Tractor and pushers and safety designs

[mcbirdman]

I keep seeing posts from people who keep looking for ways to improve technology such as turbines on gyros.....and canards.... There is alot to be learned and respected from the original tractor autogyros.

Funny how we keep playing with designs and trying to improve them. With every "improvement" design I have seen since the tractor design I have seen nothing improved in regards to safety and practicality. That is not to say we haven't improved items, just not to the degree we enjoyed in the total package/design overall of the original tractor We push the engine back to get us in the front and then we have an engine that is roaring to get in the front seat while you are sitting there. Then I see discussions that it doesn't make sense to wear a shoulderbelt or seatbelt because the only place to attach it is the mast which might rip off.... Does'nt all that seem just like a wonderful characteristic? How about feeling like you are in an enclosed machine all comfy, and the engine behind you and something gets sucked out of the cockpit and exits the aircraft. While you are in there ask yourself if it is neccesary or to your advantage to have that nice round 1/8" fiberglass shell all around you. Maybe ask how much protection it offers you if you hit anything. Would you still feel you made the right decision not to have a metal airframe around you in the moments you would be experiencing difficulty? Or that the blades on the pushers are close to the ground and pick up rocks and stones that can bring you down....

The point remains that by just thinking about using a tail, a real one not blocked by airflow, it is logical as birds flying. If you are resigned to the improvement of having such a device it makes sense to put the engine somewhere safer also. One thing is connected to another and the beauty of a tractor design is that all the other items needed fall into logical position with great advantage. Sure you can rearrange the pieces but it will never add up to the same important features gained by such a configuration.

So why would we want to put a canard on instead of using the tail? A canard is typically smaller and needs higher speeds to be effective. So now we come in for a landing and a gyro that typically goes slow, slows down even more just before it touches down, and a gust of wind occurs. I can just tell you that I am amazed at the knowledge and application of such technology that long ago. I am also amazed how much this information is ignored today. I like the looks and the attention given to new designs. Still, I can't honestly say that in terms of safety, which includes impact and rollovers, stability engine on and off, power requirments, I have not found anything better than the fully enveloping tube airframe with a long tail. I know it is not for everyone but in seeking to remove the tail will actually lead you away from the very positive attributes that result in such a well balanced machine.

I don't think the argument that if you want to be safe - walk - don't fly has any merit as we can still fly and be substantially safer by our choices in design. The question is how much are we willing to risk, and for what specific benefit. Do we choose something to fly because it only cost 4000.00 knowing that it fufills your cost requirment? What about getting what you pay for? You pay for more life insurance for better coverage and yet you would consider betting your life/future in a 4000.00 policy? Are you worth only that to your family and freinds? Do you want to be the the one reinventing the wheel? Can you ignore all that is known currently about gyros and ignore it just so you can get in the air inexpesively?

I disagree when someone says to forgo the use of wearing a seatbelt/shoulder harness because of the inherent dangers of gyros. I firmly believe that this danger can be significantly reduced by utilizing a properly designed gyro and the use of a restraint system.

Starting with an airframe of strength that incorporates and integrated roll cage I think is the place to start. I hold the pilot's safety utmost consideration. If you are going to fly, minimize the risks you are already accepting. Remove the safety that a rollcage provides and you will automatically be more likely to suffer an accident of any magnitude with an outcome far worse than need be. Building on the design of pilot protection I would work towards stability, while in fact this would be occuring at the same time as building the airframe that is dual in purpose.

The airframe must provide protection and a place to mount the stability and control devices such as stab and rudder while at the same time allowing for pilot protection. Once these priorities are made I would make decisions on engine placement for cooling, airflow, efficiency, balance and engine mass in mind. It is amazing that the older autogyros seem to follow these steps in the design process where today it seems to be another trail of footsteps. I think it appears priority seems to be pilot view, a rain shell, worker engine in the back out of view and don't worry about what if's.... and what does happen....

If you are new here and you are wondering what makes a good gyro - ask yourself what matters most? Looks? Your family? The pilot? What designs / layout of the machine affords you the most advantage. Do you want to get in the air now with a possible bronco or learn patience and consider your alternatives as you consider what is the most important aspect you want to ensure in your flying.

I would gladly give up the view of the scenery around my feet sitting in a lawnchair to know I have the mass of an engine IN FRONT OF ME as I make my unplanned landing in a field. I also wouldn't worry about my seatbelt and shoulder harness mounted to the airframe behind me coming apart - nor the mast that is not right behind my head.....

It really is too bad the other forum is down, anyone doing searches for this information could find it and use the knowledge to their advantage. Now it is going to take time for people to care enough to cover this ground again. It is also too bad to see people that I have seen as knowledgeable, demonstrated through their posts on the other forum through the years - getting pot - shotted by people that obviously don't know that they are talking to someone with a wealth of experience. It just seems here like the kids are running wild in the house and don't even know that there are many people knowledgeable who read this forum because there is nothing left anymore. I believe these knowledgable people refrain from posting here because they just shake their heads and don't know where to start. I hope the quality of the posts continue to improve. I am mostly a reader but I post time to time.

All the time I got at the moment, jtm

[Dean_Dolph]

I keep seeing posts from people who keep looking for ways to improve technology such as turbines on gyros.....and canards.... There is alot to be learned and respected from the original tractor autogyros.

James, I doubt that anyone will disagree!

Funny how we keep playing with designs and trying to improve them. With every "improvement" design I have seen since the tractor design I have seen nothing improved in regards to safety and practicality. That is not to say we haven't improved items, just not to the degree we enjoyed in the total package/design overall of the original tractor ....

I'm not sure people are trying to improve as much as they are trying to get what THEY want in a gyro. You have chosen the type that you meets your criteria and they are picking theirs. It looks like you are doing a fine job, by the way.

The point remains that by just thinking about using a tail, a real one not blocked by airflow, it is logical as birds flying. If you are resigned to the improvement of having such a device it makes sense to put the engine somewhere safer also. One thing is connected to another and the beauty of a tractor design is that all the other items needed fall into logical position with great advantage. Sure you can rearrange the pieces but it will never add up to the same important features gained by such a configuration.

James, you have been visiting with us for a long time now, haven't you picked up on the fact that logic isn't in our vocabulary?! Safety considerations for engine placement, actually has two camps, at least in the auto field. There are those who don't like the fact that the engine in the back wants to climb up front with them and then there those who don't like the idea of it ending up in their laps on a head on, which isn't likely in a gyro but strange things happen. Pick your poison!

So why would we want to put a canard on instead of using the tail? ………

Yeah, the canard doesn't sound like a good idea but what do I know.

I can just tell you that I am amazed at the knowledge and application of such technology that long ago. I am also amazed how much this information is ignored today.

I suspect that knowledge didn't just pop up, but instead was earned with some failures along the way. Mr. Herron, who you have had dealings with, can fill in the info here.

I like the looks and the attention given to new designs. Still, I can't honestly say that in terms of safety, which includes impact and rollovers, stability engine on and off, power requirments, I have not found anything better than the fully enveloping tube airframe with a long tail. I know it is not for everyone but in seeking to remove the tail will actually lead you away from the very positive attributes that result in such a well balanced machine.

First of all, without going back and reviewing the message on canards, I don't think anyone was suggesting that the tail be removed. And as far as safety is concerned, I don't think anyone will argue against the tractor being the safest and most stable at this point. It is the benchmark that I would expect other gyros to be compared too and eventually equal. I'm not all that knowledgeable but I haven't seen anything to date that make me think a pusher can't be made stable and with some innovation, made as safe. You notice that the two commercial machines now in development, the CarterCopter and the pretty much ready for sale Groen Bros. Hawk, are both pushers. Some of the technology used on those machines is already filtering down. Whether it is all scalable to garage size remains to be seen. But, in any event, I expect to see, in the next couple of years, machines that meet your criteria.


I don't think the argument that if you want to be safe - walk - don't fly has any merit as we can still fly and be substantially safer by our choices in design. The question is how much are we willing to risk, and for what specific benefit. Do we choose something to fly because it only cost 4000.00 knowing that it fufills your cost requirment? What about getting what you pay for? You pay for more life insurance for better coverage and yet you would consider betting your life/future in a 4000.00 policy? Are you worth only that to your family and freinds? Do you want to be the the one reinventing the wheel? Can you ignore all that is known currently about gyros and ignore it just so you can get in the air inexpesively?

Agree! I also agree that money shouldn't be the issue when it comes to safety. Reinvent the wheel? Not sure what you are driving at here but one thing that appeals to a lot of people who come to gyros is the fact that it is a relatively simple machine that they can play da Vinci with. Granted, without the proper knowledge they can get in trouble in a hurry but I don't know how people that visit here can ignore the issues with stability and safety.


I disagree when someone says to forgo the use of wearing a seatbelt/shoulder harness because of the inherent dangers of gyros. I firmly believe that this danger can be significantly reduced by utilizing a properly designed gyro and the use of a restraint system.

Glad to see you didn't get carried away and say these dangers could be eliminated. Ain't gonna happen; even with a well designed and built machine.

I would gladly give up the view of the scenery around my feet sitting in a lawnchair to know I have the mass of an engine IN FRONT OF ME as I make my unplanned landing in a field. I also wouldn't worry about my seatbelt and shoulder harness mounted to the airframe behind me coming apart - nor the mast that is not right behind my head.....

And James you have! But others don't want to give up the view. And that mass of engine that you think is going to protect just might not. I wouldn't bet on it. I'm sure Ron H. has designed your machine as safe as he can and still be able to fly. That does not mean he was able to give you all the protection you think it does. If it does then he is has done more than a marvelous job.

It really is too bad the other forum is down, anyone doing searches for this information could find it and use the knowledge to their advantage. Now it is going to take time for people to care enough to cover this ground again. It is also too bad to see people that I have seen as knowledgeable, demonstrated through their posts on the other forum through the years - getting pot - shotted by people that obviously don't know that they are talking to someone with a wealth of experience. It just seems here like the kids are running wild in the house and don't even know that there are many people knowledgeable who read this forum because there is nothing left anymore. I believe these knowledgable people refrain from posting here because they just shake their heads and don't know where to start. I hope the quality of the posts continue to improve. I am mostly a reader but I post time to time.

James, I'm not sure whom you are talking about that visited Norm's conference that doesn't visit this one. But as far as I'm concerned we have the vast majority that visited there and the best of the lot. The only one I miss, despite his presentations, is Craig Wall. But Greg G., Chuck B., Doug R. Raghu, Al H. and others, present more info than I can absorb and have demonstrated patience with all of us that don't grasp it the first time around. I don't think we have to worry about newbees missing out on info.

All the time I got at the moment, jtm

Yeah me too!

[GyroRon]

James I agree with most of your points. I think that if Little wings were offered in a quick build kit form and if there was more Tractor designs to choose from - I know there is the Pitbull but I have yet to see one fly and don't hear much good stuff about the PitBull - Your vision would come to bear...

I for one would love to have a little wing if for no other reason than to be different from other aircraft and other gyros. I would much rather have a Little Wing tandem than a RAF or Sparrowhawk, but it is just too much work to get one going. Maybe someday in the future someone will see the light as Jim Mayfield did with the RAF mods and work out a partnership with Ron H and start rolling out kits.

I know Ron probably won't let me " experience " his Bird at Mentone, but I picture it in my mind and I think it has to be great.

[Vance]

Hi James, I love the view from a pusher and I especial love the feeling I get when doing a decending turn to a landing. It always takes my breath away.
I also love flying a Steerman but I miss the unrestricted foward view and it feels a little like a truck compared to a gyroplane.

When there were mostly tractors people still managed to get killed.

It is nice that you have found a design to embrace but part of what makes people wonderful is their ability to find value in in many places.

We no longet live in caves because someone decided to improve housing. I would imagin that the first time his house burned down everyone said "see, you just can't improve on a cave."

I think that this forum is doing great and I learn every day. I am always amazed at people's willingness to share their hard won knoledge. I loved Norm's forum and the arcives were great, but we are here and it is today and I am gratefull for what we have.

I think that all things that fly are marvelous and the people that fly them are special. I love it that people are always trying to make them better. I certainly would not think less of someone that had not reached the same conclusion I had.

Keep the pashion going, it's charming!
Thank you, Vance

[mcbirdman]

Hi Dean and Ron,

Thanks for your comments I read them all. I see that I am not the only one that - once writing..... can be long winded (lol)

Just a few things come to mind within the realm of my comments...

You are right ! It is my fault for asuming that a logical aproach is the normal one. I choose my own safety first over the machine and any other design / model decisions will eventually, finally be held up against the safety question. It must if safety is number one in an activity that is so unforgiving.

When I think about the engine in front situation it reminds me of a story my dad told me about a guy that got in an accident in a car he was driving. My dad worked with the guy in the experimental lab at GM where they not only worked on things like the opposed 5 cylinder engine which I saw but crash tests and designs. When his friend from work got hit head on with his wife in the car next to him he said the accident appeared to him in slow motion. He said all he could think of when it was occuring and all he could say as they both got out of the car uninjured was - it worked ! it worked ! You see, cars were designed to fold up as deceleration was occuring. The folding of the metal looks awful and people say things were made cheap but the idea is that the few seconds of decleration stretched out over a longer period of time is less abrubt and actually cushions the impact. The more metal there is in front the more compaction and absorbtion can be achieved in comparison to a piece of fiberglass since it will resist hardly at all upon impact. This means there is no time for the important (passenger section to decelerate as it just continues full speed into the the object of resistance whether that be a tree or ground somehow. The deceleration and absorbtion of energy in a pusher will occur when the mass with inertia - metal of the framework and engine meet the resistance and compression / absorbtion occurs. The problem is that it had to go through the low mass - low cushion area of a passenger compartment. Anyway, to simplify it .... If you were going to hit a tree and were sitting in a glass bubble - would you rather have it on the front end of a tank or the back end? Anyhow, that is why I think it is good to have something in front of you besides 1/8" fiberglass.

The biggest single drawback about tractors is lack of a kit. I believe these would sell if offered. No offence to pitbulls but as far as I can see - it is still a frame kit with some fiberglass wrapped around you. Not really the same kind of protection that a little wing offers. It looks nice and is a kit, those are positive things. BTW Ron met a guy that claimed he had 100 hours in a pitbull. I think Ron said something like he shook the guys hand and said he never met a pitbull pilot with time or something like that. He was surprised.

Ron, you are right, single biggest problem is that it takes a while to build quality. It is a commitment to quality and pilot safety. When I hear mention of the sparrowhawk I think it is great. I see why they diverted over to improve such a machine that seemed to not only put pilot last but make the company look bad too. I think it is great they picked up where RAF REFUSED to take action and am sure lives are / will be saved. However, just dreaming.... what if they had decided that they weren't going to just fix a machine, later to redesign it in full and kit it..... but went for a tractor design and put it in production? It would have sent a powerful message and made this type of machine aquirable by everyone who would be considering a gyro.

They could have been pumping out the airframes and people probably would be ordering them up. Well, honestly I don't know - but if I had to guess I think yes...

Ron, knowing how work it takes to build one of these I would sure worry about checking one out. The problem is that other than Ron fixing it if anything should happen- who could? We can't just cut some more 2 x 2 tubing and put it in.... I know you have flown quite a few with no problems but ....
Okay Okay... I'd be jealous. I have to work hard to earn a flight in mine and you can just borrow someones? lol he he...

Hey, you guys take it easy - ttys jtm

[mcbirdman]

Hi Vance,

A couple things. Do you actually fly stearman's or were you just using it as an example. I am asking because I would think you would know how to spell something that you flew. Thinking that you used it simply for a comparison between flying a truck compared to a gyro is not the same as an enclosed gyro vs open. The tractor is everybit as manuverable as any other gyro. In fact not only is it manuverable but it goes places others haven't. It has gone coast to coast and the pilot has seen things never seen before like the final leg of the trip. Manuverable and nimble and powerful enough to climb over 20,000 feet in 20 minutes. True, your idea of a view and mine and others is going to be different but you must agree those things are different.

It doesn't bother me what you choose if you are well informed. What I didn't especially like is being welcomed into the arms of RAF without knowing that there were huge problems there. Being a newbie I knew no better and I wish someone had took me aside and made me consider what I was proposing to do - fly. So, knowing that some people choose what they fly based on many things such as something they think looks good or see other people are flying - I decided to post what design is so far the best.

We don't go back and live in caves, but still in gyros we have been dealing with issues for the last 20 years that were solved over 70 years ago. Do you realize that it wasn't until the 70's that General Aviation matched the safety record that was achieved in the 20-30's with tractor autogyros?

I wonder if you know how bad the record went when gyros were reintroduced as pushers until present. Have you wondered why they are supposed to be the safest type of aircraft and yet they have such a bad record? It isn't any accident or slewing of numbers...what do you think changed? Hint : it was like moving out of caves..... It is more than passion, it is the truth, and something somber to think about.

But - things are getting better and I am enthusiastic at what I see in several designs.... Things are finally getting better. Take care, and if you really do get to fly in a stearman - you do get to do two special, unique things - and that is cool. take care, jtm

As far as caves go, really no current new design has all the significant (if you deem safety significant) features that a modern tractor has. In every aspect from rollability to endurance, weather ability, to stability, to visability (to others), to automatic teeter limiters / stick locks, engine efficientcy, Big tires and struts for off field landings etc.... a tractor design IS it. If however you want to trade most all of these features for a little better view, go for it. I am pretty sure that the view is nowhere as constrictive as you suggest the stearman is, I have a friend who owns one.

I also plan on taking photographs from tractors so I don't think it is that restrictive for even my purposes... I'm pretty sure your breath would be taken away with every decending turn landing you did in a tractor. Even better that as you take your breath in, I am pretty sure you wouldn't be sucking in the bugs stuck on your teeth (lol)

Hey Vance - did you see the photos that keep getting posted that have a good view but you also get to see some ratty old tennis shoes? I would rather see the gentle arch of a dashboard than some dirty old shoes in a photograph.... mine would have bright yellow paint spots all over them and would look even worse.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Hi James, wonderful post! I too have started a little wing and built "DaScrew-Driver" to learn in. Money did play a big role in chosing "DaScrew-Driver" mainly because I wasn't sure I'd like the sport. I am guilty in that regards of not putting safety at the highest priority. I did get a Littlewing tail though :D However, NOW THAT I LOVE IT, the little wing that I'm building will be spared no expense. As far as turbines go, I am researching into the application, however, so far, not much more bang for the buck :D I doubt that it will be this little Wing to get a turbine if the research pans out to be a "Good idea."

James, I have a confession....I'm am idiot! I don't know much compared to others, but I'm learning. I do have a good bit of background. Unfortunately, I don't have the vocabulary.

I think maybe I kinda twisted you alittle in the canard posting and I would first like to say, "Sorry wasn't my intent." I don't know the differance between moment arm leverage, and effective. To me, they are one and the same and I stand corrected. But the underline message I was broadcasting to a newbee was the same as everyone else, "Don't do it. Not a good idea." I would hate to hear of someone attempting to build a canard gyro and the design kills them for one of several reasons you, me, Doug, eruttan listed.

BTW, is eruttan one of the "Ruttan" family?

Anyway, Great post! Very cool observation on technology.

Screw-Out

[Vance]

Hi James, I admire your ability to articulate you thoughts. I question the Idea that people with differing opinions are less well informed.

Yes I have flown a Stearman, although not as the pilot in comand, and I found the lack of foward vision intimadating on the ground and when landing. I loved the sound and the flame from the exhaust after the sun went down. The whole experance was wonderful. It is not something that I would want as an everyday flying machine. My typing and editing are on par with my fixed wing skills. The view from your Little Wing will be much better although the view from a Pitcarin was probably about the same and given a Pitcarin's weight and size I would expect they were a little truck like.

Yes I have studied history and especialy the history of the Autogiro. It is a great story. I had not heard the part about the safty record not being equaled by general aviation till the 70's and I question the term general aviation since most of the gyroplanes in the early days were flown by profesionals. I would also suggest that the numbers are not there for a proper comparison. I think the poor saftey record for gyroplanes compared to fixed wings has more to do do with a lack of training and engineering in the sport, not the pusher configuration.

I don't beleive that pictures could ever capture the feeling of looking foward and down in a pusher.

I have studied long and hard about safty with an expert named Jim Deist and the fact that I survived 2 crashes over 200 miles per hour would sudjest that I learned something. I love how hard Ron works at making the Little Wing safe and I especialy like the redundant rotor controls. I also love it that AAI and Rotary Flight Dynamics and many others are working so hard on improving safety. Ron is not just looking back, his use of a teeter rotor and a modern light engine are very much of today.

People have gone cross country in pushers although that is not what I would want to do. Thats what fixed wings are for. The atvantage that I see for gyroplanes is about low and slow. Most helicopters and fixed wings are not particularly safe below 500 feet.

To sum up, I have a great deal to learn and perhaps I will one day come to the conclusion that you have but in the mean time I would love to labor under the fantasy that variety is wonderful and it is not born out of ignorance. Thank You, Vance

[mcbirdman]

Hi Vance - You ARE lucky not TWO times but THREE !

Stearman, gyro and the crash problem ! Glad you are fine. Just a few things I can think of: you said

"I question the Idea that people with differing opinions are less well informed."

I think opinion are based on knowledge and lack of knowledge. Ideas are based on feelings and many other factors. Dean is right that decisions within the gyro community are NOT based on logical factors. That is why I say that I base mine on what I would assume most people care about - Safety/self preservation. I think many people that are new do NOT have the information or have thought about the factors that should enter into decision making. If someone doesn't know any better because no one took the time to offer food for thought or to care about fellow pilots enough to say something then why would things be any different. It is about learning and decisions that are based on the knowledge that is available at the time. You and anyone else are free to think what you like and of course do the same. Persons new to the gyro community might possibly think that pushers and tractors are the same in safety and stability which would be untrue. There are consequences for decisions and again, my belief, that I want as many positive attributes in my favor within any aircraft I put myself or friends in.

I understand and agree the Stearman is probably like the old autogyros in configuration.

Third, and most importantly, I would have you recheck how you sumize there is a difference somehow between pilots of old and of the 70's. I was NOT comparing FW flying of the 70's to gyros of the 20's. I am talking the timeline of gyro accidents per hour flown in the 20's that were all tractors - to what happened in the 60's- to present in the gyro community. Look at the direction design has gone and the record got terrible. It had little to do with the pilots as the pushers have many design problems to overcome and as history turns out, nasty hidden tendencies that caused many good pilots their lives.

Also note that even though old 20/30 pilots pretty much jumped in and flew unlike the formal education that most modern proffesional or private pilots recieve (and required)today, they did extremely well. There is record of FW pilots being talked to on the telephone before jumping in and flying a gyro. It makes no sense that better trained pilots today actually performed more poorly than the experimental pilots, the pioneering pilots of old. Further they were using tractors to obtain the thousands of hours of flights jumping off the rooftops of buildings with the fleet and yet the hours were not met until the 1970's of incedent/flight hours flown.

You will get this information off the Little wing Website - I am pretty sure and it is in the Plans for the Little Wing. You may think what you like but with the knowledge of the bad designs only now being addressed as design flaws - it has been known for at least the four years I have been reading the other forum that it wasn't pilot error - There were hidden problems that were built into the machines taking good pilots out. Trained or not it did not and does not matter. If you learn anything at all realize that an unstable machine will bite you. Saying it is stable and ignoring it won't make you feel any better when you are falling out of the sky.

With the knowledge that is available now and people who are willing to educate others there is no one to blame when someone knowingly gets into a machine with widely known flaws. Someone that does that is not putting priority on themselves first as I suggest and I couldn't tell them anything else anyway.

BTW There hasn't been so far such long Cross country flights through the kind of weather that the tractors have seen. There is something around the world in works for the Magni but it is obvious that it isn't really meant for that kind of travel, even though it is a beautiful machine. I know that your flying style is different than mine or someone elses. You want the view that I think I will still have anyway. But you cannot tell me that it is just a choice of engine front or back. There is much more to that and it is exactly why the gyro community earned such a bad reputation right after being touted for years before that as the safest type of aircraft.

Anyway, you can look at the numbers how you like but the history of Bensen is there, the lack of advancement is there and the positive safety record it there and now we are trying to change other pilots views that these aren't that bad? Let me tell you that FW has nowhere near the number of problems that we have. No wonder we have a hard enough time selling the idea to other pilots, let alone - ourself. Something has been wrong and it didn't need to be. Flying gyros that are properly designed should out perform FW in safety statistics but they don't anymore.... I just put it out there what I have found and I think it is worth looking into. Our lives are worth that much and more.

You have made your decision what to fly. I am writing from the perspective that if I just found this forum and didn't know what the differences were.... I wouldn't know what to ask and look for. Have a fun time with your open frame. I know you do, it looks like fun - but don't tell me they are the same - because hanging out front or whatever aspect you might like to discuss is, honestly, not the same.

Take care Vance, I didn't know if you were just talking Stearman or making it up, that is why I said that. I don't use spellcheck and spend far too much time writing anyway. I am sorry if I offended you in regards to spelling. I am no better. Have fun lucky Stearman flyer, they are fun !

Take care, jtm

[Vance]

Hi James, Once again you expersed your self beauitifly. I am glad for this open discorse. It sounds like you were able to understand what I was trying to articulate.

I have some experance in welding thin 4130 and I have found value in having an expert third party inspect my work. It is very easy to undercut the welds or not finish them properly and leave a defect in the weld. Clean rod of the corect hardness is also critical. Best of Luck, Vance

[mceagle]

James,
You do not have to try to sell the "Little Wing" tractor Gyroplanes because they are a good product and anybody that knows anything about Gyros already knows that.
However in your enthusium re. Pusher Vs Tractor, all your arguements are irrelevant to the configuration and so do not give an accurate picture of the basic differences. It is not unreasonable to be passionate about your choice but you do not have to be unreasonable about comparisons, and maybe fill the heads of the inexperienced with incorrect information.
I suspect that you already know why your comparisons are inaccurate and misleading, but if you don't then I will be glad to point them out to you (or to any other readers here that cannot see through the smoke screen).
As I said, the Little Wing is a fine aircraft and it deserves to be sold on its merits, not on misinformation, and those that are reading these posts deserve to know the truth.

[Vance]

Gosh Tim, I thought James expresed himself very well. I would love to to read your point of view. Thank You, Vance

[mcbirdman]

James,
You do not have to try to sell the "Little Wing" tractor Gyroplanes because they are a good product and anybody that knows anything about Gyros already knows that.
However in your enthusium re. Pusher Vs Tractor, all your arguements are irrelevant to the configuration and so do not give an accurate picture of the basic differences. It is not unreasonable to be passionate about your choice but you do not have to be unreasonable about comparisons, and maybe fill the heads of the inexperienced with incorrect information.
I suspect that you already know why your comparisons are inaccurate and misleading, but if you don't then I will be glad to point them out to you (or to any other readers here that cannot see through the smoke screen).
As I said, the Little Wing is a fine aircraft and it deserves to be sold on its merits, not on misinformation, and those that are reading these posts deserve to know the truth.

First I think it is fair to ask if you fly a pusher. It should be made clear to others what you have chosen to invest in. You specifically point out that I chose to build a few Little Wings. I am talking modern tractor. I can't help that there are very few safe modern tractors around. I also can't help that not one affordable pusher design out there can be called as safe. It was on this very forum that people were saying that in the open cockpit pusher there isn't much point of even wearing a harness. There is so little protection that a simple rollover can cost you your life. Is that OK? I think not. Why do we just use flimsy fiberglass and think it is the same safety of a rollcage? Race car drivers don't expect their fiberglass to protect them somehow. They know there are risks but they also plan for any eventuality or possibility. Do you think it is wise to have a backup plan?

I based my choice on safety after a careful comparison of what is and has been happening in the gyro community. If you fly a pusher it is still your choice but it will not change any aspect of the comparison but would reveal what your priorities are. Still, your priorities being different is okay, but mine are using safety comparisons as a measure of design quality. Short of all this - I say PILOT FIRST.

It is also fair to say that many people felt stuck with their pushers from RAF because they had such an investment in them that they had to make a choice, based on knowledge they recieved from people. If they chose the company line it was often a path of lies and deception. Kinda puts them in a bad position to tell their wife they may have bought a mistake..... Only way to feel ok enough to fly it as they presented it is to say it is just being misrepresented. Go ahead and tell yourself that feeling all enclosed in an egg of fiberglass is ok. Still didn't change what history now shows about this configuration. I have lost a few people in Michigan flying these designs. I tried to tell them about it. Kinda hard to make them think about not flying something they invested money and time into, not to mention the guideance that the factory offered that essentially swayed their decision. I cannot stop someone from flying something but I will not stop trying to make people aware that there are consequences and compromises that need to be considered way before something is built or bought. If you buy something bad and it takes you 1 year to build and you end up changing your life in an unexpected way, or take a bit longer and choose a different design build in a bigger safety net - that is smart.

If you just want a quick build and the heck with safety and risks and whatnot..... doesn't matter what I say. Some people are hardheaded anyway and resist hearing things that they don't want to hear. It still won't change facts though and as it turned out, The RAF indeed needed serious changes and people were not being told the truth. If you decide to go safety because you want a better view - go for it. Still does not change the basic premise I have been saying in every post -

The tractor design is safer in many specific design elements. I can't think of any specific way it is not, unless you want to reveal it. Even if you thought of one way it might be nice, I can't think of an actual safety feature gained. If I can give you 4 important ways and you give me one - The tractor gryo would still be the safest gyro design to date. Want to argue that? I don't see much you can counter with.

Want to knowingly get in something that does not offer the same level of safety and act like it is the same? That would be you being misleading.

Sure Tim, lets talk specifics. You have made a claim that I am using a smoke screen? That is gutsy and yet maybe I am missing something as you suggested. I can't hardly believe you called it a smoke screen. Simple FW groundschool would teach alot of things that typical pusher designs have been ignoring for years. There are people still arguing about it even though this stuff has been out for years ! Talk about smokescreen ! Are pilots the most important consideration in flying? Or is it the view? Lets talk about honesty and safety. It sounds to me as if you would like to to take it step by step. Before you do though, I would like to know if you in fact hold safety as number one priority in your flying decision making.

If it does then I would be happy to talk on ANY aspect of the modern tractor gyro and will tell you why it is better and what the alternative is. If you take the two designs and put the good aspects and the negatives ( what you may or not have to pay for in either efficeincy, safety or performance) you will see why everything has a place and very little compromise. Many of the single aspects of a tractor actually play into other portions of the design in a very positive way. Many of the compromises that are needed in a pusher however - play in a negative way. I hate to commit to such a lengthy summation as I think a little research on anyones part will eventually end up with the same conclusion. I am not saying they will decide to fly such, just that tractors are so far the safest type of gyro AND history bears it.

I will make one example for you. This is what happens if you decide you just want to see a little more in front of you. Doing such means a whole string of compromises. You have to move the engine. You know the compromise of an engine in the back? Less efficient,more noise, less usable power, cooling problems, prop close to ground picks up stones, things that come out of cockpit go through prop and the problems that occur trying to get the centerline thrust which means engine in dirty airflow. All this because you want to quickbuild or want to see scrubby shoes... So far are you with me? Or am I just imagining this stuff? A smokescreen?

BTW this information is not something I thought up. It is actually a worthy question of design and was part of the questions that were considered by Ron in reaction to the many deaths from pushers. This information is actually contained within my plans in the prelude. It is an interesting search for knowledge and safety that culminated in this modern tractor design. If you want to call me to task, It isn't my idea, just my belief in the knowledge that has been shared and given by people who have lived this history.

So, call me on the "smokescreen" as you called it or take it back. It will not do any newbie any favor to provide anything but true information, and that is my aim. My claim is that Tractor and Pushers are not the same and in fact are substantially different in safety in many ways. Even FW pilots are more accepting of Tractors.... why is that? That is because knowledgeable people can see the beauty and funtionality of the well designed Tractor. Beauty in simplicity.

No smoke here please, I am a non smoker - jtm

[mcbirdman]

Hi Vance,

Thanks for your warning about steel welding. The welding on my first LW was done by someone who did a wonderful job. It was NOT me. The 3 2 place machines we are building are being tacked by me and Rich (the Engineer) and our third partner, a graduate of EAA Welding school named Bob Randall is doing the finish welds. We are lucky to have someone who makes this look easy.

I know how to cover, mig weld some, layout and cutout metal parts from drawings, use metal lathes and whatnot, all of which I didn't know how to use 4 years ago. Under their watchful eye the engineer has taught me alot, and above all that if you want to do it - you can learn it.

Thanks for your encouragement. I feel that I don't want to lose anyone else just for lack of knowledge. I can't talk rotor disk angles but I can tell you what matters to me now and what has led me to the path that I have chosen now. I have written this not to tell people who are already flying pushers now that they are wrong. I am trying to help a potential buyer think about what goes into the thought process and considerations that are being put into play as the ink is laid down on the drawing board.

Often people get passionate but not about the same priorities. I want to pull them back a little from worrying about paint schemes/and styling and more about what is in the layout, under the paint. I don't think that is misleading and hopefully they will know what to search for specifically in a model. I would prefer to see them hold themselves up to the safety features that are now available. Take care lucky (stearman) flyer. jtm

[mcbirdman]

Hi John, I don't know if this posted under your post about "leverage/arm in this thread but I am trying.....

I am excited for you. I truly think you are on the right path. There is nothing wrong with saying you don't know. Hopefully there will always be caring enough people to help if and when you need it. This gyro community is really a very small part of the aviation community although it has greatly influenced it.

I think you are looking at the Little wing project same as ours. We are taking our time, yet trying to get it done so we can be flying. We are researching engines and have been talking with Ron. When it is all said and done I am considering the radial. It is a little more fuel thristy but I would have to drink a ton of fuel just to make up the difference in price in the rotax. I see you have been floating also. It is fun dreaming about what it is going to be like.

It is the new tractors (and the new sparrowhawks) that are going to be starting to show up places that FW pilots hang out. It is an opportunity to improve the safety record to that which it should have been since the 20's. We have been stuck in a time warp with too many people paying the price. I hope the tide will change. I realize that bad things can and do happen to any model. And when it does I hate to see it. I just hope that when we get a bunch of these flying we will be able to re-establish the general feeling and safety record that gyros should have maintained from the beginning.
I think the part of being a succsessful pilot starts with attitude, not altitude. It doesn't make a better pilot by buying anything and getting hours. It may actually mean they are just a lucky pilot with a lot of hours...... I approach things in a safety oriented way instead of letting the emotional excitement of just flying sway my judgement. I used to be so excited flying and want to go go go. Even when I was building and flying the model helicopters I had to hold back and make everything is right. I could rebuild those models but I could save hours of rebuilding by taking a few minutes. That helped me slow down and be more logical. Anyways, you are on an exciting path AND you are getting to fly..... You are lucky also ! Take care, jtm
Oh yea, maybe you will sometime want to fly in a flock of Little Wings... won't that be a sight? .....

[GyroRon]

The tractor design is safer in many specific design elements. I can't think of any specific way it is not, unless you want to reveal it. Even if you thought of one way it might be nice, I can't think of an actual safety feature gained. If I can give you 4 important ways and you give me one - The tractor gryo would still be the safest gyro design to date. Want to argue that? I don't see much you can counter with.

No smoke here please, I am a non smoker - jtm


James I can think of one real safety drawback a Little Wing would have compaired to the average open - semi open pusher gyro........................ Ready? ............... FIRE. which one is easier to get out of?

Also I do agree the Little Wing is probably one of if not the best gyro on the market in terms of safety and stable flight, But don't make it out that the rest of the gyro world is either too dumb or too lazy to do it the " right " way and all fly little wings.

there is plenty of pushers in the fixed wing aircraft world. Especially ultralights, Let's see.... Quicksilver, Drifter, Air Cam, Challenger, CGS Hawk, Kolb, Rans S-12, T bird, Etc.. Etc.. And don't forget Trikes and Powered Parachutes of which I have never seen any other than pushers. Experimentals such as Long EZ come to mind etc... etc...

James at some point you have to ask how safe is flying a gyro.... no matter where the engine and prop is. Or to fly at all.

[mcbirdman]

Hi Ron, ok - fire,

This goes back to pilot forward and an adequate frame around a fuel tank. Enclosed within the airframe the tank is far more protected from damage/leakage / the start of a fire after a crash.

I think most of the pusher designs you have mentioned do not have a rollcage protecting the pilot. Fiberglass does not count. Fiberglass makes shards also I believe.

Since a pusher nor a tractor leaves the pilot anywhere to go.... how is it that the pusher is better when at least the airframe provides some tank protection?

The one point I will pick up on and expound upon is that you didn't say it but in an airplane there is the possibility of using a ballistic parachute. Wait a minute.... they are putting those on gyros also - true? But this won't help in the case of a fire in your pusher planes either.... so it doesn't do much for the fire argument, just ageement there is a second option nowdays when using airplanes (for recovery)

Assuming we are going to do Rotorcraft, and based on your concern - fire - The gyro with an airframe should be more likely to prevent fire and in the unlikely event that fuel vapors or actual fuel is spilling it will blow to the back of the frame somewhat - away from the engine - if it is a tractor. Next !

[mcbirdman]

Hi Ron,

Also get out of? You must have to consider that you are in something in order to get OUT of something. If you are talking open frame pusher, I don't know - 99% of the time you are the bumper and then that 1% time you want out ? And then you have the meatcutter spinning? Is that an advantage?

Come on, give me something real. I don't think all designers are Lazy but look how slow they have been to change. There are two manufactures that I know that are doing it right and I know there are now following that are going back to the drawingboards to do what should have been corrected years ago. I pat them on the back for caring enough to step forward now - but I feel bad for all the years of losses we have had. These changes still do not improve or even equal or utilize the safety that is integral to a tractor design.
Yes they are better but on a side by side list of attributes the tractor list IS longer for positive things and other than the fact you aren't part of the bumper and hanging out there, the unobstructed view etc.... I don't see much negative in the tractor.

Again, I am not arguing what you should use, just pointing out positive attributes by comparison. I am not saying what to do, just what to consider. Can't help it if the pusher list is short.

take care, jtm

[GyroRon]

James I guess you are fairly new to aviation cause Fires happen in aircraft without having first crashed into something. With a pusher at least you can undo the seltbelt and jump off the hot seat real fast!

I know Fire isn't something we think much about, but if there was a fire the time difference between getting out of a aircraft like a Little Wing - or Piper cub Etc.. - as comparied to a open frame anything - heck the engine could be in front it doesn't matter - could make a big difference in if you live or die.

Ballsitc shutes have never been tested on a gyro. Larry Neal I believe was selling them for gyros, but who knows if it would work. They sure do work on Fixed wings, trikes and powered parachutes. Even Cessna 172s can be fitted with a BRS. Well over 100 lives saved thanks to the BRS chutes. Wonder how many gyro lives could be saved if we could use them and they would work?

[GyroRon]

Oh BTW I have several friends that fly Aerobatic Bi planes for fun. They always wear a Parachute when they go flying. I have asked all of them why wear the chute, even if they aren't planning to do aerobatics on that flight. They all say the same anwser.... They don't wear the chute for aerobatics, they wear it in case the plane catches fire so they can bail out. Fire is a big concern for these guys. I don't blame them.

[mcbirdman]

Ron,
Fires in gyros are nearly all from an impact/crash.

How many in flight fires emergancies have gyros experienced? It is usually impact related which still goes back to the foundation of a good airframe that provides protection.

I don't think in flight fires are anywhere near as common as rollovers. Instead of worrying about catastrophic losses, which, you can still roll out the door, probably as fast as you needed to.... - how many gyro pilots do you see using parachutes? Not a bad Idea, but how many? And since there is two kind of fires, one from a crash and one in flight... One of them can reduce the risk by protecting the tank.

I also think I remember another reply someone made to the question of parachutes. I think that it was stated that most gyros fly low and slow and in the event of a need to exit - there would unlikely be enough time to have a chute open.... Burn or crush... what is the difference? And you would still choose open frame to get out when a fire situation will occur in flight or in a crash, and one of them is better for 1/2 the fire situations plus the fact that we can easily carry a fire extinguisher? I don't know if you have ever sat in a LW but if you can open the door of your car and fall out - even with that steering wheel there... it will be easier than getting out of the biplane and even easier if you have no doors on.

Tractor - In when you need to be in...and out when you want to be out...
Pusher - Out when you need to be in...and out when you want to be out..

I plan on taking trips and not real low so that I get to see all the powerlines and towers up close as I go around them. For me, a parachute may be a consideration.

I think a serious part of all these questions does still go along the lines of what you implied. It used to be that airplanes were okay till the engine quit. Then they were still okay until you hit the end of the field. Now they really do have another option even when all appears lost.

However, barring main blade failure decent rate is the same as a parachute and carrying a ballistic wouldn't hurt. Don't know if it would work on a gyro but begs the question. Better off with airplane and chute? Still, that has no bearing on tractor or pusher question because they both have to come down but one has a rollcage.... interesting - almost seems like an airplane could be better now when before we could talk about our short landings..... jtm

We can't stop every situation. There isn't a fix for everything. But being better prepared with the proper resources is something that can maximize safety/ liklihood that you will complete the trip safely.

And back to the question of safety.....Statistically what happens in a simple rollover, far more likely? Which would likely leak, and to what extent would bodily damage occur with either? With your broken exposed limbs and body are you going to be able to pull yourself away from the wreckage and fuel supply or are you going to expose yourself, hope nothing happens and that you can just jump off when you want? What comes first the crash or the fire? Most likely the crash in which you need protection, and then you can take it off....would seem reasonable.... Been fun but I don't suspect this is What Tim was thinking about..... Ron - If you hear of a good source of parachutes and your friend takes into consideration the back kind of chute - can you send me the info? I know what they do but not what to buy if that is what I do... thanks, jtm

[mcbirdman]

I honestly have thought about wearing a chute. I have started looking into them because it could be a failure of controls, or like you say fire. I don't want to ever face the time looking down at the ground saying if I just had another plan.... but didn't think about it. That is why I have tried to fix all the other normal things but - No one has any answers about rotor failure. Also what happens to the aircraft as you depart it....One cool thing also though is that the Rotor Tower seems to be quite a bit higher than others.... That keeps it away from my head better maybe.... :) jtm

[mcbirdman]

BTW,

Ron, can you ask your friends about a compact quality chute? I did do some looking and although padding would be good to sit on, I think that if I did anything like that I would like something that ran up your back so I didn't sit higher. I am kinda tall and with a helmet I am concerned about sitting too tall..... so that my head has to fit between tubes. That wouldn't be too good. If it was back padding it would not affect egress..... Thanks, jtm nite

Oh yea, the cockpit has areas to put things like fire extinguishers? Even in the "heat" of the moment - if you drop it - you won't get the view of it passing between dirty tennis shoes as it departs the aircraft..... another plus?

I am trying to find a lightweight effective extinguisher. I did experience a leaking tank one time and it went back to manufacture for replacement. Still wonder about it enough that we will carry the extra weight. It is worth it.

[mcbirdman]

I guess I was tired when I wrote last night. Won't delete reasons but simply put - Parachutes may be ok if you are high enough to open.

Airframes also provide fuel tank protection.

If you thought you were out of an open frame quicker think again....You didn't really mean to sell me that you can get out quicker did you ? I would try to shut engine down first because of the spinning blades back there and don't really need to get a free haircut.

A tractor design might actually give you something to push off from and the longer tail gives more time to clear the aircraft without the additional chance of impacting propeller blades and the tail.

That is simple enough explanation that would have saved a lot of time. Sorry. But is THIS the "smoke" (screen) that Tim accused me of blowing ? It sure isn't much or actually anything that would sway me from saying that a modern tractor is safer than a pusher. If anything the tractor is STILL fairing better by comparison even in this aspect. jtm

[ymmv]

If you thought you were out of an open frame quicker think again....You didn't really mean to sell me that you can get out quicker did you ?

At a guess I'd say yeah, absolutely, whether on the ground or in the air. I lust after the Little Wing myself, I ogle the plans like a saner man looks at porn -- but I think it's blindingly obvious that it's easier to get out of a monarch than a littlewing.

And what about the guy sitting in the after seat -- littlewing versus any open tandem? Forget about it.

I don't really think fire's much of an issue; it's the the odammit-bang-crunch just before the fire that worries me. But as long as we're on the subject, I do have a question. The littlewing's fabric covering -- that thing that wraps you above and below, before and behind, to the left and the right -- um ... is that flammable?

I don't know the answer, I'm really asking.

[mcbirdman]

Being honest: Yes - fabric is flamable. It burns rather quickly although there isn't much there.

I don't see getting out of a monarch since you are not really "IN" but rather - "ON". The significance of this is that you are totally exposed with ZERO protection. I agree with you that crash is more likely to come before fire and that is why it fire wouldn't even matter if you aren't protected.

I won't mislead someone to think it is easier to get out, I can just think of more reasons to stay in.....

Also getting off the rail you still have to deal with a spinning propeller right behind you.....

And again I say, that given many factors with safety being considered first, Tractors are significantly safer than current pushers - fiberglass shells included. Putting an egg out and front and flying it around without a shell is obviously risky. Keeping the thin shell on the egg and flying it around is a bit better, but still not as good as a fully enclosed airframe. That is also true.

It is not about Little Wings - it is about TRACTORS. I am not a Little Wing Dealer and I am not getting kickbacks. I do say however that I don't understand how putting safety first would mean so many pushers instead ! I think Dean had it right at the very beginning of the post that the gyro community has never been about logics. I can see how that has handicapped the growth tremendously and affected other pilots and the general perception that gyros are unsafe. It has impacted families and friends with the losses and yet people still bought into things based on emotion. The Canadian company has probably done more harm than good by many respects. Yes more kits but refusal to change and acknowledge defects and bandaid approaches to flawed design has left widows and confused owners. That is another subject that affects this discussion ,intertwined within the attitude that helps people think that they are the same safety level and would take us off the discussion.

I am not against pushers - I like seeing them and may someday buy a sparrowhawk. These are facts of compromises and choices of physical materials and locations used within a design.

Does anyone really feel safe ON something? Does feeling safe on a rail make it so? Are we really arguing that hanging out there is just a difference in choice? I am only suggesting based on a Safety first, minimize risk philosophy of flying.... it is impossible to say they are equally risky. That must be frustrating to some, but I don't write the rules, I just consider them...then make decisions based on the information available.

Is it no wonder it has taken so long to make basic changes such as putting the tail back on? We are still not even to concede that there are not just one or two, but MANY reasons that the design of the Tractor carries more safety oriented aspects over a pusher.

Bart, you mentioned plans, are you going to make the commitment? And I think it is okay to oodle her but I am not her dad. lol. I just want to take his daughter out - just like you.... There is a lot to look at and a lot to appreciate. jtm

[GyroRon]

James Thanks to you I no longer feel safe. I will never ever again fly a pusher gyro. I would be a lunatic to do so any further. I also think I would fair better in my truck with all the airbags and crush zones and so on so I think I will not fly my airplane either. And hey why I am thinking about it I feel alot safer here at home than out and about in my truck, so I think I will never leave my house again. But someone might come in my house while I am sleeping and hurt me so I think I will be safer in my closet with the door locked. So if you need to hollar at me, do it loudly cause I can't hear real good from behind all these crazy Rotary Forum T shirts hanging in my Closet.

[GyroRon]

James you should go onto a Motorcycle Forum and tell everyone there they should drive cars since Motorcycles are obviously not nearly as safe.

[Steven_Kozned]

Ron, James:
How do you jump out of a rotorcraft with a 'chute without getting hammered?

[Vance]

Hi Ron, I think that everyone has their own set of priorities and saftey is a very valid one. It feels to me as though you are making fun of James for his set. I am alive today because my friends and I spent a lot of time on saftey. The only part that took away from the fun is the five layer fire suit because it exacerbated the challange of heat at Bonniville. Fortunatly I never had to test the fire suit in a fire. I beleive that James is corect when he says that being in a cage makes roll over accidents safer. In the recent training accident the rotor blade bolt failing was not common but the action of the remaining blade was predictable. I beleive that the Little Wing cage would have made injury less likely.

I always use my seat belt in my automobile to be safer but I drive a convertable, which is less safe than a hard top, because I like to see the sky and feel the air. I make this choice each day.

Risk assesment does not mean that I want to live in a closet. Risk assesment is part of how I have had many wonderful adventures and am still alive to remember them. I value these memories and do not want to throw them away because of some thoughtless bravado.

I want to encourage James to think about safty and at the same time I want to be free to make my own choices.

Ron I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your post. It seems to me that you are one of those that condem personal attacks. You are also one of the leaders of this forum and set an example of behavior for us all.

Steven, the Germans used to blow the rotor off in the process of launching the parachute so the U boat lookout didn't have to jump. These were suposed to work at less than 100 feet. I don't personaly know of any sucesfull tests. Clearly there are some logistical challanges with using a personal parachute and I don't know of any Gyroplane accidents where it would have helped, but I do know of a Robinsen 22 that had a rotor strike the tail at about 3000 feet over the SanFrancisco bay. The cfi and the student both knew the trouble they were in and spoke about it into her tape recorder as the helicopter broke up on the way down. I would expect that they would like to have had a chance to solve the logistical challanges of using a parachute in a rotorcraft.

Thank You, Vance

[GyroRon]

Vance I am picking at James cause he is forcing his views on Safety and how the little wing is such the better machine on the rest of us here. There is no doubt that James is right that the Little Wing gyro is better from a safety standpoint, and in many other areas as well. We all know it, It isn't like the people who get into gyros are dumber than the average lot of folks and can't see that a roll cage is safer than no cage.

This is what makes the USA so nice. The fact that you can fly it anyway you want to.


Some people make excuses that don't stand up or sound like not much brain power went into them such as the whole wanting to see down between your feet when clearly the view and experience of a little wing with the windows down or out and the door opened like on a Cub will be a heck of a view. I think some people are just comfortable with what they fly, they like the simple design and ease to getting to parts to work on them, They like the compact size for transport and storage considerations, and yes there is a point of the view where as in a open pusher there is next to nothing in front of you and you feel more like a Bird than in anything else. Everyone has there reason for flying what they fly, But I doubt people are flying Pushers cause they are too Dumb to see that a Tractor type set up is better and safer. Especially the people who browse the Forums.....

I can't give James too hard of a time cause I feel about CLT thrust the way he does about Tractors. I have ranted before myself.

Why don't I fly a little Wing? One is I don't have time to build one. There is only one used one I know of for sale and It is not up to date and not exactly cheap in price either. I also don't know if I will like the way they fly. I am kinda thinking that they might be a bit more sluggish and possibly too stable for my taste. I fly gyros not just cause they look cool but because I like to horse them around the sky and so if it flys like a truck that would influence my wanting or not wanting one too. So I hope to one day get a flight in a Little Wing. If it is everything and a Bowl of Grits I will somehow someway get one myself.

Lastly I am just picking on James. I am not attacking him!!!

[Aussie_Paul]

I always use my seat belt in my automobile to be safer but I drive a convertable, which is less safe than a hard top, because I like to see the sky and feel the air. I make this choice each day. Risk assesment does not mean that I want to live in a closet. Risk assesment is part of how I have had many wonderful adventures and am still alive to remember them. I value these memories and do not want to throw them away because of some thoughtless bravado.

I want to encourage James to think about safty and at the same time I want to be free to make my own choices.


Well said Vance.

Aussie Paul.

[Vance]

Hi Ron, I'm sorry for doubting you. I have always had trouble with the difference between atacking and picking. Is picking done with love? When I was in school as a kid people used to make jokes about how stupid I was and I may still be a little over sensitive. I particularly liked the way you articulated the value of the unobstructed view. I struggled for a long time with that and your were able to explain it clearly with brevity.

Thank You Paul, I know that you constantly struggling for clear comunication and a compliment from you means a lot to me. I find it most challanging to put my thoughts on paper to be read by everyone. When I am face to face I can tell when I am failing to comunicate. Here I can't see, I don't get imediate feed back and I am talking to a lot of friends that I don't know their backgrounds and they don't know mine.

Thank You, Vance

[mcbirdman]

Hi Ron,

I think your post was ridiculous. It did nothing to support or deny my contention that Tractors are at the moment, a safer design. Your whole post was specifically to riducule my factual consideration of physical and aerodynamic reasons for submitting this. Your thread does nothing to deny what I said and makes it seem I am saying something that I am not. I have been clear in my reasons and you have tried to divert it from a physical level and hijack it over to an emotional level that I made clear I wasn't arguing.

You may fly what you want and that is fine. It is what I said before and I will tell you again. Your choices come with consequences and in many, not a few aspects, your safety is improved greatly with a modern tractor gyro.

Your telling me to sell the bike and whatnot because even a truck isn't safe blah blah is another way of saying that nothing is safe and so why get in it. I don't know, why don't you talk to my wife - she can tell you what kind of accidents she sees in the operating room..... Last night she worked on a guys arm who had layed down on his arm going down the highway for some reason. They worked and worked on the arm but it was ground down, bone included so much that they don't think it is going to be saved. Using your logical decisionmaking - do you think it was a car or an open motorcycle? More often than not, being on something is far worse than being IN something. Sell if you really think you need to. But don't tell me it is the same unless you can actually speak specifics that are NOT smokescreens or twisting my words. It does nothing to help people learn the differences.

a few words from your post - a pusher is like next to nothing like a bird or feeling comfortable. That is emotion and I am talking factual. I keep saying that fly what you want - it is fine with me but I keep hearing you say I told you not to fly a pusher. Where did I say that? You say some aspects are better but won't admit that in nearly every aspect the Tractor is the safest design. I am not talking Little Wing and you keep saying specifics on things like that and yet you won't speak specifics on the details that are within the realm of my statements. It is like you know but will do everything but admit it without having a grudge and an interjection insulting me or twisting my words or questioning my actual motives which I have already made clear.

You admit there is something to what I say but maybe the difference is that you think that the difference in safety is minimal so you have a problem with my conclusion that I would benefit in regards to safety much greater with a Tractor. If this is true I can see why you are giving me a hard time because you know that it truly is a bigger difference regarding safety than just moving the dash out of the way. Let me ask this? If family members knew of the differences and did or did not like you flying - what do you suppose they would prefer you to fly? Given the knowledge that you ARE going to fly and decide not to sell - and being educated to the differences and the history regarding design problems and the truly experimental test piloting occuring - are they really happy you are hanging out there when you don't have to? I have kids and can't think of any good reason I NEED to get the extra thrill and extra view when I know there are other ways to have fun and fly like a bird. That is why I chose what I do because I want to minimize risks. That is what flying is about because there already is risk present in an activity we like to do.

Again, you may do what you want but if I were trying to get info on flying gyros and hadn't invested yet, don't you think people deserve to know about the history of gyros, their designs and flaws so that they can make a choice based on things that are important to them? If they haven't flown before it does not hurt to suggest safety first and how this interacts with their choice of design. Just because there are a lot of pushers doesn't mean that it is better. In fact that is why I think there is a huge thorn in the gyro communities side because of the history of doing pushers poorly and resistance to change.

jtm

[mcbirdman]

Vance,

You are correct in your original post. It is attacking, picking, and ridiculing when you change words and assume "real intentions" and then start arguing points that were not made in the first place as if I did in fact say the things that are now being made light of. That is wrong and unbelievable. Thank you Vance for pointing it out. Now what you will see is not about facts but people piping in cheering for "freedom of choice" as people are steered away from the specifics of my discussion because of Ron's tatics. I don't see how he was improving the discussion in any way. It was ridicule of something I didn't say....

I can tell you right now, Ron, nor anyone is a leader of this forum in regard to being held higher than anyone else. Look at the way he attacks a viewpoint, turns it into something it isn't, says something I didn't and assumes he knows what I want to do. I won't quote all of it, it is in the above posts. You guys can bow down to others but reading posts you have to realize you never know who you are actually talking to and since you don't know their priorities you don't know if something said is within your boundaries or not. You don't know if something is generally accepted or just renegade.

It is my belief that some people like to live on the edge. I know that when I went to gyro meets I heard about a guy that made a lot of people mad. I heard about a guy that nearly killed himself a few times and had some of the manufactures saying he flys good but he did many mistakes that shoulda killed him. I do not want to be that guy and it is obvious that some people put more or less emphasis on safety. Looking back I don't think this guy was flying legally. I don't want to be looked on in that way. I try to think logically and make decisions based on current knowledge and working within the rules of acceptable behaviour.

This goes back to what I had said before that it is like kids running around here. You may think they are gyro gods because they are flying or post alot. I do not want to be thought of that way. When I got into this post only did so because I wanted the kind of information regarding the differences in safety and design considerations to be there for a newbie. I knew people could not argue to a point without trying to distract safety to what they are flying and that why they are comfortable. It was with the hesitancy of the time committment required to answer these weak attacks that I did so knowing that I would at least have tried in opening peoples eyes to things they wouldn't neccesarily consider starting out. I knew that it would be difficult to get my point across and have people agree without saying But But But.... to minimize my legitamate points. You see what happens when people do anything they can to win their point, they throw diversions, insults, sarcasm when all else fails. I don't care if I write any more and yet, if someone still wants information regarding safety considerations when they find this thread, I would be happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. My warning though that my vantage point is a safety based priority. I will make sure my email address shows in the contacts and that way I won't have to waste my time with stupid attacks and inaccurate summations of my intentions. jtm

Vance, you are right, talking on keyboard is different than talking face to face because you don't always know who you are talking to and if you can trust what they say - because you don't really know what their vantage point is. When I first started gyros I went to the biggest tent yet and flew my first hour. It seemed that they were caring, responsible, trustworthy and had my interests at heart. It was my first time in an RAF.

I am not an impatient kind of person who just wants to buy this or that and hop in it and go go go... I don't have the guts or make a habit of asking to borrow someones elses labor of love and fly for free just because I don't have anything to fly. I want to work for it like others and I won't just hop in another machine just because I want to add it to my list of accomplishments.

I don't think that any of you would have appreciated the kind of responce I got from Ron, your gyro "god". I hope you can see my points I made and the last ditch attempt that he made that I expected to have heard. If you read my previous post I said - do not tell me not to fly - that is not what I am saying and has nothing to do with this discussion. Still, there it is..... Ron making fun of me on the pretext that I represent that viewpoint when in fact it is false. I don't appreciate that and can't see how it helped anyone at my expence.

I have much time to be deliberate in my choices and think my priorities through and decide what type of aircraft I will leave the ground in. When I get to go it will be because I earned it - I am not the wheeling and dealing kind of person that is always driving different cars and yet never understanding them completely which I think is important in homebuilts. We are responsible for everything on there and if we don't know about something on there, how it works or if it is broken - who will? We built them, supposedly...... jtm

[Vance]

Hi James, I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. I think that it is nice that you make the effort to inform people and start a thoughtful discussion. I felt initialy that you were sudgesting that we were all less informed if we made different choices and that plays on my insecurity. I thought that you were very kind when I expresed my concern.

Ron is the number one poster and the volume of posts invairable sets some of the tone of the forum. His experance has been most valuable to me.

I think that most of the people on this forum would not attatch a blind spirtial following to anything said on this forum.

I hope that I am not opening myself for verbal jousting as I am not well equiped for that.

I would like to thank everyone on this forum for the many valuable things that I have learned and their willingness to help when I become confused. Vance

[mcbirdman]

Hi Vance, my feelings are not hurt. I am frustrated at the lack of respect and nose thumbing. I can keep to the facts and logical decision making and don't appreciate the rudeness or assumptions that were formulated on something I did not say. Maybe it is okay for you to stand up for wrong and then apologize that you said something so that both parties feel like you are great. If I saw someone picking on someone I would stand up and say something. That actually is why I started this thread.

Go look at the comments that Ken J encountered by someone named s. k. about how Ken just had something out against a blade manufacture. Instead of realizing that maybe Ken knew something, which I knew he did because of past knowledgeable posts he was shot down. I thought, knowing that Ken had just said he had some bad times and that he didn't have a lot of time I thought maybe he would feel it was a worthless time coming here just to get shot down. He made the time to come back and explain himself rather clearly and yet the other party didn't say boo. They just shot and ran. That is why I thought I would say something about similiar things with seatbelts and so on. I also felt that mentality is that with such a significant safer design - why do people excuse and ignore safety features and technology. I eventually get the same bull offered to me, and there sits my concern. If anyone is seriously considering a product I would think they would seriously consider safety.

If someone were to consider safety and felt that it was the utmost importance and through careful consideration decided a Modern Tractor offered the most safety - Fine. If someone chooses to ignore all the rest, or simply is new to gyros and is looking for food for thought - great.

I can't help it that maybe Ron can't keep to the facts and just agree that Tractors have significantly better attributes than Pushers currently. If you do hold safety as a priority it is no wonder that someone with a pusher might seem like they aren't the best at decision making or priorities. Can't help it. Research it yourself and I am not lying or changing things. I will not however be told to go fly a kite. You now don't think it is a little ridiculous even after you initially said so? Usually gut feelings are right. That is why I write what I feel and then try to read back what I wrote to see if it makes sense. I don't see Ron's comment much better than snapping me in the back of the head with a wet towel. Playful ? I don't know, I never have played with him before. Was I playing? I thought I was being reasonable and clear on a point I made. I guess after consideration of all the points made and little room to substantiate a weakened point of view, he gets out a towel. lol

If you notice I was being honest and straightforward, as I normally try to respond and agreed with some points made. Some points I made were just to reiterate acknowledgement of peoples freedom to choose. If I were a newbie I would greatly appreciate having all the information in front of me and to know where to look to get the facts so that I, as a newbie, would have the knowledge to make a good decision based on factors that are important. I doubt that any good CFI teaching a FW student is going to tell them to not worry about safety. They spend all their time teaching you things that will save your life. It would seem the same approach should be taken when buying an aircraft.

As for your experience Vance - great ! I hope it helps you. I would warn you that, and I am sure you are aware of the saying "The blind leading the blind". How do you put trust in someone that cannot accept facts and wants to twist subjects in order to not see something followed through to a reasonable conclusion.

The best you can come up with is that it is best to walk, remember an open frame you can jump out of but don't worry about the prop behind your head? That is a weak submission to sway me from my original post. If anyone has better go for it - I guess I have to write that again, you are free to fly what you want - enjoy it - but don't propose that what seems safe to you isn't. I know that anything can have problems and when that occurs it affects me same as you. It is not good. Why is it such a problem to discuss ideas that should be considered by potential buyers? I don't want to unknowingly by some one elses trash. To be clear by that I mean someone elses design that has now been proven to have significant flaws, some of which is hidden.

Is that a problem to you Vance? Why would I care enough to place obvious information out there to get called names and over cautious in something that is hard to get called too carefull? Your ears should perk up especially when you hear people that minimize the risks that are present in the designs that they fly trying to tell you there is no difference. Who you gonna believe? Someone that posts alot about giving a personal piece of their body to get to fly something or maybe to someone who has looked around and is suggesting that you research things if you are going to buy.

Call it what you want but it is Rude and Not even an answer to my questions and is in fact your own fault if you don't take what I say to heart and call it what it is. No one want to stand up and get shot at - that is fine but it is here for others to consider.

You want entertainment and get to hear how someone is flying tighter and tighter circles on landing to see how tight you can do them and crash? Fine. What do you think will happen when you do something smaller and smaller until you can't, and crash? I guess here on this forum I got to see it sold as normal flight envelope and part of learning to fly. If you accept that it is normal to try something that is dangerous to find the outer limit of the envelope by actually trying to do something like that - gotta figure that you'll find out soon enough with your body on the line and guess what? We'll be talking about a crash again. Is that a reasonable way to operate? I gotta go back to what I was told, Logic isn't in gyro vocabulary.

Today while we were grilling out at my parents house we saw a car going way too fast to transition from the pavement to a wet dirt road. Nearly 1/4 of a mile of zig zagging and my sister saw it roll. Evidently a young driver taking shortcuts didn't have the foresight to look down the road to see where he would end up. I got there as he was crawling out of the car on the pasenger side. I bet this guy made a ton of decisions and when he made a ton of compromised decisions, he was lucky to not be on his bike and lucky he made a decision to wear his belt. I figure he won't do that again. I bet his attitude changed when it was right in front of his eyes. Other people will just be stubborn and won't reconsider. Like a chess player that stalls because there is no way he can save his queen and have his king too. His choices led him to his responsibility and yet for others just starting to play - they should have additional advantage of knowing how we got here and why. If they are open to change fine - but I think there is more than going to a showroom and handing them the keys to just pick one out. If someone takes the time to point out known differences and it leaves someone feeling inferior in decision making - that would have to be on you. I am only pointing what you gain with a design. If yours falls short, I am so sorry. If yours does what you want and provides your level of safety - great!

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

James Mc. :

You are wearing out your finger tips trying to make your point known.

Maybe I could add my thoughts to this discussion, and I like to think that having been a professional pilot flying most everything in the air over half a century that I have a fair grasp of flying and safety in flight.

After studying and flying gyros for the past 12 years I have decided to build a two place Little Wing, I bought the plans a few months ago and hope to get building this summer.

Who knows, maybe I will eventually do instructing in it.

Chuck E.

[Vance]

Hi James, If your feelings are not hurt then why are you attacking me? You are atributing things to me that I can't imagine how you could construe from anything that I have ever written on this forum. I beleive this is exactly what you critized Ron for.

I am confused why you think that being nice to Ron and accepting what he says at face value is not standing up for you. I don't know why you would think that my priority in apologizing for my not understanding his position is not standing up for you or some need of mine to have everyone like me.

Ron even said that "There is no doubt that James is right that the Little Wing gyro is better from a safety standpoint." I have yet to disigree with you on this point. All I have ever questioned you on is my perception of your single mindedness as to saftey being the dominate criteria in gyroplane design and my perception of your condemnation of the gyroplane community.

I missed where I have ever given the impression that I blindly followed Ron or anybody else through ignorance or intelectual lazyness.

My basic premis is that God doesn't build junk so if I don't understand the position that someone takes then it is my challange. I think that most of the people who post on this forum are well above average in intelligence, comunication skills and analytical skills.

James I beleive that you have underestimated nearly every aspect of me.

I admire the way you think, your ability to comunicate and you sensitivity. I am sad you have decided that I am the personification of the problem you perseve on this forum and with the gyroplane industry, or, I am sorry if I have misconstrued your post. I would be grateful if we would get over it.
I would be proud to be your friend. Thank You, Vance

[mcbirdman]

Vance, I only met part of the post for you, and it was questions, about your post.

You stood up and questioned being a bully in a post. You thought I put things clearly.

Next post you were apologizing to Ron because you maybe somehow misunderstood him. I think it is very clear that he wasn't adding anything to this discussion except to belittle me.

Then you tell me in the post that you respect him alot because he posts alot and he has helped you alot. You said he agrees to a point but that .... something...something....... The point I made is safety first and everything falls in line. Evidently he is more interested in second guessing people and asuming the right to say things I haven't. I wondered how you would feel about that. You started saying something and then turned and ran backwords. That is fine but it is confusing.

I say what does any of this have to do with the discussion and why did you see his sarcasm and rudeness, call him on it, and then let me know that he is a leader on the forum?

I just wondered if all this is okay for you. You made it clear that you don't understand a lot of this stuff so NO I was not putting all this on you as you think. I was just asking why the flip flop? If you have the guts to just say get over it and yet don't have the guts to say what you think about behaviour without backtracking... I can't really get a measure who you are and yes, I guess I would have the possibility of misreading you.

I noticed that you had said something about preying on your insecurities. I don't prey on anything, If something draws your attention that maybe you never thought of - how can it hurt you? It might be something worth your while. Depends on what you hold important. Ok? I just wonder about what you mean in the above part. I went on to other parts which have nothing to do with you OK? I don't want you to feel sad, I am trying to keep emotion out of this and stick to my original observation. And yes, I would consider you this a friend talking with a friend. I hope you don't think I was being rude to you, I was trying to figure out your intent. Thanks, jtm

[mcbirdman]

Hi Chuck E.

Thanks for pointing it out. I have seen you try to deal with other people quick to offer countering points of views to yours. I have seen you express your ideas based on important considerations such as safety. I have also heard the disrespect given to you for your time. I know that you have been blessed with an exciting flying career. I do value your knowledge and listen to what you say because I know exactly what your priorities are. I will add that you have been quite sucsessful and knowledgeable and don't need to prove yourself to anyone. It is some of that stick to it attitude - logical and organized that has kept your words straight and true - something to think about.

It does mean something to me but I think you are right, maybe not to others. I'm going back to cutting out the fittings for the landing gear. We need only 2 more pieces and then we'll have 24 for the 3 machines. Thanks Chuck. Got it -I am over it - waste of time and why should I care?

Looking forward to changes that are inevitable. I guess others can't step back and look at this period in time to see what is coming. In the meantime I am bad I quess for being open. Thanks again and hope to meet some day. jtm

[Dean_Dolph]

Chuck, James point was made before he made it! Now, a few years back I don't think anyone could have said that. The efforts by you professionals and experts during the past few years have got the point across, numerous times. But no one, least of all me, wants to try and damper James enthusiasm or passion for his choice.

In the first place there isn't any argument, certainly not from me, that his choice appears ot be the best one out there from a safety standpoint. I say appears because the design definitely doesn't appear to have any flaws to my uneducated eyes and meager knowledge. But the fact remains that there are not very many flying and the people flying them are not rookies. I trust Ron Herron to do his homework but the proof is still in the pudding.

I know James means well, but being evengelistic about it is starting to get a little old. I feel the same way about the past or future proponents of other gyro makes; make your point and them move on. And despite James assertions, it is my opinion that there are other machines out there that are safe. And no, James, I'm not going to get in a discussion about roll cages, engines in front and etc. Prevention is the key word here; stable gyro, no PPO, proper training, no PIO, no crash, no rollover, no problem!

I doubt that choices of machines, any type/make of aircraft, are made with pilot safety as the number one criteria item. In fact that would make a good poll, what is the number one thing that made you choose your type/make of gyro, as one of the poll items. Any one (nah, not me!) want to start it? It would be interesting to find out where safety ranks in the mix.

Just to get one response, Chuck why don't you tell us why you chose to build a Little Wing after parking your RAF project? Also, how come you, a professional, took so long to realize that the RAF was a hazardous to your health machine?

[Vance]

Hi James, the word I used is played. This is to say that I have an unreasonable sensitivity and you accidently found something that actavited that sensitivity. A response out of proporation to the stimulus. My own challange, not yours.

From my perspective I don't see anything of a flip flop with Ron. I told him what I thought of his post and he said that it would have been wrong if he had done what I perceived from his words, and that he had not ment what I imagined. I try not to read minds. You can see that I am not very good at it as aparently I read many things into your post that you weren't thinking as you wrote it.

I am pleased to find that you are not attacking me.

I find that the more I learn the more I know that I don't know. I try to start with a clean slate,"ignorance" and as the interaction procedes I can relate my personal experience or knoledge to the information. I am happy to share any experience I have had. I allways try to state my opinion as exactly that, my opinion, and I willingly relate my path to that opinion. I beleive that somtimes this causes people to understimate me but I have not been successful with any other style.

Thank You, Vance

[PW_Plack]

James,

You've obviously spent hours the past few days thinking about this, and more hours typing, and you make some good points, but you keep talking about "facts." Most of your argument, however, is assumptions based in emotional factors, with no statistical support.

A tractor gyro has certain undeniable benefits in terms of stability while in flight. In a nutshell, the tractor configuration allows getting the physics right with fewer compromises in aerodynamics and weight. There are plenty of people here on the forum who believe that this facet of safety overrides all other considerations. Statistically, I'm not sure that's borne out. Oversights or momentary lapses by pilots, builders and mechanics cause more general aviation accidents than do flight stability problems, and 80 per cent or more of those lapses happen on the ground, not in the air.

I do believe it is now beyond argument that a bunt, or rapid forward pitching of a gyroplane, allowed by a divergent reponse of the airframe to pitch disturbances caused by wind gusts or pilot control error, must be the first priority in evaluating the safety of a gyroplane. Once you chop off the tail with the rotor, the accident is going to be fatal. Solving this is a little more awkward on a pusher, but modern designers are doing it.

Once you get past this issue, I can't find much real safety difference between the two configurations. Will the small-diameter steel tubes of a conventional airframe stop a rotorblade? If you believe they will, that still means nothing in the tractor-vs.-pusher debate, since either could be designed with or without a framed cabin.

Fires in flight are most likely to be caused by overheated engine parts igniting nearby combustible materials, or flammable fluids leaking onto exhaust manifolds. In either case, put me in a pusher! I got to experience smoke in the cockpit on my second solo flight ever, 11 miles from the airport in an Aeronca Champ. On top of the extra workload of getting the plane down safely with a partial engine-out, I found the limited visibility and increased anxiety of the smoke-filled cockpit quite unwelcomed. In a pusher with engine issues, your problems are always behind you, so to speak.

I can't imagine why anyone would fly a gyro with a 'chute. Instead of debating whether your better bailing out of a gyro with the prop spinning in front or behind you, answer this - why are you bailing out of a gyro with a running engine? What, are you nuts? If you're still in autorotation, ride it down! If you've lost the rotorblades, you'll be lucky to have enough time for your life to flash before your eyes!

Unless you hit a really big bird straight-on, I can't see any safety advantage on a gyro to having the engine out front. Unless you're incapacitated somehow in flight, you're not going to land nose-first, as you would in a fixed-wing plane, you're going to land at near-zero airspeed with at least a sloppy flare. Good landing gear and seat design are important here. As for the fuel tank, I like what Jim Vanek has done as much as any design. The fuel cell is separate from the seat, foamed in place, unbreakable molded plastic, and positioned behind the pilot, not underneath him, where the mass of his body would crush the tank. Of the few recorded severe impacts with this design, I don't think there's ever been a fire.

I studied daily accident reports for months before I ever flew. Except for a bunt, or other incident which leaves you without controls or chops off part of the aircraft, the biggest thing you have to worry about is properly managing the reunion with the ground. The statistics bear this out. Make a short list of designs which can give you the best odds in a sloppy landing, and then choose tractor or pusher based on your love of tradition, desire for the view, need for a radial, longing for bugs in your teeth, or whatever.

The term "recreational pilot" means you fly for no good reason. Once you make the decision to accept that risk, all these other variables lie along a pretty small span of the risk-reward continuum.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Dean :

I chose the Little Wing for many reasons, if I were to have to pick the most important reason it would be the stability and safety of the design.

Also my love of tractors goes back to when I first learned to fly in 1953 and the first company that I flew for operated two Pitcarin's with the P&W R985 radial....so the Little Wing with a radial is a natural for me to want.

As to your question about why it took me so long to figure out the RAF was a dangerous and flawed design.

You really are off the mark there as I severed my association with RAF in 1991 over this very same issue...I have been stating that for years on Norms forum.... Just ask Paul Bruty about that one as we tangled a$$holes over the RAF unstability problems many years ago, until Paul realized that my analysis of the RAF stability was in fact correct.

If you research my postings regarding Gyros you will find that I was one of the first to state that RAF as a company not only sold a very flawed design but were dishonest and untrustworthy in the extreem in their customer relations.

So you have lost me on that one Dean, unless you feel that several months into my involvement with RAF was to long a period to figure out they had a killer for sale?

Part of the problem was the fact that I only had Dan Haselow as a demonstration pilot and he was incompetant in the extreem, therefore I was sort of at a disadvantage in delving into the reasons for the instability that I found in the RAF when I first had an opportunity to fly it in 1991.

Does that clear up that subject? :D :D

Chuck E.

[mcbirdman]

I know James means well, but being evengelistic about it is starting to get a little old. I feel the same way about the past or future proponents of other gyro makes; make your point and them move on. And despite James assertions, it is my opinion that there are other machines out there that are safe. And no, James, I'm not going to get in a discussion about roll cages, engines in front and etc. Prevention is the key word here; stable gyro, no PPO, proper training, no PIO, no crash, no rollover, no problem!


Hi Dean,

Eevangalistic? Like talking in church and talking about life sustaining stuff? I get it. Some people know what they should do but leave church and do something else? I kinda see that (lol)

I was sticking to a point that people didn't want to face. Very little in concession and much minimizing. People got so used to the losses that I don't care if they get tired hearing it - things have to change. Things are changing and you are right about something else. I should have wrote that a few, not a couple manufacturers are changing things. I know some of the things are really helping. I didn't mean nothing is changing. I am encouraged by a lot of it.

I also agree that manufacturers don't seem to be building on certain safety priorities but I wonder who is to blame? If someone buys something because they see it flying or don't know what might be a better machine... what kits do you think they'll keep selling. That is why I wanted to get some kind of a consensus concerning aircraft design this is important stuff, much more than preference.

Also I agree that there are some designs that are safer in areas you normally wouldn't have had to worry about in the past because they didn't know what was going wrong. But fact is that at least 4 or so years ago there were many people taking a few people to task for making strong unwavering statements. Didn't change the fact, and I appreciate the few.

Still, even the new designs are lacking many of the safety features that come into play when you screw up or something unexpected happens. I think a integral part of safety is prevention which also would include protection. All of this starts on the ground and is a good goal while flying. I would say that newer pushers are MUCH safer than the previous generation of pushers but still nowhere near the overall level of safety inherent in the tractor design.

One last thing. Trying to talk design, not just Little Wing, I went on the LW website and read the following statement. In the first 10 years of flying there was no deaths. In the twenty years of worldwide gyros flying ( there used to be a mail delivery fleet that jumped off rooftops in major cities too) there were only 6 deaths.

This LW design is an improved / modernized version of the old autogyros. I would submit the matching transcontinental flight, endurance and altitude record (pending ratification) as some of the reason to get out your pudding spoon you are holding. By comparison what do you suppose the number of deaths in current, modern gyros has amounted to? That is why I have made the point, stuck to it and wrote that it isn't my ideas, it is based on history performance and physical attributes. Many people are wanting tractors and are excited about them and yet we can't get them.

In the meantime we have just improved things, although not to the same degree. I am sorry though if I slighted other manufacturer's I just am not as excited by seeing only 1/2 the safety features implimented. I am thankful though for what they have given. Like I said, I would consider a sparrowhawk and I have even thought about CLT Aircommand, and a few others when I thought I would have to just buy a kit. I still might someday.... I just decided that given my list of priorities it would steer me in the right direction.

Thanks Dean - I don't mean to say what to buy/give rides in - just to think about what you are getting and what you are not. I guess that is simple enough - Your prevention can include deciding what you will buy, as well as what you will get in...Using the right machine to match your level of safety required. Fair enough? jtm

BTW It has been quiet on here for a little while anyway, I 'm not mad, I hope it helps someone and for those that already made their investment - they could have skipped on by....1 but you know how people slow down on the road at the site of an accident? We saw it today for real, but maybe here too. Maybe not. If not - then don't ask me about helmets and who all really pays for that right (lol) just let it go......
jtm

[KevinKing]

Enough!

James feels the Little Wing is the best gyro for him. For others, open frame pushers fall within their personal safety limits. This is all about opinion. Some peoples' safety limits include avoiding going outside. Others' safety limits are making sure they're wearing a parachute before they jump off that cliff. Who was the great person who said, "Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one"?

Can you please stop arguing about this? It takes me so long to read this thread that all my new posts disappear.

[mcbirdman]

Kevin you are right - It does include Personal safety limits also. However these are valid safety considerations that are not talked about and is contained within ONE thread within a gyro forum.

It may seem strange that we are talking about it. It may not be of your interest. I guess people have vastly different views on what is safe.

Are you serious? Everytime I look under new posts it is only taking up one line and it is titled so that you know what it is. I can't see how it would actually be rolling something off screen like you said.....I won't suggest you change something - like your screen layout and maybe you won't suggest we stop messing up your screen ok (lol)

P.W. Plack ( I think ) All I can tell you is historically as posted above. That is factual. Also, have you ever seen a pusher that IS using a steel airframe suitable for a rollover or worse? You are saying it would be the same but it is like vaporware. I have not and it may be because they are still working on a few other problems that as Microsoft would call their bugs - features....

That is why I said current modern tractor autogyro.

In your assumption that steel won't stop a blade or might, I think it would absorb a lot of the energy possibly enough to make the difference. Do you know what the shearing strength of 4130 is? Do you know how many pounds of energy are at the tips? Do you know how much it dwindles down to as it is hits the ground and then hits the airframe? Is that what you want?

Also regarding a burning aircraft, yes I would ride it down to the quickest landing possible and I agree. I think catastrophic failure is where the thought of parachutes came from others. Also, if you do land too hard with forward momentum and the machine bounces and does a nose over, do you think having the weight of the engine and accessories rotating from behind as an advantage? I am still thinking engine front and rolling around the mass like a stearman doing a nose over would still be better. Don't know - you decide for yourself.

Anyway, Kevin is right this is just common sense stuff. If it don't matter to anyone - It don't matter to me. I am just one person and as long as I fly and people want to know about gyros you are going to hear about the history and how things interact, or are supposed to interact.

If someone believes other and wants to correct me that is fine but it is not emotional stuff you were saying. It is just that no one wanted to touch it after they said smokescreen as I offered to talk engine, landing gear and prop and efficiency, airframe and tail surface and stability. Instead I got an argument about everything except what I said. I just thought since I answered every person that responded, I would give you the respect also.

Have fun at whatever you do. You are further correct about much time, and I feel it is a wasted cause at the moment. But I know that someday someone will see what I meant and forgetting the length, will understand the intent and will not look at all gyros as the same anymore. Anything I say more regarding this just looks like (per Dean) evangalizing.

When all 4 machines are done and if something should happen, I just want others to know that the design is good, anything is possible and that I am a low time gyro pilot. Unfortunately - Risk goes up with inexperience and I feel this is my best chance making it through the learning curve. I am not saying a tractor is totally safe. It is a flying machine and I do not think it is possible to eliminate such risk. I would imagine that you all hope, as I hope for all of you - that everything is as expected and uneventful. I know that many of you fly often and I am looking forward to that time. You know what it feels like to finally realize your dream, I look forward to achieving the same.

I wish everyone the best, I try to give mine. jtm - yes, I am ready to get off this merry go around. It is making me dizzy too, and I got metal to work on. Go live your life the way you choose - you will anyway - its your path.

[GyroRon]

James I will make this as short as possible cause I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow and need some sleep.

First of all, And most important to James, Vance and every single person on this Forum... I am By far no leader here. Not by any means. I have posted more than everyone, not to prove anything, not for brownie points, no reason other this forum is my avenue to stay in touch with and communicate with my friends that fly gyroplanes. I have been wrong many times, I have made a Ass out of myself many times, I am not a role model in anyway, And I have tried to make it clear from day one that I am only offering my two cents and two cents don't buy much these days. Does that mean that all of my posts are garbage? If you want them to be then fine by me. I do try to help out when I see a need for it, and when I feel like I can be a help.

Now onto the whole James issue... James you need to get a grip. I was not being serious at all with those posts. Your blowing the whole thing way out of context. Your also confusing me with other posters too I believe cause in a few of your long winded - which only allowed me to quickly go over since It is bed time - posts above you quote me as saying things I am pretty darn sure I did NOT say. Please show me where I am wrong on that.

So now that you have taken it down to a real personal level with me let me tell you how I really feel.

1. I think, as I have said all along, the Little Wing gyro is hands down the safest gyroplane you could fly. I have on purpose used the term Little Wing over tractor gyros in general cause there are no other tractors worth a hoot on the market, Maybe one day there will be more. I have no bones with you on your point that the tractor is the better choice overall.

2. I don't believe this is YOUR tread and I believe I as a member of this forum have as much right to post in this thread as you do. It is a open forum. what I post may not Jive with what you posted. That is life get over it.

3. As far as your comments on me buying and flying rather than spending two or three or however long it takes to build a machine, As if that means you earned something and I just bought something.... Come on James that is BS and you know it. There is and always be two types of people in aviation, Builders and Flyers. I am a flyer, your obviously a builder. So what! and as to your comments about me flying other peoples machines... Well So what again!!! It is a free world and I can ask and if the person I asks says yes then that is their decision. What difference does that make to you? Why in the world would it even be on your mind? I smell something here that stinks.

Now I will take some things from your posts and address them.

1. You said "The best you can come up with is that it is best to walk, remember an open frame you can jump out of but don't worry about the prop behind your head?" James I don't think anyone has really seriously thought about and made it a plan to jump out of a pusher gyro in flight. So that would only leave the jumping out of it part for when it is on the ground. You keep mentioning a spinning prop behind you in your posts.... What about the kill switch? Can't someone with enough skill to fly a gyro have enough skill to flip the switch to off before jumping out? Also what makes a " Spinning Prop" in the front any different? Seriously, If I were to bail out of or " off " of a gyro no matter if it is a pusher or tractor I am going straight out to the front away from the spinning rotorblades that will be spinning much lower in the rear of the aircraft than the front.

2. you said "Why is it such a problem to discuss ideas that should be considered by potential buyers? I don't want to unknowingly by some one elses trash. To be clear by that I mean someone elses design that has now been proven to have significant flaws, some of which is hidden." James there is no problem with that. There is certainly trash on the market. But the tone of your posts early on in this thread was all pushers are trash and that is most certainly not fair. Again for the zillionth time I will say the little wing has to be the safest and best gyro, but no way are you going to say that a Dominator or a Aircommand Elite or a Sparrowhawk and many others is trash. I know you didn't specify these particular machines but they are all pushers and your posts earlier was trashing pushers in general.

3. You said " Your telling me to sell the bike and whatnot because even a truck isn't safe blah blah is another way of saying that nothing is safe and so why get in it." No James what I am saying is there is little doubt that motorcycles are more dangerous to ride to get from point A to point B than to ride in a Car or truck. I doubt anyone who rides bikes could possibly believe otherwise. But yet they still ride cause they enjoy it and it is there life and that is how they choose to live it. I used the whole motorcycle thing cause flying pusher gyroplanes is the same deal. We know Tractors are safer but we WANT and DO and WILL fly pushers cause we want to and that is life and that is how we want to live it. If the motorcycle riders wanted to make their safety come over their desire to ride their bikes, they would go out and get a car and burn the bike. And just the same if all gyro pilots wanted a safer gyro they would all build little wings, But....

4. You said " Let me ask this? If family members knew of the differences and did or did not like you flying - what do you suppose they would prefer you to fly? Given the knowledge that you ARE going to fly and decide not to sell - and being educated to the differences and the history regarding design problems and the truly experimental test piloting occuring - are they really happy you are hanging out there when you don't have to? I have kids and can't think of any good reason I NEED to get the extra thrill and extra view when I know there are other ways to have fun and fly like a bird. That is why I chose what I do because I want to minimize risks. That is what flying is about because there already is risk present in an activity we like to do. " Okay let me say this, I have told my family what I think of gyros and the risks and they all know and agree I am much safer in a ultralight with a Ballistic Chute than a gyro period. I also believe the Fixed iwng ultralight is safer just cause of that chute if for no other reason.

5. you said "It is my belief that some people like to live on the edge. I know that when I went to gyro meets I heard about a guy that made a lot of people mad. I heard about a guy that nearly killed himself a few times and had some of the manufactures saying he flys good but he did many mistakes that shoulda killed him. I do not want to be that guy and it is obvious that some people put more or less emphasis on safety. Looking back I don't think this guy was flying legally. I don't want to be looked on in that way. I try to think logically and make decisions based on current knowledge and working within the rules of acceptable behaviour." James I know your talking about me and for the most part you are right. I only disagree with the part that I nearly killed myself a few times and The manufactors saying the same. All this talk came about cause I was a newbie flying like a seasoned vet. They all expected me to crash and kill myself. I always felt like I was flying within MY envelope and seeing how I have managed to keep coming to the meets and still be flying alot of these same people you are refering to are now seeing they were wrong about me and have told me so to my face. I Know I now have the respect of the people that matter to me in the gyro world.

6. You said " As for your experience Vance - great ! I hope it helps you. I would warn you that, and I am sure you are aware of the saying "The blind leading the blind". How do you put trust in someone that cannot accept facts and wants to twist subjects in order to not see something followed through to a reasonable conclusion." James here your totally off base and wrong.

okay that is enough I was trying to make this short and now it has taken me 2 hours to post this stupid reply.

[Dean_Dolph]

Chuck, I'm well aware of your past posts on Norm's conference; what I'm referring too is my understanding that you purchased a RAF. Did I understand correctly? And if so then my question stands, why did you, as a knowledgeable professional, make that purchase? If you are not the owner of an unfinished RAF then please forgive my misunderstanding. Otherwise, I still would like to know why you bought one.

[Dean_Dolph]

James, I guess I wasn't succinct enough (not unusual for me!) but that is what I've been saying, let it go! But I still want to hear if Chuck E. owns an unfinished RAF and why he bought it.

[mcbirdman]

Let it go - gone.

jtm

[BenMullett]

Good thread folks. Many thanks to all for their gyro views......

FWIW our opinions have changed as we learned more gyro stuff, which suggests that there is still plenty more stuff for me to learn.

Here in the UK we now have a Little Wing rotary hydraulic frame jig (all the way from the US) , and feel that it is potentially a great solution to gyro flying in our moist maritime climate. We have certificated welders lined up, and a pile of steel on oreder too.

But we are not anti-pusher, far from it. Good types of both configurations exist, and can be wonderful to fly - they will suit those who prefer one type or the other.

Me? I get vertigo if I'm not in a cabin looking out of a window, so I'll never get the option to fly (or passenger) in an open-frame type, although it looks like it might be fun. Why not passenger? No point, if I've lost voluntary control of my muscles! That Charmin moment..... ;)

In an accident I think it's better to have an engine impact first - this dissipates a significant part of the kinetic energy, and the crew is not caught between the hammer (engine) and anvil (ground or tree). But having said that, there are many incidences of pusher gyros tumbling along the ground in grand style, only to have the pilot leap up and wave the ambulance away.

A couple have been caught on camera, and illustrate the survivability well.

Stability? Again, both types have excellent examples - from the written records and logbooks of one UK flying club we can see that over 120 fixed wing pilots of varying ability went solo on a Wallis Autogyro in the 1960s after only a 20-odd-minute briefing - no gyrogliding or dual training.

They all came back and landed undamaged, which proves conclusively that this aircraft was exceptionally stable in flight. The 2-seat Farrington Twinstarr (now built in the UK by ex-Paducah stalwart Woody de Saar) exhibits similarly fine stability by design.

So does the Little Wing - and this is a cabin machine, suited to our climate and my needs. Ron Herron is someone who provided support to us when we were fumbling around the decision process - and has never failed to come back with an answer to our newbie queries. That counted for a lot.

So which to choose? That depends on the individual.

As an engineer, I find it a bit easier to design (on paper or X-Plane simulation) a stable tractor autogyro than a stable pusher, but that may just be my experience/understanding , or lack of it. Time may change this. Then Paul Bruty convinced me that his Firebird hybrid was dead stable - even in turbulence. He convinced me by letting me fly it around for half a morning - and it was my very first gyro experience! :D

There's a good article on flying it by John Fonseca in the current issue of GyroFlight - www.Gyroflight.org

In my view, both tractor and pusher can be done right by one skilled in the art. And this is only the beginning of the gyro story. Jay Carter shows where the technology might go in one direction, and a world record holding aircraft for weight lifting is also a gyro - another Wallis, which lifted 2.4 x its Tare weight at RAE Bedford many years ago. Unrealised potential indeed.

It should get even more interesting soon!

All the best, Ben.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Dean :

Yes I own a RAF 2000, and I finished building it and it was signed out with a flight permit by Transport Canada in 1992.

I bought it because at the time I owned a flight school with both fixed wing and helicopter training.

I thought that gyros would be an interesting addition to the fleet.

I never flew the machine due to many difficulties with the parts and not being able to get the engine to run above about half power. I had severed relationship with RAF and of course was on my own trying to fix the garbage I had been sold.

It was not until I joined the group in Norms Froum that I found out what the reasons were behind the instability problems with the RAF design.

It is noteworthy that I had written the U.S. commercial rotorcraft gyroplane exam and trained on a Mc. J2 and passed the flight test and still had no idea that the offset thrust line was the real problem with the RAF design. The first person that explained it to me was Craig Wall, then Chuck B.

The bottom line in my experience with RAF was that they were unwilling to even discuss the design flaws of their machine but rather took the road of denial at every turn.

So for me it was a very expensive lesson in dealing with dishonest people.

Chuck E.

[mceagle]

James,
I only missed this thread for 2 days and it has now blown out to over 4 pages. I think I recall having this discussion some time ago – on the British Forum I think. I must admit I admire your typing skills – such as you have written in these pages would have taken me more spare time than I have in a month. However I made a statement and I will stick by it. You certainly do have a way with words and you could be invaluable once you have many hours up in many different machines. I will only point out the discrepancy’s of some of your statements in the first page of the thread because I simply do not have enough time to do any more than that. I am flat out reading all the new posts let alone offering comments. As most of your comments are directly related to the Little Wing gyroplane, my comments are in no way intended to belittle a fine aircraft but rather to use it merely for comparison purposes. I ask Ron to please correct me if I am wrong

“in terms of safety, which includes………, ………., power requirements etc”

I find this one hard to fathom – power requirements are related to parasite and induced drag and have nothing to do with pushers Vs tractors. It would not be hard to name many pushers with less parasite drag than a Little Wing.

“I would make decisions on engine placement for cooling, airflow, efficiency, balance and engine mass in mind. It is amazing that the older autogyros seem to follow these steps”

Efficiency? – A prop pushing into clean air is more efficient than a tractor prop pushing air into a fuselarge (resultant useable thrust is greater).
The older autogyros didn’t follow any particular steps, but rather simply adopted an existing aircraft fuselarge. It is interesting to note that the further they went with development, the more they appeared to deviate from the original Avro fuselarge.
On the engine in front or behind issue, I have attended approx 30 accidents, many of them fatal, and I have not yet seen an engine “go through the pilot”. In only one case was the engine completely detached from the frame and it did not go anywhere near the pilot. A gyro out of control will not necessarily go in nose first. The one that I witnessed go in nose first came down vertically from 200 ft still under cruise power (estimated 80+ mph). The keel and nose-wheel drove 8” into the hard ground and even so the engine did not come away from its mounts (although all the accessories came off it). The mast did not break either although it was bent. The gyro could have in fact been rebuilt at no great expense and I can’t help feeling that a younger and lighter pilot may have survived this crash. I wonder how a welded 4130 fuselarge would have faired in this case. The survivability of a crash in a gyro depends largely on the rotors dissipating most of the energy as they destroy themselves.

“The tractor is every bit as manoeuvrable as any other gyro”

Buzzzzzzzzz! – wrong again. The rotor is as manoeuvrable on tractors with a fully articulated rotor head, but not necessarily the whole aircraft. A simple fact of physics is that the more concentrated the mass is the easier and quicker it is to manoeuvre. In all fairness, the Little Wing is not designed for quick rudder turns about its own length or flat spins and this may prove to be a good thing. The manoeuvrability of tractors would probably be a little less than that of “Parsons” tandems, which in turn is a little less than conventional “Bensen” styles

“climb to over 20,000 feet in 20 minutes”

Thrust to weight ratio – has nothing to do with pusher Vs tractor.

"True, your idea of a view and mine and others is going to be different”

View is not an opinion or an idea – it is a hard measurable quantity. The hard fact is that the field of vision from a tractor is not as good as that from a pusher. What is opinion is whether you care about that or not.

“significient features that a modern tractor has. In every aspect from ………to endurance, …….to visibility ……..to automatic teeter limiters / stick locks, engine efficiency, Big tyres and struts for off field landings etc….a tractor design IS it.”

Which of the above features are peculiar to tractors? Of those, visibility and engine efficiency are wrong anyway as previously mentioned.

"what happened in the 60’s – to present in the gyro community. Look at the direction the Gyro has gone and the record got terrible. It has little to do with the pilots”

As the majority of accidents are pilot error, I would suggest that it has a lot to do with pilots. The Gyros of the 20’s were factory built aircraft and hence were expensive and not affordable by the masses. Those companies that could afford them employed pre-qualified pilots to fly them. Bensen on the other hand put out $5 kits that anyone could afford, and they were snapped up by mostly non-pilots. Do you think that this could have anything to do with the safety record?
I know that there have been some unsafe designs offered to the public but this is not a pusher Vs tractor issue. Incidentally, “pilots” are still being killed in CLT machines with a H/S so our homework re safety and stability is not finished yet.

“You may think what you like but with the knowledge of the bad designs only now being addressed as design flaws”

We cannot let a few poor designs form our opinions of all pusher gyros. No doubt if there were as many tractors flying as pushers, then there would also be as many poorly designed, and as you suggest “flawed”.

“There hasn’t been so far such long Cross country flights through the kind of weather that the tractors have seen”

Another one of your inaccurate statements. A conventional pusher gyroplane has flown ocean to ocean, west coast to east coast in Australia in 43hrs flying time. There have also been gyros flown north to south. I am sure that there would have been many long distance flights by pushers in America as well. I recall one in the PRA magazine some time ago – in a Barnett I think.

You keep bringing up statistics and comparisons with fixed wings. We all know that you can make statistics say whatever you want. We all know that it is far safer flying in airliners than driving your car. These figures are based on a per person per hour basis and as such are correct. However if you work it out on a per flight/trip basis then the stats tell a different story - ie. you are safer in the car. (Discovery channel – study of aircraft accidents).
There are many thousands more fixed wings and they have had a gaggle of more qualified men on their case for many more years, and still fixed wings have accidents.

Another small point James is that you keep saying that the reasons for your choice are safety related and what your lives are worth. I use Subaru engines in the Gyroplanes because they have literally hundreds of thousands of hours of history of safe operation. Something that I think you called “a life insurance policy”. If you are that particular about safety, no doubt you would like to use an engine with the safest record possible and not become a test pilot for someone else’s product. What engine do you intend to use?

I doubt that many will read this post because they have grown weary of this thread (with good reason). Many do not answer because your posts are too long and repetitive and take too long to answer fully. For this reason I will also close down and finish with one of your statements :-

"I think opinion are based on knowledge and lack of knowledge”

I think the beginners and low hour pilots on this forum deserve accurate information so that they can make up their minds which is which.

[GyroRon]

Only correction I can add Tim - unless I missed something - is I think a Prop PULLS you forward not Pushes you. so if it is mounted on the front or rear it is the Pull of the prop that makes you go forwards and all the prop blast is just a by product. I agree with James that the prop up front is a cleaner design as far as introducing air into the prop and also it can normally allow you to turn a larger prop on the same horsepower further increasing that " pull "

[mceagle]

Apologies Ron - my poor use of terminology. The bottom line is effective thrust, which is greater in the "pusher" than the tractor. (there is that terminology again).

[Aussie_Paul]

Sensible post Tim. I got sucked in on the UK forum by James, and almost totally wasted valuable time, but I wish James success with his choice of gyro.

The Cessna push pull twin engined 337/Caravan has a higher rate of single engine climb with only the rear engine operating, than it has with only the front engine operating.

This I do know, as a friend has one of these aircrft for fire spotting.

Aussie Paul.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Look what I found. It's a tractor. Groen Brother Aviation removed the rear engine and replaced the front with a gas turbine.

Screw-Out

[scottessex]

That thing is BUTT UGLY!

[Vance]

I think that it is a clever way to test a concept without building from scratch. That saves a lot of time and expense. I beleive that it was ment to haul cargo and I think it looks swoopy for a truck. I beleive that I would rather have it than my Van.
Thank You, Vance

[Udi]

It looks like a Cessna Skymaster tandem twin that was converted to gyroplane.

Udi-

[Mayfield]

That's what it was Udi. We built it to evaluate the tractor configuration with a large cabin and a rear loading door. It flew very well.

Jim Mayfield

[eruttan]

Only correction I can add Tim - unless I missed something - is I think a Prop PULLS you forward not Pushes you. so if it is mounted on the front or rear it is the Pull of the prop that makes you go forwards and all the prop blast is just a by product.

The clearness of the clarification needs more clarity.
According to the equal and oppisite thing the prop pushes (accelerated air) back and produces thrust. Daddy taught me a thrust away from you pulls and a thrust towards you pushes.
What did i miss?
I agree with James that the prop up front is a cleaner design as far as introducing air into the prop and also it can normally allow you to turn a larger prop on the same horsepower further increasing that " pull "
What? A pusher can turn just as big a prop, and bigger than a tractor. Ask Carl Schnieder. And does anybody else have a 65HP two place that does 120MPH like his does? I belive his is the most effcient gyro built.
If I am wrong please correct me.

[RHerron]

Well, I just got in on this fracas.

Let me make a few points. A tractor configuration can, by design, swing a larger prop. Most of the arguments thus far have validity, from both sides of the issue. However, not the prop issue. Is there a pusher gyro currently flying with a 76" prop? If so, it has a high prop thrustline or needs a ladder to climb into.

Carl's machine has a 110 hp engine and is a very minimal flying machine with single overhead-stick control. Is this bad?..no, it makes it have good performance. That simple rule, light/powerful works on any flying machine.

Concerning the LW's, stability imparted to an airframe from using a ten-foot moment-arm and 10 square feet of horizontal tail will be hard to match. Other positive points are outlined on my webpage if anyone is interested.

Now, there are several good pusher designs available that are stable enough
for most folks, I have no disagreement.

I developed these aircraft in an attempt to rectify the horrible fatality rate in modified Bensen-type gyros. ( I have been at this since 1975)

While training (the lack of it) could be blamed for many of the accidents, that didn't change the fact that these type craft were not pitch-stable and were prone to the "bunt" type accident.

That is the only point that I have been strong about. I still own a Bensen and have flown many hours in them. Is it anywhere close to as stable as the LW?...no way.
Is every tractor design better than any pusher design. NO. A good design is "a good design", period. Until recently, there have been precious few good pushers. The current trend is toward better stability, more like a properly designed tractor. That is great. If that is the only thing I have been able to be a part of, that is plenty.

So, I will let the LW's stand on their own, I don't need any help (or hinderance). If someone can make a better mouse trap, make it, don't talk about it. I have, basically, devoted most of my time and my money to this project and made it available to anyone who is willing to part with $175.

Nobody on my end of things is trying to cram it down anyone's throat.
If anyone has any questions pertaining to the performance or characteristics of these machines, I welcome your questions and I will try to answer them honestly. I do not have time for or interest in arguing over personal preference.

Sincerely,
Ron Herron

[GyroRon]

Ron you said - "Nobody on my end of things is trying to cram it down anyone's throat.
If anyone has any questions pertaining to the performance or characteristics of these machines, I welcome your questions and I will try to answer them honestly. I do not have time for or interest in arguing over personal preference".

That is why this thread got so far out of hand, cause it WAS being crammed down everyones throat by James. I don't really care either cause I have done the same thing with the Pro CLT ideas to people and I really like the Dominator design and have crammed my two cents about them on the forums for a while now.

Most people know what they want and they will get what they want. As more of your machines are out there flying, more people will want them. I want one, just not ready for that much building yet.

[Dean_Dolph]

The member list of the ASTM subcommittee for the new gyro standards have not been widely publicized. But, since they haven't exactly been operating incognito, I don't think I will be in violation of anything if I point out for those of you that don't know, that Mr. Herron is a member of that subcommittee.

[RHerron]

Ron A,

Yes, that is my point. I just wanted to clear the record, this was not "sponsored" by Little Wing.
No hard feelings toward anyone on this issue and I applaud those who have posted their positions. That includes James.
But....can we give this a rest? Thanks.

Ron H

[mcbirdman]

Like suggested - I am Done. I learned something very valuable. This is a multifaceted subject and it is not easily discussed on keyboard without misunderstanding and many differing viewpoints on what is safe or a good design.

I did mention it was NOT about LW and didn't intend nor want to put all the work Ron has done into an astmosphere that would somehow look that I was somehow connected. I am not - and want to make it clear again that I said Modern Tractor Autogyro design. I am sadly aware there is little choice available in this area but it is not my fault, just something I don't understand.

Again, it was not my intention to drag Ron into this, he has been quietly working on his design, as many other reputable designers, and allows his design be "discovered" by others. He knows far more than I and I don't want to "hinder" his well deserved sucsess. I am sorry to all others if I offended anyone in any way or let my enthusiasm for something I find exciting - seem like I was condemming others for their self accepted risks- ok?

I am really done on this. I just decided not to visit the forum as much the last few days and maybe for the future as I heard and felt I wasted your time and mine. I was going to just let it sit - and thought it was strange I didn't get any more email notifications about this thread last couple days making light of me or my ideas so I stopped by today and read the recent posts.

I respect Ron H and his ideas he has implemented too much to have ANY of this on him. OK? This was just too much like engaging in a discussion of politics or religion - we all vote differently and go to different churches for different reasons, which just makes life more interesting.

Sorry, jtm

[GyroRon]

James don't be sorry, we all have our faults. Look at the RAF bashing in other places. When the mood strikes us we can get real passionate about something and can end up making other people mad in the process. Your whole idea about safety is a great subject. I would even say you did a good thing by starting this thread. It just got out of hand and that happens. Anyway keep posting, see ya

[Vance]

Hi James, It is always sad when I lose touch with a friend. I hope that doesn't happen here. Your passion has real value and you have a wonderfull ability to express yourself. I beleive that your sensitivity is necessary for you to speak from the heart. Please don't let this asset stand in the way of sharing your thoughts. Thank You, Vance

[Screw]

Screw-In

For the record, I thought this has been a Great thread! I respect alot of the opinions that have been placed here.

I would like to further compliment James. He has made points here that has made me go Hmmmmmm. He's right! Especially about the timeline and gyro safety. Even C. Beaty came in with "And the Butcher began."

Wouldn't it be neat if in, say 20 years, most of the gyro community were flying tractor style gyro's and were looking back at the days of the pushers and saying to themselves, If it weren't for RAF, we'd be dead!

Let me throw another wrench....Most folks in the community IMHO, have'nt had to many good things to say about PitBull. Pitbull is a co. that is attempting to make a production tractor out of 2x2 tube and a fiberglass shell and low HP engines. I think they are doing this to try and make it affordable to fly stable cheap. So far....Not so good, but who's to say that one day, they will be great.

Look at the expense of a SparrowHawk APV (62k). I mean everyone is raving about the Sparrowhawk, and I'm sure it is a great machine (wouldn't mind having one myself), but for the money, you could build one hell of a tractor too.

I guess my point is, pushers have come along way. They came out strong because the expense and ease of building. Tractors have fallen by the wayside because they are expensive and harder to build. What if Littlewing and Pitbull became very affordable and easy to build?

If money and building weren't an issue, what gyro would you rather have?

Screw-Out

[Vance]

Hi John, The Sparrow hawk kit is $27,870 and is very easy to build. I beleive that it is around 300 hours and they have a builder assist program.

The experience I have had in design for manufacture says that a complex welded tube frame is difficult (expensive) to build in small numbers. The fixturing to build it quickly (inexpensive) is expensive and the numbers don't justify the outlay. It still isn't as inexpensive as three pieces of aluminum with holes in it.

I beleive that you would lose some of the features and charm of the Little Wing if it was designed for manufacture. Part of what makes Ron so special is he is a craftsman and teacher of forgotten skills that have been abandoned in our rush towards affordable.

It would be a great testement to the art of design if such a charming gyroplane could be made affordable to those unskilled in welding and covering.

OTH In the early days of motorcycling, far from home could only be achieved by those in possesion of special skills. It was very exclusive. Now motorcycles are so good that anyone can ride far with no understanding of the secrets of the motorcycle art. Something is lost. Thank You, Vance

[Screw]

Screw-In

Kinda right Vance. The Sparrow Hawk kit is 27k with a subaru. Easy to build is relative to the builder. :eek: Ready to fly SparrowHawk APV is 62k with the same subaru.

For the sake of argument, I'd say you'd have a supernice LW to build for 27k. I think Ron has a supernice Pre-Welded frame for under 4k. That leaves you with 23k to finish. Pick your posion for powerplant.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that back in the day when pushers hit the scene, they were an affordable alternative to an expensive tractor gyro. Today, however, with the expense of a nice State-Of-The-Art Pusher, You could build a very nice tractor, if you wanted too.

I further compliment James for trying to make that point.

Screw-Out

[eruttan]

I have an email from carl that says his single is 50 and his two place is 65, both CRUISE at 80. He swings a 72, cause thats all he needs. He'd swing bigger if he had an excuse.

Perhaps he changed the engine, or he got it wrong? He said the same thing when I talked to him at oskosh years ago.

I dont care for a discussion based on a false premise.
A tractor or pusher has no inherant limits on prop size or efficency OR SAFTY.
The history of a design (80% of all deaths were in a ... ) only speak to THAT DESIGN, again a red herring.

When I was a member of the subcommittee we focused on results, not looks.
Prop in front or behind is a red herring. Either one can kill if done right. And either is safe when done right.

[Vance]

Hi All, I am amazed that Ron can build that frame that inexpensively. I guess there goes my credibility on design for manufacture. I used to have an enginering job shop and based on the number of welds and the thickness of the material a rough quote would have been $11,687 each for a run of at least 500. $4,000 certainly makes it more cost competitive. I think that it will still cost more if you get a 914 or the little radial. I would also expect for it to take a little longer and require a broader skill set.

When I sold Harley Davidson motorcycles and people would complain about the price I would remind them that this is the main event. You should get exactly what you want so you can keep it long enough to form a relationship with it. You don't want to go through life with almost what you want. Looking back the things I regret are not what I did, but what I didn't do. Thank You, Vance
PS I am off to Texas, I will be back in a couple of weeks.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Hey Vance, The SparrowHawk would cost more with a 914 too :D

screw-Out

[RHerron]

Eric said:

<<<A tractor or pusher has no inherant limits on prop size or efficency OR SAFTY>>>



Eric,

The limiting factor with a pusher is the fact you have to have clearance between the rear frame and the prop as well as clearance between the prop and rotor.

With a tractor, the only thing in the way is the ground and it is much easier to implement longer props without the need to route the airframe around it.

Agreed, this is not a safety issure.

I have spent a lot of time with Carl and Toni at Oshkosh the past two years. He has very good performing machines, no doubt. He had a three-cylinder Hirth on his (buddy-seat, 2-place) last time I saw it. Maybe he has gone back to the Hirth twins.
As I understand it, 72" is the longest Warp-Drive makes in the 3-blade version.

[eruttan]

The limiting factor with a pusher is the fact you have to have clearance between the rear frame and the prop as well as clearance between the prop and rotor.
Again, this is not a "limiting factor".

It is a requirment. You CAN ALWAYS, although you may not want to, create room for as large a prop as you wish with either design. There is no "limiting factor" on how tall it can be.
There is a "limiting factor" on how large a prop you can use.
With a tractor, the only thing in the way is the ground and it is much easier to implement longer props without the need to route the airframe around it.

Getting into what is easier moves us towards preferance and away from facts. I wont go there. If I did I would say something like "It well may be easier, but what airframe is simpler, Carls or the little wing? And is not simpler easier to build?" Then a bunch of personal value judements would kick in and this thread would start all over.

I belive my experience with Carls machine was 3, perhaps 4 years ago. I belive he had a 3203 65hp two on it. Perhaps he had the two cylinder on it first? Either way, no one will argue his machines have great performance. Stronger than any tractor offered.
My point was that vague, dogmatic, claims of how superior or "clean" the tractor design is, are shown to be false.

There are no critical advantages of pusher or tractor. An intellegent design of either will yeild GREAT results.
I do not wish to advocate, offend, co-miserate, upset, or cajole. I just do not want preferance confused with facts.

[Screw]

Screw-In

Well let's split hairs. eruttan posted that the canard on the ez is a "Stall Limiting" device, not a horizontal stabilizer. (I don't know how to do quotes yet.)

If the canard (or any surface regardless of placement) controls pitch or attitude, isn't that the definition of a horizontal stabilizer?

Can we keep it simple. It's easier to put a big prop on a tractor for no other reason than to say you can raise the gear and not mess with the airframe. You would have to redesign the airframe (Keel and Mast) to have the same results with a pusher.

eruttan, if someone said, "A B-29 dropped the first atomic bomb." You'd come back with, "No, there were 2 B-29's, the "Enola Gay" (named after the pilots mother) that dropped the first one on heroshima and "Boxcar" dropped the second on nagasaki. (Don't think I spelled it right.)

The point is your both right.

Screw-out

Which one had the "Fat Man?"

[eruttan]

Screw;
I figgured out the Quotes from
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode
At the bottom of the page.

The Canard stuff was in a canard thread. Lets do that there.

This is not hair splitting. It is a questioning and refuting of vague ideas that are being passed off as facts. There is way to much of that, for way to long, in the gyro community.

Again I say bullocks to the vague idea of "complexity" and "simplicity". Take a gyrobee and lengthen the mast put the holes a little higher for the seat/engine. Fit any prop you like.
I wont argue which is easier, because I dont see a differance in the "easyness" of it. The idea is refuted and it has no creditability.

[RHerron]

Eric said:

"<< Take a gyrobee and lengthen the mast put the holes a little higher for the seat/engine. Fit any prop you like.">>>


Profound.

[birdy]

Bit late reading this thread [you blokes can type faster than I can read] but I'll chuck in my 2c worth.
There is one feature the pusher has that the tractor will never beet,visability.
I concidered a tractor gyro when I started out but,for mustering,you can have no better feild of veiw in any aircraft than an open pusher gyro,matched with its manouverability and ease of flying in rough air.[and when you are look'n for cattle,that don't want to be found,in thick scrub you don't need the ass of your power plant in your face,especialy if you is a half blind SCG.]

[mcbirdman]

Evidently, there IS interest in this thread. I do think it was worth posting, just didn't realize how difficult it was to get a consensus on anything. Things happen to slow on a keyboard and the length of time between replies is nothing like a real sit down conversation. Because of this we can't really communicate in the depth of understanding that we can enjoy with being face to face. We can't pause when there is a misunderstanding or question about what we mean and it is easily left open to something that is subject to many questions such as intent, tone, and lastly what was meant. Then in replies we have to keep repeating the points we thought were missed and important and then we are get told we are preaching. I am amazed at some of the rebuttals such as the tractor is not as manuverable or whatever... well ... not as much as an open but somewhere between a parsons twin and whatever...

Or, the statement - I almost got caught up on th UK forum and wasted my time with this james on this subject... I don't think it is a waste of time, just a waste trying to do it here if things get taken so out of context, which I think is nearly impossible. The guy who might be worried about wasting his time is still on and off again with even considering taking his students up to demonstrate with a tail on, and off ... AGAIN....in recent posts. It is no surprise to me that he would think this is a waste of time since he is struggling with other more important issues. I just don't see why someone would consider going up in something that is known to have flaws that are hidden and unforgivable to demonstrate something that has been demonstrated in many unfortunate ways. Again, not for me, and I do question what that is saying by agreeing to do it in the first place - but I will no doubt be questioned for using my safety values in judging others.... But since it seems that we have a consensus on tails, why are we doing this? So now I can get picked on for assuming a consensus on tails... See how bad this all is?

You all might not like that I write what I see as incosistancies, safety, and design. You can write it IS possible to design this and that into something. I am saying given the current crop of gyros that are accessable to us, not on a dream board, tried and true, there are large differences worth considering. It is too easy to talk technical and not get anything done. Quite often I see people standing around the aircrafts and talk about what they want and are going to do. That is fun, but then you keep seeing the same people with all the great ideas and still have nothing to show. I don't have alot but I am making progress and I am putting my money and time and effort where my mouth is. I was looking for several years considering many things I heard and saw before I started my projects. If I didn't just get to it - I would still be talking about whether or not I should climb up a ladder to get into something that swings a bigger prop or whatever for a gain, or just climb into something that swings a large prop also, but affords me the ease of entry. I didn't decide on that pretext but I was comfortable with all the considerations, including my personal safety values being addressed. Now it is being done and not just dreamed about.

Birdy, Did you ever get to the ending part of all the reading? Did you or anyone else see the part that I think is very important and is tied in specifically with my reason for posting in the first place? I wrote a reply, it got long again - but the specifics were there and the only thing I would add since then is your post about having better visability. depends on what you mean.... For me the tractor does have better visability than other gyros.... If you are serious about being 1/2 blind and flying then I could not add anything that would change your mind. However, some of us fly airport to airport and with the increased traffic I think that the fuselage of an enclosed tractor with strobes along the airframe offers better visability in regards to other pilots seeing the gyro. The frustrating thing for me is that I would now expect a comment that this would mean nothing to someone else because they feel that since they are smaller and can turn 180 in twice their airframe distance that the comparable distance wouldn't be enough and would thereby mean more to them. Then an argument that there is so much mass on the tractor tail they can't turn so fast because they aren't made to turn that fast, even though there is only 25 lbs of weight on the tailwheel and a huge arm that offers leverage power with the rudder way back there to swing the aircraft around in a turn.... I've seen the comments and the truth is that with every design being different you will either gain something or lose something. It is this personal priority based reasoning that makes discussing this difficult. We don't even agree what is safe. See how a statement about visability can open up a whole discussion about what that means and how that relates to someones personal priorities and needs or wants? It is nearly impossible to discuss something of this scope without being in a real discussion. This is just a forum where people just pop in and pop out....


Yes, I am back. I wrote this before and just stored it. I still wanted to discuss but I felt that we were going nowhere productive. Not just me, but others. So here is what I wrote then....

Yes, I am back, it seems erruttan seems to think he is being factual while faulting other peoples "vague" reasoning. He is trying to argue what you can do with prop size, possibly ignoring the question IF it even makes sense to do something like that in the first place.

If I was to argue that we should ignore the high cockpit and increased cooling problems and whatever else because of performance..... I would also be making a personal judgement call on what I think is practical and worth it since I just want to go fast or whatever....when someone else might think performance is how fast you can get in and put your restraint on....Using his value and interpretation of performance he says - better than any tractor. If
He says:

Again, this is not a "limiting factor".

?" Then a bunch of personal value judements would kick in and this thread would start all over.

Either way his machines have great performance. Stronger than any tractor offered.
My point was that vague, dogmatic, claims of how superior or "clean" the tractor design is, are shown to be false.

There are no critical advantages of pusher or tractor. An intellegent design of either will yeild GREAT results.
I do not wish to advocate, offend, co-miserate, upset, or cajole. I just do not want preferance confused with facts.


Ok so let's see now it is ok for YOU to try to clear it up with your summation

Read your "neutral" statements... You conflict yourself when you say you don't want facts confused with performance because the personal value judgements would start up again.

As a conclusion you then claim that there are no critical advantages for either and yet they are not the same by virtue of design.

An "intelligent design" as you put it would have "Great" results. Two more words that are arguable that are based on your personal judgements of what constitutes Intelligent and what a person thinks is great performance.

I tried to put an end to something that I think was valuable to consider, and still do. The outcome of which has not proven anything beyond the fact that even you cannot use words that are subject to your own personal standards and value. Please do not ask me to end something and then use this thread to draw further conclusions while making statements that are exactly how I got drawn from my original reason for posting.

Are you the one that gets to decide what is intellegent and what is great? At least when I posted my preference, with my priority of safety - I made it clear. You now are saying there is not difference and that this has decided that there is NO difference. This is not true and is misleading. Any design that is different - will be different in some way, especially if it is complex, with specific differences being notable, good and bad. The advantages and disadvantages but not the same because to do so would require them to be - the same. They are not, and that is why there is Tractor Gryos and Pusher gyros.

[eruttan]

I agree with the difficulty of using a text based medium. I belive the issue is that most communication we do is non verbal. When reduced to text it is often difficult to imagine possable interpretations of the sentance and craft it so as to minimize unintended understandings.

But once one gets used to it the skill builds and the ideas flow.

That said, having read and reread your post I cant say I understand what you are saying at all.
But I do not want to say "you make no sense to me" and leave a vacume after that. That allows an interpretation that I really dont care what you say.
But I dont want to go down the path of saying that I think you ment this, and if you did, then I need to say this.

My preferred technique at this point is to go back to what we agree on and walk the path together and see where we diverge. Then we can focuse on the Idea/concept that we understand differently.

As this post is long and has many interwoven ideas that influence or polute the origional intent, I suggest you post a new thread, and we discuss it there.
And this may get to the point of divergence. I was not responding you your origional post, but to the evolution of the posts 4 pages after it.

At that point I was suggesting that; any gyro design can have whatever traits that is desired of it, simply. There is no fundemental advantage or disadvantage to either layout. Any advantage or disadvantage that can be found, by me, is a apperance one much more so than performance one.

[mcbirdman]

[/Qutote]At that point I was suggesting that; any gyro design can have whatever traits that is desired of it, simply. There is no fundemental advantage or disadvantage to either layout. Any advantage or disadvantage that can be found, by me, is a apperance one much more so than performance one.[/QUOTE]



Well, we can't even agree what is an advantage and to what degree that it is important. Again, we can't agree what performance is and to what degree of importance this is in overall design.

You said you can't see a difference. Doesn't make it true for us just because you FEEL that. Now try to prove it without using any kind of a judgement call that won't offend or be of more or less importance to someone else. This is what I learned. It is too easy popping in and saying this or that and the time typing for some is too long. No one design can be right for everyone. That is something a person has to decide for themselves. We cannot say though that anything is possible and there will be no tradeoff or that something can be designed in to eliminate a difference. It may simulate but not replicate a designed aspect.

It gets even more complicated than that when a person suggests throwing a big prop on the back and no big deal or whatever because it gets back into being reasonable with what we do and practical. It even gets into intelligent.... Some of the same words you used to sum up something you were complaining about being not factual ---- but using the same kind of words that were still based on personal values that I was getting called on. Now you can see how hard it is to even discuss this on a gyro forum.

There will always be a difference as the design is different. Something will always perform better than something else for specific purposes and in certain instances. Is performance to you safety, save a buck on gas, go faster, engine TBO or what? Whatever it is, it is likely not something that I would be looking at since there are so many aspects. Try to explain what that performance is and what it means in terms of significance, and it's overall impact on your goals and that is where I say good luck.

Fact IS They will never perform EXACTLY the same in two different designs. as they are not exactly the same. I just agree that people will disagree and unless they are similiar on their personal values, they will not end up at the same spot. Using different criteria for personal values to make decisions does impact final decisions.

There are many churches around with different base ideas and values and they all seem to be prospering. We just have to decide what one we will attend and just be respectful or at least accepting that different viewpoints lead to different beliefs. This is why I wrote this at what I hoped was the end of this, but I must say I disagree with your summation that anything regarding differences in design has been refuted or proven. I hope you see that the diversions that you say could be revisited to discover where things departed will do nothing to sway me from feeling the way I do about my choices at the same time I realize the same for you.

When there is a difference, there will always be a difference. It just depends on if you see it or not. Not everyone will, Not everyone won't. But it is your choice. It is just hard for me to see that you can't see one single difference between the two from a design standpoint since they are in fact different. It is easier just to say that it is your choice to feel and think what you want. It doesn't help me get my projects done, and it won't sway you if you have already made your mind up. I can live with that and be perfectly happy with the choices we all have made. That seems fair enough.

jtm

[birdy]

James,
when I said visability I meant mine,I can see more in a machine that has no cowling,motor,dashbord or any sort of artificial horison.When doing what I do I need to be able to see everything in every direction.
I'm not saying one configeration is better than the other,I'v only flowen on type so I can't compare,but I know the open ones have an uninterupted field of veiw,which is what I need.

[BenMullett]

Agreed, Birdy - and my vertigo means that if I'm not in a cabin, I get the shakes, and maybe worse. :eek: So I need a full enclosure, and prefer to have a tractor design - we chose the Little Wing, now in construction.

Enjoy your pusher, Birdy! It sounds ideal for your purposes.

Good designs of both types exist - we have to get into a lot of detail before a technical merits argument can be resolved, and that seems to me to be a problem - as posted earlier, it's hard if you can't see one another & sketch things on the hangar wall.

The Technical merits will depend on the aircraft's 'Mission' - which is the point that Birdy just made. Wonder if we can all agree on a Mission Statement? :p <oops>
Probably not..... :rolleyes:

Still fun, though!

[birdy]

Never mind a mission statement,just alow for different horses for different courses.[one size will never fit all]

[mcbirdman]

Hi David,

I knew what you meant because you elaborated on what visibilty meant. Everyone has different priorities.

Dealing with cattle like you do - Would I catch you transporting cows standing or just sitting on top of a trailer - with just belts on? Why is it I haven't ever seen that? Is it only because the cows like to see where they are going or only to keep the hay from blowing around.... I would suspect its something else that is logical, it is just too much work laying down the foundation of what logical thinking is.... before some logical reasons can be given.

I think HAY (pun) - as long as it isn't one of my cows..... maybe I don't want them to see how to get back home..... my reason and logic may seem strange, but it is my reason..., atlthough it really isn't. What does the shipper care about my reason. They only care about your decision. You are buying the service as advertised and the best they can do is to carry it out in whatever way they are equipped to provide the service. Flatbed, openbed, enclosed, canvas top - etc. Your choice to invest and ship cows as you desire. I can live with choices. It is sometimes just difficult to make them because simple decisions are often more complicated than we realize. It is easy to underestimate how much impact a seemingly easy decision affects our life. I guess that is why the older I get, the more I see how complicated life really is.

You've decided what you need and it works for you so I think that is great. I have been ON a openframe before and it is pretty exciting to me. Take care and enjoy,

jtm

[Screw]

Screw-In

I'd like to see some video of Birdy "At work" with the cattle. Sound like a hoot.

Screw-Out

[mcbirdman]

I just wonder if he throws a lasso and if he does... does it ever get caught on the instrument pod at inopertune times? Probably more of a problem is how he keeps the "Brand" Iron hot as he swoops down to mark his property....

jtm

[birdy]

You blokes are a crackup,
Am try'n to find a vid camera that will do the job coz there are a couple of people ere reckon it'd be worth a good laugh too.
I'v never ad a problem with the ropes or the brands[a "streight through" exhaust keeps em ot] ,the only problem I'v ever ad is the endurance on me bladder on a cold morni'n.I'v tryed plenty of ways to expel the unwanted fluid but I always end up piss'n meself.It's not so bad for a few seconds but it's bloody uncomfortable when it freezes.