PDA

View Full Version : RAF centerline thrust conversion question


Pages : [1] 2

gyrodeputy
12-14-2007, 09:55 AM
I know that there are tons of thoughts and opinions about needing to convert or not convert the RAF2000 to a CLT machine and also to use or not use the Sparrowhawk conversion.

I would like some honest and open input as to the pros and cons on this issue.

I am looking a buying a used RAF to purchase and want it to be safe.

As I have previously stated I'm new to the gyro field, but want a 2 place enclosed machine.

Thanks for the input in advance

Heath Lowry
N-1078 coming soon!

John Stahl
12-14-2007, 10:29 AM
Till last august when I went to Mentone I wouldn’t even look at a RAF. But now they look like a very good option.
If I can find a steal on a RAF I would buy it in a hart beat.

The conversions that I would do to a stock RAF are.

!. A drop keel and flipping the gear reduction over. This will not move the CG but will move the thrust line considerably.

2, I have become converted to the crucifix tail. I would do a sparrow hawk mod.

Doug Riley
12-14-2007, 12:08 PM
Heath, the mods other than the Sparrowhawk conversion do not result in CLT. So it's not an either-or proposition, if you want to employ an existing mod. It's Sparrowhawk or invent your own (not recommended for newbies!).

The non-Sparrowhawk mods have as their goal pitch stability apporaching or equalling CLT. They have not been tested methodically to see if they succeed (or at least the results of such tests haven't been published). Paul Bruty of Australia reported that a RAF with his drop-keel setup was not fully pitch-stable.

RAF-2000's with ONLY a HS and no other mods have been involved in fatal crashes that likely resulted from pitch stability problems. HS-only conversions of other HTL designs have also had fatal crashes resulting from pitch instability.

automan1223
12-14-2007, 12:13 PM
The AAI mod from Groen Bros way to go.

Flies great !

Jonathan

Steve Osborne
12-14-2007, 01:29 PM
My RAF is up to 807 hrs now, 500 or so were with out an H-stab or Stabilator, the rest were with the Larry Martin / now Larry Boyer Stab. I have flown the SH and the RAF with the dropped keel mod. I personally do not feel the RAF needs any of those mods, but they will help reduce pilot work load in windy conditions, thus making it easier to fly. My suggestion is to take a ride in them all, on a windy day if possible and decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQoDR9zYB8

Harry_S.
12-14-2007, 02:17 PM
Good post Steve.

I flew my stock RAF for 90 hrs. and then added a KJ stabilizer and have put an additional 400+ hrs. on the machine.

Proper training and what I like to call "regimented practice" to gain experience will provide the owner with a nice flying machine.


Cheers :)

GyroRon
12-14-2007, 05:04 PM
I will agree with this line Steve said.... My suggestion is to take a ride in them all, on a windy day if possible and decide for yourself.

John Stahl
12-14-2007, 06:47 PM
Good one Ron

Gyropilot007
12-14-2007, 07:31 PM
Ok guys, I have to put my two cents in on the one.

I have an RAF. I took my flight training with Duane Hunn. Duane's RAF does not have a stabilizer but does have a stabiliator. I never experienced any "bad" behavour in this machine. When I soloed in my RAF I had the same configuration, slabilator but no stabilizer. After about 30 hours solo I put on a Larry Martin ultimate stab. This GREATLY reduced the pilot workload.

After another 20 hours I decided that I needed to change the engine form a Subaru 2.2 to the 2.5 with the delta cam grind. When I changed the engine I decided to do the drop keel mod and lower the engine six inches. The result is an extremely docile and forgiving machine.

I have performed Greg Gremminger's stability tests with great success. I will be making some changes to my gyro over the winter and then I will do all of the tests again. This time I will document them and post the results on the this forum. Anyway, here is a summary of my experience

RAF with Stabilator Only
No problems or bad characteristics in a wide variety of wind conditions.

RAF with Stabilitor and Stabilizer
Greatly reduced workload but tended to "float" a bit on landing.

RAF with Stabilator, Stabilizer and drop Keel
To be perfectly honest, I did not see a big change in flight chaacteristics by adding the dropped keel. I did run through Greg's stability tests very successfully.

Best regards to all,

Bob McGuire

barnstorm2
12-15-2007, 07:42 AM
I personally do not feel the RAF needs any of those mods, but they will help reduce pilot work load in windy conditions, thus making it easier to fly.

..... I never experienced any "bad" behavour in this machine. .........After about 30 hours solo I put on a Larry Martin ultimate stab. This GREATLY reduced the pilot workload.

......I decided to do the drop keel mod and lower the engine six inches. The result is an extremely docile and forgiving machine.

RAF with Stabilator Only
No problems or bad characteristics in a wide variety of wind conditions.

RAF with Stabilitor and Stabilizer
Greatly reduced workload but tended to "float" a bit on landing.



Please forgive my naievte.

I have ridden in a couple of RAFs but all have had HStabs.

The only experience I have to go on is in other pitch-unstable craft.


I don't understand how you can say things like "do not feel the RAF needs any of those mods" and "No problems or bad characteristics" and then in the same sentence admit that adding a stab "Greatly reduces workload".

The added workload gives you NO BENIFIT that I know of and certainly increases the chances of going into PIO when disoriented, distracted or in any human failure moment.

Doesn't "Greatly reducing workload" mean you have a much more stable, better performing machine that is now significantly improved and now has a larger safe flying envelope??

Please help me to understand why all of this extra workload is not considered a problem or a bad characteristic??

.

barnstorm2
12-15-2007, 07:57 AM
RAF with Stabilitor and Stabilizer
Greatly reduced workload but tended to "float" a bit on landing.


Doug, Chuck, Udi or anyone willing to explain this to me....

Could the extra "float" on landing be due to the fact the pilot is not moving the cyclic around as much now that he does not have to do the job of the HStab?

When you move a gyroscopic top it will still spin and hold the new position but it looses some energy when you keep moving it back and forth.

In other words the top will spin longer if you don't mess with it.

Could this be the same here?

Could the pilot of the unstable gyroplane be making additional adjustments to pitch using the rotors and therefore decaying the energy in the rotorsystem?

Then when all else is equal and now there is a stabilizing effect from the HStab and the pilot is NOT using the rotorsystem to provide pitch stability you get more "float" because you do not bleed off as much rotor energy?

Thanks for helping me scratch this itch in my brain...:p

.

C. Beaty
12-15-2007, 08:21 AM
I don’t know whether “float” while landing is perception or fact. A horizontal stabilizer has essentially no effect on rate of descent, but during the landing flare, less manipulation of the stick is required, extracting less energy from the rotor.

You may have noticed, Tim, following landing, stirring the stick around causes the rotor to slow down more quickly than would otherwise be the case if left alone.

Changing the disc angle sucks considerable energy from the rotor.

Then again, the reduction of overshoot with horizontal stabilizer may produce the illusion of “float.”

barnstorm2
12-15-2007, 08:23 AM
Thank you Chuck!

Yes, I have noticed the significant drop in rotor enercy when I stir the stick.

That's what got me thinking about the 'float'.

.

reelmule
12-15-2007, 09:52 AM
Heath, You mentioned that you are new to gyros--are you also new to general aviation? If so I would consider your quest to start with the RAF akin to a new fixed wing pilot starting out with a Pitts Special. Doable but very dangerous. If you have a solid general aviation background, especially in conventional gear ( tail draggers for those from Loma Linda) and take sufficient dual instruction (like 50+hrs) your RAF will be generally "safe" with or without drop keel, stabilator, HS etc. I believe the flight envelope on these big heavy machines is a lot more critical than on the single place open frame machines which I am told are generally more easily mastered. (no personal experience) I to started as a gyro noewbie (and still am-(190 and counting) in the RAF! I have the stabilator and an Alan Loughery HS with winglets. Loies easily hands off with electric trim and a bit of rudder. There are advanages to not being jacked up so high off the ground. I fly out of a busy tower controlled AP (KDVT) where I prerotate on the intersection taxiway and when cleared for TO can make a moving acelerating turn onto the active runway with no more delay that a fw. The taller machines generally taxi into positon before prerotating which is fine at uncontrolled APs but would not make you popular at the busy AP's. Gjood luck and fly safe.
Walt

C. Beaty
12-17-2007, 07:38 AM
Walt G.,

Even with a horizontal stabilizer and dropped keel, an RAF will still be tail heavy so a comparison with a Pitts Special is deceptive. By tail heavy, I mean that the CG trails the rotor thrust vector while airborne.

A Pitts Special is short coupled and has gobs of control power, so does things in a hurry but is completely stable with a huge amount of damping and properly located CG. It responds to pilot input with minimal lag and overshoot. A skilled pilot can recover from any conceivable attitude.

A more apt RAF/FW comparison would be to a Cessna 150 loaded well beyond its aft CG limit.

ncsgyro
12-17-2007, 08:15 AM
Chuck,

Is there a feasible way for us to correct the "CG trails the rotor thrust vector while airborne" condition on an RAF throught a modification?

Thanks in advance for your input

C. Beaty
12-17-2007, 08:35 AM
Sure, NCS, but I doubt if it can be done without a redrive flip such as an AAI conversion.

Some Ozzies have what I consider a more attractive conversion using a Neil Hinz gearbox:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13102

Their conversion also uses a tall tail that eliminates the throttle/yaw coupling and the possibility of a torqueover splat.

Harry_S.
12-17-2007, 11:32 AM
A more apt RAF/FW comparison would be to a Cessna 150 loaded well beyond its aft CG limit.



With due respect, Chuck, the above quote is absurd.

Why doncha' give the RAF pilots a break, or spell that "brake", and stop with your comparisons with FWs, as to how the RAF flies?! You don't actively know how it performs, do you?

If you would log some RAF PIC time, preferably 100 hrs. or more, even I would then seriously consider your comparisons, or even your evaluations as to how the RAF performs...stock and modified configurations, if you will.


Cheers :)

C. Beaty
12-17-2007, 11:59 AM
Harry, I’ve never owned a Chevette, a Yugo, a Pinto or an Edsel; however, I’m able to understand why each made Time’s 50 worst automobiles list.

But there are fan clubs where the owners still sing their praises and write testimonials.

I imagine that if you owned a Yugo, you would be crowing about what a great little car it is and writing testimonials.

Most people have difficulty acknowledging something they own has a flaw.

Harry_S.
12-17-2007, 02:08 PM
Chuck...you're hedging.

I don't conciously write testimonials on inanimate objects...at least I don't think I do.


Cheers :)

Steve McGowan
12-17-2007, 03:29 PM
I know that there are tons of thoughts and opinions about needing to convert or not convert the RAF2000 to a CLT machine and also to use or not use the Sparrowhawk conversion.

I would like some honest and open input as to the pros and cons on this issue.

I am looking a buying a used RAF to purchase and want it to be safe.

As I have previously stated I'm new to the gyro field, but want a 2 place enclosed machine.

Thanks for the input in advance

Heath Lowry
N-1078 coming soon!

Bo Collins here at Macon has modified an RAF to a CLT.. There is a few differences.

It's VERY WELL balanced,, a Great Lookin Gyro.. Fly's GREAT

I LIKE IT.....:first:

scottessex
12-17-2007, 03:38 PM
I like Bo's landing gear, tail looks easy to make too.

I have seen this gyro and it really is done well.

Timchick
12-17-2007, 03:41 PM
Looks like Bo used a custom landing gear. Did he do his mod with an AAI kit and modify it or just come up with his own mod entirely?

C. Beaty
12-17-2007, 04:01 PM
Harry, I’ve flown a good many hours in a gyro that had propeller thrust line/CG offsets approaching that of an RAF with both a Bensen style gimbal rotorhead and a helicopter type cyclic setup.

It wasn’t too difficult to fly with the Bensen rotorhead, masking the inherent instability and producing the illusion of stability.

With the helicopter type cyclic rotorhead, staying right side up was a full time job.

Stable gyros fly just fine with helicopter cyclic setup, as I know from hands-on experience.

I don’t need stick time in an RAF to be able to understand the danger.

I also understand your feelings about the subject. If I told your dog was ugly, stupid and flea-bitten, even if the gospel truth, you most likely would be upset.

But there is a difference. People who understand nothing about the mechanics of flight see your claims that there is nothing wrong with an RAF that can’t be remedied with training and experience; that almost all fatal accidents were pilot stupidity, might be persuaded to buy one and bore their own smoking hole.

Wouldn’t your conscience bother you just a little if some not very bright person bought an RAF based on your recommendation and then went out and splattered himself?

You’d be surprised how many people read this forum without ever logging in or even registering.

dragonflyerthom
12-17-2007, 05:41 PM
Quote C. Beaty/

Wouldn’t your conscience bother you just a little if some not very bright person bought an RAF based on your recommendation and then went out and splattered himself?Quote.///

CB

This is the problem with out sport. It doesn't matter what type of gyro it is, there is always someone who thinks they know better than anyone else. We have a very nice pilot doing it and posting it right now.

Most all have said training is the way to go but some will not listen to the voice of reason. They WILL go out to buy a gyro they think is stable then try to teach themselves how to fly. The brand doesn't matter because they know better than you or me or Harry or who ever tries to correct what they are going to do.

This very mindset is what causes problems in our sport. The it won't happen to me mentality.

gyrodeputy
12-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Quote C. Beaty/

Wouldn’t your conscience bother you just a little if some not very bright person bought an RAF based on your recommendation and then went out and splattered himself?Quote.///

CB

This is the problem with out sport. It doesn't matter what type of gyro it is, there is always someone who thinks they know better than anyone else. We have a very nice pilot doing it and posting it right now.

Most all have said training is the way to go but some will not listen to the voice of reason. They WILL go out to buy a gyro they think is stable then try to teach themselves how to fly. The brand doesn't matter because they know better than you or me or Harry or who ever tries to correct what they are going to do.

This very mindset is what causes problems in our sport. The it won't happen to me mentality.

Gentlemen,

I have been reading and taking in all of the comments. I appreciate the input that each of you have provided.

I really want to get back to my real question. Is it necessary to modify the RAF and if so why or why not.

That is not to attack or belittle each other.:mad: Please state your opinions, but dang nabbit, be nice. Each poster on this site had great ideas. I will equate it to politics or sales. When you belittle somebody that disagrees with your position rather than explaining why yours is better, nobody benifits.

The wealth of knowledge shared on this site has no limits. Lets share and debate and all learn and be safe!:yo:

Thanks again for sharing and letting me share.

Heath
N1078
Coming soon!

C. Beaty
12-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Thom, since you started using Heron as your speech coach, I don’t understand a word you say.

gyrodeputy
12-17-2007, 06:12 PM
Heath, You mentioned that you are new to gyros--are you also new to general aviation? If so I would consider your quest to start with the RAF akin to a new fixed wing pilot starting out with a Pitts Special. Doable but very dangerous. If you have a solid general aviation background, especially in conventional gear ( tail draggers for those from Loma Linda) and take sufficient dual instruction (like 50+hrs) your RAF will be generally "safe" with or without drop keel, stabilator, HS etc. I believe the flight envelope on these big heavy machines is a lot more critical than on the single place open frame machines which I am told are generally more easily mastered. (no personal experience) I to started as a gyro noewbie (and still am-(190 and counting) in the RAF! I have the stabilator and an Alan Loughery HS with winglets. Loies easily hands off with electric trim and a bit of rudder. There are advanages to not being jacked up so high off the ground. I fly out of a busy tower controlled AP (KDVT) where I prerotate on the intersection taxiway and when cleared for TO can make a moving acelerating turn onto the active runway with no more delay that a fw. The taller machines generally taxi into positon before prerotating which is fine at uncontrolled APs but would not make you popular at the busy AP's. Gjood luck and fly safe.
Walt

I am new to gyros with 5 hours of dual. I have about 50 hours of fixed wing.

I am just excited to get my training finish then to move on to be a CFI so that I can share the excitement of gyro flight with others.

I also work in law enforcement:usa: :usa2: and am hoping to get a gyro flying in America in the public safety field.

Merry Christmas to all.

Heath
N1078
Coming Soon:)

scottessex
12-18-2007, 02:01 AM
Looks like Bo used a custom landing gear. Did he do his mod with an AAI kit and modify it or just come up with his own mod entirely?

Tim, the landing gear and tail assy are built like the Maxie Wildes "mad Max"
very similar to Danny's "Beast" gyro.

Gyropilot007
12-18-2007, 03:07 AM
Heath:

I fly a modified RAF. I'd be happy to talk with you about my experiences. Send me a PM if you're interested.

Bob

reelmule
12-18-2007, 05:31 AM
Walt G.,

Even with a horizontal stabilizer and dropped keel, an RAF will still be tail heavy so a comparison with a Pitts Special is deceptive. By tail heavy, I mean that the CG trails the rotor thrust vector while airborne.

A Pitts Special is short coupled and has gobs of control power, so does things in a hurry but is completely stable with a huge amount of damping and properly located CG. It responds to pilot input with minimal lag and overshoot. A skilled pilot can recover from any conceivable attitude.

A more apt RAF/FW comparison would be to a Cessna 150 loaded well beyond its aft CG limit.

Chuck B. You hit the nail on the head when you said a "skilled" pilot can recover a Pitts from any attitude. As you are aware, the Pitts is very light on the controls which implies stability approaching neutral which makes for a very responsive highly manuverable aircraft. This is a skill set not generally possessed by the newly minted PP. I disagree with your analogy of the RAF to an out of CG aft loaded C-150 since it would be impossible to fly the C-150 hands off for any significant length of time--it would require constant pilot attention. The RAF, OTOH, when properly trimmed will fly hands off indefinitely, even in moderate turbulance. How can this be??
My Pitts analogy was meant to compare the fact that both the Pitts and the RAF are very light on the controls and therefore suceptable to over controlling-again more likely with the low time, new pilot. As we both know, there is no recovery from inverted, flight with unloaded rotor in any gyro, no matter how much altitude is available for recovery. The R-22 is also very responsive to cyclic imput but with the recent changes in the training regeime the safty record appears to be alot better.
If a newbie wants a big heavy 2 place machine I would looke at the Golden Monarch. Lands like a feather and cyclic has similarities to driviing a log truck--heavy on the controls and not likely to get into serious trouble from ham fisted pilot.
Walt G.

Harry_S.
12-18-2007, 06:31 AM
Chuck,

I stand by my oft repeated...proper training coupled with "REGIMENTED PRACTICE" till one gains experience; will result in a safe and sound RAF Pilot...as evidenced by the hundreds of RAF pilots around the world.

It's the individual's responsibility to stay the course and join the others that have been successful.


Cheers :)

C. Beaty
12-18-2007, 07:00 AM
Walt, the “hands off” ability is due entirely to the offset of the Bensen style rotorhead; I say Bensen but it was originally developed by Cierva although some Autogiro manufacturers defeated its stabilizing effect by employing an irreversible (worm gear) linkage between stick and rotorhead.

It has nothing to do with the intrinsic stability of the total machine; a riding lawnmower will fly hands off if equipped with an offset gimbal rotorhead. The front cover of Bensen manuals had a photo of Bensen flying hands off with the caption; “so stable it flies hands off.”

Bensen’s original rotorhead, referred to as the “spindle head,” could not be flown hands off even though the gyros were otherwise identical. The spindle head used a spherical roller bearing with a spindle running through on which was mounted the rotor and roll/pitch control was accomplished by tilting the spindle. Offset was in a destabilizing direction.

Greg Gremminger’s stability test as originally written didn’t account for the stabilizing effect of the gimbal head and had to be rewritten to incorporate a stick locking procedure. Otherwise, any gyro, stable or not, would pass.

It’s probably not germane to compare a gyro to a FW but if one must, it is more appropriate to compare a tail heavy gyro to a tail heavy FW. By tail heavy, I mean that the CG trails the rotor thrust vector.

With 500-600 ft-lb of torque from the offset of the propeller thrust line, an RAF can be nothing but tail heavy and the rotor thrust vector must pass well forward of the CG to keep it from behaving like a rotary lawn sprinkler. Works just fine until a gust or pilot input diminishes rotor thrust; then things can get out of hand in a hurry because of the self-sustaining nature of that configuration.

In the attachment, the no feedback head is a modification I made of the Bensen spindle head to explore the effects of rotor thrust feedback.

C. Beaty
12-18-2007, 07:12 AM
Chuck,

I stand by my oft repeated...proper training coupled with "REGIMENTED PRACTICE" till one gains experience; will result in a safe and sound RAF Pilot...as evidenced by the hundreds of RAF pilots around the world.

It's the individual's responsibility to stay the course and join the others that have been successful.


Cheers :)Sure, Harry. With enough training and practice, perhaps you and I could do a handstand on top of a flagpole. But why would we when there are alternatives just as entertaining?

Doug Riley
12-18-2007, 07:53 AM
I am not convinced that, even with training and practice, a gyro having a significant net nose-down airframe moment (compensated for by rotor thrust ahead of CG) is reliably safe.

To fly such a gyro as safely as possible, the pilot must master some special techniques. Among them are a very light, "floating" grip on the controls -- you defeat the offset gimbal head if you hold the stick firmly. Also among them is the abrupt power-down to reduce PPO moment during a sudden low G.

As detailed under the "Brain Teaser" thread, my personal experience with the use of an offset gimbal head to tame a HTL/no HS craft is this: it works fine UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE. Beyond that level, the head can't compensate anymore and the aircraft departs from trimmed flight.

Chopping power involves reaction times -- the time it takes the pilot to detect the problem, decide what to do and physically do it, plus the time it takes the aircraft to react. During these time intervals, a PPO begins to develop if the aircraft has entered low G flight. The frame begins to rotate nose-down, acquiring angular momentum and further reducing rotor AOA and thrust.

I believe that there is a velocity and suddenness of downdraft that will exceed the ability of even a trained pilot to stop the developing PPO, especially at climb power. What's more, there are times (such as when trying to climb over an obstacle) when chopping the throttle is simply not an option. God help you if a really sharp and powerful downdraft smacks you just then.

A pitch stable craft such as a Dominator pitches UP into a downdraft instead of nosing over. No throttle-chopping, stick floating, or indeed any other technique at all, is necessary in order to fly one in rough air.

bpearson
12-18-2007, 08:00 AM
So how would a Dominator fly with a spindle head ?

barnstorm2
12-18-2007, 08:20 AM
Bensen’s original rotorhead, referred to as the “spindle head,” could not be flown hands off even though the gyros were otherwise identical. The spindle head used a spherical roller bearing with a spindle running through on which was mounted the rotor and roll/pitch control was accomplished by tilting the spindle. Offset was in a destabilizing direction..

I would like to make a wiki entry about the spindle head.

Could someone please post a photo of this or a drawing or both.

Thanks!!!

C. Beaty
12-18-2007, 08:32 AM
So how would a Dominator fly with a spindle head ?
Brian, nothing will fly very well with Bensen’s original spindle head. The feedback is in the wrong direction; an upward gust tending to tip the rotor noseup and to magnify the disturbance.

A Dominator ought to fly just fine with a zero feedback rotor system.

My old Bensen flew very well with a helicopter type full feathering cyclic control system. But it was CLT or likely, a bit LTL with the heavy rotor system that was used.

C. Beaty
12-18-2007, 08:38 AM
I would like to make a wiki entry about the spindle head.

Could someone please post a photo of this or a drawing or both.

Thanks!!!Tim, I have the Bensen drawings for the spindle head that I can scan and E-mail to you.

Or better still, I have a complete set of Gyrocopter plans that I could US mail to you if you can scan C or D size drawings.

Doug Riley
12-18-2007, 08:41 AM
The spindle head has very light control pressures.

I enjoyed my Bensen spindle head. I found the gimbal annoyingly heavy-feeling when I first switched to it. Just a matter of getting accustomed to a more "airplaney" feel, though.

The Bensen-style gimbal head links the airframe to the control system with a spring. This system works best with a pitch-stable airframe such as the Dom's. Via the spring, the airframe's stable pitching movements actually alter the control pressures in a stable direction. You lose that feature with the spindle head.

A Dom would still fly pretty well with one, I think. You can fly a Dom very nicely with quite a firm grip on the stick (even in the rough stuff), which more or less locks the offset gimbal anyway.

Udi
12-18-2007, 08:44 AM
Heath - this is a hot subject that has been "debated" here on the forum endlessly. A very dead horse, if you will. The reason I put the word debated in quotation marks is because usually people on both sides of the debate are not equally informed/educated/objective/scientifically-inclined - take your pick. So in order to make the right decisions you either need to know who to listen to, or you need to completely understand the technical details yourself. Either way, you have to understand that this is experimental aviation, and your own safety (and the safety of your passengers/students) is in your hands.

I am not going to join a no-win pissing contest - I will just give you my 2c worth.

Safety is not black and white. There are many factors affecting safety, and aerodynamic stability - which is in the center of this "debate" - is only one of them. Other significant factors are training and experience. The risk to any given pilot -- flying any given machine -- is the sum of the characteristics of the machine he is flying and the training and experience he has accumulated.

Regarding the RAF machine, there are 2 separate, but related, issues.

1. PPO-prone.
2. Stability

The gyro is prone to PPO because the prop thrust line is so high, that it is trying to flip the gyro forward on it's back all the time. In essence, it's like flying with a loaded gun pointed at your head. Once the trigger goes off, game over. Your risk of the trigger going off is a function of your training and experience, but more and more people feel it makes no sense to fly with a loaded gun pointed at your head, if you don't have to. CLT gyros cannot PPO. Modestly HTL gyros with properly designed stabs, cannot PPO either, but there are plenty of HTL gyros with stabs that are not designed adequately to prevent PPO.

The stock RAF is highly pitch unstable. Many people have learned to fly unstable aircraft and some even enjoy having the skill to fly unstable aircraft. Stability is not an opinion - it is a calculable and measurable trait of any aircraft. When people say "my aircraft feels very stable to me" they only mean the aircraft feels steady, or solid. Scientifically, stability is the ability of the aircraft to recover on it's own from upsets. Stability is not measured at one airspeed and one power level and one attitude - stability is measured throughout the entire flight envelope, at different power levels, with the stick floating and with the stick locked in place.

The reason stability is especially important for a gyro like the RAF is because, when the pilot enters a corner of the flight envelope he is not experienced enough to deal with, the gyro will get away from him and - boom. The trigger goes off and the gyro falls out of the sky. This may sound over simplified, but too many pilots have found this true the hard way.

Adding a stab (or a stabilator) to a stock RAF improves the gyro stability. The gyro is more stable, and therefore requires less skill and experience to stay on top of it, at least in most conditions. However, there are still some corners in that flight envelope lurking and waiting for that trigger to go off. With enough training and experience (hundreds of hours - not a CFI signing you off!), pilots can fly this gyro fairly safely, but that trigger is still there, and will always be.

Doing the dropped kill mod (Bruty/Boyer) and installing a large stab further back on the keel improves the RAF even more. The gyro is not only more stable, it is less likely to PPO because the thrust line offset is smaller - but is still significant. The trigger on that gun is less sensitive, but it's still there.

And then there is the complete fix of the AAI stability augmentation kit. This kit makes the gyro very stable with no PPO moment at all. This is the safest modification.

Which way you are going to go, Heath, depends on your risk tolerance level. If you are looking for a design that is as safe as can be for pilots with minimal gyro time, with no monsters lurking in the background, go with the AAI conversion. If you want a fairly safe design, but you are willing to accept some level of risk, especially in your first couple of hundred hours, go with the Bruty/Boyer conversion. If you are willing to sit on a limb with a gun pointed at your head until you have >400 hrs under your belt, go with the simple stab on the keel mod, and if you have a death wish - go with a stock RAF.

Udi

dragonflyerthom
12-18-2007, 11:24 AM
Thom, since you started using Heron as your speech coach, I don’t understand a word you say.


Yep He an Bob are both good teachers.


Disclaimer

This is not to be taken as an insult to Heron or Bob.

chuter
12-18-2007, 03:20 PM
Udi,

You said:
Adding a stab (or a stabilator) to a stock RAF improves the gyro stability.

I've flown 3 hours in a RAF with a stabilator and no HS (after 40+ hours in a AAI-RAF and solo in my tractor), and it definitely had the rocking chair pitch bobble that had to be tamed by the pilot. I was just starting to get comfortable with it at the end of the 3 hours. It's a LOT of work!

What makes it work is knowing what is likely to happen if you DON'T get it under control.

My 2 cents is; the stabilator may help some, and it's a nice electric trim system, but it doesn't do away with the pitch bobble which can lead to PIO/PPO.

gyrodeputy
12-18-2007, 03:26 PM
Heath - this is a hot subject that has been "debated" here on the forum endlessly. A very dead horse, if you will. The reason I put the word debated in quotation marks is because usually people on both sides of the debate are not equally informed/educated/objective/scientifically-inclined - take your pick. So in order to make the right decisions you either need to know who to listen to, or you need to completely understand the technical details yourself. Either way, you have to understand that this is experimental aviation, and your own safety (and the safety of your passengers/students) is in your hands.

I am not going to join a no-win pissing contest - I will just give you my 2c worth.

Safety is not black and white. There are many factors affecting safety, and aerodynamic stability - which is in the center of this "debate" - is only one of them. Other significant factors are training and experience. The risk to any given pilot -- flying any given machine -- is the sum of the characteristics of the machine he is flying and the training and experience he has accumulated.

Regarding the RAF machine, there are 2 separate, but related, issues.

1. PPO-prone.
2. Stability

The gyro is prone to PPO because the prop thrust line is so high, that it is trying to flip the gyro forward on it's back all the time. In essence, it's like flying with a loaded gun pointed at your head. Once the trigger goes off, game over. Your risk of the trigger going off is a function of your training and experience, but more and more people feel it makes no sense to fly with a loaded gun pointed at your head, if you don't have to. CLT gyros cannot PPO. Modestly HTL gyros with properly designed stabs, cannot PPO either, but there are plenty of HTL gyros with stabs that are not designed adequately to prevent PPO.

The stock RAF is highly pitch unstable. Many people have learned to fly unstable aircraft and some even enjoy having the skill to fly unstable aircraft. Stability is not an opinion - it is a calculable and measurable trait of any aircraft. When people say "my aircraft feels very stable to me" they only mean the aircraft feels steady, or solid. Scientifically, stability is the ability of the aircraft to recover on it's own from upsets. Stability is not measured at one airspeed and one power level and one attitude - stability is measured throughout the entire flight envelope, at different power levels, with the stick floating and with the stick locked in place.

The reason stability is especially important for a gyro like the RAF is because, when the pilot enters a corner of the flight envelope he is not experienced enough to deal with, the gyro will get away from him and - boom. The trigger goes off and the gyro falls out of the sky. This may sound over simplified, but too many pilots have found this true the hard way.

Adding a stab (or a stabilator) to a stock RAF improves the gyro stability. The gyro is more stable, and therefore requires less skill and experience to stay on top of it, at least in most conditions. However, there are still some corners in that flight envelope lurking and waiting for that trigger to go off. With enough training and experience (hundreds of hours - not a CFI signing you off!), pilots can fly this gyro fairly safely, but that trigger is still there, and will always be.

Doing the dropped kill mod (Bruty/Boyer) and installing a large stab further back on the keel improves the RAF even more. The gyro is not only more stable, it is less likely to PPO because the thrust line offset is smaller - but is still significant. The trigger on that gun is less sensitive, but it's still there.

And then there is the complete fix of the AAI stability augmentation kit. This kit makes the gyro very stable with no PPO moment at all. This is the safest modification.

Which way you are going to go, Heath, depends on your risk tolerance level. If you are looking for a design that is as safe as can be for pilots with minimal gyro time, with no monsters lurking in the background, go with the AAI conversion. If you want a fairly safe design, but you are willing to accept some level of risk, especially in your first couple of hundred hours, go with the Bruty/Boyer conversion. If you are willing to sit on a limb with a gun pointed at your head until you have >400 hrs under your belt, go with the simple stab on the keel mod, and if you have a death wish - go with a stock RAF.

Udi

Gentlepeople,

This is the most well thought and profound responses that I have ever read on this entire site. Thank you UDI for your insite!

Someday when I am a CFI, I intend to show this to my students as a simple dose of reality:D

Timchick
12-18-2007, 04:43 PM
Tim, the landing gear and tail assy are built like the Maxie Wildes "mad Max"
very similar to Danny's "Beast" gyro.

I recognized the landing gear but didn't notice the tail assembly was a Maxie tail. Chaulk up one more design option for RAFs.

reelmule
12-18-2007, 05:02 PM
Chuck, Thanks for the drawings and input. Even if the "pseudo-stability " of the RAF is due to the Benson style off set gimble head is this somehow bad?? It is an intergral part of the RAF machine. I agree that perhaps the FW analogy may not be correct. Is it possible that we are taking the FW definitions of stability (ie center of lift aft of the CG) and erroneously transferring them to gyros which are neither FW or heli's.??
Walt G.

GyroRon
12-18-2007, 05:41 PM
I 2nd that praise for Udis post. If I had the powers to do things here on the forum, I would make that post a sticky, and make it where it would not get buried and forgotten.

Larry Boyer
12-18-2007, 05:43 PM
I have FLOWN THE RAF IN EVERY CONFIG FROM NO STAB TO STAB AND STABALATOR, and stab and drop keel, and in windy conditions and have found the RAF to be easy to fly.I personally prefer the stepped keel and the Ultimate stab. My CLT is apx 4 inches high acording to math done by Mr. Parham.My question is how can a high time pilot like myself and other high time pilots be so fooled into believing their RAF aircraft is stable and easy to fly when Mr. Beaty says it is not!Most of my 500 hrs is in RAF aircraft and most time flown was with a stab. To build this time I had to start from 0 and build to the time I have logged now. During that time, I never, I repeat!!!! never encountered anything that the RAF didn't handle with very little pilot input. I just don't know what more you can ask of any flying machine when you can fly it in windy conditions and hot, thermal conditions and feel comfortable with 3 fingers on the stick.How is it that my little buddy from Mifflin County can take the stick( he can't reach the rudder peddles) and fly the thing while I kid the dickens out of him?Same goes for my 90 year old friend who flew with me on a windy day. He took the stick for over an hour and I never touched it once until it was time to land. Now he only flew tail draggers since the 30's.I don't know if his opinion counts or not, but He said it flew like his old Stinson.But if Mr. Beaty says my RAF sucks, then it sucks.But, if I didn't feel confident in the safety and stability of my machine, i would never hand the controls over to anyone let alone a 14 yr old kid or a 90 year old. After all, it is my ass too. Listen to the man that owns one. Good advice from Henry Ford.

C. Beaty
12-18-2007, 06:08 PM
Chuck, Thanks for the drawings and input. Even if the "pseudo-stability " of the RAF is due to the Benson style off set gimble head is this somehow bad?? It is an intergral part of the RAF machine. I agree that perhaps the FW analogy may not be correct. Is it possible that we are taking the FW definitions of stability (ie center of lift aft of the CG) and erroneously transferring them to gyros which are neither FW or heli's.??
Walt G.Walt, of course an offset gimbal rotorhead has a beneficial effect on most any rotorcraft. But it is a law of nature that force acting on any object should pass through the CG. Testimonials don’t change anything.

I expect primitive man quickly learned the ox should be hitched to the front of the cart rather than on the side. Tailwheel aircraft have a tendency to ground loop because the CG is behind the center of lateral resistance (the center of lateral resistance is the force in this case).

Cierva, early on recognized that propeller thrust must pass through the CG.

His CG patent drawing and some of the text is attached below.

*Had to shrink the bit count to get it to take the text image.

StanFoster
12-18-2007, 06:10 PM
I also think that Udis post correctly and tactfully hit the nail on the head.


Stan

barnstorm2
12-18-2007, 07:32 PM
Tim, I have the Bensen drawings for the spindle head that I can scan and E-mail to you.

Or better still, I have a complete set of Gyrocopter plans that I could US mail to you if you can scan C or D size drawings.

Fantastic! I will send you the info!


Udi...

Stellar post.

barnstorm2
12-18-2007, 08:59 PM
I have placed Udi's post in the Articles and Blogs section of the gyro wiki.

http://gyrowiki.com/GyroWiki/RAF%20Centerline%20Thrust%20Conversion.aspx

.

Benjamin
12-18-2007, 11:15 PM
Heath,

At the risk of being frank to all!!!

I am a "new owner and pilot" of my RAF 2000. I personally think that anyone offerring an openion who does not own or fly an RAF, should be given less weight, to the stability and flight charataristics of an RAF 2000. I think that Doug Riley, Steve Osborne, and Walt G. have some good advise for you, to obsorb.
The FAA records of rollovers an fatal acidents are ALL with the pilots of NO experience in a gyroplane or less than 20 hours flight time in a gyroplane.
A great deal of "hoopla" is said and maid about the RAF 2000's High Center Line Thurst (HCLT). The fact is with proper instructional training, you will master the issue of the HCLT, at which point PIO, NEVER happens, in my machine. Yes, I have the HS with winglets.

I live in Oregon. The West coast has very little to offer for proper training in an RAF 2000. I finally contacted Ed Newbold, out of Columbus, OH. to fly out to Oregon an train me in my machine. WELL WORTH THE COST!!!

Good luck, fly safe,
Benjamin

GyroRon
12-19-2007, 03:31 AM
Heath,

At the risk of being frank to all!!!

I am a "new owner and pilot" of my RAF 2000. I personally think that anyone offerring an openion who does not own or fly an RAF, should be given less weight, to the stability and flight charataristics of an RAF 2000. I think that Doug Riley, Steve Osborne, and Walt G. have some good advise for you, to obsorb.
The FAA records of rollovers an fatal acidents are ALL with the pilots of NO experience in a gyroplane or less than 20 hours flight time in a gyroplane.
A great deal of "hoopla" is said and maid about the RAF 2000's High Center Line Thurst (HCLT). The fact is with proper instructional training, you will master the issue of the HCLT, at which point PIO, NEVER happens, in my machine. Yes, I have the HS with winglets.

I live in Oregon. The West coast has very little to offer for proper training in an RAF 2000. I finally contacted Ed Newbold, out of Columbus, OH. to fly out to Oregon an train me in my machine. WELL WORTH THE COST!!!

Good luck, fly safe,
Benjamin

Your wrong and one day we might be reading about you here, wondering who here wants to collect moneys to send your wife and family flowers.

Sometimes I just shake my head and think what the heck????, when I read comments like yours and Larry Boyers and Harrys. You guys just don't get it.... No one here, be it Chuck Beaty, Doug, Udi, Tim O, Myself, anyone here will make one dime by a person buying a Sparrowhawk or Xenon over a RAF.

And all of these people want to see more people become involved with gyroplanes, and all of these people want to see the accident rate drop and the sport to get a better image and record.

So why would these people say what they say about RAF 2000 gyroplanes if they have nothing to gain by it?

I think that is part of what is sailing by right over your heads without you even being aware of it....

I mean what do you think happened, Was there a secret meeting at a Bensen Days fly-in several years ago where a secret club was formed and goals were set to make up rumors and untrue facts about High thrustline RAF and Aircommand gyros???

Again, why would people like Chuck Beaty, even spend 5 minutes on this subject do this? What reason would they have for this?


You guys all keep saying the same stuff over and over....

"All you need is training"

" if you don't own one you don't know squat"

" my gyro flys hands off "

" I got 500 hours in my gyro and it flys great "


Blah blah blah.....

You can't minimalize the facts with BS. The gyro has a high thrustline, large amounts of power, and can and will bite your ass if you allow it. It has happened to far too many people. Some with significant time flying gyros too not just 20 hour total time newbies.

A stab is no guarantee that you are now in a safe ship. The only way to take away the bite is to get rid of the high thrustline.

you guys keep saying that you need a 100 hours in a RAF and then you will be okay to comment on one. How stupid is this comment.... Sure after 100 hours anyone should be able to learn and adapt to any gyros unique handling and quirks, and after 100 hours I am sure most people would tend to think the gyro has no problems, but the problems are there and have always been there, the only thing that changed is you learned to deal with the problems during that 100 hours and now you fly the gyro without thinking about those problems.

How many of you RAF pilots would set the throttle to 75-80 percent power and leave it there totally un touched in turbulent conditions? How many of you would lock your control stick in those same conditions? None of you would because you all know it to be suicide in a high thrustline gyro. You know there is a problem with the gyro, you know you have to react to what the gyro is doing to keep your ass alive in the thing. So why can't you just be truthful with yourselves and the people you give advise to and don't just give these half true half BS lines about the RAF being a good machine, just be truthful about the risks that are there and explain why you are taking those risks.

No one wants or expects any RAF owner/pilot to say they fly a crap machine or what they have is junk or anything like that. Most of the constant fuss here is because you guys just keeping saying stuff to the effect of " there is no problems with the RAF, all you need is training and it is perfectly safe" Well this simply isn't true. It tends to say that the thrustline placement and stability issues ( two of the things most likely to result in a PPO ) with this machine are not important and so long as you get good training these issues disappear. They don't disappear though.... you just learn to deal with these issues if you got that good training. The whole point of the Chucks and Dougs and Udis is in a better designed gyro you don't have these issues to deal with at all.

I myself would own and fly the snot out of a RAF. I do not dislike them, and I do not think they are junk or whatever. But I would not brainwash myself after a year or two of flying a a few hundred hours in it that these problems everyone is discussing here no longer exist. And I would absolutely not advise others here that the RAF is the best machine for them.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 04:18 AM
The RAF IS a good machine. Just like the R22 is a good machine. Both require more training. Additional training to deal with the thrust problems that present themselves. If you fly with the doors on you had better have a yaw string on and be on you toes or the thing will swap ends with you.

The thrust line can be augmented or eliminated with modification. This doesn't do anything to belittle the RAF. It is a fix for the lower timed RAF pilots. It helps the higher timed RAF pilots as well.

The CAA in the UK HAVE addressed these problems by reducing the VNE and removed the door. They now are addressing the H/S and will be approving the H/S that they will allow on the RAF.

Now I hate to say this but I don't think any Gyro pilot should be allowed near an unmodified RAF with less that 100 hours. Then they should have additional training to address the HTL, PPO, and oscillations of an unmodified machine.

But the RAF is still the most bang for the buck in a two place machine. If you own a RAF then do the drop keel or Groen type modification. Problem solved. I DO NOT have an oscillation problem in my modified RAF.

Fl90
12-19-2007, 04:20 AM
Well, the thread is for a CLT conversion question. And, an adequate HS WILL prevent PPO. Other than that, it's the same ole same ole.

Phil.

kc0iv
12-19-2007, 06:12 AM
A question from someone that doesn't fly a gyro but a heavy reader of this and other forums.

I read the pro-RAF pilots all say there isn't a problem with the design of the RAF. With proper training everyone can fly a RAF. Now a couple of questions.

1) If the RAF is properly designed then why do I see case after case where the posters says they added a horizontal stabilizer (most also say they added winglets)? Most also say they dropped the keel also.

My question is -- IF the RAF was properly designed then why add these additional non approve items to the RAF? If what I read is correct RAF says the addition of a horizontal stabilizer causes problems when added to their design.

Along this same line. What is the purpose of the dropped keel? The way I understand it the dropped keel is an attempt to raise the center-line to a level closer to CLT. Or is it simply to give the ability to use a larger diameter prop?

Again I ask -- IF the RAF was properly designed are you not defeating the design intented for the RAF?

If the above are true then can the RAF pilot claim the original RAF design does not have problems? Secondly, wouldn't the stability results given by RAF be different than the results given by the non RAF modified results?

2) Months ago I ask how many hours it took for the average student to learn to fly a gyro. The conclusion from this group was it took 3 - 4 times longer to learn to fly the RAF than it did for the non RAF.

Do my question is -- Why does it take so much longer for the RAF than it does for the non RAF? One has to assume the pool of new pilots are the same for the RAF and non RAF.


Leon
(kc0iv)

Larry Boyer
12-19-2007, 07:15 AM
Ron. Some of the experienced RAF pilots say the same thing for a reason. We believe what we experience. And the experience has been rewarding.You have virtually no experience in a RAF(I know of one ride with Logan) and you now tell us we don't know what we are talking about.Also your comments about setting the throttle at 70-80% and flying without holding the stick in turbulence is a crock . If you are doing that for kicks, we'll be soliciting for flower money for your funeral. I don't think Steve or Harry or Bob or Tom , as well as myself, are dealers. We have no reason to change the truth to benefit ourselves in any way.If the person that started this thread wants to buy a RAF, so be it. The message is very clear. Get proper training. Would you tell him not to get training if he was buying a Dominator?

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 07:39 AM
I am a "new owner and pilot" of my RAF 2000.

I think that Doug Riley, Steve Osborne, and Walt G. have some good advise for you, to obsorb.

A great deal of "hoopla" is said and maid about the RAF 2000's High Center Line Thurst (HCLT).

The fact is with proper instructional training, you will master the issue of the HCLT, at which point PIO, NEVER happens, in my machine. Yes, I have the HS with winglets.

I live in Oregon. The West coast has very little to offer for proper training in an RAF 2000. I finally contacted Ed Newbold, out of Columbus, OH. to fly out to Oregon an train me in my machine. WELL WORTH THE COST!!!

Benjamin

Benjamin,

Welcome to gyrodom!

A couple of quick replies to your post.

First I hope you don't mind people being frank in your responses as well?

As a new owner and pilot I suggest that you be open minded and listen to people with more experience in this sport and with aerodynamics knowledge. Not just dyed-in the wool RAF owners.

Are you aware that Doug Riley posts do not agree with those made by Steve Osborne? Doug does NOT to my knowledge advocate training as the solution to HTL machines that are unstable.

From the terms you are using I can tell that you have been getting much of your information from misleading sources.

You can find 2 lists of terms (one basic one advanced) here:

http://gyrowiki.com/GyroWiki/Common%20Terms.aspx (please note the entry on HCLT, no such thing)

http://gyrowiki.com/GyroWiki/Glossary.aspx

Also on the official PRA website:

PRA Website: http://www.pra.org/index.php?module=article&view=18

Are you aware that in the UK it is against the LAW to fly a stock RAF over 70mph? Do you think the UK just did that because some people have an opinion that the stock RAF is unstable/unsafe?

I am VERY glad to hear you are going to be taking some training and I think you will find that ED is a fantastic instructor.

I am also very glad to hear you have installed a horizontal stab on your machine.

Why did you install the stab if you don't believe the stock RAF is unstable??

Lastly, I offer you the following concept to ponder:

As Ron stated above. The people here warning of the dangers of unstable HTL machines do not work for competitors and have nothing to gain by you buying / flying one machine over another. I in fact fly a HTL machine (with HStabs).

Would it not make MORE sense to listen to people that do NOT have a dog in the race? Would it not be more likely that people WITH RAFs be a jaded less critical and honest source of information?

When you listen to the people that claim training will overcome any safety issues in the stock RAF do they talk about physics? Do they talk about how the geometry of the airframe works? Or are their principle arguments mostly "log book" based like "mine flys great" or "look at me I'm still alive"?

RAF owners have a motive built right into human psychology. It's called owner pride. Many will take any statement that is not praise of there machine to be an 'attack' even though the statement may be neutral or well founded and correct. Can you ride above owner pride? honestly?

If so, please tell me what ADVANTAGE to you get having a stock, unstable HTL RAF?

What disadvantage do you get adding an effective HStab?

Like Ron, I would LOVE to have a RAF. I very much covet the ability to fly during the winter and have several hours of cross-country range. If I have a chance to buy a RAF I will. But you can bet that before I fly it I will install a large HStab on an extended keel or an augmentation kit.

Why? Not because I like to build (I HATE building, I want to fly) but because I am able to set down owner pride, peer pressure, good-ol-boy pilot syndrome and look at the issue from the scientific facts.

I have nothing to sell you. The only reason I stick my butt out there to type to you is because I have seen too many people die in these machines needlessly. I don't want to see you die and I don't want our sport to be hurt by these preventable and predictable accidents.

Plenty of high-time pilots and even high-time CFIs have died in Stock RAFs. Training did not save them from the HTL / unstable combo.

.

Heron
12-19-2007, 07:47 AM
Get training! Get it fixed!
Enjoy!
Heron (kinda short today)

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 07:52 AM
Ron. Some of the experienced RAF pilots say the same thing for a reason. We believe what we experience. ................... The message is very clear. Get proper training. Would you tell him not to get training if he was buying a Dominator?

Larry,

I have never heard RON or any other regular poster here say that you don't need training. I don't see that statement anywhere, where did you see it?

When people say that training won't remove the risk of PPO that does not mean they are saying you should not get training. They are saying you should do something in addition to training to remove the risk of PPO.

Experienced RAF pilots have invested dozens of hours learning to become the horizontal stabilizer for their machines and having the rotorhead make them feel like they have a stable machine within a certain envelope of flight.

Would it not make more sense to listen to people that have experience in both stable and unstable machines then those with experience in just one type?

What about the workload questions I posed at the start of this thread?

What advantage does all the extra 'workload' give you?

What dis-advantage does removing all the extra 'workload' give you?

.

LARRYEBOYER
12-19-2007, 09:21 AM
Tim, I agree with some of your comments, but your message appears to reference that RAF pilots advocate a stock RAF. All my RAF buddies fly with mods.Look at the 10 RAFs at Mentone. All had stability improvements. I think the message is being spread and some of the thanks goes to the Beatys of this world. I put a lot of time and effort in experimenting with the RAF to eliminate pilot workload and nose osilations. I do not want to be in the stab business, but I will have a stab made for anyone that has a RAF. I beleive I am reducing the risk of flying a RAF(or any gyro for that matter if they add a stab)in the original non stab config.Do I believe the modified RAF is safe and easy to fly? Yes.Should it be flown in 50 mph winds and thunderstorms? no.Will stepping the keel and lowering the engine and adding a stab produce a great flying, low workload machine over the original design. Yes. I have flown the Growen brothers alteration and in my humble opinion, does not fly any better than the config I just described.I am not selling anything here but I do have the right to express my opinion. And it is an experienced one.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 09:46 AM
Larry,

Thank you for your response.

I don't think ANY gyro should be flown at 50/storms :)

I am going to go back and re-read this thread because I think I am missing something.

We seem all be in agreement that a Stock RAF is not as safe as a RAF that has been modified with an HStab or AAI kit (or your mods etc).

I think it is GREAT that you seem to be saying you don't advocate the stock RAF.

I seem to have a disconnect though...

It seems that in your posts you are saying that the stability mods 'just reduce workload'. I seem to be getting the wrong message from this and it seems like people like Benjamin are too.

I think it is important for Benjamin and others to relate workload with safety and stability, don't you?

When people like Steve O make statements like:
I personally do not feel the RAF needs any of those mods, but they will help reduce pilot work load in windy conditions, thus making it easier to fly.

I think it would help a great deal if you would be forefront enough to say that there is more at issue than "easy to fly" but also safety when other RAF'ers make posts like this.

The RAF pilots will listen to you much more then I or Ron.

When you don't counter statements like SteveO makes, it SEEMS as if you are advocating a Stock RAF.

Lastly, you make an excellent point. Stock RAFs are not the only legacy gyros with a problem. Many older machines of other makes also need a HStab upgrade for the exact same reasons.

.

Udi
12-19-2007, 09:53 AM
...The FAA records of rollovers an fatal acidents are ALL with the pilots of NO experience in a gyroplane or less than 20 hours flight time in a gyroplane.
So, Benjamin -- Mr. Northam - an airline pilot with >14,000 hrs total and >70 hrs in a RAF-2000 who PPOed in 2004 (in a stabbed RAF) doesn't count? How about the Canadian CFI who died just last year? And how about the Spanish instructor who PPOed just recently and the Russian instructor who PPOed just a few months ago? I am too busy to bring the whole list but the claim that all the fatal accidents were with pilots with no gyroplane experience is the kind of hype you can only get from your own group of RAFers. You guys support each other so well with your communal cognitive dissonance that it wouldn't be a complete stretch to call you a cult. I am not saying this to offend you, Benjamin - I want to warn you and other RAF newbies who may be underestimating the risks you place yourselves and your passengers in.

Here is something for you to chew on, Benjamin - NONE of the people who PPOed to their death in RAF-2000 (or any of the other HTL machines) have ever PPOed prior to their accident, and likely have never even seriously PIOed before. Some of them were trained by the "best" RAF instructors in the country. They were just like you - flying happily, feeling in complete control. Their only and very final accident has crept up on ALL of them by complete surprise...

Udi

Harry_S.
12-19-2007, 10:20 AM
Your wrong and one day we might be reading about you here, wondering who here wants to collect moneys to send your wife and family flowers.

Sometimes I just shake my head and think what the heck????, when I read comments like yours and Larry Boyers and Harrys. You guys just don't get it.... No one here, be it Chuck Beaty, Doug, Udi, Tim O, Myself, anyone here will make one dime by a person buying a Sparrowhawk or Xenon over a RAF.

And all of these people want to see more people become involved with gyroplanes, and all of these people want to see the accident rate drop and the sport to get a better image and record.

So why would these people say what they say about RAF 2000 gyroplanes if they have nothing to gain by it?

I think that is part of what is sailing by right over your heads without you even being aware of it....

I mean what do you think happened, Was there a secret meeting at a Bensen Days fly-in several years ago where a secret club was formed and goals were set to make up rumors and untrue facts about High thrustline RAF and Aircommand gyros???

Again, why would people like Chuck Beaty, even spend 5 minutes on this subject do this? What reason would they have for this?


You guys all keep saying the same stuff over and over....

"All you need is training"

" if you don't own one you don't know squat"

" my gyro flys hands off "

" I got 500 hours in my gyro and it flys great "


Blah blah blah.....

You can't minimalize the facts with BS. The gyro has a high thrustline, large amounts of power, and can and will bite your ass if you allow it. It has happened to far too many people. Some with significant time flying gyros too not just 20 hour total time newbies.

A stab is no guarantee that you are now in a safe ship. The only way to take away the bite is to get rid of the high thrustline.

you guys keep saying that you need a 100 hours in a RAF and then you will be okay to comment on one. How stupid is this comment.... Sure after 100 hours anyone should be able to learn and adapt to any gyros unique handling and quirks, and after 100 hours I am sure most people would tend to think the gyro has no problems, but the problems are there and have always been there, the only thing that changed is you learned to deal with the problems during that 100 hours and now you fly the gyro without thinking about those problems.

How many of you RAF pilots would set the throttle to 75-80 percent power and leave it there totally un touched in turbulent conditions? How many of you would lock your control stick in those same conditions? None of you would because you all know it to be suicide in a high thrustline gyro. You know there is a problem with the gyro, you know you have to react to what the gyro is doing to keep your ass alive in the thing. So why can't you just be truthful with yourselves and the people you give advise to and don't just give these half true half BS lines about the RAF being a good machine, just be truthful about the risks that are there and explain why you are taking those risks.

No one wants or expects any RAF owner/pilot to say they fly a crap machine or what they have is junk or anything like that. Most of the constant fuss here is because you guys just keeping saying stuff to the effect of " there is no problems with the RAF, all you need is training and it is perfectly safe" Well this simply isn't true. It tends to say that the thrustline placement and stability issues ( two of the things most likely to result in a PPO ) with this machine are not important and so long as you get good training these issues disappear. They don't disappear though.... you just learn to deal with these issues if you got that good training. The whole point of the Chucks and Dougs and Udis is in a better designed gyro you don't have these issues to deal with at all.

I myself would own and fly the snot out of a RAF. I do not dislike them, and I do not think they are junk or whatever. But I would not brainwash myself after a year or two of flying a a few hundred hours in it that these problems everyone is discussing here no longer exist. And I would absolutely not advise others here that the RAF is the best machine for them.



BLAH...BLAH...BLAH. WHAT A BUNCH A CRAP.


.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 10:30 AM
I am too busy to bring the whole list but the claim that all the fatal accidents were with pilots with no gyroplane experience is the kind of hype you can only get from your own group of RAFers. You guys support each other so well with your communal cognitive dissonance that it wouldn't be a complete stretch to call you a cult. I am not saying this to offend you, Benjamin - I want to warn you and other RAF newbies who may be underestimating the risks you place yourselves and your passengers in.


Light-bulb!

Open question to any RAF owners or previous RAF owners/pilots:

As Larry and others have pointed out there are ALOT of RAFs that (thankfully) have been upgraded with at least an HSTAB.

Why don't you speak out and publicly state you don't recommend the STOCK RAF?

Is it peer pressure in the RAF community?

Is it fear of disavowals from the revered old salt trainers like Jim Logan?

Who will speak out and explain why so many RAF'ers play "the emperor has no clothes'?

.

Doug Riley
12-19-2007, 10:35 AM
When thinking about how effective "training, training, training" is in eliminating PPO risk, you need to remember how the control stick controls the gyro.

In a gyro with central flapping hinges (a teeter hinge is one type of central flapping hinge), moving the stick amounts to "pointing" the rotor's thrust in a particular direction. The pull of this thrust then moves the aircraft in the chosen direction.

Here's the kicker: this system only works as long as there IS rotor thrust. In a zero G situation, there is by definition NO rotor thrust. You have nothing to point. The situation is effectively the same as if your stick broke off.

With the stick lacking any effect, it doesn't matter how fine your skills are. Your skills no longer have anything to work with.

Closing the throttle in a zero G is a last-ditch technique to stop a forward pitch and restore rotor thrust, so that your controls work again.

Yes, even a CLT gyro loses cyclic control during zero G. As long as the airframe is pitch-stable, however, the craft will continue to travel in a straight line until thrust comes back. A HTL craft with inadequate HS heads rapidly toward a PPO in the same circumstances.

In a pitch-stable gyro, low G will result in the nose rising or at worst staying level. In an unstable gyro, the nose will dip quite abruptly during low G -- and it'll keep going faster and faster into a forward tumble if power is not killed instantly. The stick canNOT be used to stop this process once it starts.

These principles apply BOTH to HTL gyros with NO HS, and to HTL gyros with an inadequate HS. The RAF has such a large HTL and so much thrust that an "adequate" HS would have to be huge and would have to be deeply buried in the propwash -- there's just not room. The HS's we actually see on stock RAF's and on the typical "kinked keel" job are partial fixes that improve the odds.

Harry_S.
12-19-2007, 10:37 AM
But the RAF is still the most bang for the buck in a two place machine. If you own a RAF then do the drop keel or Groen type modification. Problem solved. I DO NOT have an oscillation problem in my modified RAF.



Good advice for the newby and/or the low time pilot, Thom. I endorse it.

But...I must say I don't have and have never had any problems when flying my machine stock or with the KJ stab. I never installed the doors on my machine so I don't have the wig/wag problem either.

Gyro experience...does help, more than some people want to admit.


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
12-19-2007, 10:41 AM
Well, the thread is for a CLT conversion question. And, an adequate HS WILL prevent PPO. Other than that, it's the same ole same ole.

Phil.



Spot on, Phil.


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
12-19-2007, 11:27 AM
Light-bulb!

Open question to any RAF owners or previous RAF owners/pilots:

OK. I'M HERE. :)


As Larry and others have pointed out there are ALOT of RAFs that (thankfully) have been upgraded with at least an HSTAB.

OK.


Why don't you speak out and publicly state you don't recommend the STOCK RAF?

I BELIEVE I HAVE...FOR THE NEWBIES.



Is it peer pressure in the RAF community?

I THINK YOU'RE WAY OFF BASE THERE, TIM. I DON'T SEE THAT AT ALL. EACH OWNER CAN STATE THEIR OWN OPINIONS, I KNOW I DO.



Is it fear of disavowals from the revered old salt trainers like Jim Logan?

AGAIN, YOU'RE WAY OFF BASE THERE, TIM. JIM LOGAN WILL GIVE YOU INSTRUCTION IN WHATEVER MACHINE YOU WANT TO FLY, INCLUDING A TWINSTARR. ;) HE'S A PROFESSIONAL.

Who will speak out and explain why so many RAF'ers play "the emperor has no clothes'?

.



Sorry Tim. I don't know understand the connotation in that last line...ref. the emperor. I'm kinda old and maybe a bit illiterate?! Explain it to me and I will speak out and explain, if I do "play it."


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 11:54 AM
Sorry Tim. I don't know understand the connotation in that last line...ref. the emperor. I'm kinda old and maybe a bit illiterate?! Explain it to me and I will speak out and explain, if I do "play it."


Cheers :)


Sure Harry!

It is a an old tail that describes a common human behavior that all of us have experienced (on one end or the other) at least a few times in our lives...

--------------------------

Many years ago, there lived an emperor who was quite an average fairy tale ruler, with one exception: he cared much about his clothes. One day he heard from two swindlers named Guido and Luigi Farabutto that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.

Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.

The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. He was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.

Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:

"But he has nothing on!"

This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.

-------------------------------

So it seems from :

1. The number of AAI kits selling....

2. The number of HStabs and other mods on RAFs at Mentone...

3. This poll of RAF owners and non-owners(http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12417&highlight=poll) that only about 7% of people would want to buy a Stock RAF.


4. This anonymous poll of RAF owners :(http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10797&highlight=poll) only about 3.4% of RAF owners would want people to be advised NOT to install a HStab.

5. This anonymous poll of RAF owners: ( http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10797&highlight=poll )only about 5% think the STOCK RAF is completely safe performing in the same flight envelope as one with a HStab.

And neumerous posts here on the forum....

That most RAF pilots deep down know the STOCK RAF is unstable and unsafe.

However, they are unwilling to step forth and state such because of the "RAF Disillusioned Cult" Udi posted about above.

Why wont some RAFers come out and say " Hey, Jim Logan and Steve O you guys are great, but you are wrong about the STOCK RAF being as safe as one that has been made stable..." ?

I want to know if some RAF owners/pilots that avoid a direct statement about the danger of STOCK RAFs and 'passionate' RAF websites are not playing "The emperor has no clothes" because they don't want to admit this in front of their CFI's and RAF buddies.

Communal Disillusionment?

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 12:51 PM
Most people with RAFs don't want the bashing on themselves that goes on here.
It is better for them to remain mute. Therefore in lurkingdom.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 12:57 PM
Most people with RAFs don't want the bashing on themselves that goes on here.
It is better for them to remain mute. Therefore in lurkingdom.

Bashing?

If it is not praise is it bashing?

Is that really why the silence?

You think that a RAFer' saying the Stock RAF is unstable and unsafe would get 'bashed'?

Only by the RAF apologists the way I see it and that is my question isn't it?


Thom, are you saying RAF pilots won't post that the STOCK RAF is unstable and unsafe because they fear a social backlash from Jim Logan, Deflur, Osborne and other RAF apologists?


I don't own a RAF but I have had some 'peer pressure' to not discuss stability issues. Jim Logan told me that I say "uncouth" things about the RAF on the internet.

With your cultural leader going out of the way to make comments like that to non-RAFers what must it be like IN the RAF click?


95% of RAF owners polled anonymously state the STOCK RAF is unstable/unsafe but zero will post it with their name attached? Whats up with that?

.

.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 01:15 PM
The problem Tim is there is overkill and exaggeration by some of the posters here. Stability is important but geeze it is the same old sh1t. Same people that get their feeling stepped on and the same people that have never even been in a RAF that trash them.

Heck when I first flew my aircraft I kept wonder when we were going to crash. Now I am wondering what the big deal is. Of course I do have a keel augmentation and engine drop with a H/S that has trim on it. My H/S is about the same size as the Ultimate stab that Larry B is selling. Lots of authority there that is adjustable also. I can put my nose where I want it ie. nose up, nose down or level. Pearl flys very well. So far there haven't been any surprises. I don't expect any either. And I have been in air with 25 mph gusts. Don't like them but they aren't too bad.

Benjamin. You have made a couple of valid points.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-19-2007, 01:34 PM
I have been very busy in the other world of aviation to spend much time surfing this forum, however this caught my attention....


I just received a call from FAA wanting some technical info on RAF accident South of Indianapolis yesterday. Aircraft pitched/rolled inverted from about 100 ft alt. Multiple fractures to lower extremities.

The description of the movements of the machine are a little vague but is it possible someone has survived a bunt in a gyroplane?

Doug Riley
12-19-2007, 03:19 PM
A bunt or a torque-over, or (most typically) a combination of both.

A tall tail will help to alleviate torque-over. Low-mounted HS's will not, although a long-span one centered on the prop shaft (basically a tall tail on its side) will.

Both PPO and torque-over result from a loss of rotor thrust (low G). Forces generated by the engine are no longer opposed by the rotor, and over she goes, sideways or pitchways.

reelmule
12-19-2007, 03:30 PM
CE, Yes--more likely a torque roll over to the left from about 100 ft per FFA investigator--all very preliminary and hopefully our team will be there tomorrow to assist.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-19-2007, 04:00 PM
Hopefully when the pilot recovers he will be able to remember exactly what happened.

That would be very helpful for the gyroplane community.

StanFoster
12-19-2007, 04:27 PM
Tim: I have to answer your question challenging RAFowners or previous owners in regards to if a stock RAF isnt as stable as one with a stab. Where sir have you been when I have said so. I am a previous RAFowner. as you well know..and have said MANY times I wouldnt fly a stock RAF without adding a stab.

I have seen several here mention the need for a stab....and then there is Larry and Thom going even further....and making their RAF even more stable than my stabbed one. I feel actions speak louder than words. Do you for one minute think these guys or myself are saying...hey...the stock RAF is more stable...but I think I will add these mods for the thrill of having more work load.

These RAF rants get tiring. I think I speak from experience as many here. Heck...I even went to a CLT SparrowHawk. I would fly a stabbed RAF in a heartbeat.

I still say stability has more to do with the pilot being all tense and ham fisted than loose and relaxed. I would rather fly my stabbed RAF loose and relaxed than to put me into my SparrowHawk...all tense and muscles as tight as banjo strings.

So...to your challenge...I will state it right here so you dont have to waste time digging in the archives. A stock RAF isnt and cant be as stable as the stabbed one I flew. My stabbed RAF cant be as stable as Larry or Thoms.
I would go further and say that the SparrowHawk is more stable yet.

But....I still think the problems mostly are with new pilots being all tense and getting all bent out of shape.

I flew a htl Air Command....my RAF and my SprarrowHawk. I had no problems training myself to fly either machine. I actually had to deprogram myself from the subtle inputs that the RAF had built into my reflexes. Call that human allowance for instability...but I just call it being relaxed.

If anyone should have a bias against RAF...wouldnt you think it would be a SparrowHawk dealer as myself? I can honestly say that the SparrowHawk is easier to fly....but I would have no problem continuing to fly the RAF that I had.

Stan

birdy
12-19-2007, 04:29 PM
Who will speak out and explain why so many RAF'ers play "the emperor has no clothes'?
I would Tim, but who'd listen to a SCG. ;)

Walt, if it was torque roll, and it had a stock RAF power unit, [ left rotation] the machine woulda rolled right.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 04:33 PM
Whoa Stan

Did you eat Wheaties this AM?

StanFoster
12-19-2007, 04:39 PM
Thom: Well...Tim posted a direct challenge...that I easily met. Thats one way to draw me out of the woodwork. I dont mean it in an offensive way at all....Tim. You challenged and I defended.:)

Please...dont take this personal...these RAF threads have way too much of that.:)


Stan

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 05:08 PM
I am a previous RAFowner. as you well know..and have said MANY times I wouldnt fly a stock RAF without adding a stab.

Thom: Well...Tim posted a direct challenge...that I easily met. Thats one way to draw me out of the woodwork. I dont mean it in an offensive way at all....Tim. You challenged and I defended.:)

Please...dont take this personal...these RAF threads have way too much of that.:)


Stan

Not at all Stan! I am very pleased!

So we have 1 previous RAF pilot willing to say the Stock RAF is unstable/dangerous.

Anyone else?

.

StanFoster
12-19-2007, 05:15 PM
Tim: I am glad you took that right. I reread it and when I have a challenge..I just get to the point.

Hey...I KNOW others will chime in...I dont for a minute think most are afraid of brushing some ol time RAF's fur backwards. Its mostly settled that the RAF flies better with these modifications. I cant speak from experience as far as Larry and Thoms stepped keel...but I KNOW any reduction in thrust offset is going towards more stability.

I think Greg Gremminger has a good point that a slightly HTL has some desirable characteristics.....I feel the jury will be out of the courtroom on this for awhile...


Stan

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 05:25 PM
Tim

Do you think I have done all my mods because it looks better? Well actually now that I have it this way it looks good, this modified form of the RAF. It is where form is balanced with function.

gyrodeputy
12-19-2007, 06:01 PM
Ok guys, I HAVE GREAT NEWS.

For several months I have been trying to convince my wife to get a loan with me.

Today we signed a home equity loan.

I have found a very nice STOCK Raf.

I am going to be making a deal with the guy later this week!

It is my plan, based in large part to put the full GBA conversion on the aircraft and have it reinspected/certified.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR VALUBLE INPUT.

SAFE FLYING TO ALL OF YOU AND KEEP THE RUBBER SIDE DOWN AND THE SPINNING SIDE UP!

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

Heath Lowry
N1078...coming sooner than even I expected.:plane:

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 06:06 PM
Heath if it is a flying RAF with a N number and fresh annual. Then all you will have to do is the GBA mod and fly off 5 hours. Good to go.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 06:13 PM
The problem Tim is there is overkill and exaggeration by some of the posters here. Stability is important but geeze it is the same old sh1t. Same people that get their feeling stepped on and the same people that have never even been in a RAF that trash them.
.

You make some important points here Thom but I feel a loss of words on how to address these points.

I think Udi's post actually covers some of them and I doubt I could do anything to improve upon what he and others have already stated.

Maybe piece by piece to see where we are having a different perception of what seems to be the same problems?

1. Over kill and exaggeration.

Personally, I don't see this in anyone's posts. When people talk about the bad things that can happen it does make it seem that the RAFs would not make it half an hour before dropping out of the sky!

That is not the case however. If that was the case the RAFs would have been out of production much sooner and that would make everything pretty easy to understand yes?

As explained here by Udi and Doug the problem is much more insidious.

The rotorhead design along with hours of training in model give you a 'false' sense of stability because you don't see any undesirable traits in every day flying.

Unless you take the time to do Greg Gremmingers tests you would not even notice the extra workload you are putting in nor understand the consequences should something unexpected happen.

Without going through Greg Gremmingers tests you would not notice a problem until you pass the line of controllability and well.... then it's too late. Of those people that have, few are around to speak of it.

So when people talk about this bad things happening then you go fly and the ship flys just fine what is the deal? The deal is: The RAF stays in the air until a moment of pilot incompetence or an unexpected event. The fuse on this bomb is random. The only increase of predictably is pilot experience and how often the end of the flight envelope is challenged.

2. Same ol S1it. Well, yes but not always the same people. New people come in and do reading and research here. Most won't go though the old threads where this was previously gone through.

Judging from all the stabbed RAFs at Mentone and all the AAI kits sold the word is getting out to somebody though...

3. People that get their feelings stepped on ....

Humm. That is the one that is the most difficult to address. I understand the problem but no solution seems clear to me.

If someone were to come up to me and start taking about how my HTL AirCommand was a 'death trap' and that I needed to install a HStab before even testing or training in it I would consider them a 'basher'.

I know this because this is exactly what happened to me. My first gyro was an unstable craft and I did not want to work on it I wanted to fly it. As I read through Norm's forum I was not looking for information on how to make my gyro safe I was looking for EXCUSES for ammunition to convince myself that the machine was safe to fly. I was looking for opium not truth in the pages of the forum.

I read ChuckB's posts and others and I thought they were brash asses (sorry guys).

Were they 'bashing' my machine? No. They were just being straight forward about the facts. Sugar coating would not have helped as I would have been just taking the sugar and ignoring the facts anyway.

So Thom, I am at a loss. How do you tell someone there 'pride and joy' has a fault without putting them on the defensive or giving them fodder for rationalization?

What happened to me? After speaking with AirCommand and some valuable communication with some forum members like Ron Awad I eventually, let down my pride and looked around at the situation. I installed a HStab on my AirCommand.

That is NOT going to happen with the RAF pilots though. RAF Co is gone. NuRAF seems to be passing out the same old toxic Koolaid. RAF owners who have been around long enough to know better still have the blinders on.

How can you be straight and honest without being called a 'basher'? This I would like to know. It seems any comment that not an outright complement is 'bashing'. Where is the grey?

I try to place into posts that I do like the RAF once made stable and I would own one in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself. (with an HStab of course.. ;) )

4. "[I] People that have never even been in a RAF that trash them. "
Well, we just discussed the trash/bash syndrome. What about the comments of Non-RAF owners?

Well, first of all that is why in this Thread I am trying to call for some RAF owners/pilots to say something on this issue that coincides with the anonymous polls and obvious actions of RAF owners that upgrade their machines.

Second, what gives me the right to say squat??

Well, Doug has made posts in the past and so has Chuck explaining you don't have to own something to understand it so I am not going to even try to re-explain that. I'd just $^$^=# it up.

What I can say is that I am tired and sad.

I am tired of the terrible irony that the dream of Cervia, the autogyro, meant to be the safest aircraft in existence, and capable of it is held back by this stupid irrational drama.

I am tired of gyros being called deathtraps by the rest of aviation because of the horrible safety record caused by HTL unstable gyroplanes.

I am tired of a new report every few months of a preventable fatality in a RAF. A fellow gyro brother taken down for pursuing what I too love so dearly but unlucky enough to end up in an unstable gyroplane.

I am tired of the irony of something as cheap and easy to install as an HStab being such a controversy. The physics are simple to understand.

If you want to kill yourself fine. You can hurt yourself anyway you please so long as you don't hurt me or my friends in the process. But there in is the problem. Every unstable gyro fatality hurts us all. There IS a larger picture here.

Kill yourself with a butterknife and the other butterknife owners don't have to worry about butterknifes being banned or discriminated against. This is NOT so with gyros...

So Thom, can you give me any advise in these matters?

.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 06:21 PM
Ok guys, I HAVE GREAT NEWS.

I have found a very nice STOCK Raf.

It is my plan, based in large part to put the full GBA conversion on the aircraft and have it reinspected/certified.

:


Now that IS A VERY VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

Congratulations!!!

.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 06:23 PM
Tim please refer to my post #85 above. You asked a question which I tried to answer for the other RAF pilots. Excuse me for answering.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 06:28 PM
Tim please refer to my post above. You asked a question which I tried to answer for the other RAF pilots. Excuse me for answering.

Thom,

Lots of RAF pilots/owners say the RAF flys better with augmentation/HStab but are you willing to say the Stock RAF is unstable and dangerous?

I am sorry if I was not clear on that.

I think you have been doing a marvelous job with your machine and are a good model for the process to others.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 06:30 PM
Thom,

Lots of RAF pilots/owners say the RAF flys better with augmentation/HStab but are you willing to say the Stock RAF is unstable and dangerous?

I am sorry if I was not clear on that.

I think you have been doing a marvelous job with your machine and are a good model for the process to others.

Tim I have gone one better several times on this forum. I will not fly a stock RAF period.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 06:37 PM
Tim I have gone one better several times on this forum. I will not fly a stock RAF period.

Thank you for posting it again here.

We are up to 2!

So if you have to own/fly one to know one we have 2 here that own/fly and admit the Stock RAF is unstable and dangerous.

.

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 06:43 PM
Thank you for posting it again here.

We are up to 2!

So if you have to own/fly one to know one we have 2 here that own/fly and admit the Stock RAF is unstable and dangerous.

.

Tim

Everyone that flies a RAF with a Stab or more on their RAF are saying the same thing. Even the ones with the Stabilator on theirs are moding their RAF because of the oscillation problems that are quite evident when flying the stock RAF. They are saying it is unstable otherwise they wouldn't be changing their aircraft. So just count the RAFrs with these mods and you will have a more correct number. RAF modified are great ships. But you still need to fly conservatively until the thrust line is lowered also. Fly safe for the Holidays.

barnstorm2
12-19-2007, 06:46 PM
Thank you Thom,

Yes, things are looking up!

.

GyroRon
12-19-2007, 07:19 PM
BLAH...BLAH...BLAH. WHAT A BUNCH A CRAP.


.

I expected a responce along these lines from you.

:rant:

StanFoster
12-19-2007, 07:26 PM
Ron: Hey....it made me laugh out loud.......:lol:

Speaking for Harry....his avatar clearly shows a stab on his beautiful RAF. Thats my point when I said action speaks louder than words. Harry didnt put that on there just to make it more tail heavy. or to try to lesten the global warming by casting a bigger shadow on mother earth...Harry knows it flies better with it....he just doesnt have to say so....


Stan

dragonflyerthom
12-19-2007, 07:39 PM
Most of the RAF Owners tried to tell RAF Marketing they needed a H/S. It was in their blind side I guess.

GyroRon
12-19-2007, 07:41 PM
The problem here Tim is there are two ways of looking at the simple three letters.... RAF

When you or I or many others here see RAF, we think of a bone stock or only mildly modified RAF.

When other people such as Larry and Thom and even Grumpy ole Harry talk about RAF, they are talking about mildly to wildly modified versions of the gyro.

These are clearly the same brand of gyro, but also clearly two completely different versions of the gyro.

If people were more clear about which kind of RAF they were talking about there would probably be alot less debating going on here....



Onto a different subject..... It would be neat, but almost impossible to see happen, to have ratings for different gyros. Such as a 1-10 performance rating that would use factors such as speed, range, rate of climb, payload, etc And a 1-10 Safety rating that would take in things such as thrustline placement and type of tailfeathers, and so on.

I was thinking about the trails I have been riding my dirtbike on, they are rated Green, Blue, or Black depending on the type of trail it is, the darker the color the more difficult it is for the rider. The Black trails have really hard sections such as hill climbs and so on that are not only rated black but also carry a diamond rating, the more diamonds the more demanding the obstacle. So as you are out riding you alway know what your getting into before you get into it. If you aren't up to steep dangerous hill climbs you just avoid the black diamond trails!

Fl90
12-20-2007, 02:51 AM
Then you've got to figure out, just how bad are you?

For instance, I love to snowboard. The trials have the same ratings you speak of. My second day ever snowboarding, I was gettig my but kicked on the green trails. Not enough slope to carry speed to stay upright. Still on the second day, I tried a blue trail. Heaven, but in short bursts. So, since the blues were good but short, I ride higher up the mountain. O.K., from the top of Black Comb down is black diamond or double black. As I stand there looking down I'm thinking, "definately NOT going to have a problem carrying speed". For the first couple of hundred yards, I held my own. Then I found, painfully, that I was not quite up to the challenge. It was over quickly, as the slope was steep enough that I could hold my speed at ant angle of attack my body had with the mountain.

The point is, rating a machine does little if the student doesn't even listen to the instructor that he's paying.

Phil.

Heron
12-20-2007, 03:12 AM
When you modify a ship to a point that its handling characteristics change substantially you should also chang its name. End of the problem.
A RAF is a RAF . . .all others do not apply!
Heron

StanFoster
12-20-2007, 04:02 AM
Maybe its just me...but just because several RAF pilots havent "stated "

words to the effect that....a stock RAF isnt as stable as what I fly...to

me they are "stating" it by their actions. They arent putting on a stab to make it more tail heavy or to shade the earth to help out the so called "global warming" but they are doing these mods to improve. They speak volumes to me by example.

I knew when I bought my unfinished RAF kit...I was going to have a stab on it.....and I knew why.

Stan

Vance
12-20-2007, 04:04 AM
I feel like there are two different characteristics of an RAF being discussed as though they were one.

The first is pitch stability in normal flight. It would seem to me that people have found that some modifications make the aircraft more pitch stable and make the aircraft easier to fly.

The second is a power push over because of a thrust line that is offset quite a bit. It is my understanding that generally speaking you don’t get to explore the edges of a power push over, it happens and you are dead. There are many NTSB reports that seem to be best explained by the theory of a power push over event.

I can see where the dampening of a horizontal stabilizer and a reduced thrust line offset would reduce this tendency. I can see where pilot induced oscillations would exacerbate this tendency so increased pitch stability is a good thing.

What I don’t understand is what appear to me to be the claims that because the pitch stability has been enhanced a power push over is no longer a possibility or that somehow training can change this tendency to invert when the rotor thrust is lost.

At one time I felt that a low G event was always something that was commanded by the pilot. With more flying experience I modified that to include extreme weather conditions. Then, one calm day, I experienced a down draft that caused a significant low G event and I now feel that it is not something that can always be avoided.

I manage fear by surviving events. I work at not minimizing luck as a component in my survival so that I don’t become confused and believe that something that is dangerous is really safe.

I feel that a horizontal stabilizer on a RAF is probably a real help in minimizing the challenge of pilot induced oscillations growing to an unmanageable degree and I it seems to me that this is good for flight safety as my experience tells me that I do not always fly well.

It appears to me that reducing the thrust line offset reduces the risk of a power push over and closer to center line thrust is better than a high thrust line. More than that becomes risk assessment and of course, there is risk in flying.

It seems to me that there have been enough high thrust line gyroplanes inverted to suggest that it is not only pilot error.

I feel that survival of many hours of flight is not proof that a high thrust line offset has become safe.

It has been my experience that saying a thing loud and often does not make it truth.

Thank you, Vance

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 05:40 AM
Vance, Yes. Two issues.

Closely related but two issues.

As Doug has posted the larger your thrust offset the more HStab you need.

The Stock RAF offset (10 inches I think?) would require a huge stab in the propwash to be able to counter a PPO.

I wanted to ask him about extending the keel back for more moment and putting a large h-stab back there. ( no help at slow airspeeds mind you but perhaps enough leverage for cruise and above ).

Can the RAFs with the 'average' HStab PPO? Yep. However, it is a mitigation step that will certainly reduce the death toll.

I hope that alot of people will go on to reduce the thrust line but because of the added expense and work this will be a lesser number of owners.

An HStab is a GREAT first step and should improve your odds greatly, but as Udi stated... The 'gun' is still pointed at your head.

There is a local RAF pilot who was about to order an HStab but was told NOT to install an HStab by his RAF instructor. He eventually put on a stabulator but that is all the farther he will go. For the sake of himself, his passengers and the local gyro community I hope someday he changes his mind. Every time someone asks him about it he just says "it flys great the way it is".

I have a keen interest in hearing about Neil Hines redrive. That could lower the thrustline by just adding a redive. I think that would be alot more popular than reworking the keel. (assuming you don't have to drop the keel for the prop).

In my flying I have experienced down drafts and some strange wind conditions (see my cross country photo logs..). During these times it would have been nice to be flying a CLT machine! I have often wondered if I would still be here if those events had happened when I was flying a machine with an offset as high as the RAF or older AirCommand.

Thankfully, AirCommand considers a stabless AirCommand gyro to be unairworthy and sells the CLT upgrade kits at low margin.

NuRAFs web page still declares the STOCK RAF as safe and having "thousands of hours of engineering". RAF passion web sites are still calling HStabs and stability "academia theory".

Interestingly these sites call RAF pilots to adhere to a "code of conduct" and sure enough there is hyporacy here to as the code clearly states:

GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF
AVIATORS
Pilots should:
a. make safety their number one priority,
b. seek excellence in airmanship,
c. develop and exercise good judgment,
d. recognize and manage risks effectively,

Including:
Advancing self-regulation through the
gyroplane community as an alternative to
government regulation.

Despite publishing such standards, these very sites still misinform about the importance of stability and do not urge RAF pilots to make their machines safer nor attempt any self-regulation by even attempting to educate pilots on the issues of stability and thrust-line offset.

They paint a picture of the STOCK RAF as a 'performance' machine engineered to the 'highest standards'. Like you would go out and safely fly this machine to the ends of the flight envelope.

The overall gyroplane community and all existing manufactures understand and educate on the importance of stability.

Now it is time for the RAF pilot community to step-up and change their culture from within.

.

Doug Riley
12-20-2007, 06:24 AM
Extending the tail tube will add power to the HS. It does this without increasing the HS down-load, which is good.

For example, a Parham stab on a two-foot extension (Pappy's setup, I think) gets you enough leverage so that, on paper, the RAF is close to PPO-proof as long as the full stab gets at least 70 mph of airflow. I say "close" because we don't have numbers on the contribution to PPO/dragover by the cabin shape at these higher airspeeds.

Two more things may cloud this sunny scenario. First, gyros often fly at less than 70 mph. Many, if not most, PPO accidents happen on full-bore climbout at -- what -- 60 or less? You need propwash over the HS at these speeds, long arm or not, if you have significant HTL.

Second, a HS mounted low will miss some or all of the propwash (which is over 100 mph at wide-open throttle). What it gets INSTEAD of propwash is the issue. The flow is not only slower, it's also apt to be dirty, thanks to the blunt-backed cabin. The condition of the airflow back there would have to be studied methodically before you could announce that your HS completely countered the effects of HTL. Dirty (that is, disorganized, swirling) doesn't allow the HS to generate a steady down-lift.

C. Beaty
12-20-2007, 07:09 AM
Tim said:

They paint a picture of the STOCK RAF as a 'performance' machine engineered to the 'highest standards'. Like you would go out and safely fly this machine to the ends of the flight envelope.


The hypocracy, ignorance and reckless disregard for the truth of RAF the Company, rubbed off on their CFIs as well as many of their customers.

When RAF’s company CFI, Doug McPearson, a 14,000 hour helicopter pilot bunted and tumbled out of the sky, they floated the story that he had taken their gyro without their permission and was trying to loop it.

Jim Logan, who happened to be visiting the factory at the time, verified their story on Norm’s old conference. “I was there and that’s exactly what happened,” or something along that line.

When Transport Canada’s official report came out, the story turned out to be a complete fabrication. Mr. McPearson was acting legally, the factory was a number of miles away from the accident site and not one of those present at the factory could have seen what happened.

The real eyewitnesses, according to Transport Canada, described what would be a porpoising sequence before the machine tumbled.

Whatever criticism the RAF Company and former staff receives is well earned.

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 07:19 AM
O.K Guys....here goes.

I am one of the members of the RAF flying fraternity. I am also one of those pilots that has significantly modified their aircraft. I will now try to outline my experiences and the train of thought that led me to make those modifications. For the record, I'm a electrical engineer.

Since I was growing up in the '60's I have always been fascinated with rotary wing aircraft. I daydreamed over the Bensen ads in Popular Mechanics and I drooled over Little Nellie in You Only Live Twice. I still think the best part of the Mad Max films was the "Gyropilot".

Nevertheless, due to my financial situation and availability, I decided to learn to fly fixed wing aircraft. When I was 17 I trained and received my private pilot ticket. That was in 1971. Since then I've managed to log about 500 fixed wing hours during my off and on flying career.

But....I NEVER lost my interested in gyroplanes. Finally, when I was 49 years young, I decided I'd waited long enough. I bought an issue of Kitplanes and browsed through the listing for rotary wing kits. I was torn between the Rotorway 162 Exec and the RAF-2000. The deciding factor was my weight. I weigh about 280. The max weight in the 162 is 235....so...it was the RAF for me.

I ordered my kit and anxiously awaited the delivery, but at some point after I placed my order and prior to the delivery I learned about this forum. I eagerly read every comment, both good and bad, about the RAF-2000. I spent hours going over the posts. And I actually called and talked directly so some of the posters. Armed with the information I'd gathered, I decided to put a HS on my RAF, even before I received the kit. I got in touch with Larry Martin and ordered his Ultimate Stab. I actually received the stab before I received the RAF kit.

Once the kit arrived I began construction, slowly and methodically. Often calling RAF for advice or clarifications of the instructions. They were extremely helpful during the construction period. When my gyro was about half completed I went to Oshkosh for the EAA show. I visited the RAF booth and took a lot of pictures. I then was able to get a ride with Jim Logan. My first ride in a gyro! It was GREAT by the way. I also met Duane Hunn at this time. I noticed that Duane had a strange device on his gyro that I later learned was the RAF stabilator. I inquired about it and later ordered one for my gyro.

Once my gyro was completed and ready to fly, the problem became locating an instructor within a reasonable distance. To my good fortune, Duane Hunn was planning to start instructing at Starke Country Airport which is located about 50 miles from my office and my home. This was perfect.

I brought my gyro down to Starke County for Duane to checkout and test fly. Duane immediately asked why I put a HS on my gyro. He said that by doing so I had turned a sports car into a truck. But he did all the checkout with the HS installed.

Then we began flight training. We did almost all of the flight training in Duane's RAF. Duane's machine has the RAF stabilator but no HS. When the time was close for me to solo we started flying my RAF. At this point Duane asked me to remove the HS. He said it would be better if I learned to fly without it. If I chose to replace it at a later date that would be up to me. So, at this point, I removed the HS and continued without it. I did all of my solo work without the HS. I eventually received the gyro endorsement on my private pilot's license.

I flew my RAF for another 25 hours or so without the HS. Then I decided to reinstall. it. After replacing the HS and a new hang test it I was ready to give it a try. The most noticeable difference for me was the fact that I didn't have to make nearly as many pitch corrections. To me, this alone substantiated the many posts on the forum supporting horizontal stabilizers. My stabilizer has been on ever since and this was three years ago.

One thing I didn't like about my RAF was that it was under-powered. Remember that I weight 280. Whenever I carried a passenger the performance was marginal. So marginal that I decided I would not carry passengers until I had more power. At this point my RAF had a 2.2 Subaru with fuel injection.

I located a 2.5 fuel injected Subaru with the Delta cam grind. This would mean I would be able to go from about 130 HP to about 200 HP. I made the decision to go for it. At the same time, based on my continued reading on the forum and talking to other RAF owners, I decided to drop the keel and lower the engine six inches. I also extended the keel 10 inches.

So, now I'm flying an RAF with about 160 HP, an RAF Stabilator, a Larry Martin HS, a lowered engine and a drop keel. Why did I do all of this? I look at it as increasing the odds. Hey, I love me!!! We all realize that operating any type of aircraft is inherently hazardous. Anything I can do to tilt the odds more in my favor makes sense to me.

But I based the decision to make all the changes and modification on the information I gained from this forum and the conversations I've had with many of it's members. Not on my personal experiences.

I can honestly say that, while flying my RAF and Duane's RAF in all types of conditions I never witnessed any type of bad behavior. Maybe I was lucky, but this is the truth. There was one time, flying with Duane, when we hit a strong down draft. Duane reacted very quickly and reduced the power. The aircraft did not pitch at all, but that incident has always stayed in my mind.

I have hit down drafts and up drafts in my modified RAF and, although the aircraft does sink or rise it remains level with no tendency to pitch in either direction.

So, in conclusion to this LONG WINDED post, I can say that I'm very happy with my modified RAF. I know I made the right decision for me.

Best regards to all....A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Doug Riley
12-20-2007, 07:42 AM
Bob, thanks for your comments.

A gyro with positive static pitch stability will nose UP on its own when hit by a downdraft. There is no need to adjust power -- or anything else for that matter. The gyro will maintain its airspeed automatically, and will minimize the loss of rotor AOA that causes low G.

It's educational to fly a Dominator or other truly stable gyro in rough air. Watching the machine automatically nose up or down, as needed, in down- and up-drafts, while you do nothing but hold the stick still, is pretty convincing.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 09:21 AM
Great post Bob!

I did not know that Duane was anti-HStab I had only heard about LeFlur(sp?) and Logan* telling RAF owners to take their stabs off if they wanted training.

.

(*** although I have heard 1st hand of LeFlur(sp?) and the above statement about Duane, Jim Logan does not appear to have ever refused training to a stabbed student. There is however, a great deal of testimony of Jim's negative feelings about HStabs and efforts at making the STOCK RAF stable and that he felt HStabs should not be installed on a RAF. The GREAT news is that apparently he is now recommending HStabs to at least 2 students and perhaps more or all (see later in this thread).

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 10:06 AM
Open question to any RAF owners or previous RAF owners/pilots:
.

Why don't you speak out and publicly state you don't recommend the STOCK RAF?

.



At the risk of being misquoted or misunderstood, I will give my opinion again...I have posted this in somewhat similar fashion, several times in the past.


I would not recommend a STOCK RAF 2000 be purchased by a newby, unless he were to modify it, before flying it...after additional training.

I do not see why a newby cannot be TRAINED to fly in a STOCK RAF 2000 tho.


__________________________________________________ _______________


I was unaware of any controversy involving the design of the RAF when I took the demo rides and subsequently purchased my kit. It wouldn't have made any difference if I were aware of the design flaws. I was a rated gyroplane pilot at the time, I liked the way it performed and I liked the looks of the machine. What more can I say.

It is my opinion, the STOCK RAF 2000 is an unstable machine, but, it is not an unsafe machine, as evidenced by the hundreds of RAF Pilots around the world and the thousands upon thousands of flying hours logged.

There have been fatalities, for sure, but I think you all know my opinions on most of those sad events.

The RAF psycho-technicians need to direct their techno-babble specifically at the interested newby. I'm all for that. Your INTENDED? and incessant unstable/unsafe babbling directed at the currently flying RAF Pilots does ruffle some feathers I'm sure, especially when NO psycho-technician has any appreciable time in the RAF, let alone, any solo flight hours.

You think you know how it should perform per the physics involved but, and a big BUT, you DON'T KNOW how it ACTUALLY performs, whereas the RAF Pilots do know. There's a BIG differential betwixt your physics and our practical experience.

In closing, might I again state that I flew my non stabilator, STOCK RAF 2000, for 90 hrs. and then added the KJ stab. I added the stab to improve the performance figures. Adding the stab did subsequently improve the stability as well; an added plus.

I like the looks and the fun/recreational performance of my machine, as is, and see no need for a step keel or AAI mod. Sorry guys. :peace:


Cheers :)

Heron
12-20-2007, 10:29 AM
Harry can you do us a favor?
Compare training in 2 RAFs stock and modified, what are the differences and what are the procedures to identify and correct in time the problems that may arise with the stock ship.
Please?
Heron

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 10:48 AM
I would not recommend a STOCK RAF 2000 be purchased by a newby, unless he were to modify it, before flying it...after additional training.

I do not see why a newby cannot be TRAINED to fly in a STOCK RAF 2000 tho.
__________________________________________________ __________


The RAF psycho-technicians need to direct their techno-babble specifically at the interested newby. I'm all for that. Your INTENDED? and incessant unstable/unsafe babbling directed at the currently flying RAF Pilots does ruffle some feathers I'm sure, especially when NO psycho-technician has any appreciable time in the RAF, let alone, any solo flight hours.

You think you know how it should perform per the physics involved but, and a big BUT, you DON'T KNOW how it ACTUALLY performs, whereas the RAF Pilots do know. There's a BIG differential betwixt your physics and our practical experience.

In closing, might I again state that I flew my non stabilator, STOCK RAF 2000, for 90 hrs. and then added the KJ stab. I added the stab to improve the performance figures. Adding the stab did subsequently improve the stability as well; an added plus.
:)

Thank you for your input Harry.

Two things..

1. So far 2 RAF pilots in this tread have publicly stated that the STOCK RAF is unstable and dangerous. Also, I believe there is another such statement in the Threads by a RAF pilot that flys for the military.

Therefore we DO have RAF pilots stating that the STOCK RAF is unstable and dangerous as described by the physics.

Are you therefor willing to with draw your statement to the contrary?

2. I am confused about the rational for your HStab. You said you installed your HStab for performance reasons and that doing so "subsequently improved the stability as well; an added plus".

What performance was improved with the HStab other than stability?

Thanks!

P.S. I am still hoping you will get a shot of the space shuttle......

.

Doug Riley
12-20-2007, 11:02 AM
There's little point in laying out the science of a thing for people who don't solidly "believe" in science. Faith in science is far from universal, though I personally can't see how anyone can use a flying machine for fun if he lacks that faith.

Science allows us to make LEGITIMATE generalizations. The sun not only rose in the east today, but, thanks to science, we can predict with confidence that it will rise in the east tomorrow. Simply watching it rise each day is not enough to make a sound prediction of this sort (the mere fact that something happened yesterday does NOT mean it'll happen tomorrow). Knowing about the existence and movement of heavenly bodies allows us to make the prediction legitimately.

In the same way, you don't have to fly a SPECIFIC model of HTL gyroplane to predict rather accurately how it will behave. The science here is so strong, and so simple, that no amount of "mine fly's good" testimony trumps it. In fact, yours flies well because you know how to catch it as it's about to tumble.

We are talking about the mechanics of a rotary lawn sprinkler here, not subatomic physics. There's absolutely no room in this case for sentimental Hollywood nonsense about the good ol' boys showing up the eggheads.

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 11:25 AM
Tim:

Thanks for the compliment.

I think it may be too strong a statement to say that Duane Hunn was anti-stabilizer. He did not harass me about mine and did not absolutely insist I remove it. He did say that, in his opinion, the stabilizer reduced the maneuverability of the aircraft and he, personally, preferred to fly without one.

Bob

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Doug,

As you know I am trained and work in the sciences.

I of course agree completely with your post.

I have always taken the scientific approach when trying to educate and communicate.

Although this works well on my students it (strangely) does not seem to work on some gyro pilots.

I supposed I am going to have to break down and read Dr. Shermer's book on this topic (http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870) but until then....

The culture of stability delusion in the RAF community I think can only be addressed by those in the RAF community.

RAF owners willing to publicly state that RAF co and it's principle instructors are wrong about the safety and stability of the STOCK RAF, are the key to starting an 'enlightenment' in the RAF community.

From the anonymous polls and number of RAFs modified it is obvious a large part of the community (at least in North America and Australia ) are enlightened but are unwilling to tell the company and the CFIs they are 'wearing no clothes'.

.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 11:38 AM
Tim:

Thanks for the compliment.

I think it may be too strong a statement to say that Duane Hunn was anti-stabilizer. He did not harass me about mine and did not absolutely insist I remove it. He did say that, in his opinion, the stabilizer reduced the maneuverability of the aircraft and he, personally, preferred to fly without one.

Bob

Thank you Bob.

A CFI is in a position of authority.

If he was neutral on the subject he would have said nothing and not have asked you to go through the trouble of removing it as well as training you on a machine that was not your desired configuration.

I sympathise with your sensitivity to your instructors opinions.

.

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 11:46 AM
Tim:

I'm trained in the sciences as well as an electrical engineer. As I've stated in my previous post, I have never experienced any undo behavour while flying my RAF and any configuration. Of course, the truth of the matter is that I've never flown a truly stock RAF. Every RAF I have flown has had, at least, the optional RAF stabilator.

When I was training in Duane Hunn's machine, with a stabilator only, we trained in many different wind conditions. The RAF was always well behaved.

When I flew my own RAF with only the stabilator in varing wind conditions, the gyro was always well behaved.

I will state for the record that I am a very conservative and careful pilot. Pehaps that has something to do with it or perhaps it was just luck.

It would be very hard for me to hold my hand to my heart and say that the stock RAF is a killing machine. I don't have the experience or the expertise to make that statement. All I can say is that, personally, I am happy and comfortable with my RAF in it's current configuration.

Best regards,

Bob

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 11:52 AM
Tim:

Regarding your sympathy for my sensitivity to my instructors wishes, isn't that what training is about? Your instructor is suppose to possess knowledge that you are paying him to impart to you. If you don't respect and trust your instructor and his knowledge, it's time to look for another instructor.

Duane Hunn told me I would be a better pilot if I learned to fly the RAF without the stabilizer. Since he was my instructor I believed him. It's that simple.

Bob

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 11:55 AM
Tim:

One more thing, remember that once I was on my own, the stabilizer was re-installed.

Bob

StanFoster
12-20-2007, 12:06 PM
Tim- I have to ask who the two are that publically said here in this thread that the stock RAF is unstable and dangerous? I must have missed them both! I suspect I am considered one of the two. I said that a stabbed RAF is more stable- I DID NOT say the stock RAF is unstable and dangerous! Please let me choose my own words. I am on my cellphone and cant cut and paste my quote , I just want accuracy and not what I said twisted. Thanks Stan

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 12:19 PM
Duane Hunn told me I would be a better pilot if I learned to fly the RAF without the stabilizer. Since he was my instructor I believed him. It's that simple.

Bob

Bob,

I fully agree that it was likely a good idea to get training in the unstable RAF. My first hours of training were in a stab-less machine. But not everyone will agree with this.

What I think shows that he is anti-HStab is him asking you to modify YOUR machine. I am sorry I was not clear.

As far as not noticing any actions of the RAF that were not "well behaved" that is quite expected.

If the RAFs just yanked your stick around for no apparent reason every 30 minutes then the problem would be obvious enough to the casual observer and we would not be having the conversation.

Likewise, had you experienced a PPO it is quite unlikely that we would be having this conversation also!

As a man of science and learning you should be able to understand the danger of having a dangerous design that appears docile during most usage.

You should be able to understand the workings of the offset head and the dangers involved if you go outside of it's ability to provide simulated stability or into an unexpected low-g situation.

Simply spending some time in the sport reading the descriptions of the fatalities should be showing you a consistent behavior of these machines.

If you want to 'experience' the problem in a relatively safe way simply follow Greg Gremminger's stability tests using the 'locked stick' method.

You don't have to bunt a RAF to be a RAF pilot that publicly states the STOCK RAF is inherently unstable and unsafe.

I am VERY glad you added the HStab!!

Off and on I have been studying for my CFI AGI cert and I found in my studies that it is a requirement that CFI's remain current in the knowledge of the subjects for which they train. There is no check system for this requirement but it is a requirement just the same.

For a gyro CFI to not be teaching students about thrust-line offsets and pitch stability in a manner that at least agrees with ASTM standards (arguably one of the most important topics of gyro flight) is in my opinion in violation of this CFI requirement.

My first instructor flew a stab-less machine but he sure as heck did tell me about HStabs and PIO and PPO before we ever left the ground. He was straightforward, honest and what he told me was scientifically correct. He did not recommend I remove the HStab from my ship and he even encouraged it's use.

As long as the STOCK RAF CFI's are anti-stability the RAF Pilots are going to be sheepish and closed lipped about any differing opinions.

Thankfully, there are lots of good instructors now teaching in RAFs that have HStabs or augmentation kits installed!

.

.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 12:33 PM
Tim- I have to ask who the two are that publically said here in this thread that the stock RAF is unstable and dangerous? I must have missed them both! I suspect I am considered one of the two. I said that a stabbed RAF is more stable- I DID NOT say the stock RAF is unstable and dangerous! Please let me choose my own words. I am on my cellphone and cant cut and paste my quote , I just want accuracy and not what I said twisted. Thanks Stan

Stan, That is indeed what I thought you were stating:

Here is my Challenge:

---------------------------------
95% of RAF owners polled anonymously state the STOCK RAF is unstable/unsafe but zero will post it with their name attached? Whats up with that?.

So it seems from :

((edit))
And numerous posts here on the forum....

That most RAF pilots deep down know the STOCK RAF is unstable and unsafe.

However, they are unwilling to step forth and state such because of the "RAF Disillusioned Cult" Udi posted about above.

Why wont some RAFers come out and say " Hey, Jim Logan and Steve O you guys are great, but you are wrong about the STOCK RAF being as safe as one that has been made stable..." ?

I want to know if some RAF owners/pilots that avoid a direct statement about the danger of STOCK RAFs and 'passionate' RAF websites are not playing "The emperor has no clothes" because they don't want to admit this in front of their CFI's and RAF buddies.

----------------------------

Here is your response:


Tim: I have to answer your question challenging RAFowners or previous owners in regards to if a stock RAF isnt as stable as one with a stab. Where sir have you been when I have said so. I am a previous RAFowner. as you well know..and have said MANY times I wouldnt fly a stock RAF without adding a stab.

So...to your challenge...I will state it right here so you dont have to waste time digging in the archives. A stock RAF isnt and cant be as stable as the stabbed one I flew. My stabbed RAF cant be as stable as Larry or Thoms.
I would go further and say that the SparrowHawk is more stable yet.

Stan,

If you are unwilling to step forth and say the STOCK RAF is unstable and unsafe then you are not answering my challenge.

That leaves you in a strange situation. You won't fly one, WHY? because you don't like the stock colors? What reason besides unsafe?

So are you saying the STOCK RAF is a SAFE STABLE machine but just not as stable as one with a hstab??

What is your definition of Stable? Do you agree with DougR, CBeaty and GGremmingers definition of stable?

This sounds like a logical dis-connect Stan.

Are you trying to be a man-in-the-middle for social reasons?

Please clear this up for me.



.

Gyropilot007
12-20-2007, 12:38 PM
Tim:

At the risk of sounding ignorant, I do not, truly, understand the functioning of the offset gymbal head. I'm sure it's been explained on here time and time again but if anyone would be willing to do it one more time, I'd be happy to listen.

Bob

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 12:39 PM
Two things..

1. So far 2 RAF pilots in this tread have publicly stated that the STOCK RAF is unstable and dangerous. Also, I believe there is another such statement in the Threads by a RAF pilot that flys for the military.

WOULD YOU CARE TO NAME THEM SO THAT I MAY DETERMINE IF THEY DID IN FACT SOLO IN A STOCK RAF?


Therefore we DO have RAF pilots stating that the STOCK RAF is unstable and dangerous as described by the physics.

Are you therefor willing to with draw your statement to the contrary?


YOU'RE KIDDING ME, OF COURSE. I HAVE NEVER AND CANNOT NOW STATE THAT THE STOCK RAF IS A DANGEROUS MACHINE. TIM, MY MACHINE IN MY HANDS WILL PERFORM ANY MANEUVER YOU CAN DO IN YOUR TWINSTARR. ;)

What performance was improved with the HStab other than stability?


THE ADVERTISED PERFORMANCES THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, ie, INCREASED AIRSPEED AND REDUCED FUEL BURN, PRIMARILY. OK?!


.



I see Stan Foster posted that he don't think that he was one of your two ref. respondents to the dangerous connotation.


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 12:42 PM
I see Stan Foster posted that he don't think that he was one of your two ref. respondents to the dangerous connotation.


Cheers :)

Looks that way. Waiting for clarifaction.

Not willing to step out of the crowd and tell the emperors they have no clothes.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 01:09 PM
Tim:

At the risk of sounding ignorant, I do not, truly, understand the functioning of the offset gymbal head. I'm sure it's been explained on here time and time again but if anyone would be willing to do it one more time, I'd be happy to listen.

Bob

Thank you Bob. No, wanting to learn something new is the least ignorant statement you can make!

Please see posts #41 and #49 in this thread.

I am sorry to say I don't have a wiki entry on this topic yet. If Doug or Chuck or Udi would be so kind as to make an informative post on the topic I would make it the wiki entry.

Doug,

An observation:

AirCommand and RAF Co. STARTED in the same place. Both had a dangerously unstable HTL gyroplane kit for sale and owners unwilling to learn about the mistakes made when the Bensen design was copied.

However, AirCommand learned and changed. Now they not only recommend Horizontal Stabilizers and CLT kits but they actually released a safety notice stating that any AirCommand without a Horizontal Stabilizer is NOT AIRWORTHY.***


All of the approved CFIs from AirCommand teach and understand stability issues.

On the other-hand...

RAF Co. and apparently NuRAF never admitted to this flaw (for reasons as yet unknown). And also, the factory CFIs were not allowed to teach about stability and recommend HStabs or they would be canned.

The result?

Dozens of posts by AirCommand pilots and owners in this Forum and Norms, recommending to people (that have or are about to buy an unstable AirCommand), to install a Horizontal Stabilizer or CLT kit before trying to fly the machine.

Openly admitting time and again that the old machines are dangerous.

In Anonymous polls and a HStab count at Mentone it is obvious some form of understanding of physics is leaking into the RAF community BUT...

It looks like we can only get 1 RAF owner to publicly state this (and he might scamper too..).

So I ask...

Why the difference in cultures between AirCommand and RAF Co.????? It's the same issue.

.
**** (From AirCommand's Web site) http://www.aircommand.com/safety2.php

C Horizontal Stabilizers: The flying rudder must be equipped with horizontal stabilizers, kit P/N B0052, to aid stability in pitch. Air Command gyroplanes manufactured in Liberty, MO., generally were not so equipped until late in the Liberty production.

2. Failure to comply with this Emergency Service Bulletin essentially will cause Air Command aircraft not inspected, nor modified as required, to be non-airworthy.

dragonflyerthom
12-20-2007, 01:20 PM
Tim Shame on you. You can't take someones words and use them like a whip to get the other pilots into a corner.

There are many customized cars on the road. Just because they were originally Chevys or Ford or Dodges doesn't mean they are no longer a Dodge, or Chevy, it doesn't change a thing.

Gyros are the same you start with an Air Command modify it and it is still an Air Command.

Now please state what you are trying to do or prove in this discourse. RAF is a RAF. Whether it is a Stabbed RAF, Dropped keel RAF, or AAI modified RAF. Notice it is still a RAF.

Now there are some RAF pilots that can and do fly the stock RAF, I'm not one of them, without a problem with stability. There are those that fly the Stabbed RAF without a problem. I'm not there either. I like the dropped keel , drop engine,and a stab. This one is for me. My Instructor has the AAI mod that is for him.

Once again what exactly is your agenda on this thread. The guy that started has already stated that he is going with the AAI mod on his RAF. You asked if I would fly a stock RAF. My answer is still no. I'm too old to learn too many new skills and I don't trust myself either.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 01:34 PM
I am not trying to twist any words.

Just asking if any RAF owner/pilots are willing to state that the STOCK RAF is unstable (and thus) dangerous.

Period.

As stated by Udi and myself this appears to be a cultural phenomenon (such as in the emperor wears no clothes) because the STOCK RAF owners actions and anonymous votes do not coincide with their public statements.

Could it be that somehow all RAF owners are magical thinkers and disregard reason and physics but owners of AirCommands, the European Authorities and other owners of other current models are not?

I think not!

There must be a cultural reason.

You don't see AirCommand owners tip-toeing around the issue saying things like "I won't fly one, and one with an hstab flys more stable" but not be able to outright say that they are unstable and dangerous machines like everyone else will.

What's up with that??
.

StanFoster
12-20-2007, 01:47 PM
Tim: er....wait a second....seems my panties have a big knot in them....there..I can talk now I need a ladder also to boost myself up here.

I answered your challenge the way I wanted to. I said clearly that a stabbed RAF is indeed more stable than a stock RAF. I dont want you pigeon holing my comments into...Hey world...Stan says the STOCK RAF IS UNSTABLE AND DANGEROUS. What I would politely ask you is to use my own words and not twist them the way a politician does.

Example.....if I get into my truck and drive to airport...to fly the SparrowHawk...the flight in the SparrowHawk is more dangerous than the ride in my truck. To some...that would mean I am saying a ride in a SparrowHawk is dangerous. In a way..sure it is. If I go hop into a R-22 right now...and fire her up....and try to fly it...I will be in a very dangerous situation. As I acquire training...I will become less dangerous.

So...you may use these words of mine exactly as I type them...ok?

A CLT gyro is what I feel amongst the "safest of gyros...I didnt say they arent dangerous...as of course they can be depending on the pilot.

A higher thrustline RAF with a stab ,....just like I flew is less stable than the SparrowHawk I flew.....and thus "more" dangerous. This machine would take more training than my SparrowHawk.

A bone stock RAF is less stable than my stabbed RAF and thus is more dangerous and it will take even more training.

Lets not get into brow beating here...by chest pounding and shouting down to me a challenge ...cause I would rather do that eye to eye....please just let me use my words and you can create new pigeon holes just for me.


Stan

JimLogan
12-20-2007, 01:57 PM
Tim,

Where did you here that I've been telling owners not to use their stabilizers? I would suggest you actually document your source because I have never told any owner not to use one let alone take theirs off.

C. Beaty
12-20-2007, 02:12 PM
Tim:

At the risk of sounding ignorant, I do not, truly, understand the functioning of the offset gymbal head. I'm sure it's been explained on here time and time again but if anyone would be willing to do it one more time, I'd be happy to listen.

BobHere you go Bob, here's an article I wrotre several years ago:

The Offset Gimbal Rotorhead
“My gyro is so stable it flies hands off.”

The fact is, some very unstable gyros will fly “hands off” when fitted with a properly trimmed offset gimbal rotorhead but with the cyclic stick locked, would be upside down within a few seconds. We all cherish our illusions.

How it can be?

Figure 1 illustrates the principle of the Bensen offset gimbal rotorhead. The pitch pivot is set forward of the rotorhead axis; Bensen standardized on a 1 inch forward offset.

The weight of the gyro, supported by the rotor, would tip the rotorhead forward without a trim spring. The spring tension is usually adjusted for hands off trim at normal cruise speed.

If an upward gust is encountered, -it’s important to understand that the wind doesn’t blow in separate directions at any given instant; the sum of forward airspeed and upward gust velocity combine to shift the angle of the relative wind from head on to one that’s rising at an angle- rotor thrust increases which overpowers the trim spring and tends to tip the rotorhead nose down and maintain the rotor’s alignment with the relative wind.

Stabilization is best with the cyclic stick free or lightly held with just fingertip pressure; the stabilization disappears altogether with the stick locked. But even with the stick tightly held, the feedback of rotor thrust into the control system guides the pilot to avoid disturbances.

With an increase of airspeed, the rotor flapping angle increases which moves the thrust line nearer to the pitch pivot and requires a reduction of trim spring tension.

The amount of trim spring tension required is a function of rotor cyclic flapping angle and is not an indication of a rotor’s lift/drag ratio.

Rotors using airfoils that do not have a zero pitching moment coefficient will require trim spring tension that can be far different than airfoils with zero moment coefficient.

Bensen wood rotorblades had excess reflex (the upswept trailing edge or “ducktail”) and generally did not require a trim spring for “hands off” flight at 45 mph although there was considerable variation from one set to another.

This is because long, skinny rotorblades, even metal ones, are torsionally flexible and can twist when moving through the air at several hundred mph. Over reflexed blades twist nose up, more so on the advancing side of the rotor disc with its higher airspeed than on the retreating side and increase cyclic flapping angle, moving the rotor thrust line nearer to the pitch pivot. Under reflexed blades twist nose down more on the advancing side than the retreating side, suppressing cyclic flapping and requiring more than normal trim spring tension.

The Spindlehead

The early Bensen gyros used a rotorhead known as the spindle head. A spherical roller bearing provided all of the motion required of a rotorhead, figure 2.

Unfortunately, the component of rotor thrust coupled back into the cyclic control system was in an unstable direction. An upward gust tended to tilt the rotor noseup, amplifying the disturbance.

Dave Prater once related the story of how he and partner Bill Parsons used to fly in formation; Bill looked like he was on rails and Dave was all over the sky. Dave finally figured out the difference was Bill’s gimbal head rather than superior flying skills. Dave’s gyro was fitted with a spindle head.

The Bensen B-7

I bought a truckload of gyro junk a number of years ago that included a mostly complete Bensen B-7 with spindle head. We fitted it with an inverted Rotax 447, a taller mast and a gimbal head. The seat was mounted almost directly on the keel.

This machine was horribly unstable; CG being well below the propeller thrust line and no horizontal stabilizer, but it had a pleasant feel due to the gimbal head. It could be trimmed to fly “hands off.” David Seace, Ernie Boyette and I had a ball flying it but we all realized it was a snake ready to strike. We flipped the Rotax rightside up, gearbox down for a slight improvement.

Never one to leave well enough alone, I used the spherical roller bearing from the spindle head to build a collective pitch rotor system. The teeter bolt centerline passed through the center of the spherical bearing, eliminating all feedback of rotor thrust into the control system; a “dead” stick similar to a swashplate rotorhead, figure 3.

On the first attempt, no one could fly the thing. I would break ground and immediately get into a lateral PIO that could only be stopped by slamming it back down on the ground. The cure was to eliminate control system backlash as much as possible and to use loading springs to mask that which could not be eliminated.

It then became flyable but required my full concentration just to stay right side up. It was a most unpleasant thing to fly but taught some valuable lessons about stability.

Years earlier, I had built a 3-blade hingeless rotorhead for my first gyro which was built to Bensen B-8 dimensions except for the use of 2024 2.5” round tube. It flew just fine even though there was no feedback into the control system. Even Ken Brock flew it and admitted it wasn’t too bad. Ken was pretty cautious about flying any homebuilt contraptions that he had not built; especially strange ones.

The difference was the CG was very nearly centered on the propeller thrust line and it had a large horizontal stabilizer. But few of us had much appreciation of the factors affecting gyro stability at the time, the 1970s.

Some History

Cierva first patented the offset gimbal rotorhead; his US patent application being filed in 1932 and most likely his UK application was filed earlier. Figure 4 is the patent drawing.

Cierva had a long list of claims in this patent but the enhancement of stability from the forward offset of the pitch pivot wasn’t one of them. His stated reason for the offset was to reduce stick force. It may be that Bensen was the first to recognize the stability enhancement from excess offset balanced with a trim spring. The pitch pivot is item 41 in the drawing.

There are a number of interesting details in the drawing. The prerotator drive pinion stayed in mesh and was driven by a ratcheting jaw clutch that was disengaged by pulling on lever 69.

The hourglass shape of the hub forging, item 8, resulted from the need to get the flap hinges as near to the center of rotation as possible in order to reduce control force.

The rotorhead bearings are nicely spread apart to resist overturning moments; the upper bearing, item 59 is a tapered race ball bearing that supports the weight of the machine while the lower bearing, also designated item 59 is a straight race radial bearing that resists overturning loads and supports rotor droop load while on the ground.

The dead end

Gyroplane development reached a dead end with the arrival of the helicopter but Cierva’s death in the crash of a KLM DC-2 airliner in 1936 was the beginning of the end. Cierva was the driving force in every area of rotary wing science and engineering.

Rotary wing flight had always been regarded as aviation’s lunatic fringe by the “mainstream” fixed wing community so it’s surprising that so many brilliant engineers were attracted by it. Most went on to form the engineering nucleus of the helicopter industry.

US gyroplane development was concentrated in the Philadelphia area so it’s no surprise that helicopters, initially, were an East Coast phenomenon.

We amateurs are just now learning the things that Cierva knew 75 years ago.

JimLogan
12-20-2007, 02:13 PM
Also.. What is this business about people not speaking out about "supposed unsafe conditions" because of fear of me? What am I the mafia or something? Is this the pathetic excuse your going to be using to push your views? How can anybody take you seriously when you write such nonfactual statements?

JimLogan
12-20-2007, 02:24 PM
So, Benjamin -- Mr. Northam - an airline pilot with >14,000 hrs total and >70 hrs in a RAF-2000 who PPOed in 2004 (in a stabbed RAF) doesn't count? How about the Canadian CFI who died just last year? And how about the Spanish instructor who PPOed just recently and the Russian instructor who PPOed just a few months ago? I am too busy to bring the whole list but the claim that all the fatal accidents were with pilots with no gyroplane experience is the kind of hype you can only get from your own group of RAFers. You guys support each other so well with your communal cognitive dissonance that it wouldn't be a complete stretch to call you a cult. I am not saying this to offend you, Benjamin - I want to warn you and other RAF newbies who may be underestimating the risks you place yourselves and your passengers in.

Here is something for you to chew on, Benjamin - NONE of the people who PPOed to their death in RAF-2000 (or any of the other HTL machines) have ever PPOed prior to their accident, and likely have never even seriously PIOed before. Some of them were trained by the "best" RAF instructors in the country. They were just like you - flying happily, feeling in complete control. Their only and very final accident has crept up on ALL of them by complete surprise...

Udi

Udi I think you might have inadvertently stepped on your own foot here, Mr. Northams airline time of 14,000 hours and his 70 hours of gyro time are simply apples and oranges. Quite frankly 70 hours is not much time in a gyro. The "Canadian CFI" you write about, well he wasn't a CFI at all, he had 12 hours in a gyro and wasn't even qualified to solo. How about you though Udi, how many hours and what qualifications do you have in a gyro?

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 02:26 PM
As you know I am trained and work in the sciences.

I of course agree completely with your post.

I have always taken the scientific approach when trying to educate and communicate.

Although this works well on my students it (strangely) does not seem to work on some gyro pilots.

I AM FAR FROM BEING AS EDUCATED AS MOST OF THE RAF PSYCHO-TECHNICIANS BUT I DO APPRECIATE AND RESPECT THE SCIENCES EVEN THO I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THEM ALL. BUT PLEASE...DON'T INSULT ME BY IMPLYING THAT I DON'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND WHAT MY MACHINE AND/OR ME ARE DOING BECAUSE I DON'T FULLY ACCEPT YOUR PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE PHYSICS REGARDING MY MACHINE.


The culture of stability delusion in the RAF community I think can only be addressed by those in the RAF community.

TIM, I BELIEVE YOUR HEADING TO LEFT FIELD NOW. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY HINT OF '"STABILITY DELUSION" IN THE RAF COMMUNITY. ON THE CONTRARY, THE MAJORITY DO RECOGNIZE THE STABILITY PROBLEM AND ARE ENDORSING MODIFICATIONS.


RAF owners willing to publicly state that RAF co and it's principle instructors are wrong about the safety and stability of the STOCK RAF, are the key to starting an 'enlightenment' in the RAF community.

.


Tim, that is totally asinine. The stability of the STOCK RAF has been dissected and found to be wanting. The safety of the STOCK RAF is in the hands of the pilot. A properly trained pilot coupled with the proper solo practice will result in a safe flying machine.

Earlier, I spent over an hour typing up a response to Tim's post above ...and lost it. :mad: Damn computers. If I lose this post...watch out...my 'puter that is.


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 02:37 PM
I answered your challenge the way I wanted to.

Lets not get into brow beating here...by chest pounding and shouting down to me a challenge ...cause I would rather do that eye to eye....please just let me use my words and you can create new pigeon holes just for me.

Stan

I'm not trying to make any pigeon holes, nor twist your words Stan.

I did not make a specific challenge to you, Stan, it is an open challenge to all RAF owners/pilots.

"I answered your challenge the way I wanted to."

That is exactly it isn't it?

You don't want to 'rock the boat'. And I can fully understand that.

Therefore you don't have an answer for the challenge.

Your answer is a grey one. What I am calling for is a CLEAR one.

That is the whole point.

I should have make that much clearer.

I am sure if I try to take the 'grey' out of your response by asking you (again) if you think the definition of stability put forth by C.Beaty, Udi, GregGremminger is correct... I could ask again to explain why you wont fly a STOCK RAF if it is not because it is unsafe? But that would take they grey out by making it straightforward and scientific and leave you in a corner yes?


So I'll not quote you as saying that that the STOCK RAF is unstable/unsafe. Nor any of your statements that lead to that as a logical conclusion.

Lets just write it off as my question was unclear and your answer was not the definitive statement I was looking for.

Tim,

Where did you here that I've been telling owners not to use their stabilizers? I would suggest you actually document your source because I have never told any owner not to use one let alone take theirs off.

I will look that up. It is possible that I heard it as a general statement about RAF instructors and thus included you as such.

I will check to see if you were specifically named.

On the other hand. It is GREAT news that you don't tell owners to get rid of stabilizers!


.

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 02:45 PM
There's little point in laying out the science of a thing for people who don't solidly "believe" in science. Faith in science is far from universal, though I personally can't see how anyone can use a flying machine for fun if he lacks that faith.

We are talking about the mechanics of a rotary lawn sprinkler here, not subatomic physics. There's absolutely no room in this case for sentimental Hollywood nonsense about the good ol' boys showing up the eggheads.



But, you know...some credit must be given to the total ignoramus' among us that unbelievably can safely fly this so called "death machine." :rolleyes:


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 02:52 PM
Oh, I almost forgot. Thank you very much Chuck for the post on the gimbal head!!


Tim,

Where did you here that I've been telling owners not to use their stabilizers? I would suggest you actually document your source because I have never told any owner not to use one let alone take theirs off.

I found one of 4 threads here on the forum that make this statement.

The thread is here:
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2575&highlight=logan

The statements were made principally by Chuck_Ellsworth and Ken Janulewicz both claiming to have first hand experience (you'll need to go through each page of the thread..).

Since you deny this I will assume these posts are in error or that there was at least some sort of misunderstanding. Hopefully future posts by those directly involved can clear this up for the rest of us.

Thanks!

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 02:58 PM
It's truly amazing how those three letters...RAF... can infinitely garner more posts than any other subject.

I like it.


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
12-20-2007, 03:30 PM
Just asking if any RAF owner/pilots are willing to state that the STOCK RAF is unstable (and thus) dangerous.

Period.






Tim,

Other than yourself...who are the RAF pilots that have stated the RAF is unstable and thus dangerous?

Initially you stated the RAF was unstable/unsafe. Now you're stating the RAF is unstable and thus dangerous.

What gives?!


Cheers :)

Steve Osborne
12-20-2007, 03:35 PM
and Tim, what stability problem? :D

StanFoster
12-20-2007, 03:42 PM
Tim: please....quit that freakin brow beating attiitude..ok pal????


I am saying it EXACTLY the way I mean it. You are trying to pigeon hole me into saying that a stock RAF is dangerous and unstable. I am saying that it is less stable and more dangerous than one that has a stab. Those are my words...please use them as I state them....I dont think it takes an english major to understandt that. Its not rocking the boat.

Just forget I am in this thread....I am out.

Stan

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-20-2007, 04:49 PM
It's truly amazing how those three letters...RAF... can infinitely garner more posts than any other subject.

I like it.


Cheers

****************************************

I bet there are many relatives and friends of dead RAF pilots who are not thrilled reading those three letters.....especially Doug McPearsons family.

Not only did they lose their father, husband, RAF claimed he was a thief.

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 05:49 PM
Tim,

Other than yourself...who are the RAF pilots that have stated the RAF is unstable and thus dangerous?

Initially you stated the RAF was unstable/unsafe. Now you're stating the RAF is unstable and thus dangerous.

Cheers :)

I am not a RAF pilot Harry. If I was I could speak from my own piloting experiences and I wouldn't be asking people to step forward and say what they really believe.

Humm. I see unstable/unsafe as the same as unstable/dangerous.

Do you see those differently? If so let me know. I don't want to be unclear.

Tim: please....quit that freaking brow beating attitude..ok pal????

Stan

Not trying to beat you down Stan.

You were apparently answering a question I did not think I was asking!

My intention, though apparently quite unclear... was to see if there was a social stigma among the RAF pilot/owners in regard to declaring the STOCK RAF unstable/unsafe(dangerous).

Your answer was inconclusive.

Therefore your answer is: No, you won't state that.

No big deal. If you won't state that the STOCK RAF is unstable/unsafe that is fine.

My intention was not for people to step forward and announce that one ship is more or less stable than another ship. Hell, most any RAF owner is willing to publicly say that (now days).

Fl90
12-20-2007, 06:03 PM
Tim, I'm saying this light heartedly.......Did you miss your rabies shot?

Phil

barnstorm2
12-20-2007, 06:22 PM
Tim, I'm saying this light heartedly.......Did you miss your rabies shot?

Phil

Ha! No but I have been cooped up in a small room with a lot of misbehaving Microsoft 2008 Beta 3 servers so maybe I have IT PMS???

I did not mean to piss off Stan.

We have the engineers, and as Harry (affectionately calls us I think) "PSYCHO-TECHNICIANS " saying that the STOCK RAF is a mess.

Then we have the majority of the pilots currently flying RAFs saying NO, the STOCK RAF is not unstable and not dangerous/unsafe.

Well which is it???

Everything my fellow "PSYCHO-TECHNICIANS" say makes sense to me and the RAFers won't talk physics just experience.

So could it be a social thing? Must be because if you try to 'go there' it blows up....

I guess there is just no way drill down into the issues?? Too much social stigma.

.

Udi
12-20-2007, 06:38 PM
Udi I think you might have inadvertently stepped on your own foot here, Mr. Northams airline time of 14,000 hours and his 70 hours of gyro time are simply apples and oranges. Quite frankly 70 hours is not much time in a gyro. The "Canadian CFI" you write about, well he wasn't a CFI at all, he had 12 hours in a gyro and wasn't even qualified to solo. How about you though Udi, how many hours and what qualifications do you have in a gyro?
Hi Jim - I am stepping on my own feet all the time, I'm used to it. I know that you know better than any of us the specifics of these two accidents - you were these gentlemen instructor, no? I think you may have missed my point, or maybe you disagree with my point. Actually, there is more than one point.

1. Stable gyroplanes fly very much like airplanes -- the main differences are in rotor management on the ground and in some maneuvers that are specific to gyros. I came to gyros from the FW world, and I felt very comfortable flying the Sparrow Hawk after about 3 hours of transition. I soloed my own single place gyro (CLT) after a few more hours in a tandem (CLT) Air Command. Form me, my FW experience allowed a very short transition from FW airplanes to stable gyroplanes. It may be apples and oranges in YOUR gyro - not in all gyros.

2. People should not die just because they have made one small mistake, or because they have less than 100 hours in-type.

Udi

dragonflyerthom
12-21-2007, 04:05 AM
Maybe we need to use the two different labels for our aircraft in order to describe the flight characteristics.

For an example if it flies like an airplane then call it a Gyroplane.

If it is squirrelly or oscilates like a a Heli then we could call it a Gyrocopter.

Udi you stated this above(People should not die just because they have made one small mistake, or because they have less than 100 hours in-type.)

But if you leave the ground even is an airplane this happens often in aviation. Most FW pilot that get their license don't even go past their initial PPL because you can lose your life if you make one small mistake. Aviation isn't a very forgiving sport.

gyromike
12-21-2007, 05:28 AM
Maybe we need to use the two different labels for our aircraft in order to describe the flight characteristics.

For an example if it flies like an airplane then call it a Gyroplane.

If it is squirrelly or oscilates like a a Heli then we could call it a Gyrocopter.

Udi you stated this above(People should not die just because they have made one small mistake, or because they have less than 100 hours in-type.)

But if you leave the ground even is an airplane this happens often in aviation. Most FW pilot that get their license don't even go past their initial PPL because you can lose your life if you make one small mistake. Aviation isn't a very forgiving sport.

The labels already exist Thom.
Stable and Unstable.

My GyroCopter (Bensen trade name) is not squirrely, nor does it oscillate. It is CLT and has a horizontal stab. I can hold the stick rigidly in all flight regimes and never does it try to depart controlled flight. It always tries to point into the relative wind. I never have to chop the throttle.
Stable.

I have flown gyroplanes that were squirrely and tended to oscillate. They were high thrustline machine without stabilizers. I had to float the stick and guard the throttle. Turbulence was no fun because of the divergent reaction of the aircraft.
Unstable.

A current fixed-wing pilot should not have to spend more than a few hours transitioning to a gyroplane.
If it is a stable design, a gyroplane is just not that hard to fly! And there is no performance advantage to building an unstable gyroplane*.

Most of the complaints I have seen about CLT gyros are about aesthetics:
"Ooh, it looks spindly."
"It's not low-slung, it doesn't look fast."
"Mercy me, I actually had to lift my leg to get in it (sniff, sniff)."


*Birdy may disagree since he pushes his machine to the edge while working, but for the type of non-commercial gyro flying we do, there is no advantage to having an unstable machine.

barnstorm2
12-21-2007, 05:51 AM
Ron,

You were right. I was wrong.

I should have listened to your advise to me in post #54 and especially #99 but noooooo I just had to try....


You can do the Church Lady "Told you so" dance now.....:boink:

.

dragonflyerthom
12-21-2007, 06:18 AM
The set up of a rotary craft is crucial to its stability. It doesn't matter what config you are using be it CLT, LTL, OR HTL. If it isn't set up correctly then it will fly unstable. I noticed in one of the NTSB reports a builder did a high speed taxi down an active runway. He had no training in any rotorcraft. He went up and flipped his brand new RAF.

Now you say you want to improve the safety record of rotor craft. Well until we get a handle on the untrained, maverick, wantabe gyropilots we will continue to have a safety problem.

The safety issue isn't just in our niche of aviation. I am based at a small airport with 4 FW aircraft. Two have PPLs but the owners of the other two don't have a license. One of the aircraft owners has just passed away from a heart attack so his Cessna is in his estate. The other LSA Challenger is out of service and isn't even airworthy at this time altho it did fly a few years ago.

Safety and legality in the aviation is a real concern. One of the problems is that you don't have to have a license to own any aircraft. This ability has its good points and bad points at the same time. I see where the FAA is trying to police all of us but they just don't have the manpower to do it.

So these are some of the problems as I see them. I am sure some of you see others.

kc0iv
12-21-2007, 06:28 AM
Thom said: "Most FW pilot that get their license don't even go past their initial PPL because you can lose your life if you make one small mistake."

The single biggest reason people quite flying is the cost. The second reason most don't go beyond PPL is they fly for pleasure not for commercial reasons. So there is no reason to advance to a higher rating. I doubt you could find 1% of the PPL that would consider flying a unforgiving sport.

In the thirty plus years I have been flying I've only known three pilots that crashed an airplane. One ran out of fuel. One had a block fuel line. And the third was crop dusting at the time. The two that had fuel problems did really crash they both landed safely just not at an airfield. I'd guess in all these years I have meet several thousand pilots in my life. I've yet to hear any of them say flying was an unforgiving sport.

Leon
(kc0iv)

C. Beaty
12-21-2007, 06:46 AM
Bensen left us a machine that was so simple, mechanically, that anyone able to drill a hole in a piece of aluminum could fancy himself a gyroplane designer.

And many individuals, lacking any knowledge of even the basic laws by which moving objects are governed, became gyroplane designers.

Force, mass, acceleration? “That’s psycho-tech stuff; who needs it?”

I was present at the Bensen Days, 1989, I think it was, when RAF and the Hasselohs showed up with their first offering, the RAF-1000. Cute for those who value cuteness over function but obviously the product of people who were completely ignorant of science and engineering.

I sat in on a ‘symposium’ conducted by Peter Hasseloh, quite a personable fellow. I was shocked to hear him make the claim that the rubber bushed, flexible mast was a stabilizer; claiming that as the mast leaned back from an encounter with a gust, the front mounted pushrods pulled the rotorhead nose down when it would have been obvious to any kid that had made it through 7th grade plane geometry that just the opposite would happen. A 4-bar linkage with the two lower pivots spaced closer together than the two upper pivots does precisely the opposite.

To RAF’s credit, they attempted to set up a dealer/CFI network to provide proper training and as I recall, the first few hours of dual instruction were included in the kit purchase price.

Most of the instructors RAF signed on were as lacking in knowledge of the science of flight as they were. A few were not and began to question stability claims but they were either promptly sacked or quit in disgust. Jim Mayfield and Ron Menzie come to mind but there could have been others that I don’t know about.

They were eventually left with 4 instructors (in the US) ignorant of such things as static and dynamic stability and so lacking in cognitive ability as to be unable to follow a simple discussion of stability factors. That’s not to say they weren’t charming or were not good stick and rudder people.

What’s just as surprising to me is that the students of these 4 don’t recognize how ignorant of the science of flight their instructor is. Could it be that people who buy RAFs are just as dumb as their instructors?

There is a profound statement on the Internet that was posted by the late BJ Schramm: “……..it’s not the design you should be looking at, it’s the designer.”

http://www.helicycle.com/BJ/q5.htm

barnstorm2
12-21-2007, 06:56 AM
Great Link Chuck. I had not read that article by BJ before.

Udi
12-21-2007, 08:27 AM
Many people, Chuck, tune-out their critical thinking when in the presence of an authoritative figure. Imagine a person, completely new to rotorcraft or even to aviation, meeting with a 4000-hr CFI next to a slick and sexy gyroplane. Most people would think - who am I to question this ace? And there is no doubt the few RAf instructors we are talking about think and project this attitude - they have more credentials then anybody else so shut up and listen up boy...

Just one of the weaknesses of being human.

Udi

JimLogan
12-21-2007, 08:57 AM
Well Tim I really couldn't find any hard support for your argument in the thread you cited, but I did find the following. Perhaps you should reread through the posts.

Jim is a veteran pilot who is self taught in Gyros. He took it slow and easy and learned on the ground before he lifted a wheel. He has over 3,000 hours in the RAF. I'm training with him now and he is more than willing to share his knowlege and experience with me. I can't compare it with others as I havent flown another but his gyro will pretty much fly itself if you don't mess with it. As far as a stab or CLT his attitude is that if I want one get it - not a problem. Part of his philosophy about PIO is not to teach you how to get out of it but rather how not to get into it to begin with. I have an enormous amount of respect for the man and his accomplishments. He is more a mentor than instructor. I'm new to the sport and will get a stab (and maybe even a conversion kit I'm not sure yet). The impression I get from these posts and the rest about the airport is that of a group of people who can't stand each other and don't trust each other worth a damn. It's easy to knock someone with a keyboard but how many have the balls to say it to their face? I'm glad I never have to go to sea with any of you. I've got to admit you folks sure made a real impression on me.

I had an hour leson with Mr Logan at Mentone and it was very interesting. his machine is very well matained and nicely detailed. I found myself pitching slowly up and down for about the first 45 minuets but then I was able to stay with the machine. It was my inputs because when I left his machine alone it would stabilize. Unsolicited he told me that I might be more comfortable with a horizantal stabilizer. We were flying in 15 mph gusting wind and I did not feel comfortable trying a cross wind landing at the big airport. Aparantly he was not comfortable with my flying skills because he kept coming on the controls unanounced. I am more comfortable in either an AAI modified RAF or the Sparrow Hawk. I felt he was a very carefull and qualified instructor. He showed me an interesting way to come around the trees at the Mentone airport. I came away feeling that I would not want to fly an RAF without a horizantal stablizer. His ship had the stabilator on it and it seemed to change the way the stick felt but since I hadn't flown an RAF without one I am not sure just what it did. Thank you, Vance

barnstorm2
12-21-2007, 09:38 AM
Well Tim I really couldn't find any hard support for your argument in the thread you cited, but I did find the following. Perhaps you should reread through the posts.

Jim,

There are plenty of posts in the forums there that say you are a skilled stick and a nice guy. I have never heard tale or seen post from any of your students that you were not a skilled pilot and all around great guy, only that your teaching of physics was off.

There are also plenty of posts that give testimate to your legendary aversion to HStabs and incorrect application of stability theory. Your arguments with Jim Mayfield over stability is a good example of this.

To reference all of them would take pages.

In short I suppose Chuck Beaty's Newsletter of you recommending not using an HStab is the best classic example.

I think RAF might have considered a horizontal stabilizer at one time and went so far as to circulate one among their CFI/dealers. Their CFIs’ consensus on the evils of a horizontal stab probably discouraged them from considering it farther, if in fact it was an honest evaluation attempt and not a hoax.

In an Ask First newsletter, Duane Hunn reported that the machine wouldn’t “levitate” with stab installed and that it reduced the “effectiveness of the magic rubber bushing by 50%.”

Jim Logan reported that it “doubled the power off rate of descent.”

Reliance on that sort of technical “expertise” sealed RAF’s fate.

On the other hand, one can never be certain whether those were the true sentiments of the CFIs or if Don LeFleur told them what to say.

I have a copy of that newsletter around here somewhere.

To make things clear and accurate I will make a note about the refusal statement of which the evidence is hearsay and I assume you are denying.

Some more Classics:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2575&page=4&highlight=logan

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2671&page=7&highlight=logan

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=748&page=17&highlight=logan

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13659&page=2&highlight=logan

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13659&highlight=logan+newsletter

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10253&highlight=logan+newsletter

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11583&highlight=logan+newsletter

I think it is GREAT news that you are now recommending HStabs to your students!

Would you go so far as to recommend that all RAF students should have a HStab installed as well as low-time pilots?

How about thrust-line reduction? Would you recommend that too?

.

Doug Riley
12-21-2007, 09:38 AM
Harry, regarding your Post #136: You're not an ignoramus. Ignorant people lack information. Those who participate here have information to spare. The science is solid and it's there for everyone to see.

What I was driving at is what people do with the info.

Sure, high-time RAF pilots (and high-time pilots of vintage Bensens with boat tanks, and of early Air Commands) aren't likely to PPO. They/you know where the coffin corners are. They/you know the best save-yourself technique if they inadvertently head for one of those corners.

However, it's been pointed out many times that the right downdraft in the right circumstances can "off" even an experienced guy. If people want to live with that residual risk, OK for them. It's nowhere near the risk that a newbie takes.

But that risk is real, and merely piling up hours does NOT prove otherwise.

When addressing a newbie's question about the CLT conversion, I think we owe it to him to make that point. The residual risk -- big or small -- of PPO does not go away with training or expereince. It doesn't go away if your H-stab is insufficiently powerful.

It DOES go away entirely with the right thrustline and H-stab setup.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-21-2007, 10:20 AM
A truly skilled knowledgeable instructor leads by example.

If you fly a proven unstable machine with a history of following the laws of physics by bunting you are exhibiting a very poor example....IMHO....

Harry_S.
12-21-2007, 10:47 AM
Doug, I agree with your Post #157. ;)


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-21-2007, 10:59 AM
Harry, I agree with your post #159! and #138! :)

PTKay
12-30-2007, 03:13 AM
And another 8000 h FW pilot and CFI dies in a stabless RAF 2000...

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15369

barnstorm2
12-30-2007, 10:01 AM
and Tim, what stability problem? :D

This one.......


And another 8000 h FW pilot and CFI dies in a stabless RAF 2000...

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15369

Harry_S.
12-30-2007, 11:16 AM
More Psychobabble from the Psycho Technicians. :drama: :rant: Sad indeed.


Cheers

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 11:28 AM
Harry, how many people have died up to now in these RAF 2000 death machines?

What is sad is the fact that there are still instructors who will train people to fly one.....

Harry_S.
12-30-2007, 12:28 PM
Harry, how many people have died up to now in these RAF 2000 death machines?

What is sad is the fact that there are still instructors who will train people to fly one.....



Chuck, more than one death is TOO MANY.. I'll not argue that. But, I and hundreds of other RAF owner/pilots are still living...why is that? There must be and has to be a logical reason...otherwise, there wouldn't be any living RAF pilots.

So the design is flawed...I tend to agree...but the fact remains...hundreds of RAF pilots are flying every day...I am one of them. Why have some died and why have hundreds of others lived on and are flying this "death machine"...as you call it...safely and enjoying it, to boot?! I know I have enjoyed flying my machine for 10 years now.

Why have some died and hundreds of others fly on?

Please explain that to me and the hundreds of other RAF pilots.

And to comment to the last part of your post...If people continue their intent to purchase and fly the RAF 2000, don't you think there should be instructors to accomodate them, or, do you think it better that they try to teach themselves to fly and most certainly...DIE?!


Cheers

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 12:44 PM
And to comment to the last part of your post...If people continue their intent to purchase and fly the RAF 2000, don't you think there should be instructors to accomodate them, or, do you think it better that they try to teach themselves to fly and most certainly...DIE?!

I can only speak for myself Harry.

There is no way on this earth that I would instruct anyone on any flying machine that is so flawed design wise that it " can " kill you because of the design flaw.

If someone bought a machine that I refused to train on and they went out and tried to train them self and died, that would not be my fault.

However if I did train someone on a known dangerous flawed design and my student died in said aircraft I would feel that I had been responsible for the death because I chose to train the person on a machine that I knew to be a dangerous design.

Why do you think I walked away from RAF in 1992 when I was attempting to set up a training program for them?

To find the answer all you need do is go back and read Norms forum.....I was the first instructor to come on a forum and warn people that the machine was unstable and RAF refused to make changes such as adding a H.S.

barnstorm2
12-30-2007, 02:05 PM
Harry you are not flying a STOCK RAF.

Your machine and many of the machines you speak about have HStabs or reduced thrust-lines.

Don't you get the difference?

.

Harry_S.
12-30-2007, 03:03 PM
Harry you are not flying a STOCK RAF.

Your machine and many of the machines you speak about have HStabs or reduced thrust-lines.

Don't you get the difference?

.



Give me a break.

I know the diff. you don't Tim.

I flew the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for 90 hours before I added a stab; ONLY to improve performances ie, airspeed and fuel burn.

I would still fly an ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 today. I personally see no problem with the machine...DON"T YOU GET IT?

It has nothing to do with my recommendation that a student pilot not use the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for his solo practice. Nor do I have anything against a student pilot getting his initial dual in a STOCK RAF 2000. DON'T YOU GET IT?

I know this machine intimately Tim, and you don't. You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000. SO...:boink:


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
12-30-2007, 03:11 PM
Tim,

Would you like to answer my questions in Post #165?


Cheers

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 03:14 PM
I know this machine intimately Tim, and you don't. You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000. SO...



So tell us why so many high time pilots bunt to their death in the RAF2000 Harry.

Is it because their instructors turn them loose before they can fly it?

Harry one more point.....RAF claims to have sold 700 kits.

Around thirty people have died in RAF's so that means for approximately every 25 kits they sold one human life was lost.

And yet you still defend a machine with a record that deplorable??????......

Steve Osborne
12-30-2007, 03:18 PM
Looking at the NTSB reports for 2007 and as of today it is showing

159 lost there lives flying in Cessna's this year

31 in Robinson Helicopters

3 in Gyroplanes

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 03:25 PM
What do you think about this Steve?

RAF claims to have sold 700 kits.

Around thirty people have died in RAF's so that means for approximately every 25 kits they sold one human life was lost.

And yet you still defend a machine with a record that deplorable??????.....

Harry_S.
12-30-2007, 03:37 PM
I know this machine intimately Tim, and you don't. You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000. SO...



So tell us why so many high time pilots bunt to their death in the RAF2000 Harry.

Is it because their instructors turn them loose before they can fly it?

Harry one more point.....RAF claims to have sold 700 kits.

Around thirty people have died in RAF's so that means for approximately every 25 kits they sold one human life was lost.

And yet you still defend a machine with a record that deplorable??????......



I don't know...if I did I would tell you...but maybe we could get somewhere if you could answer my questions in Post #165??

Again...I can only relate to my experiences I've had in my machine. I fly my machine sensibly, within the envelope and I don't PUSH. And I'm still here, along with hundreds of other RAF pilots, around the world. We must be doing something right or rather we HAVE to be doing something right, or, we wouldn't be here...according to you and some others who don't fly and have never flown the RAF 2000.


Cheers

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 03:55 PM
according to you and some others who don't fly and have never flown the RAF 2000.

Don't give me that crap Harry I flew the RAF 2000 long enough to determine it was excessively pitch and yaw unstable....and when RAF refused to improve their product and make it stable I quit flying it.

It's all in the record to be found on Norms forum.

So don't you dare insinuate I don't understand the subject Harry.

Lee Scatt
12-30-2007, 04:43 PM
Harry if you increased airspeed and reduced fuel consumption with the addition of your h-stab, you truly can defy the laws of physics and I suppose if you ever tumble you will merely defeat gravity at the appropriate time also.

Doug Riley
12-30-2007, 04:52 PM
A H-stab will add drag and will normally decrease the aircraft's efficiency a bit. In the case of a very HTL gyro, if the H-stab is fully effective (keel-mounted ones, and those set at near-zero incidence aren't), the stab will add a non-trivial amount of drag.

It's possible that a H-stab with near-zero incidence might still force the nose up a bit so that the pod has a little less drag. The reduced pod drag might more than compensate for the increased drag for the stab itself.

A lot of "if's" and "may's," though.

birdy
12-30-2007, 05:41 PM
I flew the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for 90 hours before I added a stab; ONLY to improve performances ie, airspeed and fuel burn.
I dont know how thats possable Harry.
How could your RAF be more fuel efficiant now?? Now that it has the extra weight of the stab, AND the artificial weight of the downforce? [ assuming it has a neg AOA]
And if your heavier, your go'n to either fly slower at same ERPM or fly same cruise at higher ERPM, either way, its impossable for it to be more efficiant.

I would still fly an ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 today.
So would I.

I personally see no problem with the machine
I do.


DON"T YOU GET IT?
I dont get how you dont get it.

Would you like to answer my questions in Post #165?
I will if your interested Harry.
Q; Why have some died and hundreds of others fly on?
Their time is nearer with every hour, yours included Harry. :(
Yes, you can say that bout anyone who flys, but those ina PPO proof machine have much longer to wait from their time to come. Its a simple 'law of averages' thing.

You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000.
Tim mite not, but iv got abit of experiance Harry, but i spose thats different ay.

159 lost there lives flying in Cessna's this year

31 in Robinson Helicopters

3 in Gyroplanes
Brilliant observation Steve. :)
Now all you have to do is post the equivilant no. of machines and hours flown in each catagory and your dum argument will hold water.
[ but im gess you wouldnt like THAT comparason, so you choose not to post it.] ;)

Oh, Steve, you mite want to add the number of passengers in them numbers too, coz the fatalities seem to increase if theres more than one in every crash.................... for sum reason.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-30-2007, 05:52 PM
Brilliant observation Steve.
Now all you have to do is post the equivilant no. of machines and hours flown in each catagory and your dum argument will hold water.
[ but im gess you wouldnt like THAT comparason, so you choose not to post it.]

I wonder what the kill number would be for Cessnas if they had the same number as RAF....one death for every 25 Cessnas ever made?

brett s
12-30-2007, 05:54 PM
Looking at the NTSB reports for 2007 and as of today it is showing

159 lost there lives flying in Cessna's this year

31 in Robinson Helicopters

3 in Gyroplanes

Sure - and why don't you post the important part, how many HOURS did each fly in 2007? Oops, can't do that without showing the piss-poor gyroplane accident rate compared to the others you mentioned...probably at least an order of magnitude higher.

Ignoring the facts doesn't change them, just like ignoring the physics doesn't change them either.

As long as people keep defending faulty designs, companies keep selling them, and CFI's keep teaching that they are safe that way, people will keep dying in them needlessly.

C. Beaty
12-30-2007, 06:32 PM
I’m sure glad we have such brilliant statisticians as Steve Osborne to keep us informed about fatalities.

He forgot to mention that there were 42,642 people killed in or by automobiles last year.

There were 535 people killed in general aviation accidents last year.

For automobiles the RATE was 1.42 fatalities/100,000,000 miles.

For GA, the RATE was 1.32 fatalities/100,000 hours.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table1.htm

barnstorm2
12-30-2007, 09:27 PM
Why have some died and hundreds of others fly on?

Please explain that to me and the hundreds of other RAF pilots.



Is this the question your talking about Harry?

Pointing to the survivors as proof that the machine safe is ridiculous Harry.

There are hundreds of WWII bomber pilots still alive today. That does not alter the fact that 1 in 4 of them died on missions over Germany and Japan.

The number that you should be looking at is the number of DEAD STOCK RAF pilots and PASSINGERS and asking why do so many DIE ON?

Once again you are not differentiating between owners of STOCK RAFs and ones that have been modified to be reasonably safe.

.

barnstorm2
12-30-2007, 09:32 PM
Looking at the NTSB reports for 2007 and as of today it is showing

159 lost there lives flying in Cessna's this year

31 in Robinson Helicopters

3 in Gyroplanes

That's the best you got?

A grade school kid knows those statics are crap without the number of machines and hours flown included. Also, How many of those fatalities were in UNSTABLE gyroplanes verse STABLE ones?

zero and three?

.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 03:35 AM
That's the best you got?

A grade school kid knows those statics are crap without the number of machines and hours flown included. Also, How many of those fatalities were in UNSTABLE gyroplanes verse STABLE ones?

zero and three?

.

Tim

You are looking to find that grimlin. There were one hundred fifty nine people who lost their lives in a stable certified Cessna.

Thirty one in the twichy little Robinson. Where they are required to get additional training.

and three in gyros of which one wasn't a RAF.

Your the one who doesn't get it.


Aviation is dangerous. When you leave the ground you can DIE. This is the nature of the hobby we are in. It doesn't matter whether the aircraft is stable or not, If you fall you will Die.

You guys are doing a lot of what ifs.

kc0iv
12-31-2007, 03:52 AM
Tim

You are looking to find that grimlin. There were one hundred fifty nine people who lost their lives in a stable certified Cessna.

Thirty one in the twichy little Robinson. Where they are required to get additional training.

and three in gyros of which one wasn't a RAF.

Your the one who doesn't get it.


Aviation is dangerous. When you leave the ground you can DIE. This is the nature of the hobby we are in. It doesn't matter whether the aircraft is stable or not, If you fall you will Die.

You guys are doing a lot of what ifs.

Thom not having the the numbers I'd like to know of the 3 gyros you quote how many were in stable aircraft? I know there are other gyros besides RAF that have unstable designs. What I don't know is how many there are.

Leon
(kc0iv)

barnstorm2
12-31-2007, 06:10 AM
Thank you for pointing that out Leon. I was worried I was unclear.

Thom, I said UNSTABLE not RAF. Yes, one managed to die who was not in an RAF but was in an UNSTABLE machine which he made that way by removing the HStab. (again a high time pilot/cfi..)

Everything that flys or drives down the road is in some way dangerous Thom, even your kitchen steak knives are dangerous. That proves nothing. The issue is, does the aircraft have a serious FLAW that can catch a pilot unawares even when that pilot is trained and experienced?

In the case of unstable gyroplanes with offset gimble rotorheads and a high thrust-line the answer is YES, and that is just a plain stupid thing to blow off as "every aircraft is dangerous".

If STOCK RAFs and other UNSTABLE HTL gyroplanes were certified they would have been grounded or restrained (like Stock RAFs are in the UK) long ago. And rightly so.

You as a RAF owner, smart enough to recognise and fix the flaw, should be rallying other RAF owners to the cause of STABLITY and safety improvements to the RAF. Instead, you are still making excuses for STOCK RAF owners to take to heart.

Franky, I don't understand that, unless it's just a RAF Click peer-pressure thing.

.
.
Now as far as the statistics lessons goes... I am not a math teacher.

Post #177 and #180, explain why Steve's post is complete daft.

If you & Steve still don't understand statics than someone else will have to explain it to you and you should refrain referring to such until you understand them.

.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 06:21 AM
Thank you for pointing that out Leon. I was worried I was unclear.

Thom, I said UNSTABLE not RAF. Yes, one managed to die who was not in an RAF but was in an UNSTABLE machine which he made that way by removing the HStab.

Everything that flys or drives down the road is in some way dangerous Thom, even your kitchen steak knives are dangerous. That proves nothing. The issue is, does the aircraft have a serious FLAW that can catch a pilot unawares even when that pilot is trained and experienced?

In the case of unstable gyroplanes with offset gimble rotorheads and a high thrust-line the answer is YES, and that is just a plain stupid thing to blow off as "every aircraft is dangerous".

If STOCK RAFs and other UNSTABLE HTL gyroplanes were certified they would have been grounded or restrained (like Stock RAFs are in the UK) long ago. And rightly so.

You as a RAF owner, smart enough to recognise and fix the flaw, should be rallying other RAF owners to the cause of STABLITY and safety improvements to the RAF. Instead, you are still making excuses for STOCK RAF owners to take to heart.

Franky, I don't understand that, unless it's just a RAF Click peer-pressure thing.

.
.

So you are saying that the Cessna Pilots that died in stable aircraft don't count and the Robinson Heli pilots that died don't count.

Just the three Gyro pilots that may or maynot prove a point count. Dan G who was checking out his new build that he was selling Counts.

Is this what you are saying Tim?

Doug Riley
12-31-2007, 06:22 AM
People who have modified their RAF gyros for pitch stability ought to call them original designs. That way, their feelings wouldn't be hurt when the subject of the RAF's vicious instability comes up.

To the FAA, each amateur-built gyro, kit or not, is an original design. Branding is merely a marketing gimmick. In this case, the gimmick is backfiring.

Dick Degraw built a gyro with an RAF body. He certainly doesn't call it an RAF, nor should he. It's an original CLT design with a massive H-stab (among other things).

barnstorm2
12-31-2007, 07:00 AM
So you are saying that the Cessna Pilots that died in stable aircraft don't count and the Robinson Heli pilots that died don't count.

Just the three Gyro pilots that may or maynot prove a point count. Dan G who was checking out his new build that he was selling Counts.

Is this what you are saying Tim?

Jiminy Crickets Thom!!

Lets try this...

Do you know what RATIOS are?

The safety record of gyros is HORRENDOUS compared to general aviation but to understand this you have to understand the RATIO. The number of aircraft, how many hours they were flown and THEN the number of deaths.

The only way Steves post would be in support of your statement is if there were the same number of gyros flying as general aviation craft and if gyros few the same number of hours as general aviation aircraft.

When you look at the stats of UNSTABLE aircraft it gets FAR worse. In fact it's the unstable gyroplanes that give gyro's their horrendous numbers! Take away the deaths from unstable gyroplanes over the years and we are as safe or safer then the rest of the experimental market.

If you don't understand what I am saying about ratios then you will have to find someone else to try and explain it to you. Do you understand Birdy's post and CBeatys post about this????

.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 07:18 AM
Jiminy Crickets Thom!!

Lets try this...

Do you know what RATIOS are?

The safety record of gyros is HORRENDOUS compared to general aviation but to understand this you have to understand the RATIO. The number of aircraft, how many hours they were flown and THEN the number of deaths.

The only way Steves post would be in support of your statement is if there were the same number of gyros flying as general aviation craft and if gyros few the same number of hours as general aviation aircraft.

When you look at the stats of UNSTABLE aircraft it gets FAR worse. In fact it's the unstable gyroplanes that give gyro's their horrendous numbers! Take away the deaths from unstable gyroplanes over the years and we are as safe or safer then the rest of the experimental market.

If you don't understand what I am saying about ratios then you will have to find someone else to try and explain it to you. Do you understand Birdy's post and CBeatys post about this????

.

Tim

You are missing my point also. Aviation is dangerous. Maybe not as dangerous and our public highways but dangerous none the less. You want to bring up ratios. Why. I have said that all aircraft stable or unstable are dangerous. Do You disagree with this? In other words What goes up WILL come down. Controlled landing or crash.

C. Beaty
12-31-2007, 07:20 AM
The process of rationalization takes some strange twists.

I’m a little surprised we haven’t yet heard the number of people killed by slipping in the bathtub.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 07:29 AM
The process of rationalization takes some strange twists.

I’m a little surprised we haven’t yet heard the number of people killed by slipping in the bathtub.

So CB you are saying you can generalize about the design flaws and accident rate but no one else can?

Your rationalization comes into question too. SOMETIMES.

Doug Riley
12-31-2007, 07:36 AM
Thom, your logic is either childish or intentionally obstructionist.

There is such a thing as degree of risk. You imply that there is not.

Flying on a commercial jetliner is aviation. It is a couple orders of magnitude safer than any form of private flying. Whether the small risk in this type of flying still qualifies it as "dangerous" is a matter of language. It is certainly more dangerous than never travelling at all, but that observation is so trivial that it teaches us nothing.

It ought to be obvious to anyone willing to be honest that a craft that can PPO is more dangerous -- involves a greater degree of risk -- than one that cannot. Even though both craft aviate.

Risk is additive.* The PPO risk is IN ADDITION to all the other stuff that can go wrong in any form of aviation. Eliminate PPO by design and you improve your odds.

Can anyone seriously doubt this proposition?

______________________________
*Professional gamblers know this. If the chance of having a defective spindle bolt break off is one in a million, and the chances of a defective teeter bolt shearing off is also one in a million, than your chance of dying from ONE of these causes is one in 500,000. Get rid of either one of these risks by design and your chances of survival double.

barnstorm2
12-31-2007, 07:44 AM
Thank you Doug. Much clearer then what I was about to post.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 07:46 AM
I am amazed at the name calling and labeling that goes on this forum. If I don't agree with what you are saying then you are either or. Stupid and slanderous statements. You should be ashamed Doug. Tim tried to pigeon hole us already so why are you coming in on this same dangerous attitude.

We need to be pulling together and improving our sport instead of this infighting with trying to belittle some of the gyro pilots.

C. Beaty
12-31-2007, 07:49 AM
“Aviation is dangerous. Maybe not as dangerous and our public highways but dangerous none the less.”

What is the basis for that statement, Thom?

The Fed’s statistics (post #180) say:

GA: 1.32 fatalities/100,000 hours

Automobiles: 1.42 fatalties/100,000,000 miles


Now assume an automobile averages 50 mph and do a comparison of accident rates. What do you come up with?

You RAF rationalizers tend to deliberately ignore the facts.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-31-2007, 07:51 AM
The process of rationalization takes some strange twists.

--------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't matter whether the aircraft is stable or not, If you fall you will Die.

--------------------------------------------------------

I better quit reading this forum Chuck it's making me paranoid or crazy or both.

Doug Riley
12-31-2007, 07:53 AM
Thom, read my post again. It is directed at your logic, not at you.

A spade is a spade.

dragonflyerthom
12-31-2007, 08:03 AM
Thom, read my post again. It is directed at your logic, not at you.

A spade is a spade.


I think I need a break. The loss of just one life is almost unbearable for the families of the deceased. Then we come on with our semantic analogies. Arguing about them. I love this forum but sometimes it is so callous in its attitudes. So Thanks guys I will be off for a while.

John Stahl
12-31-2007, 08:29 AM
OK THAT IS ENOUGH!!!

Let’s stop the arguing and go to fighting!!!

This is a poor medium for this type of discussion. The written word just doesn’t pass on the true intent of the statement like the spoken word does. We all love this sport and when one is killed while flying we take it personal.

The bottom line is if you have a RAF modify it like Larry and Thom has. I know Thom well enough to know he doesn’t pull any punches. When he says that his modifications have improved the flight characteristics of his RAF he isn’t lying.

Vance
12-31-2007, 08:50 AM
I find it disturbing when someone dies because they believed someone who was a better communicator than I am. If this accident was caused by the offset thrust line and the lack of a horizontal stabilizer, it is sad that the people who think it is an acceptable risk were able to sell their point of view over those who feel that it is not an acceptable risk.

Some part of the RAF program isn’t working.

When I read the NTSB accident reports I would look for some reason that it won’t happen to me. What I see is that most fixed wing accidents are about running out of gas. Most helicopter accidents are about not respecting the height velocity curve or wire strikes. I can manage these things.

Some RAF accidents have clear causes that I could manage. I have personally experienced a down draft that I feel would have put me into the ground if I had been soloing in an RAF with a high thrust line and no horizontal stabilizer. I feel fortunate to have come to understand this before my demise or before I talked someone else into taking what I now feel is an unacceptable risk.

I like to stand on the edge more than most. I also like to know how close I am to a non recoverable event. I have found that denying the risk is counterproductive.

I like things that require skill. I don’t like things that rely on luck even though I have more luck than anyone I know.

I believe that the things that this man’s CFI told him about hanging from the rotor are incorrect. I feel that it may have prevented proper risk assessment on his part. I don’t know that is what killed him. I believe that he would not have put that young boy at risk if he had understood how erroneous his information was.

I am not saying that the risk in a high thrust line gyroplane without a horizontal stabilizer is unacceptable for others. I am saying that there is evidence that the RAF experience is producing more deaths per flight hour than most other aircraft and perhaps that could be improved with people working together to understand the challenge and mitigate it.

I am also not saying that the people who have some knowledge that I agree with are presenting it in an elegant way. I would not want to be told that I have any number of serious mental defects because I may have misinterpreted the information that was available to me.

I feel that this discussion is more important than discovering a lack of social skills lurking just under the surface of otherwise functional human beings. I can empathize with their frustration. I would hope that they could take a deep breath and find a way to present the information in a less personally demeaning way. I would hope that the people in possession of flawed information would not feel personally attacked because someone doesn’t agree with their point of view and they are not able to find the words to defend it. Safety is a little too important for that kind of squabble.

Thank you, Vance

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-31-2007, 09:28 AM
Vance, I live and work in the airline and commercial aviation sector of aviation.

I have just recently accepted a position as a flight safety advisor in Europe with the Greek HCAA and EASA.

The position was offered to me based on my background in aviation, I did not seek it in fact I initially refused the position and spent almost three months thinking it over before finally accepting their offer.

I am not able to understand the mindset that is so evident in a small sector of the gyroplane group that defend a flawed design that can and does kill pilots and their passengers.......

......in our world it would be unthinkable to try and gloss over such a fatal flaw in any flying machine and we would be unemployable.....

.....can you understand my total inability to understand a situation wherein flight instructors gloss over design flaws and teach that the design flaws can be overcome by training???

We are talking about the value of human life here, to defend a flawed design in a flying machine and risk human life is paramount to murder in my mind.

That is my personal feelings on this matter and if it comes across as being to harsh so be it.

gyrodeputy
12-31-2007, 09:34 AM
Let me start by saying that when I started this thread, I had not idea that I would be putting a stick into the hornets nest. I was simply asking for input as a (at the time) prospective RAF buyer. :flame:

I believe that the fully stock RAF2000 is unstable and dangerous. I am representing this based on my on research from the NTSB statistics of 11 crashes with 7 fatalities since 2002!:rip:

I thought what I was asking for input on what options are available to make the aircraft stable and to correct the high centerline thrust issue.

Now as the thread generator I have to add my thoughts.:focus:

I have worked as a police officer for over 15 years. Prior to that I worked in the military as a bomb tech (EOD). I am not, and do not claim to be an expert on any avaition issues, including gyroplanes.

What I do know is this: I am a Husband, a Dad and a Son. Everyday I go to work I have one GOAL...today I will WIN. I begin with proper mental preparation. I continue with great training. (This is where my flying will be going). I make sure that my tools, firearm, patrol car, and all the other support equipment are functional and well maintained.

Having said all that here is my relationship example. Every day when I go to work there is one tool that is optional. My bullet proof vest. Yet not a day goes by that I CHOOSE not to wear it. Why, because it increases my odds. What odds, the odds of winning. Should some malfeasant dirtbag decide to take a shot, I put the odds in my favor!

I have spoken with dozens of gyroplane 'experts' about this topic. Overwhemingly the replies are, "The stock RAF is unstable and dangerous" at a mininum it needs some type of horizontal stablizer and it needs the centerline thrust issue fixed. Most (admittedly not all) of the gyro cfi's that I have spoken with will not even consider flying in, led alone teaching in a non centerline, unstable gyro, regardless of manufacturer.

Now that I have entered into an aggreement to buy a used RAF. It is stock. But it won't be for long. Others may disagree with my feelings, but ultimately here is my justification. I WANT TO INCREASE MY ODDS.

As demonstrated in countless responses, there are many stock RAF's flying and many people for hundreds if not thousands of hours. This is in large part because of the skill and tallent of the people flying them. Unfortunately, all to often we have to read about or suffer the personal loss of a friend or friends because on their fateful day, the bet on and relied upon the odds and lost.:(

Now you can call my thoughts anything you want. However, when the day is over, I hope that each of you that read this you will at least understand, someday when you run out of talent, skill, experience and good old dumb luck, you will be flying a stable aircraft that will bring your butt back down to earth, in one piece.

Thanks for all of your input.:usa2:

Have a safe and happy new year!

Vance
12-31-2007, 09:44 AM
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Chuck. I have empathy for your frustration.

There are things about motorcycles that seem very fundamental to me and the misinformation continues to kill people on motorcycles. I find it hard to not attack the people who support these erroneous concepts. There is a part of me that feels that if only I can show what idiots they are that the good people will believe me and stop dying from their ignorance. I have found this approach to be self-defeating. I suspect that they are not idiots.

I am ignorant about many things and I have supported unsupportable positions.

I have trouble learning if someone attacks me.

I learn when people supply information.

Thank you, Vance

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 11:33 AM
So tell us why so many high time pilots bunt to their death in the RAF2000 Harry.

Harry one more point.....RAF claims to have sold 700 kits.

Around thirty people have died in RAF's so that means for approximately every 25 kits they sold one human life was lost.

And yet you still defend a machine with a record that deplorable??????......



I just went thru the other antagonistic RAF thread, now I have to catch up on this one.

I believe that I, in years past I have commented on every known RAF fatality You can look up my past posts if you can, and read my comments. For brevity, I will state that the greater percent of the fatals were with LOW time pilots. Low time pilots and unstable machines don't mix too well if you push it.

10,000 hrs. of fixed wing time to me, IMO, don't mean didldly (sp), when it comes to piloting a gyroplane. You must be trained and gain experience.

Check my past posts...I will defend my machine, before and after any mods, with me piloting it, against all aspersions. I see nothing wrong with MY machine. Get It?


Cheers

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 12:11 PM
according to you and some others who don't fly and have never flown the RAF 2000.

Don't give me that crap Harry I flew the RAF 2000 long enough to determine it was excessively pitch and yaw unstable....and when RAF refused to improve their product and make it stable I quit flying it.

It's all in the record to be found on Norms forum.

So don't you dare insinuate I don't understand the subject Harry.



Now you're gettin' nasty...didn't take you long; re-read the RED above...maybe I should have put a comma between the "you" and the "and" to have you better understand what I said?! I know you claim to have extensive time in the RAF and my ref. was made to the "others who don't fly and have never flown the RAF 2000."

Would you locate your ref. to Norms Forum and post it here? This would include your hours of experience in the RAF at that time, I suppose?! Thanks.


Cheers

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 12:32 PM
Harry if you increased airspeed and reduced fuel consumption with the addition of your h-stab, you truly can defy the laws of physics and I suppose if you ever tumble you will merely defeat gravity at the appropriate time also.



I don't believe I defied any "laws of physics", Lee.

The stab eliminated the small excursions in pitch as well as streamlined...if you will...the line of flight. The proper term escapes me right now. Result...better airspeed.

Plus it eliminated the many throttle manipulations, which burned more fuel.

If ANY additional drag was added...I sure didn't notice.

I sorta chuckled at your last dig and IF I ever tumble, maybe I will defeat gravity;
with the Good Lord's help.


Cheers :)

Lee Scatt
12-31-2007, 01:32 PM
Harry, Thank you for the explanation. I wouldn't have figured that much added drag would trim the aircraft to the point where it was overall more efficient. Doug Riley theorized that point exactly, you have proven it to me. I am glad you saw my attempt at humor as that... Thank You.

Chuck_Ellsworth
12-31-2007, 01:42 PM
Harry:

How long will it take a highly trained very experienced pilot on many different flying machines to run through the various attitudes, speeds, power settings and power changes to determine if an aircraft is stable or unstable?

Just a simple answer is all I want, we do not have to go into all the different stability / instability issues all I want is a simple answer from you...

How long will it take?

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 01:48 PM
I flew the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for 90 hours before I added a stab; ONLY to improve performances ie, airspeed and fuel burn.
I dont know how thats possable Harry.
How could your RAF be more fuel efficiant now?? Now that it has the extra weight of the stab, AND the artificial weight of the downforce? [ assuming it has a neg AOA]
And if your heavier, your go'n to either fly slower at same ERPM or fly same cruise at higher ERPM, either way, its impossable for it to be more efficiant.

I ANSWERED THIS IN ANOTHER POST, BIRDY.


I would still fly an ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 today.
So would I.

GOOD.


I personally see no problem with the machine
I do.

I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH MY FLYIN' IT. I DIDN'T MEAN THE DESIGN.

DON"T YOU GET IT?
I dont get how you dont get it.


????

Would you like to answer my questions in Post #165?
I will if your interested Harry.
Q; Why have some died and hundreds of others fly on?
Their time is nearer with every hour, yours included Harry. :(
Yes, you can say that bout anyone who flys, but those ina PPO proof machine have much longer to wait from their time to come. Its a simple 'law of averages' thing.


MAYBE SO. THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS AFTER THO. THE CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENTS.

You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000.
Tim mite not, but iv got abit of experiance Harry, but i spose thats different ay.





Yes, that is different. Tim has been giving out with expert diagnoses and expert opinions on the RAF, etc. and with no appreciable pilot experience at all. If you want to endorse his past posts, be my guest.


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
12-31-2007, 02:04 PM
Yes, that is different. Tim has been giving out with expert diagnoses and expert opinions on the RAF, etc. and with no appreciable pilot experience at all. If you want to endorse his past posts, be my guest.
Cheers :)

I hope you mean experience in a RAF Harry.

Thankfully, you don't even have to fly to understand physics.

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 02:10 PM
Is this the question your talking about Harry?

Pointing to the survivors as proof that the machine safe is ridiculous Harry.

iT'S NOT RIDICULOUS TIM, WE'RE NOT SURVIVORS...WE'RE SAFE FLYING PILOTS. IF YOU THINK THAT THE RAF PILOTS ARE ''SURVIVORS" THEN ALL GYRO PILOTS ARE JUST SURVIVORS.


There are hundreds of WWII bomber pilots still alive today. That does not alter the fact that 1 in 4 of them died on missions over Germany and Japan.

NOW THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!


The number that you should be looking at is the number of DEAD STOCK RAF pilots and PASSINGERS and asking why do so many DIE ON?

I DO ASK WHY. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT, BUT, IT'S NOT "ALL" DUE TO A DESIGN FAULT. FACE UP TO IT.

Once again you are not differentiating between owners of STOCK RAFs and ones that have been modified to be reasonably safe.

.



OH...BUT I DO!!!


Cheers

barnstorm2
12-31-2007, 02:23 PM
Harry, of course not all STOCK RAF deaths are due to a design fault.

Just the ones that PPO.

.

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 02:35 PM
I hope you mean experience in a RAF Harry.

Thankfully, you don't even have to fly to understand physics.



Yes, that's what I meant, Tim.

My answer to Birdy there, was in answer to his ref. of time in the RAF.

It's amazing how much is misunderstood and/or taken out of context.

But in aviation, most of the time it must be "proven" as fact, before a claim is accepted, with civilian as well as Military designs.


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
12-31-2007, 02:42 PM
Harry, of course not all STOCK RAF deaths are due to a design fault.

Just the ones that PPO.

.



And mechanical malfunction, pilot incapacitation, pilot error, inexperience etc.


Cheers :)

Udi
12-31-2007, 03:31 PM
I think this thread and all other parallel RAF threads prove without a doubt that perpetual motion does exist. Moreover, it appears people are actually enjoying being part of this never ending cycle... How sad.

Udi

reelmule
12-31-2007, 03:52 PM
Lets try and get this thread back on topic--I think Heath was asking for various methods to lower the TL. I fly one of these machines (with Large HS) but I consider myself low time with 190hrs gyro time. The first 100 hrs solo I spent doing S&G landings to a full stop until I had 1000+ and counting. I still wouldn't take one of my grandkids for a ride because I don't think I have enough experience. I would like some imput from the engineer types about lowering the TL without kinking the keel. Two possibilities come to mind. Perhaps a different re-drive-Iv'e seen it mentioned about a Neil Heinz (sp)-has anyone had experience with this on the 2.5 Subaru? Where should I go to get the specs? The other theroretical possibility may be using a shorter prop, perhaps with more blades. I don't know the science on this but I know Ivoprop offers up to a 6 blade. Could one load a 160 hp engine with a 60" diameter prop efficiently? I plan to eventually go to an inflight controllable variable pitch prop. If this is possible then I could lower the TL 3"s as my current prop is 66" dia, 4 blade. Any TL lowering from changing the redive would be more efficient as the mass of the engine would not be moved. In the past I had a loose association with RAF as the SW sales rep. I wasn't a good salesman as I never sold any. I no longer have any connection with SA RAF. I have no commercial interest in posting this. I do understand the physics and want as much built in safety as I can get.

gyrodeputy
12-31-2007, 04:14 PM
To Walt G....


THANK YOU!

C. Beaty
12-31-2007, 06:57 PM
There are two quite intractable problems with a stock Raf-2000, Walt.

1) The thrust line problem. Stock, the thrust line is 10”-12” above the CG, depending on load.

The options are: (A) Leave the propeller where it is and raise the CG (B) Lower the propeller and leave the CG where it is (C) Lower both engine and propeller which also lowers the CG and reduces the gain. With the engine/propeller package amounting to about 1/3 of the total weight, the reduction of thrustline offset is about 2/3 of the amount by which the power package has been lowered.

2) Torque roll problem. 130 HP applied to a propeller spinning at 2600 rpm generates 263 ft-lb of torque trying to roll the machine over on its back. This is normally resisted by allowing the airframe to tilt sideways in the opposite direction of propeller rotation which causes the rotor thrust line to resist by passing 2 5/8” to one side of the CG (at AUW of 1200 lb). No rotor thrust; no resistance to torque roll. This apparently was a major factor in the Monard fatality in Maryland.

Torque roll can be compensated by (A) counter rotating propeller (B) vanes in the propeller slip stream which remove the slipstream whirl and produce an opposite balancing torque against the airframe (C) horizontal or vertical stabilizer spanning the propeller disc to produce a balancing torque.

Cierva Autogiros chose horizontal tailplanes set differentially or with an inverted airfoil on one side to balance propeller torque. Their problem was much more difficult; a 220 HP engine spinning the prop at 1700 rpm exerts a torque of 680 ft-lb against the airframe.

The AAI stability mod addresses both torque and thrust line off set problems.

My own preference would be to use one of Neil Hintz’ Autoflight gearboxes. Probably, lowering the propeller thrust by using the gearbox prop shaft down would be enough to bring the machine to CLT. Neil would most likely know if it’s sufficient.

http://www.autoflight.co.nz/

But that would require cutting the keel and buying propeller blades for opposite rotation and still wouldn’t address the torque roll problem.

Ozzie Russ and pals on the north side of Australia have made some mods to RAF-2000s using the Autoflight gearbox plus tall tail that are quite attractive:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13102

I have no idea whether they plan to sell mod kits or not. The market is too small to attract anything but minnows.
There is also a gyro design in Australia by Owen Dull that looks good and probably has components that could be used to modify an RAF but again, I have no idea of what’s available. Birdy probably can give you an e-mail address and a picture.

Life just isn’t simple when you start with a stock RAF.

PTKay
01-01-2008, 03:06 AM
But in aviation, most of the time it must be "proven" as fact, before a claim is accepted, with civilian as well as Military designs.




Is this proof enough for you ???

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/RAF%202000%20GTX-SE,%20G-REBA%2009-07.pdf

In particular:

"During the flights carried out in the UK, the CAA test
pilot gained experience of flying the gyroplane and
during the tests identified a number of deficiencies when
trying to establish compliance with BCAR Section T.
Both gyroplanes tested exhibited marked longitudinal
dynamic instability when flown above 70 mph and
directional instability with cabin doors fitted. The
conclusion of the UK flight tests was:
‘The gyroplane had unacceptable longitudinal
dynamic stability above 70 mph and unacceptable
directional stability with the doors fitted.’
Following the test flight of the RAF 2000 in Canada, the
CAA test pilot concluded that:
‘The Stabilator dramatically improved the
gyroplane’s trim system however the gyroplane
tested exhibited similar static and dynamic
stability characteristics to a similar gyroplane
tested without a Stabilator.’
In essence, the test flying identified significant
instability of the gyroplane as speed was increased
above 70 mph."

PTKay
01-01-2008, 03:22 AM
Now you can call my thoughts anything you want. However, when the day is over, I hope that each of you that read this you will at least understand, someday when you run out of talent, skill, experience and good old dumb luck, you will be flying a stable aircraft that will bring your butt back down to earth, in one piece.




Excellent bottom line for any further discussion.

You put it the best way I could imagine...

Harry_S.
01-01-2008, 05:51 AM
I think this thread and all other parallel RAF threads prove without a doubt that perpetual motion does exist. Moreover, it appears people are actually enjoying being part of this never ending cycle... How sad.

Udi



Amen.

How many times have I posted, those three letters...RAF...have elicited more posts than any other subject.

Possibly more "hits", than all others combined?!


Cheers :)

Harry_S.
01-01-2008, 05:58 AM
Is this proof enough for you ???





Nope, can't say that it is, Paul.

I guess I should have made it "plainer" for some people by inserting the ref. to "certificated" aircraft. :sorry:


Cheers :)

GyroRon
01-01-2008, 06:31 AM
Bottom line is if you want to believe what Harry says ..... all RAF accidents are caused by anything BUT the aircraft itself.

meanwhile there has been enough deaths in that gyro design, and so few in what on this forum is considered a proper and safe design..... that anyone with a open mind and common sence can see Harrys is wrong here concerning the root cause of these accidents.

reelmule
01-01-2008, 06:31 AM
Life just isn’t simple when you start with a stock RAF.
Chuck,
Thanks much for the imput. You have given me plenty to mull. Is my idea about very short props just stupid??
Walt

Harry_S.
01-01-2008, 06:36 AM
That's some more of your hot air, Ron.

You'd better go back and re-read all my posts.

Another of your knee jerk reactions.


Cheers

C. Beaty
01-01-2008, 07:11 AM
The static thrust of a propeller, Walt, varies as the 2/3 power of diameter. Going from 70” to 60” gives this:

(60/70)²/³ = .90

You lose 10% of static thrust potential.

PTKay
01-01-2008, 11:24 AM
Nope, can't say that it is, Paul.

I guess I should have made it "plainer" for some people by inserting the ref. to "certificated" aircraft. :sorry:


Cheers :)

What "certificated" aircraft ???

The report reefers to stock RAF 2000,
as sold here in US as well, tests
done in UK and Canada by professional test pilots...

What do you want more as a proof ???

You want NASA to test it ???

Harry_S.
01-01-2008, 12:02 PM
What "certificated" aircraft ???

The report reefers to stock RAF 2000,
as sold here in US as well, tests
done in UK and Canada by professional test pilots...

What do you want more as a proof ???

You want NASA to test it ???



Go back and read my Post #213. Pay particular attention to the 3rd line.

Again...my ref. in that post was meant for "certificated" aircraft, as I mentioned above...meaning production aircraft, either for the civilian market or the Military.

If you're not aware of what I'm refering to, maybe you need to do some checking?!

By the way...your report ref. here, from the professional test pilots, told me nothing I didn't know already; from my own RAF flying and reports from other RAF pilots that had doors installed. You may not know, but I never installed doors on my machine, as I thought I would not need 'em here in Florida. ;)

The Brits sure do have problems with the CAA, and their professional test pilots. How many rated gyroplane pilots do they have on the payroll?


Cheers :)

Heron
01-01-2008, 12:11 PM
What are you guys talking about?
heron

Chuck_Ellsworth
01-01-2008, 12:47 PM
BUMP::

Harry:

How long will it take a highly trained very experienced pilot on many different flying machines to run through the various attitudes, speeds, power settings and power changes to determine if an aircraft is stable or unstable?

Just a simple answer is all I want, we do not have to go into all the different stability / instability issues all I want is a simple answer from you...

How long will it take?

OzyRuss
01-01-2008, 12:58 PM
There are two quite intractable problems with a stock Raf-2000, Walt.

1) The thrust line problem. Stock, the thrust line is 10”-12” above the CG, depending on load.

The options are: (A) Leave the propeller where it is and raise the CG (B) Lower the propeller and leave the CG where it is (C) Lower both engine and propeller which also lowers the CG and reduces the gain. With the engine/propeller package amounting to about 1/3 of the total weight, the reduction of thrustline offset is about 2/3 of the amount by which the power package has been lowered.

2) Torque roll problem. 130 HP applied to a propeller spinning at 2600 rpm generates 263 ft-lb of torque trying to roll the machine over on its back. This is normally resisted by allowing the airframe to tilt sideways in the opposite direction of propeller rotation which causes the rotor thrust line to resist by passing 2 5/8” to one side of the CG (at AUW of 1200 lb). No rotor thrust; no resistance to torque roll. This apparently was a major factor in the Monard fatality in Maryland.

Torque roll can be compensated by (A) counter rotating propeller (B) vanes in the propeller slip stream which remove the slipstream whirl and produce an opposite balancing torque against the airframe (C) horizontal or vertical stabilizer spanning the propeller disc to produce a balancing torque.

Cierva Autogiros chose horizontal tailplanes set differentially or with an inverted airfoil on one side to balance propeller torque. Their problem was much more difficult; a 220 HP engine spinning the prop at 1700 rpm exerts a torque of 680 ft-lb against the airframe.

The AAI stability mod addresses both torque and thrust line off set problems.

My own preference would be to use one of Neil Hintz’ Autoflight gearboxes. Probably, lowering the propeller thrust by using the gearbox prop shaft down would be enough to bring the machine to CLT. Neil would most likely know if it’s sufficient.

http://www.autoflight.co.nz/

But that would require cutting the keel and buying propeller blades for opposite rotation and still wouldn’t address the torque roll problem.

Ozzie Russ and pals on the north side of Australia have made some mods to RAF-2000s using the Autoflight gearbox plus tall tail that are quite attractive:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13102

I have no idea whether they plan to sell mod kits or not. The market is too small to attract anything but minnows.
There is also a gyro design in Australia by Owen Dull that looks good and probably has components that could be used to modify an RAF but again, I have no idea of what’s available. Birdy probably can give you an e-mail address and a picture.

Life just isn’t simple when you start with a stock RAF.


The short answer.............yes. Rod would supply the componetry to upgrade a stock RAF to what we have now achieved. Cost, let me check that out with him.
If the planned Ozy flyin to oshkosh etc comes about 2009, you will see both our machines there.
Al and myself, would be more than happy to take you guys for a blat in the "Raftorr's".
[ sorting the sea freight there and back is the biggest headache, the flying bit, is the easiest once we get there ]

BTW........seasons greetings to you all :focus:

birdy
01-01-2008, 03:26 PM
Low time pilots and unstable machines don't mix too well if you push it.
Fairdinkum???
So i spose your sayn if you survive your 'low time' phase of your flyn life, youll live longer?
Geez, wot a genius.

Yes, that is different.
And just how is it different Harry??
Me and Tim are sayn the zact same thing.
Oh, thats rite, he dont know coz he's never flown one.
Wot a bucket of sloppy crap Harry. :(
And youv got the hide to jump on posters coz you think they are attackn you.
Your attackn Tim, not wot he's sayn, coz he's sayn zactly the same as me, but you havnt argued the same point with me.

Harry_S.
01-02-2008, 04:49 AM
Low time pilots and unstable machines don't mix too well if you push it.
Fairdinkum???
So i spose your sayn if you survive your 'low time' phase of your flyn life, youll live longer?
Geez, wot a genius.

Don't spose I'm sayn anythin. I didn't say that, so i spose yuer the genius, ay.


Yes, that is different.
And just how is it different Harry??
Me and Tim are sayn the zact same thing.
Oh, thats rite, he dont know coz he's never flown one.
Wot a bucket of sloppy crap Harry. :(

I have a hard time following your posts sometimes when you're supposedly "quoting" somebody and posting under it, like the above. Break it down.


And youv got the hide to jump on posters coz you think they are attackn you.
Your attackn Tim, not wot he's sayn, coz he's sayn zactly the same as me, but you havnt argued the same point with me.



You got a point to argue or debate with me about the RAF...put it out there and we'll discuss it.

Nobody's attacked me, or, I don't believe anyone has. Some disagree with my opinions or maybe misinterpret my opinions but I consider that's their prerogative, just as it is my prerogative to disagree with their opinions, if need be.

If you have a point/counterpoint to make, let's have it.


Cheers :)

reelmule
01-02-2008, 11:22 AM
The static thrust of a propeller, Walt, varies as the 2/3 power of diameter. Going from 70” to 60” gives this:

(60/70)²/³ = .90

You lose 10% of static thrust potential.

Chuck, would static thrust of a propeller vary in relation to the number of blades or to the ratio of the chord width to the blade length? Are their alternative airfoils? I noticed the magnum Ivo appears to have a wider chord than the stock WDs'. With variable pitch I'm thinking perhaps flat pitch and somewhat higher rpm for T/O and climb power and increased pitch and lower rpm for cruise. I guess what I'm really asking is increasing prop length the only way to increase static thrust?
Walt

C. Beaty
01-02-2008, 11:57 AM
Static thrust is a bit misleading, Walt. With the prop properly pitched for best climb performance, static thrust will be less than it would be with flatter pitch since a good part of the prop is stalled during static runup.

More blades will give a bit more static thrust but won’t do much for climb performance if blade area was adequate to begin with.

A reduction of prop disc area lowers efficiency and there’s simply no way around that.

From Newton’s laws of motion:

Force (thrust) = mass x acceleration

Energy (applied to the propeller slipstream) = mass x velocity²/2

With a reduction of propeller disc area, the mass decreases so the acceleration given to it must increase for the same thrust. The energy absorbed in accelerating the slipstream increases with the square of velocity.

A no win situation.

Those designers of pre WWII biplanes with 7’ and 8’ props weren’t dummies.

birdy
01-03-2008, 12:28 AM
Riteo Harry, just for you mate.

Yes, that is different. Tim has been giving out with expert diagnoses and expert opinions on the RAF, etc. and with no appreciable pilot experience at all. If you want to endorse his past posts, be my guest.
Im tryn to figure Harry, just how the same comment can have 2 different meanings if it came from 2 different mouths?
IOW, you dont agree with or endorse or believe wot Tim said, coz Tim said it.
Then i said i agree with wot Tim said.
The difference between me and Tim is actual experiance in RAFs.
I have, he hasnt, but we are sayn the same thing, so wots the difference.
The difference Harry, is you cant accept wot Tim says ONLY because he hasnt much experiance, NOT coz he's rite or rong.

Experiance, no matter how great or small, has absloutly nill bearing on ones understanding, but it can help.

gyroman
01-03-2008, 04:52 AM
Experiance, no matter how great or small, has absloutly nill bearing on ones understanding, but it can help.

That's a pretty good quote there Birdy... I wondered how all them NASA Engineers figured out how a space shuttle would fly without ever flyin one. :)

Doug Riley
01-03-2008, 06:01 AM
Toby, it's a kind of religion in America that "eddicated" people don't actually know as much as the righteous common man. In the movies, the good ol' boy mechanic with the cigar always shows up the weeny little engineers with their white coats (rent the original "Airport" with Dean Martin, et al, for a classic example). This myth makes us feel better. You see examples of these cartoon stereotypes in the rhetoric on this Forum all the time.

As you point out regarding the Shuttle, reality is a little different.

In the case of gyros, there's no reason for an either-or gap between the two groups. Any person with a high school "eddication" can easily grasp the physics of gyro flight -- if he will only lose the "attitude" and open his mind.

reelmule
01-03-2008, 06:11 AM
Its starting to sink in Chuck. I was thinking that if I could get 2800prpm for t/o and climb then reduce rpm by say 400 to 2400rpm for cruise. With current redrives it appears one would need 6000erpm for the 2.1:1 redrive to make the 2800. This would sure be pushing the 2.5 Soob to the max-and probable more. I like the looks of the Neil Hinz redrive and perhaps other gearing ratios are available on special order. Not sure I would get use to holding left rudder on climbout--why to these Ozzies and Kiwis' drive on the wrong side of the road and turn their props in the wrong direction??

C. Beaty
01-03-2008, 06:26 AM
Not sure I would get use to holding left rudder on climbout--why to these Ozzies and Kiwis' drive on the wrong side of the road and turn their props in the wrong direction??That’s because they’re upside down hanging from their feet. It causes them to talk funny too.

A tall tail pretty much eliminates the throttle/yaw coupling so you don’t need to perfect the toe dance on takeoff.

As you know, the propeller slipstream has a swirl and a half height vertical tail is deflected in whichever direction the lower half of the prop is going.

reelmule
01-03-2008, 06:44 AM
Can anyone post the link to the official UK CAA testing of the RAF after being fitted with a HS. I've been told this was done and the previous airspeed restrictions were removed. Hopefully this link will include a detailed description of the "approved" HS. Thanks in advance.

Harry_S.
01-03-2008, 07:04 AM
To you Birdy,

I know, or I think I know what you're sayin'. I'm not saying Tim is "wrong" in claiming, as others do, that the RAF is of a flawed design. I concur and have agreed to it being a flawed design all along.

I'm saying this: Tim is wrong in his "bashing", if you will, the pilots that are currently flying the RAF, by ridiculing them, calling them names, insinuating they are idiots or blockheads for flying the RAF...because it's a killer and a deathtrap. It's okay with you then, that you have an RAF "bunt-o-matic", ay?!

The men that are currently driving the RAF, you and me included, know what they got and are enjoying it no end. I contend, if Tim owned and was actually flying an RAF, he wouldn't and couldn't be so fanatical in his postings. Reason...he would know better.

Do you know of any current RAF driver that claims that he is an idiot or a blockhead for doing so?

Flawed design or not, I'll still fly "MY" machine and defend "MY" machine no end.

Just say it's a flawed design and be done with it. Don't belittle the men that are flying it.

If you don't fly it, you don''t know it.


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
01-03-2008, 08:14 AM
Harry,

You look like you are waffling like a politician to me...


I flew the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for 90 hours before I added a stab; ONLY to improve performances ie, airspeed and fuel burn.

I would still fly an ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 today. I personally see no problem with the machine...DON"T YOU GET IT?

It has nothing to do with my recommendation that a student pilot not use the ORIGINAL STOCK RAF 2000 for his solo practice. Nor do I have anything against a student pilot getting his initial dual in a STOCK RAF 2000. DON'T YOU GET IT?

I know this machine intimately Tim, and you don't. You have no appreciable experience in any form of RAF 2000. SO...:boink:


An now....

To you Birdy,

I know, or I think I know what you're sayin'. I'm not saying Tim is "wrong" in claiming, as others do, that the RAF is of a flawed design. I concur and have agreed to it being a flawed design all along.

I'm saying this: Tim is wrong in his "bashing", if you will, the pilots that are currently flying the RAF, by ridiculing them, calling them names, insinuating they are idiots or blockheads for flying the RAF...because it's a killer and a deathtrap. It's okay with you then, that you have an RAF "bunt-o-matic", ay?!

The men that are currently driving the RAF, you and me included, know what they got and are enjoying it no end. I contend, if Tim owned and was actually flying an RAF, he wouldn't and couldn't be so fanatical in his postings. Reason...he would know better.

Do you know of any current RAF driver that claims that he is an idiot or a blockhead for doing so?

Flawed design or not, I'll still fly "MY" machine and defend "MY" machine no end.
Just say it's a flawed design and be done with it. Don't belittle the men that are flying it.
If you don't fly it, you don''t know it.
Cheers :)

1. I am not "Bashing" RAF pilots. I know and am good friends with a number of RAF pilots many of whom are smarter and better sticks than I.

However, ANY pilot that claims that the STOCK RAF is safe, and that training will solve all of it's ills, that Science and physics mean nothing, and the only people that have meaningful input are people with the exact same opinion....... I reserve the right to insinuate they are indeed blockheads and a detriment to themselves, this sport and their passengers.


2. "I contend, if Tim owned and was actually flying an RAF, he wouldn't and couldn't be so fanatical in his postings. "

Well, I can't not prove this unless I went out and bought one eh? I would LOVE TO HAVE A RAF. I assure you though I would install an extended keel and a large HStab before I flew it.

I did however, own a dangerously unstable AirCommand. And I don't go around claiming it was stable and safe. In fact you will find I don't RAF 'bash" I "bash" unstable machines when people claim they are safe and not unstable. I don't have anything against ANY machine so long as it is stable, RAFs included.

In fact I don't have a problem if you fly an unstable gyro so long as you know and understand the risks, the flaw your machine has, you don't take up innocent passengers and you are very high time. Now I would prefer these people not take this risk with their lives and add to the risk of our hobby taking another 'hit' in the press and flying community but that is their right.

Another thing to consider is that not all unstable or stab-less machines have the crazy high thrust-line offset the RAF and early AC's do. Bensens, Parsons and others are CLT or NCLT.

It's the instablity and the thrust-line that is the problem Harry, not the name on the machine. Until YOU can see the difference I doubt we will get far on this issue.

3. ""bunt-o-matic" and you forgot "Invert-a-tron". This comes from another thread Harry, but I will address it here. In that thread I was suggesting these names as a warning to innocents or to help stem the tide of the misinformed.

This is in-part because many RAF owners on this forum (you included) tend to not separate the difference between a STOCK RAF from one that has been modified with non-RAF factory parts to mitigate the STOCK RAF FLAW.

Also, It would be nice to separate the fatalities in stable machines from unstable ones in a way indicated by the name of the craft (pipe dream).

So if you don't like what I call the STOCK RAF Harry can you tell me why you are (or are not) upset with the RAF COMPANY for describing the STOCK RAF as such:

---------------------------------------------------------
Q
Why isn't there insurance... ?

A
Insurance companies have written insurance policies on the RAF aircraft because of their extraordinary safety record and their exclusive use of Ask First Society flight instructors.

Q
What is it that makes the RAF is so safe... ?

A
There are several factors here. First of all is the many thousands of hours of engineering that have gone into the design. Personal interest by every one at the factory to assure quality control and RAF's commitment to assuring that each perspective pilot receives the best flight instruction available.
-----------------------------------

Harry, why are you not calling out RAF Co, and other such RAF owners and web page hosters for making statements that are so misinformational??



Lastly,

Flawed design or not, I'll still fly "MY" machine and defend "MY" machine no end.
Just say it's a flawed design and be done with it. Don't belittle the men that are flying it.
If you don't fly it, you don''t know it.
Cheers :)

That sounds to me Harry that you are admitting to doing the very thing you are accusing me of, simply inversely.

.

Heron
01-03-2008, 10:09 AM
Ah . . .perceptions . . .perceptions . . .
Heron

Harry_S.
01-03-2008, 10:22 AM
Tim,

Now you're really going overboard...likening me to a politician. :mad: I'll try to get to the rest of your post , later.

Houston, We have a problem. Trying to make a point, across this computer does create misconceptions, misinterpretations, frustrations and maybe ill or hurt feelings, ay.

In this post, I will attempt once again and hopefully the last time, to relate my take on this RAF issue, Tim.

1) The RAF is a bad /flawed design. I have stated that from the get/go.

2) I have flown the RAF in its bad/flawed configuration.

3) I have for some time now been flying "MY" RAF in its bad/flawed configuration, with an added HS.

4) I would again fly the RAF in its bad/flawed configuration.

5) I personally have no problem with the bad/flawed RAF design or configuration...MEANING:
I "PERSONALLY" HAVE NO PROBLEM "FLYING" THE BAD/FLAWED CONFIGURATION.

6) I do not advocate nor endorse anyone to fly the RAF. "To each his own", is what I always say.

Any questions?!


Cheers :)

barnstorm2
01-03-2008, 10:28 AM
That post is a great deal more clear to me then the previous few Harry.

jvitable
01-03-2008, 12:25 PM
Tim,

Now you're really going overboard...likening me to a politician. :mad: I'll try to get to the rest of your post , later.

Houston, We have a problem. Trying to make a point, across this computer does create misconceptions, misinterpretations, frustrations and maybe ill or hurt feelings, ay.

In this post, I will attempt once again and hopefully the last time, to relate my take on this RAF issue, Tim.

1) The RAF is a bad /flawed design. I have stated that from the get/go.

2) I have flown the RAF in its bad/flawed configuration.

3) I have for some time now been flying "MY" RAF in its bad/flawed configuration, with an added HS.

4) I would again fly the RAF in its bad/flawed configuration.

5) I personally have no problem with the bad/flawed RAF design or configuration...MEANING:
I "PERSONALLY" HAVE NO PROBLEM "FLYING" THE BAD/FLAWED CONFIGURATION.

6) I do not advocate nor endorse anyone to fly the RAF. "To each his own", is what I always say.

Any questions?!


Cheers :)

HARRY-You said it all-Great-although I must admit to being less qualified than you --I agree-just could not put it into those words---What are these do-gooders going to do now that you have satisified them!!!! How about Microwave bashing or ?-I am sure they will find someone or something to harass----Fly Safe and thanks for your passed help--Joe(GYROCIDE JOE)

Chuck_Ellsworth
01-03-2008, 01:19 PM
What are these do-gooders going to do now that you have satisified them!!!! How about Microwave bashing or ?-I am sure they will find someone or something to harass----

So you consider those of us who do not want to see people killed in unstable gyros to be do-gooders and bashers?

Better to leave it to experts like you to explain how to fly gyros?


To All Out There-The opinions of those that have no actual experience in a RAF are worthless to me--I have flown stock RAFs with no problems-great machine-AND believe me I am not a great pilot-I had A stock Air Command/with stab-great machine- no hands or feet needed in cruise--Maybe its because I fly in good weather plus I have over 40 hrs of training in different machines--30 of that in a stock RAF-no matter how much time the pilots in these crashs had(some)-(they )failed to remember the first rule of flying any gyro-----WHEN IN TROUBLE-FULL BACK THE POWER AND LIVE -I now own a RAF with STAB with WINGLETS-BUT I KNOW THE STAB IS NOT A REPLACMENT FOR GOOD TRAINING-Joe---281-489-2019

God help us.

birdy
01-03-2008, 02:30 PM
Harry.
Tim is wrong in his "bashing", if you will, the pilots that are currently flying the RAF, by ridiculing them, calling them names, insinuating they are idiots or blockheads for flying the RAF...because it's a killer and a deathtrap.
Mate, i wurry bout you, as a mate iv never met.
I also wurry bout all pilots who fly stack RAFs.
But most of all, i wurry that blokes like Tim will end up thinkn " well f%$#k the lot of you, go ahead n kill yaselves, i give up".
The problem Harry is, he, as with alot of others, are tryn to SAVE people from their own ignorance, and like he said, the carrot hasnt worked, so you gota git the stick, and i think he needs to git a bigger one.

It's okay with you then, that you have an RAF "bunt-o-matic", ay?!
Where have you been these last 4 years Harry?

The men that are currently driving the RAF, you and me included, know what they got and are enjoying it no end. I contend, if Tim owned and was actually flying an RAF, he wouldn't and couldn't be so fanatical in his postings. Reason...he would know better.
For starters Harry, you [ should ] know i dont fly a RAF. Its anythn but a RAF, thats why i call it the wasa, coz it only was a RAF.
I know wot i HAD wen i got the stock RAF, and now i have sumthn close to a silk purse, instead of the heavy pig's ear i HAD.
Harry, i owned and flew my stock RAF, and flew it in vairying degrees of decreasing instability over 5 years to where it is now. BUT, i didnt need to spend 5 minuits init to know it was a fat, unstable, inefficiant and illengineered gyro.
If Tim did actualy fly a RAF, i have no dout itd serve only to conferm his assumptions.

Do you know of any current RAF driver that claims that he is an idiot or a blockhead for doing so?
No.

Just say it's a flawed design and be done with it. Don't belittle the men that are flying it.
Like he said, the carrot didnt work Harry, its go'n to take a stick, a f^%$#n big one.
He's not belittlen you Harry, he, and every other rongly perceved RAF basher is tyrn to save your sorry arrogant ass.
Sure, you have the rite to fly wotever you like, dangerous or not, but the stickn point is not that a dangerous designe will kiil more, its the public perception of the deaths.
IOW Harry, we are not tryn to change things coz we care bout you, we want you to live coz itll make gyros look better if they stop taken out pilots.

If you don't fly it, you don''t know it.
And Harry, iv flown it, and i know it. It just happens that i agree with Tim.

So you consider those of us who do not want to see people killed in unstable gyros to be do-gooders and bashers?
Slightly conserning init C E.
Isnt this the CFI.

Big Dawg
01-03-2008, 03:09 PM
Does anyone know what happened in Texas, 4 days ago? I was talking to
Don Parham,about 4:45pm,today, and he said that an RAF 2000 went down with a 9-year old passenger. It was presumed to be a bunt-over.
Big Dawg