RAF situation

[automan1223]

I have been reading and watching the debate about RAF 2000 machines for a long time. The root reason that has been put forth for so many crashes is that the machine is unstable, lacking a hs and centerline thrust.

I am curious and have this nagging feeling that is it possible that we might be overlooking something, some defect in materials or craftsmanship, installation of some part that might account for the flying great one second, dead the next. ?

I do not want to stir the RAF pot again, nor do I want to tarish RAF as a company or a kit, but I have a strong feeling that there is something we are all overlooking and while the direct cause might look like "a" it might actually be "b".

While we still have some smart old timers might we bring forth some ideas or theories about what it could be. For starters what did all the aircraft have in common ? Several of the most recent crashes had a hs installed and had a considerable amount of hours on them with experienced pilots. Or maybe I am all wrong.


Any thoughts ?

Jonathan
Oriental NC

[Gary_in_Orygun]

I don't get the same feeling as you. I've been following the conference discussions since 1999. I think most of the fatalities happened in machines that did not have a horizontal stabilizor and most-likely encountered a PPO.

There was one I remember that was because a rudder cable tightener came undone (not safety-wired) and the machine flipped front-to-back (now the engine thrust became an air brake).

Even though we already talked about the cheap rodends, I don't think there were any accidents due to those breaking. (Ken J. says there was. Scroll down to his reply.)

Ken J. has a better memory of much of this stuff.

[StanFoster]

Jonathon: There is a lot of negative press on the RAF. I agree it needs a stab...and having flown one now for 90 plus hours....I am very satisfied with how it flies.

Just e-mail some RAF owners and you will learn a lot. An overwhelming number of RAF pilots I talked to while making my decision to even buy a RAF ...convinced me that I would do just fine.

Well...they were absolutely correct. If I had known what I know now while I was finishing my RAF kit last winter...I would have really enjoyed the process. From all the negativety posted about it....it did make me wonder if I was doing the right thing.

From taxiing it ...to my first crow hops...to flying in high winds...I have yet to feel any quirks with controlling it. I have never been so relaxed as when flying my RAF.

I know that the SparrowHawk is even better...but in my situation..for the cash outlay I had available...the deal I came across....I would have done exactly the same thing again.

There are a lot of RAF's out there...and I have talked to many of them. Most do not post here.

I try to post exactly what I feel...and if I felt my RAF was uncomfortable flying in anyway...I sure would post about it.

I would buy another one in a heartbeat.


Stan

[Aussie_Paul]

You are spot on Stan. ;) The one thing I hope you would do, if you had your time again, would be to incororate the extra couple of mods that we have proven to make the Raf even better, while you were building it. Yours and my transition to the Rafs was so much easier because we had already flown lower powered unstable gyros. You were lucky that you did not have to start without a stab!!!!!!!!! :D

There are conditions that can cause a bunt/PPO in a Raf with a stab. These conditions are possible but certainly not probable. Choosing, as you do Stan, not to fly in the conditions a CLT gyro with a stab can be comfortably flown in, you will always be happy, and that is wonderfull.

Jonathon, :) I have flown many hours in a standad Raf, Rafs with an effective stab, and Rafs with a variety of mods that move Raf closer to CLT. I finished with my Hybrid that is CLT and has a stab. To work through from the start to the present time was a great process. My feelings as an instructor went from having to use throttle ALL the time to stay alive to never having to have my hand on the throttle, with plenty of time to talk a student through any situation.

I do not like the way the Raf company does business. When I was their golden haired boy Down Under agent, they lied to me many times. Once the stab issue came up WELL you just could not discuss/debate/explain anything with/to them.

This is written, not to bash Raf, but to help Raf owners enjoy their investment in a Raf. Their are no doubt people out their who have spent the money and now may be too frightened to continue building. I say to those people don't dispair. Ring someone who cares. People like Stan, others who fly their Rafs with a stab in fine but not perfect conditions, and myself.

One thing that you do have to hand to Raf is, they had the "sizzle" right. That is, an enclosed 4 stroke powered cross country gyroplane with all the whistles and bells. Adjustable trim rotor brake anodizing heater etc. No one gave them a run for their money for many years. :D

They would have to be worried now. :eek:

Aussie Paul. :)

[StanFoster]

Paul: RAF has treated me very well...but...I would be worried if I were them. I would most definately buy a SparrowHawk if I were ordering a new kit. In my case...I stumbled upon a new partially built kit that was a steal. I never dreamed I would be owning a two place enclosed machine this soon.

Like you said..RAF had the sizzle....but they need to get back into research and development and get the market back. AAI is a top notch company and their SparrowHawk has to be killing their sales.

Paul....seriously...your Firebird really looks like it will be cutting edge. Down the road...when you get it marketed....I will be considering it.

Stan

[KenSandyEggo]

Gary, there is at least one accident caused by a rod-end bearing in the control system snapping. A flight instructor and student were taking off and it snapped still close to the ground. I believe they rolled in the air and the gyro hit the ground but both were unharmed some how. I would hate to think what would have happened if they were 500' AGL. Maybe someone with a better memory has better details.

Jim Mayfield's technician was loosening the nut on one of the control-rod bearings and the shaft snapped off in his hand. Two wrenches in a human's hands should not be capable of twisting the nut to snap the shaft. If you recall, Jim sent them to a metallurgy lab in SLC for analysis and posted the results. Anyone after reading this and still flying with RAF-supplied rod-end bearings in their control system has to be nuts.

[thallett]

I checked the dates: 1994 was the year I had my first and last PPO. It happened at about 15 feet in the air. I had training, but was inexperienced. Had rebuilt an RAF 1000 with no horizontal stab. My first takeoff (accidental) ended up on the ground on the nosewheel which "castered" the wrong way and dumped me. That feeling of total pitch instability set me looking, and even at that time the "forums" all discussed the horizontal stabilizer. The first thing I did was build a small (effective at fast forward) horizontal stab. Stability was totally different! I later changed the engine mounts to get close to centerline thrust. And castered the nose wheel "back" instead of the bicycle "forward" caster. As far as I'm concerned, THE FORUMS HAVE MADE MY DAY! Thanks, guys.
Tinkerin Tom in Port Orchard Washington

[daveeisler]

I tend to agree with Jonathan, When I was looking for my gyro and saw all the negative reports on the RAF. I was unhappy , this was the one I wanted. At that time the Sparrow Hawk was not yet avail. So I went with Aircommand. This is my first gyro and I have never flown a non CTL. machine , but I would have to think that with proper training a non CLT. would not be a huge concern, this is why I feel it could be in the building or materials used, I understand that the Sparrow Hawk does use many new and better materials, they do a lot more than a CLT and stabilizer kit. In fact I am thinking of selling my A.C. and getting one it is a very impressive machine.

[Gary_in_Orygun]

Thanks for the update Ken. I knew I could count on you to keep the record straight. I modified my post above.

[daveeisler]

Does anyone if RAF has upgraded thier rod end bearings or any other part of the aircraft?

[Doug Riley]

Jonathan: The physics of PPO in an RAF is so simple and compelling (600 lb. thrust x 1 foot offset = 600 ft.-lb. of PPO torque) that there's no reason to look farther.

[KenSandyEggo]

Gary, I also belive that a disconnected rudder-cable in a Sparrowhawk would be a non-event because of the centering-springs they have added to the rudder. I hardly use my rudder pedals anymore except to keep her straight on take-off or a crosswind landing. I used to do a sprightly tap-dance on the rudder pedals with the RAF tail with any kind of winds.

[Doug Riley]

Yes, a tall tail turns a gyro into an Ercoupe with rotor blades.

[PatONeal]

Speaking of tails, it seems the recent trend is toward the all flying tail, tall or otherwise. Any opinions on wether this is good or bad? Do they fly differently than the standard type?

Pat O'Neal

[Gary_in_Orygun]

My rudder has the anti-servo tab installed, which would also help if a rudder cable came undone. At cruise I never touch it.

[Doug Riley]

An all-flying tail has no aerodynamic advantage over a 2-piece unit. In fact, it's less efficient per square foot and requires an anti-servo mechanism to boot. It's easier and cheaper to build, though, even with the anti-servo mechanism. It may be a bit lighter for the same tail area than a 2-piecer.

[PatONeal]

Would there be any problem using a Ron Herron tail on the Gyrobee?

Pat O'Neal

[mrford61]

Speaking of tails, it seems the recent trend is toward the all flying tail, tall or otherwise. Any opinions on wether this is good or bad? Do they fly differently than the standard type?

Pat O'Neal

Pat, after flying for 10 years with a "standard" fin and rudder tail I fitted a full flying Tall Tail. I,m not a technical person but the "practical" differences I noticed were more rudder authority, smoothed out the ride in rougher flying conditions and all but eliminated the the little dance a gyro does on takeoff or sudden power loss in flight.

HOWEVER!! I never had an anti servo tab or self centering springs and recently a rudder cable failed during a tight spiral descent and the full flying tail was happy to keep flying on full left rudder, till I "touched down"...off the strip... in rocks and trees.....end of story. :o

[Aussie_Paul]

Dave said, This is my first gyro and I have never flown a non CTL. machine , but I would have to think that with proper training a non CLT. would not be a huge concern, :eek:

That is so far out of whack that it comcerns me. Dave and anyone who maybe thinking along the same lines, use the search function. This is where we sadly miss access to Norms forums onfo.

Yes Dave, the Sparrow hawk is a fine machine. The best on the market if you want an enclosed machine with the safe CLT and an effective stab geometry, and who doesn't want CLT with a effective stab?

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

Ken, that rudder cable accident would not have happened if Raf suplied one cable 1/2" longer than the other.
The way they are, you have to shorten the right adjustment turmbuckle fully closed and lengthen the left one to as long a you are "game".

Or they could use a longer piece of the alloy that attaches the turnbuckle to the left rudder horn!!!!!

"Such a difficult fix for stubborn pig headed Raf management though!!!!"

Aussie Paul.:)

[daveeisler]

Paul, What am I missing, What concerns you . Please understand I am new at this and basically on my own here. What I mean is , I do not have any one close by to talk with about what is right or wrong, I did take lessons with two very good instructors but with two very differant views on almost all aspects of gyro's. Of coarse the people I got my gyro from think that thiers is the best, what manufacturer would'nt! This forum has been a great place to learn but I have not been on long enough to get the most of it. Dave

[GyroRon]

Don't forget Chuck Irby recently had to rebuild his Dominator cause a rudder cable came apart. On a Dominator the rudder pedals are kept forward - to keep the cables tight - with a pair of springs and if one cable goes the other pedal will no longer counter the pedal that is no longer functional and the spring will pull that pedal in applying a unintended rudder input. And there is no easy way to stop that input and the gyro would then be in a hard spin in the yaw axis and a crash WILL follow.

I would love to see if there is any ideas to improve this area on the Dominator to keep this from being able to happen.

[Chopper Reid]

I wonder whats going to be the consequence of some part between the top of the tall tail and the mast failing ?? My guess is that a nasty noise is going to be the first thing to wake you up followed by a very angry machine out of controll dragging a big airbrake .You arent going to have any CLT or stab anymore.
The first time I saw a "tall Tale " , my first thought was that the owner had too much faith in aluminium :eek:
Anyone got any figures as to incidents /accidents to tall tail failure.

[Chopper Reid]

My answer to you Gyroron is to put a conventional tail on it !! Far safer

[TomCarlisle]

Ron: The rudder springs should be set up so that they JUST return the pedel to netural (mine are) and then the anti-servo will keep the rudder centered and a safe landing can be made in all but cross-wind situations.

[GyroRon]

Chopper Reid, I don't know how they build their tall tails in your area, but the tail on a Dominator is extremely beefy. Could it fail? Sure why not, anything can break but it is not very likely.

And ChopperReid, please don't take offense, but your post concerning tails shows you are either not very experienced, or are just ignorant. Having flown many gyros some with tall tails and some with short tails, there is no way the short tail is the better set up. The tall tail takes all the work out of the rudder on a gyro. Some of the short tails do pretty good but still require a lot of rudder inputs throughout the flight regiment. the gyrobee out at Goosecreek has a very large short tail, on takeoffs when you rock back onto the tail wheel and do balance on the mains it requires FULL left rudder to keep the gyro straight, on landings with no power it requires nearly full right rudder to do the same. A tall tail machine requires nearly no rudder input as you takeoff and none in flight at all.

[GyroRon]

Well I just went to ChopperReids profile and see he is a high time mustering pilot. All I will say about that is this.... Based on Choppers posts and Birdys posts, these mustering pilots remind me of what we like to call Oldtimer gyro pilots here in the states. These oldtimer pilots have been flying gyros for years upon years and in many if not most cases, the gyro these guys fly arefar more dangerous than the newer more stable designs. but since these guys have flown so long in their machines they feel like it is a piece of cake to fly their machines and anyone else should be flying a machien just like theirs. A machine like a dominator to these old timers is a far more dangerous machine than what they consider a good solid machine. They feel a dominator will tip over too easy, or the centerline thust and tailfeathers will make it less manuverable in the air and so on. Heck you even hear comments such as the one posted in the Golden Butterfly thread about the risk of falling out of the seat because it is so high off the ground.....

There is a thing called progress, and in alot of cases progress means better. It certainly does when your talking about pusher gyroplanes - tractor gyroplanes would not be going forward or progress as you typically think about it, although a tractor type gyro IS progress compaired to any pusher design. the manager of the flight school based at my airport does not offer any taildragger planes for rental, and offers no taildragger instruction, and none of his instructor pilots including himself are taildragger rated. I asked him why he is missing out on this segment of flying and training and he simply replied that he believes in Progress and flying airplanes where the third wheel is in the front and not the rear is Progress. Since I have flown both types I can say that with all honesty he is very much correct....

[PW_Plack]

Ron, methinks you misunderstood when Chopper Reid said,

"My answer to you Gyroron is to put a conventional tail on it !! Far safer..."

I think he means a two-piece with separate rudder instead of all-flying. You thought he meant a short tail rather than a tall tail. The best of all worlds would be a two-piece tall tail, right?

Chopper Reid, watch the spelling..."tail" is the stabilizers on the back of your gyro, "tale" is a story.

The "tall tales" you mention are the only kind available from RAF. ;)

[Aussie_Paul]

Good posts Ron. :D

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chopper Reid]

:D Thanks PW Black, you are spot on with your post, Ron misunderstood what I said there plus I probably looked as if I was having a cheap shot with my comment which wasnt the case.
The spelling wasnt a mistake, I'm yet to be totally convinced that a tall tale is "that much better" than the conventional setup, especially when you consider the extra weight, complexity etc and I still refer back to my original comment that "what happens when you get a breakage between the top of the tall tail and the mast ?? I have personally seen that given enough time, something can fatigue as both the mast and tail will be shaking or vibrating.

I'm certainly not against progress as even my machine has a few mod cons that werent about when I bought my first gyro and I watch in anticapation to the advancements in specially pretotators as in my flying, a short takeoff would be of much benefit :D !! More efficent rotors ,props, gearboxes as well as safer machines are a beneift to everybody including me !
Guess I'm fortunate to have a Ross Symes built machine as it doesnt exhibit any nasty tendencies as I'm not that great a pilot, sure, I can muster cows/ sheep and goats and have done a few hours,sometimes in very nasty conditions. You might well ask why you fly in "very nasty conditions " but when you are working for somebody and he has four or five men sitting around on good money doing nothing, you need to be very sure that its unsafe to fly :D .
Sorry guys but I tend to agree with Birdy re the pushover thing .I think the Dominator type could well be closer to the edge than you think and I also reckon for what I do, it would not be as manourverable as my present conventional machine.
Your comments Ron re the tail wheel versus a tri set up on a FW is a point well taken since I too have a FW licence and yes, I'd much rather land/takeoff a tri set up any day BUT the tail dragger can land and takeoff in much more difficult and rougher circumstance , much more safely so in closing, much the same applies to our gyros and how and what we use them for !! :cool:

[birdy]

Ron,mate, I usualy read your posts with a smile coz I know I'll get something of value from them,but this crap about 'old timers' and 'high hur pilots' is confusing me a little.
Wot's wrong with high hour old timers??
No matter wot the subject is ,I'll always listen to one of these old farts befor anyone eles.They'v been there and done that,and are STILL ALIVE.They must be do'n sumth'n right coz they ain't dead.And most of these old farts don't give a sh.t if it's a bit rough,they can and do fly in anything,so they must have some understanding of the machine.

The 'don't take any notice of him,he's a high hour old fart' attitude gives me the ****s :mad: .[sorry Todd]

Chopper,the only thing I don't like about tall tails is the increased risk of blade strike with a short landing.I saw once in a vid someone shot of me landing short and if I had a short tail boom as in the tall tails,the blades would have struck.Even with the longer Rossco boom,the blades were only bout 4" clear.

[StanFoster]

Birdy: You just have to get used to the way he comments. I have total respect for high time pilots. Thats who I sought advice from before deciding on buying my RAF. Guys like Jim Logan, Duane Haun.....Ron Menzie....Terry Eiland..I could go on and on....speak volumes with their flying.

I had some very ncie chats with two of the above....and out of respect for their privacy..wont name them...But they gave me a lot of support for me flying what I have.


Birdy....its guys like you that fly...and fly...and fly....that impress me the most. I have no doubt you can run rings around anyone with your stabless gyro. Me...I have to have a stab because I am not that good a pilot.

Birdy...you remind me of a bumblebee....the scientists say it cant fly..and of course it does very well.

Stan

[gyromike]

Birdy...you remind me of a bumblebee....the scientists say it cant fly..and of course it does very well.

Stan


A recurring piece of folklore. From the 30's actually.

"The oft heard ridicule of scientists that
say a bumble cannot fly because its wings are too small, in spite
of the evidence of their own eyes, is based on a
misrepresentation of an incident that occurred in the 1930s.
McMasters (in the Amer. Sci. 77:164-169) reports that a noted
Swiss professor of aerodynamics at a dinner party with biologists
was asked about the aerodynamics of wasp and bee wings. He
performed some calculation for the bumblebee based on a smooth
wing and got a low Reynolds number "proving" the bee incapable
of flight. He obviously knew that the calculations were
simplistic, and later (after examining a wing under a microscope
and noting the bent and folded nature of the wing), corrected his
error, but like the news media of today, the correction received
little notice.'"

Cornell UNiversity News (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_wang.hrs.html)

Nasa Quest Article (http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html)

For anyone interested...

[PW_Plack]

Chopper, Birdy...

It's a little frustrating to read these arguments. Nobody disrespects you guys with big hours in all kinds of weather. The point is that you've done it flying machines which are not as stable as newer designs, and not everyone survives these machines long enough to become a high-timer. Believe it or not, Chopper, you probably are a better-than-average pilot.

I keep hearing this "maneuverability versus stability" issue, and I wonder if it isn't just a difference in feel. Could it be that somebody with thousands of mustering hours in a CLT machine with a tall tail could make the same maneuvers?

What you guys need to settle this is a "gyroplane rodeo" with competitors experienced in both types of machines. Come to think of it, make sure somebody gets pictures, cause that would be really cool!

[Heron]

That is what I have been saying all the time in any circunstances: the pilot factor in events considered abnormal.
The hand at the stick is conected to a brain and a heart (+ all the guts) and sometimes that hand reacts before the order is out of the brain, like a split second feeling that can save the day.
Machine wise it should not be a discussion . . .
Heron

[GyroRon]

Paul your last post above says what I would say to Birdy and Chopper Reid. And Birdy I have much respect for high time old timer or whatever you want to call them pilots... But after enough time these pilots get used to and set in their ways and don't want to go forward with Progress for a lack of a better term.

One example I will use is the many RAF 2000 pilots. Some of them don't like Stabs and would not have one if you paid them to put it on. These are mainly oldtimers, hightimers and some of them are chief RAF instructors. Other RAF pilots who flew without a stab for some time and then did put on a stab saw that adding a Stab made their gyro easier and safer to fly and was certainly Progress as far as the set up of their gyro goes. Other RAF pilots have tried out the Sparrowhawk kit and seen the even further improvment in handling and ease of flight and have made the switch to CLT and that too could be called Progress. But there is still many RAF pilots that have tons of hours in there bone stock Stabless HTL RAF2000 gyros and they think that their machines set up is the best way, that these Stabs and CLT upgrades are not Progress, that these mods are making our machines more dangerous in the end. We just know that is not true and that these oldtimer pilots are just skilled and have had good luck. Stabs and CLT are easy enough for a sixth grader to figure out are better strickly from looking at and taking into account all the forces acting upon a gyro.

Saying a tall tail is not as good as a short tail cause the blades might hit it, or it might vibrate off is nonsense. Design the tail to the gyro or design the gyro around the tail. Anything can fail, but if you factor in all the parameters and build to that, you should be fine. Otherwise how could anyone fly a machine where our life is HANGING from one teeter bolt? Who here hasn't had a bolt just fail on something before??? I know I have had. But I have faith in that the bolt is way oversize for the job and all this was taken into consideration when the gyro and rotorhead and blades and so on were designed. I hope you see my point in all this.

None of these posts by me in this thread are meant to be taken as a insult or jab at Birdy or Chopper, or anyone else for that matter. I am only sharing my observations.

[birdy]

Sorry, maybe I got you all wrong,if so, I apologise.

For the record.[to save any misconceptions about my ignorance]

I have flowen both my machines WITH H stabs.So I'm not talk'n out of ignorance.
When I took the stab off my muster'n machine,the first thing I noticed was the lack of resistance to pitch niputs.Duh.This freedom of movement about the rotor bearing in pitch means I get more precice control when "spot" landing and during tight, non-coordinated turns.And it wasn't mear perception and lighter feel in the stick.I found I could do the same manuvers much faster with the new "over shooting machine"
I know,not everybody want's to do this,but I do.
And I never found it any harder to fly in a dustorm,if anythng,it was easer coz I wasn't fighting the stab when do'n non-coordinated moves.

The 914 powered RAF is much the same story,I bought it as a compleated kit,with one of Paul Bruty's stabs on it.
The first trip in it was when I flew it home from town,250km,in 5 1/2 hours.Yes 5 and a half hours to travel 250km.I happened to pick a day when there was a strong sou-easter blow'n.And it was the worst 5 hours I'v put in in a gyro.
When I finaly got home ,I took the stab off to see if it was that witch was mak'n it hard to fly,and gess wot,it was much easre to fly in those conditions without the bloody stab.
Yes,when the conditions were alright ,the stab made it easer,but when mum nature was being a bitch,it made it very uncomfortable.

BTW,Ron and Chopper,when I said blade strike,I was refering to the ground.
When I land short,the longer tail boom keeps my rotors from hitt'n the ground.

Paul P said,


"I keep hearing this "maneuverability versus stability" issue, and I [B]wonder if it isn't just a difference in feel. Could it be that somebody with thousands of mustering hours in a CLT machine with a tall tail could make the same maneuvers?"

Well I'm not wunder'n,I'v tried both setups,and it dose make a big difference to maneuverability.

[Aussie_Paul]

Fair go Birdy!!!! A lot of times you post without facts, and mis quote me.

That gyro you bought was never fitted with one of my stabs. The owner built that flat plate stab himself.

Aussie Paul.:)

[birdy]

Hmmmm......... I'll have to have a yarn to Glen,he said it was one of your prototyps.

Not that it makes any difference,my comments still stand.

Alot of times I post without facts,and misquote you,meaning wot Paul???

[GyroRon]

Birdy you said "BTW,Ron and Chopper,when I said blade strike,I was refering to the ground.
When I land short,the longer tail boom keeps my rotors from hitt'n the ground.[behind me]"

well you learned to fly without a Stab and surely you would have to admit your machine is much more dangerous to a newbie that a modern CLT machine right??? Why not learn to land without the nose pointed too dam high and not worry about the blades hitting the ground. I know you can learn how to do this, I have faith in ya! :)

[PW_Plack]

Birdy, if you had as many hours in a stabbed machine as you do in your everyday workhorse, might the stabbed gyro not get to feel like a glove, too?

[CLS447]

Hi Everyone,

This is my first post since returning from Mentone.

All this talk about rod ends, who makes the so-called junk ones that RAF supplies?

If you refer to the Spruce catalog, you will see some very expensive rod ends. And then you will see, that Aurora makes more affordable ones. I believe these are the ones that were supplied with my AC kit.

Basically, I want to know who makes these cheapies and who sells them, so that I never accidently purchase them.

Thanks

[KenSandyEggo]

No one here at the tail end knows. They have no name and no numbers on them, a sure sign that they're junk. They're usually from 4th World countries. A rod-end in the control system is life critical. Auroras are more affordable (cheaper) for a reason or more. I'll stick with the expensive Heims and their reputation and not gamble.

[Aussie_Paul]

Paul, one of the problems is, probably more than 90% of gyro pilots in Oz have never flown a truly pitch stable machine. They have only flown gyros with various degrees of instability. That was also me up until Hybrid.

Last year, at our Easter national flyin, when I had Hybrid truly pitch stable, I took half a dozen gyro pilots flying. These guys had experience from 2 years to 20 years and 20 hours to a 1,000 hours. As I would take off and arive at trimmed airspeed I would take both hands off the controls and let the machine climb to 500'. Every one of them was nervous and disbelieving, so much so that they gept moving their hand closer to the stick every time we went through a bump. They were ready for the usually required automatic input. I would say, "It will fix itself".

This proved a lot to me, and I know to them. Some raved how good it was, others said very little and most agreed between themselves that they had never flown in a gyro like that.

I embaress myself occaisionally on a rough day, when the student is flying, and we hit a severe bump. I jump to attention for a split second, and then realise that I don't have to worry. This is the result of almost 3,000 hours of training in my previous gyros with varying degrees of pitch unstability, to only 500 in Hybrid. I am still learning to trust it!!!!

Aussie Paul.:)

[Chuck Irby]

Aussie Paul,

Do you (or anyone else, for that matter) have a pretty good idea how many gyro pilots there are on your big island, and how many gyro crashes occurred over the past 20 years?

[Aussie_Paul]

Chuck, McEagle Tim is the current President of ASRA and should have access to that data. Would that be possible Tim?

Aussie Paul.:)

[birdy]

Paul P.,I reckon the time I'v spent with and without the stab on the ferel is about equal now,and yes,I did think the machine was pretty slippery with the stab [for the first 1000 hours],but I thought maybe it will be more slippery if I took the stab off,and no, I'm not puttn it back on[and it didn't take another 1000 to realise the difference.]

Ron ,mate,how many times have you landed like this?????;

Your in a hurry to refuel coz the mob[cattle] are gitt'n out of hand.Your fly'n down wind to your fuel dump,20' off the ground,at top speed.40 yards befor the fuel dump,you chop[yes ,instantly return to idle] power,reef the machine around 180 degrees [keep'n the blades just clear of the ground]and spot right next to the fuel drum.
Hint,
don't try this with a tall tail.


BTW Ron,no ,I don't think my machine is more dangerous without a stab,otherwise I'd have it on.
And I wasn't muster'n or push'n the limits when I was new either.

Lastly,I can land it like a cessna too ,if I ever wanted to.

[Chuck Irby]

Wow Birdy, that's some picture you just painted for me. That is some awesome flying. No, I wouldn't try that maneuver with my machine, or your's either. And too, I am a long way from 1,000 hours.

[GyroRon]

Birdy yes I have landed nose high before. Bent up the anti servo tab on someone elses dominator once landing too nose high. But so far I have not came into land like my ass is on fire I need to sit down in a bucket of water - in other words not in such a rush - and had the nose pointing at the sky which would cause me any problems.

Also the tall tails on the Dominators and most other ships I have flown are well clear of the blades. By this I mean you can rock the gyro back on the tailwheel, then grab the rotorblade in the rear and press down on the blade and go all the way till the blades bottom out on the teeter stops and then still even bend down the blade itself some and still there is plenty of clearance. On a dominator the only way the blades are going to hit the tail when you land is if you land so hard on the tail wheel that you bend the lower keel up several SEVERAL inches and push the tail up into the blades. OR if you get into a severe rotorflap during takeoff, the blades might strike the tail - but I have seen two Dominators flap the blades Extremely hard and one time the blades did kiss the top the tail - didn't hurt anything - and the other time they never touched. BOTTOM LINE : if flown like you got some sence, you will never have a problem.

Also doing this same test the blades will either not hit the ground or just touch with them all the way but at the teeter stops, which is not part of a normal landing.

Plus there is nothing stopping anyone from having a tall tail like on a Dominator and still have the rear keel extend out past it far even to keep the blades from being able to hit the ground.


Now Birdy your last post just goes to show me that you have what I call that old timer atitude. Your used to what you fly and you will probably never have a problem with it. Your very experienced and do this day after day. your low to the ground and I think this helps also.

You said " BTW Ron,no ,I don't think my machine is more dangerous without a stab,otherwise I'd have it on.
And I wasn't muster'n or push'n the limits when I was new either. " Well Birdy let me be honest and blunt with you.... I enjoy your posts, I am glad your on the forum here, But I am not concerned at all about conviencing you of the benifits of CLT or a Stab. If you go out today and get into a PPO and crash and burn I would just say you were warned and go on my merry way. It will probably never happen cause of your experience though and the enviroment in which you fly.

The only reason I - and I think Aussie Paul and many others - will even argue CLT and Stabs with you is for two reasons only.

( 1.) I think were hoping that if you tried either a effective stab or CLT or better yet a combo of the two, and gave it time for you to get used to the different feel in handling and so on, that you would come on here and the other forums and tell the world how even someone like yourself can see how much better these improvements are and how even a mustering pilot can benifit from a stable gyro. - In other words getting a endorcement from a professional gyro pilot.

( 2. ) The other reason I think we still go back and forth with you on this, is like I said Not to save your butt, but to show others - especially newbies to this form of flight - that if they try to be like Birdy they are taking a much much more risky route to success in gyroplanes.

My main reason for still preaching the CLT issue is to help the newbies. I do believe all gyro pilots are flying safer and doing themselves a favor by flying CLT but most gyro pilots know the stability issues and make the choice to fly what they fly knowing the additional risk. The Problem crops up in the newbies. They see and read and watch the gyro pilots flying the unstable gyros and think if they can do it so can I. Look at the post by Kandace floating around here about the fuss over CLT, that is just another example of a newbie using the examples of all the people flying unstable gyros over the years as justification for them to pick and fly a unstable gyro too. I fell for this myself when I started. I trained in a HTL gyro with no stab. I didn't care a Rats Ass if my first gyro had either CLT Or a Stab, cause I learned to fly without both. But after getting on the computer and the forums and learning about these things I would not fly a HTL gyro without a Stab period and even then I would be very on edge and would have a hard time relaxing and enjoying myself for fear of tumbling over if I miss a throttle correction or get into a PIO or something

[Aussie_Paul]

Great post Ron. You have said it all. A lot of home truths in that post.

Aussie Paul.:)

[chuter]

Good post Ron.

[Aussie_Paul]

:o Transfered to Kandaces CLT thread. :o

Aussie Paul. :)

[birdy]

You just don't git it ay.

[birdy]

I'v never said anything about rotors hitt'n tall tails.
I'v flown machines other than mine,with stabs and verieing degrees of thrust line offset.
I,same as everybody,started as a newby.
I'v never told anyone to take their HS off.
I'v never said clt is bad.

If anything,we agree no everything ,except one.
What you fly is not wot I NEED.
Sure,I'm talk'n out of ignorance when I say that,but so are you, when you all say that I would be better off in one of your typs of machines.

How would you know?
How many of you muster for a living?
How would you know what we do,out of nessesity, when we're mustering?
How many of you realy know the limits of your machines,coz you'v found them?
How many don't fly coz it's raining,too cold[-11c]or too windy?[greater than your cruise speed]
How many fly when it's 44c and thunder storms building.
And when I say "fly" I don't mean at 500'S&L.

We're arguing from opposite sides of the world,litrualy,so the likelyhood of us ever agree'n is remote.But that's wot I thought was the idea of this forum.To exchange ideas and EXPERIANCES ,from all typs of flying in all typs of conditions.

It seems this is not the case.
No skin off my nose,there's always the other forum.At least the lurkers and posters there don't keep trying to convert me,right or wrong.
I think,maybe ,some of me posts are even appreciated over here.

[Dean_Dolph]

Instructor's different views? Interesting observation, Dave. I suppose it is not surprising but it certainly adds some confusion to the training process.

The very nature of providing training requires someone that is confident in their skills and knowledge. But there are those of us that would feel better about the training situation if all instructors were on the same page.

The question is how do you re-educate people that are that confident. There is resistance and inertia to this effort. Where in some disciplines there may be two camps of views, in the gyro instruction area it seems each instructor is a camp of his own!

[KenSandyEggo]

ALL your posts are appreciated over here, Birdy. As are everyone else's, even if I don't agree with them. Just don't take a bath for a week or two to thicken up your skin a little and don't you dare go anywhere, or I'll have to by a ticket to your island and kick your butt....or at least yell at you.

[Aussie_Paul]

Hey Ken, tell me to kick Birdies butt. Then I can say the devil made me do it!!!!!!!!! LOL

Kevin, I thought it was all BS!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul. :)

[Heron]

Birdy
Do you concede that the especifics of mustering requires a machine like the ones you have and only on that situation you advocate its configuration?
thanks
Heron

[birdy]

Heron,
Do you concede that the especifics of mustering requires a machine like the ones you have?
No,but it helps.

and only on that situation you advocate its configuration?
No,it an be comfortably flown in any situation.

[birdy]

Paul,you girl's blouse,you had your chance to kick my .ss at the flyin. :mad:
I hardly saw you,the only time we talked at length was when you wanted to borrow me[genuine RAF] engine frame coz yours was broken. :rolleyes:
If anyone is go'n to contract Paul to kick anyones .ss over here,save your money,it wouldn' be well spent.
It'd be interesting to watch tho. :D :D :D

[bones]

you are a sh*t stirrer Birdy but i like it :))

[Heron]

So in your concept and expertise that is the way to go?
All others are substandard?
Heron

[Harry_S.]

Birdy:
I know and appreciate the kind of flying you're talking about. I didn't do any *mustering* but I did a lot of like flying...back in the 60's...in my bare bones Bensen style gyro, and loved it. ;)

Now, I thoroughly enjoy "cruising" in my RAF at say 55-65 mph. :D


Cheers.

[birdy]

For what I'm do'n with my machines Heron,yes.

All others are substandared???I'v never hinted that.
It depends on what you want to do with your machine.[horses for corses]
Any gyro can be used for mustering,but the less crap you have hang'n off it,the lighter it is,and more manuverable it is,the easer and more practical it is to do the job.
This dosn't mean you can't fly for 5 hours in a streight line with it in comfort.I'll be do'n just that in a couple of days on the way to a job.If the job wasn't mustering,I'd take the RAF,for more comfort,range and luggage space. :)

I hope to live long enough to have the same attitude Harry. :D :D :D
I'm go'n to the local rodeo tomorrow,[rodeo clown] so if you never hear from me again you know not to blame me gyros for my demise. :D

[C. Beaty]

Those of you who think the Australian cowherds fly with reckless abandon never saw Lloyd Poston mustering buzzards.

[birdy]

Never done any reckless fly'n ever Chuck. :D :D [I like to call it controlled agression. :) ]

[Aussie_Paul]

"Never done any reckless fly'n ever Chuck. :D :D [I like to call it controlled agression. :) ]"

............. is that like when navigating. I am not lost!!, just temporily unsure of my position!! LOL

Aussie Paul.:)

[Heron]

I wonder how the Dominators and Monarchs would fare at mustering?
When are we going to see some videos of this action?
The brazilian aircowboys are waiting . . .
Heron

[RayPierce]

I wonder how the Dominators and Monarchs would fare at mustering?
When are we going to see some videos of this action?
The brazilian aircowboys are waiting . . .
Heron
I saw David Seace(SP) annoy the hell out of a buzzard at Bensen Days a few years ago.
He was flying a Dominator. I didn't know a gyro was capable of doing what I saw it do.

[Chuck Irby]

That's rather ironic, Ray, as I did the same thing with a crow just this morning over the airport property. I am continually amazed at the capabilities of the 618 Dominator. It seems to me that it would make a great mustering machine, just the way it is. I sure mustered the hell out of that crow.

[Heron]

Ray . . .that kid can fly! When I see him walking to his gyro, my heart beat goes up already . . .a show is coming.
Dominators fly so gracefully and agile. I saw him going over the taxi way and runway doing corners at no more than 3 or 4 feet above, just like car . . .amazing.
First time Larry flew the Butterfly when I went to Texas it was another show, I did not know gyros could do that, wipping around in the sky like a humminbird, hammerheads and wingovers (or whatever is the name).
Superb machines!
Heron

[Seth]

There is a lot of bad mouthing going on about the RAF, my question is: How much does someone really know about gyroplanes if they have to buy a RAF and modify someone else's aircraft to create a new one??????

Why cant they then If they know so much like they pretend to know build there own Gyroplane?

Regards

Seth Davis

[Chuck Irby]

Seth, before anyone will take you seriously here, you'll need to state your full name and where you reside in your profile. Those are the only forum rules for you to be a member.

PS, any additional information about you could only help us to understand where you're coming from with your question(s).

[Rotornut]

Heron, Now that Davie is a BFI and has a two seat Dominator you should try to make it over to Labelle Next month and take a ride with him. He has been doing lots of training with our New Members and some Old ones. I am sure it would be a Flight to Remember! MJ :)

[Seth]

HI Chuck,

Thank you for the info, My name is Seth Davis and I reside from Perth,AUS.

I was just a of concern to me how another companies and individuals can bad mounth the raf if they have to buy a raf and then make changes to the rotor craft and then state that it is a safer aircraft.

If they state they can make it safer why don't they build there own one from scratch then.

Dont get me wrong I am not here to come down on anybody, this only made me think, do the people making the changes really know what they are doing???????

[Chuck Irby]

Hello Seth, and welcome to the forum. If you are in Perth, Australia, you have some real RAF experts there who can shed a lot of light on your question. The first who comes to mind is Aussie Paul. Look him up, Seth.

How about it AP?

[gyroman]

Hey Seth and welcome to the forum.

If you are talking about AAI then they only make a modification for the RAF to make it more stable. They make the Sparrowhawk completely from scratch unless I'm mistaken.

The bad mouthing you may be referring to is just the voices of several people who recognize the design flaws in this aircraft and have pointed this out, yet the company refuses to acknowledge the problems.

I do not believe the RAF Marketing company which manufactures the RAF gyroplane have any registered engineers on the payroll to conduct any kind of stability tests on its own gyro. But please don't take my word for it, I would advise you to only contact the company itself and ask for the stability tests for the aircraft.

AAI has several engineers on staff as they are a subsidiary under the Groen Brothers aviation company. They have conducted many stability tests using high tech equipment. Please contact them for any stability data for their gyroplane.

The reason AAI made the stability augmentation kit for the RAF is they recognized the flaws in the aircraft, coupled with the many deaths in this aircraft and decided to provide a solution so that people can make the RAF gyroplane safer to fly.

Several on the conference here have simply added a good horizontal stabilizer on the RAF and have been very happy with the stability of the machine after this small modification.

We all have seen the many deaths in RAF gyros and are just very sensitive to the loss that occurs. If we make things safer I think it is better for all of us, don't you agree?

[Heron]

Define Bad MOuthing . . .
Heron

[Doug Riley]

Many gyro buyers are infatuated with the cabin on the RAF. The cabin (and the modest price) helped to sell many of them over the years, despite all the design problems. It's shrewd marketing for Groen Bros. to build a machine with similar looks (although very little of the Sparrowhawk is the same as the RAF; even the cabin only LOOKS the same, while actually having different dimensions).

Groen's retrofit kit for the stock RAF is an act of mercy for the whole gyro community. It's a life-saver. A horizontal tail alone has proved to be a help but not a complete fix for the RAF's stability problem. The Groen kit goes on to fix the thrustline, too, and to tame torque roll and yaw through the use of a full-span rudder.

[Aussie_Paul]

Thanks Chuck I, and welcome Seth. The simple facts are that the RAF is pitch unstable to the point of being very dangerous. I did not realise this at the time I became the Oz agent for Raf. I was conned by their excellent marketing!!!! LOL. I improved the Raf with the addition of an "effective" horizontal stabiliser. These h/stabs were built from my testing by my NZ friend Alan.

Raf would not address the issues of a number of design and engineering flaws, CLT with an effective h/stab, so I began developing my Firebird gyroplane. I did not see the value of adapting the Raf, and I have started from the wheels and worked up with the help of my NZ friend Alan who is supplying the composite cabin, engine, and mast enclosures.

With Firebird I have addressed all the Raf faults, and unfortunately there are many. I built Firebird prototype (1) using a spare Raf kit that I had. This was built to conduct considerable rsearch and testing of various components and their impact on the geometry of what I found was needed to design and produce a safe, side by side seating, easy to get in and out of, 4 stroke powered cross country gyroplane. This allowed Alan in NZ time to design and produce the new enclosure while I was conducting the very important flight testing. I have also tested numerous rotor blades, props, gearboxes, tail feathers, pre rotators etc.

This prototype (1) which I call Hybrid (due to having Raf bits and Firebird geometry) has accumulated en excess of 600 hours and has proved the theory that unfortunately the Raf company has no idea about.

By starting from the ground up Firebird will be at least 130 lbs lighter that a Raf and much much lighter than a Sparrow Hawk. Hybrid is already 106 lbs lighter than a Raf.

I am having a few little hickups at the moment with the composite supply, but "Paul Brutys Firebird Gyroplanes" will be producing kits not too far down the track.

I have greatly over prommised delivery dates with Firebird :( due to my lack of production experience, and I appologise to the gyroplane community for that. In defence, all I can say is "better late than never" and the results so far have exceeded my expectations. :)

So Seth, there is a little information as to why the fully enclosed side by side seating cross country gyroplane has evolved the way that it has.

Don't hesitate to contact me at paulbruty@lexicon.net Just make sure you include the words gyroplane or Firebird so that it does not go out with the spam!!!!!!!!! :eek:
Attached are a couple of pics of Hybrid rego G-400, and a 1/10th scale model of the Firebird enclosure. The tails and undercarriage were not finalised at that time.

Aussie Paul.

[StanFoster]

PauL: Your Firebird looks like a winner. Keep going at it...I know with all your practical testing it will be near perfection.

Stan

[Seth]

Thank you for all the info, much appreciated. BUT, like I said in my first letter, the sparrow hawk and your firebird looks like a copy of the RAF.

Why copy the Raf If you say it is so dangerous and unstable?? This is the thing confusing me. Why does AAI not develop there own gyro form scratch. I have taken a close look at the Sparrow hawk, and every thing on the gyro is a copy of the RAF. WHY????

Regards

[KenSandyEggo]

Seth, the same reasons some Beechcrafts must be copies of Pipers...or vice-versa. Most of them look alike to me. Schwinn and Huffy bikes must be copies of each other...they both have 2 wheels, a seat and handlebars. What about all the racing bikes out there? They all look alike to me, yet some cost $100 and some cost $10,000. Same with motorcycles. They all mostly look alike, yet some are made in the U.S. and some are made in Japan.

There are only a few ways to design a 2-seat, side-by-side enclosed gyro with centerline thrust, the same as there are very few ways to design low-wing aircraft, bicycles or motorcycles. The RAF in no way compares to the Sparrowhawk, design-wise, flight-wise or quality-wise. How many different designs do you see for canoes?........yet there are probably hundreds of manufacturers of canoes worldwide. Could you at a glance name the manufacturer of one you might see somewhere, or do they all pretty much look alike?

[Seth]

Hi Ken,

I attended the EAA this year in Oshkosh. I went for an introductory flight in the RAF at Fon Du Lack Airport and I was awesome. The Sparrow Hawk (modified RAF) was there as well. The wind was gusting at about 25 knots and the RAF was keeping on giving flips to its cliental. The Sparrow Hawk stopped giving flips to people and tied there gyro's down. Reason given: "the wind was gusting to much!!"

But the still the RAF kept on flying in the gusting wind with no problem at all!

The Sparrow hawk also had a engine out with both gyro's while giving introductory flights.

This is what made me skeptical about the modified RAF.

Any advice/info would very much be appreciated.

Regards

[Chuck Irby]

Seth,

For your own benefit, please re-read the posts above. You seem very biased at this point, so you really need to re-read the posts above with an open mind. Believe me, these people know what they are talking about.

[gyroman]

Seth,

Keep in mind the person flying the RAF at the flyin was a high time pilot that knows how to fly the aircraft and can make it seem like it has no problems.

If a new pilot were to take up a RAF then a Sparrowhawk they would easily be able to feel the difference in flight characteristics.

[Chuck Irby]

My thought, Exactly, Toby.

Toby, why don't you plan to be at the Bastrop fly-in?

[Mayfield]

Seth,

I'm sorry I missed you at Oshkosh this year, but was unable to attend.

I would like to answer a couple of your questions.

Why did AAI tie down while RAF kept flying? The short answer is that I directed the operational limits. A longer answer is:

1. There are only two reasons to hop rides at a show like oshkosh. As an intro to the aircraft to promote sales, and to make $50.00 per ride.

2. The RAF pilots at Oshkosh were very, very competent pilots as were mine. I have no control over the RAF pilots operational decisions. I do have control over my pilots.

3. I have imposed pretty strict operational guidelines on my crew. One of my pilots, Steve McGowan, would/could probably fly in a hurricane if I let him. I chose not to. Many people on this forum know Steve and know that what I say is accurate.

4. We do not want someone to buy one of our aircraft unless he ("he" is used to include both genders) is certain that he will enjoy it and that he believes that he can master it safely.

5. I will not authorize operations in conditions that place the occupants of the aircraft in unneccessary jeopardy for $50.00. Neither will I conduct an introductory lesson in conditions that take a chance on frightening or discouraging a would be pilot.

The second question you asked was: "Why does AAI copy the RAF design if they think the RAF design is unsafe?" This infers that the RAF and the Firebird and the SparrowHawk (SH) are all the same. This is true. The current generation SparrowHawk (I can not speak for Paul and the FireBird) is very similar in construction to the RAF except:

1. The SH has an engine thrust line at or slightly below the vertical CG. The SH is incapable of suffering a power pushover in any segment of the flight envelope.

2. The SH rotor thrust vector is at or slightly behind the longitudinal CG.

3. The SH Cabin is somewhere around 5 inches wider than the RAF.

4. The SH has a horizontal stabilizer that is adequate to ensure dynamic longitudinal stability.

5. The SH has vertical tail surfaces that ensure yaw stability at all power settings.

Seth, I sincerely hope that I do not appear combative or defensive. The internet, wonderful tool that it is, does a poor job of conveying intent.

You are on the right path in your search for knowledge. My only recommendation is to continue to read and study and apply your "sense" of things.

I offer as food for thought:

1. Although aircraft, particularly gyroplane, stability can be esoteric there are certain "reality checks" you can conduct for yourself. Think through them and make your judgements.

2. In a practical sense: Do all motions of an aircraft in flight occur around the CG? If the answer to that is in the affirmative, the following applies.

3. Does force X arm = moment? If this is true, does a thrust line above the CG apply a nose down moment to the airframe when the engine is operating?

4. Does this nose down moment change proportionally with engine thrust?

5. If an aircraft has a nose down moment and does not have a horizontal stabilizer, does the rotor thrust vector have to then be in front of the CG?

6. Does a rotor thrust vector in front of the CG yield an unstable configuration?

Again, these are just food for thought questions. You are exhibiting a thirst for knowledge and seem to be on the right track. The denizens of this forum will delight in discussing these issues with you. Best of luck and best wishes in your search.

R/S
Jim Mayfield

[Chuck Irby]

Very good post, Jim!

[teiland]

Seth,

Steve McGowan and me were the Sparrowhawk pilots at Mentone and FonDuLac. One factor that we must keep in mind is liability.

I just saw in the local paper this morning where a customer who slipped and fell at our local Denny's Restaurant was awarded two million dollars.

When we give an Introductory Flight Lesson for $50, we are doing so with absolutely no liability insurance coverage at all. While we can fly in winds gusting at 25, we have to decide if it is a good business decision to do so. Our company encourages us not to. In a litigious society like ours, I sometimes wonder whether it makes sense to take up the paying public at all, much less in stressfull conditions. One day I was flying at FonDuLac and heard a report of gust to 39. That exceeds my personal limit.

Unfortunately, another factor is that I do not possess the terriffic skills and experience of Steve, or my RAF friends, Jim, Duane, and Dofin. Those guys with their many thousands of hours could fly a sheet of plywood in a hurricane. With considerably less than 1000 hrs in a gyro I am still learning, and have to take the liability issue very seriously.

Terry Eiland

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Seth :

The RAF Instructors also refuse to teach known aerodynamics and continue to flog killer machines.

Would it not stand to reason that something like ignoring good airmanship and demonstrating their machines to newcomers in windy rough air conditions would be normal behaviour for that breed of instructor?

Chuck E.

[C. Beaty]

Seth, when someone is in love or in heat, he is blind to the warts on the object of his affection.

You need to do some more reading on this subject and pay particular to the NTSB accident reports. Even though the NTSB investigator seldom knows much about gyroplane dynamics, there is a common thread apparent in most of the fatal RAF crashes.

The rotor strikes the vertical tail, clips off the propeller tips and leaves a debris field of several hundred feet or yards, depending on the altitude at which the machine became a yo-yo.

There have also been several fatals in Canada and Britain that fit the same pattern.

Too bad you live on the other side of Australia from Paul Bruty. He could give you a hands on demonstration of an RAF with and without a stab and on one modified for CLT. Such a demonstration would make you an instant convert.

[gyroman]

Chuck see the reply to your question in the Louisiana Gyro gathering thread. Don't want to be a hijacker....

[Udi]

Seth - if we knew a little more about your aviation background we could probably give you answers that better mach your level of understanding. Are you a pilot, and what kind of experience do you have? If you are not a pilot than all this talk about stability, PPO, etc, may go unregistered.

Udi

[teiland]

Since I have had a private inquiry as to the "Sparrowhawk engine outs" at FonDuLac/Oshkosh, I am posting my response here for anyone else that may be interested. I was asked if we did indeed have two engine outs...............

The answer is yes and no. In Steve's case, he landed due to rising temp. Turns out there was a thermostat problem, as I understand it.

In my case, I did indeed have an engine out. A few days earlier while at Mentone, I had a weld break on a SuperTrapp mufler. This caused the brace tying the two mufflers to flop around. Because I mounted my master solenoid to this cross brace, I think the flexing during this event caused a wire terminal to break later, and thus a loss of electrical power.

Thankfully there was a great landing site for me to go into, and it was a quick fix.

[PW_Plack]

Seth,

If you approached two cab drivers to drive you through Najaf, Iraq, and only one said yes, would you assume the other guy had a poorly designed car?

[StanFoster]

Terry: You are very modest about your flying skills. I was watching you fly your beautiful SparrowHawk at Mentone..and was real impressed with your flying and consistency.

Stan

[teiland]

Hi Stan,

Thanks.

Per your earlier post, I just remembered one thing that RAF owners may want to add to their maintenance checklists......... I once had the bolt for the front wellnut that holds the dash assembly back out, causing the dash to hinge down on my feet while flying. I learned to check those three bolts periodically.

[automan1223]

I had started this thread and just got back to reading all the great information and posts. My main concern is from this Seth fellow. For whatever reason has decided to come in with preconcieved notions. I honestly do not know all the physics or pretend to understand the aerodynamics of flight. One thing I do know is that I will continue to learn and ask questions and keep an open mind. Any new pilot / builder has a tremendous responsiblility and liability in wanting to fly. I hope that they will do the same as I have and keep things as safe and concerned during their pursuit. I think Doug's early post about 600 lb thrust offset is correct and very scary. No arguements there. I did not want to stir the pot or pull any punches. It kills me when I hear of a pilot in a crash or a fatal. Especiall when I know the problem most likely was caused by a mechanical issue or design defect. I personally know that Steve Mc Gowan flew in 80 mph gusts in his parsons 2 trainer at Roc a few times ago. However Steve admitted to me that he had the controls "maxed" out and it was getting hairy up over the tree line. I watched him and did not see any "hairy" flying. Steve is a seasoned professional making is look so easy but I know its not. I am glad Mr Mayfield is a sensible and thoughtful professional. It is a shame common sense is not rewarded over showing off stupidity. Maxie Wildes told me one thing I will always remember. If it is blowing or gusting then you just go home or do something else. Save the flight for later. Thats just the way it is sometimes.

Jonathan

[GyroRon]

Since I have had a private inquiry as to the "Sparrowhawk engine outs" at FonDuLac/Oshkosh, I am posting my response here for anyone else that may be interested. I was asked if we did indeed have two engine outs...............

The answer is yes and no. In Steve's case, he landed due to rising temp. Turns out there was a thermostat problem, as I understand it.

In my case, I did indeed have an engine out. A few days earlier while at Mentone, I had a weld break on a SuperTrapp mufler. This caused the brace tying the two mufflers to flop around. Because I mounted my master solenoid to this cross brace, I think the flexing during this event caused a wire terminal to break later, and thus a loss of electrical power.

Thankfully there was a great landing site for me to go into, and it was a quick fix.

Not meaning to hijack a thread, but this ia proof of what I was saying in the Crash thread, that Auto conversions as good as they can be are still not as dependable as a true certified aircraft engine. A aircraft engine does not need power going to it to run. Neither does a Rotax :)

I had two or three engine outs flying Subarus and they were all loss of electrical power related.

[Aussie_Paul]

Jim and the SH boys, well said.

Aussie Paul.:)

[PW_Plack]

Funny, Ron, but I was just going to observe that it demonstrated my point about the fault being with the installation, not the engine itself! Mags stop working if you break wires off them, too. But unlike an EFI, they'll also just wear out at 500 hours. :)

[Seth]

To all above,

I am not hear to come down on any gyro plane as some of you may think. I only want to share my experience with all of you folks that know more than I do. This is what this forum is all about, is it not???

Thanks Jim for the info and thank you Terry as well. You guy's must understand I am a new comer to gyro's and have done some reading about the aircraft and its capabilities but still need a lot more info and clarity before I will go ahead and purchase one.

O yes, I have a MPL (microlight pilots license) And have approximately 500 hours.

Thanks to all of you giving your different opinions on the different kind of gyro's it is much appreciated.

Regards

[Aussie_Paul]

Seth, don't hesitate to email me privately for info. I have a lot in digital format and can email it all to you. paulbruty@lexicon.net

Aussie Paul.:)

[Seth]

Paul

Thank you, I will do.

Regards

[GyroRon]

Funny, Ron, but I was just going to observe that it demonstrated my point about the fault being with the installation, not the engine itself! Mags stop working if you break wires off them, too. But unlike an EFI, they'll also just wear out at 500 hours. :)

Paul your very much right. It is in the installation. A good installation will net you a much more dependable conversion engine than a crappy installation. But one thing most auto conversions WILL need to run is power going to the ignition. That is the nice thing about mags. The only wires coming out of a mag is the sparkplug wires and the grounding lead. Cut the grounding lead in half and the engine still runs. Ground the groundling lead and the engine dies.

[automan1223]

Ron, your attitude makes you a canidate for being dead wrong. The reason you do not hear about them failing wrong is pure stats. Crunch the numbers and you will have to admit that auto conversions rule the experimental world. More of them out there, so more to fail. A properly set up auto conversion will run just as well if not longer than a properly set of aircraft engine. There are stacks of A.D's on aircraft engines that are rated and certified.

True ac engines have dual ignitions which is the number 1 advantage next to power to weight / redrive issues in some cases. Your wiring has to be spot on with either installation. In my career I have witnessed considerable amount of shorts compared to outright loss of power to something. Doug can chime in here and tell you how many rotax's went down when the firing coils shorted when the wiring chafffed in the routing thru the cases and how they had it set up. I have also seen the ignition switches in magneto or magnetron type ignitions arc and short inside the switches killing a running engine. The potential on the ground side of the mag ground wire is in the 300-600 volt range.

I believe each system has its benefits and drawbacks that when ironed out make them about equal for dollars spent. Dual ignition is the way to go though.

Jonathan

[rfi]

I have been modifying Subaru EFI systems for aircraft and rotorcraft use since 1990. I have modified over 300 systems and know of three failures so far. Number one was Jim Logan who lost his fuel pump and landed in a pasture at Sun-N-Fun. Jim is still using the EJ22 electronics that I put together for him about ten years ago. He is using the EJ22 electronics on an EJ25.


Number two was a fellow in Minnesota who lost his alternator (with no backup battery) and kept flying until the battery ran down. He crashed his airplane in the trees and injured himself.

Number three was a fellow in KY who had an engine quit ont he downwind leg at his home airport last year. I modified his harness about ten years ago. The problem was corrosion buildup on one of the interface connectors between the engine harness and ECU harness which supplied +12VDC to the coil pack. Contact cleaner fixed that problem and he used the white grease this time to keep moisture out.

If auto conversions are done properly with a backup fuel pump and small backup battery the Subaru at least will be about as reliable as a Lycoming or Continental. I don't know about auto engine conversions other than the Subaru, but most modern engines are reliable and will run for over 200,000 miles if maintained properly.

The reason there is a second ignition system on certified aircraft engines is not primarily for reduncancy. The spark from the mags are so weak that they cannot generate a sufficiently large fire front to get efficient combustion in the large diameter cylinders.

[Chuck Irby]

Good post Don, and informative! Thank you.

[C. Beaty]

Modern automobile engines will indeed go 100,000-200,000 miles if properly maintained.

This needs to be viewed in light of the fact that a medium size automobile requires less than 20 hp to cruise at 60 mph.

In terms of durability, there's a major difference between operating an engine at 10% of rated power and operating it at 70% of rated power. Automobile engines very rarely operate at 70% of rated power; aircraft engines must do it continuously. Automobile engines are almost never operated at maximum rated power; aircraft engines must operate at maximum rated power during every takeoff.

Long haul truck engines operate near maximum power most of the time but the crankshaft of one of those Cummins or Cat engines weighs as much as some airplanes.

Light duty trucks equipped with modified automobile engines (bearings and valves) aren't noted for durability.

[quadrirotor]

what about four strokes for boats!

[PW_Plack]

Chuck,

The point I'm trying to make here, and which Don's post seems to support, is that converted auto engine failures in gyroplanes are almost never to do with valves and bearings, or duty-cycle issues. They almost always stem from questionable design of the wiring and plumbing.

An EFI Soob and a Lycoming both have mission-critical subsystems hanging off the outside of the case. They just differ in their weak points, and have their failure modes ranked differently.

Heat cycles and vibration are big enemies of electrical connections. When you run your entire electrical buss through a screw-post connector mounted to an exhaust header, you violate the law on a certificated powerplant, but don't raise an eyebrow in our world. We can't blame the consequences on the engine's ancestry.

(Well, OK, maybe it raises your eyebrow.)

An electronic ignition system is under slightly more stress at high RPM, but is oblivious to manifold pressure or torque, so running at 70 per cent should be no big deal to its reliability, even at 4800 RPM.

If we specify the mounting locations, load ratings and construction materials of these external systems properly, a Soob should be more reliable than a Lycoming, not less, even with single ignition. The only advantage I see in carbs and magnetos is their tendency to exhibit a "soft-fail" mode before they bite the dust completely.

[Doug Riley]

Hmmm. All but one of my various VW failures seemed to be duty-cycle sorts of things. Mostly, the damn big-end rod bearings would just melt, seemingly as a result of running the engine wide-open for a minutes at a time when it wasn't meant to be. Other people's VW's had fundamental internal failures, too -- thrown rods, busted cranks, busted pistons, cracked cases, dropped valves. The engines seemed simply not robust enough to endure an aircraft-style duty cycle unless derated below gyro horsepower.

There may be a recipe for making them live a long life on a gyro, but it must take quite a lot of changes to the internals, on top of the careful attention to the peripherals that Paul mentions.

Soobs may well be fundamentally sturdier. I haven't kept up with their development.

My eyeball impression of Continentals and such is that they are low-tech, relatively huge displacement engines that are heavily de-rated for reliability... just like a similar vintage John Deere. As such, they have a fairly poor power-to-weight ratio (by gyro standards). Rev a stock Continental up to 3500 or 4000 RPM and I suspect it will fly apart in short order.

[C. Beaty]

To be sure, Continental and Lycomings are antique designs; but over the course of the many decades they've been in service, everything that might break or fall off was discovered and corrected.

Their design constraints were to provide the best possible power to weight ratio with the crankshaft running at propeller speeds, 2400-2800 rpm with a 1,000 hour service life.

They perform admirably within those constraints. They have a higher BMEP than most modern automobile engines. I don't think there is any modern automobile engine that will equal them for power to weight ratio at the same crankshaft speed.

The picture changes with gear reduction.

[Aussie_Paul]

I have been running an hour meter in my 3.9 liter V6 "gyro toolbox" station wagon. After 80 hours I find that the average miles per hour to be 42. I have yet to work out the engine rpm at that speed.

Aussie Paul.:)

[GyroRon]

Ron, your attitude makes you a canidate for being dead wrong. The reason you do not hear about them failing wrong is pure stats. Crunch the numbers and you will have to admit that auto conversions rule the experimental world. More of them out there, so more to fail. A properly set up auto conversion will run just as well if not longer than a properly set of aircraft engine. There are stacks of A.D's on aircraft engines that are rated and certified.

Jonathan, Sorry but no. Autoconversions are big in gyroplanes cause they are cheap to buy and maintain. But in general, auto conversions are a small slice of the experimental pie. Look at all the RV's and Lancairs, and Glasairs, and Long Ez's, and Throp T-18s, and all the various biplanes, and etc.. etc...

Sure some Rv's have soobs or Mazdas in them. And the Sonex and several others were designed to use VW engines. But for the most part auto conversions are not the norm.

I do have faith in the Subarus. They seem to be good engines. A lot of gyros flying with Subarus are flying with engines pulled out of old wrecked cars from the junkyard without going through them, just clean them up and fly them.. But the key to good service is in how you install the engine and all it's systems needed to make it run. A Certified engine already has this done for you, you just have to bolt it onto the motor mount and figure out how to do the baffles and go fly.

Yes certified engines can and do have AD's out on them. Oil pumps, crankshaft bolts, mag internals, etc... But if your using it on a experimental the AD is not a requirement for you.

A modern auto conversion has alot more parts that can fail. Water cooling system.... Re drive...... Cam belts and drive...... Loss of power to the ignition.... etc So to get good dependable service you need to give careful thought to each sub system while doing your installation and afterwards on the Pre flight inspections.

[PW_Plack]

Doug,

I was very interested in some of the new VW conversions, and heard all those horror stories. Of the three best known VW conversions out there today, (AeroVee, Great Plains and Revmaster,) I wonder if any of them have found answers by now. Were your troubles occuring with stock cast cranks and other OEM parts?

[ymmv]

When we give an Introductory Flight Lesson for $50, we are doing so with absolutely no liability insurance coverage at all.

Yow.

For a private individual, okay, one takes one's chances as one sees fit, no big deal. But for official representatives of a real live company? At a public air show, giving rides all day long?

I don't mean anything personal by it, Terry, but is that wise? As a former risk management consultant, I cringe at the size of the exposure.

(I'm editing this now because of Kenny J's reply. If he's right that the coverage is just flat unavailable, then ... well, I still cringe. But I guess there's not a lot one can do about it.

I'm not surprised if individual instruction coverage is unavailable; but is that true for small corporations as well?)

[C. Beaty]

Stock VW cranks were forged with flame hardened bearing journals, Paul. Case depth, as best I can recall, was about 1/8".

Aftermaket stroker cranks were, for the most part, castings. Some stroker cranks were stock cranks with the necessary extra material added via arc welding.

[Doug Riley]

Paul: I never broke a crank, just worried about it. I used the stock FORGED cranks. They ring when tapped.

Some of others' crank trouble came from cast stroker cranks (which don't ring). Even Revmaster used the cast jobs (for awhile anyway). Despite Revmaster's very slick prop-end bearing setup, I know of at least one gyro using a Revmaster that broke a crank. A forged, magnafluxed crank would appear to be a necessary first step. Something like Revmaster's crank bearing setup only makes sense, too. Just putting a bolt deep through the (inadequate) #4 journal to keep the end of the crank from coming off seems bogus to me.

My 1835 cc engine kept burning out rod bearings. It may have been inadequate oil cooling (I never did try one of those big transmission-cooler oil radiators). I tried both the grooved cranks and the ungrooved ones. Some cranks had two oil ports per rod journal and some only one -- I had the latter at first and that didn't help. I tried the stock oil pump and an after-market one. Tried boosting oil pressure with an aftermarket oil pressure relief valve.

Mostly, I guess, the problem was insufficent money. I was in college and couldn't afford Revmasters and the like. As a result, I endured half a dozen increasingly hairy forced landings per 100 hours.

If you re-work the engine enough, you may eventually get something usable. It's going to be a major project, however, requiring some serious knowledge and access to good parts and sophisticated machinery. On a one-off basis, it would be impossible to match a Rotax 2-stroke right out of the box for reliability (yes, reliability) and performance for the price, in my experience.

[ymmv]

what about four strokes for boats!

Not the same, Andre. Marine installations are specialized in a different direction than aero ones. Everything's designed to protect from a whole different set of threats.

(And when there is a failure, you get to fix it in some other way than by prayer.)

[KenSandyEggo]

One of the local rats ("Sparky") has a KR2 with a VW. I don't know if it's a store-bought or his own work-up. But he has flown his from San Diego to Ohio several times to visit family with no problems whatsoever. I'll ask him about it the next time I see him and post what he says.

Bart, the insurance is just flat out not available. Even if one does get insurance like I did on an individual basis, it excludes instruction coverage.

[ymmv]

Ken, I've gone and edited my post to Terry. I had assumed such coverage would be expensive, but I didn't know it was unavailable.

So, all those guys offering rides at airshows are going bare? I almost took a very expensive aerobatic ride with one of the performers at SnF. I assumed that much of the expense was to pay the insurance premium. I guess not.

(I still think I'm going to do it next year, though ... see how much twisting I can take without getting sick.)

[PW_Plack]

Doug,

As far as the grief needed to make them reliable, I would have thought the higher-end VW kits would have gotten that part figured out. I'm going to be flying a Rotax 582 for my first gyro, but remain interested in the VW idea for the future. I'll see if any of these guys will send a partial customer list so I can see how they hold up.

Or, I'll just watch John Stevens's posts.

[KenSandyEggo]

Not all of them, bart. Just gyros as far as I know.