Our first loss... [Archive] - Rotary Wing Forum

twistair

12-16-2006, 10:59 AM

Please keep us informed of the reasons for the accident.

I feel slightly recovered from the first shock and will try to describe what I know.
Aircraft was assembled ca. 3 years ago, then it was damaged twice, repaired and sold to Russian Far East where new owners failed to make it flying and tried to sell it again. Gyro was transported to Moscow. I don't know to the moment if it was in good or bad condition but I have a videotape of it's details when it was East - it was something completely awful including such things like vertical control rods with evident bends in them, poor hardware in many points including rotorbrake, rotorhead etc, front cabin attachment angles attached to keel with too long bolts which were simply bent (!) around the angles etc etc.
This morning I called Michel and he told he is preparing to fly this thing with prospective buyer. Michel did this since he was asked to do this by a third party involved in sale.
I told Michel that I will fly our Twist 15 km from his place and if he wishes I can land at his place to take a look on this RAF. I've told Michel for some times before that this may be very silly to fly such questionable gyro.
Weather was gusty this day, I think it was 15-18 mph wind with gusts over 20-25 mph.
When I was 15 km from him I called him again by cell phone but he didn't answer so we flew to the place and found airfield guard who told us that RAF crashed within his sight just 15-20 minutes before we arrived. We took off and found RAF 1.5 km from the airstrip with two apparently dead bodies. We didn't land there since it wasn't possible there so I saw the site for some minutes from 10-15 meter altitude.
Aircraft layed on it's right side with rotor intact. The first impact trace was ca.1-2 meter behind the keel and looked like it impacted almost vertically. Some minor parts were 40-50 meter around it in all directions including one door ~ 50 meter from the gyro.
A big part of a rudder was ~50-70 meter behind the gyro, I think it was not right or left part of a rudder but likely an upper or lower part of it. Aircraft layed in the downwind direction.
Rotor looked intact but approximately evenly jammed along blades - it looked like it firstly was damaged like aircraft collided with ground in rotor-up state.
Passenger body was 2-3 meter from the aircraft, out of it. Pilot body was partially in the cabin, I didn't see safety harness.
This is what we know to the moment. Local police didn't let anybody to inspect the site yet and it came dark soon - probably we can see the site tomorrow.
Michel was near his 50 y.o. and he had no family, only a girlfriend. He started to learn to fly many years ago and flew many types of fixed wings, trikes, R-44 helicopter and gyros. I think he had ca. 500-600 hours in different gyros to the moment, mostly in what we call now "Dominator clones". I never heard earlier if he ever flown an RAF.
I want to thank all and everybody for the warm words of condolence. We lost a friend and a real "skyman".

barnstorm2

12-16-2006, 11:18 AM

I am sorry to hear about this terrible loss.

Douglas Riley

12-16-2006, 11:41 AM

Alex, I'm very sorry to hear about this crash. I lost a friend a couple of months ago who was flying in someone else's aircraft. Usually, the lost pilot was just trying to help.

We may have a difference in terminology here. In the U.S., a "midair" is a collision between two aircraft. Did the RAF collide with another craft?

If not, then loss of part of the tail during flight would most likely indicate a retreating-blade stall (flapping).

Racer

12-16-2006, 11:47 AM

I am So sorry, What a terrable loss, Especially if it could have been prevented by replacing a few parts. My Prayers are with all that knew him and his passenger.

C. Beaty

12-16-2006, 11:54 AM

It is beginning to sound all too familiar, Alex.

If you get a chance to inspect the wreckage, look for paint transfer from vertical tail to rotor blades.

Look for gouges on the rotor blades at the point of propeller contact.

Inspect the teeter stops for signs of violent hammering.

twistair

12-16-2006, 12:14 PM

We may have a difference in terminology here. In the U.S., a "midair" is a collision between two aircraft. Did the RAF collide with another craft?

Sure, Doug, it wasn't a midair collision - there were no other aircraft around. Thanks for the correction.

Chuck, yes it sounds likely familiar - alas. I will post details if they let us examine the wreckage tomorrow. Probably they not - the gyro wasn't registered, the flight was illegal in fact so they probably simply trash all them and close the story.

Hognose

12-16-2006, 12:17 PM

Rest in Peace, Michel Storozhenko. Same for the unnamed passenger.

My condolences to Michel's girlfriend and all the friends and family members of the two victims at this tough time.

Alex, don't beat yourself up over this. Michel was a free man and freely made the decisions he made; you did what you could to get him to look at things a different way.

The rafpilots.com website has a couple pictures of Russian RAFs on its front page, but not this one; the machines it shows appear to be built per factory instructions.

Like any great victory, the conquest of the air demands its sacrifices. That does not make any individual one any less tragic. We have lost a brother, again.

regards

-=K=-

Hognose

12-16-2006, 12:24 PM

To all:

Alex has said previously that Russia had not had a gyro fatility in over 50 years. Most unfortunate.

regards

-=K=-

twistair

12-16-2006, 12:45 PM

The rafpilots.com website has a couple pictures of Russian RAFs on its front page, but not this one; the machines it shows appear to be built per factory instructions.
-=K=-

Kevin, these 3 RAFs showed at rafpilots were assembled by the same man as this one which crashed today and they all had very good workmanship less he still cannot get this simple thing about stability. Today's gyro was then sold, crashed and "rebuilt" by next owner who seemed to be a complete idiot - this is where the technical problems are from.

I knew that there are no wonders in the sky - no matter which this sky is. I just hoped this happens years later but that codger in the skies thought different.

GyroRon

12-16-2006, 04:20 PM

So Alex, did this RAF have a horizontal stablizer on it? Sounds like Buntover is most likely cause.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-16-2006, 05:02 PM

Surfing through the rafpilots.com web page it would appear that most RAF's sold overseas are built stock with no H.S. or Stabilator.

However it is very well done and it is easy to understand why people would want to buy one.

I was quite interested in the " Gyroplane Aviators Code of Conduct. "

Reading through it I felt like I was reading a document direct out of the offices of a regulatory body, lots of words to describe the basics of any flying activity be it airplanes, helicopters gyroplanes or any other type of aircraft,

However there was nothing that related to why gyros differ from any other flying machine, just pages of things that one should do when flying, a sort of Mom and Apple Pie kind of document, you can't really disagree with any of their points.

Maybe I'm missing something in my read of their code of conduct and there is a message that can not be found in any flying school and the study material to become a pilot in any aircraft.

Brian Jackson

12-16-2006, 06:50 PM

I am so, so unsettled and saddened by this. The fact that "part" of the rudder was found ~50-70 meters BEHIND the wreckage implies that damage occured mid-air in forward flight. As Chuck Beaty mentioned, the examination of the rotorblades will probably unveil telltale marks of PPO. From the crash site you've described as a first-hand witness, and the known gusting conditions, Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor) dictates that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

Though this is neither the time nor place for yet annother RAF "discussion," I was able to explain to my wife why I was so upset just now after reading about this latest tragedy. She doesn't understand physics much, so I tried to explain HTL to her in the most understandable way I could think of... I used the analogy of a piece of 2X4 lumber floating in a swimming pool. Imagine you needed to push this board sideways through the water with one finger without it rotating left or right. Where would you push? She answered "in the middle." Then I asked here to imagine what would happen if she pushed the same floating board 12" away from the middle. She said it would rotate. BINGO! Now If an un-scientific person can "get" that simple concept, what possible motivation does RAF have against updating their design? PR & marketing, the expense of re-tooling, or mile-wide egos that can't admit fallibility?

Though the pilot had no family, I offer my sincerest condolences to his girlfriend and to the family & friends of his unfortunate passenger.

With respect,
Brian Jackson

twistair

12-16-2006, 09:22 PM

So Alex, did this RAF have a horizontal stablizer on it?

No Ron, it didn't.
I got a call from an airfield guard this morning, he told that police had him to replace all the wreckage from the site to the secured place in the airdrom hangar. Not good but better than they simply trashed them. Hope to see them today together with Vic Shumeiko.

autogire.com

12-17-2006, 01:08 AM

Alex, I'm so sorry about your friend...

It could be a probem of structure, but even if we are not sure, I think as Chuck: it's probably a GIO/buntover.
I was owner of a RAF and we added a horizontal stabilizater, but nevertheless, we were not in confidence: the stability wasn't very good.
I often fly with this kind of wind in Magni or ELA gyros, and I never had any problem.

I've lost a friend too last week: Roland Kloéti who was gyro CFI. He's dead in a scooter accident in Paris, with a guy who was drunk and was driving his car without licence...
Roland has built an amphibian gyroplane, and you have seen videos on my website.

Since 10 years, I've lost approximatly a friend per year in gyros or trikes accidents. I hope they aren't dead for nothing...
Continue to fly with "Dominator-like" gyros !

Hervé TERRASSON

dragonflyerthom

12-17-2006, 03:34 AM

Alex.

Will you look at the wreckage to see if there was structural failure. Didn't you say that this RAF had been crashed before? That big draggy rotor is very important in a RAF to keep the center of pressure balanced between the rotor and cabin. If any thing failed that balance could have altered the entire flying envelope and caused this crash. We have sooo many questions and really want to know. Thanks again sorry that any gyro pilot loses his life at any time in any craft. Our pilot community is small enough that the loss of one life affects us all.

ben

12-17-2006, 04:08 AM

ron ya did it again,

"I want to let all the RAF owners know I am sorry for jumping to the conclusion of PPO a few weeks ago when news of this accident first hit the forum. I suppose that not all crashes with a RAF are certain PPO and here is one that we can say for sure did not PPO." ron quote

ben

dragonflyerthom

12-17-2006, 04:18 AM

Alex is Vic Shumeiko the builder of this RAF?

GyroRon

12-17-2006, 04:39 AM

dragonflyerthom

12-17-2006, 04:49 AM

Ron
you can pat youself on the back for stepping up and making you statement. It is easy it seems to jump to the PPO conclusion when it is a RAF in the accident. What gets me is there are several way to stop the progression to a bunt but unless you have had training then your on your own. The RAF is more than just a HTL machine. It is balanced more like a aerobatic airplane with the tail heaver and the adjustable mast. These accident don't need to happen. Yes even experienced gyro pilots can PPO a RAF with no problem. It is sad when it happens.

ben

12-17-2006, 04:59 AM

ron
sorry dude i read chuck b post #16 and the talk of a mid air. i thought it was still up in the air on the cause. but it does sound like a ppo

twistair

12-17-2006, 05:15 AM

Alex is Vic Shumeiko the builder of this RAF?

No, Thom,

Vic is just the most experienced gyrohead here. Today Vic and me examined wreckage though they were moved from the site to a hangar.
I can tell that we didn't find any evidence of mechanical failure. And we've found apparent signs of unloaded rotor.
Lower teeter stops bent downwards, hub bar bent upwards, rotor blades have traces of contacting both rudder and prop blades.
Other things tell that aircraft collided ground likely in wheels up state.
Witness told that he definetely saw that the gyro at his downwind leg sunk down turn nose down and aside. Before it disappered behind a hill the saw rotor disk standing vertically and a loud bang a second later.
Mast is broken like it was compressed, not bent.
Safety harness plates simply broken - this why I didn't see it from the air.
Blue traces at rotorblade are made by rudder.
Chuck, please, let me know if any other places should be shown here and - are we correct in our conclusions?

Herve,

It is very sad to hear about Roland - we missed another one man who made things. Another one brave experimenteur. My condolencies to friends and family.

twistair

12-17-2006, 05:23 AM

Here is one more photo with blue marks where rotor hit the rudder.

karlbamforth

12-17-2006, 09:27 AM

Alex you have my sympathies as well as the family of the victims. It is never a nice thing to examine wreckage and even worse when you knew the victims.

I have been to many crash sites and it is always difficult to remain focussed and not become emotional.

Thank you for your efforts in finding the causes, it can only help the gyro community worldwide.

C. Beaty

12-17-2006, 11:18 AM

Chuck, please, let me know if any other places should be shown here and - are we correct in our conclusions?

Alex, you need look no farther.

This accident was irrefutably a PPO/bunt.

Harry_S.

12-17-2006, 12:34 PM

Other things tell that aircraft collided ground likely in wheels up state.

Witness told that he definetely saw that the gyro at his downwind leg sunk down turn nose down and aside. Before it disappered behind a hill the saw rotor disk standing vertically and a loud bang a second later.

Alex, If you please. I have a couple questions.

On his downwind leg...was it a L/H or R/H downwind per the traffic pattern?

Did he sink, nose down and turn...all in one continuous motion, or, did he sink for a second, then nose down and then turn?

Sorry, one more please. Was this "turn aside" to the left or to the right...but the rotor was perpendicular to the ground, before he heard the "bang?"

Thank you Alex.

.

Steve Osborne

12-17-2006, 12:43 PM

My condolences to all the friends and family members..

Both Chucks, I can not believe what I am reading here. Once again, some of you are taking out of your A**. You guys were all wrong about the Monard incident and yet you still continue. I think you should leave it the professionals, as obviously you are NOT....... Ron, I commend you on your apology statement on the PPO, but almost in the same breath you go and stick your foot right back in your mouth. Gees......

Harry_S.

12-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Ben, use your noggin.... Alex said the tail was chopped off. How the hell does that happen if it isn't a PPO?

In the case of the Monard accident, the facts we had at the time pointed towards PPO, and turns out this was not the case. How many others do you think will say they are sorry for being wrong on that accident? I am not sorry for jumping to the most likely conclusion, just for being wrong.

I missed this post before and had to back up when Steve mentioned it.

I like you Ron, but, like I've said before...engage your brain before you open your mouth, and or, the keyboard.

Ron, you can chop off the tail while still on the ground. Don't have to be aflyin'.

As to the *facts* of the Monard accident; was totally based on a witness' statement. Three witnesses could give three different descriptions.

As for myself, I reserve my comments till all the *facts* are in. I don't want to appear as much a fool, that I am...at times.:humble:

I agree with you, Ron...you are without a doubt...the only one that will admit they jumped to conclusions on the Monard accident.

Cheers :)

Aussie_Paul

12-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Yes even experienced gyro pilots can PPO a RAF with no problem. It is sad when it happens

And Thom, and the RAF passionate supporters of HTLMs, you lot still continue to get upset when the truth is spelt out time and time again. You acknowledge,(to your credit,) the RAF PPO scenario, BUT are still prepared to say it can't happen to me!!!!:der: :der:

One of you lot (the supporters of HTL machines with an inadequate h/stab) said that they did not have the time to do the essential mods because the weather was good for flying!!!!!

In everyone of these accidents I am sure the pilot did not think that he would die on that flight.:sad: :sad:

Please remember that I was in your camp for a while until I realised that it could be different and did the mods. Now I can't stand operating a RAF or any HTL machine with an inadequate h/stab.

If you haven't experienced flying in a truly stable gyroplane then you will be happy with what you have, BECAUSE like me several years ago, you do not know the difference.:sorry: :sorry: I know the truth hurts, BUT no pain, no gain!!!

I don't pick on RAFs, I pick on all HTLMs. It is just that there are more RAFs PPOing than other HTLMs due to the fact that these days there are probably more RAFs flying due to adding of H/stabs.

It is absolutely great to see more people enjoying RAFs with h/stabs that were sitting in the shed. The RAF style of gyros are aesthetically pleasing and if they did not crash so often would enhance the public perception of gyroplanes.

Please take the next step and conduct the drop the engine/redrive 6", move the axle back 5" mods, and have fins on an effective stab if you are going to fly with the door's on.

I will no doubt get :flame: for this (in my mind) logical statement.:lol: :lol:

Aussie Paul.:)

BUD ONEAL

12-17-2006, 01:28 PM

Steve, Not knowing you and your qualifilations to make such a statement as you did post #37,I do not believe that you know Chuck Beatty.Unless you are a highly qualified areo space engineer then I will go with what Mr.Beatty said. I have known Chuck for the last twenty five or so years and have never known for him to speak out of turn with the info that he has given to him.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ellsworth but I am sure that he is well qualified to make the statements that he has.Perhaps we can all meet at Bensen Days 07 and get know who we are talking to or about as the case may be.
I don't have anything bad to say about a RAF2000,Pat McNear has flown me around quite a bit,before and after he installed the horz.stab. I perfer the Dominator my self and believe it to be a very good machine. I have the "honor" of installing the very first subura on a dominator,Ernie called it the "slug-a-rue" and was untill I installed the gear reduction on it. If you can qualify your statements please do so.
Bud O'Neal old,fat, gray and just plain happy to be a part of this wonderful world

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-17-2006, 01:29 PM

Steve, you are correct it would appear that the Monard accident was not a PPO foward bunt, and I was another poster here that seems to have been wrong in thinking it was before knowing all the facts. I also was one of many who used the " Ockhams Razor " method of coming to a conclusion, just goes to prove that we all can make wrong assumptions. I also wish to apologize for making a wrong assumption.

Unfortunately when a RAF 2000 crashes due to loss of control the most likely senario to suspect would be a bunt due to the configuration of the machine.

However it was only a few weeks ago that during one of the discussions between Harry S. and myself I did say that we would be arguing over another RAF 2000 loss of control and loss of peoples lives, I said it was not if ...it was when.

Sadly we did not have long to wait.

Do you think the Russian accident may have been a bunt Steve?

Chuck E.

Steve Osborne

12-17-2006, 02:49 PM

Bud, as I have said before I am by know way an expert and make no such claim, but I can read and I do know what people have posted on this forum. If you go back over some of both Chucks post regarding the Monard accident I think you may agree with the conclusion I have formed. There are no aero space engineers on this forum that I am aware of...... so I must respectfully disagree. If there were such experts on this forum I am sure they would post FACTs, not speculations and would not let there personal feelings get involved in the fact finding mission. I would love to meet and shake hands with everyone on this forum, but I would rather not discuss any of this stuff as my head hurts now.

Chuck E, like Harry, a wise man. "I reserve my comments till all the *facts* are in" from real experts. But you know, if you speculate enough you might eventually get it right.

BUD ONEAL

12-17-2006, 03:00 PM

Steve,
As I said I don't know Chuck E. however I know Chuck B. and his qualifications. He is qualified to make such a statement and as I said before he go's by what was given to him if he cannot see the actual crash site and the wreckage. He is very qualified.
I to look forward to the day that all of can meet each other and shake hands too. God bless us all,
Bud O'Neal

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-17-2006, 03:15 PM

" Chuck E, like Harry, a wise man......... I reserve my comments till all the *facts* are in from real experts. "

Steve, you may have a very long wait to find out from " Real Experts " as to the cause of most gyroplane crashes for the simple reason there are very few in depth investigations done by the agencies who generally investigate fatal accidents in the rest of aviation, and even the so called experts sometimes do not understand the physics and aerodynamics of gyroplanes.

However there have been quite a few fatal loss of control accidents involving HTL gyroplanes and some " Experts " have come to the conclusion that said loss of control was due to the inherrent instability of HTL configured gyroplanes.

Why they bunt can be for many reasons, however it has been proven beyond doubt that HTL machines will and do bunt, all it takes is one moment in the wrong corner of the flight envelope and it is gone.

Now I would like to ask you a simple question.

Do you believe that some of the loss of life in the RAF 2000's was due to PPO?

Or is it your opinion that the RAF 2000 is a safe stable machine and will not PPO.

Think about your answer because if you believe that some of the loss of life is because the machine has a deadly flaw ( HTL ) then ask yourself why RAF does not change the design and solve the problem rather that try and train people to learn to fly something that can kill you if you make an error in judgement or an error in flying.

One more question Steve:

If there were not so many fatal RAF 2000 accidents do you not think there would be less conflict between the gyroplane people?

Chuck E.

AirHorse1

12-17-2006, 03:45 PM

I am very sorry to hear this news. My condolences to the families involved.

ben

12-17-2006, 03:48 PM

chuck e,
relax take it easy, have a beer and a Scotch ,while we wait

merry christmas

Steve Osborne

12-17-2006, 03:52 PM

Chuck E. did you forget? This is not your fist time on the forum. You and I have been down this road many times before and you have asked these to just about every RAF pilot. You know very well my thoughts.......and this is not the place for this type of discussion.

Murray

12-17-2006, 03:53 PM

My condolences to friends and family members.

Has anyone noticed in picture #396d the one of the broken mast.
The rear bell crank on the control tube does not appear to have the bolt installed that locks the short tube. If the two bolts on each were not tight you could loose pitch control.

Murray Freeburn

Steve Osborne

12-17-2006, 04:26 PM

Looks like the rod end may have pulled out of the control tube? But I am not an expert.

dragonflyerthom

12-17-2006, 04:49 PM

Without the bolt that goes thru the tube the whole assembly will twist to lose most control. It would just turn and the rotor fore and aft movement would be almost non existent. Wow that is very observant Murry. I just went back and saw that. It has to have something thru it or a Bunt would be inevetable.

Alex have you looked at the pic with the broken mast?

Timchick

12-17-2006, 06:46 PM

Is there any chance the bolt could've sheared off during the sequence of events?

dragonflyerthom

12-17-2006, 07:53 PM

Steve Osborne

12-17-2006, 08:27 PM

Thom, Murrary, I am looking at different photo then you # 855. I believe that is a control tube laying under the pitot. If it is, it looks like the rod end is missing from the end of it ?

ben

12-17-2006, 08:45 PM

steve ,

let me and chuck e know what ya'll find were having a couple of beers and a shot or two for the holidays. lol lollolololol

Timchick

12-17-2006, 08:47 PM

Steve, This is the photo we're talking about

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28856&d=1166364391

There's a hole without a bolt in the upper right hand part of the photo.

Aussie_Paul

12-18-2006, 12:05 AM

Tim that is an AN3 Bolt. It could shear as any bolt can shear but the control rods would probably break before it sheared. It looks almost like it wasn't even drilled. It may be shadows in the pic but it almost looks solid in the hole. Heck I might be looking too hard.

It may have sheared and the 4130 tube turned the hole away. The 4130 tube is knurled at that point and the clamping effect should hold all the forces that are required in normal operation.

On the other hand an English guy, who RAF recommended me to contact to come out and help set up my first RAF had an accident in Europe when they test flew without installing that middle bolt. They lifted off and the nose dropped a little and he pulled back on the stick. The 4130 slipped and he ended up with the stick against the seat and the nose still going down!!!!! Obviously the clamping bolts had not been tensioned.

Aussie Paul. :)

Steve Osborne

12-18-2006, 03:19 AM

Man, you guys have good eyes. I had to lighten up the photo to see it.

dragonflyerthom

12-18-2006, 03:23 AM

Yes and Steve There isn't any indication there was a bolt there ever. No marks where it would have tighten on the top between the two tension bolts.

Heron

12-18-2006, 04:24 AM

C'mon Chuck B. they always told the truth, you need to learn how to fly one before trying . . .there are many RAF pilots that got lucky "The Thing" did not happen to them while in training.
After some time (long?) you will prevent by automatically doing the right inputs . . .
Maybe from now on they should "take the fifth" when the subject is under the spotlight again.
thanks
Heron

GyroRon

12-18-2006, 05:07 AM

Look at the way the mast and control tubes are RIPPED apart. There had to be extreme forces at work in that crash..... Maybe the bolt was never installed, but it sure is safe to say it could have sheared in a crash this severe to do the other damage you see in those pictures.

MikeBoyette

12-18-2006, 07:03 AM

quadrirotor

12-18-2006, 07:21 AM

I agree with Steve: by pointing always, and too soon, the same problem, we might preclude an hidden problem...as for exemple, the aerodynamics of a big rotor... which is not loaded enough!...

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-18-2006, 07:54 AM

quote: Mike B.

" Your machine has known problems that you and others refuse to correct so either correct them or live with the consequences. "

Mike,Steve is a product of missinformation very cleverly done by RAF Marketing and their Instructor / Distributor group.

Reading the web site rafpilots.com and seeing all the stock RAF's being built and flown around the world it seems these accidents will just continue.

How many RAF losses in other parts of the world will be reported on this forum of course is debatable.

So I would suggest that Steve is a victim of missinformation rather than actually a guru of truth.

Sorry Steve but that is my own thoughts on this, I note that you have embraced the need for changing the design, why you defend the name is beyond me, but you are of course as entitled to your opinion as anyone here. You do have lots of opportunity to defend though so that will keep you busy here.

C.E.

Steve Osborne

12-18-2006, 08:27 AM

Steve,
Your so called expert(Chuck Beaty) has more gyroplane knowlege than most do in the world. He has been building,designing, and flying gyros for at least 40 years. How long have you been involved in gyros? You need to check your attidude at the door , and please stop the personal attacks. Please stop taking your insecurities out on Chuck. Your machine has known problems that you and others refuse to correct so either correct them or live with the consequences.

Mike, my comments are not meant to be a personal attack. People are relying on the so called experts for knowledge and guidance. As I said in post # 42 this tread. I am by know way an expert and make no such claim, but I can read and I do know what people have posted on this forum. If you go back over some of both Chucks post regarding the Monard accident and now this tread. I think you may agree with the conclusion I have formed. If there were such experts on this forum, I am sure they would post FACTs, not speculations and would not let there personal feelings get involved in the fact finding mission. All I am seeing here is the so called experts jumping to conclusions with out a fraction of the facts. You are right I do have an attitude, there information has been very misleading. There are some that can weed threw the BS, but some newbiees may not. I have never met these gentleman and I am only drawing a conclusion based on what they have posted on this forum.

Doug Riley

12-18-2006, 08:44 AM

"So-called" is an expression that is especially characteristic of lunatic fringe groups.

The Flat Earth Society (back when it took itself seriously) used to refer to the fact that our planet is round as the "so-called grease ball theory." "Grease" was supposed to be a pun on "Greece," where that insidious round-earth notion got started.

The phrase was completely self-referential, since no one else called it that except them.

I'd rather discuss the science, rather than discuss the discussions. However, the propaganda techniques used by RAF are sophisticated enough that they need to be "outed" now and then.

Chuck Beaty isn't a "so-called expert." He's simply an expert, by both education and experience --although he won't claim that title himself.

Hognose

12-18-2006, 09:20 AM

Man, you guys have good eyes. I had to lighten up the photo to see it.

Steve, I assume we're talking about the centre hole in the aluminium block that is closer to the ship's centreline. Could you or some RAF owner post a similar photo of your ship so we can see what goes there (or the page from the assembly manual).

I am not thinking of this for myself, but Alex can show it to Vic Shumeiko and maybe compare the mishap aircraft.

We know that this aircraft had been sold second hand, I wonder if the owners and operators had the assembly and maintenance documents.

Maybe all you owners of RAF, modified RAF, and derivative aircraft ought to go take a look at this bolt and see if it's in place and torqued to specs (whatever they may be).

This may not be the answer -- it might still turn out to be a routine bunt. But it's worth checking out in detail.

cheers

-=K=-

Ga6riel

12-18-2006, 09:20 AM

Once again, the conclusion of a so called expert. Did the thought of improper assembly ever occur to you or maybe a mechanical failure. Of course not, it just had to be PPO because it is a RAF right????

that really does take the cake
by all means discuss the findings of the man
but to discredit him and then claim they are not a personal attack is partisan to the twittsville school of great minds

a fellow only has to read but a few technical sumises by chuck to measure the guage of his rotary wing intellect. chucks one failing is that he gets bored by fools who persist with the negative beyond that. that could be one of mine too

BrianBeatty

12-18-2006, 09:24 AM

Judging by the pictures Alex posted, I believe there would be enough force to shear the bolt. It should be easy enough to tell. If it sheared there might possibly be a piece sheared in the steel tube. If it wasn't drilled, slide the alum. bracket over and see if there is a hole in the steel tube

MikeBoyette

12-18-2006, 09:26 AM

that really does take the cake
by all means discuss the findings of the man
but to discredit him and then claim they are not a personal attack is partisan to the twittsville school of great minds

a fellow only has to read but a few technical sumises by chuck to measure the guage of his rotary wing intellect. chucks one failing is that he gets bored by fools who persist with the negative beyond that. that could be one of mine too
Great Post. Thanks.

Doug Riley

12-18-2006, 09:29 AM

It might be possible to learn more if the fork were disassembled.

Steve Osborne

12-18-2006, 09:52 AM

quadrirotor

12-18-2006, 09:56 AM

Last year, i lost a friend in a RAF crash...I ought to have been angry at RAF team; but, there are so many well designed gyros that made an unexpected descent without a satisfying explanation... We must keep our eyes opened and not take anything or anyone for granted!
Do a query with: Aircraft Category: Gyroplane. (do you remember the Rehler's gyro?...or this famous well built Sparrow hawk?...)

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp

twistair

12-18-2006, 09:59 AM

It might be possible to learn more if the fork were disassembled.

I'll be able to do this tomorrow morning. We saw this central hole but due to some "local" (...) reasons we couldn't do this during our first visit there. At a glance side brackets are at the correct angle with central bracket.
I saw that some parts were apparently disassembled when they moved wreckage from the crash site. For example right lower vertical control rod (left one may be seen broken at photos) with it's lower rodend was removed from the lower control fork and it's bolt was placed back to the lower fork then.
Let's wait for tomorrow.

scandtours

12-18-2006, 10:10 AM

Alex
The traces on the hub bar are they from the rotor head stop plate or from the prerotator gear? Did they make any modifications on the rotorhead?
I must say also that Ive never seen such an accident with rotorblades almost not bend.
I am not trying to find the cause of the accident just a personal opin,
Giorgos

Harry_S.

12-18-2006, 10:24 AM

Steve, I assume we're talking about the centre hole in the aluminium block that is closer to the ship's centreline. Could you or some RAF owner post a similar photo of your ship so we can see what goes there (or the page from the assembly manual).

I am not thinking of this for myself, but Alex can show it to Vic Shumeiko and maybe compare the mishap aircraft.

We know that this aircraft had been sold second hand, I wonder if the owners and operators had the assembly and maintenance documents.

Maybe all you owners of RAF, modified RAF, and derivative aircraft ought to go take a look at this bolt and see if it's in place and torqued to specs (whatever they may be).

This may not be the answer -- it might still turn out to be a routine bunt. But it's worth checking out in detail.

cheers

-=K=-

I was off the forum from yesterday afternoon till just a few minutes ago. IF, I would have checked the forum this morning before I went flying, I could have taken a pic of that particualr area. I did have my camera with me.

I'm no Stress Engineer...nor any other sort of degreed Engineer...but I have a comment or two.

How could the "3/16" bolt in question here, possibly shear when it's positioned between "two 1/4" bolts that should be torqued to compress the alum. arms to the knurled steel tube?? The missing bolt is installed as a position locking device...in the event the other two bolts do loosen.

Usually...to my knowledge...these forward and aft 1/4" bolts are torqued down before the test flight. When no further adjustments are needed the aft 3/16" bolt is installed, the forward stick position is adjusted and then the forward 3/16" bolt is installed.

Alex...if perchance you are reading this...could you possibly check on this question we have on that aft control yoke?? Is it secure at the clamping section, or, can the steel cross tube be turned or moved even the slightest, by rotating the arm of the yolk? And...at the control stick crossarm, is the forward 3/16" bole installed betwixt the two 1/4" bolts? Thank you.

Last night I was going to post my observance of the absence of the noted bolt plus, another item that don't look right to me. In that same photo,,,there is a triangular shaped doubler on either side of the cluster plates, with three bolts passing thru the mast. These are not on my RAF. Are these plates and bolts on any other RAF's out there. If so, what is the purpose of them?

IMO, till Alex can, hopefully, give us some info on the aft control yoke, I think we best hold off on publishing ones thinking, as to the cause of this accident.

.

gyroplanes

12-18-2006, 10:56 AM

It appears as if the bolt hole from that triangular plate acted as a stress riser when extreme force was applied to the mast. Look at the lightened photo and you can clearly see the break line from rivit hole to rivit hole to the bolt hole.

The force that sheared the mast most likely occured during the ground strike. The force required to shear a 3/16" diameter (AN3) bolt in double shear would be around 150,000 lbs. I sincerely doubt that bolt sheared. It more than likely, was never installed.

If the bolt was a factor and the grip of the compression of the block wasn't enough to prevent rotation, pitch control could be lost.

Would, or could this lead to a PPO?
A PPO that a highly skilled pilot was powerless to stop?

Aussie_Paul

12-18-2006, 10:59 AM

[QUOTE=Harry_S.;149529 Usually...to my knowledge...these forward and aft 1/4" bolts are torqued down before the test flight. When no further adjustments are needed the aft 3/16" bolt is installed, the forward stick position is adjusted and then the forward 3/16" bolt is installed.[/QUOTE]

Harry, I don't have a construction manual at the moment BUT I am pretty darn sure that the 3/16" bolts MUST be in before any flying is conducted. I say that because I was also talking to Don at RAF after my English friends mishap, and Don was annoyed that this was not done.

Those bolts are not installed until the person who is going to fly the machine the most has the controls situated where they are the most comfortable.

As Alex said, the arms appear to be in the correct place and there would be witness marks if the 3/16" bolt sheared.

Unfortunately we will be discussing HTLM PPOs, mostly Raf ones as there are more of them, again and again.

Now we are seeing the odd stabbed Raf doing it as people start to explore the flight envelope, lulled into a false sense of security that the stab gives of reasonable stability most of the time.

Aussie Paul. :)

twistair

12-18-2006, 11:00 AM

Harry,

Yes, I'll check this tomorrow - thanks for the additional info. BTW, on SparrowHawks all these three bolts are 1/4".

The broken plate was for a seat belt, it was broken at impact - see attached photo.

Giorgos,

These hammer-type traces on a hub bar coincide with lower teeter stops positions. There is also one single deep scratch, it doesn't coincide with gear teeth. It's short and looks like it appeared when rotor made it's last turn on impact. I cannot tell exactly what thing made it, will look more carefully.

To All:

I'd like to tell that forum comments do make my eyes way wider - it's a sad but necessary deal to examine such ruins. I'd be happy to know this one is the last one but...So I'm trying to educate every hour.

See you all tomorrow,

gyroplanes

12-18-2006, 11:18 AM

In my previous post I did not mean to imply that the "Missing bolt" scenario was the cause of this accident. I am posing a question.

I downloaded the photo and rotated it to it's proper position, the picture becomes clearer as to parts and their functions.

Part of the mystery "triangular plate" appears to pass forward into the cabin. The two lower bolts on the plate appear to be of inadequate length (not a factor in the accident, just an indication of the constructon quality)

On the cyclic control, the arms that go forward and attach to the rotorhead pushrods appear to be in the proper (normal) orientation (forward) and are about 90 degrees to the bellcrank with the missing bolt. I don't think we'll find this is loose, and therefore, not a factor in the crash.

I have witnessed 5 PPO accidents in my years as a gyro builder / pilot. I will have to agree with Chuck Beaty that the rotor, rotorhead, prop and tail evidence all points to a PPO.

Sorry that you have to go through this Alex. If you can have the wreckage released to you and arrange for storage, you will not regret it. Weeks or even months later the wreck can give up some clues. I speak from experience.

I wish we had Terry & Bill's wreck to pour over. I learned an awful lot from LeRoy's SnoBird tandem a year after the wreck.

Harry_S.

12-18-2006, 12:05 PM

Harry, I don't have a construction manual at the moment BUT I am pretty darn sure that the 3/16" bolts MUST be in before any flying is conducted. I say that because I was also talking to Don at RAF after my English friends mishap, and Don was annoyed that this was not done.

I respectfully disagree Paul. I have witnessed three RAF's test flown...mine included...with the fwd. and aft bolts ONLY torqued...after the hang test and the stick positioned for the owner. If the "position" bolt is installed before the actual flight test and then after the first flight test, it was found necessary to re-position the yoke, even a few thousands...would result in a double drilled hole for the "position" bolt.

Those bolts are not installed until the person who is going to fly the machine the most has the controls situated where they are the most comfortable.

That's correct.

As Alex said, the arms appear to be in the correct place and there would be witness marks if the 3/16" bolt sheared.

Did Alex say that?

Alex hopefully will do some more checking for us. Let's wait and see what he comes up with. Bear in mind...I believe Alex is not that familiar with the mechanical assembly of the RAF.

.

Doug Riley

12-18-2006, 01:15 PM

Tom, by recollection and calculator-twiddling, I think the shear strength of an AN-3 is 4 to 6000 lb., right? I would expect the tube walls to crush or tear before the bolt sheared, though, unless the walls are unusually thick.

EDIT: My copy of the old MIL-B-6812E spec calls for double shear of 4250 lb. for a #10 hex bolt, which is AN-3.

Harry_S.

12-18-2006, 01:47 PM

Doug...Is it possible for a 3/16" bolt, centered between two, torqued, closely positioned 1/4" bolts, as on the RAF aft yolk...to shear...with no apparent distortion to the 1/4" bolts or the bolt holes?

I'm a bit uneducated but I can't see this happening.

Cheers :)

gyroplanes

12-18-2006, 07:06 PM

I just took a look at two references I had and they list tensile and shear at 125,000 and 75,000 respectively.

These are PSI numbers and not the actual force required to shear the bolt. I wasn't clear on that. Sorry for the confusion.

twistair

12-18-2006, 11:27 PM

So here it is: there is no bolt in the hole, there is an 3/16 spring pin in it.
Vic talked today to Peter who assembled this gyro from the kit. Pete told it was in RAF assembly instruction to install this pin which should be replaced later (when the hole is weared) with next size bolt or pin.
They didn't let me to disassemble the fork but it was and is evidently intact with no chance of both central and side brackets to slide around the tube.
One photo shows the hole and a pin in it. Pin goes through the hole bracket and sits tight. Second photo - just for the record - shows central and side brackets position. Flat A is at 2 degrees angle to the flat B.
Thus at this time we didn't find any technical malfunction.
Giorgos: I missed your question about rotorhead yesterday, sorry. The rotorhead is standard RAF without any signs of modification or improper assembly.

Fly safe,

GyroRon

12-19-2006, 04:20 AM

Well that blows the RAF owners theory out of the water..... So Steve, Harry, whats next? I know you guys want it to be anything but PPO

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 05:55 AM

Well that blows the RAF owners theory out of the water..... So Steve, Harry, whats next? I know you guys want it to be anything but PPO

Ron, I am for finding out the truth to any accident not just RAF. If it was a mechanical failure in this aircraft I and every other RAF owner would surely like to know about it. So I stand behind what I have said, Fact not Speculation. If it was PPO so be it. I just want to know if that is the case. The pilot had 500 to 600 hrs in Gyro's so to me PPO is unlikely, not imposable, just unlikely. As Alex stated in post #12 it was damaged several times prior and he has video of it, allot of damage to the controls. Are you sure Ron it was repaired properly?

Alex, did you by any chance look at the front L bracket, it would be in front of the seat.

Harry_S.

12-19-2006, 06:12 AM

twistair

12-19-2006, 06:15 AM

The pilot had 500 to 600 hrs in Gyro's so to me PPO is unlikely, not imposable, just unlikely.

Steve, Michel flew only CLT Dominator clones and SparrowHawks. He had probably only 1 or 2 hours in RAF.

Alex, did you by any chance look at the front L bracket, it would be in front of the seat.

I checked all the rotor controls and didn't find any signs they had technical problems. I cannot state that they had none of them - just that I didn't find any.

Harry, yes I checked front control unit as well, it has the same pin in it's place (see photo). Left half of the lateral tube is broken - likely on impact.

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 06:32 AM

Harry_S.

12-19-2006, 06:43 AM

Well that blows the RAF owners theory out of the water..... So Steve, Harry, whats next? I know you guys want it to be anything but PPO

What theory are you babbling about, Ron?!

I haven't voiced an opinion, let alone a theory...yet. I'm just asking questions via the internet, which isn't the best method to gather information. I have asked Alex several questions and have received info on one, so far.

I believe the questions I had in my post #36 are relevant but I expect the answers will not be the info I was after. It's not like talking to the witness face to face and with a model for illustrations.

I'd want to know the cause of the accident...whatever it may be.

Relax Ron. "Just the facts, maam, just the facts."

Cheers :)

MikeBoyette

12-19-2006, 06:58 AM

Alex,
You stated the PIC had 500-600 hrs in gyros. Was most of his experience in CLT or LTL machines?

twistair

12-19-2006, 07:03 AM

I believe the questions I had in my post #36 are relevant but I expect the answers will not be the info I was after.

Sorry Harry, missed the rest:

On his downwind leg...was it a L/H or R/H downwind per the traffic pattern?

First turn after take-off was to the right.

Did he sink, nose down and turn...all in one continuous motion, or, did he sink for a second, then nose down and then turn?

Witness is 67 y.o. and he has not the best eyes, no glasses. He saw the event from ca. 1500 meter distance. While we interviewed him it came clear that he couldn't clearly see any rotation of the gyro nor the impact itself (this last one wasn't seen due to a field relief) - only a curved trajectory followed by a loud bang. So we decided not to take any "sharp" details into account to stay out of guesstimating.

Should be added: witness stated the fall trajectory was level on the downwind leg and then suddenly became "unusually steep". Keeping in mind that we use to make finals very steep almost every time, this one should be VERY steep to mentioned by him in this way.

Sorry, one more please. Was this "turn aside" to the left or to the right...but the rotor was perpendicular to the ground, before he heard the "bang?"

He didn't - see above. I think that this time we cannot easily restore the last track of the gyro. If they leave the wreckage to us we'll try to do this weeks later much more carefully as well as examine all the parts in depth.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 07:05 AM

Mike B. I believe you will find the answer in post #12.

MikeBoyette

12-19-2006, 07:12 AM

Chuck,
Thanks I must have A.D.D. when these threads get this long it all starts running together.

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 07:12 AM

Looking at the RAF manual, on page 192 section 31 hangtest. States "After all the adjustments are made , the control system must have lock bolts installed. Drill though the control pivots and through the front and rear tubes. Then install 2 - AN3-15A bolts, 4 AN9960-416 washers and 2 - MS20365-428 nuts" It then it refers to a drawing.

MikeBoyette

12-19-2006, 07:19 AM

I know the contol failure theroy seems to running right now. Is it possible that this a case of a pilot that has spent all or most of his time flying a stable platform loosing control of an unstable one? I was intially taught to fly a KB4 that Steve Graves owned. I then went to the Marchetti, next the Marchetti with a Tall Tail. I then spent some time in the tandem 618 Dominator. Everytime I went to a more stable aircraft. I doubt if I were to get into the KB4 today that I could fly it with out bobing all over the sky. I don't have the reflex it takes to stay ahead of an unstable machine. Just a thought.

twistair

12-19-2006, 07:28 AM

Looking at the RAF manual, on page 192 section 31 hangtest. States ... Then install 2 - AN3-15A bolts,...

Steve,

I can only tell that I agree that bolt is what should be used there since the pin isn't locked and may go out when the unit is weared.

I just posted what the builder answer to Vic about this point. He states that was RAF recommendation.

Anyway this particular thing didn't lead to the problem - this time at least.

twistair

12-19-2006, 08:35 AM

In memoriam: http://www.epilator.ru/trocadrive2.mpg
This is that 63Mb videoclip we made with Michel this summer, I posted this link somewhere here. He is in the front seat with me in back one.

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 09:13 AM

Wow, that is putting a lot of faith in a motor. The part of flying low over the water and low flight towards the cliff, had me leaning back in my chair.

twistair

12-19-2006, 09:36 AM

Wow, that is putting a lot of faith in a motor. The part of flying low over the water and low flight towards the cliff, had me leaning back in my chair.

Relax, Steve :) - we have enough speed reserve when went towards this cliff.
And we really trust this Rotax. I'd never did this low pass over water in cold season though - as a former diver I hate to swim in Arctic waters :D

Gary_in_Orygun

12-19-2006, 10:01 AM

Aircraft layed on it's right side with rotor intact. The first impact trace was ca.1-2 meter behind the keel and looked like it impacted almost vertically. Some minor parts were 40-50 meter around it in all directions including one door ~ 50 meter from the gyro.
A big part of a rudder was ~50-70 meter behind the gyro, I think it was not right or left part of a rudder but likely an upper or lower part of it. Aircraft layed in the downwind direction.

I have read through this thread. I wonder how it is possible to determine what damage occurs in the air (from a rotorblade contacting the rudder) and what might have occurred when the machine contacted the ground. From the debris pattern that was mentioned above, the door looked like it was just about as far from the wreckage as the tail. If the machine landed on it's top, pieces went flying everywhere.

What would the debris pattern look like if someone impacted hard nearly horizontal and then bounced/rolled in a forward summersalt (like the video of Ken Wallis years ago)?

If the rudder was contacted in midair (bunt), how far do the rudder pieces generally end up from the main wreckage? (I'm sure altitude plays a role.)

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 10:22 AM

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 11:02 AM

Gary, please get with the program, these RAF accidents are either mechanical failure, lack of enough training or no training by a RAF approved instructor, medical reasons such as a heart attack or fainted, wreckless flying beyond the limits that they were taught or just unknown cause.

They just do not bunt, the pilot or builder is to blame.

Chuck E.

That's very interesting Chuck, What do you say about this?

Bell 407 powerful, maneuverable, popular with emergency crews

By MIKE BILLINGTON, The News Journal
Posted Saturday, December 16, 2006

Since 2000, 30 people have been killed in 34 accidents involving the Bell 407 helicopter, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Two of the victims weren't in a helicopter but died after being struck by rotor blades on a helicopter that safely landed.

Many of the helicopters crashed in inclement weather -- not unlike the conditions before Thursday's crash of a Bell 407 near Dagsboro, which killed millionaire real estate developer Joshua M. Freeman, 42, of Gaithersburg, Md., and Danielle Howell, 30, of Richmond, Va.

According to the NTSB's records, half of the accidents were the result of mechanical failures and 13 were pilot error. One accident was blamed on ground personnel and the causes of three accidents are listed as "unknown" because the helicopters were destroyed or never found.

Gary_in_Orygun

12-19-2006, 11:02 AM

Chuck, I don't want to get with your program. The way people jump to conclusions because of the known HTL and bunt potential with the RAF, I'm afraid science/physics/forensics takes a back-seat and we might miss something important from tragedies like this.

I'm asking, can prop marks on a rotor be from a hard horizontal landing followed by a forward flip, like the Wallis accident? Can a rudder go flying on impact with the ground (and subsequent rotor strike), not just from a rotor strike in the air? Also, did anyone mention if this RAF had a HS?

If a bunt didn't occur in this accident, I would like to know what did cause it to happen. That is why I don't want emotional people with agendas to misdiagnose what happened. I appreciate the efforts that twistair is putting into finding the truth behind this accident, despite his personal loss.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 11:30 AM

Gary, you missed my intention regarding these accidents.

There are two diverse groups here, those who use the information avaliable to try and find a reason for these losses of lives and try and determine what happened, there is sufficient reason to believe that any HTL machine that departs controlled flight and crashes could have been due to a PPO type accident.

Then there is the group that will immediately jump in to try and find any possible cause, except that the accident was due to someone flying a HTL machine and got outside the envelope.

Gary I will agree that I may at times be an emotional person with an agenda, sorry if I just can't help trying to save lives by trying to point out that "SOME" of these accidents could have been prevented by not flying a machine that can PPO due to inadvertantly being designed to PPO.

Harry_S.

12-19-2006, 11:34 AM

Aussie_Paul

12-19-2006, 11:53 AM

Alex, I am very sorry that you are going threw this. I need to go back and look in my manual to see, but I do not remember anything about installing a non AN part into this. If you think about it. It is a roll pin, if the hole became sloppy the pin would just fall out. Look at the photos of my old brkts on post # 73 you will see how sloppy the holes became over time. Is it possible the front L pin sheared or fell out in flight?

Steve, a roll pin should never become sloppy if the 2 clamping bolts are tensioned correclty. It is not amoving scenario for wear to occur, BUT you are correct, it is not a factory design.

Aussie Paul. :)

Student

12-19-2006, 12:23 PM

Whether or not this specific tragedy was a case of a PPO doesn't change the instability of the gyro in question.

When the dust settles, even if there is unmistakable evidence pointing to a PPO, given the track record of this forums, nothing will change.

The anti-RAFers are often too quick to dismiss it as a PPO. As for the pro-RAFers, if they don't realize a HTL is a) unstable and b) prone to PPO by now, they simply won't or refuse to.

The unfortunate thing about these accidents is that we're carrying out a forensics investigation halfway around the world. Unless you have a witness who is knowledgable in gyros who was able to see the entire accident unfold, it makes it difficult to know for sure what happend. Furthermore, it can be difficult to determine exactly what happend unless you were aboard the machine yourself.

Gyros are not built to be forgiving in upon impact. There is no material there to absorb the loads you experience when the earth suddenly arrests your freefall. Someone made the good point of when the damage took place - in the air or on the ground? Sometimes it may be hard to tell.

I'm relatively new to this community and I'm getting sick and tired of reading about all these accidents. What makes matters worse is that if someone were actually attempting to find the determined cause of the accident, it would be buried in post #497 in a 14 page thread - sandwiched between mud slinging and other insults.

It's one thing to learn from accidents and other people's mistakes. It's another to lose focus of what we're all actually trying to do here. No matter what, it all filters back to RAF gyros, HTL and who got screwed.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 12:41 PM

Harry S. could you and I make a pact to not reply to each others posts just for the sake of the rest of those who read these threads?

Remember a few weeks ago I said we should just wait until another RAF has a fatal accident?

In your mind I am some evil vindictive person with no other agenda except to destroy the name RAF which you so desperately resent.

So how about we ignore each other until there is another RAF fatality, hopefully that may never happen.....but the record seems to point to our discussing this again somewere in the future.

That will leave more room for others trying to figure out why these things are crashing so regularly.

So I'll go first and promise not to address any post of yours.

Chuck E.

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 01:00 PM

Harry, I would not make a pack with the Devil.:lol:

Steve Osborne

12-19-2006, 01:17 PM

Steve, a roll pin should never become sloppy if the 2 clamping bolts are tensioned correclty. It is not amoving scenario for wear to occur, BUT you are correct, it is not a factory design.

Aussie Paul. :)

Paul, I would think that to. Before replacing mine just out of curiosity. I tightened them past the toque specs and I still had some for & aft movement once it hit the stops. This is why I replaced them. No problem since, but I do keep an eye on them.

ben

12-19-2006, 01:29 PM

if a rotor cuts a tail in a ppo wont the paint be on the leading edge of the rotorblade as well has under it ????

Brian Jackson

12-19-2006, 02:40 PM

I will agree that I may at times be an emotional person with an agenda, sorry if I just can't help trying to save lives...

Chuck, at the risk of being ostracized here on the forum, I applaud your efforts. I have the utmost respect for all here, and have no doubt that all of us, regardless of the ships we fly, want the truth. Truth after all is what enables us to make wise choices.

"Truth" is also the theme of many a poet... my favorite: "How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit." (lyrics from 'Turn The Page' by RUSH.) Truth should (idealistically) always transcend personal agendas/vendettas, and is perhaps clouded by emotion amongst some of our members here, though I understand the difficulty first-hand being a fellow human. We have two brain hemispheres; the logical side and the emotional side (oversimplified.) But both sides are involved in most decision-making tasks, and part of that task involves forming an opinion. I am quite guilty of using the wrong side, though I would never tell my wife that:)

Bottom line, Chuck, though many here have mistaken you (including me once) for a hard-a$$ ego-bent, spiteful vigilante that doesn't come off well at times in text-only discussion... you would be my first choice as a flight instructor if we lived closer together. I hope I haven't lost any friends here just now by saying that, but at least it's the "truth."

Respectfully,
Brian Jackson

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 04:26 PM

Thank you Brian, somewhere along the line I got trapped in the who do you think you are discussion.

At the time I did not realize that answering the question by outlining my background and licenses held would end up trapping me in the " ego " department.

Never have I hid my revulsion for people who lie to others about something as important as the flying characteristics of any aircraft. In the case of RAF the most controversial gyro kit manufacturer here you have two choices, either they are liars flogging a machine that has an unacceptable history of fatal accidents or they refuse to admit they are wrong and change the design.

Anyone who supports and intentionally or unintentionally hammer away with excuses or support for the name RAF have a far more troubling personal character flaw than my being at worst " Ego Driven and vindictive " in my opinion of course.

When challenged with the who are you and what do you know about flying safety what was I supposed to have responded with?

I believe there are a few here who remember many years ago on Norms forum when I was one of the first to expose the instability of the RAF and my inability to bring a change of mind to the owners of said company when I was working under contract with them to provide flight training for RAF.

I had no choice but to sever relations with them because they were intransient in their position that the machine did not need any stability improvements......

.....history seems to have confirmed my origional findings.

Chuck E.

Brian Jackson

12-19-2006, 05:00 PM

Chuck, I can't send an email or PM... all your avenues are off.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-19-2006, 05:12 PM

Brian, try my e-mail address.

chuck@ellsworth.org

dragonflyerthom

12-20-2006, 03:04 AM

Gary, you missed my intention regarding these accidents.

Then there is the group that will immediately jump in to try and find any possible cause, except that the accident was due to someone flying a HTL machine and got outside the envelope.

Gary I will agree that I may at times be an emotional person with an agenda, sorry if I just can't help trying to save lives by trying to point out that "SOME" of these accidents could have been prevented by not flying a machine that can PPO due to inadvertantly being designed to PPO.

Chuck

I guess I am in this group. When you consider that 95% of the accidents are pilot induced then I would assume that the pilot did something to cause the accident.
Now this pilot had experience in Dom clones and CLT gyros and only 1-2 hours in a RAF. Now if this pilot only had this experience by hisself then he has had no training to fly a RAF so it IS PILOT induced.

In General aviation you wouldn't just go out an jump into another aircraft without transition training would you. Each aircraft flys different. It would be like for example you fly a cessna 182 and you went out and flew a piper tomohawk for one or two hours with out instruction. I would say this is foolish wouldn't you? Then you showed a perspective buyer how it flew. You stall the aircraft on landing. Just an example.

Now Let's look at these four situations.

Severe PIO This is as it appears, Pilot Induced Oscillation. This can lead to a PPO which can happen so fast and make a violent upward swing that the pilot pushes it over but the lag then causes it to tumble.
There are four ways to keep from PIO or PPO ing a RAF. One is training in type. Two is if you are PIOing then reduce power . Two adjust the pitch.
Three is do not try to go too fast. Since all gyros have a Vne you wouldn't want to go too fast. and Four is Power before pitch. This sequence is critical is controling any aircraft especially a HTL machine.
Next is unloading the rotors. This can be accomplished by flying too steep then pushing over the top. CLT pilots do this alot in their aircraft. Don't do it in a HTL.

High Speed. Never ever exceed the Vne. This can increase the chance of a PPO. Plus it makes the little movements of the cyclis very touchy. Just like in a car at high speeds. You think you want to change lanes and you are already there.

Severe Wind Shear I am talking about a strong gust. A strong and sudden updraft or downdraft. These can aggravate oscillations and there fore a power push over. Reduce throttle and adjust pitch if necessary.

Now ChuckE I am not making any excuses as to the thrust line of the RAF. But if you don't have the necessary training in the type of aircraft you are about to fly then don't get in it. If its a RAF keep these measures in mine and fly safe. It is a good idea to get some training if you haven't flown any type of Gyro for over 6-8 weeks. Your reflexes slow a little and your memory fades a little. Flying everyday or at least every weeks keeps you sharp.

Now the most apparent thing I see in this accident is lack of training in a RAF. This is a glaring pilot problem.
As I see it most of the RAF owners/pilot are trying to eliminate the mechanical integrity of the aircraft. This is to make sure they themselves have a solid aircraft. We want to know that our a/c are as safe as they can be.

karlbamforth

12-20-2006, 03:10 AM

Thom,

In UK You can learn to fly in a C150 then hop into a 172, 182, Pa 28 Tomohawk anything you like as long as it doesn't have any major differences like VP prop, Pressurisation or disappearing dunlops.

I am fairly sure it is the same in USA perhaps even less stringent as we need differences training for tailwheel.

GyroRon

12-20-2006, 03:54 AM

Chuck

I guess I am in this group. When you consider that 95% of the accidents are pilot induced then I would assume that the pilot did something to cause the accident.
Now this pilot had experience in Dom clones and CLT gyros and only 1-2 hours in a RAF. Now if this pilot only had this experience by hisself then he has had no training to fly a RAF so it IS PILOT induced.

In General aviation you wouldn't just go out an jump into another aircraft without transition training would you. Each aircraft flys different. It would be like for example you fly a cessna 182 and you went out and flew a piper tomohawk for one or two hours with out instruction. I would say this is foolish wouldn't you? Then you showed a perspective buyer how it flew. You stall the aircraft on landing. Just an example.

Now Let's look at these four situations.

Severe PIO This is as it appears, Pilot Induced Oscillation. This can lead to a PPO which can happen so fast and make a violent upward swing that the pilot pushes it over but the lag then causes it to tumble.
There are four ways to keep from PIO or PPO ing a RAF. One is training in type. Two is if you are PIOing then reduce power . Two adjust the pitch.
Three is do not try to go too fast. Since all gyros have a Vne you wouldn't want to go too fast. and Four is Power before pitch. This sequence is critical is controling any aircraft especially a HTL machine.
Next is unloading the rotors. This can be accomplished by flying too steep then pushing over the top. CLT pilots do this alot in their aircraft. Don't do it in a HTL.

High Speed. Never ever exceed the Vne. This can increase the chance of a PPO. Plus it makes the little movements of the cyclis very touchy. Just like in a car at high speeds. You think you want to change lanes and you are already there.

Severe Wind Shear I am talking about a strong gust. A strong and sudden updraft or downdraft. These can aggravate oscillations and there fore a power push over. Reduce throttle and adjust pitch if necessary.

Now ChuckE I am not making any excuses as to the thrust line of the RAF. But if you don't have the necessary training in the type of aircraft you are about to fly then don't get in it. If its a RAF keep these measures in mine and fly safe. It is a good idea to get some training if you haven't flown any type of Gyro for over 6-8 weeks. Your reflexes slow a little and your memory fades a little. Flying everyday or at least every weeks keeps you sharp.

Now the most apparent thing I see in this accident is lack of training in a RAF. This is a glaring pilot problem.
As I see it most of the RAF owners/pilot are trying to eliminate the mechanical integrity of the aircraft. This is to make sure they themselves have a solid aircraft. We want to know that our a/c are as safe as they can be.

Thom, all good points you have made, but you left out one more way NOT to PPO in a gyro.

You simply get rid of the high thrustline. It is that simple. Do that and one does not need to do all the things you are listing here.

GyroRon

12-20-2006, 04:07 AM

What theory are you babbling about, Ron?!

I haven't voiced an opinion, let alone a theory...yet. I'm just asking questions via the internet, which isn't the best method to gather information. I have asked Alex several questions and have received info on one, so far.

I believe the questions I had in my post #36 are relevant but I expect the answers will not be the info I was after. It's not like talking to the witness face to face and with a model for illustrations.

I'd want to know the cause of the accident...whatever it may be.

Relax Ron. "Just the facts, maam, just the facts."

Cheers :)

Harry, are you sure your still running on a full tank of gas? You apparently aren't, or your not reading all the posts in order here.

This gyro goes down.... All evidence points toward PPO, yet you guys see a picture of a part that appears to be installing incorrectly and want to shift blame to that part.

Alex says part could be fastened incorrectly, but was not at fault, then even goes as far as to show pictures were it may be fastened incorrectly but was secured just the same and clearly not at fault, yet some of you guys still say this could be the cause of the accident.

This is my point, this is what I am "babbling about" as you put it Harold.

Look if it was anything more than a classic bunt over, I want to find out as much as you guys do. But look at the facts... This pilot was a showoff, hotrod pilot, who had no prior experience flying a gyro that was able to buntover. He was not prepared to fly such a machine and almost certainly just made the wrong move and ended up in a PPO. If this accident was just the pilot himself in a older Aircommand or older modified Bensen, there would be no discussion, no speculation, it would be case closed right off the bat as classic PPO and we would move on.

Besides a problem in the control system - which I think could be ruled out at this point - what else could fail that would drive the tail up into the rotors in flight???

C. Beaty

12-20-2006, 07:28 AM

Chuck E’s frustration comes from the idiocy of people attempting to justify tail heavy aircraft.

In his world, only a fool would say flying tail heavy aircraft is OK, whatever the amount of training.

The reason for the frustration of Chuck E’s antagonists is that most can’t comprehend that an RAF is tail heavy, believing the dangle angle adjustment solves the problem.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-20-2006, 07:58 AM

Thanks Chuck, but my frustration goes far deeper than that, it has to do with intregity and a life time of working in the world of commercial aviation.

In my world it is unheard of for instructors and their products to deny known science regarding the laws of flight.

It is unheard of because they would not be allowed in the world of commercial aviation that I am in.

But slowly the message is getting across, my only real dissapointment is that I do not have the education in math and physics that many here have, and I look to you for many answers to things I do not myself have the ability to figure out.....but I do understand enough to choose not to fly something that can kill me.

C.E.

karlbamforth

12-20-2006, 08:17 AM

Hi Chuck,

You will probably like this little story, all of these happened in the last six months and all are commercial pilots.

1, Can you check the ASI for me? Why ? Because it doesn't agree with the GPS.

2, Compass is inaccurate. How do you know? It reads different to the GPS in flight.

3. GPS is faulty. Whats up with it ? It doesn't show heading when parked.

My answer to all three. Turn the damn GPS off you clearly don't understand the information displayed.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-20-2006, 08:26 AM

That is an excellent example of what the problem is with some of the people in this group karlb..

Ignorance of the subject.

Sad really when there are so many retutable flying training institutions to learn the basics properly.

Harry_S.

12-20-2006, 09:58 AM

Witness is 67 y.o. and he has not the best eyes, no glasses. He saw the event from ca. 1500 meter distance. While we interviewed him it came clear that he couldn't clearly see any rotation of the gyro nor the impact itself (this last one wasn't seen due to a field relief) - only a curved trajectory followed by a loud bang. So we decided not to take any "sharp" details into account to stay out of guesstimating.

Just catching up with your post, Alex.

I didn't know the only witness to this accident was almost a mile away from it. I don't know as I could even see a gyro from that distance.

I thought the witness was a lot closer and could supply info for my questions.

I appreciate your indulgence, Alex. Thank you.

Cheers :)

barnstorm2

12-20-2006, 10:38 AM

High Speed. Never ever exceed the Vne. This can increase the chance of a PPO. Plus it makes the little movements of the cyclis very touchy. Just like in a car at high speeds. You think you want to change lanes and you are already there.
.

Humm.. I don't want to take this thread too far off track. I think my question is related.

Since I got the new Sport Rotors on my Twinstarr I have found that I can go faster. Alot faster actually.

So far I chicken out once I get to an indicated airspeed of 95-100mph, but I still seem to have some room left, I know I have more throttle to throw into it.

If I recall correctly the Farrington Twinstarr manual says VNE is like 95 or 100. I will check today when I get home. BUT that number was likely arrived at using RAF blades.

So in short, I don't want to be a 'test pilot'. Are there some tell-tale flight characteristics that show up in advance of VNE that are non-lethal? ( and I don't mean -gps blows away, - passenger blown out, -windscreen departs..)

Ga6riel

12-20-2006, 03:58 PM

Now the most apparent thing I see in this accident is lack of training in a RAF. This is a glaring pilot problem.
As I see it most of the RAF owners/pilot are trying to eliminate the mechanical integrity of the aircraft. This is to make sure they themselves have a solid aircraft. We want to know that our a/c are as safe as they can be.

there isnt anyone here ive seen negate the impact of training
but the real truth to it is in your bottom line
you shouldnt need to be a skillful artisan just to stay alive

you shouldnt...but you do
that is untill, you fit an adequate stabiliser, so it flys like everything else

its fine to discuss how the pilot may have created a PIO
and how this led to PPO
but its BS to suggest therefore its the pilots fault

dragonflyerthom

12-20-2006, 04:20 PM

Rob

If you had 2 hours in any type aircraft would you give a demonstration to someone as to how it flies?? You would be just about as competent as his was. Because at two hours of instruction you would have taken off three or four times and landed maybe two or three. Who's fault was it then since he clearly knew that the RAF is HTL. Unless he lives in a bubble he has heard the stories. Haven't you hear of the RAF and its HTL? Once again who's fault then? Alex had told him that he was on his way. Who's fault then? That's like KNOWING there is a snake in the yard and then being surprised you got bit since you walked in the yard.

Ga6riel

12-20-2006, 04:35 PM

let me say it this way

if i choose NOT to wear a seat belt in a car
and then therefore drive extra carefull like
then thats ok right ?

and IF i have an accident that kills me
that would be my own dam fault

now thats BS isnt it

what chuck says a few posts back is also true, and relates well with this discussion
any dynamic body that is tail heavy or has a rearward CG will, whenever it can attempt on its own to assume the most dynamicly stable position. and that is with the CG leading.

GyroRon

12-20-2006, 05:00 PM

Thom, I do not believe this pilot may have known of the HTL dangers of flying this gyro. I doubt there is many people here from Russia, and I doubt there is a russian gyro forum, or gyro magazine to teach people these things.

Just like gyroplanes here in the USA 10-20 years ago, I bet that in other parts of the world, they simply don't know enough about them to know that one design is more dangerous, or needs to be flown differently than another.

Brent Drake

12-20-2006, 05:07 PM

The deal on the seat belts is not as it seems. Its for others not you. For instance let's say a person bends over in there car to change a cd in the radio crosses the center line. Hits you head on. In a parking lot doing 20 mph. Normally the impact of the crash with a seat belt on would give you a bruise on your stomach. But since you was not wearing your seat belt, it threw you into the dash and put your left eye out. Now instead of fixing the car, and repairing your ego. Now you have a serious medical problem. And because you were not wearing your belt. Instead of a small medical bill. The person has to pay thousands of dollars because you would not wear your belt and you have only one eye because of not wearing it.
the law should read that if your not wearing your seat belt and your in a crash. Then you are responsible for your own hospital bills. Not the other driver. Even if it was there fault. They should not be penalized because of your lack of safety.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-20-2006, 05:12 PM

" Haven't you hear of the RAF and its HTL? Once again who's fault then? Alex had told him that he was on his way. Who's fault then? That's like KNOWING there is a snake in the yard and then being surprised you got bit since you walked in the yard. "

Now if I had referred to an RAF as a snake in the yard I would be accused of bashing. :rant:

Another thought just occured to me Thom, why not suggest to RAF to describe their machine like that, they love to advertise don't they? :lol:

dragonflyerthom

12-20-2006, 05:38 PM

I have heard that common sense isn't common anymore. I'm beginning to believe it. Why would anyone think that all gyros are alike. Each gyro is different. You need to have instruction and training in order to transition into any aircraft. If you have a ppl and an aircraft isn't on your ticket then you need to transition into it. Gyros are the same as aircraft. There are open frame, open with pods, open fuse, and cabin type. These gyros can be HTL, NCLT, CLT, and LTL. Each gyro flies different, each has an envelope. Now you guys can sit around and act like you know this but then you come on here and act like this is something new. Snipe if you like but at least put up a better wise crack. So now bash me if you like, I really don't give a rats a$$.

Ron The people in Russia are a lot more informed that you think.

Ga6riel

12-20-2006, 05:43 PM

well are all cars alike Thom ?

lets say the car didnt have seat belts, and i crash
is it still my fault, i mean, i was driving extra carefull like...right ?

Do you see how fragile that arguement is? The facts are the car would be defective, untill a seat belt was fitted.

I am not required to be extra carefull, because there is no such thing. Yes here are times when the situation would have my fullest attention, but that should NOT be the MO of driving the car. This because my full attention for extended periods just isnt possible, and wouldnt save me anyway in situations where i plain straight out was not the cause.

dragonflyerthom

12-20-2006, 05:49 PM

Rob would you jump into a car by youself with little or no training?? Pilots do it all the time. There are thousands of NTSB reports where it has been done, crashed and sometimes killed. I guess you don't knowabout the john wayne personallity of a lot of the pilots here in North America.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07005&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20680&key=1

Just two accidents in the last 6 years

brett s

12-20-2006, 05:59 PM

I would certainly jump into a different type of car with no training if I already knew how to drive - and no, I didn't get any special type-specific training for any of the light piston helicopters I've flown either.

GyroRon

12-20-2006, 06:12 PM

Thom, I thought you were already a fixed wing pilot...?

I have a private pilot certificate and It doesn't say anywhere on it that I am restricted to any specific brand or make or model airplane. My understanding is that certificate allows me to basically hop in and fly any single engine airplane up to a certain weight. So I could learn to fly in a Piper, but go out and buy a Cessna, and maybe a year later trade in for a Beech, and so on and so forth.

Yeah, most rental places want to check out a pilot in make and model before throwing them the keys, but it is not required.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-20-2006, 06:13 PM

Lets see if I can remember any certified aircraft either fixed or rotary wing that exhibited pitch instability that could rapidly progress into total loss of control............

..............no can't remember any and I have flown so many types I can't remember them all without taking days to recall some of them.

When the gyro community moves towards flying only known stable gyros a lot of these deaths will end.

dragonflyerthom

12-20-2006, 06:31 PM

Well I can say that I have been checked out in a 152, 172, and 152 aerobat cessna.
Chuck you and I know that there are many certified A/C that are unstable. Just think a little.

Goodnite all. Got to go fly my RAF in the AM.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-20-2006, 06:46 PM

" Chuck you and I know that there are many certified A/C that are unstable. Just think a little. "

Thom, please read my post again, if any aircraft exibited the instability of an RAF they would not be certified.

I repeat, I have never flown a certified aircraft either fixed or rotary wing that exhibited pitch instability that could rapidly progress to total loss of control.

Steve Osborne

12-20-2006, 09:44 PM

Heron

12-21-2006, 02:42 AM

kc0iv

12-21-2006, 06:05 AM

You can drive any car to perfection but if you jump in to a race car, you probabily will not complete the first lap. Unless you stay way inside the envelope.
I remember the First Formula one in Brazil, when a experimented stock driver rented a F1 for some training. He crashed leaving the pits, the power was too much for him, went all the way across the track on the guard rail.
It seems this discussion will never end because the party that is in the wrong path can not and will not conced to the arguments.
Training on HTL no stab machines requires extra information and care!
That is what is not happening.
thanks
Heron

On the other side of the coin Heron a couple of years ago Jeff Gordon got in a Formula 1 and was turning in lap times (using a road course) equal to what most of the Formula 1 drivers were doing.

To me common sense would tell me flying any unstable aircraft, be F/W or gyro, requires additional training. Logic tell me to start with the most stable aircraft possible for learning to fly then when you have mastered that then move up to a aircraft that requires a higher degree of flying ability. Some pilots may never advance to a level so they can fly an unstable aircraft. Many people can do a fine job of flying a F/W aircraft but may never be able to fly a gyro or a high performance aircraft. Not everybody can fly a jet.

Now it comes down to determining what is the best aircraft to learn to fly.

Leon
kc0iv

Doug Riley

12-21-2006, 06:20 AM

Leon, Heron:

Certainly one ought to begin his flying career in an easy-to-fly, stable trainer. A Cessna 152 or Cub does not fly like a Pitts... fortunately. This is common sense.

There is a flaw in the analogy with race cars, however. A stable gyroplane is not any lower in performance than an unstable one. The severely HTL gyros were not designed with HTL because some clever engineer consciously chose performance over stability. Instead, they were designed by non-engineers who simply didn't know any better. The HTL is a mistake left over from the 1980's, based on the incomplete knowledge about stability that prevailed at that time.

Ernie Boyette, Chuck Beaty and the rest of us were all building HTL gyros in those days. No one should be embarrassed to learn more and to act on the new information.

Some "designers" and old-time gyro pilots just won't do it, however.

Chuck_Ellsworth

12-21-2006, 07:57 AM

Steve O. , you and I are just to far apart in this subject about instability and safety.

My comment on pitch instability was aimed at the propensity of an RAF 2000 to increase its pitch oscillations once started unless corrective action with the cyclic is used to dampen said pitch oscillations.

I did not see any reference to this pitch instability in the R22 accident data you posted.

Maybe it would be best for you and I to have the same agreement that Harry and I have?

All this back and forth arguing over irrevelant accidents does is annoy everyone else and neither you or I come any closer to agreement on why so many people die in HTL gyros.

Chuck E.

PTKay

12-21-2006, 08:02 AM

Steve, stop pushing again and again with your
foolish comparisons of helicopter crash rates and RAF.

We all know, that helicopter are NOT stable flying machines.
But this is a trade-off, if you want a machine that takes of
vertically and can hover, you buy it with platform instable by design.

There is probably NO helicopter (without autopilot), you can fly hands-off.

So, of course, in helicopters there is a need for extensive training,
and the crash rates are much higher than in FW aircraft.

But there is NO trade-off by the RAF 2000 gyro.
Making RAF a HTL unstable gives you NO increase in performance
or comfort. In opposite, it makes flying it not only more difficult,
but also more tiring and "bumpy".

So, again, stop making such comparisons, because there
is no reason for flying an ustable machine, when
a stable platform is available...

The same like:
"There is no reason to fly into a thunderstorm in the peacetime."

Just my $0.02

Heron

12-21-2006, 08:25 AM

Leon said it: a couple of years ago! what happened in between two examples?
Design happened! Got it?
Emerson "Emmo" Fittipaldy has two situations in his carreer that tells us what to do.
Fisrt time he gets in to a F1, with Jochen Rindtd at his corner, comes back to pit and claims the car is loose in the front . . .
Jochen says: Yeah, it is lacking pressure . . . on the gas pedal!
Emmo goes out again and breakes the track record. Jochen died soon after and Emmo made him World Champion by winning all the remaining races.
IN the US, Emerson´s first try for Indy scared the hell out of him and he never tried again, untill coming to MIami for the race that is now the Toyota Gran Prix, he tried again (few years have passed) and went on to be twice champion of Indy League and Indy 500.
What changed his opinions?
Design did . . .
You can take the fangs out of a poisonous snake but if it strikes you it still can poison you. You have to get rid of the glands.
Or so I think
Heron

Harry_S.

12-21-2006, 12:48 PM

Maybe it would be best for you and I to have the same agreement that Harry and I have?

:confused: Pray tell me when I made an agreement with you???

I'm involved in an intellectual break from this "IDIOCY", as it was referenced by one of the forums' intellectuals.

Never fear...Harry's here.;) :peace:

Cheers :)

ben

12-22-2006, 01:31 AM

train in a 152

jump in a extra an fly cool

dragonflyerthom

12-22-2006, 03:03 AM

:focus: :focus:

This thread has gone thru several metamorphesises and we have lost the reason for the thread to begin with.
It is tragic when one of our own is lost. It doesn't mean that the lose doesn't effect us all. What it means to me is there is another pilot that I haven't had the chance to meet. Every time we fly we all know that it might be the last time we are able to fly. There ARE thousands of ways to meet out maker and flying is just one I enjoy the most. So the holiday:drum: s are upon us and I would like to wish everyone a very safe and HAPPY HOLIDAYS. I will see everyone on the forum,

Hognose

12-22-2006, 04:40 AM

F/W Endorsements/Training
In UK You can learn to fly in a C150 then hop into ...anything you like as long as it doesn't have any major differences ... I am fairly sure it is the same in USA perhaps even less stringent as we need differences training for tailwheel.

Karl, in the USA you need ground and flight training, and explicit instructor signoff in your logbook, to fly tailwheel or complex aircraft (complex=constant speed prop, retractable gear, flaps) or high-performance aircraft (a term of art for >200 HP). In addition, you need an endorsement to fly high-altitude aircraft.

You also have explicit tailwheel currency requirements (i.e., your 3 takeoffs and landings have to have been done to a full stop in a tailwheel plane if you want to be current to carry pax in tailwheel planes).

Those are just the regs. What drives much more recurrent training is insurance, which is stricter. A local Bonanza buyer was told he needed to get 25 hours dual with an instructor who has 200 hours in Bonanzas! (He did). He also has to do five hours dual annually for recurrency.

The insurance guys require this stuff because they have reams of statistics on stupid pilot tricks, and they don't like losing buckets of money.

In-Flight Breakup vs. Impact

Harry asks good and reasonable questions about this. Harry, I recommend you read a good accident investigation book (available from bigger pilot shops) or military AI manual (available online... I know I've posted links before).

It's generally not hard to tell when structure separated from an aircraft inflight versus on impact. For instance, a rotor strike on a gyroplane rudder and fin usually cuts it off pretty clean. There will be paint transfer on the blades (and, if the blades are painted, on the parts of the fin). And the rudder and cut-off fin bit will be some distance (which depends, as you noted, on altitude) from the main impact crater.

We've all seen too many crashed gyroplanes, and one thing that usually doesn't happen is continued rotation of the rotor after impact. The rotor generally stops hard in a partial revolution, if it were turning at all on impact. If the rotor strikes primary aircraft structure on impact with terrain, the signature is different from what it looks like if it struck the airframe inflight. And, if impact causes separation of tail structure, the parts (1) normally come to rest close alongside the main wreckage, and (2) show signs of overstress failure, a violent wrenching apart, rather than being hacked off by the blunt instrument of a rotorblade.

Some things can be surmised, and speculated about, but not determined with any finality. An example of this is, "why did this pilot let his craft lose RRPM?" Unless psychic John Edward is for real (and he ain't), we can't interview the pilot. But we can "interview" the machine and there are things that we can determine with high probability, including (in most cases) the break-up sequence of the machine and whether it shed its tailfeathers before the crash or afterward.

cheers

-=K=-

Hognose

12-22-2006, 05:33 AM

What it means to me is there is another pilot that I haven't had the chance to meet. Every time we fly we all know that it might be the last time we are able to fly.

Amen, brother.

Like they say, only two things can happen to you: one day you walk out to the plane knowing it's the last time you'll be taking off, or one day you walk out to the plane not knowing it's the last time.

It is painful to me to see lives lost, whether they are good friends, people I know casually (like Tom Monard), or people I did not know at all, but wish I did (like Michel). Rest in peace, brothers.

Still there is no feeling on earth like the hope and light that floods down from the heavens when you sit on the numbers, looking out on a runway that is yours for the moment, and forward to an adventure that most people never know. We have all known that; may we share that for many years to come.

cheers

-=K=-