vortex ring state at any point during an auto??

[Greg Johnson]

It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power)
during an autorotation?

A friend at my radio control helicopter field claimed that you shouldn't
do a vertical autorotation, because you might enter vortex ring state
if you do.

This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the
aerodynamics of helicopters.

Clearly, during an autorotation the main blades are developing lift, just
like a glider's wings are generating lift when it descends at a constant
velocity.

And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an
auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex;
the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind.

Furthermore, the inner counter-rotating vortex that develops during
vortex ring state would seem not to be possible during an auto, because
there is no down-wash over the intermediate part of the blades. The air
is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots
to tips.

(This is all just seat-of-pants intuition; I hope someone with aerodynamic
knowledge can say if my intuition is right, and what the aerodynamics
of an auto are, and why in that regime settling with power can't happen.)

The one place I can (just barely) imagine it might be possible is during
the brief moment at the bottom of an auto when you crank up the collective
to exchange rotational inertia for lift to cushion your landing. At that
point it seems like you are adding energy to the rotor head other than
that which is coming from the descent through the air. My supposition
is that you can turn the blades using the engine, or you can turn
the blades using the stored rotational inertia in the blades, and in
either case you might be able to induce vortex ring state. Is this true?

Thanks a million for any thoughts or comments,

Greg

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On 20 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700, gregflies1@yahoo.com (Greg Johnson)
wrote:

>It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power)
>during an autorotation?

Well, since an autorotation infers a LACK of power, the answer would
be no.

3 things required for settling with power:

1) A high rate of descent. (appx 300 fpm in a "real" helo)

2) You must have some power applied (depending on which book you read,
as little as 20% of available power, but there must be SOME)

3) Speeds below ETL (You've got to keep within your own downwash to
settle with power)

Again, since an auto is a power off descent in which the blades are
driven solely by relative wind (i.e upflow through the rotor system)
requirement 2 is not met.

>A friend at my radio control helicopter field claimed that you shouldn't
>do a vertical autorotation, because you might enter vortex ring state
>if you do.

I'd be more afraid of losing rotor inertia in a vertical auto. I'd
rather have some energy stored in the "bank" in the form of forward
airspeed.

>This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the
>aerodynamics of helicopters.

I just had a major test in ground school and in studying for it, I
went all through the aerodynamics stuff again so this post is nicely
timed. Your knowledge is right on target.

>Clearly, during an autorotation the main blades are developing lift, just
>like a glider's wings are generating lift when it descends at a constant
>velocity.

Only PART of the blade is generating significant lift, and it's only
enough to keep you from plummeting like a lawn dart.. The inner 25%
or so is stalled. Too much AOA to be of any use. The outer 30% or so
has too little AOA to be of much help. The middle 45% has an AOA
that's "just right" for providing significant lift.

>And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in an
>auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex;
>the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind.

Yep. No downwash to settle in to. Airflow is UP through the rotor
system.

>Furthermore, the inner counter-rotating vortex that develops during
>vortex ring state would seem not to be possible during an auto, because
>there is no down-wash over the intermediate part of the blades. The air
>is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots
>to tips.
>
>(This is all just seat-of-pants intuition; I hope someone with aerodynamic
>knowledge can say if my intuition is right, and what the aerodynamics
>of an auto are, and why in that regime settling with power can't happen.)

I'm still a mere student, but I'm pretty certain of my autorotation
"know-how" (If I've buggered something up, someone please correct me)
I'd say your intuition is more like reality.

>The one place I can (just barely) imagine it might be possible is during
>the brief moment at the bottom of an auto when you crank up the collective
>to exchange rotational inertia for lift to cushion your landing. At that
>point it seems like you are adding energy to the rotor head other than
>that which is coming from the descent through the air. My supposition
>is that you can turn the blades using the engine, or you can turn
>the blades using the stored rotational inertia in the blades, and in
>either case you might be able to induce vortex ring state. Is this true?

Nope. No downwash to speak of. By the time you're out of your flare,
you're going to be within a half rotor's diameter distance from the
ground and into ground effect. Smaller vortices, less drag etc..

My vote would be your friend is incorrect.

[Steve R.]

I'll only comment on a few points here. The main thing is, I agree with the
answers thus far with regards to VRS in an autorotation. It isn't going to
happen!

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:8eldi0ls43nhv6uvmiflhui5el8869jn3p@4ax.com...
> On 20 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700, gregflies1@yahoo.com (Greg Johnson)
> wrote:
>
> 3 things required for settling with power:
>
> 1) A high rate of descent. (appx 300 fpm in a "real" helo)
>
That is to say, a "full size" helo! The RC models "are" real helo's. They
have the same controls and are governed by the same aerodynamic rules as the
full size birds. Their biggest advantage, beyond not having to worry about
your arse if something goes wrong, is that the models generally have WAY
more power to weight than the big birds do and they are much stronger,
mechanically, and will take a lot more "relative" abuse than the full size
birds. SWP or VRS, been there, done that, with a RC model. Try smacking
the ground, level attitude, from a scale height of 20 feet in full VRS!
I've gotten away with this while learning to fly my model. Guarantee you
"won't" with the full size bird! ;-)

> Only PART of the blade is generating significant lift, and it's only
> enough to keep you from plummeting like a lawn dart.. The inner 25%
> or so is stalled. Too much AOA to be of any use. The outer 30% or so
> has too little AOA to be of much help. The middle 45% has an AOA
> that's "just right" for providing significant lift.
>
Interesting!? The graphs I've seen that illustrate the lift patterns of the
rotor disk during autorotation show the inner 33% of the blade as a stalled
region. The middle 33% (roughly) is the "driving" region. That is, the
part of the blade that's providing the aerodynaminc thrust that maintains
the autorotative state and thus, the main rotor rpm. The outer 33% (again,
roughly) is the "driven" region. That is, the part of the rotor disk that's
providing the usable lift that slows the descent rate and allows attitude
control, thru pitch and roll cyclic, of the helicopter. As I recall, I got
this from an FAA helicopter manual for primary rotorcraft students. Has
that changed or are you working off a different text. It's been a "very"
long time and maybe this stuff's been updated. What text are you working
from, out of curiosity?

> >And so, presumably there is a vortex at the tips of the blades. But in
an
> >auto, it seems like you would be descending out of this rotor tip vortex;
> >the wind is driving the blades, rather than the blades driving the wind.
>
Helicopter rotor blades create a wing tip vortex just like fixed wing
aircraft do. It trails off behind the aircraft just like the fixed wing
airplane. The heavier the helicopter, the more pronounced the vortex,
again, just like the fixed wing folks. It makes no difference if the
helicopter is in powered or autorotative flight. As long as the main rotor
blades are generating lift, the vortices will be there.

For the purposes of the subject line question, as others have stated, the
upward airflow thru the main rotor disk, as the helicopter descends in an
autorotation, keeps the VRS for establishing itself.

FWIW!
Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Beav]

"Alan" <alandotrait@btopenworlddot.com> wrote in message
news:cg68so$ojh$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> You still up and about Beav?

I was, and then I went to bed, but I got up again this morning and went out.
I got back though and here I am, sitting here with a cuppa in my hand
thinking about getting out of this chair and transfering to another where
can have a drag. Good thnking that.... Gone-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:40:51 GMT, "Steve R."
<srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote:

>I'll only comment on a few points here. The main thing is, I agree with the
>answers thus far with regards to VRS in an autorotation. It isn't going to
>happen!
>
>"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
>message news:8eldi0ls43nhv6uvmiflhui5el8869jn3p@4ax.com...
>> On 20 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700, gregflies1@yahoo.com (Greg Johnson)
>> wrote:
>>
>> 3 things required for settling with power:
>>
>> 1) A high rate of descent. (appx 300 fpm in a "real" helo)
>>
>That is to say, a "full size" helo! The RC models "are" real helo's. They
>have the same controls and are governed by the same aerodynamic rules as the
>full size birds. Their biggest advantage, beyond not having to worry about
>your arse if something goes wrong, is that the models generally have WAY
>more power to weight than the big birds do and they are much stronger,
>mechanically, and will take a lot more "relative" abuse than the full size
>birds. SWP or VRS, been there, done that, with a RC model. Try smacking
>the ground, level attitude, from a scale height of 20 feet in full VRS!
>I've gotten away with this while learning to fly my model. Guarantee you
>"won't" with the full size bird! ;-)

Oops, my bad. Yes, you're right. An RC helo IS a real helo (I'm
amazed my JR50 didn't slap me upside the head as I walked past it this
morning) Perhaps I should have said a "full sized" helo. I also
should have had "descent rate in excess of 300fpm) I do have dumped
my RC helo from "high" altitudes with no damage other than that to my
cardiac system as my heart jumped out of my chest at the thought of
spending another couple hundred dollars on repair parts.

>> Only PART of the blade is generating significant lift, and it's only
>> enough to keep you from plummeting like a lawn dart.. The inner 25%
>> or so is stalled. Too much AOA to be of any use. The outer 30% or so
>> has too little AOA to be of much help. The middle 45% has an AOA
>> that's "just right" for providing significant lift.
>>
>Interesting!? The graphs I've seen that illustrate the lift patterns of the
>rotor disk during autorotation show the inner 33% of the blade as a stalled
>region. The middle 33% (roughly) is the "driving" region. That is, the
>part of the blade that's providing the aerodynaminc thrust that maintains
>the autorotative state and thus, the main rotor rpm. The outer 33% (again,
>roughly) is the "driven" region. That is, the part of the rotor disk that's
>providing the usable lift that slows the descent rate and allows attitude
>control, thru pitch and roll cyclic, of the helicopter. As I recall, I got
>this from an FAA helicopter manual for primary rotorcraft students. Has
>that changed or are you working off a different text. It's been a "very"
>long time and maybe this stuff's been updated. What text are you working
>from, out of curiosity?

This very thing is really irritating to me as I study. Different
books state different things and my GS instructor says yet another
thing. The books I primarily refer to are Principles of Helicopter
Flight and Rotorcraft Flying Handbook. Another source is a web site
who's URL escapes me at the moment. Something like
dynamicaviation.com.. (really good diagrams of things like transverse
flow, disymmetry of lift etc..) The one thing I've discovered as I
study it that no two books agree on any point. It's kinda like
extrapolating max manifold pressures for given temps and DAs off the
placard in the helicopter. That's why when I answer quiz/test
questions, I preface a lot of "specific" numbers with the word
"approximately" :)

[Steve R.]

Hi Kevin,

Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-)

Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there
with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this
stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we
feel when trying to get a handle on it.

Fly Safe & Keep the training reports coming! :-)
Steve R.

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:si1gi01ql59cnj6kb5aqpu6k9rusnj92as@4ax.com...
>
> This very thing is really irritating to me as I study. Different
> books state different things and my GS instructor says yet another
> thing. The books I primarily refer to are Principles of Helicopter
> Flight and Rotorcraft Flying Handbook. Another source is a web site
> who's URL escapes me at the moment. Something like
> dynamicaviation.com.. (really good diagrams of things like transverse
> flow, disymmetry of lift etc..) The one thing I've discovered as I
> study it that no two books agree on any point. It's kinda like
> extrapolating max manifold pressures for given temps and DAs off the
> placard in the helicopter. That's why when I answer quiz/test
> questions, I preface a lot of "specific" numbers with the word
> "approximately" :)
>
>

[Ryan Ferguson]

Steve R. wrote:

> Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there
> with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand this
> stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we
> feel when trying to get a handle on it.

That much is true. Anyway, you're not going to enter VRS in an auto.
No power, no VRS.

And the problem with a vertical autorotation from altitude to the ground
isn't maintaining rotor inertia - you'll have plenty of that.

-Ryan
ATP, CFI (airplanes and helicopters)

[Beav]

"Steve R." <srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:W91Wc.9206$v86.7056@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-)
>
> Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out there
> with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully understand
this
> stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the confusion we
> feel when trying to get a handle on it.

So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off (PuLEASE!!:)
or are they blown off?


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Toad-Man]

"Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in
news:10ik3j7cegkb439@news.supernews.com:

>
> "Steve R." <srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:W91Wc.9206$v86.7056@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-)
>>
>> Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out
>> there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully
>> understand
> this
>> stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the
>> confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it.
>
> So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off
> (PuLEASE!!:) or are they blown off?
>
>

Flight (and many other things in our Universe) make use of measurable
and repeatable forces and effects. However, because we can measure a
force, it doesn't necessarily mean we know why the force is present or
the effect occurs.

For example, you can measure how long you're on the Internet with a
watch, but I doubt you know exactly how the internet is operating while
you're online. Jsut because you don't know, doesn't mean you can't get a
computer and get online though.

Back to flight - gravity is of course a major force, but the collected
scientific knowledge of our species still cannot say exactly what
gravity *is* - we know there is a force, we can measure it and predict
its effects and make use of it, but we still don't know what it is that
causes the force we know as gravity.

Same is true for many physical properties of the universe, that's what
people like Stephen Hawking are trying to find out - they're looking for
a unified theory that will explain what we can measure physically
(gravity, lift, drag etc) and what we have observed about atomic
structure and behaviour (unfortunately Newtonian physics that we use to
achieve flight, don't work at the atomic level). That work continues...

So the ability for aircraft to fly simply proves that we can measure and
make use of forces - not that we understand why those forces exist or
even how they work under all circumstances. For all we know, aircraft
may well be sucked and blown off to achieve flight, personally I'd
rather know the best way for a pilot to achieve those things ;)

toady.

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:


>So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off (PuLEASE!!:)
>or are they blown off?

Neither. All that noise and the fast rotating parts scare the piss
out of the earth and it pushes the ship away..

[Beav]

"Toad-Man" <toad@toadhall.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954E9744C959Btoadtoadhallcom@65.32.1.6...
> "Beav" <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in
> news:10ik3j7cegkb439@news.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Steve R." <srhodes13@houston.rr.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:W91Wc.9206$v86.7056@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >>
> >> Glad to know it's not just "me!" ;-)
> >>
> >> Actually, from what I've read through the years, even the guys out
> >> there with full blown PhD's in rotorcraft aerodynamics don't fully
> >> understand
> > this
> >> stuff so us little peons shouldn't be too embarrassed by the
> >> confusion we feel when trying to get a handle on it.
> >
> > So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off
> > (PuLEASE!!:) or are they blown off?
> >
> >
>
> Flight (and many other things in our Universe) make use of measurable
> and repeatable forces and effects. However, because we can measure a
> force, it doesn't necessarily mean we know why the force is present or
> the effect occurs.
>
> For example, you can measure how long you're on the Internet with a
> watch, but I doubt you know exactly how the internet is operating while
> you're online. Jsut because you don't know, doesn't mean you can't get a
> computer and get online though.
>
> Back to flight - gravity is of course a major force, but the collected
> scientific knowledge of our species still cannot say exactly what
> gravity *is* - we know there is a force, we can measure it and predict
> its effects and make use of it, but we still don't know what it is that
> causes the force we know as gravity.
>
> Same is true for many physical properties of the universe, that's what
> people like Stephen Hawking are trying to find out - they're looking for
> a unified theory that will explain what we can measure physically
> (gravity, lift, drag etc) and what we have observed about atomic
> structure and behaviour (unfortunately Newtonian physics that we use to
> achieve flight, don't work at the atomic level). That work continues...
>
> So the ability for aircraft to fly simply proves that we can measure and
> make use of forces - not that we understand why those forces exist or
> even how they work under all circumstances. For all we know, aircraft
> may well be sucked and blown off to achieve flight, personally I'd
> rather know the best way for a pilot to achieve those things ;)

Well that's easy, just lie down (and think of England:-)



--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:cmlki05i0j9ckmik6me0hh5simb6jv1fuf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off
(PuLEASE!!:)
> >or are they blown off?
>
> Neither. All that noise and the fast rotating parts scare the piss
> out of the earth and it pushes the ship away..

Actually, that's not quite right Kev, the ship stays where it is and the
EARTH moves out of it's way. It works the other way around too where the
earth sucks the ship BACK,

I *know* this is true, coz it's happened to me on many occasions:) I've SEEN
the ground jump up and grab a heli and I've seen trees grow 20ft in less
than a second. I've seen fences appear before my very eyes and I've seen
people grow out of the ground, reach adulthood and walk in front of a heli
within the space of time it takes to say "Get the f....". :-)

Let's see if Steven Hawkin can find a reason for THEM occurrences. 'Bet he
can't :)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:18:05 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:

>
>"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
>message news:cmlki05i0j9ckmik6me0hh5simb6jv1fuf@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
>> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off
>(PuLEASE!!:)
>> >or are they blown off?
>>
>> Neither. All that noise and the fast rotating parts scare the piss
>> out of the earth and it pushes the ship away..
>
>Actually, that's not quite right Kev, the ship stays where it is and the
>EARTH moves out of it's way. It works the other way around too where the
>earth sucks the ship BACK,
>
>I *know* this is true, coz it's happened to me on many occasions:) I've SEEN
>the ground jump up and grab a heli and I've seen trees grow 20ft in less
>than a second. I've seen fences appear before my very eyes and I've seen
>people grow out of the ground, reach adulthood and walk in front of a heli
>within the space of time it takes to say "Get the f....". :-)
>
>Let's see if Steven Hawkin can find a reason for THEM occurrences. 'Bet he
>can't :)

Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
sucking..

If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
buy the wife some flowers. :)

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:gcmni09jb2lso1apnn05ranu4s74g4q8ga@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:18:05 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
> >message news:cmlki05i0j9ckmik6me0hh5simb6jv1fuf@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
> >> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >So HOW do these things get off the ground? Are they sucked off
> >(PuLEASE!!:)
> >> >or are they blown off?
> >>
> >> Neither. All that noise and the fast rotating parts scare the piss
> >> out of the earth and it pushes the ship away..
> >
> >Actually, that's not quite right Kev, the ship stays where it is and the
> >EARTH moves out of it's way. It works the other way around too where the
> >earth sucks the ship BACK,
> >
> >I *know* this is true, coz it's happened to me on many occasions:) I've
SEEN
> >the ground jump up and grab a heli and I've seen trees grow 20ft in less
> >than a second. I've seen fences appear before my very eyes and I've seen
> >people grow out of the ground, reach adulthood and walk in front of a
heli
> >within the space of time it takes to say "Get the f....". :-)
> >
> >Let's see if Steven Hawkin can find a reason for THEM occurrences. 'Bet
he
> >can't :)
>
> Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
> sucking..

I always push when..... :-)
>
> If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
> buy the wife some flowers. :)

DON'T buy flowers. It's seen as sign of guilt for some reason:-)

Best to just go flying I say.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:



>> Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
>> sucking..
>
>I always push when..... :-)

OK, that was a bit too much information.. The visual of you
"coupling" (I've seen your pics on your web site) and moaning "Oh
Igor!" aren't doing my stomach any good this morning. :)

>> If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
>> buy the wife some flowers. :)
>
>DON'T buy flowers. It's seen as sign of guilt for some reason:-)
>
>Best to just go flying I say.

Funny you'd say that. I'm out the door in about 10 minutes to do that
very thing.

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:60gpi09g7qkjvaf0nv5b18880ldsllttb4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
> >> sucking..
> >
> >I always push when..... :-)
>
> OK, that was a bit too much information.. The visual of you
> "coupling" (I've seen your pics on your web site) and moaning "Oh
> Igor!" aren't doing my stomach any good this morning. :)

You leave Igor out of this!! ;)

>
> >> If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
> >> buy the wife some flowers. :)
> >
> >DON'T buy flowers. It's seen as sign of guilt for some reason:-)
> >
> >Best to just go flying I say.
>
> Funny you'd say that. I'm out the door in about 10 minutes to do that
> very thing.

Well it's just about midnight now, so I'm not:-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:55:59 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:

>
>"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
>message news:60gpi09g7qkjvaf0nv5b18880ldsllttb4@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
>> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
>> >> sucking..
>> >
>> >I always push when..... :-)
>>
>> OK, that was a bit too much information.. The visual of you
>> "coupling" (I've seen your pics on your web site) and moaning "Oh
>> Igor!" aren't doing my stomach any good this morning. :)
>
>You leave Igor out of this!! ;)

Larry Bell then? Or maybe frank (?) Piaseci? (or however you spell
his name)

>> >> If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
>> >> buy the wife some flowers. :)
>> >
>> >DON'T buy flowers. It's seen as sign of guilt for some reason:-)
>> >
>> >Best to just go flying I say.
>>
>> Funny you'd say that. I'm out the door in about 10 minutes to do that
>> very thing.
>
>Well it's just about midnight now, so I'm not:-)

You cursed me. Ship down for maintenance so I did some ramp tie-down
modification for the school and then sat in traffic for two hours on
the way home. Still, much better than having to work all day. :)

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:t7bqi05njsg9nj9s3fuo8rhod879ssflcg@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:55:59 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
> >message news:60gpi09g7qkjvaf0nv5b18880ldsllttb4@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
> >> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Sounds like part of your theory is the reverse of mine. Pushing and
> >> >> sucking..
> >> >
> >> >I always push when..... :-)
> >>
> >> OK, that was a bit too much information.. The visual of you
> >> "coupling" (I've seen your pics on your web site) and moaning "Oh
> >> Igor!" aren't doing my stomach any good this morning. :)
> >
> >You leave Igor out of this!! ;)
>
> Larry Bell then?

Cpme on man, the designer of the Bell heli's of that era wasn't Larry Bell,
it ws Arthur Young.

Or maybe frank (?) Piaseci? (or however you spell
> his name)

Frank Piasecki :-) Never for get the "K", If you do, you'll be known as "Ev"
:-)

>
> >> >> If this thread keeps up, I'm going to need to take a cold shower or
> >> >> buy the wife some flowers. :)
> >> >
> >> >DON'T buy flowers. It's seen as sign of guilt for some reason:-)
> >> >
> >> >Best to just go flying I say.
> >>
> >> Funny you'd say that. I'm out the door in about 10 minutes to do that
> >> very thing.
> >
> >Well it's just about midnight now, so I'm not:-)
>
> You cursed me. Ship down for maintenance so I did some ramp tie-down
> modification for the school and then sat in traffic for two hours on
> the way home. Still, much better than having to work all day. :)

ANYTHING is better than that :-)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:22:44 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:


>> Larry Bell then?
>
>Cpme on man, the designer of the Bell heli's of that era wasn't Larry Bell,
>it ws Arthur Young.

Or was it Arthur Murray?

>Or maybe frank (?) Piaseci? (or however you spell
>> his name)
>
>Frank Piasecki :-) Never for get the "K", If you do, you'll be known as "Ev"
>:-)

I've been called much worse... "Ev" is still better than "Bubbles".
hehehe


>> You cursed me. Ship down for maintenance so I did some ramp tie-down
>> modification for the school and then sat in traffic for two hours on
>> the way home. Still, much better than having to work all day. :)
>
>ANYTHING is better than that :-)

I'm pretty sure I'd rather go to work than get an enema or a root
canal.. <g>

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:7e5si0p1dgspga95vlm0dk3ogfrikjpeun@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:22:44 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Larry Bell then?
> >
> >Cpme on man, the designer of the Bell heli's of that era wasn't Larry
Bell,
> >it ws Arthur Young.
>
> Or was it Arthur Murray?

Nah, maybe he made mints though:-) (Murray mints, Murray mints, too good to
hurry mints:)
>
> >Or maybe frank (?) Piaseci? (or however you spell
> >> his name)
> >
> >Frank Piasecki :-) Never for get the "K", If you do, you'll be known as
"Ev"
> >:-)
>
> I've been called much worse... "Ev" is still better than "Bubbles".

Got them sequins yet? ;-)) I read your note on RAH and pissed myself. What
you should do now is BECOME the thing that is MJ, but in Bo' Selcta style.
WHOO Mutha-f...

First thing you do now is get a red jump/flightsuit. Now that WOULD be worth
a comment:-))


> hehehe
>
>
> >> You cursed me. Ship down for maintenance so I did some ramp tie-down
> >> modification for the school and then sat in traffic for two hours on
> >> the way home. Still, much better than having to work all day. :)
> >
> >ANYTHING is better than that :-)
>
> I'm pretty sure I'd rather go to work than get an enema or a root
> canal.. <g>

Enema isn't so bad, root canal, FORGET about it.


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:


>> Or was it Arthur Murray?
>
>Nah, maybe he made mints though:-) (Murray mints, Murray mints, too good to
>hurry mints:)

Must be a jingle from across the pond..


>> I've been called much worse... "Ev" is still better than "Bubbles".
>
>Got them sequins yet? ;-)) I read your note on RAH and pissed myself. What
>you should do now is BECOME the thing that is MJ, but in Bo' Selcta style.
>WHOO Mutha-f...

Actually, yes. :) Not having a lot of luck getting them to stick to
the latex..

>First thing you do now is get a red jump/flightsuit. Now that WOULD be worth
>a comment:-))

I've given thought to the red outfit and a nice greasy afro wig for a
flight one day.. Dunno if I'd want to spend the money though.

>> I'm pretty sure I'd rather go to work than get an enema or a root
>> canal.. <g>
>
>Enema isn't so bad, root canal, FORGET about it.

I've never had either, but I don't imagine either would be pleasant..

"paging Doctor Jellyfinger.. Doctor Jellyfinger to exam room 1
please" :)

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:5r4ti0lvd7aeq8ldm5g6q14k44gnstlbaq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Or was it Arthur Murray?
> >
> >Nah, maybe he made mints though:-) (Murray mints, Murray mints, too good
to
> >hurry mints:)
>
> Must be a jingle from across the pond..
>
>
> >> I've been called much worse... "Ev" is still better than "Bubbles".
> >
> >Got them sequins yet? ;-)) I read your note on RAH and pissed myself.
What
> >you should do now is BECOME the thing that is MJ, but in Bo' Selcta
style.
> >WHOO Mutha-f...
>
> Actually, yes. :) Not having a lot of luck getting them to stick to
> the latex..

That's because it's wimmins work, stuff like that ;-)

>
> >First thing you do now is get a red jump/flightsuit. Now that WOULD be
worth
> >a comment:-))
>
> I've given thought to the red outfit and a nice greasy afro wig for a
> flight one day.. Dunno if I'd want to spend the money though.
>
> >> I'm pretty sure I'd rather go to work than get an enema or a root
> >> canal.. <g>
> >
> >Enema isn't so bad, root canal, FORGET about it.
>
> I've never had either, but I don't imagine either would be pleasant..

Never had root canal myself, but....... I've seen someone who HAS had it
:-)

>
> "paging Doctor Jellyfinger.. Doctor Jellyfinger to exam room 1
> please" :)

Oh please Kev, I'm just abut to have my tea:)


--
Beav


Please note my E-mail address is "beavis dot original at ntlworld dot com"
(with the obvious changes)

Beavisland now lives at
www.beavisoriginal.co.uk

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:21:56 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:


>> Actually, yes. :) Not having a lot of luck getting them to stick to
>> the latex..
>
>That's because it's wimmins work, stuff like that ;-)

yeah, that'll go over well with SWMBO...


>> I've never had either, but I don't imagine either would be pleasant..
>
>Never had root canal myself, but....... I've seen someone who HAS had it
>:-)

Peering into stranger's mouths again are you?

>>
>> "paging Doctor Jellyfinger.. Doctor Jellyfinger to exam room 1
>> please" :)
>
>Oh please Kev, I'm just abut to have my tea:)

Don't forget the jelly for your crumpet. (WTF is a crumpet anyways??)

[Dave]

Kevs
i've had a root canal job, the only thing more painful is paying for it!
Dave

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message news:hmavi09ejj7n5mlgot4iiv21ontjmkas0o@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:21:56 +0100, "Beav"
> <beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Actually, yes. :) Not having a lot of luck getting them to stick to
> >> the latex..
> >
> >That's because it's wimmins work, stuff like that ;-)
>
> yeah, that'll go over well with SWMBO...
>
>
> >> I've never had either, but I don't imagine either would be pleasant..
> >
> >Never had root canal myself, but....... I've seen someone who HAS had it
> >:-)
>
> Peering into stranger's mouths again are you?
>
> >>
> >> "paging Doctor Jellyfinger.. Doctor Jellyfinger to exam room 1
> >> please" :)
> >
> >Oh please Kev, I'm just abut to have my tea:)
>
> Don't forget the jelly for your crumpet. (WTF is a crumpet anyways??)
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 2004-08-11

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:59:46 GMT, "Dave" <yourejoking@NOSPAM.noway>
wrote:

>Kevs
>i've had a root canal job, the only thing more painful is paying for it!
>Dave

I think tuition for three kids in private school is more painful.
Insurance would cover the root canal. :)

[The OTHER Kevin in San Diego]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:12:26 +0100, "Beav"
<beavis.original@ntloxoworld.com> wrote:


>> I think I'm glad we don't have 'em over here then.. Even the name
>> makes 'em sound bad..
>
>You're not missing much Kev

Really? Damn it all. I was *REALLY looking forward to gagg...err..
enjoying one next time I get to your side of the pond.. (lol next
time. Haven't been there yet! )