New gyros - New problems?

[EI-GYRO]

With the advent of super-stable tandem gyros in the last couple of years, in
Europe mainly, we do not appear to have significantly improved the accident rate.

Several accidents in the past year, involving both MT-03s and ELAs, appear
to have been caused by over-exuberant maneouvering.

My questions are; is there a common cause, and if so, is it pilots, machines
or training?.

We need another coffin-filler like a hole in the head, but its not looking good
so far.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of pilots, including inexperienced
pilots, on this issue.

One pilot who had a very near miss in an MT-03, was good enough to describe his experience, and lived to learn from it , luckily.

Is it just a fact that gyros attract the kind of people who shouldnt be
allowed in flying machines, or what.?

[Doug Riley]

Fergus, my flight experience in the "super-stable" Eurotandems is limited to one demo ride in an M-16. Our most radical maneuver was a garden-variety vertical descent.

I didn't come up through the training programs associated with these new machines, either, so I can't comment on that.

From the design viewpoint, however, we still have not returned to the level of quality and thought that Cierva, Pitcairn, et al achieved in the 30's.

For one thing, we don't REALLY know if designers' continuing, obstinate refusal to adopt CLT is having some adverse effect. As you know, Cierva patented this idea around 1928 or '29. Maybe those big, un-immersed H-stabs are a perfect substitute but, on paper at least, they cannot be. Cierva et al, did not use H-stabs as a substitute for CLT. Arguably, we shouldn't, either.

Most designers are doing nothing about the related problems of torque roll and adverse slip-roll coupling. We know that the Air & Space 18A suffers from a coffin corner in this regard. We know that Cierva made sure to provide stabilization (by means other than rotor thrust) against torque roll. We know from pilot anecdotes that at least the MT-03 can get weird in this part of the envelope.

Even if designers addressed these issues, there would (or should) still be a difference between a gyro designed for limited aerobatics and one designed for cruising. There would/should also be a difference between a learn-to-fly course and an advanced aerobatics course. Neither of these dissimilar pairs ought to be combined, IMHO.

[birdy]

Good question Fergus.
And i think the answer is obvious.
The human effect.

If you look at it objectivly, and ignor your loyalties, beliefes and just read the facts, it can only be the pilot.
Sure, alota pilots are ignorant, and falsely think every manufacturer knows wot he's telln him is fact, but that dont mean you can blame the machine for anythn, wether its the way the manu built it or the way its flown or the conditions its flown in.
Think bout it.
Theres countless pilots in this little country alone, that have been flyn machines that are either under powered, unstable, under rotored, with VHTLs, or tails out of the wash or no H stabs, or all of the above, for thousands of hours, without incident.
Why?
Coz they either understand the machine's abilities or fly only to its AND his capabilities.
IOW, the difference is the pilots attitude.

And as for the so called super stabel gyros, they only give the ignorant builder/pilot a false sence of security/ability, and he blindly blasts off into the big blue sea and thinks coz he's flyn a super stable machine, he's bullet proof.

A PROPER machine is definatly more efficiant and easy to fly, which only makes the ignorant pilots balls bigger.

Even if designers addressed these issues, there would (or should) still be a difference between a gyro designed for limited aerobatics and one designed for cruising. There would/should also be a difference between a learn-to-fly course and an advanced aerobatics course. Neither of these dissimilar pairs ought to be combined, IMHO.
Best thing iv seen rit on this forum yet, and comen from Doug, no one should ignor it.

[Mike484]

Even if designers addressed these issues, there would (or should) still be a difference between a gyro designed for limited aerobatics and one designed for cruising. There would/should also be a difference between a learn-to-fly course and an advanced aerobatics course. Neither of these dissimilar pairs ought to be combined, IMHO.

I agree with Doug. I think sometimes people are too quick to try and find fault in the machines rather than understand the machines capabilities versus the pilots capabilities and find where the error is in that. If an over eager pilot sees another pilot perform something he thinks is "cool" and wants to emulate it without considering if his machine can handle it or if he fully understands how it was done this could be much more of a problem than the design of the gyro he is attempting to use.

[GyroRon]

It could be that the euro pilots just aren't scared of what COULD happen and they are not flying with respect for what COULD happen. The ones getting hurt or killed may be the ones that found out what COULD happen, but for them it is too late.

Here in the states, you have to be pretty sheltered to be "into" gyros and not have some fear of what could happen if you push beyond the edge so to speak.

[fiveboy]

...Most designers are doing nothing about the related problems of torque roll and adverse slip-roll coupling....

Doug et. al. I know what torque roll is but what is - and how does one encounter (better yet conversely avoid) adverse sliproll?

Please phase it as though speaking to a 9 year old.

[birdy]

Please phase it as though speaking to a 9 year old.
If you want a 9 YOs answer, you gota ask a 9 YOs question. ;)
Wots an adverse sliproll?

[mceagle]

Yes, - what Doug and Birdy said.
I believe that there is also more. The straight line solidarity of the stretch tandems is often erroneously taken to imply all round stability, and this is definitely not the case. When you longitudinally stretch an airframe it has a domino effect on many other important design criteria.
One such is the yaw destabilizing effect of the extended nose cone. This must be countered by an increase in rudder volume, which would normally be no problem except that the rudder cannot go any further back or higher because of rotor clearance. Hence the necessity for outrigger stabilizers on the H/Z. They are not there for looks, or to give them that renowned “stability” that we hear so much about, but are an absolute necessity for yaw stability.
The apparent long moment arm for the rudder is misleading and barely compensates for the long moment arm ahead of the C of M.
Even with the stabilizers, I believe that the rudder volume falls short of the yaw stability requirements of our Gyroplane standards, even though the rudder is energized by the propeller slipstream. If you have to use rudder to bring the nose around in a coordinated turn in a gyroplane then something is wrong. A tendency for adverse yaw means simply not enough rudder volume. An engine or rudder cable failure at a critical time during a regulation manoeuvre could easily spell disaster.
Of course any Gyroplane flown within a given envelope should be safe. The trouble is that you will not be able to convince the new hot dog with a pocket full of money that his new expensive machine will not be able to cut a “demo” like the hot-shots.

[helipaddy]

Maybe the pilots are not being thought to fly gyros with the emphasis of staying within the limits of their machine.

There is a European thing here where Paperwork and Approval and reverence to Authority mean everything, and people blindly follow without using their head. Sometimes these "Authorities" ( Read: Instructor, Flight schools Manufacturers, Aviation Authorities) make real mistakes in training processes, Aircraft design, or legislation.

Its normal for humans to make mistakes, the problem here is once an "Authority" makes a ruling, when this is found to be Wrong and Unsafe, their mechanisms to change are found lacking. saying they are wrong undermines the "Authority"

It appears that most , if not all of the Accidents and Incidents in Europe while flying the newer aircraft (MT-03 or ELA etc) appear to be Pilot induced. If this is so then there may be some possible causes,

(a) The pilots attitude and decision making on the fateful flight
(b) The School where he learned to fly and all of his refresher training did not put enough emphasis on the limitations of the gyroplane and the discipline required to fly well and live to fly another day.

Flight safety is dependant on correct Attitude and Decision making, This sport has the possibility of being the safest form of sports flight, Im sure of this. we just have to get Pilots out of training with enough knowledge, skill and discipline that they make it home to their families after the flight.

Paddy

[Gyro_Kai]

Hello,

I don't think there is an intrinsically safe heavier-than-air aircraft. Just like there is no safe gun or safe motorcyle.

I've been wrecking my brain, why there are so many accidents happening with these crafts, after all I'm flying one and don't have a death wish.

I believe people are lured into the believe of invulnerability due to all this advertisement: "safest possible aircraft, no stall, no spin."

So they try things which are bound to fail, like to fly too slow and to low. Or they do flat spins with airspeed, because they think only pushing the stick can get you into neg-G.

Or they try stunts, which are possible, but are still reserved to the experts, because they think they fly the unsinkable ship (where did we hear that one before).

There seems to be a bit of a maverick attitude displayed here.

Kai.

[troed@aon.at]

Beeing part of the "MT03-History" in the German speaking part of Europe I know that originally the MT03 was a copy of the ELA in year 2003/2004.

So the basic design and geometry is absolutely comparable and thus we can speak about the ELA/MT03-History until 2008 the MTOsport was issued.

In the beginning there were a lotta accs related to poor manuf AND wrong teaching (Stick back when taxiing with turning rotor). 99% of the accs were without injuries and mostly happend during ground handling (T/O & landing/taxiing).

The manuf of the MT03 improved during the years to the quality of the ELA-production giving us very reliable machines.

Nevertheless tha acc rate during flight increased and more and more fatal ones happen. Although there are NO reliable statistics for ELA and MT03 most accs seem to be due to pilot err.

This is why I start to think to go more in line with Doug and Birdy and question if a CLT-concept wouldn´t help to avoid at least SOME of the fatalities. The last fatal acc (see other thread) seems to have been a topple over according to eye-witnesses of a low time gyro-pilot. This could have happened by a failure of the pneumatic trim or by simply pushing the stick fwd by the pilot. But we will never KNOW what was the cause because the ship totally burned.

So finally I can only agree that commercials should stress that the gyro is the safest aircraft IF HANDLED CORRECTLY.

Tx

Angelo

[Steve McGowan]

Idiout Proofing is all but impossible to work outta the gyro.. Most people consider that they're old enuff to buy one,, So They can surely Fly-ONE

Remember it's Just A TOY

There's an Old Greek saying..........

When Ya DUMB........ Ya GOTTA Be TUFF..

[fiveboy]

See here is where it would be great if those who survive this kind of thing would chime in.

I have been exploring the envelope (note exploring not pushing!) of what my aircraft will do and what my responses need to be. Basic ground maneuver stuff. More and more I am convinced that if I stay within what is sensible and have an understanding in advance of what certain maneuvers & forces feel like - before I am responding in some emergency mode where everything feels new- Ill stay safe(r).

My gut tells me that removing the hot dogger who does a zoom climb and goes neg or tries Awads circus landing.... disallowing sudden unrecoverable and catastrophic system failure.... the only possible answer left is lack of preparation and training to respond quickly and correctly. Of the three scenarios two are almost completely avoidable.

The reference to mavericks being here (the election has made that word feel sullied) - well Hells Bells.... ya think!? LOL.

I have a retired F117 pilot friend who keeps reminding me that we are all test pilots.

[bpearson]

Every year people manage to kill themselves with fishing rods, lawnmowers, circular saws, horses, dirt bikes, pedal bikes........the list is endless.

You will never stop people finding ways to harm themselves with machines, including gyroplanes (even CLT).

The new tandem machines are being produced and flown in high numbers and although the quality of training is very high (in the UK at least) sometimes factors will intervene, bad decisions are made and the worst happens.

[C. Beaty]

From “Cierva Autogiros” by Peter W. Brooks:

“…This was the first Autogiro fatality. Up to this time, more than 120 Autogiros had been built including more than 30 prototypes), 30 to 40 pilots had trained on them, and well over 100 pilots had flown Autogiros in the United States alone. About 35,000 hours had been flown over a total distance of about 2 ½ million miles. This represented a remarkable safety record. For comparison, General Aviation in the United States had an accident rate of about one fatal accident every 5,000 hours in 1939. This had improved to about one every 40,000 hours by 1969—a rate not attained in the United Kingdom until 1974. Autogiros were therefore remarkably safe during this early period, even while engaged in experimental and development flying, being comparable to General Aviation 40 years later.”

Was that because the pilots were smarter and flew less aggressively 70 years ago? The first loop in an Autogiro was performed by a Canadian pilot in 1932.

Could it be because the designers, working under Cierva’s direction, knew what they were doing and paid attention to such things as CLT and torque compensation?

Training doesn't correct design flaws.

[helipaddy]

Quoting Brian:

"The new tandem machines are being produced and flown in high numbers and although the quality of training is very high (in the UK at least) sometimes factors will intervene, bad decisions are made and the worst happens."

What's the gyroplane fatal accident -versus- hours statistic in the UK?

Chuck, you are absolutely right. A properly designed Gyroplane and Proper well developed syllabus and Training will save lives

[steveb]

Quoting Brian:

"The new tandem machines are being produced and flown in high numbers and although the quality of training is very high (in the UK at least) sometimes factors will intervene, bad decisions are made and the worst happens."

What's the gyroplane fatal accident -versus- hours statistic in the UK?


Helipaddy -I think you probably know the answer, and it's grim. But putting your question in the context of this thread, and I'm wincing as I write this because it could sound horribly smug / complacent / whatever, but we've never yet had a fatal in the UK in a tandem 2-seat gyro. Since the tandem 2-seat gyros are arguably the most flown gyros in the UK in terms of hours then this is probably a "good news" story.

[helipaddy]

Steve
I agree, the future is hopefully bright with the new tandem training. and i hope the single seat stats get better too. It just took too long to get to this point. I really hope the stats get better, and stay better than they were.
Paddy

[C. Beaty]

Quoting Brian:What's the gyroplane fatal accident -versus- hours statistic in the UK?
Mr. Hognose O’Brien extracted the UK statistics and posted them here. Unfortunately, the Rotary Forum search function and I don’t get on together but as nearly as I can recall, gyroplane fatality rate was ~a dozen times higher than for UL FWs.

Hours flown for experimentals isn’t available for the US but based on my guestimates for numbers of gyroplanes being flown, the fatality rate is several times higher at present than it was during the Bensen era.

[helipaddy]

Why is it higher now than then, Chuck?

[birdy]

This is why I start to think to go more in line with Doug and Birdy and question if a CLT-concept wouldn´t help to avoid at least SOME of the fatalities.
That would only have them think its even more indestructable.
Work on the problem, the PILOT.

So finally I can only agree that commercials should stress that the gyro is the safest aircraft IF HANDLED CORRECTLY.
That could be said for any machine, wether it flys, drives or floats.
For sum reason, sum think that simple logic dont apply to gyros. :(

Could it be because the designers, working under Cierva’s direction, knew what they were doing and paid attention to such things as CLT and torque compensation?

Youv already posted the answer CB;

Autogiros were therefore remarkably safe during this early period, even while engaged in experimental and development flying
IOW, they were be'n flown by intelligent thinkers, not maverics.
Wouldnt matter wot they were testn.

[birdy]

I also think youv gota be extreamly unlucky to die ina gyro bingle.
Iv seen gyros that were sprayed over 50 yards, and nuthn is recoverable from the pices, cept the pilot, who is standn next to it, scratchn his head, thinkn " is THAT wots left of the machine i was sitn in?".

Imagine wot the stats would look like if the bingle/death ratio was the same as regular aircraft.
The mind boggles.

[C. Beaty]

Paddy, any response to speculative hypotheses is by nature highly subjective.

Anyhow, a Benson wouldn’t go all that fast, particularly with wooden rotor blades where the stick would reach the forward stop at 60 or 70 mph.

A Benson wasn’t violently unstable because the propeller thrustline offset wasn’t that much. It was pretty much CLT with seat tank. It did not abruptly pitch over and tumble out of the sky; before tumbling, it would go through about 3 cycles of porpoising first. A pilot in trouble could save himself with a throttle chop.

Torque roll wasn’t a serious problem with a direct drive engine turning ~3800 rpm.

For those individuals that could comprehend the written word, the Benson method of self-training was excellent. Start with a towline, graduate to wheel balancing and finally crow hops. The Benson training manual wasn’t crammed with incorrect information.

The Sunstate Rotor Club (Florida) had a membership of more than 100 individuals during that period and not one was killed in a PPO accident. There were surpassingly few smashed rotors and replacement cost was a few dollars for more plywood.

Training by the Benson method required a partnership; one driving and one gliding. My partner and I both learned to fly without ever so much as scratching a blade.

The Benson could certainly have benefited from a seat tank, a “T” tail and some sort of sprung and damped landing gear.

The photo is a typical SRC summer flyin from the 1970s, illustrative of the level of activity at that time.

[Xavier AVERSO]

Je pense que le nombre des accidents du MT03 est du au fait de la conjonction de deux données
(1)- le constructeur n'a pas bien compris comment fonctionne son autogire et la preuve est que la nouvelle version MTsport est une correction du MT03 qui semble avoir un centrage trop avant, donc danger a grande vitesse ou le rotor bascule brutalement en négatif.
(2)- les acheteurs pilotes qui peuvent se payer de telles machines sont en générale des fortes personnalitées leur capaçites financieres le prouvent et a qui il est impossible de donner une bonne formation car ils pensent être supérieur a leur " pauvre" instructeurs.
Le seul conseil a donner a ces pilotes est d'apprendre a ce servir de la
commande de gas.

I think that the number of the accidents of the MT03 is with the fact of the conjunction of two data
(1) - the manufacturer n' did not include/understand well how its autogiro functions and the proof is that the new MTsport version is a correction of the MT03 which seems to have a too front centering, therefore danger has high speed or the rotor rocks brutally into negative.
(2) - the pilot purchasers who can treat to such machines in general strong are personnalitées their financial capacities prove it and has which it is impossible to give a good formation because they think of being higher has to them " poor " instructors.
The only council has to give has these pilots is d' to learn has this to serve as the order of gas.

[bpearson]

Steve
I agree, the future is hopefully bright with the new tandem training. and i hope the single seat stats get better too. It just took too long to get to this point. I really hope the stats get better, and stay better than they were.
Paddy

Paddy, the single seat stats aren't too bad really. Theres nearly always a story behind the accident.

Sometimes, people just feel that they want to go their own way. It's their life and as long as no third party is involved thats up to them. I believe the stats during the 'self taught' days were quite good.

I don't think we need to worry too much about the image of gyroplanes.....soon the world will have much greater problems to deal with.

[Mike G]

I've corrected your PC Xavier, it must have been tired.
I think that the number of the accidents of the MT03 is due to the coming together of two factors.
(1) - the manufacturer didn't fully understand how an autogiro works, the proof being that the new MTsport version is a correction of the MT03 which seems to have a CG too far forward, therefore creating a danger at high speed when the rotor can pass brutally into negative.
(2) - the pilot who can afford such machines are usually very strong minded characters their financial ability proves it and therefore it is impossible to give them good training because they think they are better than their " poor " instructors.
The only advise to give these pilots is to learn to use the throttle.

I hadn't thought of the last arguement but it makes sense and if you've written it you surley have experienced it.

Mike G

[Doug Riley]

Robert Fiveson:

Adverse slip-roll coupling is the opposite of what dihedral gives you in a FW plane.

A slip is uncoordinated sideways flight. The craft's nose does not point in the direction it's going. The start of such a maneuver may be intentional (crossing the controls) or accidental on the pilot's part.

If the fuselage has a lot of side area, and if the side area's aerodynamic center is below the aircraft's CG, then the fuselage's drag in the "sideways" direction tends to roll the gyro into a steeper and steeper bank TOWARD the direction of slip as the slip develops. If the pilot holds the stick still, this rolling of the fuselage increases the rotor's tilt toward the slip, increasing the sideways airspeed, which increase the drag, which increases the roll and so on.

If the process persists, all the opposite stick you've got may not be enough to un-bank the gyro and prevent it from rolling to a knife-edge position -- or beyond. This unstable feedback loop has caused a couple of crashes in Air and Space gyros.

If the fuselage is designed for the least possible sideways drag (using a round cross-section, not slab sides as in the 18A, and the smallest possible diameter) and if sideways drag center is above the CG, then the gyro will tend to un-bank itself once the rotor tilt toward the slip is reduced.

Happily, a "high rider" arrangement usually reduces or eliminates unstable slip-roll coupling as well as the tendency either to PPO or to do a pitch-axis drag-over. Three improvements for the price of one.

An open "bathtub" pod, OTOH, experiences a tremendous increase in drag once the air starts to blow into its open top. The air WILL start to blow into the open top once the gyro achieves a bank angle during a slip.

Slips are useful in landing gyros crosswind. IMHO no gyro should be designed so that slipping it is dangerous.

I taught slips-on-final-approach, at low power, to my gyo students. One of them (a Cub pilot, of course) put my Dominator tandem into the mother of all slips by doing a stomp-and-yank maneuver at about 75 mph at cruise power. Despite relocating one of my eyeballs across my face to join the other, this move did not result in any unstable behavior on the Dom's part, suggesting that at least the Dominator tandem does not have adverse slip-roll coupling. I wouldn't be so sure about all of the "super stable tandems."

[Udi]

...One of them (a Cub pilot, of course) put my Dominator tandem into the mother of all slips by doing a stomp-and-yank maneuver at about 75 mph at cruise power..."
And that may be another major factor in these accidents. Experienced FW pilots, buying these low-and-slow "toys" to play around their local airports, do not have a good appreciation for the differences between FW planes and gyros. Gyros don't stall/spin, but they have plenty of other ways to kill you. I think one of the reasons for the relative safe flying pilots enjoyed during the hey days of the 70s Chuck describes is that pilots learned to fly on their gyros. They had a healthy respect for the dangers that lurked in these machines, and they didn't start with bad habits.

I believe that, even though the Magni has some safety features the MT03 does not posses (most notably a high-damping rotor), most of the MT03 accidents we hear about can be avoided by better pilot training. If pilots don't listen to their instructors, as Averso is saying, than this is a classic case of natural selection. But I don't buy this argument. I think a proper training syllabus would include a better instruction of gyro-specific dangers in the flight envelope. I just think the manufacturers and many/most of these(!) instructors don't have a good understanding of this subject themselves.

[Doug Riley]

My un-scientific, subjective impression of the 70's (when I started flying gyros) is that the gyro death rate was horrific. It seemed as if every PRA mag that arrived carried news of a fatality or two. Many were attributed to "porpoising," which is simply the precursor of a PPO, torque-over or related event.

Most depressing was that, more than once, a flyin story in the magazine included a footnote to a particular photo, announcing that the person depicted crashed and died at that very flyin.

Even now, when I show up at an airport with a gyro, I usually get an earful about gyros from some old-timer or other. He describes a gyro fatality that either happened to his friend, or to a stranger who splattered right in front of him.

I understand the argument that the denominator was bigger. I also understand that Part 103 has probably resulted in a lower rate of N-numbering of gyros than occurred in the pre-103 era... so we really don't know how many gyros are out there.

Good old days, bah.

[C. Beaty]

Let’s see, Doug.

The NTSB says 25 individuals died in gyros during the 5-year period of Jan 1, 1970 through Jan 1, 1975.

For the 5-year period of Jan 1, 2000 through Jan 1, 2005, there were only 22 fatalities.

There is no way of knowing hours flown or how many gyros were actually being flown during the respective 5-year periods but it is my speculation that several times as many gyros and pilots were active in the ‘70s.

[EI-GYRO]

With regard to the recent spate of MT-03 accidents, and one ELA accident,
and given that most appear to be pilot error, it would appear that Xavier Averso hits the nail on the head.

"(2) - the pilot who can afford such machines are usually very strong minded characters their financial ability proves it and therefore it is impossible to give them good training because they think they are better than their " poor " instructors.
The only advise to give these pilots is to learn to use the throttle."

The MT-03 in particular, seems to be marketed as a highly agile, high-powered, kick-ass machine, the sports-car of gyros, so to speak. Most videos on You-tube show them being flown sportily if not aggressively.

Magnis, by comparison, seem much more understated, and more presented as a relaxed, take-it-easy and enjoy-the -flight.

It seems to me that gung-ho attitudes could only be addressed by
astute and well-directed flight instruction.

It has been suggested to me that low-time students are being taught
advanced manouvres during basic training, and that this may be a factor in
subsequent inappropriate exuberance.


I think most relevant aspects have been listed at this point in the thread.

I was tempted to open separate threads for further discussion of several
of the points raised in this thread, rather than have this thread start to
unravel in various directions

Does anyone have a view on whether or not this would be useful?.

[Spaans]

I am surprised that more Mfg's don't offer a tractor style autogyro in their lineup! Everybody needs more TAIL.

[mceagle]

For those individuals that could comprehend the written word, the Benson method of self-training was excellent. Start with a towline, graduate to wheel balancing and finally crow hops. The Benson training manual wasn’t crammed with incorrect information.

The Sunstate Rotor Club (Florida) had a membership of more than 100 individuals during that period and not one was killed in a PPO accident. There were surpassingly few smashed rotors and replacement cost was a few dollars for more plywood.

Training by the Benson method required a partnership; one driving and one gliding. My partner and I both learned to fly without ever so much as scratching a blade.
I agree with you totally Chuck but I believe that the situation is different nowdays. In those days you had to do so much ground work that you were actually "flying" before you left the ground. Then when you did (often accidently) leave the ground, you were so used to correct rudder that you could easily land safely. Then with crow-hops you learnt to fly and control the pitch attitude before you gained any altitude (you had to learn to fly correctly otherwise you couldn't gain any altitude).

Nowdays all the machines have much greater power to weight ratios which allows the pilot to quickly gain altitude (even if too slow or too fast), and they all too often try to do just that - as soon as they think they can.

[EI-GYRO]

I think you are right on the button there, Tim.
Too much power, too little experience.

[Xavier AVERSO]

Merci Mike de corriger L'anglais de mon ordinateur.

Thank you Mike to correct L' English of my computer.

[ferranrosello]

First of all, the tandem European gyros are super stable. Of course they will be in trouble in case of flying at or closed to 0g. The problem is not if they are CLT or not. The problem is that the teetering rotor cannot fly in this condition. The only way to solve this question (for me is not a problem) is to fit articulated rotor heads (this makes the real difference with our gyros and Cierva’s).

About the training (I'm talking about Spain). Until few years ago we had no gyro schools and very few gyro pilots started training with the Bensen method and crashed a couple of gyros prior to mastering their machines. Nowadays we have a few schools (I'm gyro instructor) but we have two kind of students:

Students with no previous experience. I've had no problems with them.
People who flies FW and want to perform a course to transfer to gyros. Usually these students feel they can fly the gyro too early, and they decide they have enough training. We have had one fatality in an Ela flown by one of these "pilots".

I think that there is nothing better than a proper gyro training in a twin gyro. The problem is that in Spain we have not gyro license, and gyro can be flown with a FW one.

Ferràn

[birdy]

First of all, the tandem European gyros are super stable. Of course they will be in trouble in case of flying at or closed to 0g. The problem is not if they are CLT or not.
Ferran, wen your talkn bout 0G in a gyro, CLT is EVERYTHING.

[C. Beaty]

Of course they will be in trouble in case of flying at or closed to 0g. The problem is not if they are CLT or not. The problem is that the teetering rotor cannot fly in this condition. The only way to solve this question (for me is not a problem) is to fit articulated rotor heads (this makes the real difference with our gyros and Cierva’s).FerrànHere is a drawing of Cierva’s direct control gimbled rotorhead, Ferran.

Notice the hourglass shape of the rotor hub, designed to get the flap hinges of the blades as near to the center of rotation as possible.

That was to reduce the cyclic stick force.

With offset flap hinges and a tilting rotorhead, the only way offset flap hinges can supply a torque to the airframe is through the pilot’s arms.

With a fixed rotorhead and swashplate control, offset flap hinges can make a rotary wing aircraft controllable during zero “G” flight.

With a tilting rotorhead, there’s not much difference between a teetering rotor and one with more than 2 blades.

[ferranrosello]

Birdy, when talking about 0g I think that CLT is not everything.

If you have an effective HS you needn't a CLT gyro to avoid propeller trust moment. And a CLT gyro does not avoid moments originated by body’s drag.

Chuck thanks. I think you are entirely right. The only question is if pilot’s arms would be enough to supply a torque to the airframe. Anyway, C-30s not only were CLT, they had an effective HS and vertical end plates, which gave them full control authority in case of an engine failure.

Full control authority in case of an engine failure is a characteristic which is present in the new European gyros, but it is not in many other gyros. Besides, the fact that the ancient autogiro pilots were professionals makes the difference with nowadays accident ratings.

In my opinion, the accident rating in Europe is too high (all accident ratings are too high), but is not very different from the accident rating you have in America. The main cause is lack of training and knowledge. We have very few autogiro schools in Europe, and all they are very young. It would be a good idea to make a seminar involving all this schools in order to create a good training standard, something that exist in FW and helicopter training (created by FAA), but not in autogiros. I’m working in that in order to have a standard for gyro schools.

Ferràn

[birdy]

If you have an effective HS you needn't a CLT gyro to avoid propeller trust moment. And a CLT gyro does not avoid moments originated by body’s drag.
Ferran, if you have CLT, you dont need a HS.
If you have a HTL, you need a big HS, and it will fly like a FW.

BTW, true CLT takes frame drag into account also.

[mceagle]

Full control authority in case of an engine failure is a characteristic which is present in the new European gyros, but it is not in many other gyros.
I disagree with this Ferran - in fact quite the opposite.
If you do not believe me then try a simulated engine failure in a stretch tandem at best rate of climb speed, and then try to turn. It would even be worse at lesser airspeeds.
I believe there was one such incident previously quoted on this forum where the pilot ended up up-side down and was lucky to live to tell the tale - and he still had an engine!!!

[Fl90]

Addressing the first post, it's the people.

A gyro offer a ride that no other machine does. The people that like the ability of a gyro over other forms of flight have a need for it. A gyro's agilty and ease can lure a person into adverse flying. It has done this to me, more than once. Then you rely on an understanding of the machine, the ability to supress panick, and the hope of it all working out in time.

If you miss any of those, well, it's not good.

Phil

[birdy]

but it is not in many other gyros.
And wot ever gave you this idea????

Iv flown the new European gyros, and if your talkn controle authority, they have the least.
Stability yes, authority, no.

[freebird]

I am a student who has completed about 16 hours of dual training. 10 in a sparrowhawk and 6 in a snowbird tandem. I have 3 more in an aircommand tandem with a BFI (rear seat).

I have been main balancing and crow hopping, etc. My little AC with a 582 is really a hot rod compared to the others. I have flown with 3 different CFI's and one BFI. There were minor differences between them and definite machine specific things.

As I continue, I am afraid that there are things that I missed. Things that will not become apparent until something bad is happening, or I am just trying to do something besides fly around in the pattern. Lets face it, a gyro is not a riding machine, it is a flying machine. Sooner or later I am going to want to try low and slow down the river bed, or yank and bank in the tree grotto.

I guess what I am saying is - Why not have training for more advanced flight technique? Sound methods that would not just tell you what to do, but why you do it so that you can translate the rule to your own machine.

I have heard that Mentone and others are great places to talk about this sort of thing and I am planning on making the trip to Wachula in April. I also plan to start attending the Houston chapter meetings for more info along this line.

Do these fellas in Europe have the same problem. Are they all too young with no "old and bolds" to teach them?

Are there other resources I should go to?

[ckurz7000]

...I guess what I am saying is - Why not have training for more advanced flight technique? Sound methods that would not just tell you what to do, but why you do it so that you can translate the rule to your own machine.

I guess the misconception starts with the majority of people who get their license believing that they now suddenly know it all and have over night transmogrified into masters of their machines.

In the European JAR PPL there's an add-on rating for aerobatics. You have to get additional instruction before doing any aerobatic maneuvers. Even though I don't think that this should be also required for gyros, it is important to instill into every newly hatched pilot's brain that they just earned themselves a license to LEARN.

I suggest that every CFI talk with their graduating students about continuing education. Have them gather some experience on their own and then, after 50 hours, return to get some additional instruction (maybe 3-5 hours) on advanced thechniques and also to iron out any bad habits acquired.

-- Chris.

[Gyro_Kai]

Iv flown the[I] new European gyros, and if your talkn controle authority, they have the least.
Stability yes, authority, no.

Hello Birdy,

could you please elaborate a bit more? As we have very little chance to try another type of gyro here I would like to get some first hand impression. Which control direction do you consider inferior? Compared to which other type?


Kai.

[birdy]

it is important to instill into every newly hatched pilot's brain that they just earned themselves a license to LEARN.
Zactly Chris.
All the instructers job is, is to teach you how to drive the machine, and how to handle it, specialy in the involentary engine failure area.
Its then up to you, over a loooooooooong period of time, to learn how to FLY.
Sure, you can ask all the relivant questions later bout the wots n hows n whys, but you still gota LEARN it.

Kai, iv only flown the European magni, and from wot i gather on the forums, it is the bench mark machine. [ it must be, coz everyone else seems to want to copy it.]

Theres a big difference, specialy if your talkn more than just S/L stuff, between a solidly damped and stable machine,[ like a magni] and one that is not damped, but still stable. [ clt without damping]
The more 'solid' it is to fly [ damped], the less responsive it is to inputs. [ less authority]
You cant have both.

It may be trivial to most, but if blokes like Ferran are, quote;
I've written a book in spanish about autogiros: El autogiro y su vuelo, about the history, aerdinamics and how to fly it.
for the world public to read, he's gota get it rite.

[Gyro_Kai]

Kai, iv only flown the European magni, and from wot i gather on the forums, it is the bench mark machine. [ it must be, coz everyone else seems to want to copy it.]

Thanks a lot Birdy.

However, I think the Magni is very different from the MTs. Should you ever get a chance to try an MT, please take it and tell us about your thoughts :-)

Kai.

[ckurz7000]

Birdy, the Magni and the MT03 are night and day when it comes to control authority! Even though they might share the general looks, there's BIG difference when you fly them. I bet the MT03 comes much closer to your taste of an agile flying machine.

Are you coming to Austria any time soon? We can't be so far apart, after all, since a lot of Americans seem to think they are one and the same (that was prior to Arnie Schwarzenegger becoming Governor of California, of course). Only once I made clear that Austria goes with "The Sound of Music" and Australia is where the 'roos live, did they seem to grasp the difference.

-- Chris.

[birdy]

Should you ever get a chance to try an MT.............
Mate, if a gyro flys over ere i throw a rope over it and sink the boot in, no matter wot breed it is.
If i can, i will, for sure.
If its got rotors, ill drive it. :)

Birdy, the Magni and the MT03 are night and day when it comes to control authority!
Iv constantly heard that same thing Chris, so yeh, a blap ina MT, or even an ELA would be interestn.

Are you coming to Austria any time soon?
Probably not Mate.
If its more n 7 hours ina gyro, its outa my range. ;)
Recon if you woke up ere tomorrow youd think you was still in Austria. [ till you open the door and get hit by the humid 40C air ]
Iv been on this little 1500 squ mile patch of Oz for 40 years, and it still amazes me wot a transformation a little rain makes. :) :) :)

[Doug Riley]

Freebird, you are asking the right questions. What I found as a BFI was that most gyro trainees have not figured the cost of training into their gyro budgets. They want to get it over with in as short a time, for as little money, as is possible. Getting them to come back to finish even the basics was a struggle.

Just about any instructor will practically hug you with joy if you ask for more advanced instruction. It will be more fun for him/her than the endless touch & goes we have to do with beginners.

For now, though, practice the skills you have learned. You should not go hedge-hopping or doing showoff routines for at least the first 100 hours. What you can do is work very gradually into higher wind conditions and light cross-winds. Plot out a cross-country, do all the preliminary homework and then fly it. Keep running through basic control drills -- S-turns, 360's, 720's, recovery from behind-the-power-curve, vertical descents. Practice engine-outs from various locations within the pattern.

There is plenty for you to do by yourself that will safely add to your skills and will give you a sense of accomplishment with each flight.

[ferranrosello]

Tim, I’ve tried (not only simulated) engine failures in an Ela. Once was when a helmet part flipped out and broke two propeller blades. It was a twin training flight, we were climbing at 60 mph (Vy) and I had to shut down the engine immediately. In all occasions I’ve been plenty of control authority in all axes. I’ve flown magnis, but I’ve had not this experience in them. But I think they are the same in control authority. I don’t understand what happened to that MT 03, but it seems to have been the pilots fault.

Birdy, true CLT doesn’t take into account frame drag (and this is something more than just my opinion). If you fly a true CLT you still need a good HS in order to keep your gyro flying straight into air in the event of 0g situations.

Birdy, what you are doing with my post is a total deception putting the things out of their context. What I wrote not was:

but it is not in many other gyros.

It was:

“Full control authority in case of an engine failure is a characteristic which is present in the new European gyros, but it is not in many other gyros.”

I’ve flown some gyros, like the Air Command, that without the propeller blowing air into the tail you lose yaw control authority. This problem is common in all gyros which relay in the engine blowing over flight tail surfaces to hold stability and yaw control… If the engine quits…

Ferran

[ferranrosello]

I entirely agree with you Doug. This is the best advice you can give anybody. I would like to add only we are never to end our training. Always there are things to discover and to learn, and the only way to succeed in flying is taking a learnable and humidly attitude. And this is true for very experienced pilots too.

Ferran

[ferranrosello]

I don’t understand why Mr Birdy has made a quote about my profile which has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Anyway it is true, I wrote this book. And this doesn’t mean I know everything about gyros. In this forum there are people who knows much more than me. This is the best rotary wing forum I know and I’m very happy to be here trying to learn and to share knowledge with all of you. The fact that I’ve got a book published about gyros doesn’t mean, I hope, that I cannot freely express my opinions in this forum.

Ferran

[birdy]

Birdy, true CLT doesn’t take into account frame drag
TRUE CLT means the thrust passes through the center of mass AND center of pressure.

If you fly a true CLT you still need a good HS in order to keep your gyro flying straight into air in the event of 0g situations.
Your mixing authority with stability, and you cant have both.

I don’t understand why Mr Birdy has made a quote about my profile which has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
You dont see the revilance???
If youv ritn a book, that states; aerdinamics and how to fly it., then in order to do your reader justice, you need to know first.
Im not sayn your a dumbass, im sayn if your go'n to tell sumone how it flys and how to fly it, you better have a VERY good understanding of the subject.

For the record, i was readn a book bout gyros, before i even flew one, and i looked up autorotation, hopen to get a basic understanding of the physics.
You can imagine my dissapointment wen the auther said ;
" imagine the blades as a wet cake of soap between your fingures, now squeeze your fingures on the soap and the soap will slip out. This is how rotor blades react wen spin'n in air at atmospherice pressures" .
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wota lota crap, even a non flyer knows thats crap, and i read it in a real gyro book!!!!!

Now, i know you wouldnt say sumthn as dumb as that in your book Ferran, but i assume you get my drift. ;)

that I cannot freely express my opinions in this forum.
Thats where you gota be carefull Ferran.
Coz its ritn in a book, sum will take it as FACT, not OPINION.
Wether your opinion is correct or not, its still only an opinion.

[Heron]

The instructor I fired used to have a bar of soap to show an tell how the blades moved.
And he teached the blad flap by moving the head back and forth by twisting the blades.
Precious!
Heron

[birdy]

The instructor I fired used to have a bar of soap to show an tell how the blades moved.
Smart move on your part Heron. ;)

[PW_Plack]

TRUE CLT means the thrust passes through the center of mass AND center of pressure.

Huh? Birdy, with all due respect, that's a worthy (if difficult) design goal, but I don't think it matches the consensus definition.

If this were the case, only machines with the CoM and CoP on the same line could ever be "CLT." Since CoP for a collection of connected, irregularly shaped objects (such as the various shapes which comprise a gyro) will vary with both speed and angle of attack, any attempt to define CoP will hold only for a very narrow slice of possible conditions.

I've always thought the important design issue in CoP would be trying to keep it above CoM for all combinations of airspeed and AoA, so the rotors would always try to reload themselves, and slip/roll coupling would be in the stable direction, not necessarily aligning it with the thrustline.

Having CoP change with varying airframe AoA is not a bad thing. Arranging surfaces so the CoP moves rearward when the machine departs zero degrees AoA (as happens with tail surfaces which are large and/or on a long arm) is one way to get both static and dynamic stability.

[ferranrosello]

Thank you for your answer, Birdy. But it is not the same to be writing a book than writing in this forum. The forum is a great opportunity to communicate with other people who want to talk about gyros. Is time for relax and to share opinions, experiences and knowledge not to perform a very deep investigation prior to write in the forum. Anyway, my book is written from a pilot’s point of view. I’m not an engineer and never have made any advice about how to design and to make a gyro.

Birdy, I’m not mixing controllability and stability; it is you who is confusing controllability with manouevring. Controllability is the capability to initiate or to stop a manoeuvre at the pilots will. Manoeuvring describes how fast the aircraft in doing so is.

And about CLT I agree with Paul: the body’s CP is changing with the airflow incidence. In case of flying close to 0g in a gyro with a direct control rotor system and with a teetering rotor will have no control authority in pitch and roll. So I think that is necessary to make something to prevent uncommanded attitude changes when flying in this condition until the positive g flight has been recovered. And by now, the only way I know to do this is using an effective HS.

Ferràn

[WaspAir]

For those individuals that could comprehend the written word, the Benson method of self-training was excellent. Start with a towline, graduate to wheel balancing and finally crow hops. The Benson training manual wasn’t crammed with incorrect information.
...
Training by the Benson method required a partnership; one driving and one gliding. My partner and I both learned to fly without ever so much as scratching a blade.

Not everybody was so lucky. Here's a fatal accident in a towed engineless Bensen:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=42347&key=0

Perhaps you underestimate your own aptitude or overestimate the average Joe (or maybe some of both). We can't know the activity level to get any sort of rate information, but the NTSB records show over 100 killed in the U.S. in Bensen/Benson gyros (they spell it both ways in the data), and the self-taught ranks undoubtedly are well represented in that figure. Of course, some will have followed the prescribed course more closely than others, but without an accomplished coach/debriefer/instructor to analyze and help with self-discipline, promoting the idea that all can learn what they should safely along the way through self-training (as advertised in the old days) is naive at best, if not culpable.

Meanwhile, while looking up the Bensen numbers, I found that the yaw-roll "coffin corner" that Doug mentioned for the A&S18A doesn't appear to have killed anybody. Of the three fatal accidents I found in the NTSB database, one was Don Farrington's heart attack in the pattern, one was a one-eyed student pilot on Prozac flying into a hill on a night cross-country in bad weather (no, I'm not kidding), and the other was a high-time pilot buzzing a river who flew into power lines. Apparently, people have shown lots of creativity in rolling 18As and J-2s into balls of debris, but it's generally not lethal.

[C. Beaty]

Meanwhile, while looking up the Bensen numbers, I found that the yaw-roll "coffin corner" that Doug mentioned for the A&S18A doesn't appear to have killed anybody. Of the three fatal accidents I found in the NTSB database, one was Don Farrington's heart attack in the pattern,The Polk County Coroner said Don Farrington died of blunt force trauma. Don’s fans say the coroner was mistaken.

The NTSB reports 5 fatal accidents out of the grand total of 44 18As on the FAA registry. Magnificent or what?

By way of comparison, the RAF-2000 only has 12 smoking holes out of 248 on the registry. On that basis, the RAF is more than 2x as safe as an 18A.

[WaspAir]

With respect to the late Mr. Farrington, I'm neither coroner nor fan, although in the abstract it would seem that heart troubles leading to pilot incapacitation can certainly end in blunt force trauma when the ground rises up to smite one who is no longer in control. Given his experience level in that model (as the type certificate holder, re-manufacturer, flight instructor, designated examiner, and primary proponent for decades), if he was not incapacitated, it seems highly unlikely that a surprise encounter with yaw - roll coupling beyond his skills was the root cause of his accident.

My subsidiary point was that the so-called "coffin corner" for the 18A doesn't seem to have filled many coffins. The well-known issues with the RAF have filled far too many. And it would strain credulity to suggest that self-training had nothing to do with the scores of coffins filled by would-be Bensen pilots (my primary point).

I never suggested fatalities-per-airframe as a meaningful measure of overall safety, and it's puzzling that you have. If your point is that self-training in Bensens is a good idea, over 100 deaths in Bensens with under 400 registered doesn't sound all that positive to me, and wouldn't seem to help your argument. If you just want to trash-talk the 18A, go right ahead, but it won't establish that its yaw-roll behavior is a greater risk to the pilot population or to the public on the ground below than self-training in Bensens.

[C. Beaty]

There are ~2,000 Bensens on the FAA registry.

[WaspAir]

Perhaps I missed entries that don't include "Bensen" or "Benson" with the builder name in the FAA's search field when I did my quick count.

But you have a knack for repeatedly avoiding the point.

Are you actually asserting that self-training in a Bensen is a good idea?

That's the impression I took from your post that I quoted, suggesting that any literate person could succeed safely that way. And that's what I'm disputing.

Or have you conceded on that, and just want to argue now about safety of the 18A?

[birdy]

If this were the case, only machines with the CoM and CoP on the same line could ever be "CLT."
I know, thats why there seldom would be any TRUE clt gyros.
Even 100% COM clt is impossable MOST fo the time, coz fuel burns.

Birdy, I’m not mixing controllability and stability; it is you who is confusing controllability with manouevring. Controllability is the capability to initiate or to stop a manoeuvre at the pilots will. Manoeuvring describes how fast the aircraft in doing so is.
Im not tryn to be a smartass Ferran, but there must be a translation thing go'n on here. :(
I said; Your mixing authority with stability, and you cant have both.
If you have a high level of stability, you have a low level of authority.
Coz the stablising, or damping forces robb you the ability or authority to move the machine where you want it, WEN you want it, and at a RATE at which you want.

[C. Beaty]

Perhaps I missed entries that don't include "Bensen" or "Benson" with the builder name in the FAA's search field when I did my quick count.

But you have a knack for repeatedly avoiding the point.

Are you actually asserting that self-training in a Bensen is a good idea?

That's the impression I took from your post that I quoted, suggesting that any literate person could succeed safely that way. And that's what I'm disputing.

Or have you conceded on that, and just want to argue now about safety of the 18A?Simply typing B-8 in the FAA registry window yields 1604 entries and all that I looked at were Bensen Gyrocopters.

I believe that diligently following the Bensen syllabus leads to a higher success rate than training by an instructor that believes autorotation is something like a bar of soap or that horizontal stabilizers on a gyro are dangerous. Or that dangle angle determines inflight CG.

I could care less about the 18-A but I do object to bogus numbers and creative conjecture about heart attacks.

[ckurz7000]

If this were the case, only machines with the CoM and CoP on the same line could ever be "CLT."
I know, thats why there seldom would be any TRUE clt gyros.
Even 100% COM clt is impossable MOST fo the time, coz fuel burns.

Aren't you going a bit overboard with the CLT-thing? I'd say that a gyro which is CLT with half-full tanks and has a CoP at or above the thrust line is good enough for me to be called CLT. If not, then CLT is such an elusive concept that it loses its usefulness.

BTW, I'd never fly a gyro -- CLT or not -- if it doesn't have a horizontal stabilizer.

-- Chris.

[helipaddy]

Looking at the Stats and disregarding the gyroplane type there seems to be one common denominator that keeps re-occurring in a lot of the accidents: the Pilot had a Student pilot Certificate. A lot of the accidents seem to be during the 90 day sign-off when the student was not under the direct supervision of the Instructor. A student pilot, just solo, bringing his gyro out for a flight not under the watchful eye of his/her CFI frightens the daylights out of me.

[WaspAir]

Simply typing B-8 in the FAA registry window yields 1604 entries and all that I looked at were Bensen Gyrocopters.
...
I could care less about the 18-A but I do object to bogus numbers and creative conjecture about heart attacks.

OK, minutia first. I've already conceded in an earlier post that my search strategy on the FAA database missed those that didn't include Bensen with the builder's name. Your 1604 includes 56 Beech B-80s, 134 Funk B85Cs, some Embraer EMB-820s, a Taylor Monoplane GB85, and other types with "B 8" in the string somewhere, so perhaps your "~2000" is a bigger but still bogus number. It looks like getting a definitive number is more work than I'm interested in, especially given that fatalities per registration was not my idea of a good way to measure safety in the first place. (For example, Concorde only had one fatal accident after a quarter century of flying millions across the Atlantic, but with so few in use at the time of that crash, it might have had a worse safety record than Bensens by your fatal-accidents-per-registration ratio methodology.)

And even if the widely publicized reports of Farrington's demise (full of talk of a heart attack) were only "conjecture", that's irrelevant to anything I had to say unless it contributes to an insidious pattern of yaw-roll coupling accidents, for which I still haven't seen evidence.

Now back to my issue. This actually all began with your own creative conjecture based on your "guesstimates" (what one uses when one doesn't even have bogus numbers to work with):

Hours flown for experimentals isn’t available for the US but based on my guestimates for numbers of gyroplanes being flown, the fatality rate is several times higher at present than it was during the Bensen era.

Nostalgia for a by-gone era is one thing, but your statements about the virtues of self-taught flight instruction are read here by plenty of newbies and lurkers, who, seeing the deference that many afford you on this forum, may decide to go try it. Anything that encourages that behavior I find shockingly irresponsible.

Your latest twist is to argue that no instruction is better than instruction by the unqualified:
I believe that diligently following the Bensen syllabus leads to a higher success rate than training by an instructor that believes autorotation is something like a bar of soap or that horizontal stabilizers on a gyro are dangerous. Or that dangle angle determines inflight CG.

That's not a choice that a student should make, or has to make today.

Rather than extol the virtues of self-instruction, stating that the Bensen method was "excellent" for any literate person, as you did in a post above, I think it more appropriate to have would-be students look at the narratives for fatal Bensen accidents. Look at a sampling and you'll find victims with 0 flight hours in type, 1 hour, 2, 4, 5, 8, etc., etc. There's even a fatal roll-over while taxiing by a zero flight hour pilot in 1968, and a fatal towed glider accident by a 15 hour pilot in 1978. We can't know if those two were "diligently" following the Bensen tow, taxi, and hop self-training syllabus, but we do know that nobody has to take that risk today.

As to your "belief", I'm delighted that you and people you know survived the self-instruction experience, but that doesn't make it wise or worthy of praise.

Teaching one's self guarantees having an unqualified instructor. It doesn't contribute to gyroplane safety to state otherwise.

[bpearson]

Nostalgia for a by-gone era is one thing, but your statements about the virtues of self-taught flight instruction are read here by plenty of newbies and lurkers, who, seeing the deference that many afford you on this forum, may decide to go try it. Anything that encourages that behavior I find shockingly irresponsible.



Yes Chuck, you are a very, very bad man. Posting facts is indeed shockingly irresponsible.

Waspair, if someone wants to go and teach themselves to fly then let em. We must stop nannying people.

[C. Beaty]

The individuals that do the most hand wringing and caterwauling over Bensen training methods are generally those who know the least about the subject, never having seen a Bensen flying manual and never having flown a Gyrocopter.

I expect Ken Brock trained more gyro pilots than all gyroplane-CFIs combined using a two-place gyro kite initially and running alongside the pilot on a motorbike during the initial wheel balancing and crow hop phase. A bit like having a paid exercise coach.

Ken spent several days each and every week at El Mirage providing instruction. He was not a CFI.

That was then. Now, it would be impossible to train by such methods; generally, until just the past few years, gyros were less stable than a basic Bensen and there is no provision for towing and very little documentation.

[PW_Plack]

Anything that encourages that behavior I find shockingly irresponsible.

The only thing "shocking" is that a case cannot be made for a definitive improvement in the accident rate in the era of dual instruction. I find Chuck's observation fascinating, not because it's controversial, but because it rings true. If it shocks you to think of equipping newbies with the truth, so be it.

The Bensen syllabus may have had more to do with patience than literacy.

[WaspAir]

Posting facts is indeed shockingly irresponsible.

Chuck's assertion that self-training the Bensen way is excellent for any literate person is an unsupported personal opinion, not a fact. Here's my comparable opinion: some certainly survived; some undoubtedly killed themselves. The major difference is that I'm not making statements that sound like promoting self-training based upon my opinion.

Waspair, if someone wants to go and teach themselves to fly then let em. We must stop nannying people.

That sort of attitude can be a great tool for keeping gyros in the backwaters of aviation. It will reinforce the dismissive view of gyroplanes that many fixed wing (and even helicopter) pilots have, a view that is shared by too many regulators at the FAA and elsewhere, by insurance companies, and by other outsiders whose cooperation is necessary if this branch of aviation is to grow. It undercuts the efforts of those who are trying to clean up the sorry public image of gyroplanes. It might even kill people.

A culture of responsibility, professionalism, and safety-mindedness can be found in just about any other form of flight. If that's "nannying", it seems to work pretty damn well, and a good dose of it won't hurt.

And for Chuck's benefit, I'll happily confirm that that I'm not self-taught The Bensen Way. But the dead unsuccessful Bensen self-teachers aren't around to comment or "caterwaul" for themselves. Perhaps we owe it to them to learn something from their experience and save lives in the future. Aviation safety grows upon not repeating the mistakes others have made in the past.

And by the way, Ken's lack of an instructor's certificate doesn't mean his students were self-taught.

It's pretty hard to establish whether overall safety is better in current era with a paucity of reliable statistics. We've had aircraft design issues loom large in recent times that would make it hard to subtract out the effects of reduced self-instruction, too. But that's no argument for a step backwards.

[ferranrosello]

Chuck, I respect very much all gyro pilots who trained themselves. It is needed to be a very special kind of person to be able to learn to fly alone. Some years ago there was no option, and in many places it is still the only way to become a gyro pilot.

In Spain there were very few gyro pilots in the old days. We had here a towed gyro training school in Madrid, and some people had their first experience in flying gyros by this method. Most of them gave up the training experience. But now, nearly all gyro pilots agree that learning to fly a gyro in a twin machine with a good instructor is the safest and most efficient way to do it.

Birdy, I’ve failed trying to explain what it is understood in Spanish by control authority. Control authority is the ability to change form one flying condition to another. It doesn’t matter how long it takes to do it. When I’m talking about lack of control authority I mean that the gyro is responding to the control input NEVER. When we are talking about how fast is a gyro responding to a command input we are talking about a different thing, and maybe someone will be able to tell us what the accurate term for this concept in English is. In Spanish we call it “maniobrabilidad” (maybe something like manoeverility).

Anyway, Birdy, you imply than European gyros with large HS have slow responses to the control inputs. I thing you are wrong, but this is only my opinion… And of course, a HS damper the pitch inputs… But this dampening effect helps the pilot in his task. But now I am talking about handling qualities, and this is a subjective question. The only European gyro you have flown is the Magni. This gyro requires a much bigger force at the controls than the Ela, for example. And this is because its rotor is heavier, not because of the HS.

Ferràn

[bpearson]

That sort of attitude can be a great tool for keeping gyros in the backwaters of aviation. It will reinforce the dismissive view of gyroplanes that many fixed wing (and even helicopter) pilots have, a view that is shared by too many regulators at the FAA

Those regulators at the FAA will, if given the chance regulate recreational aircraft out of the sky. There is no money in it for them. Don't make the same mistake we have in the UK and let them walk all over our liberities.

They have no business involving themselves in an activity that involves only the health of the participant.

[C. Beaty]

I’m curious, Waspair. How many students have you trained in your 18-A and then signed off to solo their RAFs or whatever?

[WaspAir]

So, you want to unzip our logs, whip out our "instruction given" numbers, and declare the bigger one the winner of the argument?

Do you get to count all the self-taught pilots that you didn't teach? What about the dead ones?

I'm curious, too, Chuck, are you a CFI?

[EI-GYRO]

I think Paul is right.

The Bensen method requires patience and cautious approach more than any other quality.
Few things make you more cautious than the knowledge that you know very little, and
that there is no one else to blame if you screw up. And a whole truckload of critics to
say ' I told you so '.

If you are impatient, or in a hurry, you need two-seat instruction, for sure.

I dont think Chuck is promoting the Bensen method, as such. It does exist, however, and
it works if you have the self-discipline to follow it.

It took me several years to build my gyroglider, put about fifty hours on it, convert it
to power, put about fifty more hours on it doing crowhops, and now I'm in the pattern,
learning more each time, as carefully as possible.

Would I recommend it to others?

In this world of 'must have it right now', the answer is NO.

But for a patient and thoughtful person, I'd say ' why not?'.

Had I had the money to buy a machine, and get formal instruction, I probably
wouldn't have bothered. It's been much more interesting the Bensen way.

As for impressing the rest of the aviation world, the more of them I meet, the less impressed I am. Its maybe as well they teach them to fly by numbers, cos a lot of them
dont know how it works.

Gyros always were an aviation backwater, and I dont expect it will change.Certainly if the current accident rate in Europe continues, ( and they've been two-seat trained),
questions will be asked, which will be difficult to answer.

Hell, I sometimes look at my own machine, and think ' you wouldn't get me up in that'.

[Chuck Roberg]

Now this is a discussion that Craig Wall could really get involved in. Too bad he doesn't post here any more.

[WaspAir]

In my youth, I survived cars with no car seats, airbags, or seatbelts, bicycles with no lights or helmets, loud dangerous places with no safety glasses or earplugs, and motorcycles with drum brakes, lousy tires, and no helmets. It was perhaps necessary, but in hindsight neither wise nor prudent. Somehow, I came through it all alive and unharmed. Some of my friends did not.

I would not recommend to anyone that they try to reproduce my good fortune, because it represents a real and unnecessary risk.

So, here's my last word, for the benefit of newbies, lurkers, students, and students-to-be:

The world is not flat.
The check is probably not in the mail.
An excellent method of teaching yourself to fly doesn't exist, and if anybody tells you otherwise, smile politely and go call a flight instructor.

You, your loved ones, and the public on the ground beneath you will all benefit from that choice.

[bones]

I think Paul is right.


If you are impatient, or in a hurry, you need two-seat instruction, for sure.

In this world of 'must have it right now', the answer is NO.

Gyros always were an aviation backwater, and I dont expect it will change.Certainly if the current accident rate in Europe continues, ( and they've been two-seat trained),
questions will be asked, which will be difficult to answer.


El, mate you have hit the nail on the head in more than thing in what you have said in the post above.
Hell until we can get instructors on the same page teaching the same stuff, ie theory and practical, then there is never going to be a way of getting your FAA to take you seriously.
Here in Oz we are trying hard to some of this, we are hoping for some big legal changes next year, so in order for us to be taken seriously, we have to be serious, and that is hard when you have people writing to me with 50-90 hrs solo asking stuff like how do the rotors keep turning when your flying,,,,,, WTF was the instrutor teaching, basically he got him to take off and land and filled out the paper work, go solo, and i am sure there are instructors all around the world like that, the more students they pump through the more money they make, and this some times comes about by the fact that people still say "ORRRR geee $180 sounds abit dear" my response is well there is your machine see how dear it is not to pay $180ph to learn.:flame:

People are still of the god damn mind set that you can get into gyros and fly free for a couple of grand, and that is crap, when are people gonig to realise that it takes money and most of the time buckets loads of it to fly safely for years, not only the learning but the maintaince and repair of the machine, to keep it safe.

any way my 5 cents worth(cause we got no 2 cents any more)

[EI-GYRO]

I understand your frustration, Waspair.

I feel the same when pilots who have been instructor-trained, in super-stable
two-seat trainers, still manage to fall out of the sky with maddening frequency,
which is why I started this thread.

It shouldn't be happening.

My own feeling is that the machines are too powerful, and the theoretical knowledge
of the pilots is probably inadequate.
Fly-by-numbers doesnt work with gyros. You need to know why you are doing what you
are doing.

Still, If God had meant us to fly, He'd have given us airline tickets.

[birdy]

I'd say that a gyro which is CLT with half-full tanks and has a CoP at or above the thrust line is good enough for me to be called CLT.
So would I.

BTW, I'd never fly a gyro -- CLT or not -- if it doesn't have a horizontal stabilizer.
Why not?

Control authority is the ability to change form one flying condition to another.
Ferran, an A380 has control authority, but now way near as much as a FA18.
The difference?
Rate.
Wen your talkn authority, its relivant in EVERY aspect, including how fast and easy you can, change form one flying condition to another.

you imply than European gyros with large HS have slow responses to the control inputs.
I do. [ and not just euro ones, any highly damped machine has slow responce rates.]

and maybe someone will be able to tell us what the accurate term for this concept in English is.
I dont know wot they call it in inglish, but i call a gyro's control rate, agility. ;)

I thing you are wrong, but this is only my opinion
Think wot you like, its your oppinion.
I KNOW they are.

But this dampening effect helps the pilot in his task.
Depends on wot the task is.
If it requires a high rate, damping is a hinderance.

But now I am talking about handling qualities, and this is a subjective question.
You are, and one quality of handleing is RATE, and its not subjective, its measurable.

The only European gyro you have flown is the Magni.
Granted. :)

And this is because its rotor is heavier, not because of the HS.
Yes, the magni rotor may well be damped, but ELA or MT or anythn similar is still damped, which slows responce rates.

[Fl90]

EI, the impatient person makes a poor student, self taught or instructed.

The upside to instruction is the guilt of hurting another person with your failure may keep you patient.

Phil.

[helipaddy]

What is it then,

Unstable aircraft/ Aircraft not suitable for flight training?

Inadequate Instruction?

Inadequate Pre, and Post-flight Briefings?

Inadequate emphasis on correct attitude and decision making during training?

Inadequate discipline in flying?

Inadequate areas of the training syllabus?

Inadequate supervision of the Student soloing?


O.K. so a lot of people have sucessfully trained themselves to fly a Bensen using the manual. But the manual only goes so far. It teaches you the "Little picture" of controlling the aircraft and flying around a field and landing. It misses the " Big picture " of your flight environment that you need to know to become a proficient, safe pilot.

safe self training depends on correct interpretation of the words in the Bensen manual.

With "Self training" there is no method for effective critique of your flying performance. You cannot self-Critique effectively. You might fly for years with flaws in your flying technique and decision making processes that could be sorted out quickly and easily, or you might kill yourself.

[Doug Riley]

WaspAir, a couple disconnected points, since what I said seems to have triggered some of the rancor.

First, I trained by the Bensen method. The flight hours (50 plus 50) and general time spent on the project almost exactly duplicate Fergus's experience -- except that I was sixteen at the time and my tow driver was too young even to have a driver's license (he was, and is, however, a "natural" around machines). Bensen's manual really is anal in its level of detail and its plodding pace.

And that's its problem: You have to be methodical to an extent that is maddening to everyone around you. People of that temperament were common among the post-WWII suburban male population -- those swell, stoic, silent-generation dads who were content to putter peacefully in the "hobby hut" out back, pipe in mouth, for as long as it took. The older guys I hung around with in my teenage-gyronaut days were of that stripe. They drove me and my friends nuts.

The iPod generation won't stand still for such stuff, and there's no compelling reason why they should. They should get COMPETENT instruction. My unscientific poll leads me to think that the majority of gyro CFIs (present company excluded) are incompetent to teach in EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.

The eyewitness reports of Don Farrington's crash are of an 18A doing a classic slip-roll-coupled in-air flip. Don was an ace 18A pilot, so incapacitation seems likely; he wouldn't make such a rookie mistake.

In any event, you know what I mean about the 18A; the slip-warning horn and the "V" plastered on the windshield were added at the FAA's order after the slip-roll problem reared its head. In contrast, you can safely fly most open frame gyros around all day with one pedal mashed and a load of opposite stick applied. All that will happen is that the prop will growl and you'll burn extra gas.

[WaspAir]

Thanks, Doug.
My comment (mentioning you) about the 18A was just an aside, upon discovering that the record is pretty thin on adverse-roll-with-yaw accidents. I don't disagree that it's a strange behavior; I've flown over 60 types of aircraft and it's the only one in my experience with that peculiarity. I was only observing that for all the criticism about it, it hasn't been lethal, while the obvious problems of running into hills and wires have been. Several of the 18As I've flown don't even have the little stall warning type vanes on the mast fairing that used to trigger the horn in the early models; the FAA in its infinite wisdom apparently realized that if you're not able to recognize a slip that severe you're probably toast anyway.

Thank you for joining my "creative conjecture" about Don F. Common sense suggests something out of the ordinary was going on in the cockpit.

As I suggested and Helipaddy later expanded, self-training, no matter how anal and methodical, eliminates an educated and unbiased instructor/coach's analytical eye and deprives the student of a backstop against inadvertently ingrained misconceptions, and that's a big handicap.

[Doug Riley]

No argument there.

Our PRA chapter was pretty active when I was learning. Those boring older guys looked in on me from time to time, chewing me out for no helmet, flying in gales, etc. It takes a village to raise a pilot

[C. Beaty]

The question remains; Why has the yearly gyroplane fatality rate remained approximately constant with virtually every student now receiving dual instruction and with undeniably fewer starts than during the peak of the Bensen era when nearly any teenager with the desire could manage the cost of a gyro?

My first gyro cost a grand total of ~$400 ready to fly and that was split 2 ways. Admittedly, I had the run of a machine shop that a teenager with a paper route might not have had. But still, a Bensen was so designed that it could be built with nothing more than hacksaw, file and eggbeater drill with the exception of the rotorhead but even that was a simple and inexpensive design.

But it does lend a sense of drama to quote the total of accidents spanning a 40-year period, beginning in 1966. An interesting aspect is that the first gyroplane fatality on the NTSB database involved an A&S 18-A.

[Doug Riley]

Chuck, a few explanations come to mind, based on my particular experience (yours may have been different).

First, today's gyros are more capable. For one thing, they come to you almost built. With some brands, you can go from box o' parts to a flying powered gyro in a few days. The engines are easier to start than a Mac, and they run for hundreds hours with only ordinary care. The thrust-to-weight ratio is better with redrives; these things really fly. Metal blades require no tinkering with trim tabs and such. The airfoils are more efficient. They have prerotators.

The perverse result is a machine that will immediately get you high enough to fall rather spectacularly. In contrast, the old guys I remember from Chapter 24 almost never flew. My smartass friends and I called them "ham-and-cheesers" -- duffers who brought their machines to flyins year after year, and used them as lawn chairs upon which to eat their lunches. If the things could fly at all, you couldn't prove it by attending a Chapter 24 flyin.

Two other unintended consequences of buy-and-fly are that (1) we now attract fewer plodding, patient and cautious folk than we used to; we get more hot-doggers; and (2) the average gyronaut knows LESS about how his/her machine works than in the days when he/she had chopped every single piece out of raw stock.

Second, even more perversely, several of the newer machine designs are defective (despite how well they climb out). Pitch stability problems existed with the Bensen, but they got much worse when we adopted over-slung redrives. CFIs are not required to know or teach the science implicated in these defects -- so many of them don't.

The latter problem represents some real backsliding, just as you say. Today's newbie getting dual in a stock HTL gyro is apt to get taught LESS of what he needs to know to stay alive than the gyrogliding Bensen-jock of old. That's because the modern HTL gyro driver needs to know more! The Bensen jock didn't NEED to know about PPO, the aerodynamics of tail surfaces, precession stall and such -- just about PIO avoidance -- a simpler thing.

[C. Beaty]

Doug, I imagine you’ve seen Dave Praeter or Gary Goldsberry fly their Macs. Few modern gyros come close in performance.

When I first became involved with gyros, the mantra was; “if 10 were to start in a straight line, not more than 1 would get out of sight.”

But it didn’t take long to recognize and correct the defects of the Mac. An efficient prop, more piston clearance, a top ring, platinum ignition points and a more appropriate oil mix than specified in the military handbook.

At our flyins of the 1970s, typically 50-60 gyros turned out in the miserable sort of weather we have for Independence or Labor Day and everyone flew. The expression; “static display” was considered derogatory.

[EI-GYRO]

Helipaddy correctly points out the main Achilles Heel about the Bensen method, the lack
of a corrective supervisor. Doug had the PRA chapter guys to straighten him up, I had Norm's conference on the net, and occasional oversight from a couple of UK instructors,
which helped make sure I wasnt too far off course.

The 'Little picture vs Big picture' is correct also, although the open-frame Bensen machine
is mostly for 'Little picture' flying. ELAs, MT-03s etc are not.
Being somewhat under-powered forces you to fly conservatively, which is good.

I know of at least one UK instructor who believes that supervised single-seat training
produced the safest period of gyro-flying in the U.K. , with, IIRC, no fatalities
over a nine-year period.

I think Doug's post #90 comes closest to describing the 'european-problem' we are
currently seeing.

[earthbnd misfit]

Quoted by freebird.
As I continue, I am afraid that there are things that I missed. Things that will not become apparent until something bad is happening, or I am just trying to do something besides fly around in the pattern. Lets face it, a gyro is not a riding machine, it is a flying machine. Sooner or later I am going to want to try low and slow down the river bed, or yank and bank in the tree grotto.
Here is another example of instructers not doing their job. You should always assume that the noise will stop. Don't ever fly over something you can't land on.[Taught to me by Paul Bruty, and it's always stuck] It's like the guys that rock climb without a rope, thrilling yes, but one slip and you're dead.

[mceagle]

Sooner or later I am going to want to try low and slow down the river bed, or yank and bank in the tree grotto.

Here is another example of instructers not doing their job. You should always assume that the noise will stop. Don't ever fly over something you can't land on.
Not necessarily poor instruction John. There are many instances where you can have fun flying low and still be perfectly safe when the noise stops.
I do agree though that you should never by choice fly over country that you can't land on.

[ferranrosello]

In the old days (in Spain about 20 yeras ago) there were less fatalities than now, but there were much more accidents.

I'm sure that a new gyro is more capable and requires a good instruction. But not all accidents are the same.

In the last two years we have had 4 gyro fatalities in Spain. The first one was of very experienced gyro pilot who had trained with Bensen method in a RAF. It seemed a PPO.
The second one was an MT which flew into wires while performing very low flying. The third one was another MT which flew into trees flying very low. The last one was an Ela which flew into some trees when trying to take off in a very short land strip in a very hot day and downwind, the pilot survived the passenger died.

I think that the main responsible for the first accident was the machine (a RAF without HS). The main responsible for the other accidents were pilots. These pilots were performing temerity flying behaviours specifically prohibited by our laws.

Do you really believe that these accidents have happened because of lack of training? Another question is that in Spain we have much more Elas than MTs, but the fatalities involving the last ones are more significant. But this is not because of the machine.

There is another kind of accidents those are due to the lack of training or knowledge. These are, usually the turn-overs when taking-off or landing, and usually these accidents do not involve fatalities.

I’m really disappointed with the accident rate. The only thing I can do is giving gyro training and education, but this is not enough.

Ferran

[birdy]

I’m really disappointed with the accident rate. The only thing I can do is giving gyro training and education, but this is not enough.
Sadly, in sum cases, your rite Ferran. No matter wot you say, or how many times you say it, sum people seem to think they still know better. :(

[C. Beaty]

I don’t know if ELA and MT-03 have coupled nosewheel/rudder steering but that is the leading cause of rollover accidents in RAF-2000s.

A applaud the Arrowcopter for using a free castoring nosewheel and toe brake steering.

In the case of the RAF-2000, the hard-coupled nosewheel is a valuable safety feature. It gets the machine rolled up into a ball of scrap before someone can get seriously hurt.

The NTSB lists 45 RAF accidents and except for the dozen or so smoking holes, most were rollovers. That’s out of the 248 on the FAA registry.

[ferranrosello]

Yes, Chuck, both of them have coupled nosewheel/rudder steering.

[helipaddy]

I think the UK have a Mod that de-couples the steering on the MT03

[reelmule]

Chuck B., I thought you had mellowed a bit toward the RAF but your comment about the coupled nose wheel being a "safety feature to destroy the machine so someone wouldn't get seriously injured" is really below a man of your stature and education. You are one of the biggest proponents for flying the Bensen by the syllabus and you must know that if you fly the RAF by the syllabus you will NEVER have a roll over on landing! One shoud always land on the tailwheel/mains and come to a COMPLETE stop before lowering the nose wheel to the ground. It makes no difference which way the wheel is cocked which it will be or shoud be if you were correcting for a X-wind. I see no need for touch n go landings in any gyro. Stop n go's are more fun anyway. One controller refused my initial request for a stop n go as he was not familiar with the landing profile of the RAF. I then started requesting the option landing clearance which has always been granted!

[TJMay]

Has anyone here uncoupled their nosewheel from the rudder pedals on their RAF?

[C. Beaty]

I have mellowed, Walt. But nearly anyone will admit the statistics are awful.

It goes without saying that you must prevent the nosewheel from touching down while holding rudder if you’re hard-linked. It’s something that can be mastered with time.

It’s an arrangement that I find aggravating even with a soft linked nosewheel.

Toe brake steering with free castoring nosewheel is so much easier and doesn’t cost any more.

I use heel pegs to operate the main wheel scrub brakes on my own gyro but I’ve observed that others who fly it drop down and use their toes on the heel pegs. Plastic lined bicycle cable housings provide smooth and linear braking but scrub brakes don’t work very well on wet grass.

Steering and stopping a gyro from a few mph doesn’t require the sort of brakes that might be found on a GP race car.

[helipaddy]

Here's the link to the report of the MT03 rollover in the UK:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/september_2006/autogyro_europe_mt_03__g_rsuk.cfm

[C. Beaty]

I gather from reading the AAIB report, Paddy, that they’re talking about going from a hard linked nose wheel to a spring coupled nose wheel. The mention of an increase of turning circle radius with speed confirms that.

The only word that comes to mind for hard linked nosewheels is dumb. Soft linked is somewhat less dumb.

[reelmule]

As you know Chuck, the RAF is "soft linked". I basicically agree with all of your points-especially that the statistics are abysmal, which I lay squarly on the lack of proper training. As one of the posters from down under pointed out, training costs buckets of money! I recently completed my multi-engine commercial license, not for any plans to use it as a revenue generator, (though in this market the thought crossed my mind) but for the sole purpose to see if an old dog would have "the right stuff" in an engine failure or other emergency. Every change in design will mave unintended consequences. To go from the sublime to the rediculous, I could have the gear on the Baron welded in the down position and I would probably never have a gear up landing. However, if I have an engine failure, my rate of climb will be negative.

[birdy]

coupled nosewheel/rudder steering but that is the leading cause of rollover accidents in RAF-2000s.

Iv heard this said many times, and i cant think of how anyone can roll a RAF just coz it has positive nose wheel steering.
If the nose wheel and rudder aint set together proper, then yes, it will be a handfull, but otherwise i cant see the hazard.

"safety feature to destroy the machine so someone wouldn't get seriously injured"
I think he's tryn to look on the bright side Walt. ;) Coz there aint many for a stock RAF. :(

The only word that comes to mind for hard linked nosewheels is dumb.
Not often i disagree with you CB, and im no spert wen it comes to nosewheel setups, but THE most common type of gyro in OZ has a hard link, and iv never yet heard anyone bitchn bout how giggly it is on the ground in any situation.

[C. Beaty]

If you ever had the chance to fly a gyro with toe brake steering and free castering nosewheel Birdy, you’d throw rocks at your hard coupled setup.

By free castering, one with a light spring to keep the nosewheel centered when it’s not touching the surface but without any sort of linkage to the rudder pedals.

Of course you can master a hard linked setup; circus acrobats can ride a unicycle while twirling a stack of dinner plates on the end of a stick.

But a fledgling just learning to ride a unicycle doesn’t need the stack of plates. He’ll invariably drop the nosewheel while holding rudder. The accident statistics are full of such examples. The AAIB report on the MT03 rollover in the UK mentions the number of rollovers that have occurred on the Continent as a result of hard linkage.

[freebird]

I fly a new CLT "high horse" Air command with a 582 rotax. My nose wheel is soft coupled, I have a small tail and a windshield.

1. Should I land on the tail wheel always, or only when having to put in rudder for a X wind landing, or just worry about rotor angle?

2. I have very little to no P-torque but worry about X winds/gusts catching the nose. Should I put on a tall tail?

3. Should I uncouple my brakes and use differential brake/steering? I could see where this might be better.

4. I weigh 180 lbs. My dragon wings only turn about 301 rpm. They are 25', should I get shorter?

Thanks

[C. Beaty]

Freebird, the Oz Bird flies from dirt surfaces so it probably doesn’t make much difference which way the nosewheel happens to be pointing when it touches down. It just plows a bit.

A soft-coupled nose wheel is annoying more than anything else; just lurches when allowed to touch down while holding rudder but usually straightens out before catastrophe strikes.

If your rotor doesn’t shake, don’t worry about the 301 rpm. A shorter rotor will turn at more rpm but the thing that counts, tip speed, will be about the same.

[ckurz7000]

Chuck, I fully agree with you on the stupidity of a hard linked nose wheel. The MT03 I fly has such a-one. I have learned to deal with it. But in any significant cross wind, be it on take off or landing, you have to be careful not to roll the gyro on its side.

Having differential brakes instead and a self centering but otherwise freely castoring nose wheel seems to me to be a much better setup. You get rid of the infamous problem of sudden and unintentional nose excursions on the ground in a cross wind and, at the same time, you can turn much tighter circles on the ground.

-- Chris.

[mceagle]

I am a firm believer of the rudder pedal to nose-wheel coupled steering. Apart from dead accurate ground maneuvering, it is also the most accurate on take off and landing – in any wind conditions. The common alternatives – “billy cart” reversed steering, free castering steering and toe brakes are all less than precise and I challenge anyone with these alternatives to keep the nose dead on the centre-line in a cross-wind. Bush flying (not always off runways) often requires precise steering to avoid sticks, stones, puddles, and sometimes to align with narrow clearings or bush tracks. Perhaps the fact that I nearly always operated from dirt made the linked steering easier.
Toe brake handling problems are obvious when taxiing and attempting to take off in a cross wind in a Grumin - its easy to "smoke" the brakes on one wheel.
I believe that the problems with the RAF are more related to poor rudder authority and no weight on the nose-wheel, and the opposite for the stretch tandems – too much weight on the nose wheel and a too high touchdown speed. (Why are they taught to touch down at 50mph – its no wonder there are ground accidents.

[Vance]

I had great trepidation about the free castering nose wheel with differential braking on the Predator. It was unfounded. It has toe brakes and the steering is natural as can be. If rudder isn’t enough then I apply a little toe brake on the peddle that is already depressed. I don’t have any challenge following the lines on the airport or dodging the bots dots. I have yet to skid a tire trying to steer. I don’t take off in a lot of cross wind but I have landed with gusts to 29kts 45 degrees to the runway.

She does have a particularly large rudder and very nice straight disk brakes. She has a long wheel base with very little static weight on the nose.

Thank you, Vance

[PW_Plack]

Tim, I think anyone who's had trouble catching the hang of differential braking hasn't worked with a good set of hydraulic disc brakes, or may have had pedals arranged poorly.

I learned to fly in an Aeronca Champ fixed-wing which had cable-operated differential brakes with heel actuators, and wished for better control.

I took dual instruction in Sport Copter's open stretch-tandem, which had hydraulic disc brakes with toe actuators at the top of the rudder pedals, and my experience was like Vance's. Steering was very smooth and precise, locking the brakes was not hard to avoid, holding the centerline was easy as long as you didn't fight yourself with the rotor, and that's a long, heavy machine.

I've heard the guys who fly some kinds of cable-actuated drum or band brakes complain of locking wheels, jerking/grabbing, etc., and I can imagine how not-fun that could be.

I can see how the linked nosewheel might be preferable on unimproved surfaces, especially if only one wheel is on gravel, loose dirt, etc.

[birdy]

If you ever had the chance to fly a gyro with toe brake steering and free castering nosewheel Birdy, you’d throw rocks at your hard coupled setup.
I have CB, and i prefer hard couple.

He’ll invariably drop the nosewheel while holding rudder.
I hear wot your say, but i wasa newb once too ya know.

Oz Bird flies from dirt surfaces so it probably doesn’t make much difference which way the nosewheel happens to be pointing when it touches down.
Dont you believe it CB.
Sum of the dirt i land/take off from is as good as the black stuff.

Apart from dead accurate ground maneuvering, it is also the most accurate on take off and landing – in any wind conditions.
Ditto.
Id never attempt to T/O from a narrow road of any surface in gusting xwinds with trees kissn the rotor tips, and a fence under the rotor disc, with anythn but 100% nose wheel steering.

I believe that the problems with the RAF are more related to poor rudder authority and no weight on the nose-wheel,
I think its the side by side thing with the RAF.
Wen your one up, and are flareing , even into wind, or no wind at all, the machine will yaw rite, coz your on the left side, and your weight is pushn the machine round as the rotor pulls back.
A bigger rudder, or keepn a little engine rpm up [ so the rudder still works] wen landn makes a world of difference.

(Why are they taught to touch down at 50mph – its no wonder there are ground accidents.
Couldnt agree with you more Tim.

[ckurz7000]

...(Why are they taught to touch down at 50mph – its no wonder there are ground accidents.

They aren't. It really comes down to the transition of the peddals going from rudder control to nose wheel control in about a second. As long as the gyro still has some forward motion prior to setting down the nose wheel, you need to centralize the peddals in the instance before the wheel touches the ground. Failing to do this has been the cause of a lot of ground accidents. Out of instinct, I keep the nose wheel up for as long as it will stay in the air of its own accord. When it touches the ground, the gyro will either already be stopped or moving so slowly that a slightly off-center peddal position is of no consequence.

I have flown gyros with nose wheel steering as well as with differential brakes. I don't feel any difference in accuracy or controlability. The toe brakes make it easier to navigate tight turns on the ground, though.

Taking off in a xwind with toe brakes shouldn't be a problem either. You step on both brakes, apply full throttle and then get off the brakes altogether maintaining direction only with the rudder. A gyro that doesn't have good rudder authority at rest with full throttle needs a better rudder, not a different kind of steering mechanism, in my opinion.

-- Chris.

[C. Beaty]

Humans are adaptable critters that can learn to live with most anything if they must. Wooden legs, false teeth, hearing aids, eyeglasses, hard linked nosewheels, etc.

I once saw a young woman in a circus freak show, born without arms who was able to write quite well by holding a pencil between her toes.

But these rollover statistics for RAFs say it all as regards to hard coupled steering:

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

Set the start date to 1990, set category to gyroplane, set the make/model to RAF.

Sure. If RAFs had more rudder authority, longer wheelbase or whatever, the number of rollovers would have been reduced. But that’s treating the symptoms and not the disease.

And here’s an excerpt from the AAIB report of the MT03 rollover in the UK:

There have been a number of similar ground rollover
incidents in Germany. Design analysis by the UK Type
Approval holder has shown that the sensitivity to rollover
could be significantly reduced by the introduction of a
self-centering, fully castoring nosewheel. The purpose
of this modification is to allow the nosewheel to track in
the direction of travel on touchdown. Additionally, due
to the introduction of nosewheel castoring, as the ground
speed increases, so does the turning circle thus making
it more difficult for the combination of ground speed
and turning circle to cause a rollover. The modification
also allows the rudder to nosewheel offset to be reduced
resulting in a more central pedal position during taxi.

[Doug Riley]

Hmph. After flying the other systems, I put a Bensen-style separate steering bar on my Gyrobee. I humbly think it's the best setup of them all. On a takeoff run, I switch to rudder as soon as possible (as soon as power is up enough to create rudder authority).

I dislike differential braking, at least as I experienced it on Dominators (both 1- and 2-place). Brakes slow you down; even if applied differentially. You must goose the throttle if you steer hard. Annoying, especially on grass. Band brakes are grabby.

Linked pedal-and-noseweel has precisely the problem Chuck is describing. I was forever doing a mini-swerve after dropping the nose wheel on my (soft-linked) Air Command. Sometimes, you must drop the nosewheel NOW to avoid being picked up by a gust.

Someone who finds a direct steering bar to be "backwards" (it works like bicycle handlebars) can make little secondary pedals with a reversing linkage.

[C. Beaty]

I totally agree with you Doug. The Bensen steering bar scheme is one of the best. FW pilots thought the nosewheel steering was backwards but it suited me just fine; my first steerable vehicle having been a tricycle. For me, the rudder pedals were backwards and I nearly followed the Wright Bros. lead and crossed the rudder cables.

I also found the external brake band steering of the Dominator to be abominable. Ernie tells me that he’s now using brake bands with a different friction material that eliminates unpredictability.

[mceagle]

But these rollover statistics for RAFs say it all as regards to hard coupled steering:
"Rosco" and myself have been the largest manufacturer of gyros in Australia, and would have acounted for more hours flown than any other manufacturer - possibly even in the world. All our nose wheel steering was linked to the rudder pedals and to the best of my knowledge there has never been a ground rollover that could be attributable to the linked steering.
The RAF must have other serious problems that contribute to the problem.
Too many home builders unnecessarily (*) increase the nose wheel travel (so that they can turn around in their own length) and I believe that this, coupled a rudder out of trim with the take off position is the cause of many problems.
(*) It is surprising how tight a gyro will turn with only 10 degrees of nose wheel lock.

I was forever doing a mini-swerve after dropping the nose wheel on my (soft-linked) Air Command.
Surely must have been way out of trim Doug, or very heavy on the nose wheel.

Personally I am adverse to any controls that work in the reverse direction. I can relate several accidents that have been caused by this - one a fatality. These pilots reverted to "normal" aircraft practice in an instant tight situation.
However, its like Chuck said - us humans can get used to anything given enough practice.

[Doug Riley]

Tim, original-issue Air Commands have quite a short tail tube and a relatively small, all-flying rudder that's not very powerful once you throttle back.

If you must land with much cross-wind, you may have one or the other pedal mashed. This puts the nose wheel way over as well. If you then stuff the stick forward in a hurry to stay on the ground, you'll swerve unless you're very quick and accurate at centering the pedals.

The link was softened with springs, but wasn't soft enough to cure the problem altogether.

Also, because of the nosewheel's steeply raked pivot, the relationship between the angle of the pedal and the angle of the wheel wasn't constant. At the extremes of pedal travel, the nosewheel travel per degree of pedal travel got bigger; nosewheel steering got more sensitive.

I never tipped one over (well, not as a result of this problem anyway), but I had some lively swerves and sort of came to anticipate them.

[birdy]

They aren't.
They ARE.
Of all the yank flyin youtube vids iv seen, EVERYONE, cept Dic Degraw, land with power and sum AS.
WHY?
Why not hold the nose up as long as the rotors will allow?
It wouldnt matter if your nose wheel fell off if you landed the frign thing like a gyro, instead of a FW.

I don't feel any difference in accuracy or controlability.
You would if you HAD to.
Like;
from a narrow road of any surface in gusting xwinds with trees kissn the rotor tips, and a fence under the rotor disc

[Passin' Thru]

It wouldnt matter if your nose wheel fell off if you landed the frign thing like a gyro, instead of a FW.
Exactly! Another thing that confuses me; folks talking about the rotor slowing down in the flair. Every gyro I ever owned the rotor speeds up in the flair! You're arresting decent and foward speed. They both add load to the rotor, and it speeds up. :noidea:

[ckurz7000]

I don't feel any difference in accuracy or controlability. [/I]
You would if you HAD to.
Like;
from a narrow road of any surface in gusting xwinds with trees kissn the rotor tips, and a fence under the rotor disc

Well, once had to land on a narrow, unpaved and uneven track with a curve in it. Telephone poles on one side and a ditch on the other. Landing wasn't the hard part; I had to take off from it, too. The wind was, if I remember correctly, about 10 kts and 45° to the side. The challenge was to negotiate the curve while in the process of taking off. It was well doable with toe brakes.

-- Chris.

[C. Beaty]

The controls of most all machinery operated by Man, -sail boat tillers, Bensen overhead sticks and aircraft rudder pedals being the only exceptions that immediately come to mind- move in the same direction as the machine moves.

With bulldozers, the operator pulls the LH brake lever to turn left; I suppose military tank drivers do the same. Most likely, bulldozer operators could be trained to push the LH brake lever to turn left but it would be counterintuitive and require longer training.

The Wright Bros., knowing how to ride bicycles but not how to fly airplanes, solved their problem by crossing the rudder cables. All the early aviation pioneers did the same until Glen Curtiss came along and taught himself to fly with reversed rudder controls. Early aircraft used rudder bars rather than pedals which exaggerates the sense of backwardness.

Until recently, we had a group of a half dozen or so Japanese gyro pilots attend Bensen Days each year. Everyone was allowed to fly my gyro and not one ever had a single problem with main wheel brake steering despite the language barrier and having to explain the controls using sign language. That’s a gyro with high CG and narrow wheel track; 48” outside to outside so as to fit a trailer decked with a single sheet of plywood.

There aren’t many Japanese gyro pilots and I expect that over the years, most have flown my gyro.

Compare the experience of Japanese gyro pilots flying with main wheel brake steering to the NTSB statistics for RAF rollovers and the picture of brake steering vs. hard coupled nosewheel steering is quite clear. Maybe just RAF but reports coming out of Europe for rollovers of hard coupled steering on MT03s and ELAs say not.

But still, I agree with Tim and Birdy; perfectly executed, there would never be a rollover from hard-coupled nosewheel steering. The problem being that not all of us are perfect all of the time.

[ckurz7000]

Exactly! Another thing that confuses me; folks talking about the rotor slowing down in the flair. Every gyro I ever owned the rotor speeds up in the flair! You're arresting decent and foward speed. They both add load to the rotor, and it speeds up. :noidea:

Hmmm...but the ground effect tends to slow the rotor down (less rrpm required to generate the same amount of lift). I'd have to look at my gauge to see which one of the two effects wins over. Can't be by much, though.

-- Chris.

[ferranrosello]

I agree with Birdy and Tim. I think that the major cause of roll over in landings is a defective piloting technique. It is not difficult to fly properly a gyro like a gyro. And it is no sense in attempting to land fast and dropping the nose wheel. The only good gyro landing procedure is to reduce the AS as much as possible before the ground contact, to land always on the main gear and not let the nose wheel to drop until the stick gets the rear stop.

I see too many pilots perform too flat approaches and landing with some AS in a too low nose position. And I believe this is the main cause of roll over.

I don't trust in the free castoring system because I think that something on ground could put the nose wheel out of control. With the hard coupling the pilot is always in command. But I think that the best system would be a free castoring with a looking device for take off and landing.

Ferran

[birdy]

Well, once had to land on a narrow, unpaved and uneven track with a curve in it. Telephone poles on one side and a ditch on the other.
Try thrown sum patchy soft sand in the mix, so traction and drag on the mains is constantly changen, and sum broken scrub close [at the rotor tips] to the road to scramble the effects of the wind and see how you go Chris.
And for good measure, put an electric fence under the rotor tips too, just to be sure you hold it dead streight. ;)


The challenge was to negotiate the curve while in the process of taking off.
Its more challengn zig zagn between logs n rocks n scrub. A simple bend is hardly noticable.

Hmmm...but the ground effect tends to slow the rotor down
The rotor will only start to slow AFTER youv leveled off, not while you flare.

I'd have to look at my gauge to see which one of the two effects wins over. Can't be by much, though.
The AOA [ load] will win over by a big marjon, unless you land like a FW and flare so softly that you dont even feel the Gs. ;)

The problem being that not all of us are perfect all of the time.
Your dribbln CB. :)
You mean to say iv got it perfectly EVERY time, in over 4000 hours??
I wish.

[C. Beaty]

Birdy, opinions don’t change facts.

I defy you to find one instance where a ground accident was attributed to independent toe brakes.

Yet, the files are full of rollover accidents blamed on hard-coupled nosewheels.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure. Is that it?

[birdy]

Birdy, opinions don’t change facts.
Never hinted they did.

I defy you to find one instance where a ground accident was attributed to independent toe brakes.
Probably isnt one.

Yet, the files are full of rollover accidents blamed on hard-coupled nosewheels.
Why??
I see no reason why you should be any more prone to go'n ass up just coz your nose wheel is HC.
Sure, if you dont fly it proper like you should be in the first place, your leaven yourself open to a bingle. That counts in EVERY aspect of opperating a gyro, or any machine for that matter.
You dont drive a dozer like a Ferrari.

Id much rather have the very slim chance of getn caught out with a HC nose wheel, than try to TO from sum of these roads with less than precise ground handleing.

Figures don’t lie but liars figure. Is that it?
Wots that sposed to mean?

[ckurz7000]

If I were to choose between a dubious advantage of nose wheel steering in extreme situations and a clear advantage of differential braking in 99% of all situations I would go with the latter. Personally, I have seen two instances, where people would have been fine with toe brakes and rolled over because of hard coupled nose wheels.

I am not aware of accidents that happened because someone didn't have hard coupled steering.

That, to me, makes this issue easy to decide.

If you, Birdy, require hard coupled steering for some extreme special purpose operations, then by all means I'm glad you've got what you need. But in 99% of all the rest of flying hard coupled nose wheels are more of a curse than a blessing.

-- Chris.

[C. Beaty]

I took a quick Google tour to look for aircraft that might have coupling between nosewheel and rudder, soft or hard.

The only ones I could find were 1930s tail draggers with tail wheels spring linked to the rudder but even they had differential brakes. Seems that all modern flying machines steer with toe brakes.

The question then is why do amateur gyroplane designers link nosewheels with rudders? Is it because they’re amateurs?

I expect the real reason is that they’re simply following Bensen’s lead.

FW pilots bitched about the nosewheel steering pegs being “backwards” so Bensen offered, as an option, a soft linkage between nosewheel and rudder. A simple mod for a machine that didn’t have mainwheel brakes and could not have offered differential braking without major revamping.

You dont drive a dozer like a Ferrari.

True, but a Ferrari can’t turn about a radius equal to its own width.

[birdy]

The question then is why do amateur gyroplane designers link nosewheels with rudders? Is it because they’re amateurs?
No.
How many other aircraft have such a short wheel base?**
A HC nose wheel is much stabler [ a HC nosewheel held streight is much stabeler wen you have the thrust [prop]and drag [ ground friction] so close horisontaly, and always tryn to swap places] and precise ona short base.

True, but a Ferrari can’t turn about a radius equal to its own width.
Thats why you dont drive it like a dozer. [ i already said that????]
Wots your point?

And;
Figures don’t lie but liars figure. Is that it?
Wots that sposed to mean?


**
Its not so much the short wheelbase, but the short distance horisontaly between two opposing forces, forces that are tryn to swap ends. [ pusher BEHIND the drag]
Any tracter setup isnt tryn to swap ends, so you cant compare to most FWs.

[C. Beaty]

Birdy, you’re mislead by the Quaky Duck toy on wheels that you pulled by a string as a toddler.

The toy followed the string; pushed with a stick, it would swap ends.

The toy followed the string because in a turn, the string’s line of pull was offset from the center of lateral resistance in the correct direction.

An aircraft has the propeller bolted to the airframe and develops a line of thrust. It is irrelevant just where along that line the propeller is located; it could be in the next county and would work the same way.

Do you think airliners with engines on the tail, such as the B-727, were less stable than say, the B-707 with engines slung under the wings?

If you strapped a laser to your Quaky Duck that produced a beam both fore and aft and always aligned the stick or string to split the laser beam, it would make no difference whether you pushed or pulled.

PS: Perhaps I’m the liar doing the figuring.

[mceagle]

Chuck. I think the only 'liars' here are those that quote the coupled steering to the boffins as the cause of their rollover. They are usually desperate to find a 'legit' fault with their machine to cover up their stuff-up. It is not necessarily their fault - It could be the fault of an incorrectly set up machine or of poor instruction.

I never tipped one over (well, not as a result of this problem anyway), but I had some lively swerves and sort of came to anticipate them.
The only time I flew a stock AirCommand Doug it was a shocker on the steering. The friction in the nosewheel pivot meant that you had to apply a little rudder (not too much) and wait for it to hit a bump to effect a change in direction. It was fine once the rotors were up, but a handfull on a narrow strip up to that point. You were right in that you came to anticipate the result and allow for it. This type of steering gave 'coupled' steering a bad name, and I suspect that there are many more like it.

[WaspAir]

I took a quick Google tour to look for aircraft that might have coupling between nosewheel and rudder, soft or hard.

The only ones I could find were 1930s tail draggers with tail wheels spring linked to the rudder but even they had differential brakes. Seems that all modern flying machines steer with toe brakes.



I assume you meant gyros when you said "aircraft", and "modern flying machines", since castering nosewheels are still the exception in FW.

My McCulloch J-2 had spring coupled nosewheel and rudders, and differential toe brakes. It steered quite nicely without touching the brakes.

[gyrogreg]

If it means anything, my information came from Don's good friend John Potter - my gyro instructor:

Upon the accident, they found Don's heart to be stopped and CPR got it going immediately - but he had thrown up and breathed in vomit upon reviving at the scene

The night of Don's accident, John Potter reported that Don essentialy did not have any life threatening injuries, but the vomit in his lungs was a big worry because of pneumonia setting in - and that was what they were treating him mostly for.

A few days later after Don died, John told me that he did develop pneumonia but that in the hospital, his heart kept stopping also - not connected to the pneumonia. They implanted or were using a defibulator to keep his heart going, but after just a few days that wasn't working either. Eventually, John told me, that Don's wife told them to stop re-starting his heart, and Don died! John Potter told me he never did have a "heart attack", and that there was never any indication of heart problems before. But, the Doctor told John that the cause of the accident was probably Don's heart stopping. I am not aware of what the formal cause of death was listed as - and John Potter might have had reason to take any of the blame away from Don for the accident. But, Don Farrington was part of the determination of the roll limits on the 18A and should have known better than anyone how to keep within the safe flight envelope of that aircraft.

My point is, I don't think this was a roll/yaw coupling accident cause. The 18A contacted the ground at nearly a 90 degree roll attitide, and Don would never have purposefully done that!

- Thanks, Greg Gremminger

[gyrogreg]

It is my opinion that it is difficult to train a person to fly a single place gyro by flight training in a 2-place gyro. I believe that few 2-place gyros, especially the newer very stable types, have control characteristics that provide the proficiency development necessary to fly a lighter single place gyro.

I believe that to train a person to fly almost any single place gyro, it is necessary for the instructor to provide Bensen-type training - even after significant training hours in a 2-place training machine. The light, more agile, lower MOI (Moment of Inertia) gyros require different control proficiency than the heavier training gyros. Especially the longer tandem trainer gyros with much higher longitudinal MOIs do not develop adequate control proficiency to fly a lighter single place gyro.

The basics of gyro flight, the experience of flight, the aerodynamic principles and understanding can be taught in a 2-place trainer. However, if that student is to fly a much differently controlling gyro, "transition training" to that other gyro is essential to safely operating that gyro.

"Transition training" to a single seat gyro is then essentially instructor supervised (preferrably by radio) training per the Bensen syllabus (minus the kite training). This means taxi practice, rotor spin-up practice, wheel balancing practice, crowhop practice, higher and S-turn crowhop practice, reduced power and then no power landings from crowhops at height, and then finally, pattern flights. IMHO, all of this must be supervised by an instructor who is familiar with flight in that particular gyro - in order to prepare the student for potential issues with that aircraft. As per the Bensen syllabus, enough practice at each stage must be done so that particular proficiency is automatic - without having to think it through! Training someopne to fly a single place gyro is difficult, and, IMHO, essentially means doing it the Bensen way - with experienced supervision (by radio).

Many gyros not only fly differently, but the ground handle differently. Their systems are different. This thread points out different ground steering systems and techniques. Supervised "Transition Training" is necessary from engine start to full pattern work.

IMHO, the basic problem we have with training people to fly single place or even different models of gyros is the lack of "transition training". Especially licensed (FW?) pilots do not appreciate the different skills development necessary and often take training shortcuts.

IMHO, the only good of a 2-place trainer is to train a student to fly that particular model or a very similarly handling model. For instance, even though they look similar, it probably requires at least some "transition training" to transition even from a Magni to an ELA or MT03 - as has been pointed out the ground steering AND the flight controllability characteistics may be different enough to cause problems whe the new pilot gets in a situation where proficiency is important. Going from a low seater to a high seater, from nose wheel steering to differential brake steering, from s-b-s seating to tandem seating, from right seat to left seat, from front seat to back seat, all require some amount of "transition training". It is the instructor who must convey this importance to the student and provide it to that student. Learning to fly gyros just does not often follow the airplane technique of just the instructor getting out of the seat of a Cessna 152!

2-place training is not the end-all solution to gyro training. It may just be the start of the process, and the only way to get the legal requirements for a license. But, being legal isn't always being safe - don;t short cut training just because you are legal!

- Thanks, Greg Gremminger

[C. Beaty]

I’ve heard John Potter’s version of the chain of events leading to Don Farrington’s fatal crash but apparently neither the NTSB nor the medical examiner had.

Aircraft accident investigators are particularly interested in fatal accidents that might have been caused by pilot incapacitation because it indicates a failure of the system. Pilots’ physical exams are designed to eliminate all such individuals.

The Federal accident investigators would have had full access to Don’s medical history as well as to the medical examiner’s report and to EMS personnel who were on scene.

Yet, in the NTSB final report, there is no mention of pilot incapacitation as a possible cause.

A synopsis of the medical examiner’s report was published in a local newspaper, the Lakeland Ledger, which I posted on Norm’s old forum.

[scandtours]

Greg,
I agree with you 100%. Doing it the Bensen way.....
Bensen flying manuals are comlete and cover everything from A to Z with details in the most simple way . Doesn't matter what king of gyros we are flying, Bensen Manuals are very useful.
Giorgos

[Dave Martin]

LOL nuff said...

Idiout Proofing is all but impossible to work outta the gyro.. Most people consider that they're old enuff to buy one,, So They can surely Fly-ONE

Remember it's Just A TOY

There's an Old Greek saying..........

When Ya DUMB........ Ya GOTTA Be TUFF..

[Dave Martin]

I would have to agree with you Greg. My dad had about 2hrs dual in a RAF (which is not much like a Bensen) and learned to fly his Bensen by the Bensen literature. He is now flying and living to talk about it. Some poeple get mad when there hear that someone learned to fly by flying. Seems kind of silly. Who taught Bensen how to fly? Who taught Ken Brock or the Wright brothers how to fly? Answer: they did. Next spring I will be learning the Bensen way also, I have had about two hours of dual myself (in you guessed it. a RAF). So my point, is essentially the same as yours. If you want to learn to fly a machine, well then u have to fly THAT machine, and read the Bensen manual over and over... until it all sinks in! Of course I will have an experienced gyro pilot on the radio with me...


It is my opinion that it is difficult to train a person to fly a single place gyro by flight training in a 2-place gyro. I believe that few 2-place gyros, especially the newer very stable types, have control characteristics that provide the proficiency development necessary to fly a lighter single place gyro.

I believe that to train a person to fly almost any single place gyro, it is necessary for the instructor to provide Bensen-type training - even after significant training hours in a 2-place training machine. The light, more agile, lower MOI (Moment of Inertia) gyros require different control proficiency than the heavier training gyros. Especially the longer tandem trainer gyros with much higher longitudinal MOIs do not develop adequate control proficiency to fly a lighter single place gyro.

The basics of gyro flight, the experience of flight, the aerodynamic principles and understanding can be taught in a 2-place trainer. However, if that student is to fly a much differently controlling gyro, "transition training" to that other gyro is essential to safely operating that gyro.

"Transition training" to a single seat gyro is then essentially instructor supervised (preferrably by radio) training per the Bensen syllabus (minus the kite training). This means taxi practice, rotor spin-up practice, wheel balancing practice, crowhop practice, higher and S-turn crowhop practice, reduced power and then no power landings from crowhops at height, and then finally, pattern flights. IMHO, all of this must be supervised by an instructor who is familiar with flight in that particular gyro - in order to prepare the student for potential issues with that aircraft. As per the Bensen syllabus, enough practice at each stage must be done so that particular proficiency is automatic - without having to think it through! Training someopne to fly a single place gyro is difficult, and, IMHO, essentially means doing it the Bensen way - with experienced supervision (by radio).

Many gyros not only fly differently, but the ground handle differently. Their systems are different. This thread points out different ground steering systems and techniques. Supervised "Transition Training" is necessary from engine start to full pattern work.

IMHO, the basic problem we have with training people to fly single place or even different models of gyros is the lack of "transition training". Especially licensed (FW?) pilots do not appreciate the different skills development necessary and often take training shortcuts.

IMHO, the only good of a 2-place trainer is to train a student to fly that particular model or a very similarly handling model. For instance, even though they look similar, it probably requires at least some "transition training" to transition even from a Magni to an ELA or MT03 - as has been pointed out the ground steering AND the flight controllability characteistics may be different enough to cause problems whe the new pilot gets in a situation where proficiency is important. Going from a low seater to a high seater, from nose wheel steering to differential brake steering, from s-b-s seating to tandem seating, from right seat to left seat, from front seat to back seat, all require some amount of "transition training". It is the instructor who must convey this importance to the student and provide it to that student. Learning to fly gyros just does not often follow the airplane technique of just the instructor getting out of the seat of a Cessna 152!

2-place training is not the end-all solution to gyro training. It may just be the start of the process, and the only way to get the legal requirements for a license. But, being legal isn't always being safe - don;t short cut training just because you are legal!

- Thanks, Greg Gremminger

[Hognose]

The controls of most all machinery operated by Man, -sail boat tillers, Bensen overhead sticks and aircraft rudder pedals being the only exceptions that immediately come to mind- move in the same direction as the machine moves.

Weight shift aircraft are the example you couldn't remember, Chuck: trikes and hang gliders. Some FW flyers find them very unnatural and vice versa.

On parachutes, you pull the right toggle to turn right. I;ve seen powered parachutes that do this with a rudder bar that works opposite (like bike handlebars) and some that do it with rudder pedals that work like other aircraft rudder pedals.

Aircraft controls may not be perfect, but one pretty much has to follow the conventions in control design. Why? Well, for one reason, most pilots will have more time flying something other than your design.

cheers

-=K=--

[C. Beaty]

I wonder whether it’d be possible to ride a bicycle that had a reversing mechanism between handlebars and wheel. It is very nearly impossible to ride one with arms crossed on the handlebars.

[GyroRon]

They aren't.
They ARE.
Of all the yank flyin youtube vids iv seen, EVERYONE, cept Dic Degraw, land with power and sum AS.
WHY? [/I]

Gee, I haven't been following this thread much lately, and I am not sure if I am a yank, but I know there are plenty of videos on U tube showing me landing with no power, and minimal airspeed. This is just one of em that comes to mind..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUHUAkXU48

[WaspAir]

I wonder whether it’d be possible to ride a bicycle that had a reversing mechanism between handlebars and wheel. It is very nearly impossible to ride one with arms crossed on the handlebars.

Although many bicycle and motorcycle riders are not consciously aware of it, turning actually is done with "reverse" input (the safety experts call it "countersteering"). At speeds above walking, pushing on the right handlebar sends the wheel slightly to the left but causes the bike to lean to the right, initiating a "banked" right turn. Push right, turn right, is the result. Most motorcycle safety classes teach this extensively. Riders who think about the lean, not the handlebar position, don't fall down and go in the direction they intend; riders who think of the bars like a steering wheel fall down and/or run into the things they're trying to avoid in panic situations.

[Walter]

I wonder whether it’d be possible to ride a bicycle that had a reversing mechanism between handlebars and wheel. It is very nearly impossible to ride one with arms crossed on the handlebars.

It is just a matter of practice. Cross the arms and consider the forearms as a bar, then the inversion will come easy. After some practice you can even steer with only one hand (over cross). I think it has been reported that a test pilot managed to fly with a FW in which the ailerons were working over cross.

I stoped riding bicicles with one hand over cross when children are present, becuse they would try it and invariably fall.

[j bird]

I'm 66 years old, can still ride a bike sitting backwards on the handle bars, never seen any one else that could do it.

[gyromike]

I'm 66 years old, can still ride a bike sitting backwards on the handle bars, never seen any one else that could do it.

I used to ride my bike clear across town like that. :)
Just don't grab the front brake!

[rogerdodger]

I'm 66 years old, can still ride a bike sitting backwards on the handle bars, never seen any one else that could do it.

I can too. When we were kids that was the way we rode the majority of the time.

[troed@aon.at]

discussion´s growing pretty theoretical :wacko:

man´s mind works better when simple needs take simple actions: when You wanna turn right step right/pull right etc.

No need to complicate things.

We then could ask: why not move up to turn right and so on. :ohwell:

Some things shouldn´t follow JFK´s advice: "...... not because it is easy but it is hard.... "

Keep things simple and they work better.:sad:

[lanichol]

Gee, I haven't been following this thread much lately, and I am not sure if I am a yank, but I know there are plenty of videos on U tube showing me landing with no power, and minimal airspeed. This is just one of em that comes to mind..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUHUAkXU48

LOL, I think I'll try that next week with my RAF.

Ron, it is one of the coolest moves in a gyro I have seen.

I have watched nearly every gyro video on youtube and I believe they are important to watch.

Remember the golf video that is suppose to imprint and train correct motion?

[birdy]

An aircraft has the propeller bolted to the airframe and develops a line of thrust. It is irrelevant just where along that line the propeller is located; it could be in the next county and would work the same way.
Point noted CB, thanx.
[ see, i AM a Scg ;) ]

[Canadian Rhino]

Very interesting read!
My backwards mind made me ride a motor cycle the same way as I had on a bike as a youngster by pulling on the left handlebar to turn left and pushing on the right at the same time.
Later on when riding a snowmobile in deep snow I found that I had to give the machine a push to the opposite way that I wished to go to get it to start banking and then yank it the opposite way into a nice sharp turn.
I have not had the chance to do any practice or training on my sparrowhawk yet but found when I was just taxying around that my instinct was to steer it backwards.
Would it be smart to swap these cables before I start training for a more natural feel?

[mceagle]

My backwards mind made me ride a motor cycle the same way as I had on a bike as a youngster by pulling on the left handlebar to turn left and pushing on the right at the same time.
If you do that you will in fact turn right (or fall off)
Would it be smart to swap these cables before I start training for a more natural feel?
In my opinion, there is nothing worse than reverse controls. I would stick to conventional aircraft - push left to move the nose to the left and push right to move the nose to the right. That way it is the same on the ground as in the air and should not cause any confusion at a critical time.

[Dicetrek]

Was reading on the PRA site and no surprise, pilot error is #1 for faults. Structure/ pitch #2 for faults. I am considering a gyro in the future, or a fixed-wing.

Structure failure in a gyro at 5, or 10k feet, which is where I spend most of my time in fixed-wing, SCARES me. A rudder cable, or joystick cable/ linkage popping/ coming loose in flight, horizontal stabalizer folding is not cool.

The PRA say's the main reason for structure failure is not fully known. I believe in design/ structure over-kill and seems the gyro's lack this.

In this video, the engine cuts out at the 21 second mark. Why did he hit so hard and not land safely? Seems he had plenty of airspeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkx3thmogEk

D

[Doug Riley]

Wing Commander Wallis wasn't hurt in that long-ago accident. His landing was downwind into grass, making his groundspeed rather high. His nosewheel caught and over he went.

Reports of "pilot error" must be taken with a very large grain of salt. In a sense, that accident in the video is pilot error. Doing an airshow routine involving low, slow downwind flight is asking for trouble should the engine quit. But it's a risk that airshow pilots knowingly take. That's not quite what most people mean by "error."

An aircraft that is unstable to begin with makes it unusually easy to commit an "error." The designer who came up with the unstable aircraft ought to share the blame -- but usually doesn't.

Structural failure in gyros is very rare. The Bensen gyro (the basis of what most of us fly) was a professional design incorporating generous margins of safety in all critical items. What appears to be random breakage of a component is often poor maintenance -- bolts left loose, and so on.

[ckurz7000]

The engine out happened on downwind, so the airspeed was certainly less than the ground speed you see. On the other hand, I don't see Wallis pitching down to regain airspeed once the engine stopped. Seems to me that pitching down more aggressively could have given him more energy at the bottom to cushion the encounter with terra firma.

-- Chris.

[helipaddy]

And here's a pic of him just after the "incident"

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/3314733826_bc2cef019f_o.jpg

[Resasi]

Watching a documentary of him yesterday with the 19 machines he has built.
Some appear to be extremely stable in flight.

[birdy]

Seems to me that pitching down more aggressively could have given him more energy at the bottom to cushion the encounter with terra firma.
A quick 180 wen the noise stops is a better idea.
And yeh, its definatle doable from the hight he had.

[Dicetrek]

He sure ate the big 1. Glad he came out with a thumbs up and a smile. Landing on downwind is never pleasurable. I think he did good considering the altitude ( cough ).

Him being a stunt/ pro pilot, it may have not been pilot error, but in textbooks; it was the classic cause ( Low Altitude ), reguardless of downwind speed.

I think a 180 would of been more risk then worthy in his situitation. Most 180's I hear about after an engine out, don't turn out well, unless altitude is on your side.

[All_In]

Check out how Ron does it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUHUAkXU48
Why couldn't he have done the same, not enough air speed?

[Resasi]

In my extremely tiny experience I was pretty horified at how quick it comes down when I have done engine out practice, and that is into wind.

[ckurz7000]

Check out how Ron does it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUHUAkXU48
Why couldn't he have done the same, not enough air speed?

Seems to me that Wallis had sufficient altitude at the time the engine stopped to either push the nose down to gain some speed or even make an aggressive U turn. In the video he appears to do just nothing except flair a bit at the bottom, which didn't help much.

I know and respect him for his experience, but everyone makes mistakes some time. Maybe it just took him too long to realize that the engine had quit and figure out what to do.

-- Chris.

[Fl90]

A bit of a zoom climb, push over at the top, downwind, and on rough and soft ground.


For those flying keyboards, that equals....low altitude, low airspeed, low rotor rpm, high ground speed, rough landing. and the ground wants to hang on to you.


Pitching more nose down, he would have been the airbag for the engine.

While I was teaching myself to fly, I misinterpreted a landing sequence I'd read about. To my benefit, I tried the proceedure in stages of diminishing airspeed. I stopped lowering the airspeed after I fell through a flare, it was a hard landing but didn't bend anything. If you've never fallen through a flare, good for you, I hope you never do.

Phil.

[ckurz7000]

I don't know what you are trying to say, Phil. Yes, I've fallen through a flare once before. I've done all sorts of things in my gyro, even in winds around 40 kts. The sum total of my observations from the video sequence along with what I learned from flying my gyro is what led me to the observation.

The wind doesn't appear to be too strong in the video. Wallis also had some significant altitude to play with. He could have regained speed by reacting quickly. I can't see any pitch reaction in the video immediately following the engine out. And the first thing you learn is to regain speed when the engine stops, which means pointing the nose down.

I know Wallis is a hugely experienced pilot and has been flying gyros at a time when my mom and dad hadn't even been into the heavy petting stage. Still, does that mean he is automatically impervious to all mistakes?

-- Chris.

[Resasi]

...low altitude, low airspeed, low rotor rpm... would seem to be saying no turn.

Ron's manoever if I remember correctly was done at high speed and an excess of energy according to him, and that he would not have attempted it at low speed.

[ckurz7000]

...low altitude, low airspeed, low rotor rpm... would seem to be saying no turn.

Ron's manoever if I remember correctly was done at high speed and an excess of energy according to him, and that he would not have attempted it at low speed.

The maneuver Ron is shown doing in the video is something I like doing myself. It's most spectacular if there's a stiff breeze blowing because the speed difference will appear more significant to the onlookers. But you need to have a lot of speed to do this safely close to the ground.

Now, Ken Wallis wasn't that close to the ground. I don't think the wind was all that whipping either (judging by the perceived speed difference after his U turn onto downwind). And his engine stopped quite a bit into the downwind and after the zoom climb -- which means his rrpm couldn't have been that low. Further more, he has quite some altitude at that point.

Say what you will, this looks like it should habe been a salvagable engine out to my unaided eyes.

-- Chris.

[C. Beaty]

Perhaps Wing Comdr. couldn’t do anything.

I suspect the reason that the refuses to fly metal rotor blades is that he uses over balance of his wooden rotorblades for stability. His past statements have indicated that he doesn’t consider horizontal stabilizers necessary.

Maybe technical brilliance, maybe dumb luck.

[Gyrocopter1]

I agree any gyro can kill you when you get out of the envelope.Thats my two cents worth, and I just wanted to see my new avatar. Jim

[EI-GYRO]

Comparison of Cdr Wallis's machine performance/behaviour with other types may not
be entirely fair.
Short, timber blades are a good bit different than the extruded blades many are used to.
For instance, to compare Wallis's light,small timber-bladed machines with a MT-03 or
similar flown solo, in terms of flare and stored rotor energy, is quite a stretch.
He had not much choice either way.
1. Land fast and flat, and get tumbled over by the long grass.
2. Do a flare, and get tumbled anyway when the tail wheel hits first.

He says himself that he turned lower and slower than planned due to the imminent
arrival of the Red Arrows, which caused his display slot to be shortened.

Murphy did the rest.

Anyway, he was only a young man of 61 at the time, so cut him some slack.
He's now 90+ and still flying. We should all be so lucky.

[Dicetrek]

And here's a pic of him just after the "incident"

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/3314733826_bc2cef019f_o.jpg

I see a windsock in the background to the left, being hit by at least 5 to 8 mph wind.

Thought gyro's landed at 5 or 10 mph? My 2 cents, I believe his high ground speed proves he was in a hopeless downwind.

Do gyro control's become sluggish if in a downwind, engine out and wouldn't it be HIGHLY RISKY to attempt a unplanned, engine out 180 given Wallis's overall flight condition's.

Hard to tell in the video but, looks like at the 29 second mark for a spilt second, seems the grass is swaying hard when the camera zooms in. The green grass in the photo also has a story.

[birdy]

Thought gyro's landed at 5 or 10 mph?
Gyros, flown as gyros, can land with 0 AS.
But that dont have any bearing on ground speed. If you land with 0 AS, in a 10mph tail wind, your ground speed will be 10mph.

I believe his high ground speed proves he was in a hopeless downwind.
Hardly hopless. He had plenty of alt to spin it 180* into wind.
Iv always wundered why Ken blew that attempt, coz he's no slouch wen he's ina gyro.
But i gess that grey hair could have sumthn to do with it. ;)

Do gyro control's become sluggish if in a downwind
No.
They do get sluggish if rrpm or AS or both are low.

engine out and wouldn't it be HIGHLY RISKY to attempt a unplanned, engine out 180 given Wallis's overall flight condition's.
No.

[mceagle]

This video could well be used as an instructional video (with permission).
I do not see any evidence of a strong enough tail wind to attempt anything other than a regulation power-off landing straight ahead. Having said that you cannot actually see the ground that he "landed" on because it is slightly over a hump.
When the engine starts to quit (somewhere around the 20 sec mark) Ken actually lowered the nose and set up a glide as you would normally do for a power off landing. The gyro was already low on airspeed after the rudder turn and there wasn't enough height left to recover the required airspeed. The gyro sagged through the flare and struck quite heavily tail first which threw it forward heavily onto the nosewheel. Rotors cannot change their plane so drastically and quickly so as the airframe tumbled forward the rotors first took off the tail and then got into the keel spinning the airframe laterally (at about 1min 2 sec). I suspect that the rockets in the long grass would have also played a part in arresting the forward motion, exasterbating the problem.

[Dicetrek]

mceagle,

I agree with a lot you said. Would you have done a 180 if you were in Wallis's position? If yes, I'll have to get 1 of these magnificient machines.

[ckurz7000]

Would you have done a 180 if you were in Wallis's position? If yes, I'll have to get 1 of these magnificient machines.

Though I've never flown in a gyro like Wallis', I have certainly done engine out landings being pointed downwind in much stronger wind from about the same altitude with no problem (in my MT03 -- dual and solo).

Let me just pose this theoretical question to the CFIs among us: "If this video were of a student of yours, what would your criticism of the engine out handling be?"

-- Chris.

[Doug Riley]

When discussing downwind landings, remember that wind gradients come into play this close to the ground. If you descend from an altitude where the wind is strong to an altitude where the wind is weak or nil, you are better off NOT turning upwind. Your airspeed may actually INcrease as you descend, downwind, into still air. Conversely, if you whip around into the wind while descending, you may find that the "bottom drops out."

[Doug Riley]

I'm surprised to see the Wing Commander APPEAR to make a newbie mistake on his approach. When his engine first quits (no pilot ever uses the phrase "cut out" to refer to a power failure), the gyro sinks in a level attitude for a moment. (This will happen on its own in a high-thrustline gyro when the power is reduced, though I have no idea if this gyro was HTL.)

He then drops the nose as he should, but he levels out too high. Flaring at 10-20 feet is OK for a FW plane, but the beginning of the round-out should be much lower in a gyro. It's difficult when you are new at the game to wait until you are only a couple feet high -- but you should. In Wallis's defense, it can be difficult to guage your exact height when over a large expanse having a uniform appearance -- as a big grass field can be.

The pros at deadstick landings also are more aggressive at pointing the machine down steeply than Wallis was. Watch a deadstick competition at a gyro flyin some time; the sharp-shooters practically stand the thing on its nose. They want plenty of airspeed to play with at the bottom; it will all be turned into RRPM for a zero-speed flare. If you give away your airspeed by flaring at 10 feet, you will drop in hard.

[WaspAir]

This video could well be used as an instructional video...
The gyro was already low on airspeed after the rudder turn and there wasn't enough height left to recover the required airspeed.


Let me just pose this theoretical question to the CFIs among us: "If this video were of a student of yours, what would your criticism of the engine out handling be?"


If McEagle is right, Wallis was in a no-no region of the H-V diagram for that aircraft when the engine took an unscheduled break. Topic number one to consider for instruction on any incident like this is how you got into the situation in the first place, with a critique of the awareness, decisions, and judgments that put you there and made you vulnerable.

[EI-GYRO]

If you are lined up for takeoff for a display flight, and the controller calls up to tell you
your display time is halved due to the arrival of the great Red Arrows, i think your
well-planned display is screwed from the start, but you still have a display to fly.
IIRC, that is pretty much what happened.
That environment is ripe for problems.
Wallis's machines are not floaty, like an MT-03 or the like.
They are light, but nippy and fast, and I suspect the rotor loading is higher than most.
I also think if we were able to hear the engine noise on the video, things would be a lot
clearer.
I think it is a also very good example of the limitations of wood blades with regards to
energy storage/inertia.

[scandtours]

Watching twice Wallis accident video in slow motion, the gyro rolled over because the nose wheel stuck into a soft wet soil (mud?) when touched down. The same as if applying front wheel brakes on a bicycle while in motion. It would be different if landing was on a hard surface.
Doug Riley mentioned this too. ( His nosewheel caught and over he went.)
You can clearly see from the photo that nose wheel is missing too.
Giorgos

[Dicetrek]

What did I learn from Mr. Wallis's experience. Something I learned when I was a kid. Never disrespect your aircraft and never disrespect your flight environment.

D

[birdy]

Conversely, if you whip around into the wind while descending, you may find that the "bottom drops out."

Its not so much the AS you have at the bottom Doug, but the grounds speed you have wen you get there that counts.
High ground speed with a shallow flare over rough ground is go'n to do more damage than 0 AS and steep flare.

Iv just got home from retrievn me ferel from wot id consider an amazn power out recovery. ;)
Will post it shortly, and it proves me point.

[Doug Riley]

Right, Birdy, but your flare won't happen if you have no airspeed just BEFORE you pull. We've all had that sickening feeling -- pull back but nothing happens because airspeed is nil. If your groundspeed is high at that moment, and you hit rough ground, you'll duplicate the Little Nellie crash.

[birdy]

Right, Birdy, but your flare won't happen if you have no airspeed just BEFORE you pull.
If your falln, no matter wot the machine's att, you have AS.
My misshap the other day, i had near enuff to 0 [horisontal]AS, nose pointed directly down, and coz of the low rrpm and heavy blades, i knew i needed to start the flare alot earlier than normal to give the falln virtical disc time to grab sum virtical AS, pitch the nose back up and regain a little more rrpm before contact.
The machine's att was near zactly the same as ol Ken's wen i touched. Tail first [ compressed diagonal strut n prop strike] , rocked forwards, and its a sure bet that if i had any forward GS, i woulda kept go'n over.
If i had no AS, i woulda simply hit the deck nose first.

[Fl90]

Now we have to get you to redo your episode, but with a set of blades equal to Ken's. Then we can compare apples to apples.

Glad you're sorted. Amazing how time stops, isn't it?

Phil

[birdy]

Then we can compare apples to apples.
Your spoton Phil, i dont recon id stand a chance if i had light blades like Ken's are sposed to be.
BUT, i still woulda attempted the 180, only the contact woulda been harder, but i still woulda arrested any horisontal travel.

Glad you're sorted. Amazing how time stops, isn't it?
Bloodoth, felt like i had time to roll a durrie and check me options. :)

[mceagle]

I suspect that Doug's and Birdy's posts above may have the same "fish on the line but from different ends".
With zero airspeed you are in a vertical descent and no manner of "flareing" will arrest that - it will only change the airframe attitude, but the descent rate will remain the same (or increase). However if you have enough height to regain some airspeed without loosing rotorspeed, then you have a chance of arresting at least some of the descent rate. Like Birdy said, in such a situation you have to start to flare a bit earlier to regain any lost rrpm.
I always taught engine out recovery from difficult situations, (including zero airspeed), and students were always astounded at how much height you would loose to effect a full normal landing. There are also instances where an increasing rate turn (in a tight situation) can increase rrpm as if the gyro was in a flare, and salvage the landing that way. This requires much more finess though and is not recommended for the greenhorn without prior experience.

[birdy]

This requires much more finess though and is not recommended for the greenhorn without prior experience.
Yes, to a point.
If you have heavy blades, the inertia gained from a greater than 1G diving bank will give you loads of time, AFTER you streighten out and level off just above the ground.
Practicing this will give you a good feel for how much room you can give yourself to move if you find youself ina tight spot.
And as Tim says, take it gradual.
Nailn it once dont mean youv got it, coz next time the conditions are garanteed to be different.

Personaly, im ina bad habit of ALWAYS do'n bankn approches, to keep me hand in, and one day ill need to do a streight in approch and ill stuff it up. :(

[Fl90]

Of the blade styles I've flown I've flown, 3 of them would have held well, 1 of them may have been a frame bender, and 2 of them would have dropped (just didn't hold lift and rrpm under speed). Never flown wooden home made blades, but I'd love to give it a shot. Unfortunately, when it comes to wood construction, all I can build safely is a fire.

Phil.