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

[Beav]

"Greg Johnson" > wrote in message
m...
> It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power)
> during an autorotation?

No.
>
> 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.

He's talking ********. To reach "that" stage, the air must be travelling
DOWNWARDS through the rotors. In autorotaion, the air is travelling UPWARDS
and turning the blade. (Well the AIRFLOW is upwards due to the downwards
trajectory of the heli)
>
> This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the
> aerodynamics of helicopters.

You're right, its not right.
>
> 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.

Exactamundo (almost:-)
>
> 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.

Correct.
>
> 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.


Or over any part of the whole machine.

The air
> is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots
> to tips.

Indeed it is, and one day I'll read the whole bleeding post before I start
typing :-))) save myself a lot of work if I did:-)

>
> (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 seat of your pants is working well from where it's sitting:-)
>
> 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.

Not going to happen there either. You need to have POWER into the blades
(and lot of it) plus a descent rate exceeding 300fpm.

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.

Actually, you're USING the energy already stored, so you're losing energy
not adding to it.

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?

No. More than one criteria must be met to induce VRS, and one is a LOT of
power going into the blades (not being used as it is when pitch is pulled,
but DRIVING the blades when pitch is pulled) and the other is that rapid
descent rate (300fpm typically). If both aren't present, you're not going to
find yourself in the ****.


--
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

[Alan]

You still up and about Beav?

--
Alan

Remove the dots to reply
http://heliweb.users.btopenworld.com/


"Beav" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Johnson" > wrote in message
> m...
> > It it possible to get into vortex ring state (or settling with power)
> > during an autorotation?
>
> No.
> >
> > 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.
>
> He's talking ********. To reach "that" stage, the air must be travelling
> DOWNWARDS through the rotors. In autorotaion, the air is travelling
UPWARDS
> and turning the blade. (Well the AIRFLOW is upwards due to the downwards
> trajectory of the heli)
> >
> > This doesn't seem right to me based on my limited knowledge of the
> > aerodynamics of helicopters.
>
> You're right, its not right.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Exactamundo (almost:-)
> >
> > 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.
>
> Correct.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Or over any part of the whole machine.
>
> The air
> > is going up through the rotor disk the whole way out from blade roots
> > to tips.
>
> Indeed it is, and one day I'll read the whole bleeding post before I start
> typing :-))) save myself a lot of work if I did:-)
>
> >
> > (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 seat of your pants is working well from where it's sitting:-)
> >
> > 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.
>
> Not going to happen there either. You need to have POWER into the blades
> (and lot of it) plus a descent rate exceeding 300fpm.
>
> 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.
>
> Actually, you're USING the energy already stored, so you're losing energy
> not adding to it.
>
> 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?
>
> No. More than one criteria must be met to induce VRS, and one is a LOT of
> power going into the blades (not being used as it is when pitch is pulled,
> but DRIVING the blades when pitch is pulled) and the other is that rapid
> descent rate (300fpm typically). If both aren't present, you're not going
to
> find yourself in the ****.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

[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 ...
> On 20 Aug 2004 17:19:48 -0700, (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" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[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 ...
>
> 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." > wrote in message
...
> 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" > wrote in
:

>
> "Steve R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.

[Beav]

"Toad-Man" > wrote in message
...
> "Beav" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Steve R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> 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 ...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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 ****
> 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:18:05 +0100, "Beav"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
> >message ...
> >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:34:01 +0100, "Beav"
> >> > 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 ****
> >> 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:55:59 +0100, "Beav"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
> >message ...
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:38:52 +0100, "Beav"
> >> > 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:22:44 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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 ****ed 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:47:34 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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 ****ed 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

[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 ...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:21:56 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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

[Beav]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz *AT* adelphia *DOT* net> wrote in
message ...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:21:56 +0100, "Beav"
> > 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...

Not a worry, she's still a woman;-)) (Hey, I can be brave when mine isn't
in the room:-)
>
>
> >> 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?

Peering's Ok, but dentists use their tools in strangers mouths. Should be a
law against that:)
>
> >>
> >> "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??)

Crumpets are a sort of round, doughy, rubbery, sweetish and ****ing awful
invention designed primarily to stick teeth together I think. They taste Ok
(toasted, not "raw") if they're leathered in butter, but I'm not about to
become a crumpet addict. They lead to root canal work:-)))



--
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 ...
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 00:08:31 +0100, "Beav"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> yeah, that'll go over well with SWMBO...
> >
> >Not a worry, she's still a woman;-)) (Hey, I can be brave when mine
isn't
> >in the room:-)
>
> and mine is 6,000 miles from you. hehehe
>
> >> Peering into stranger's mouths again are you?
> >
> >Peering's Ok, but dentists use their tools in strangers mouths. Should be
a
> >law against that:)
>
> I'm pretty sure that once he's got 'em in his chair, he knows their
> names so perhaps "stranger" isn't an appropriate term.
>
> >> Don't forget the jelly for your crumpet. (WTF is a crumpet anyways??)
> >
> >Crumpets are a sort of round, doughy, rubbery, sweetish and ****ing awful
> >invention designed primarily to stick teeth together I think. They taste
Ok
> >(toasted, not "raw") if they're leathered in butter, but I'm not about to
> >become a crumpet addict. They lead to root canal work:-)))
>
> 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


--
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