both have rigid hubs.
Well, to be fair to you, it came across rather milder in the original context - overstatement for the sake of a laugh. We cool brother.
You do risk mast bumping with the semi rigid rotors. The trick is to keep positive G on the rotor hub, usually done by keeping aft cyclic the whole maneuver. The Immelmann turn, aka the return to target, aka the ag turn is a great example. You can do the maneuver with negative G or positive G, Cobra's which are semi rigid, can do this maneuver if you keep aft cyclic to keep the rotor loaded.
That makes perfect sense, once you explain it, but honestly wouldn't have had the thought given a week to think it - to used to engine and airframe being a singular object, as opposed to disk+airframe. If my prop(s) are under negative G and the rest of the Aircraft isn't, then chances are I've just become an accidental glider, rather than done something cool. Though in that situation, I suppose not dying would be a pretty slick trick by itself.
In this vid the guy misjudged how much altitude he would loose, he also did the turn to slow so his time to stop loosing altitude was to little. At the end he is spinning like a top because the tail rotor was damaged.
Hogan's ghost. Apparently they survived that one, be bloody well buying lottery tickets after that one.
The 53 and other large helicopters are very acrobatic, it's just something you don't see very often. here is a Swedish 107 (CH46) doing a bunch of interesting maneuvers.
You think flying them is a hard job, imagine the poor bastards who have to wind up the clockwork key on the bottom of that 107 after every flight.
In all seriousness, that's really impressive - I thought I'd seen some tricky shit in big choppers, dropping ramps onto edges for loading without landing, hovering just barely in the water to do a rear door water extraction with a zodiac, but that's something else right there.
One of the reasons that the Robinson R22 has it's special safety rules is because low g mast bumping killed so many people. Now low g is almost always a result of pilot error due to controlling or flying acrobatic when you shouldn't. The max flapping on a R22 is somewhere around 12 degrees which doesn't sound like much, but then again it's all relative. I can give full cyclic deflection in flight and no normally hit 12 degrees even though that gives me over a 45 degree bank turn. If I go weightless though, I'm no longer attached to the rotor, which remains stable in space and then ... it can get bad.
If you are ready for a 20 minute army video check this out.
Since the special awareness training has come out low g pushover accidents have dropped to almost zero.
Exactly. It can make for some queasy feelings when you're the co-pilot on a water bucket drop. Then you're flying the bucket and not the helicopter.... that's fine if you're the pilot looking down... it's another story if you're the co-pilot only looking at the gauges. It's the only time I've almost thrown up while flying.
We should. I would throw in some fixed wing talk, but it almost seems too boring by comparison - worst you have to worry about in a pushover other than the usual three A's is not getting clocked by a zero-g waterbottle or something.
The worst I've ever had was getting clocked right on the point of the chin by a metal waterbottle full of water. Fair clacked my teeth together, gave me a hell of a start and a decent bruise. After that, police the cabin and make sure everything's secure. At least, everything with any weight to it, a notebook ain't so bad.
The worst when I wasn't at the controls was when I was cabin crew. It wasn't lose cabin detritus - hit Clear-air, flicked me into the roof, and clipped an armrest on the way down, fractured a rib.
Comments
Supposedly a live map representing global cyberattacks.
Too many things today.
I'm convinced J F Sargent (one of my favorite Cracked writers) was trolling, looking to see if he could make exactly this happen -- and he did.
EDIT: Okay, this thread is the best.
On top of that, few choppers are capable of it, and even fewer capable of pulling off the kind of moves Chuck Aaron does at airshows - that Bo105 is heavily modified. New Fuel and oil systems, rigid rotor system with custom swash plate and forged titanium rotor head, composite blades with an aluminum leading edge, modifications to the airframe for balance and rigidity. Which is also part of the reason why your cousin wouldn't even be allowed to try - unless he's flying a chopper with the right gear, it simply wouldn't be capable of moving like that without your cousin - and anyone directly beneath his landing zone, or more accurately, impact site - abruptly and loudly having a very bad day.
I can kind of explain the whys and hows, but I'm definitely no chopper pilot. I only know some patches of the basics.
Also actual thing of day - Signs your industry is being disrupted by Tech guys.
Bit birgade v Metroid (NES)
Flown by Karl "Charly" Zimmermann. There used to be lots of pilots who had that skill set, it was something both the US Army and the West German Army trained for in order to fight a Soviet tank force.
Most helicopters are capable of way more than the pilots are used to getting out of them, simply because they don't do those kinds of maneuvers on any kind of regular basis. That doesn't mean the helicopter can't do it. Logging and Fire fighting pilots routinely manuver thier aircraft in a way that will scare pilots who are doing it for the first time, until you get used to it and see that the aircraft can take it.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/helicopters/apache-ah-64d-does-barrel-roll/1386593773001
All the aircraft here have rigid hubs, but people have rolled and looped Cobra's and Huey's which have semi-rigid hubs.
Chuck Aaron's aircraft is able to do maneuvers that you just wouldn't want to in other helicopters, the distinction is that it's modified so you can fly it like that over and over as opposed to flying it once, exceeding the limits and having to replace parts every flights (which even Red Bull has to do on some parts). That isn't meant to diminish how awesome Chuck Aaron's flying is, he's a fantastic pilot and does amazing stuff. The main limiting factor for barrel rolls and any kind of momentarily upside down or negative G flying is not having fuel and oil systems that can function without positive G's or without gravity causing the fuel/oil to be at the bottom of the system where the pickup points are. It's possible to keep any aircraft with positive G's when flying upside down meaning you can keep you're rotor head / hub loaded (as in the famous pouring tea while upside down video)
There is no FAA Civilian aerobatic rating for helicopters.
Genuinely surprised the stallion can manage it though. Figured they'd be a bit too cumbersome for that sort of thing. I did find out about that afterward - it's the chopper, not the pilot. According to (The other) Aaron, the FAA went over it with a fine-tooth comb before clearing it to do aerobatics at airshows - articles regarding that got it wrong, and I followed. I got that one wrong, but only found out too late to edit the original, and failed to correct myself. I'm not familiar with most US ratings outside of commercial fixed-wing, so I should have double checked. True that. When you get a maneuver named after you - the Chuckcevak, basically a Lomcovak for choppers - it's usually a pretty good indicator you're the real deal.
Slightly amusing note - my first version of that post, which was longer and more explain-y, included the line "I'm rapidly reaching the limits of my knowledge here, so make sure you pay attention when ArronC shows up for my well-deserved upbraiding." I knew I'd mess something up, thanks for catching me dude.
EDIT: Food labels will now list added sugars. Thanks, FDA!
You do risk mast bumping with the semi rigid rotors. The trick is to keep positive G on the rotor hub, usually done by keeping aft cyclic the whole maneuver. The Immelmannturn, aka the return to target, aka the ag turn is a great example. You can do the maneuver with negative G or positive G, Cobra's which are semi rigid, can do this maneuver if you keep aft cyclic to keep the rotor loaded.
http://www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/crash-landings/insane-apache-crash-in-afghanistan/1518984816001/
In this vid the guy misjudged how much altitude he would loose, he also did the turn to slow so his time to stop loosing altitude was to little. At the end he is spinning like a top because the tail rotor was damaged.
The 53 and other large helicopters are very acrobatic, it's just something you don't see very often. here is a Swedish 107 (CH46) doing a bunch of interesting maneuvers.
The difference here between this guy and the Apache is practice, rather than aircraft design. Both have rigid hubs.
In all seriousness, that's really impressive - I thought I'd seen some tricky shit in big choppers, dropping ramps onto edges for loading without landing, hovering just barely in the water to do a rear door water extraction with a zodiac, but that's something else right there.
If you are ready for a 20 minute army video check this out.
Since the special awareness training has come out low g pushover accidents have dropped to almost zero.
We should keep talking about helicopters.
All my charts, pens and loose shit went flying...
The worst when I wasn't at the controls was when I was cabin crew. It wasn't lose cabin detritus - hit Clear-air, flicked me into the roof, and clipped an armrest on the way down, fractured a rib.