New Air Command Accident Analysis Report

[DennisFetters]

Over many years, there have been people inside and outside of the forum that have been spreading misleading information concerning the accent rate of the Air Command gyroplanes. They throw numbers around without the facts behind them, intentionally trying to mislead people into a false conclusion that the Commander gyroplanes were dangerous and deadly to anyone flying them. When people do this, they are misleading you, in fact, it’s the same as lying to you.

What do you think about a person that is trying to intentionally mislead you by not presenting the full facts? I won’t ever stand for it, and why should you? If these people have mislead you all these years about one thing, then what else have they not been completely honest about?

In my constant effort to correct history, I have went through every listed death involved in a Commander gyroplane on the FAA data base, and created a summarized report as to the pertinent information involved in each of the 25 cases listed, and the circumstances behind as to why the pilot crashed. After all, there is a big difference between an aircraft that crashes due to poor flying characteristics, and aircraft that were flown by unqualified people with inadequate training, or even no training at all.

This reports shows the following pertinent information of the pilots competence level, and it forms an unquestionable pattern that none of these 25 events were the fault of the aircraft whatsoever, and all could have been avoided if just basic gyroplane trading would have been completed, except in two cases where the pilots crashed during incapacitation from heart attacks, and one case where the pilot was incapacitated from ice buildup over his eyes and face.

I typed this report by hand, so if anyone finds an error, or knows of other accidents that can be added, or can add additional information to any of these events, please contact me. Here is a summery breakdown of the pilot competence in the 25 reports;


How many of the pilots were Rotorcraft Rated:................None
How many of the pilots are confirmed no training:.............7of 25
How many of the pilots may not have had training:...........10 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 1 hours training:......1 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 2 hours training;......3 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 3 hours training;......2 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 5 hours training;......2 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 6 hours training;......2 of 25
How many of the pilots had less than 8 hours training;......1 of 25
How many of the pilots had more than 8 hours training;.....0 of 25
How many of the pilots were killed for other reasons;........3 of 25

The highest time pilot had 23 total hours in type, and was killed showing off beyond his ability during a sales demonstration. This list indicates that as many as 17 out of these 25 pilots probably didn't have any training.

As you can see, the pattern is clear. None of these people had enough training, or no training at all. It would not have mattered if they were flying a HCLT or CLT, they simply did not have enough experience to be flying any type of rotorcraft. I have looked at the few accident reports out of the U.K and Italy, and all fall into the same category as above.

An important factor is to remember when I owned Air Command; we were selling 97% of all gyroplanes being manufactured at the time, which was also an 80% increase of gyroplanes being put into the realm of aviation. It was only natural that the gyroplane accident rate would rise with this 80% increase of gyroplane activity, and accidents had greater odds of being a Commander simply due to our overwhelming dominance of the market.

Today’s gyroplane accident rate had decreased mainly due to around an 85% decrease of gyroplane activity since I left the market.

For those that require the full account of each event listed, you can go the following FAA link and search with the date and location: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

I know that to some people these inconvenient facts go against what they want to believe about the Commander Gyroplane, but more importantly, they go against what they want YOU to believe about the Commander Gyroplane. But facts are facts, and reasonable people will see that.

Air Command FAA Accident Analysis Summery Report;

Report #1;
Name:.....................Joseph R. Benjamin
Date:......................06/26/2005
Location:.................Highgate, VT
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:...First flight.
Winds:.....................7
Cause of Accident: ....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.
***************

Report #2;
Name:.....................Arthur Vernon Close
Date:......................12/03/2004
Location:.................Wilmont, OH
Killed:......................2
Type:......................532 Commander Two-Place SXS
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...UNKNOWN
Winds:.....................8
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to avoid power lines.
***************

Report #3;
Name:.....................James F. Gear
Date:......................01/01/2003
Location:.................Lansing, IL
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..UNKNOWN
Winds:....................16 gusts to 21
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training. Factor to the
.............................accident was the wind gusts.
***************

Report #4;
Name:.....................Anthony Spagnoletti
Date:......................09/12/1999
Location:.................Conroe, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................582 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:.10 (Not flown one year prior to accident)
Winds:...................Calm
Cause of Accident:...Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #5;
Name:.....................Gary Falen
Date:......................06/12/1994
Location:.................Georgetown, OH
Killed:......................1
Type:......................503 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:..8
Winds: Calm
Cause of Accident: ....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #6;
Name:.....................John Rains
Date:......................09/26/1992
Location:.................Eureka, CA
Killed:......................2
Type:......................532 Commander Two-Place SXS
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........2
Total Hours in Type:...5
Winds:.....................5
Cause of Accident: .....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #7;
Name:.....................Barney Schmidt
Date:......................08/29/1992
Location:.................Dumas, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........NONE
Total Hours in Type:.2
Winds:...................5
Cause of Accident:...Pilot's failure to acquire proper training. Factor to the
............................accident was 6600 density altitude.

Report #8;
Name:.....................Royce R. Rutter
Date:......................05/31/1992
Location:.................Washburn, IA
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........3
Total Hours in Type:...7
Winds:.....................7
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #9;
Name:.....................Garry A. Lindsey
Date:......................08/04/1991
Location:.................Libby, MT
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:...NONE (First flight)
Winds:.....................Calm
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #10;
Name:.....................Donald R. Lee
Date:......................07/13/1991
Location:.................Quitman, MS
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:..5
Winds:....................3
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #11;
Name:.....................Charles R. May
Date:......................01/15/1991
Location:.................Tomahawk, WI
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................503 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....UNKNOWN
Training Time:..........NONE
Total Hours in Type:.12
Winds:...................2
Cause of Accident:...Factor to the accident pilot loss of control, had no
............................goggles and had ¼” of ice buildup over his eyes and
............................face after ground impact.

Report #12;
Name:.....................Robert Lewis Demarco
Date:......................04/07/1990
Location:.................Okeechobee, FL
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........15 minutes
Total Hours in Type:..1
Winds: Calm
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #13;
Name:.....................Carl E. Hittle
Date:......................04/07/1990
Location:.................El Paso, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........2
Total Hours in Type:..2.1 (First flight solo, not flown 6 months after training)
Winds:....................6
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #14;
Name:.....................Guerra Oscar J, Jr.
Date:......................02/17/1990
Location:.................Hearne, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................447 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........6.5
Total Hours in Type:..7 (First solo flight)
Winds:....................Calm
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #15;
Name:.....................Julian A. Sheimo
Date:......................01/22/1990
Location:.................Munster, IN
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..13
Winds:....................12
Cause of Accident:....Pilot making advanced maneuvers showing off beyond
.............................his ability.

Report #16;
Name:.....................Preston E. Stanger
Date:......................01/11/1990
Location:.................Hansen, ID
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..23
Winds:....................8
Cause of Accident:....Pilot making advanced maneuvers showing off beyond
.............................his ability for sales demo flight, made abrupt right turn
.............................to low and impacted ground.

Report #17;
Name:.....................William E. Fifer
Date:......................11/13/1988
Location:.................Sullivan, IL
Killed:......................1
Type:......................503 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........6
Total Hours in Type:...6 (First flight solo, not flown 4 months after training)
Winds:.....................12
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #18;
Name:.....................William A. Cameron
Date:......................10/14/1988
Location:.................Hixson, TN
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...4 (First flight solo, not flown 4 months after training)
Winds:.....................Calm
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #19;
Name:.....................Robert M. Heibel
Date:......................09/21/1988
Location:.................Cottage Grove, WI
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Two-Place SXS
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........3
Total Hours in Type:...8
Winds:.....................8
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and pilots
..............................failure to meet the manufacturers requirement to have
..............................a minimum of 50 hours in type before attempt to fly
..............................532 Commander Two-Place solo.

Report #20;
Name:.....................Robert L. Glens
Date:......................07/23/1988
Location:.................Baytown, TX
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...5
Winds: 4
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #21;
Name:.....................Jerome Lamb
Date:......................11/04/1987
Location:.................Meriden, CT
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........8
Total Hours in Type:...9
Winds:.....................9
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and failure to
..............................control aircraft.

Report #22;
Name:.....................John L. Watts, SR.
Date:......................07/27/1987
Location:.................Davenport, IA
Killed;......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...13
Winds:.....................18 gusting to 26
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and flying in
..............................high winds beyond his ability.

Report #23;
Name:.....................Kenneth Ray Crews
Date:......................06/28/1987
Location:.................St. Francisville, LA
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...21
Winds:.....................7
Cause of Accident:.....Suffered heart attack during flight, and lost control.

Report #24;
Name:.....................David P. Langr
Date:......................05/15/1988
Location:.................Dodge Center
Killed:......................1
Type:......................447 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:...5
Winds:.....................12
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

Report #25;
Name:.....................Wilter C. Samuels
Date:......................02/01/1987
Location:.................Paducah. KY
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..5
Winds:....................7
Cause of Accident:....Suffered heart attack during flight, and lost control.

I have always been very upfront about the dangers involved with maintaining, flying and obtaining proper training. Attached here is some of the warnings that was in my assembly manuals. I have always made proper training a top priority, as you can see. Even though, people would still ignore even the harshest of warnings and the result is an accident or one waiting to happen.

There is much more to flying than learning to control an aircraft. Training is not just to show you how to control the vehicle; it is also about learning how the vehicle works, and why it works. Training is also to teach you to safely operate within the aviation community with other aircraft. It is an essential part of safe flying, and necessary for every type of aircraft.

Remember; Man is a two dimensional creature, while flying is a three dimensional task, of which man must learn.

.

[Timchick]

How did you determine the number of hours each individual had for training?

[C. Beaty]

Of course, Dennis. You’re the victim of a conspiracy; these guys all went out and killed themselves just to sully your good name.

Untrained and partially trained pilots wouldn’t think of getting into any gyro other than a Fetters “Classic”.

That’s the reason other brands of gyros have a much better safety record. Poor Dennis.

[Chuck Roberg]

Dennis you missed one. I think it was called an ultralight so it may not have made the NTSB reports.

Dave Geboy.
Hartford, Wisconsin.
Older style Air Command w/o horiz stab.

He had previous gyro experience but this was his first flight in this ship. His other gyro was an Air Command with a pod and stab. Not sure how many hours he had in it. But he did fly at the Mentone convention.

Witness stated Dave told him he was only going to fly the runway to get familiar with the new gyro. Witness then stated instead he took off and was flying the pattern. Seemed to PPO 150-200' over the runway flipped and crashed.

[Mike Schallmann]

Ive said this once and I'll say it again--Im not fond of his business practices BUT he wrote one hell of a manual --he STATED that this gyro WOULD KILL YOU --WITHOUT PROPER TRAINING--give the man credit --

[DennisFetters]

How did you determine the number of hours each individual had for training?

Tim, its in the FAA accident reports.

[DennisFetters]

Dennis you missed one. I think it was called an ultralight so it may not have made the NTSB reports.

Dave Geboy.
Hartford, Wisconsin.
Older style Air Command w/o horiz stab.

He had previous gyro experience but this was his first flight in this ship. His other gyro was an Air Command with a pod and stab. Not sure how many hours he had in it. But he did fly at the Mentone convention.

Witness stated Dave told him he was only going to fly the runway to get familiar with the new gyro. Witness then stated instead he took off and was flying the pattern. Seemed to PPO 150-200' over the runway flipped and crashed.

Please send me any links so that I may find out the facts.

[DennisFetters]

Of course, Dennis. You’re the victim of a conspiracy; these guys all went out and killed themselves just to sully your good name.
Untrained and partially trained pilots wouldn’t think of getting into any gyro other than a Fetters “Classic”.
That’s the reason other brands of gyros have a much better safety record. Poor Dennis.

You know, I don't do baby talk.

[danmcgee]

Dennis does not need me to come to hid rescue but from what I can see from the FAA reports over the few years I have been researching gyros in the intrest of flying. There has been an accident in almost every type of gyro out there, Bensen, KB, Gyrobee, RAF the only one I could not find any accident reports for was Martin Hollmanns BumbleBee but that may just be cause it's and UL. Mr. Hollmann told me there has never been a reported accident involving this aircraft either that he knows of.

So whats the deal, I do not know Dennis but sur do hear alot of bad stuff about the guy. What I do know is that he has designed several types of aircraft over the years and the Aircommand from the ones I know that own them like them very much. He is also desgning UAV for the miltary so he must know his stuff to even do that.

Am I missing something here?
Dan

[RangeFlyer72]

Of course, Dennis. You’re the victim of a conspiracy; these guys all went out and killed themselves just to sully your good name.

Untrained and partially trained pilots wouldn’t think of getting into any gyro other than a Fetters “Classic”.

That’s the reason other brands of gyros have a much better safety record. Poor Dennis.

I don't know, it sure looks like a lot of people with little or no training!
It's easy to blame the machine, harder to blame the deceased, it's against our nature.
Dave

[danmcgee]

Yep this guy has also been getting hammered over the Mini 500. Every machine out there has fualts and the first and main one to look at is the one flying it. From the FAA reports I will plan on getting even more training than I was planning.

[barnstorm2]

As you can see, the pattern is clear. None of these people had enough training, or no training at all. It would not have mattered if they were flying a HCLT or CLT, they simply did not have enough experience to be flying any type of rotorcraft. .

Dennis,

While I completely agree that people with little or no training should not be flying gyros (or any aircraft for that matter). I disagree with your statement that HTL or CLT would not have mattered.

First of all HTL is ok so long as the machine is adequately stabilized.

Second of all, it make perfect sense that FW and low-time pilots are going to be the most susceptible to PIO (and therefore PPO).

To me this report simply confirms that the classic commanders are quite easy to PPO and had they been PIO/PPO resistant many of these people would be alive and here today. Especially, those with at least a couple of hours of training or those that had FW training but new to gyros.

That said...

No one should fault you for building an "80's gyro" in the 1980's.

You have been and should be rightfully commended for both your warnings to customers in your manuals and your popularization of the sport.

The issue I have with your statements, is when you make claims that the 'classic commanders' are just as safe, stable and PIO/PPO resistant as CLT and Dynamically Stable HTL machines.

That is where I feel you are undoing your past efforts of warning the nubee gyro pilots and potentially risking lives needlessly.

I am heartened by your stated position of recommending Stable/CLT gyros to new pilots but I feel many of your statements about your flying and the performance of the classic commanders gives a terribly mixed signal.

You are regarded by some as an authority figure and with that comes the responsibly to take the high road and be perfectly clear and honest about the dangers of PIO/PPO. Much like the progressive attitude toward safety you took in the past.

my 2 cents.

.

[C. Beaty]

Why, with dual instruction unavailable during most of its production life, would the Bensen B-8 apparently have had about ½ the fatality rate of Air Command “Classics”?*

Make--------------------FAA registry------------NTSB fatalities-----%

BENSEN--------------------1608--------------------83---------------5.2

AIRCOMMAND “CLASSIC”--250--------------------25---------------10

The factory stock Bensen B-8 with steel industrial wheels and a steel outboard fuel tank was LTL by several inches but nothing near a “Classic” with a 5’ propeller and an inverted Rotax with gearbox turned up. With lightweight wheels and a seat tank, a B-8 is almost exactly CLT and with the addition of a proper horizontal stabilizer would match the most stable gyro now available.

‘Classics” were viciously unstable vs. angle of attack, pitching nose up in an upward gust and nose down in a downward gust, compounding the disturbance. Stable aircraft always head into the relative wind.

Why would anyone have mounted a Rotax upside down?

Aside from exacerbating the CG problem, the design of the main bearing lubrication scheme is defeated; there are catch troughs under the cylinder transfer passages that feed condensed oil to the main bearings via drilled passages.

Oil collects in the spark plugs and causes fouling and hard starting.

With water cooled Rotax engines, there are blind pockets in the water jackets that collect air and various gasses that are normally dissolved in the water and cause overheating. Water jacket blind pockets need to be vented from their high points to a header tank; otherwise, purging is virtually impossible and even if successful, it won’t stay purged very long.

*The FAA/NTSB records aren’t much to hang one’s hat on but nothing better is available. Such errors as contained in the records should be random and affect all makes equally.

The first fatality in a Cierva type Autogiro occurred after 33,000 hours of flight time had been accumulated while the US FW fatality rate in 1939 was 1 per 5,000 hours, according to Peter W. Brooks in “Cierva Autogiros.” Perhaps the pilots were better in the 1930s but without question the designers were. Real engineers vs. eyeball engineers (or more accurately; stylists).

[GyroRon]

I 2nd Tims post above, my thoughts exactly

[DennisFetters]

Tim, thank you for your opinion, and I respect them. I meant this thread to be about the Air Command accident record and the myths behind what some others have falsely represented it to be. I hope that it will not turn into another CLT verses HCLT debate, but I will most certainly answer you post, with pleasure;

Dennis,
While I completely agree that people with little or no training should not be flying gyros (or any aircraft for that matter). I disagree with your statement that HTL or CLT would not have mattered.
First of all HTL is ok so long as the machine is adequately stabilized.
Second of all, it make perfect sense that FW and low-time pilots are going to be the most susceptible to PIO (and therefore PPO).
To me this report simply confirms that the classic commanders are quite easy to PPO and had they been PIO/PPO resistant many of these people would be alive and here today. Especially, those with at least a couple of hours of training or those that had FW training but new to gyros).

I said it would not have mattered if they were flying a CLT of HCLT gyroplane because in each event none of these people had enough training to safely fly any type of aircraft, let alone a rotorcraft where your flight control surfaces are traveling 280mph.

What aircraft equal to the performance of even the wimpiest gyro would you say someone would not have crashed if they were trying to fly it with zero training? Or with 2 hours of training? Or even 5 or 8 hours? There are none, is the answer. A CLT gyroplane is a killer in the wrong hands, as it has also proved to be.

If I took these same reports and replaced the aircraft type with any other aircraft, like a Cessna 150, or an ultralight, anyone looking at the report afterwords would not even question or be surprised of the results. Do you not agree? A CLT gyro is an advanced rotorcraft witch requires skills to fly. The only way to achieve those skills is through training.

Definitely 7 of the people on this report had no training. 10 more probably had no training. That is 17 out of 25. The rest were still low time pilots without adequate training, no matter what they would have been flying.

That said...
No one should fault you for building an "80's gyro" in the 1980's. You have been and should be rightfully commended for both your warnings to customers in your manuals and your popularization of the sport.


Well, you and I know they do. I have been called a murderer, and the Kevorkian of rotorcraft, and worse. There has even been debates here on the forum if I designed aircraft just to intentionally kill people. I have endured more than a man should, and unfairly so, and all because some people lied about my aircrafts record, some intentionally and some just repeating what they heard others say. All the more reason to get the facts presented so people with open minds can know the truth.

I want no rewards, just the truth to be recognized. Right here on this very thread Chuck Beaty is going ape-s**t doing damage control just to try and keep that credit from me, and for his purpose of doing this, I do not know. He is willing to lie and deceive anyone he can, even to the point of making himself obvious in his idiotic efforts.


The issue I have with your statements, is when you make claims that the 'classic commanders' are just as safe, stable and PIO/PPO resistant as CLT and Dynamically Stable HTL machines.
That is where I feel you are undoing your past efforts of warning the nubee gyro pilots and potentially risking lives needlessly.
I am heartened by your stated position of recommending Stable/CLT gyros to new pilots but I feel many of your statements about your flying and the performance of the classic commanders gives a terribly mixed signal.

I say the classic Commander is as safe as a CLT because time has proved that a fact. We can not ignore that thousands of people have safely flown HCLT gyroplanes all over the world for the past 60 years, even to this day. Like any aircraft, it requires training to fly safely. Yes, it may even require more training than in a CLT, but thats not the point. I stand by the fact that a HCLT gyroplane is just as safe to fly as a CLT, so long as you have the proper training in either aircraft, however much that takes.

An HCLT gyroplane has some different characteristic than a CLT, and with the proper training, you can safely fly that HCLT gyroplane in any condition you can a CLT, providing pilot experience is met.

I know it's not the same, but I will use this as an example only; A tail dragger airplane has different characteristics than a tri-gear, and requires proper training, and maybe more than a Tri-gear, but can be flown as safely as a Tri-gear. So now we have tri-gears, and because it requires a little more skill and training and may ground loop the dragger means that they are now dangerous and the designers all must be chastised, tar and feathered and run out of town? I don't need someone coming here and being a smart-ass, because you can be killed in a tail dragger if you ground-loop it, it's and example only to describe that some aircraft have different characteristics than others, not meant to compare the risks in a gyro.

You see, I believe you are the one sending the mixed signals, and I see it is you undoing all the good things accomplished from the past through the teachings of misconception.

I have said it before, you make it should like the CLT gyroplane is so safe you need no training, because it will just save your life in the event of a problem. The signals I am trying to say is simple. Don't condemn aircraft that have proved to fly safely for so many years just because they are HCLT. Teach the new people the truth, and not a bunch of hyped up hysteria. Teach them the real differences and how to overcome those differences, so they learn the real reasons and differences, so that the future will breed new pilots and designers that use common since to design, and not just voodoo to do it some way or another, simply because we said so....

You are regarded by some as an authority figure and with that comes the responsibly to take the high road and be perfectly clear and honest about the dangers of PIO/PPO. Much like the progressive attitude toward safety you took in the past. my 2 cents.

There is no aircraft ever built that can not be improved as we learn from the past. But that does not say that the aircraft from that past are obsolete yet. There are many used HCLT out there that some guy could pick up at good prices. I say again, you are sending them mixed signals when you tell them that aircraft is a deathtrap unless you spend thousands of dollars and convert it to CLT. Those people are not stupid, and they seen or remember the past, and they find out that those aircraft flew really good back then, and its the same atmosphere here today, so it should fly the same, which is good enough for him. Now that person will not believe anything you say, because he found out otherwise, so how can you expect him to pay attention to you to make sure he gets the good advice later?

What we need to be doing is being truthful. That guy is going to buy that used aircraft anyway, so what we need to do is stop waisting efforts trying to pull the wool over his eyes and start showing him the way to safely operate that machine through proper training. Better that, then for him to blow his last nickel on converting it, and then can't afford the training, which leads to a disaster that helps none of us.

That's my 2 cents, and I hope I have made my point clear to you and others that read this. You may not agree with it all, your prerogative, but I hope at least you understand my view. And I hope not to get into a debate over HCLT and CLT, because I won't.

[Timchick]

In the accident reports would the FAA consider anyone who was self-taught to have no instruction no matter how many years they'd been flying?

[DennisFetters]

In the accident reports would the FAA consider anyone who was self-taught to have no instruction no matter how many years they'd been flying?

They list how many total hours in type, and then when they know, how much of that was instruction.

[barnstorm2]

That's my 2 cents, and I hope I have made my point clear to you and others that read this. You may not agree with it all, your prerogative, but I hope at least you understand my view. And I hope not to get into a debate over HCLT and CLT, because I won't.

I think I do understand your view and in general terms I agree.

I also agree there is no need to go into CLT/HTL comparison unless some misstatement is made about the design and physics of these concepts.

I would however, very much like to point out, that I agree with your statement only to the extent that you would be referring to a dynamically pitch stable HTL machine.

If in your examples we assume the HTL machine (or even CLT machine) is dynamically pitch unstable than I strongly disagree with some of the statements in your post.

I am not qualified to describe the pitch dynamics of the classic commanders. Nor do I know the results of a double-hang test on a classic commander or commanders with various AirCommand options (external fuel tanks, pods, the stock hstab ) or even worse 3rd party and owner modifications. But there are people here on the forum that are qualified to do so.

I don't know, but I suspect that you give the classic commanders more credit for stability then they deserve, through no fault of your own but "because you are too close to the trees to see the forest".

You have more experience with these machines (commanders) then anyone on the planet. You have built and flown more of them than anyone. Your uncousious nervous system can likely fly an entire circuit without bothering your conscious brain. I feel it is that very over-experience that is working against your critique of the machines pitch stability.

I dearly loved my 447 commander. I have never had as much fun in any gyro, than that machine. I wish I had one in my hangar right now ( but with a 503 or 582 if you know what I mean). However, the first thing I would do after acquiring another classic commander would be to modify it so that it was dynamically pitch stable and highly PIO/PPO resistant.

With a PIO/PPO resistant commander I could make all of the same great nimble maneuvers but without the danger of making a mistake that would take my life in a PPO.

I do not forget, what does not get mentioned enough, that I had a STOCK Air Command horiztonal stabliser on my machine. Nor I have heard you ever tell anyone that an hstab is a detriment in any way.

[Udi]

What I find interesting is that none of the listed pilots had more than 23 hours of total time in type. This would suggest one of 2 conclusions:


After about 25 hours in type, pilots become immune to PIO/PPO accidents
After about 25 hours in type, pilots stop flying this aircraft


I am sure the reality is a combination of both, nobody really knows. How many pilots on this forum have more than 25 hours in the original no-stab Fetters A/C (other than Dennis, please... anyone?) One of these pilots is Doug Riley (sorry to drag you into this, Doug). If I remember correctly, Doug reported that even with a lot of air time under his belt, his A/C would scare him when he was flying fast in bumpy weather. Is that because Doug is an inferior pilot? No, I think that after 25 hours in type pilots learn to recognize the limits of their aircraft and avoid the danger zones. Pilots with less than 25 hours don't know any better and, due to lack of experience (not necessarily training), put themselves in situations they can't handle. Some were lucky to survive, and some were not.

No aircraft is fool proof and you have got to be an idiot to fly anything without training. But -- every pilot has to go through the learning curve of flying his ship solo. Every pilot needs to gain experience in order to minimize risk. I know I have made some mistakes as a new pilot. The odds for survival during this period of getting solo experience improve dramatically if you fly a more forgiving gyro, and this is the bottom line! Someone once said - you don't deserve to die just because you made a mistake. I personally like the challenge of handling machines that are difficult to master but, as a hobby pilot with 3 kids and a wife who depend on me for their welfare, it would be absolutely dumb on my part to fly anything that would punish me by death for being inexperienced. Why shouldn't I stack the odds in my favor? This choice was not obvious 20 years ago, and I don't blame Dennis or anyone for this. But today, the choice is known.

Udi

[route66]

This choice was not obvious 20 years ago, and I don't blame Dennis or anyone for this. But today, the choice is known.

I typed for about 30 minutes and you said it with so few words. Thanks Udi.

[gyroplanes]

As one of Air Commands leading dealers in the 1980's, I had the great fortune to meet people that would become some of my closest friends.
I also had the greater misfortune of losing some of my new friends.

I have some additional info on each of these crashes.




Report #3;
Name:.....................James F. Gear
Date:......................01/01/2003
Location:.................Lansing, IL
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..UNKNOWN
Winds:....................16 gusts to 21
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training. Factor to the
.............................accident was the wind gusts. .

I witnessed this fatality. The pilot had recently soloed himself, on a very calm day, without his instructor's consent. The fatality occured at our club's Polar Bear event on Jan 1st. He claimed he had no intention of flying and was going to taxi his gyro down to the party. With his seatbelt and helmet unfastened, he took of on a very gusty day and was dead within seconds.




Report #4;
Name:.....................Anthony Spagnoletti
Date:......................09/12/1999
Location:.................Conroe, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................582 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:.10 (Not flown one year prior to accident)
Winds:...................Calm
Cause of Accident:...Pilot's failure to acquire proper training..

I believe the brother of the accident pilot is a member of this forum.



Report #11;
Name:.....................Charles R. May
Date:......................01/15/1991
Location:.................Tomahawk, WI
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................503 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....UNKNOWN
Training Time:..........NONE
Total Hours in Type:.12
Winds:...................2
Cause of Accident:...Factor to the accident pilot loss of control, had no
............................goggles and had ¼” of ice buildup over his eyes and
............................face after ground impact..

I spoke to a customer of mine that witnessed this accident. It's true about the icing. It was one of his first actual flights in the gyro.




Report #14;
Name:.....................Guerra Oscar J, Jr.
Date:......................02/17/1990
Location:.................Hearne, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................447 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........6.5
Total Hours in Type:..7 (First solo flight)
Winds:....................Calm
Cause of Accident:....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training..

I witnessed this fatality at the PRA convention, as did many others. This accident helped lead to the P.A.S.S. card system at the PRA conventions.



Report #15;
Name:.....................Julian A. Sheimo
Date:......................01/22/1990
Location:.................Munster, IN
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................532 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:..13
Winds:....................12
Cause of Accident:....Pilot making advanced maneuvers showing off beyond
.............................his ability..

This was only his second pattern after 2 or 3 runway passes. His instructor, John Potter, told him NOT to leave the runway. He wasn't ready for a pattern.



Report #17;
Name:.....................William E. Fifer
Date:......................11/13/1988
Location:.................Sullivan, IL
Killed:......................1
Type:......................503 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........6
Total Hours in Type:...6 (First flight solo, not flown 4 months after training)
Winds:.....................12
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training. .

I talked to a family member who told me that the pilot wasn't comfortable flying a gyro yet. He decided to "try it" solo.



Report #19;
Name:.....................Robert M. Heibel
Date:......................09/21/1988
Location:.................Cottage Grove, WI
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Two-Place SXS
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........3
Total Hours in Type:...8
Winds:.....................8
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and pilots
..............................failure to meet the manufacturers requirement to have
..............................a minimum of 50 hours in type before attempt to fly
..............................532 Commander Two-Place solo. .

If I remember correctly, the accident pilot had only a pattern or two of dual in this machine with an instructor that had only flown an A&S 18-A. I believe this crash was on his first solo and without his instructors permission. A customer of mine witnessed this accident.




Report #21;
Name:.....................Jerome Lamb
Date:......................11/04/1987
Location:.................Meriden, CT
Killed:......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........8
Total Hours in Type:...9
Winds:.....................9
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and failure to
..............................control aircraft. .

Jerome was a great guy but didn't want to come all the way back to Lansing for more training. (I don't think he had anywhere near the 8 hours listed, maybe 1 or 2)He had a local gyro pilot that was going to "watch him" and guide him through. According to a witness that I talked to, his local guy was late and Jerry decided to fly the runway, he "over ran his blades" and rolled into the ground on rotation.




Report #22;
Name:.....................John L. Watts, SR.
Date:......................07/27/1987
Location:.................Davenport, IA
Killed;......................1
Type:......................532 Commander Elite
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:...13
Winds:.....................18 gusting to 26
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training, and flying in
..............................high winds beyond his ability. .

Watts was another great guy. John had free training with his purchase. Sadly, John was having a real bad time overcontrolling the gyro. He was supposed to come back and fly with our CFI some more,(a forum member) but decided to try it at home. I talked to an eyewitness who described severe overcontrolling and bunt. I really doubt this training time as well. I think he only flew with us for 2 afternoons (John, do you recall?)




Report #24;
Name:.....................David P. Langr
Date:......................05/15/1988
Location:.................Dodge Center (Minnesota) (TM added)
Killed:......................1
Type:......................447 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:......NONE
Training Time:...........NONE
Total Hours in Type:...5
Winds:.....................12
Cause of Accident:.....Pilot's failure to acquire proper training. .

David got only enough dual to give him the urge to try it alone. His dual was free, but he never came back for the rest of his training. David called me the day before his fatal accident and told me he was flying and doing wing-overs. I encouraged him to come back for more free lessons and not to fly. The next day his hangar partner called to tell me he died doing a wing-over.

The accident that Chuck Roberg referred to was also witnessed. The witnesses told me that the accident pilot said he wasn't going to fly, but did takeoff and then started zooming around the hangars at very low altitude. He waved to a taxiing airplane and nosedived into the ground. It was his first flight of the Spring and only the second in this gyro.

Dave had purchased this gyro for his son. Dave had every intention of converting it to NCLT and installing stabs over the winter. When Dave bought this gyro he test flew it. He was all over the sky, bobbing, weaving and frightening us all. Dave said after landing "This sure is different than MY gyro".
As Chuck said, it was a 532 Air Command without a pod or horizontal stabs (The 532 Air Command he flew regularly had both)

I have posted these painful memories, not to disparage the accident victims (by any means), but with hope that the new pilots out there will see the commonality in these accidents. Each of these was a very, very painful event in my life.

[gyroplanes]

What I find interesting is that none of the listed pilots had more than 23 hours of total time in type. This would suggest one of 2 conclusions:


After about 25 hours in type, pilots become immune to PIO/PPO accidents
After about 25 hours in type, pilots stop flying this aircraft


I am sure the reality is a combination of both, nobody really knows. How many pilots on this forum have more than 25 hours in the original no-stab Fetters A/C (other than Dennis, please... anyone?)
Udi

Udi,
I have sold over 40 Air Commands in my time and flown a few. Several of the sales I made ended in fatal accidents, most of the remainder are still flying and some have amassed hundreds of hours of flight time. Only the most recent sales aircraft were converted to NCLT. Our club once had over 10 "Classic" Air Commands and all of them flew well over the mystical 25 hours.

Having said that, I would never recommend anything less than a properly stabbed and / or NCLT design gyro for any beginner.

[fiveboy]

Tom I think what you have outlined is an important public service.... esp for those newbies who lurk here and see dissension and conflicting info.

Fetters may be many things, but a pinata should not be one of them IMO. Yes he seems stubborn and opinionated, but he holds no more culpability than someone who sells ladders or meat cleavers and he is a passionate pioneer & survivor in this endeavor.

The modern design characteristics that seem to have been proven safer and the need for training is irrefutable. The rest is on the pilot/student. Caveat Emptor.

If we learn from them, these pilots did not die totally in vain.

Thanks Tom.

[DennisFetters]

What I find interesting is that none of the listed pilots had more than 23 hours of total time in type. This would suggest one of 2 conclusions:


After about 25 hours in type, pilots become immune to PIO/PPO accidents
After about 25 hours in type, pilots stop flying this aircraft

Udi

You know Udi, your post really disappoints me, and merely shows everyone how uninformed and inexperienced you are in the history of gyroplanes.

There was a day that the roar of Air Commands even were heard over the Mac. There was a day when you would go to a gyroplane air-show and see the flight line, and more than half were Commanders. People actually had difficulty finding their own Commander because of so many to choose from.

That was a very uneducated and uninformed comment, and has no purpose or value even being said.

[DennisFetters]

Why would anyone have mounted a Rotax upside down?

Ignoring all the other fluff of your post, I'm sure you plainly remember that 95% of all Ultralight manufacturers of that day mounted their Rotax engines with the plugs down, and did so before and long after I was on the Rotax scene, you just don't want to admit to it so your statement can be more dramatic, which is again deceiving people here. You are becoming very prolific at doing that these days.

In fact, so did the Canadians that developed the Rotax engine for aircraft use. They said back then it made no difference.

So your statement is full of crap, just like you.

Aside from exacerbating the CG problem, the design of the main bearing lubrication scheme is defeated; there are catch troughs under the cylinder transfer passages that feed condensed oil to the main bearings via drilled passages.

You don't know what you are talking about. Those holes feed no condensed oil to the bearings during operation. There is no condensed oil in the engine during running, because the turbulent volume of ingested fuel and air mix is at such a speed that it will not allow condensing of anything. Just as much air and oil go through those holes during running plugs up or plugs down due to internal pressures pushing it through.

Those holes are to allow any condensed oil to run into the bearings after shutdown and cool down. It will provide additional lubrication for startup, and better protection from rust, if you are using the right oil. But, this is not necessary for safe running of the engine, which can run for as long plugs down as plugs up, if you jet the engine properly and not too rich, as too many people do. This is true, because I have achieved very long duration of a Rotax both ways, as well as my customers so long as they follow instructions.

Oil collects in the spark plugs and causes fouling and hard starting.

Then you are running your engine too rich. That is the main cause of Rotax engines braking down early. If you jet your engine correctly, then you do not have enough oil buildup to foul the plugs. The aviation field has been doing this for 30 years now. If it does occur, and it has to me maybe twice in all the thousands of hours I have flown Rotax engines in this configuration, then its no big deal to pop the plugs and blow them off, and then find out why it happened and correct that problem before it carbons up your engine. Besides, I have had costumers foul their plugs on Rotax engines that I designed to be plugs up, like on the Mini-500.


With water cooled Rotax engines, there are blind pockets in the water jackets that collect air and various gasses that are normally dissolved in the water and cause overheating. Water jacket blind pockets need to be vented from their high points to a header tank; otherwise, purging is virtually impossible and even if successful, it won’t stay purged very long.

Sure, unless you are using my cooling system and reservoir specifically designed to eliminate that problem in the Commander. With my cooling system in place on the 532 or 582 Commander, no one has ever had a problem, unless it was something else wrong with the engine making it overheat, which would still be a problem with any type of cooling system.

My cooling system was so efficient that the temperature would never get about 180F, with 140F to 160F being the normal operating temperature. It was designed to allow enough water flow so that its own turbulence would collect any pockets of air automatically and expel it to the reservoir. You could fly the Commander with the radiator cap off indefinitely and at full power, and it would never get above 180F, and therefor never reach a boiling temperature, so no, we didn't have that problem.

Once again Chuck, I don't know if its your ignorance or blatant deceitfulness that said these things, but once again the people can know the real facts. Lets keep it up, I appreciate your help.

[danmcgee]

I just wanted to say this, I have been on the forume now for just a few months and the amount of information on here is at some time overwhelming to say the least. It does bother me some as a new gyro guy with zero flight time to see such bickering on here however, I have learned the best lesson I have ever learned in just this one thread.

Training, Training, Training oh and did I mention more training. I was not planning on getting no more than 10 hours to start with and then just flying real slow and low for a long time to get better at what I had learned.

I will now invest a great deal more time to training with a CFI and lucky for me I have one of the best here Chris Burgess to do that with.

I would like to thank you all for your comments here on this thread and urg any new gyro guy's (gender not implied) to get the jest of what all of them are really saying bottom line up front "Train to live..Train to fly... or Die".

Dan

[DennisFetters]

I think I do understand your view and in general terms I agree.
I also agree there is no need to go into CLT/HTL comparison unless some misstatement is made about the design and physics of these concepts.
I would however, very much like to point out, that I agree with your statement only to the extent that you would be referring to a dynamically pitch stable HTL machine.
If in your examples we assume the HTL machine (or even CLT machine) is dynamically pitch unstable than I strongly disagree with some of the statements in your post.
I am not qualified to describe the pitch dynamics of the classic commanders. Nor do I know the results of a double-hang test on a classic commander or commanders with various AirCommand options (external fuel tanks, pods, the stock hstab ) or even worse 3rd party and owner modifications. But there are people here on the forum that are qualified to do so.
I don't know, but I suspect that you give the classic commanders more credit for stability then they deserve, through no fault of your own but "because you are too close to the trees to see the forest".
You have more experience with these machines (commanders) then anyone on the planet. You have built and flown more of them than anyone. Your uncousious nervous system can likely fly an entire circuit without bothering your conscious brain. I feel it is that very over-experience that is working against your critique of the machines pitch stability.
I dearly loved my 447 commander. I have never had as much fun in any gyro, than that machine. I wish I had one in my hangar right now ( but with a 503 or 582 if you know what I mean). However, the first thing I would do after acquiring another classic commander would be to modify it so that it was dynamically pitch stable and highly PIO/PPO resistant.
With a PIO/PPO resistant commander I could make all of the same great nimble maneuvers but without the danger of making a mistake that would take my life in a PPO.
I do not forget, what does not get mentioned enough, that I had a STOCK Air Command horiztonal stabliser on my machine. Nor I have heard you ever tell anyone that an hstab is a detriment in any way.

Tim, I had answered this post, but then something happened in by browser and lost it all. I'll answer it again later, after the discouragement phase passes.

[gyroplanes]

I remember most of the Rotax applications were plugs down mounting in the early years, and it wasn't just gyros.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had a lot of exposure to Rotax engines through my dealership with Air Command (and later with SnoBird) Overheating was never an issue with any Rotax engines in my circle of friends/customers. (not because of me either) They proved to be very reliable engines with little or no care given to them.


We did find several 532 rotary valve shaft seals installed backwards from the factory.

We experienced many RV shaft leaks due to shaft wear (Rotax later upgraded the shaft)

Cracking of exhaust systems (most due to poor mounting of the system)

(1) Rotax 532 main bearing failure due to improper warm-up in severe cold weather

And, mini seizures of the cylinders on the 532 (only) This disappeared when the 532 was mounted plugs up.

[barnstorm2]

Tim, I had answered this post, but then something happened in by browser and lost it all. I'll answer it again later, after the discouragement phase passes.

I have had that happen to me also a few times. Very aggravating.


.

[Udi]

Dennis - I am sorry to disappoint you and I sure don't claim to be expert in gyroplane history. I do understand however a thing or two about gyroplane aerodynamics and it is disappointing to me that you are not able to see the correlation between gyroplane design and gyroplane safety. Period. History is history. If your nephew or grand son were to start flying gyros tomorrow, which design would you recommend for them if the choice was between a classic A/C, a classic A/C with a stab, and a CLT A/C with a stab? Regardless, I am grateful to you for bringing this subject up for public discussion. I believe that anyone with half a brain and no preconceived notions would benefit from reading this thread. So, in a sense, you are really doing good service for the gyro community.

Udi

[fiveboy]

...Training, Training, Training oh and did I mention more training. I was not planning on getting no more than 10 hours to start with and then just flying real slow and low for a long time to get better at what I had learned.

I will now invest a great deal more time to training with a CFI and lucky for me I have one of the best here Chris Burgess to do that with.
Dan

Dan you are getting the most important message on this forum!

I flew with Chris for three years before I even would think about getting my own gyro. I then flew a whole other season with Chris in back of my machine.

I can tell you a few things about him.


He is the best damn teacher you could hope for.
He is totally committed to keeping you alive.
Unless you are some kind of wunderkind prodigy, I doubt Chris is going to sign you off for solo in ten hours.... which means you are suicidal if you do it (dont jump me everyone this is my heartfelt opinion based on my experience).


TRAIN Dan and then join us in having an amazing time while staying alive.

(Chris if I have made a false representation please email me and Ill retract it immediately)

[DennisFetters]

Dennis - I do understand however a thing or two about gyroplane aerodynamics and it is disappointing to me that you are not able to see the correlation between gyroplane design and gyroplane safety. Period.

But there is where you are wrong again. Obviously you are not reading my posts.

You have no way to know what I know or what I don't know. One thing is for sure, I have managed to design and fly my own aircraft, and build a factory and manufacture my designs. In fact, I have done this 3 different times now with three different aircraft and three different factory's/shops. So I too, obviously know a thing or two, and three or four about aircraft and their arodinamics.... period.

Please read my post and understand what I said, and please don't say here what you think I understand, you have no clue.

History is history. If your nephew or grand son were to start flying gyros tomorrow, which design would you recommend for them if the choice was between a classic A/C, a classic A/C with a stab, and a CLT A/C with a stab? Regardless, I am grateful to you for bringing this subject up for public discussion. I believe that anyone with half a brain and no preconceived notions would benefit from reading this thread. So, in a sense, you are really doing good service for the gyro community.
Udi

Any new gyroplane I design will be as close to CLT as it can be, so obviously I would tell anyone that if they had a choice, go with a gyroplane as close to CLT as possible.

But that has not been my point, has it? Read back and understand my point, please.

And I'll add to this, I would have no problem, nor have I ever had a concern about letting friends or family fly a classic Commander so long as they are receiving the proper training. Out of all the people I have trained, and that's hundreds, not one has killed himself or herself in a classic Commander. But then again, my training started out with a long class on why a gyroplane fly's, and then I discussed the dangers and Do's and don'ts, and then after I was satisfied they understood all I was teaching in the classroom, then we would go fly. I never let one go early.

I even tried to talk to Dan of RAF about his thrust-line being too high, and he told me to mind my own business.

OK, here we go..... a little inside my head back then;
The reason I sold Air Command back in the late 1980's was because we had ran into a barrier in how much further we could take the gyroplane in performance without going over the safe limits of propeller thrust verses Center of Mass relationship. The Super-Thruster 68" propeller option was the limit. I just didn't pick 68" out of the air, there was that reason.

Back then, in my book, I was at a standstill in the gyroplane design and performance. I could not make it better, and I could not go with a larger propeller because of hight restrictions. The only option was to do like the others and go with a spindly looking erector-set hight CM ugly gyroplane that I knew would never sell good (and I was right), or come up with some radical new idea, which I tried and tried to conceive. I looked at ducted, counter-rotating, you name it.... all had too many drawbacks. So, when the Mini-500 project presented itself, I decided to go a different direction which had more growth opportunities.

Now Udi, does it really sound like "I am not able to see the correlation between gyroplane design and gyroplane safety"? I got out of gyroplanes for that reason.

It was only until recently I came up with a solution with no drawbacks, and allows me to design a machine that is not only perfect CLT, but esthetically pleasing, racy, practical and more importantly, sellable. I wish I would have thought about it back then.

Unfortunately I am not ready to make the announcement of this development, and only a handful of trusted, and contracted to keep quite people know of it, because it is only in a patent-pending stage of development. If and when I do something, I'll let you guys know.

But again, none of this was the point of what I was trying to say.

[automan1223]

Make mistakes from time to time. Low time and student pilots make them a lot.

I was one of them and thankfully had a forgiving gyro that did not kill me for my first oops moment.


J

[DennisFetters]

Make mistakes from time to time. Low time and student pilots make them a lot.

I was one of them and thankfully had a forgiving gyro that did not kill me for my first oops moment.
J

I believe the point in this thread is that the first "oops" was trying to fly an aircraft without training.

Just because you make an oops after you finished instruction does not mean you will die, or we all would be dead.

[DennisFetters]

I am very sorry it has taken me so long to answer your post. As I said, I did answer it, but when posting my browser froze and I lost everything. I got a little busy afterwords, and only now had found the time to give your post the proper time it deserves.

If in your examples we assume the HTL machine (or even CLT machine) is dynamically pitch unstable than I strongly disagree with some of the statements in your post. I am not qualified to describe the pitch dynamics of the classic commanders. Nor do I know the results of a double-hang test on a classic commander or commanders with various AirCommand options (external fuel tanks, pods, the stock hstab ) or even worse 3rd party and owner modifications. But there are people here on the forum that are qualified to do so.

Then I can clear that up right now. A HCLT gyroplane is NOT dynamically pitch stable as is a CLT gyroplane. I never said it was. I do not dispute the fact that a CLT gyroplane is inherently more dynamically pitch stable. What I am saying is that the HCLT gyroplane has some different characteristic than a CLT, and with the proper training, you can safely fly that HCLT gyroplane in any condition you can a CLT, providing pilot experience is met. That is all I ever said. That is an undisputable proven part of history, so why is that being disputed here?

So, why do I say that a dynamically pitch unstable HCLT Air Command is still safe to fly? I already posted that answer in another thread, so I’ll just copy it and quote myself;

On the Air Command gyroplane, the Center Line of Thrust could be 8" off the aircrafts' Center of Mass, and still be flown safe. That is why the 68" Super-Thruster prop-kit and mast was as large of a diameter as we could go, and still have it as a bolt-on option to the standard Commander airframe. But, this was only if you used it's only approved rotorsystem... The McCutchen blades and hub bar. Why? Because this heavy rotorsystem kept the aircraft Center of Mass within the limits, and this rotorsystem was heavy enough to provide the proper amount of mass far enough from the aircraft Center of Mass so that if the throttle was rapidly advanced or decreased, the static inertia of the rotorsystem weight was great enough to prevent harsh pitch-over movements from occurring from the offset thrust-line at a rate safe enough for the pilot to easily control. In fact, to a point where it is hardly noticed and became a natural reflex action, and then only needing to correct the most extreme levels of action.

Now, was this a perfect solution? No, but it was the best solution at the time that allowed the gyroplane to break out of the rut it was in using Mac time-bomb engines and VW anchors. There is rarely a perfect solution for anything, just like today’s high Center of Mass CLT gyroplanes have different drawbacks. But it’s the best thing available, but at the cost of a greatly reduced gyroplane community from what we had up until I sold my company Air Command in the late 1980’s, because the masses will not buy them.

I don't know, but I suspect that you give the classic commanders more credit for stability then they deserve, through no fault of your own but "because you are too close to the trees to see the forest". You have more experience with these machines (commanders) then anyone on the planet. You have built and flown more of them than anyone. Your uncousious nervous system can likely fly an entire circuit without bothering your conscious brain. I feel it is that very over-experience that is working against your critique of the machines pitch stability. With a PIO/PPO resistant commander I could make all of the same great nimble maneuvers but without the danger of making a mistake that would take my life in a PPO.

I guess you need to know what the performance level was that designer was after when creating any aircraft. I was coming into an existing gyroplane market that had been around longer than I had been alive. I knew to get into the markets door, and to survive, I had to have something dramatic and far ahead of anything else. I knew this with the few years of exposure to gyroplanes I already had trying to introduce the Bensen approved Rotax engine installation. The old-boys in this market were brutal, with no mercy. The last thing they wanted was some young punk showing up and upsetting their little way of life they had established over the years. THEY were the kings of the hill, and the hilltop was FULL.

So my mission was to design the most easily built, versatile and complete kit ever. I also wanted to kick the butt of anything out there in performance and be the most maneuverable aircraft in the world. That was my goal, and I believe I accomplished it hands down, and that is how I advertised it. No, the Commander is no wimpy fluffy foofoo gyro with a cup-holder. It is a world class performer that will do circles around the best that you have today, and that was how I designed it be, and that is how I fly them. Yes, they require more training to fly, but after you have the training, they are as easy to fly as any gyroplane. But, that is why I have always been so harsh with my warnings. Anyone can safely fly a Commander so long as they have the proper training and fly within their abilities, as required with any aircraft. I would say in normal flying it’s like a Cessna, but lay onto the stick and it’s like a Pitts, and that was the goal, and advertised as so.

I do not forget, what does not get mentioned enough, that I had a STOCK Air Command horiztonal stabliser on my machine. Nor I have heard you ever tell anyone that an hstab is a detriment in any way.

Absolutely a Commander with a vertical stabilizer is more stable than one without, and that is why we sold them. But, an open-frame Commander with no stabilizer can be safely flown, so long as the pilot has been properly trained. That is a 30 year old fact. No, it is not as stable, and no, if you always flew one with a stab and were never trained to fly one without a stab, then don’t, because its a different aircraft with different flying characteristics! Get dual trained to fly one first!!

I always liked flying a Commander with no stab because it was more maneuverable, and so do many others. Nowadays I like the pod, more comfortable flying with the wind off me.

In closing, I can only say that the Commander was a great success, and I am proud to have been its designer and manufacturer. It never deserved the bad rap it has received here over these years, and this accident report once and for all proves it. I have to thank Chuck for this vindication, for without his pushing the matter, I would not have taken the time to compile the information supported by facts, even though the results were not what he wanted.

My thanks to everyone else that added supporting information.

[StanFoster]

Dennis- I still say the most unstable part of flying ANY gyroplane is a tense pilot with a ham fisted cyclic grip. I feel that training is very important to get rid of as much of this tenseness as possible.

I loved the way my Air Command flew...I had the upside down engine..did have an extended tail and a stab on it of course...but once I changed out the engine to a 582, I finally had me a nice cross country machine, and one I flew to Mentone in. If I were to own another gyro...I would prefer another Air Command just like I had. That is my honest opinion.


Stan

[fiveboy]

As I have mentioned, I fly one of the newer (2004) CLT Commander Tandems, with the tall tail and HS. I love it. It is always stable and very controllable and has 0 tendency to PIO.

[Paul Salmon, MD]

When I first started flying gyroplanes, I had the good fortune of having Greg Gremminger as my instructor. He pushed safety to the forefront in training, and still does. Early on in my training I wanted to know what particular events/circumstances resulted in accidents/fatality in gyroplanes. I went to the NTSB web site and performed a search on gyro accidents, there database went back into the early sixties if I remember correctly. What was overwhelmingly apparent was the majority of accidents due to inadequate training/ pilot error. I was struck by the number of people that were killed on their first solo on a gyro. Some had thousands of hours of fixed wing time, but no gyro training and promptly killed themselves. The number of accidents due to mechanical failure was miniscule by comparison. This actually was a relief to me, it told me that with proper training, you could significantly reduce your odds of becoming a statistic.

Dennis,

Next time I am in Corona, I'd like to take you for a ride on the Magni. I will likely return in the fall to fly KTLA/KiiS-FM's Helicopter with Chuck Street. Let me know if you are interested.

Paul Salmon

[Dean_Dolph]

As one of Air Commands leading dealers in the 1980's, I had the great fortune to meet people that would become some of my closest friends.
I also had the greater misfortune of losing some of my new friends.

I have some additional info on each of these crashes.......

Originally Posted by DennisFetters
Report #4;
Name:.....................Anthony Spagnoletti
Date:......................09/12/1999
Location:.................Conroe, TX
Killed:.....................1
Type:.....................582 Commander
Rotorcraft Rating:.....NONE
Training Time:..........UNKNOWN
Total Hours in Type:.10 (Not flown one year prior to accident)
Winds:...................Calm
Cause of Accident:...Pilot's failure to acquire proper training.

I believe the brother of the accident pilot is a member of this forum.
Hmm, Tom, Anthony Spagnoletti would be very surprised to know that he is deceased!

It was actually his twin brother, Joe, that was killed in the incident; the aircraft was registered to Anthony.

There is no doubt in my mind that lack of training was the cause of this incident. And was the incentive that drove Chapter 62 to attempt to create a standardized training system.

Anthony, as a lot of Forum members know, is a heck of a stick and had/has tons of hours in a gyro and specifically the one that crashed. But, and it is a big but, I witnessed Anthony flying that machine at the Baloonaire Festival at NASA one year. I was standing next to Doug O'Connor who some will remember for flying his SnoBird from Galveston Texas to Canada in 1996. Anthony made a low pass by the crowd and when I saw Anthony vigorously working the cyclic, I asked Doug if that was normal and was told not really!

I'll throw in my usual disclaimer here, for those that don't know, that I'm not a gyro pilot. But, after 45+ years of exposure to gyros, I feel I have an understanding of what stable should be and what I witnessed was very scary.

There is no doubt in my mind that training is part of the two legged support that a gyro pilot needs to enjoy safe gyro flight. But, design is the equally important second leg and to dismiss it as not being part of the problem leaves me speechless and that is hard to do! I wish I could remember Jay Carter’s quote that has been used on this forum before since it seems to apply.

[DennisFetters]

Hmm, Tom, Anthony Spagnoletti would be very surprised to know that he is deceased!.

I double-checked the FAA accident report. It says that the registered owner and operator of the aircraft in the accident was a Anthony Spagnoletti, so until the FAA corrects this I have to leave the report as is.

It was actually his twin brother, Joe, that was killed in the incident; the aircraft was registered to Anthony. I'll throw in my usual disclaimer here, for those that don't know, that I'm not a gyro pilot.

There is no doubt in my mind that training is part of the two legged support that a gyro pilot needs to enjoy safe gyro flight. But, design is the equally important second leg and to dismiss it as not being part of the problem leaves me speechless and that is hard to do!

You are correct, you are not a gyro pilot, which is all the difference in the world, as Spagnoletti unfortunately found out, and no amount of exposure in the world will replace accusal hands-on training.

To try and dismiss the fact that hundreds of trained gyro pilots have been flying over 1000 Air Commands for the past 30 years without being killed should leave me speechless, but instead I'll stand on the fact that it offers proof-positive that the Air Command is a safe aircraft to fly, so long as it is in the hands of a properly trained pilot, as with any aircraft, and that has been my exact point all along.

OK, I'll admit that we failed to design it with an on-board scanner where you would place your logbook where recognition software would recognize that you were qualified to fly before allowing the engine to start.

OK, I'll admit that we failed to install an EKG machine on-board to make sure you were physically fit before allowing the engine to start, and not about to have a heart-attack.

OK, I'll admit that we failed to install an on-board stabilizing augmentation system hooked up to a brain-wave analyzer that would recognize that a under-trained pilot was trying to demo his Commander for sale, and automatically limit his maneuvers to only 10 degrees.

OK, I'll admit that we failed to install an on-board de-icing device that would blow in the pilots face if he decided to fly in an ice-storm.

These devices may have saved the life's of some of the 25 people involved other than training, but that extreme is the only thing that may have saved them.

For my failure to implement these devices, I do apologize, if that is what you want to hear.

[Racer]

Dennis, Your classic Air Commands did not even have cup holders OR a place to plug in an iPod! :noidea:

[gyroplanes]

Hey Dennis,
I'm not in charge of the PRA convention, or any part of it, but I'll bet they would like to have you as a featured guest speaker.

I'm sure the current crop of gyronauts would like to see and hear the history of one of the most famous and genre changing gyroplane designs.

If the long distance to Mentone is not workable you ought to consider making a Powerpoint presentation about the history of Air Command. If you can't make the cross continent trip, I'd be happy to show it for you .

[DennisFetters]

Dennis, Your classic Air Commands did not even have cup holders OR a place to plug in an iPod! :noidea:

I didn't think about that....

OK, so no fancy-smancy computerized stabilizing augmentation system or optical readable digital recognition scanner thingy's.

Just going to have to stick to good old-fashion common since.

[DennisFetters]

Hey Dennis,
I'm not in charge of the PRA convention, or any part of it, but I'll bet they would like to have you as a featured guest speaker.

I'm sure the current crop of gyronauts would like to see and hear the history of one of the most famous and genre changing gyroplane designs.

If the long distance to Mentone is not workable you ought to consider making a Powerpoint presentation about the history of Air Command. If you can't make the cross continent trip, I'd be happy to show it for you .
...


No thanks.

[C. Beaty]

Dave DeWinter flies the Little Wing

"It finally happened. After several years, and several fly-ins, I got the chance to take up Ron Herron's offer to fly one of his Little Wings. Ron had his single place (short fuselage) and the new two place (stretched fuselage) machines with him. Ron had just 'finished' the two place and still had a couple of bugs to work out, but the single place was ready for a workout.

The day before the flight, Ron allowed me to taxi the machine over to the FBO to get fuel. It had been several years since I last flew a tail-dragger, but I got it over there in one piece. The left brake, however, wanted to lock up if it was pressed too hard.

Anyway, Saturday morning was to be the day to actually fly the LW. Yeah, I had to use a seat cushion behind my back to adequately reach the rudder/brakes, but what the hell. I'll take the short jokes. LOL

After buckling in, Ron hand propped the VW powerplant. Damn. On powering out of the grass, that left brake locked up. Ron unlocked it and off I went. I figured that I would test it while taxiing and if it did it again during the final left turn to get to the runway, that I'd abort the flight. I 'drug' the brake a little while going straight to help clean out some of the rust that builds up on those brakes when they sit for awhile. It didn't lock up for those two last left turns, so it was a go.

I planned to bring up the rotor nice and slow and at the same time, check out the directional control. It had Dragon Wing rotors and you DO NOT want to over-run and flap those blades.

The rotor tach didn't work to well so it was pretty much useless to reference. Normally, I look at the blur of the blades to get an idea of speed, but the view out of the LW is quite different than when you're in an open frame machine. More reason to just take my time.

I had thought about just running up the blades down the runway, taxi back, then take-off. That didn't happen. I found that the directional control was a non-issue. The ship tracked straight down the center of the runway without doing anything noticeable on the rudder pedals. May have been a little different if I had been more aggresive on the throttle, but I don't think it would have been a big deal then, either.

As I ran down the runway, passing the Air Boss location, I thought I caught a glimpse of a red flag. Naw, couldn't be!!! It was green when I taxied out to the runway. I was a No Radio flight, so a visual was my only option to confirm it.

I figured the best place to confirm it was in the air. I mean, it had been several years in the making, I couldn't stop now. :) The blades were coming up nicely, I could feel the drag, so I came in with the power. The LW lifted off from the three point attitude just as Ron said it would. Like he would be wrong. LOL

I felt like I was in a tamed down Cub. Even the Cub requires more work to stay straight. I climbed up a couple hundred feet and turned left crosswind, then for a left downwind. Yeah, I know, the gyros were supposed to be on a 'right' pattern and I just plain ole forgot. My Bad.

I left the downwind and went out and played a little bit. Feet flat on the floor, left elbow resting on the window ledge, and the left hand just resting on my leg, and the Little Wing just cruised straight and level. Give the cyclic a nudge left or right and it just banks into a coordinated turn with no surprise.

Push or pull the cyclic and let go and the LW just simply returns to straight and level. If anyone could possibly PIO a LW, they need not be flying. The LW is simply the most pitch stable gyro I've ever flown.

After playing around for awhile, it was time for a pass down the runway to test the wind conditions. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

Yep, the red flag is out. The Jump Take-off contest was getting ready to start. But there sure was a crowd around Ron's Little Wing display area. I think they could all see my smile as I "checked out the wind" on the low pass.

There was still plenty of runway ahead to land, but on a first flight, I decided the best thing to to was to go around and set up properly for a landing. That's also my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

So, I flew ANOTHER Left pattern and landed. Another non 'event'. I thought I flared a little high, but the people on the ground said it looked great to them. Who am I to argue with them!
Dave DeWinter flies the Little Wing

As I taxied up to the LW display area, a large crowd had gathered. As I SLOWLY rolled off the pavement and onto the grass, the crowd all took two steps back. From my view it was really funny to see. I mean, I rolled off the pavement about as slow as you possible could, but just the fact that it was off the pavement made the on-lookers step back.

I shut down the engine and that's when the questions started flying. (pun not intended) Questions such as, "What was it like? Was it hard? What had you been flying?", etc.

Well, I just have to say that it was the most docile flying machine I had ever flown, including fixed and rotor wing. It was also the easiest machine to fly. Why? Because it was designed and built RIGHT!!

And all day long, people were asking about the flight. I don't think Ron knew that he had such a following, read 'interest', for his machines. To those of you building them, you are NOT going to be disappointed.

And yes, I did see the Air Boss about my flight during the Red Flag. But it was all worth it!! Gave me a smile the rest of the day.

Dave DeWinter, Lovejoy, Ga."
This is Dave DeWinters account of his first flight of the Little Wing LW-3 autogyro, which took place at the 2002 P.R.A. International Fly-In at Waxahatchie, Texas. It was posted on the Rotorcraft Forum, and is reprinted here with Dave's permission.

Dave is an A&P mechanic, Flight Instructor, and built and flown an RV-6, Bensen Gyrocopter, and a Dominator gyro. He is currently contemplating his next project.


I imagine the LW's blade tips also spin at 280 mph or whatever.

[DennisFetters]

Dave DeWinter flies the Little Wing
I imagine the LW's blade tips also spin at 280 mph or whatever.

Sure. I have read stories just like this one, just substitute the aircraft with a Bensen, Air Command or whatever. Some people turn out lucky, and they then have nothing but good things to say....

Even Dominator's crash, and people die. Where's the stories from those people?

[Dean_Dolph]

I double-checked the FAA accident report. It says that the registered owner and operator of the aircraft in the accident was a Anthony Spagnoletti, so until the FAA corrects this I have to leave the report as is.This is just another example of how far FAA reports can be trusted.To try and dismiss the fact that hundreds of trained gyro pilots have been flying over 1000 Air Commands for the past 30 years without being killed should leave me speechless, but instead I'll stand on the fact that it offers proof-positive that the Air Command is a safe aircraft to fly, so long as it is in the hands of a properly trained pilot, as with any aircraft, and that has been my exact point all along.Dennis, you'll have to point out where I dismissed what accomplished pilots have done. What I was pointing out is that design is a very important factor in flying gyros safely along with adequate training.

You don't know me and I don't know you although I've been on the fringes of discussions, that you were involved in, several times over the years; I wasn't impressed. You are in extreme denial of the flaws in your design and there is nothing that anyone can do to help you. And you don't have to be a pilot to understand and recognize those flaws.

[C. Beaty]

I wonder why the suicidal partially trained/untrained dummies stay away from stable gyros.

One guy that jumped into a Dominator without knowing how to fly managed to kill himself when he ran into a tree. But he didn’t tumble out of the air.

After Red Smith picked up Air Command from the Pearson Brothers of Daytona Beach, his sons had Larry Neal redesign it along Dominator lines and as far as I know, there has not been a fatality.

[DennisFetters]

This is just another example of how far FAA reports can be trusted.Dennis

Tell Chuck that. He's the one that was trying to use numbers against me. I just derailed his plan is all.


You don't know me and I don't know you although I've been on the fringes of discussions, that you were involved in, several times over the years; I wasn't impressed. You are in extreme denial of the flaws in your design and there is nothing that anyone can do to help you. And you don't have to be a pilot to understand and recognize those flaws.

Then you are blind too and refuse to believe the printed facts. But, as you said, you are not a gyro pilot, so.... whatever.

[C. Beaty]

The Brits do a far better job of record keeping than we do.

They record a fatality rate of 27.1/100,000 hours for gyros while the microlight rate is 2/100,000 hours and light general aviation is 1.1/100,000 hours.

A large percentage of the fatalities over that reporting period was in Air Command “Classics.”

Here’s a well written AAIB report regarding causes:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_030918.pdf

[DennisFetters]

One guy that jumped into a Dominator without knowing how to fly managed to kill himself when he ran into a tree. But he didn’t tumble out of the air..

So did some of the ones in the Commander accident report, but there are ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE COMMANDERS THAN THERE WILL EVER BE DOMINATOR'S, but I'm sure that fact was a slight oversight on your part.

After Red Smith picked up Air Command from the Pearson Brothers of Daytona Beach, his sons had Larry Neal redesign it along Dominator lines and as far as I know, there has not been a fatality.

Sure, old Red saw an opportunity and went with it, no one can blame him for that. He made some good money selling those mod kits. But again, there are not near as many CLT Commanders out there as Classics. Besides, most of these people that purchased the CLT mod were already trained Commander pilots that were safely flying, most for years.

I didn't say the CLT mod didn't make them more stable, just unsellable, as Red found out.

Here is an email I received from Paul whom has built and flown both, and has been posting here on the forum for years. He said I could post his email;

From: Paul Piper
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:10 AM
To: Dennis Fetters
Subject: Re: My Air Command

Wow....a stock air command with the inverted engine. truly the flying classic!! Dennis to be totally honest if I built one for myself I would do the same thing. the upright engine,extended keel and CLT just take away from the sporty compact commander.

The engine being upright changes the CG and makes it fell a little top heavy, the extended keel take away from maneuverability and the compact ness and the CLT although has it place it just to ugly! I'm someone that can tell you this in complete honesty as I have flown AC's stock and modified.

I miss my original one I bought off of Your Buddy Tony Stone.....hehe. Stock AC with the inverted grey head 582 and 23' Skywheels. Truly was an enjoyable 5 years of flying in the hill country of SW Texas!

my brother is converting my 8mm and soon I will put them good ol days on YouTube. Thanks for answering my question on the forums

Cheers Paul

But as I said, I am only showing that every crash on the accident report, except for the obvious ones, could have been voided with proper training.

[DennisFetters]

A large percentage of the fatalities over that reporting period was in Air Command “Classics.”


Five were Classic Commanders, and all five were being flown by people with no more than 5 hours of training, and then on very windy days. They all fit right in with the US accident report, right down the line. No training, or not enough, and flying in conditions exceeding their abilities.

There are no Commanders listed in the report you posted. That is a Bensen.

[C. Beaty]

The fatality rate statistics reflect all gyros being flown in the UK during the reporting period.

Most of the discussion in the AAIB report is non-specific as to brand. It’s a good general synopsis for anyone interested in stability.

The total number of things in a survey does not affect rates so long as the database is sufficiently large that an anomaly doesn’t produce a skewing effect.

[DennisFetters]

The fatality rate statistics reflect all gyros being flown in the UK during the reporting period.

Most of the discussion in the AAIB report is non-specific as to brand. It’s a good general synopsis for anyone interested in stability.

The total number of things in a survey does affect rates so long as the database is sufficiently large that an anomaly doesn’t produce a skewing effect.

Sure, but all I am saying is that with proper training, these people could have avoided and accident just like the hundreds have done that did get the proper training.

If the Wright Bothers would have built a better airplane the first time, then maybe people would not have been killed in theirs as well. So, should we dig them up, spat on they're dead bodies and demoralize them and their efforts and successes, because today we have more stable aircraft? It's the best they had at the time, but it still flew.

You are completely off-base with your comments and allegations.

[Doug Riley]

Dennis, the Wright Brothers' planes were horribly unstable, and the fatality rate in them was unbelievable. The Wrights ended up on the sidelines of aviation development very, very quickly and became irrelevant before WWI even started.

I've said in the past, and I will say again, that designing a 1980's gyro in 1980 was no great sin. A "1980's gyro," roughly, is one of the Bensen B-8 configuration, but with a redrive that forces the prop thrustline up so high that the aircraft is prone to PPO in low-G, high-power conditions. Even Bensen himself eventually ignored his classic requirement of CLT (contained in the Bensen manual) and toyed with a Rotax-powered B-8M.

Almost ALL of us had lost the knowledge of CLT and H-stabs that Cierva had created in the 30's. The advent of online access to patent files, and some clever putting-together of 2 + 2 by Chuck Beaty, had set us all straight by around 1990.

Well, almost all. The RAF-2000 was a 1980's gyro whose promoters chose the Wright Brothers route: stick with the old design regardless of the body count and new information, and allow yourself to become irrelevant. Not to pick on any one brand, the KB-3 was much the same; mercifully, few of them were sold.

[DennisFetters]

Dennis, the Wright Brothers' planes were horribly unstable, and the fatality rate in them was unbelievable. The Wrights ended up on the sidelines of aviation development very, very quickly and became irrelevant before WWI even started.

I've said in the past, and I will say again, that designing a 1980's gyro in 1980 was no great sin. A "1980's gyro," roughly, is one of the Bensen B-8 configuration, but with a redrive that forces the prop thrustline up so high that the aircraft is prone to PPO in low-G, high-power conditions. Even Bensen himself eventually ignored his classic requirement of CLT (contained in the Bensen manual) and toyed with a Rotax-powered B-8M.

Almost ALL of us had lost the knowledge of CLT and H-stabs that Cierva had created in the 30's. The advent of online access to patent files, and some clever putting-together of 2 + 2 by Chuck Beaty, had set us all straight by around 1990.

Well, almost all. The RAF-2000 was a 1980's gyro whose promoters chose the Wright Brothers route: stick with the old design regardless of the body count and new information, and allow yourself to become irrelevant. Not to pick on any one brand, the KB-3 was much the same; mercifully, few of them were sold.

My point is still that the classic Commander can be safely flown, as it has been for 30 years now by hundreds of people, with proper training, like what is needed for ANY aircraft. That is the fact, and all the talking and comparing can not change that fact. It can be ignored or attempted to be covered-up, as it was for years here, but it's now back in the knowledge of people where it belongs, and that was all I was trying to achieve.

[MikeBoyette]

I didn't realize Air Command was around in 1979.

[DennisFetters]

I didn't realize Air Command was around in 1979.

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the common usage of rounded figures in ones conversations.

I may, however, have to explain to you about how impolite it is being a little smart-a** with your elders, and how petty it makes you look to others, when you knew perfectly well what I meant in the first place.

[Udi]

My point is still that the classic Commander can be safely flown, as it has been for 30 years now by hundreds of people, with proper training, like what is needed for ANY aircraft.
People can learn to fly the classic commander and their relative safety does improve with training and experience - yes. The argument is not whether the commander can be safe or not. Safety is a relative thing. Flying anything is less safe than staying in bed and watching TV. How safe a given aircraft is should be measured in comparison to other aircraft. People who read your statement above, Dennis, may take it that you think that a stock classic commander is AS SAFE as a Dominator in the hands of a well trained pilot. Is that really what you claim? Most people would find this claim objectionable.

Dennis, would you agree that a modern, stable, gyro design is safer than a stock commander in the hands of a low time pilot? Say, in his first 10 hours of solo? Would you agree that new pilots can safely solo a stable gyro with less hours of instruction than if they were flying unstable gyro?

And the crux of it - Dennis - would you agree with me if I said that a stock classic commander has NARROWER margins of stability and safety than, say, an ugly Dominator?

Udi

[DennisFetters]

People can learn to fly the classic commander and their relative safety does improve with training and experience - yes. The argument is not whether the commander can be safe or not.

There is no argument there at all. Read what I said before. "The classic Commander can be safely flown, as it has been for 30 years now by hundreds of people, with proper training, like what is needed for ANY aircraft. That is the fact".

How safe a given aircraft is should be measured in comparison to other aircraft.

That is not what we have been talking about here. Where have you been?

People who read your statement above, Dennis, may take it that you think that a stock classic commander is AS SAFE as a Dominator in the hands of a well trained pilot. Is that really what you claim? Most people would find this claim objectionable.

That is exactly what I said before. A properly trained classic Commander pilot is AS SAFE as a properly trained Dominator pilot. That's already a 30 years old fact.

But what does that have to do with the purpose of this thread about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report?

Dennis, would you agree that a modern, stable, gyro design is safer than a stock commander in the hands of a low time pilot? Say, in his first 10 hours of solo? Would you agree that new pilots can safely solo a stable gyro with less hours of instruction than if they were flying unstable gyro?

You need to read what I wrote, so I don't have to keep answering so many times.

Yes, I agree. But what does that have to do with the purpose of this thread about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report when the Dominator was not even around then?

And the crux of it - Dennis - would you agree with me if I said that a stock classic commander has NARROWER margins of stability and safety than, say, an ugly Dominator?
Udi

Again, you need to read what I wrote, so I don't have to keep answering so many times.

Yes, I agree. But what does that have to do with the purpose of this thread about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report when the Dominator was not even around then?

[Udi]

That is exactly what I said before. A properly trained classic Commander pilot is AS SAFE as a properly trained Dominator pilot. That's already a 30 years old fact.

But what does that have to do with the purpose of this thread about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report?



Originally Posted by Udi View Post
And the crux of it - Dennis - would you agree with me if I said that a stock classic commander has NARROWER margins of stability and safety than, say, an ugly Dominator?
Udi
Again, you need to read what I wrote, so I don't have to keep answering so many times.

Yes, I agree. But what does that have to do with the purpose of this thread about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report when the Dominator was not even around then?

You don't see the contradiction...? What does it have to do with the purpose of this thread??? Why do you think you are getting so much resistance in this thread? It has to do with the big picture - what this data means. You are trying to convince everyone that the commander can be as safe as a modern gyro when flown by a competent pilot. This is in contradiction with everything that we know about gyros - gyros like the commander have narrower margins of stability and therefore, they cannot be and are not as safe as a modern gyro. This discrepancy between your "point" and what we believe in is the reason this thread hasn't died a long time ago as it should have.

Udi

[DennisFetters]

You don't see the contradiction...? What does it have to do with the purpose of this thread??? Why do you think you are getting so much resistance in this thread? It has to do with the big picture - what this data means. You are trying to convince everyone that the commander can be as safe as a modern gyro when flown by a competent pilot. This is in contradiction with everything that we know about gyros - gyros like the commander have narrower margins of stability and therefore, they cannot be and are not as safe as a modern gyro. This discrepancy between your "point" and what we believe in is the reason this thread hasn't died a long time ago as it should have.
Udi


You know Udi, there is no need to discuss this with you any longer. You don't get it.

[chuter]

Udi gets it.

[DennisFetters]

Udi gets it.

Well, then he's got me totally buffaloed!

Why don't you guys go start your own thread for this debate. This one is about the real causes in the Commander FAA accident report.

[Riff Raf]

I Love my Classic AirCommand with a HS, It flies great. (Thanks Dennis)
But than again I am NOT stupid and nor do I fly beyond my abilities or the aircraft, isn't that what you should do with any aircraft?
This is NOT what I see in some of the reports.
There are a LOT of STUPID people out there! :eek:
If you push anything, anything to it's limit you are asking for trouble in some form be it injury or death.
I have yet to have the feeling in my AC that is going to let go, and or get a mind of it's own and kill me, because IT wants to!
A lot of people just don't get the point, but their opinion is always the best. :puke:
I do see a lot of good in this form, but just as much Bull pucky from the know it all's....... that's to bad.
No wonder Gyro people are a fading away or leaving this form!

[barnstorm2]

From my seat....

(1) Dennis gets it..

(2) Udi gets it

Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to me that Dennis started this thread to demonstrate that the AC record for registered gyroplanes that crashed with fatalities in the US show that untrained or pilots with little gyro-specific training made up the bulk of the accidents.

(1) Dennis gets it..

Dennis (as do many people) seems to feel that a misconception that precipitates out of CLT/HTL discussions is that a HTL machine will have a 'mind of it's own' and rip an experienced pilot out of the air in moments.

Dennis also rightly claims that the AC gyroplanes were a design that was truly revolutionary. It was the first real gyroplane kit for the 'common man', it had and still even now has great curb appeal and met or exceeded the quality and safety of its peers.

The Rotax engine is FAR more 'safe' and reliable then the mac engines used on nearly all kit gyroplanes of the time.

Furthermore, Dennis made strides in pilot education, promotion and the development of our sport with his efforts at AC.

Although some of Dennis' statements later in this thread seem conflicting the purpose of starting this thread was to clear up what some feel is a misconception about the likely hood of experienced gyro-trained pilots killing themselves in a classic commander and at least for me Dennis has achieved that goal with this thread.

A number of people, including myself, have been trying to inject additional point and clarifications into this thread. I think that is where the issues lie.

I wanted to make that point that HTL/CLT is not really the most important issue, but rather the ratio of dynamic/static stability to thrust line off-set.

Along the lines of this issue I find it important to point out that Dennis has repeatedly in the past recommended CLT/Stable gyros to low time pilots and unlike the _ _ _ vendor of what is likely the most dangerous participant in our sport, Dennis not only does not speak against HStabs but he also sold them on many of his stock machines.

The problem / argument comes in when people want to pin Dennis down to saying that the classic commanders are "not as safe" as the modern highly stable CLT gyroplane designs and the cervia designs.

Dennis stresses that the classic AC's are in his opinion/experience as safe as the modern CLT/Highly stable designs in the hands of a properly trained pilot. If you stipulate some conditions with this statement (such as flying withing the safe envelope of this machine, flying one of the more docile AC configurations, etc...) I tend to agree in a general way with this statement*

I understand the desire to "pin Dennis" down to making a statement along the lines of "CLT/Hightly Stable machines are safer" so that nubees will not get a misconception about the known physics of these and similar machines.

However, in Dennis' defense that is not really the original intent and topic of this thread. IMHO this thread was to make a statement about the the classic machines and their place in gyro history.

I am not convinced this is the place to try to do that. And if it was I doubt that I would say anything much different then Dennis if I were in his shoes. From his perspective the machines are safe under the proper constraints.

(2) Udi gets it

The big contention comes in when we start talking about what is 'safe'.

I know UDI and Doug are 100% correct when they speak about the inherent safety of CLT/Near CLT machines that are dynamically stable.

I also know they are correct when they point out that these features help protect the lives of both low-time and experienced gyroplane pilots.

I agree that if we had a time machine to go back to the 1980s and make AC gyros with a more stable design and an improved offset we would have more pilots alive today and a much heather sport. But we can not do that. We can not use 20/20 hindsight to change the past, and the classic AC's deserve credit for what they achieved in their time.

While it is important to educate people in our time that stability and reasonable thrust-lines are important to safety, saving lives and our sport I don't think we have to pin Dennis down and make him state an opinion that he does not believe.

*Lastly, one thing that does not seem to be pointed out in this thread is that not all classic Air Commands are the same.

IMHO, a Classic 447/503 with HStab is reasonably docile. It does not have enough power for you to really get into a high power PIO/PPO situation and the HStab while not large enough to stop a PPO does provide a stabilizing effect. Compared to other gyros of it's time it seems quite well mannered.

On the other hand.. A classic AC with a 582, external fuel tanks, a pod and no HStab is a radically unstable machine with no features to provide stability and PPO protection outside of the gimbal rotorhead and the pilot. With this high of a thrust-line offset and no HStab these machines are potentially as unforgiving and dangerous as even the three letter _ _ _ gyro bunt-o-matics that are the bain of our sport's safety record.

When I read Dennis remarks about safety and performance if I visualise a 503/447 with HStab then I don't have too much of a problem agreeing with his statements.



There are a LOT of STUPID people out there! That's right I said it.:eek:
If you push anything, anything to it's limit you are asking for trouble in some form be it injury or death.

That sounds good on paper but not so much in practice. Even high time pilots are not perfect and can find themselves unexpectedly pushing the envelope. Low-time pilots may not even be aware of the envelope edge.

Because of the nature of the off-set gimbal rotorhead you do NOT receive warning when you pass over the flight envelope of your gyroplane.

You say that you fly 'within the limits' of your gyro but unless you have gone through Greg Gremmingers stability test regime I doubt you actually know what the boundaries are.

Feeling safe is not the same as being safe in a gyroplane.

No wonder Gyro people are a fading away or leaving this form!

I don't see that at all.

Locally, gyros are getting more interest then FWs and have been for the past couple of years. The forum appears to be growing and doing just fine.

The forum members in a very large ratio understand the ramifications of unstable gyroplanes and this education IS making a difference.

.

.

[Resasi]

Here here Tim.

[Thumpernator]

Sure. I have read stories just like this one, just substitute the aircraft with a Bensen, Air Command or whatever. Some people turn out lucky, and they then have nothing but good things to say....


Lucky? The only "luck" involved was being lucky enough to have the opportunity to fly Ron's Little Wing.

[magilla]

This thread is kind of like the designers of the Corvair saying that the Corvair was a safe automobile if you got practice driving it on icy roads and knew how to control it when it tried swapped ends on you...and is as safe as any car on the road today, with the proper training.

1) 1980 was almost 30 years ago. No one designs or builds Corvair rear-engine / aft cg cars anymore, and "Classic Air Commands" are no longer manufactured. WE KNOW BETTER.

That being said, I am having a hard time understanding the PURPOSE of this thread, other than Dennis is posting an accident analysis for Classic Commanders for the psychological purpose of improving his reputation, for posterity's sake, as a seller/designer of gyroplanes.

The main point should have been that TRAINING IS MANDATORY in a gyroplane, be it a Bensen, Brock, Commander, Honeybee, Magni, and yes, even the Little Wing. Now that is a GREAT thread topic.

Dennis could have made that claim using the AGGREGATE NTSB and AIB accident records to show the number of fatalities caused by lack of training across ALL gyroplane brands.

However, since he chose only to include the Classic Air Commands, his purpose behind the thread was merely to improve his reputation, however justly or unjustly earned.

While I cannot fault Dennis for defending his design as a competent design back in the '80s, I find fault in his logic for proffering the argument that his design, over thirty years ago, is as safe as the designs today. WE KNOW BETTER.

Again, sounds like the designer of the Corvair claiming his car is as safe as the cars out now.

And "hear hear" to Dave DeWinter.

Very, very hard to make a safety / stability comparison between a Commander Elite 582 w/ 68" prop and an LW3, 4 or 5. Like a Corvair to a Volvo...

[birdy]

Agree with everythn you said Tim, sept this.
Because of the nature of the off-set gimbal rotorhead you do NOT receive warning when you pass over the flight envelope of your gyroplane.
Ina HTL machine, THE envelope you dont push is G load.
And the offset is the perfect fulltime warning device telln you zactly how the G load situ is.
Or did i just read you rong?

[Graeme Monro]

Dave DeWinter AKA Thumpernator

Now thats a blast from the past. Great to see that name again.

Graeme.

[Doug Riley]

Birdy, could you describe the feedback the gimbal head gives you when the G's get low?

[DennisFetters]

Spencer, if you want to talk about cars, then go start your own thread. That is not what this discussion is about.

That being said, I am having a hard time understanding the PURPOSE of this thread, other than Dennis is posting an accident analysis for Classic Commanders for the psychological purpose of improving his reputation, for posterity's sake, as a seller/designer of gyroplanes.

When I was young, I was having trouble understanding what I was reading too, so I went to summer school one year and that cured the problem. Everything I said in this thread is in plain English, be it a lot of reading, but I figure the avenge 15 year old could understand it. I would suggest its never too late for you to go to night school, if you can't understand what you read.

Yes, I posted this analysis, and it did exactly what it was meant to do, and thats expel the myths that some uneducated, or uninformed, or even lier's were saying about the Commander over these years. It did set history straight, if you like it or not, there are now may properly informed new people on the forum that finally know the truth.

The main point should have been that TRAINING IS MANDATORY in a gyroplane, be it a Bensen, Brock, Commander, Honeybee, Magni, and yes, even the Little Wing. Now that is a GREAT thread topic.

If you want to make a different point, then go start your own thread. This thread, even though you didn't understand it, was to analyze the Air Command accident report, of which we did, and even backed up with second hand testimony.

Dennis could have made that claim using the AGGREGATE NTSB and AIB accident records to show the number of fatalities caused by lack of training across ALL gyroplane brands.

Sorry, I never received your request on what you wanted me to write. Should I consult with you from now on? Well, no, I'll continue to do my own writing.

However, since he chose only to include the Classic Air Commands, his purpose behind the thread was merely to improve his reputation, however justly or unjustly earned.

Duh!

While I cannot fault Dennis for defending his design as a competent design back in the '80s, I find fault in his logic for proffering the argument that his design, over thirty years ago, is as safe as the designs today. WE KNOW BETTER.

I guess you really were not kidding about not understanding... You should go back and read what I wrote again, before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

I didn't start this thread to argue with you or anyone, but to only relay the real and undisputed facts about the Commander accidents in the FAA database, of which I did. I understand you may not like me doing that, despite my facts are correct, but too bad. Its time to get the story straight, and I did.

If you want to go talk about off topics or trying to start a fight, then go elsewhere, and leave this thread for those that want to read the facts about the Commander accident analyzes I posted. Thank you.

[barnstorm2]

Agree with everythn you said Tim, sept this.
Because of the nature of the off-set gimbal rotorhead you do NOT receive warning when you pass over the flight envelope of your gyroplane.
Ina HTL machine, THE envelope you dont push is G load.
And the offset is the perfect fulltime warning device telln you zactly how the G load situ is.
Or did i just read you rong?

No, you read it right, I just wrote it wrong.

I was not trying to address being sensitive to neg-g's and anything that the o.s.g rotorhead would do for that.

I was attempting to speak about the perception of stability and PIO avoidance/sensitivity. Many pilots/machines may not have/give an indication of where the o.s.g. leaves off and the pilot takes over as the stabilizing mechanism.

Does that sound rite?

.

[Chris Burgess]

Maybe off topic, so yell at me!!!!

If the offset is correct for a given configuration/combination rotor system, then no springs are necessary for "some" cruise condition. On some machines I have flown, they require "remarkable" amounts of spring tension to achieve trimmed flight. On those machines, I feel it would be better to fix this issue with an offset that brings the rotor head closer to a no trim spring required condition. In those machines, if a control rod would fail and the head is trimmed downstream of the head itself, ie down at the fork, continued flight would likely become impossible. I am an advocate of trim your control head at the head so failure of a control rod should become a less life threatening event.

[barnstorm2]

I feel it would be better to fix this issue with an offset that brings the rotor head closer to a no trim spring required condition. In those machines, if a control rod would fail and the head is trimmed downstream of the head itself, ie down at the fork, continued flight would likely become impossible. I am an advocate of trim your control head at the head so failure of a control rod should become a less life threatening event.

I have not heard that advise before. It sounds like great advise to me.

I am not sure how much tensh I have on my TS because it is electric adj. I will have to set it to neutral and see how it reacts.

Thanks!

.

[DennisFetters]

Here you guys go, your very own thread to discuss it.
Please leave my thread to its intended topic.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=290719#post290719

[Passin' Thru]

Originally Posted by Chris Burgess
I feel it would be better to fix this issue with an offset that brings the rotor head closer to a no trim spring required condition.
I don't care to sword fight with Zorro, but I must respectfully disagree. When you reduce the offset bias, you reduce the inherent stabilizing function of the offset gimbal head.

I am an advocate of trim your control head at the head so failure of a control rod should become a less life threatening event.
I am in total agreement with that part.
.

[Canadian Rhino]

Reminds me of when Henry Ford was pushed out of control of his new government funded Willow Run plant that was gearing up to make war planes!
It is interesting reading about how he was single handedly going to end the war and how his tried and trusted expertise was simply unmatched etc.
At that point he had lots of money but wanted to work on his legacy.
It appears as though he wanted the world to know that he could make a bomber class aircraft out of a model A car!
Dennis are you saying that the reliable Edsel and hot Pinto are good and you are now bringing out the new reliable fire proof Crown Victoria?
What ever you call your new gyro i would have serious issues buying it after reading this 4 pages of what ever it can be called.
You have to expect some feathers to fly when you step on toes or claws that belong to other winged forum members which you have done.
You started this thread to gain credability as far as I can tell but with your lashing back you have lost ground in my oppinion for what its worth.:der:

[C. Beaty]

You underestimate the gullibility of the general public, Rhino.

[DennisFetters]

Dennis are you saying that the reliable Edsel and hot Pinto are good and you are now bringing out the new reliable fire proof Crown Victoria?:

If you want to know what I said, then just read what I wrote. How hard is that?

to gain credability as far as I can tell but with your lashing back you have lost ground in my oppinion for what its worth.:der:

So, in your little world, its OK for me to be lashed at, but I'm the bad guy when I lash back? Then your opinion is warped.

For those that are truly interested, I really didn't want this important thread to be contaminated by the same people that always try to hide the facts with throwing this pollution on top to confuse the true issues. I have asked the moderator to clean it up, but looks like he's away or something.

[birdy]

Birdy, could you describe the feedback the gimbal head gives you when the G's get low?
Yes.
Why?

[gyronut]

Dennis-I would not be concerned with these same losers that have taken on themselves to destroy the gyro sport---Facts scare them to death-it destroys all their arguments!!!This sport was going great guns when I got involved.It was really taking off---but these same few jerks put a stop to that!!!!I have owned a standard Air Command with 503 and stab--all I can say is thank you!!!!!A real dream machine---The best!!!!You would have to try to hurt yourself in it-----Smooth as a baby's Beaty.99.9999% of all gyro crashes in all types are caused by the hand on the stick---If a gyro is less stable and you wish to fly it--get the proper training---If you want a more forgiving gyro-get a CLT machine and still get proper training!DENNIS -Keep bringing on the facts(of course they will still try to change the thread---but the real gyro people see right through them--my worry are those new to the sport---Joe

[DennisFetters]

Dennis-I would not be concerned with these same losers that have taken on themselves to destroy the gyro sport---Facts scare them to death-it destroys all their arguments!!!This sport was going great guns when I got involved.It was really taking off---but these same few jerks put a stop to that!!!!I have owned a standard Air Command with 503 and stab--all I can say is thank you!!!!!A real dream machine---The best!!!!You would have to try to hurt yourself in it-----Smooth as a baby's Beaty.99.9999% of all gyro crashes in all types are caused by the hand on the stick---If a gyro is less stable and you wish to fly it--get the proper training---If you want a more forgiving gyro-get a CLT machine and still get proper training!DENNIS -Keep bringing on the facts(of course they will still try to change the thread---but the real gyro people see right through them--my worry are those new to the sport---Joe

Thank you John, But that is exactly the people these crackpots aim at, the new guys.That is why I try to keep the thread clean of their confusion.

[brett s]

Maybe some people just get tired of new gyro pilots occasionally dying from a design fault that's easily corrected?

That's what's been slowly killing off the sport, and why most other aviation segments as well as the general public tend to think gyros are death-traps & people who fly them are nuts.

[DennisFetters]

Maybe some people just get tired of new gyro pilots occasionally dying from a design fault that's easily corrected?

That's what's been slowly killing off the sport, and why most other aviation segments as well as the general public tend to think gyros are death-traps & people who fly them are nuts.

Brett, that remark is exactly typical of what some uneducated, uninformed and close-minded moron would say. You know, come to think of it, you made several remarks like that... hum.

The fact is that when I owned the gyroplane industry, it had never been so big before. After I sold out and other people took over, it has never been so small. All of the Commander accidents were due to no training, or not even close to enough training. The fact is, that those that did get properly trained, don't crash and die.

Yes, using todays ugly CLT back then when we didn't have it may have made a little difference, but probably not, because every one of those killed HAD NO BUSINESS BEING IN ANY TYPE OF AIRCRAFT WITHOUT HAVING TRAINING!!!!!

You know, if we would have used the atomic bomb the day after Pearl Harbor then we would have saved millions of lifes.... So lets blame someone!! Oh Wait, we didn't have the atomic bomb then... thats OK, small technicality, lets throw up enough smoke to confuse that fact and blame them anyway so we can look smarter!!
Can people really be that stupid not to understand that, or just using their ignorance to make another convenient point for their gain, or to cause someone else a loss?

[brett s]

You've got way too much ego to ever admit you did anything wrong - a typical salesman.

Fact - you definitely sold a bunch of gyroplanes, had great marketing & an attractive product. But they also had pitch stability issues due to the design (as did many machines of that era).

The "other people" that you sold the company to decided to address the problem & fix it rather than ignore it. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's how you react once you learn better that's telling - they didn't defend the design & blame training, they took action.

Training is only part of the picture - sure, you can learn to deal with all sorts of unpleasant things but you shouldn't have to.


Later, you sold a bunch of helicopters - imagine that, they had issues too. Again - great marketing with an attractive product that falls short of the advertised claims. Anyone else see a pattern?

[DennisFetters]

You've got way too much ego to ever admit you did anything wrong - a typical salesman.

Fact - you definitely sold a bunch of gyroplanes, had great marketing & an attractive product. But they also had pitch stability issues due to the design (as did many machines of that era).

The "other people" that you sold the company to decided to address the problem & fix it rather than ignore it. It's one thing to be ignorant, it's how you react once you learn better that's telling - they didn't defend the design & blame training, they took action.

Training is only part of the picture - sure, you can learn to deal with all sorts of unpleasant things but you shouldn't have to.

Later, you sold a bunch of helicopters - imagine that, they had issues too. Again - great marketing with an attractive product that falls short of the advertised claims. Anyone else see a pattern?

There is no discussing matters with an idiot. You put issues on the table without supportive facts, and in fact, against all the supporting facts. There is no discussing matters with you, until you transform from being an idiot. I won't hold my breath for that. Do you even fly gyroplanes?

[fiveboy]

Guys!

A motorcycle has a design flaw.... it only has two wheels. Without training and practice you will end up on a respirator. No difference to gyros whether CLT or buntomatic.

Dennis I dont know how much of your AC is in my AC but my AC is just a dream to fly. It has had every opportunity to PIO etc etc and between it and me.... it is not allowed to happen.

I think most newbies who is considering gyros and comes to this forum for a sense of whats what will be so turned off they will run. Its constant discussions of destruction, name calling and chest butting... interspersed with good information.

IMO the reason gyros ae not more popular are multiple.

FEW places to learn or train.
BAD reputation and image in GA.
LACK of a formal campaign to disseminate good image and info.
INABILITY of the gyro community to circle the wagons and say one for all.

This thread is just another brick in a wall of worry.

[DennisFetters]

Guys!
A motorcycle has a design flaw.... it only has two wheels. Without training and practice you will end up on a respirator. No difference to gyros whether CLT or buntomatic.
Dennis I dont know how much of your AC is in my AC but my AC is just a dream to fly. It has had every opportunity to PIO etc etc and between it and me.... it is not allowed to happen.
I think most newbies who is considering gyros and comes to this forum for a sense of whats what will be so turned off they will run. Its constant discussions of destruction, name calling and chest butting... interspersed with good information.
IMO the reason gyros ae not more popular are multiple.
FEW places to learn or train.
BAD reputation and image in GA.
LACK of a formal campaign to disseminate good image and info.
INABILITY of the gyro community to circle the wagons and say one for all.
This thread is just another brick in a wall of worry.

Thank you Robert, and you could not be more correct. It is these people that constantly down the efforts of others that have brought down this industry, not when someone crashes that didn't get training, because that can be explained and accepted by new people. After all, it happens in every type of aircraft every day. Its these negative vultures that scare away everyone.

[brett s]

There is no discussing matters with an idiot. You put issues on the table without supportive facts, and in fact, against all the supporting facts. There is no discussing matters with you, until you transform from being an idiot. I won't hold my breath for that. Do you even fly gyroplanes?

Resorting to name-calling is certainly a very mature way to defend your position.

You got one part right though, there's certainly no point in discussing anything further.

Anyone who has the desire can do their own research into the Fetters business model & form their own opinion.

You've always been your own worst enemy - this sums it up better than I ever could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

[GrantR]

I talked to someone who flew a low rider air command for a while and then converted the gyro to a CLT machine. He said the low rider was ok to fly in clam air but in thermals and gusty conditions it was very pitch sensitive and scary to fly. He also said it took a lot of work to keep it under control and it was not fun to fly at all. He said when he converted it to CLT it made a world of difference in the way it flew. Now the gyro will handle thermals and gusty winds in a stable manner. No more pitch sensitiveness.

The point I am making is the guy received proper training and was quite capable flying the HTL air command without killing himself however it took a lot of work to keep it flying. Aircraft which exhibit pitch instability are not safe especially when compared to ones that do not have these tendencies. With the CLT conversion the same gyro became much safer and fun to fly.

I am just passing along information from someone flying an air command that was a low rider then converted to CLT.

[DennisFetters]

Resorting to name-calling is certainly a very mature way to defend your position.

You got one part right though, there's certainly no point in discussing anything further.

Anyone who has the desire can do their own research into the Fetters business model & form their own opinion.

You've always been your own worst enemy - this sums it up better than I ever could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

I wasn't resorting to calling you names. I'm describing how you act. There's a big difference.

[DennisFetters]

Well, I guess the moderator is not going to clean this thread up, so OK, let the free for all begin.

I talked to someone who flew a low rider air command for a while and then converted the gyro to a CLT machine. He said the low rider was ok to fly in clam air but in thermals and gusty conditions it was very pitch sensitive and scary to fly. He also said it took a lot of work to keep it under control and it was not fun to fly at all. He said when he converted it to CLT it made a world of difference in the way it flew. Now the gyro will handle thermals and gusty winds in a stable manner. No more pitch sensitiveness.

I have flown both. Yes, the CLT is a little more pitch stable, as it should be, but in no way is the classic Commander pitch sensitive in even the most gusty winds I have ever flown in.

Here is an email I received from Paul whom has built and flown both, and has been posting here on the forum for years. He said I could post his email;

From: Paul Piper
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:10 AM
To: Dennis Fetters
Subject: Re: My Air Command
Wow....a stock air command with the inverted engine. truly the flying classic!! Dennis to be totally honest if I built one for myself I would do the same thing. the upright engine,extended keel and CLT just take away from the sporty compact commander.
The engine being upright changes the CG and makes it fell a little top heavy, the extended keel take away from maneuverability and the compact ness and the CLT although has it place it just to ugly! I'm someone that can tell you this in complete honesty as I have flown AC's stock and modified.
I miss my original one I bought off of Your Buddy Tony Stone.....hehe. Stock AC with the inverted grey head 582 and 23' Skywheels. Truly was an enjoyable 5 years of flying in the hill country of SW Texas!
my brother is converting my 8mm and soon I will put them good ol days on YouTube. Thanks for answering my question on the forums
Cheers Paul

In fact, here is a video of me flying in winds, and it don't get more gusty than this, making maneuvers;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF86Rlqqz4 and look Ma, no hands........

I don't know what your buddy was doing wrong, maybe didn't balance it correctly, but the Commander flies great in turbulent conditions, with no extra work, like some call it. Maybe he is describing going from an open frame Commander with no horizontal stabilizer to a CLT that had a stabilizer. Well, yea, there would be a difference, but that is two very different aircraft in many ways, just guessing here.

[CLS447]

Grant, Who are you speaking of ? I always wanted to hear that kind of report from "Rotorhead" who did the same thing. But I never heard how much more he liked it ??????

[CLS447]

Thanks Dennis, we posted at the same time !

[birdy]

here is a video of me flying in winds, and it don't get more gusty than this, making maneuvers;
Gusty??
Maneuvers??
No hands??
You can fool most people most of the time, but not all of um all the time. ;)

[DennisFetters]

here is a video of me flying in winds, and it don't get more gusty than this, making maneuvers;
Gusty??
Maneuvers??
No hands??
You can fool most people most of the time, but not all of um all the time. ;)

Well why don't you watch the video before spouting off??

I'll tell you what smart a$$, here is the video taken a few minutes later where you can hear the wind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2AnpuX866Q

What do you mean by insinuating no wind, no gusts or no hands off? Are you blind as well as possessing a hyperactive mouth?

You are right, your days of fooling people are over.

[GyroRon]

Guys!

A motorcycle has a design flaw.... it only has two wheels. Without training and practice you will end up on a respirator. No difference to gyros whether CLT or buntomatic.

Dennis I dont know how much of your AC is in my AC but my AC is just a dream to fly. It has had every opportunity to PIO etc etc and between it and me.... it is not allowed to happen.

I think most newbies who is considering gyros and comes to this forum for a sense of whats what will be so turned off they will run. Its constant discussions of destruction, name calling and chest butting... interspersed with good information.

IMO the reason gyros ae not more popular are multiple.

FEW places to learn or train.
BAD reputation and image in GA.
LACK of a formal campaign to disseminate good image and info.
INABILITY of the gyro community to circle the wagons and say one for all.

This thread is just another brick in a wall of worry.

Fiveboy, you do know, that in Dennis' eyes, your gyro is not a aircommand, but a ugly CLT machine.... Right?



And Dennis, I am a moderator, but you never contacted me to come here and clean up your thread. Reading the last 2 pages I would have to say I would have to delete more of your posts than anyone elses. Your the one calling names and attacking people as far as I can tell.

[DennisFetters]

Fiveboy, you do know, that in Dennis' eyes, your gyro is not a aircommand, but a ugly CLT machine.... Right?



And Dennis, I am a moderator, but you never contacted me to come here and clean up your thread. Reading the last 2 pages I would have to say I would have to delete more of your posts than anyone elses. Your the one calling names and attacking people as far as I can tell.

I addressed it to Todd. Yes, sure, lets clean it up. I'm getting tired of fighting with these morons. About time.

[SnoBird]

I'm not familiar with the whole saga of Air Command, so maybe I'm missing something here. But why do so many folks blame Dennis so vehemently for the old AC's high TL design? Pitch instability due to lack of HS and high TL wasn't widely understood in the recreational gyro industry back in the 80's (and well prior). I'm sure if Dennis knew of what amounts to a hidden problem he would have fixed it at the time he originally offered these aircraft. It's bad business to kill your customers, so even if you believe all he cares about is money, he could have made a lot more money by building a safer machine. And I've never heard that AC's were made poorly, to my knowledge they used the best powerplants and rotorsystems available at that time. The airframes were also put together in accordance with accepted aviation standards weren't they? As far as I know he did not skimp on quality materials or workmanship. It does not appear to me he was trying to save a buck by using substandard components at the expense of someone else's hide. And Dennis obviously put his own butt in the seat of each of these aircraft, flight tested and developed them at his own risk. You can't say he didn't put his money where his mouth is as far as his own safety is concerned.

It seems to me Dennis, like just about everyone else at the time (with the exception of exceptionally experienced and knowledgeable people like Chuck Beaty) simply didn't know about or appreciate the gravity of the hidden flaw; especially as pertaining to amateur pilots and/or those who were insufficiently trained. When Dennis and many other people with classic AC's flew them successfully year after year, I could see where it could have been difficult to recognize what the real problem was - especially when the "usual suspects" were frequently at play, like little or no training. It's a problem that evaded direct detection, that's why it took so long to sort it out. Lets remember it took time for the high TL/no stab problem to become commonly understood and accepted as it is today.

So again, how can you hold his feet to the fire for something almost no one knew about or appreciated then, like we do today? Does anyone think Igor Bensen was an unethical man for selling the Bensen gyrocopter even when it didn't even have a horizontal stab on it? And probably at least a partially offset thrustline? And had an unreliable mac engine which could let you down at the worst possible moment? Or that he didn't develop and promote a more successful powered two place trainer? And while we're at it, lets blame Henry Ford for selling Model A's without seat belts, safety glass, collapsible steering columns, anti-lock brakes and no air bags.

Like I said, I don't know what the whole story is and maybe there's a lot more to it. But it seems unfair to so cruelly chastise this man simply based on him selling what he, and just about everyone else, sincerely believed was one of the finest recreational gyrocopters available at that time.

[birdy]

Well why don't you watch the video before spouting off??
??????????
Wot makes you think i didnt?

I'll tell you what smart a$$, here is the video taken a few minutes later where you can hear the wind.
Smartass???
OK dichead, so your go'n to tell me THAT is gusty??
Bloodyell, the blades hardly moved the hole time.
Maybe its just a northern hemisphere thing, coz in gusty air ere, the blades are continualy teetering wen its stationary in gusty air.
Not to mention that in the first flic, the wind sock hardly moved either, or i spose your guna tell me it was frozen stiff.
And the 'sound' of wind is there orrite, but vid microphones are not usualy very good indicaters of wind strength or consistancy.

What do you mean by insinuating no wind, no gusts or no hands off? Are you blind as well as possessing a hyperactive mouth?
I never said there was no wind.
I said GUSTY?
Iv seen plenty of gyros flyn and parked, from the ground and from the seat, and i can see that the wind in the flix was pretty consistant, so no, thats not gusty.
As for the hands off, frignell, i can push a barrow for longer n that hands off.

You are right, your days of fooling people are over.
I dont sell gyros to the public, so i have no need to try n fool anyone.

I'm getting tired of fighting with these morons.
Actualy, i think this is how Dennis gets his rocs off. :)
Bit of a lime lite deficiancy thing i recon.

Note; i wasnt be'n derogatory toward you Dennis, i was simply questioning you definition of things.
Gess thats enuff to start calln people names.
BTW, why didnt that jump machine get go'n? Thought it woulda had plenty of potential?

he could have made a lot more money by building a safer machine.
Yup, he woulda made plenty of coin, but that woulda also ment admitn an error on his part, pointed out by people he detests, and egos dont get fat on that sorta thing.
Its a cryn shame he is like he is, coz gyros could do well with his experiance, knowlage and entheusiasm, if he'd only plant the ego.

So again, how can you hold his feet to the fire for something almost no one knew about or appreciated then, like we do today?
I dont think anyone is.
Its Dennis who still dont think its a design flaw.

[scandtours]

I agree much with you, SnoBird, and I can add the following.
BEING RUDE TO PEOPLE WON'T EARN US ANY RESPECT.
This is true, either we realize it or not.
Re. CLT, Stab. and so on and so on, I have photos from 1976 showing that
CLT gyro existed for decates ago and not as in some ads (Inventors of CLT gyros.) This is not respect either.

Giorgos.

[birdy]

BEING RUDE TO PEOPLE WON'T EARN US ANY RESPECT.
Im not disrespectfull toward respectable people Giorgos.
But if you called me a smartass, id probably call you a dichead too.
I know that dont make it rite, but thats just me. :)

[scandtours]

I will not fall so low and debate with you regarding adjectives you find for yourself.
But if you want to call yourself smartass….. Ok accepted.
Giorgos.

[brett s]

But it seems unfair to so cruelly chastise this man simply based on him selling what he, and just about everyone else, sincerely believed was one of the finest recreational gyrocopters available at that time.

That's not what he's getting beat up for (most of the time anyways) - it's the spin control, always harping about how perfectly safe his old ones were & there's nothing wrong with the design. Just as he does for the Mini 500 as well...

It's one thing to be ignorant when "designing" something, another thing entirely to continually downplay & mislead after you're made aware of a problem.

Notice who started the rude name-calling here - it wasn't Birdy or myself.

[SnoBird]

I have photos from 1976 showing that
CLT gyro existed for decates ago and not as in some ads (Inventors of CLT gyros.) This is not respect either. Giorgos.

Hey that's cool Giorgos, thanks for sharing. Yeah I also think the Wallace designs were probably either close to being CLT or actually were CLT. And like Chuck B. suggested, also had pitch stability built into its (possibly) overbalanced wooden blades (lessening the need for a HS). Wouldn't surprise me if Chuck himself had a machine like that in the 70's or early 80's as well.

I guess what it boiled down to is that much of the CLT problem was unintentionally/unconsciously introduced as a result of moving away from the mac (understandably), which itself was a safety issue. Inverted parallel twin snowmobile type engines (instead of a flat four), larger props and reduction drives changed the distribution of mass and thrust position away from the more closely thrust aligned mac Bensen types, which probably already had some marginal safety concerns related to CLT offsets and no HS already. After this was done and popularized, unfortunately it took time for enough crashes and "intelligible intelligence" to dribble in to piece it together.

I don't believe Dennis was the first to bolt an inverted Rotax or other parallel twin with a reduction drive prop on a gyro. I also don't believe he was the first to inadvertently build a high thrust line machine. The only difference between him and others before him is that he successfully built and sold large numbers of an otherwise good machine with this unfortunate flaw. But all the while he successfully flew them and many others did as well. They weren't complete death traps, they could be successfully and regularly flown by a properly skilled pilot (albeit safely becoming skilled was a problem for an unskilled amateur).

The whole thing's a cryin' shame. I just don't see how some can so brutally put the blame of blood on his hands as if he knew all along about the issue. I don't believe he did, and back then neither did just about anyone else.

[GyroRon]

He says he is the first to put a Rotax on a gyro....


And the reason Dennis gets grief here is that even though he will make a short statement that center line thrust machines are safer, he still defends his older high thrustline machines as safe enough And that is the problem. As long as people like Dennis are saying the older HTL machines are SAFE ENOUGH There will be new pilots buying and flying these older machines and there will be more and more fatal accidents as years keep going by.

What would stop the fuss is for Dennis to simply say, he did what was best to do at the time, and that with todays knowledge he would probably do it different and end up with a center line thrust arrangement ( even though it is " Ugly " ) and he would publicly and privately encourage people to convert their older aircommands to CLT in the name of safer flight.

He doesn't do that though, he will defend his 1980's Tech gyros to no end, saying the accidents are all pilot error due to lack of training. He is partly right in that, because it has been proven that these older machines will fly and fly for hundreds of hours, even decades without fatally crashing.

But with CLT the chances are slimmer, much slimmer that ANY pilot ( be it self trained, some training, alot of training, properly trained, no training, etc.... ) will PIO and end up bunting over and killing themselves.



As for moderating this thread, it is too big and too much in here to cherry pick posts to edit or delete. I could delete the whole thread.....

[Doug Riley]

Snobird asks in Post #101 if anyone thinks Igor Bensen was unethical for selling a machine that had no [functional] HS.

It was spectacularly unethical for Igor to do that. He knew better. There is plenty of evidence that he knew better.

The redrives that came out in the 80's created a slightly different problem than the ones that the Bensen had suffered from. The Bensen gyro's trouble was not so much PPO as PIO, coupled with a very light, high-RPM rotor. PPO became a menace when we had to raise the propeller's centerline because the redrive practically demanded the use of a larger prop. It took several years for us to recognize this new (to us) problem.

I'm not optimistic that the gyro community will ever improve its reputation. It has not truly come to grips with either the flaws in the 1950's Bensen design or the flaws in the 80's bunt-o-matics.

Meanwhile, the gyro, ultralight and homebuilt-aircraft communities have shrunk in an age of "homeland security," dwindling petroleum and permanent fear. A pity.

[GrantR]

Maybe he is describing going from an open frame Commander with no horizontal stabilizer to a CLT that had a stabilizer. Well, yea, there would be a difference, but that is two very different aircraft in many ways, just guessing here

Yes he went from a standard low rider no H stab and converted it to CLT with H stab.

How is the same aircraft very different? The only difference I think is a drop keel and a H stab correct?



Grant, Who are you speaking of ? I always wanted to hear that kind of report from "Rotorhead" who did the same thing. But I never heard how much more he liked it ??????

Chris,
I am not going to mention the person’s name. If you want to talk to him I can get in touch with him and see if will discuss it with you.

[fiveboy]

It seems interesting to me that most if not all of the "pioneers" of gyrodom are honored and/or respected (or outright revered) but Dennis isnt. I think human nature being what it is, that Dennis covets that respect but doent feel he gets it. Frankly I dont think he does either.... but (oh boy heres where I step into the crossfire) Dennis' personality is so abrasive and confrontational (i.e bitter) that its probably hard for most to hold him up in a light that is respected, much less honored.

I personally think he is in the same league as those we hold dear as founding fathers... its just really tough to get around the combative defensiveness.

Perhaps someday with time (if the industry/sport even lasts that long).

OK Dennis now you have license to go at my throat.

[SnoBird]

Snobird asks in Post #101 if anyone thinks Igor Bensen was unethical for selling a machine that had no [functional] HS. It was spectacularly unethical for Igor to do that. He knew better. There is plenty of evidence that he knew better.

Dr Bensen knowingly sold machines he knew were unsafe? I'm surprised to hear that. I never met the man, nor do I know why he would do such a thing. Can you explain in more detail how you know this? I can see possibly selling machines without a HS because he didn't think they were necessary as long as you followed his training syllabus to the letter. But I'd be surprised if he knowingly put people at risk when such a simple and inexpensive mod was available. Are you sure it wasn't an honest difference in opinion on how the machine should be configured? Wallace obviously felt/feels the same way when it comes to the HS. And in my view both of them dying from old age (I know Wallace is still alive) after long and colored flying careers makes it at least a little hard to argue with them.

[scandtours]

He says he is the first to put a Rotax on a gyro....


And the reason Dennis gets grief here is that even though he will make a short statement that center line thrust machines are safer, he still defends his older high thrustline machines as safe enough And that is the problem. As long as people like Dennis are saying the older HTL machines are SAFE ENOUGH There will be new pilots buying and flying these older machines and there will be more and more fatal accidents as years keep going by.

What would stop the fuss is for Dennis to simply say, he did what was best to do at the time, and that with todays knowledge he would probably do it different and end up with a center line thrust arrangement ( even though it is " Ugly " ) and he would publicly and privately encourage people to convert their older aircommands to CLT in the name of safer flight.

He doesn't do that though, he will defend his 1980's Tech gyros to no end, saying the accidents are all pilot error due to lack of training. He is partly right in that, because it has been proven that these older machines will fly and fly for hundreds of hours, even decades without fatally crashing.

But with CLT the chances are slimmer, much slimmer that ANY pilot ( be it self trained, some training, alot of training, properly trained, no training, etc.... ) will PIO and end up bunting over and killing themselves.



As for moderating this thread, it is too big and too much in here to cherry pick posts to edit or delete. I could delete the whole thread.....

You are very wright Ron.
Dennis did a lot for gyros and even Bensen himself admits it in his Bensen Flying News. He wrote ( Initial testing of the Rotax 503, air cooled engine was started several years ago (( it was in 1983)) by Capt. Dennis Fetters....)
Its very int reading and I hope you can read it by enl the attachments.
I don't play the lawer for Dennis but at least he deserves some respect from
some of us.
Baybe you have to click second time on the image to read the text.

Giorgos

[GrantR]

N1373N What happened to this gyro? It says destroyed on the N number search.

[SnoBird]

Hey that's a cool brochure Giorgos, thanks again for the info. So it sure looks like "Bensen approves new gyrocopter engine" and that "Bensen chooses Rotax." Obviously Bensen also approved of the inverted Rotax arrangement along with no HS. Looks like Dennis' thinking at the time was in good company.

[Passin' Thru]

It seems interesting to me that most if not all of the "pioneers" of gyrodom are honored and/or respected (or outright revered) but Dennis isnt. I think human nature being what it is, that Dennis covets that respect but doent feel he gets it. Frankly I dont think he does either.... but (oh boy heres where I step into the crossfire) Dennis' personality is so abrasive and confrontational (i.e bitter) that its probably hard for most to hold him up in a light that is respected, much less honored.

I personally think he is in the same league as those we hold dear as founding fathers... its just really tough to get around the combative defensiveness.

Perhaps someday with time (if the industry/sport even lasts that long).

OK Dennis now you have license to go at my throat.

fiveboy, I agree! He did some great things for the sport. He could still contribute much. He is a very intelligent and talented individual. But Dennis is his own worse enemy. He cannot accept his own human fallibility and make corrections accordingly. His ego is too big and too delicate. Someone posted above about NPD. All indications are that their diagnosis is correct.
I personally wish he could get over it, grow some skin and learn to appreciate who and what he really is rather than what he wants to appear. The image of himself he places on the high alter is in reality a lesser person than his own true self.
That's my opinion.

[scandtours]

One more photo with Dr I. Bensen flying his rotax gyro.
Again, very closed to CLT????
Giorgos

[Passin' Thru]

One more photo with Dr I. Bensen flying his rotax gyro.
Again, very closed to CLT????
Giorgos

With the inverted engine, all that mass, ass and gas below the thrust line, I would guess not even close! ;)
.

[Jens]

..... But Dennis is his own worse enemy....
Very basically we all only have one enemy - I think.
__________________________________________________ _______

There are persons that get things done – are producing something.
And there are non-producers.

- The very insane attack the producers and support the non-producers.
- The very sane support the producers and attack the non-producers.

I think it is a good idea, to improve in the direction of supporting the producers and attack the non-producers.

[scandtours]

Very basically we all only have one enemy - I think.
__________________________________________________ _______

There are persons that get things done – are producing something.
And there are non-producers.

- The very insane attack the producers and support the non-producers.
- The very sane support the producers and attack the non-producers.

I think it is a good idea, to improve in the direction of supporting the producers and attack the non-producers.

Still.... keep your friends close and your enemies closer.....
Giorgos

[DennisFetters]

Let me say this, and then its all yours;

What other pioneer, designer or manufacturer has ever come to an open forum and offered to help anyone, talk to anyone or explain himself to anyone? I did, and I came here under fire the first day, and every day after that. What a mistake.

No one has been so disrespected, and all because I participate in your discussions and open myself up to this reticule. When I defend myself, then I'm made out to be the bad guy. You wonder why I'm abrasive in my responses to some of these idiots, well if you have been bashed around as long as I have you would be rubbed a little raw to. But, the most of you let it happen, too afraid to stand up to the bullies.

Most of you today are flying gyroplanes with my technologies. Even the Little bit of advancements made today, still are made on the beginnings of what I developed.

Enjoy your Rotax engines? That was me, I was the first to develop and fly one in a gyro, and bring them to market.

Enjoy your larger propellers for more efficiency? That was me that first did that, and made gyroplanes perform as they do today.

Enjoy the triangulated airframes on most gyro? That was me that made that design.

Enjoy the improved and more stable nose wheel designs? I developed that too.

How about your rotorheads? Yes, most now are based on my Air Command.

And much more.

Now, as a innovator, pioneer, aircraft designer and manufacturer, I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your warm and kind regards. I have felt very welcomed.

I wish I could say that, but I can't, because my worst enemy is here among you, and having to deal with some in this ungrateful mob that call themselves a brotherhood of pilots.

[SnoBird]

What other pioneer, designer or manufacturer has ever come to an open forum and offered to help anyone, talk to anyone or explain himself to anyone?

Chuck Beaty is indisputedly one of the greatest living gyro pioneers (along with Ken Wallace), and he helps out tons here. I also used to really enjoy reading his articles in Rotorcraft mag (when I received it years ago). But you do too Dennis, and I really appreciate hearing your perspective. And I agree, it's gotta be hard to constantly get beat up on like that. I don't think you deserve it. You made many very significant advancements, you basically picked up right where Bensen left off. You threw your hat in the ring and did your best; I really respect that. I'm glad I don't have a ring of people taking note of all my mistakes in the past 25 years and constantly harping on me for it :rant:, god knows I've made plenty of them. Who hasn't?

[Jens]

.….. I'm glad I don't have a ring of people taking note of all my mistakes in the past 25 years and constantly harping on me for it :rant:, god knows I've made plenty of them. Who hasn't?
Those who do litlle or nothing. (And of course those who are thoroughly covering up what they are doing.)

Chear up Dennis!
Take it as a game.

[chuter]

Let me say this, and then its all yours;

What other pioneer, designer or manufacturer has ever come to an open forum and offered to help anyone, talk to anyone or explain himself to anyone? I did, and I came here under fire the first day, and every day after that. What a mistake.

No one has been so disrespected, and all because I participate in your discussions and open myself up to this reticule. When I defend myself, then I'm made out to be the bad guy. You wonder why I'm abrasive in my responses to some of these idiots, well if you have been bashed around as long as I have you would be rubbed a little raw to. But, the most of you let it happen, too afraid to stand up to the bullies.

Most of you today are flying gyroplanes with my technologies. Even the Little bit of advancements made today, still are made on the beginnings of what I developed.

Enjoy your Rotax engines? That was me, I was the first to develop and fly one in a gyro, and bring them to market.

Enjoy your larger propellers for more efficiency? That was me that first did that, and made gyroplanes perform as they do today.

Enjoy the triangulated airframes on most gyro? That was me that made that design.

Enjoy the improved and more stable nose wheel designs? I developed that too.

How about your rotorheads? Yes, most now are based on my Air Command.

And much more.

Now, as a innovator, pioneer, aircraft designer and manufacturer, I want to tell you from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your warm and kind regards. I have felt very welcomed.

I wish I could say that, but I can't, because my worst enemy is here among you, and having to deal with some in this ungrateful mob that call themselves a brotherhood of pilots.

Dennis,

IMHO:

Chuck Beaty has offered much more on this forum than you.

The advancments you mention would have been made by someone else if not you; they were coming out in other categories, they would have made it to gyros without your help.

You did a lot to promote the sport and should be commended for that, but man, your head has really swelled up.

Eat a few humble pills and chill out.

[joe vitable]

Fiveboy, you do know, that in Dennis' eyes, your gyro is not a aircommand, but a ugly CLT machine.... Right?



And Dennis, I am a moderator, but you never contacted me to come here and clean up your thread. Reading the last 2 pages I would have to say I would have to delete more of your posts than anyone elses. Your the one calling names and attacking people as far as I can tell.

Ugly clt comment stupid for regular member but for a moderator off the chart-also your threat on page 9 was not at all called for---I have flown both non-clt(great Air Command and great RAF)and clt (dominator) and see no difference--I agree clt is safer if you more experenced members say so---but I still believe a non clt is fine for a well trained pilot----NO one(I think Dennis included) says at this point that clt are not more forgiving--WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT--let me know!! PS-Remember those Air Command ADS--they were greatly reponsible for moving the sport foward----Joe

[GyroRon]

Joe, Dennis has repeatedly stated his dislike of the tall stance CLT machines. He has called them ugly on many occasions. Fiveboy flys a CLT aircommand tandem, and if you go along with what Dennis has said, it is safe to assume Dennis considers it ugly. That was the jest of my comment.

As a moderator I am still allowed to have a opinion and post like the rest of you. My own posts can be moderated by the other moderators if I say something out of line.

And as far as a threat, what threat? This thread really should be deleted, that isn't a threat, that is a fact. I am leaving it up here for now, not to keep the bashing going, but hopefully for all these grown men to kiss and make up. When you step back and look at this from afar, the whole thing is silly, both sides....

[Canadian Rhino]

Ron I think this thread was able to take a little trip into history and may even show some of us what we have to look forward to in life and to some others what might have been missed.
It sounds like he has hauled in his horns now so lets see what he may have to say after he has cooled down a bit.
Ya just never know!:der:

[joe vitable]

GYRORON-The thread was started with facts--very unusual in itseff--I posted crash data on the RAF and got the same response-maybe some of you can not face the fact that most of those that were killed were commiting stupid acts.You still place the blame on the machine--Maybe RAF should have placed a device on their machine that would not allow startup by a non trained person during a snowstorm etc-etc-etc.ps--Just think your responses should show a little more leadership! PSS-MY DOMINATOR(the design) IS UGLY AS CRAP!!

[Canadian Rhino]

Well I guess we know who Joe is!
Well Dennis I see your logic now!
You will push to have the whole thread wiped out by a moderator so that a month from now you will be able to claim that this thread never existed and you never called any one anything!
Crafty indeed!:rip:

[birdy]

But if you want to call yourself smartass….. Ok accepted.
No wunder you dont understand. :(
It was Dennis that called me a smartass.
I take it inglish is your second lingo?

But, the most of you let it happen, too afraid to stand up to the bullies.
Oh no, wot shall i do now, im a big bully. :(

Enjoy your Rotax engines? That was me, I was the first to develop and fly one in a gyro, and bring them to market.

Enjoy your larger propellers for more efficiency? That was me that first did that, and made gyroplanes perform as they do today.

Enjoy the triangulated airframes on most gyro? That was me that made that design.

Enjoy the improved and more stable nose wheel designs? I developed that too.

How about your rotorheads? Yes, most now are based on my Air Command.

And much more.
Wot a load of egotistical crap Dennis.
This is why people are pissed at you. You keep harpn on bout BS like this.
Like nun of it was go'n to happen i spose?

I could say i was the first to put real suspension ona RAF, and the first to mount a 914 ona RAF, or design a r22 style stick ina RAF, or the first to experiance rotor ice [ 3 times] and the first to cyclicly stall rotors and survive to tell, or the first to hit a roo ina gyro, or the first to shoot the antenea off me gps witha 44mag bla bla bla, .
So wut?
Not like nun of that was never go'n to happen if i didnt?

[GyroRon]

I get a chuckle when I hear people call the tall stance machines Ugly.

I will admit, The RAF 2000 is a better looking aircraft than a Sparrowhawk. But that is about it as far as low verses high machines and what I think looks good.

What looks better, a old Scorpion helicopter, sitting a few inches off the ground, or a Hughes 500 that sits considerably high off the ground on tall gear?

Does it matter which one looks better?

Is looks more important than safety?

[joe vitable]

Well I guess we know who Joe is!
Well Dennis I see your logic now!
You will push to have the whole thread wiped out by a moderator so that a month from now you will be able to claim that this thread never existed and you never called any one anything!
Crafty indeed!:rip:

Rhino-thought Canadian's had more manners--what problem do you have with me---maybe because I deal only in facts and personal experience--Again-fly ugly clt's(I have one) if you want a more forgiving machine and get plenty of training if you fly a non clt-if this does not satisfy your group ?? The first time a person with no training flys a Dominator into a tree or flys in a snowstorm and is killed you can start bad mouthing clts-Joe 713-302-0292

[Lee Scatt]

Hey Joe, What factor influenced you enough to cause you to buy an ugly Dominator?

[GyroCFI]

Sorry Guys,
I'm one of the buys that fall in the category of those who admire Dennis for what he's done for the gyroplane movement. I've been flying gyros for over 20 years with my first being a Bensen type. I remember the Kitplanes article that described the ultralight show in Las Vegas and how Dennis took off from the parking lot, circled some of the lights and landed in the same spot. It really inspired me to look at his design which I ended up flying and training in for years. In fact outside of the original Bensen and my J-2, all of the other gyros i've owned have been based in some fashion on Dennis' designs.

I've watched the mud slinging for years not only on this forum but others that preceded it. The same arguments that people are using here to bash Dennis could be used to describe the Bensen as well. Do you think he would have gained any notibility if he wasn't the first one to do that?

I applaud Dennis for what he's done for the furtherance of this sport and I'm glad that I've had the pleasure to deal with him on many different occasions. He has a wealth of knowledge that he's willing to share with all of us and I for one choose to take advantage of his expertise.

[fiveboy]

Itsa easy to confer Sainthood on people who are no longer here. Bensen, DeCierva, Wallis (well hes still here), Brock, etc etc..... but when the guy is a defensive egotist who goes down clawing and kicking and name calling.... its harder to hold him on a pedestal. But really Dennis is, in his own way and for his contributions overall, in the same company of innovators and founding fathers.... hes just so..... unpalatable.

Still I really do think that there ought to be a lifetime achievement award or something given at Benson Days or another venue. If in accepting Dennis tells everyone to go to Hell, then we know hes just plain weird.... but I woudnt think that would be the case.

Even an ugly bat eats many times his weight in mosquitos.

[Rotor Rooter]

What participant on the Rotary Wing Forum has done more to develop, to build, and to promote recreational rotorcraft, both gyrocopters and helicopters, than Dennis Fetters?

[All_In]

Itsa easy to confer Sainthood on people who are no longer here. Bensen, DeCierva, Wallis (well hes still here), Brock, etc etc..... but when the guy is a defensive egotist who goes down clawing and kicking and name calling.... its harder to hold him on a pedestal. But really Dennis is, in his own way and for his contributions overall, in the same company of innovators and founding fathers.... hes just so..... unpalatable.

Still I really do think that there ought to be a lifetime achievement award or something given at Benson Days or another venue. If in accepting Dennis tells everyone to go to Hell, then we know hes just plain weird.... but I woudnt think that would be the case.

Even an ugly bat eats many times his weight in mosquitos.
I think I agree Rob, not sure what to believe or how much credit to give, I wasn't paying any attention back then and many of the pros and some of his past customers state their horrible facts only to be called names back by Dennis and I don't know who to believe regarding if he helped or hurt more folks. I do trust you so I'm proceeding with the suggestion you emailed me!

It would have helped me if I hadn't learned that Dennis was a innovator and founding father from Dennis telling us himself, or really from reading almost every thread he posts the same statement to defend his past. I wish I had heard it from you first!

Dennis confuses me on posts like this one. Seems he's stating (and trying to convince newbie's) we all could just start out in his old style gyro and just get training and here is the accident reports to prove it.

This is at odds to everything I learned here and from studying Nasa's and other scientific aerodynamic reports on the subject and my vast experience flying different type aircraft a newbie learning in any aircraft with a restrictive/ or reduced flight envelope in all flight attitudes is just stupid!!! That's why All fix wing manufactures have training models.

I'm getting a ugly (she looks beautiful to me) underpowered dominator with a huge tail and will fly it for the first 100 hours. Then if I can fly by the seat of my pants like I do fixed wing aircraft I will progress to a more unstable gyro!

If you know he's done and is doing more good than bad for our sport, I'm All IN!

[barnstorm2]

What participant on the Rotary Wing Forum has done more to develop, to build, and to promote recreational rotorcraft, both gyrocopters and helicopters, than Dennis Fetters?

Nothing more then an unstructured opinion question when worded that way.

And which counts more? Gyros or Helicopters?

There is a strong case for gyros but the overall reputation* of the Mini 500 is considered by most as a negative.

*(please note. I am not saying that the reputation is deserved. Everything I know about the Mini-500 saga is second and third hand. I reserve the right to believe in Dennis' responses that counter the alleged accounts of mis-doings while running revolution helicopters).

Also, are we talking past, present or both?

In the past Dennis' accomplishments are overwhelming and changed our industry.

I don't think anyone should be knocked for designing an 80's HTL gyro in the 80's. In fact the AC's had stock factory HStabs available and the 447 did not have the power to be (IMHO) an aggressive PPO'er.

Currently, however, gyro manufacturers are working to dispel the 'killing machine' stigma that has nearly destroyed our sport as a result of the flawed designs of the 80's and 90's.

Dennis is not currently, entirely 'on board' with this new dedication to safe gyroplane designs and that is a bit of a negative. A big negative when you consider our fatality rate from PPO's is the #1 reason our market has failed to be more popular than trikes, PPGs, PPCs and the like.

Many of the great people on this forum do not evangelize themselves and their resume like Dennis does. I doubt many people are aware of what some of the people around here have done for our sport.

Just one example is Greg Gremminger. Were it not for him our entire sport would have collapsed in the USA because of the FAA withdrawing our ability to train in our Experimental 2-Place machines.

Were it not for advances in understanding the flaws of the 80-90's gyro designs our sport may have folded entirely just from our tragic fatality record. People like Chuck Beaty and others got disrespected and bullied but stuck with it for the good of all of us and our sport.

Dennis gets an A+++++ for past efforts.
an D- for current efforts
and I do not have any 1st hand experience to rate the Mini-500 efforts.

Dennis has the past working for him but he continues to unravel his positive progress by his reluctance to accept what we now know about stability, CLT and PPO's. What good does it do to innovate a new engine, form a successful kit company in the hey-day of home-building and then publicly support the #1 threat to the continued existence to the sport?

If we were voting for a Catch-22 or most enigmatic person then Dennis wins hands down.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Dennis had not sold off AC and he had been receptive to learning about CLT from C.Beaty and others? We would have had the industry leader producing sexy-looking stable gyroplanes well before the down-turn in the market. Furthermore, the company would have been lead by Dennis' aggressive marketing and sales methods. Maybe, we would have had a gyroplane in every-one's garage by the year 2001....

.

.

.

[chuter]

Then if I can fly by the seat of my pants like I do fixed wing aircraft I will progress to a more unstable gyro!


John, IMHO that would be REGRESSING. :yo:

[Rotor Rooter]

Tim,

You mention some valid points, such as the first when you say; ;)Nothing more then an unstructured opinion question when worded that way.

____________________
Also, are we talking past, present or both?

In the past Dennis' accomplishments are overwhelming and changed our industry. Dennis has implied on a couple of recent posts that he is intending to introduce another rotorcraft. This of course, would be built upon his past experiences, both the good ones and the bad ones.

Should this be the case, it is a positive for Dennis and others to discuss and correct previous errors and assumptions, IMHO.


Dave

[PW_Plack]

Is looks more important than safety?

If short-term sales is your goal, of course looks are more important.

This isn't the world of Part 23 certificated aircraft, where a design that looks great on the showroom floor is also known to be tested against minimum stability standards. People buying gyroplanes have often had to choose between looks and stability. Many may have incorrectly assumed that it couldn't be introduced unless it was a safe product, or that the government would order it pulled from the shelves if it turned out to be dangerous.

Except for a few who live in the UK, they were mistaken.

I'd bet that for every sale of an unstable, "good-looking" machine, there were two or more sales lost to prospective customers whose families begged them not to fly "those deathtraps."

How much bigger would the sport and its marketplace be today if 99 out of 100 aviation enthusiasts didn't think flying a gyro was evidence of a death wish?

If gyroplanes, as a group, had a good safety record, they might sell in quantities more like other similarly-priced recreational power sports products. According to some recent estimates, that could be as much as a 60-fold sales increase.

There's no long-term benefit to the sport in selling machines which have appealing lines at the expense of stability.

[All_In]

John, IMHO that would be REGRESSING. :yo:
Good one chuter!

[Rotor Rooter]

Paul,

Perhaps your post presents a valid argument for the 'primary' question of; is the tractor configuration safer than the pusher configuration?


Dave

[barnstorm2]

Tim,

You mention some valid points, such as the first when you say; ;)

____________________
Dennis has implied on a couple of recent posts that he is intending to introduce another rotorcraft. This of course, would be built upon his past experiences, both the good ones and the bad ones.

Should this be the case, it is a positive for Dennis and others to discuss and correct previous errors and assumptions, IMHO.


Dave

I agree completely.

I don't doubt for one minute that Dennis could once again revitalize our sport with a new gyro and a new company if he produced a NCLT or CLT gyro that was stable. I don't have to mention that it would be a sexy looking craft because Dennis has always made the best looking rotorcraft available during their time.

However, that is potential.

If we are talking potential we also have to take into account:

Larry Neal and his mind-blowing advances to our sport. I think hands down Larry has single-handedly brought more new technology into our sport then any one person since the days of Kellet, Pitcairn and Cervia.

Carter Copters have also done amazing things and have amazing potential. No small wonder they work closely with Larry Neal.

CBeaty and EBoyette have brought us DragonWings, and the best bang-for-the-buck super-safe great performing gyros that have ever existed.

Groen Brothers also have shown potential but seem not to be bringing it into the hobby but rather trying to bring back industrial autogyros.

I am sure there are more...

The point I am trying to get to is this.

The bar for potential is VERY high and Dennis will need more than looks in a new design, it will have to be safe, smart and a good market fit.

I have no doubt he could do it, but I don't see it happening while he is still defending the performance of known flawed design concepts.

Dennis can kick ass.. but will he?


.

[barnstorm2]

I'd bet that for every sale of an unstable, "good-looking" machine, there were two or more sales lost to prospective customers whose families begged them not to fly "those deathtraps."

How much bigger would the sport and its marketplace be today if 99 out of 100 aviation enthusiasts didn't think flying a gyro was evidence of a death wish?

If gyroplanes, as a group, had a good safety record, they might sell in quantities more like other similarly-priced recreational power sports products. According to some recent estimates, that could be as much as a 60-fold sales increase..

hear, here!

I wish I would have written that! Maybe you should write news and reviews for a living? Oh wait.... ;)

Expounding upon what Paul said...

I feel that we not only need to sell safe stable designs in the gyro market but we also have to sell ourselves as safe.

This forum has done wonders to bring stability and safety out into the open for people to learn and discuss.

That is not enough though.

We have to be open with people and admit we DID have a problem but we figured it out and now we are over it.

We are ready for our second wind and we have the greatest flying machines ever created!

When I was at 2009 BDays I kept hearing people talk about how they wished they could fly their PPC or XXX during middle of the day winds like the gyros.

There is more new interest in gyros now then when I started. We need to make the wave and ride it.

The damage to our sport from unstable 'bunt-o-matics' has to stop and stop now. We know better.

I don't care if you fly an unstable 10" HTL, high-powered, short coupled, enclosed, 2-place side by side machine with no HStab.. that is your choice.

But don't be telling people that it is as safe as other gyros or aircraft, don't be taking up passengers that are unaware of the HTL/stability flaw, don't be telling people it 'flys better that way'.

And tell people it was a helicopter so that when you PPO the news coverage is not so bad for us gyro folks...

.
Oh, crap.. how did that soap box get under me.... :noidea:

[PW_Plack]

...The damage to our sport from unstable 'bunt-o-matics' has to stop and stop now. We know better...

Tim, I'm somewhat cynical about the prospects for enough unity in the sport to get this done without trauma. There will always be people who are financially or emotionally invested in legacy designs, either as manufacturers or owners, and take it as a personal affront to consider they may have made mistakes.

I believe it will now require a painful split in the sport, characterized by a group of traditionalists on one side, and a separate group favoring stable machines, safe designs, adherence to the rules, and proven aviation best practices on the other. Ironically, that second group will be seen as the "new guard," but will actually be closely aligned with the design philosophies of the earliest autogyros, which were invented to be a safer alternative to fixed-wing.

If this split happens, it will require a safe "brand" to emerge. I put "brand" in quotes because it may not be a manufacturer. It may be a manufacturer, an association of manufacturers, a new organization for enthusiasts, a new sub-group of EAA, etc. Those who break off must be willing to risk alienating some pretty big current names in the sport. The brand will be either a trade name, or something like the UL seal on appliances, denoting conformity to a set of standards. It will require vigilance and enforcement to make sure it's not counterfeited.

The fastest, easiest way for this to happen, IMHO, would be SLSA gyroplanes, backed by audits of manufacturer claims of ASTM compliance performed by LAMA or another 3rd-party group. If that one change was to happen, there would be people with money who'd see the opportunity for mass-produced, factory-built gyros, wouldn't give a rodent's colon about hurt feelings among old schoolers, and would start the process of rebuilding the reputation of what is supposed to be the safest of all powered aircraft.

I hope this happens before the sport disappears. We really are a major PITA to the the rest of general aviation, and a zit on the face of the homebuilding movement.

[All_In]

Paul, you are good!!!

I hadn't thought about the split that might be necessary, but the 3rd party monitor and SLSA rotorcraft I believe is right on!

[fiveboy]

If recognizing a problem spawns a solution and the solution is the split and self regulatory endorsements.... that leaves the how of the equation....

[PW_Plack]

Five, what I've described is already up and running in fixed-wing LSA. The FAA gave the industry a choice of audits conducted in-house by the manufacturers, or by a third party, and the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association appears to be a working solution. It represents all manufacturers, so it will never become anti-industry, but it's not beholden to any one manufacturer, so it has the freedom to call out any companies which have fraudulently self-certified as meeting ASTM standards.

Accepting gyros into LSA would cover every change I've mentioned. All we'd need would be a valid set of consensus standards. I'm not clear on how many manufacturers would have to agree, and how that bar would be set, but the rest of the process would be automatic.

LSA has a determined, FAA-enforced definition. LSA would be the "brand." Some machines would make the cut, others would not. Manufacturers who met the standard would have a huge new market in selling factory-built machines; those who chose not to conform could still sell into the amateur-built kit market. I believe that eventually, the LSA side would open up a big lead in safety stats and reputation.

We're pretty far off-topic here. Maybe this would make a good thread of its own.

[PW_Plack]

I hadn't thought about the split that might be necessary, but the 3rd party monitor and SLSA rotorcraft I believe is right on!

John, these splits happen all the time. Sometimes, they're so respectful they're hardly noticed. Other times the people who break away have become so frustrated that they don't handle it gracefully.

A big example of the latter just happened in the flight instruction community. The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI), which is an affiliate of EAA and does not allow member instructors to vote for its directors, split over an internal political matter for which its bylaws didn't provide an escape valve.

Now, the competing Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) has drained off some of NAFI's most active members, has bylaws allowing members more say in governance, and is setting up programs which parallel what has traditionally been offered by NAFI.

When such a fork-in-the-road happens, and there's a choice in direction, the two groups can sometimes develop very different missions and personalities. Darwin usually picks a winner.

And sadly, if there's one thing this sport knows only too well, it's natural selection.

[Terry]

Thanks for posting the information Dennis. I am kind of new here and considering a gyroplane purchase or build. I posted in a separate thread (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20928) a question about what appears to be a high incidence of RAF 2000 and Commander accidents in the NTSB's records, but I have not yet received a response.

Then I saw your posting, which leaves with me the idea that if the statistics you've provided are common to a high-tech model of gyroplane such as the Commanders, aren't those poor pilot statistics just as common to the myriad of other brands? And how much more common are they to the later designed beginner type gyroplanes like the Bees and such, which also appear to have come out about the time as the Air Commanders, yet do not appear to have as many accidents?

Related to the last part of your post, I do not have any statistics on how many other gyroplane designs were built since the first Commander was built, as you might; but surely there were far more of them in total than there were Commanders.

I've been enjoying reading your knowledable postings here the past few days, and hope to learn more from you in the future. I am just struggling for understanding.

Terry Graham
:yo:

[birdy]

Good luck with your call to Dennis for help Terry.
Iv asked him a few questions over a time, and he seems to think theres a hidden agender.
It seems he is very selective as to who he decides to help.
If you agree with everythn he says and praise him no end [ feed his ego IOW] your in for a treat, coz after all he's dun, he's gota know a fair bit.
But if you so much as question him, or even ask clarification, your likely to be called a smartass, moron, idiot, bully or wotever else comes to mind at the time. :(

I consider Dennis a waste of real life experiance.
All coz of his ego.

[barnstorm2]

Then I saw your posting, which leaves with me the idea that if the statistics you've provided are common to a high-tech model of gyroplane such as the Commanders, aren't those poor pilot statistics just as common to the myriad of other brands? And how much more common are they to the later designed beginner type gyroplanes like the Bees and such,......:

Terry,

You might get some clarification here:

http://www.prachapter34.com/gyro_safety.htm

Also, here is a Power Point presentation. If you get prompted for a Password just click CANCEL, the presentation will still play.

I will take a minute or two to load.

http://gyrowiki.com/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fShared%20Documents%2fG yroplane%20Stability%20Powerpoint&FolderCTID=0x0120001B8A4E515AAA624FBDD3EA16F1078C3 9&View=%7bC6E56DDF%2d7A3A%2d4C7D%2dA021%2d308373D3AE 19%7d

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

A 'short' answer might be:

The original Autogyros (Kellet / Pitcairn) had and have the best safety record in aviation.

The 80-90's designed gyro kits have the worst safety record in aviation.

The Stable, NCLT/CLT designs (2000 kits) are showing them selves to as good or a better safety record then the rest of the Experimental aircraft.

The HTL+unstable designs of the 80-90s are much more likely to kill a new pilot or an experienced Fixed Wing pilot transitioning to gyro then a stable gyro design. These designs are also more likely to kill an experienced pilot than a stable design.

All makes / models will get about the same number of people that are nubees and transistionals.
.

[fiveboy]

Five, what I've described is already up and running in fixed-wing LSA. The FAA gave the industry a choice of audits conducted in-house by the manufacturers, or by a third party, and the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association appears to be a working solution. It represents all manufacturers, so it will never become anti-industry, but it's not beholden to any one manufacturer, so it has the freedom to call out any companies which have fraudulently self-certified as meeting ASTM standards.

Accepting gyros into LSA would cover every change I've mentioned. All we'd need would be a valid set of consensus standards. I'm not clear on how many manufacturers would have to agree, and how that bar would be set, but the rest of the process would be automatic.

LSA has a determined, FAA-enforced definition. LSA would be the "brand." Some machines would make the cut, others would not. Manufacturers who met the standard would have a huge new market in selling factory-built machines; those who chose not to conform could still sell into the amateur-built kit market. I believe that eventually, the LSA side would open up a big lead in safety stats and reputation.

We're pretty far off-topic here. Maybe this would make a good thread of its own.

Paul I understand, but the how part of my question was aimed more toward who would spearhead such a thing vs the mechanism of what would happen. This community is fragmented and incohesive at best. Except for a marginal website (John will change that I am certain) and a magazine that preaches only to the choir, the PRA seems to exist primarily as a means to an end, that end being an airport that serves some infrequently. I really do not see how this transition and/or coalescence would occur (At this point in the screenplay we cue Greg Gremminger to fly in under his own power with music up?).

I say less thread more action!

NB: Though I dinged PRA I do believe anyone who flies a gyro, or intends to, should be a member. I also think the PRA should become much more professional (ie: organized) in representing the long term interests of gyrocraft & gyronauts. Right now it feels very mom and pop out in a cornfield.

[Vance]

In my opinion what I could see happening is a business person would identify a business case for producing and selling gyroplanes. He would do what it takes, including spending money, to get things in line with the government to allow him to do that.

It would be a very large undertaking because he would have to create a market where one doesn’t exist.

He would have to create a training infrastructure where one doesn’t exist.

To manage the liability ramifications the product would need to be engineered and tested. Gyroplane stability and structural analysis is not a mystery, it just costs money.

Marketing is not a mystery; it just costs money.

Production and cost control is not a mystery; it just takes focus and an investment in tooling.

Someone has to take the risk for this to happen.

At this point there is not an identifiable market and therefore no resources to make this happen. Volunteers can only do so much. The total gross of the entire gyroplane “industry” in the United States of America is less than many retail stores.

The PRA was started to promote Bensen gyrocopters and it did a fine job of that.

There is currently not a gyroplane industry with capital behind it so the PRA is floundering.

Managing government regulation is a lot of hard work and it is difficult to find a capable person who wants to do it just for the fun of it because, in my experience, it is not fun.

I feel that this thread has gotten very off track and out of respect for Dennis it would be worthwhile to start a new thread about the future of the gyroplanes, government regulation and marketing if there is interest in that. Dennis would probably have some very valuable experience to share on that subject. I feel his advertising and marketing were first rate.

Thank you, Vance

[barnstorm2]

There is (IMHO) less of a problem here then some may be seeing.

We don't have to enforce any standards on stability because (so far as I know) there are no longer any unstable HTL kits being produced and sold in North America.

Anyone shopping for a NEW gyroplane or building a popular design (bee ish) will get a good stable machine that is fine for a student or transitional pilot.

Magni = good
Air Command (CLT)= good
Sport Copter = good
Dominators = good
Xenon = good
Monarch/butterfly = good
Bees = good
LittleWing = good
SparrowHawk = good

I don't have first hand experience with UFOs and MT-03's but at a glance they seem to have things right.

To get a new Bunt-o-matic you have go to _ _ _ in S. America. And chances are they will run into the same problems they did in N. America and eventually go out of business too unless they start adding some stability.


I think we are largely 'cured' and can move forward on getting the word out.

Government Standards will only help in producing an SLSA gyroplane. I think we need one but lets not paint a picture that ASTM standards are the only way to make gyros safe.
.

.

[All_In]

Yes that's true Tim.

However without a LSA type rating and a 3rd party watch dog certifying them.

It's almost impossible to acquire major financing even from the SBA for experiential aircraft.

Once we have a certified aircraft normal credit lines become available just like financing a new piper dealership, etc.

Currently anyone wishing to bring this to our sport would have to invest their kids and grand kids inheritance and that's not probably going to happen.

[Jens]

...........[ feed his ego IOW] .......
All coz of his ego.
Quite some interest about Dennis ego :D

"All coz of his ego" ......
If your are a succes or a failure, can it bascically come from any other place than oneself?

If yes, I would like to know where - especially regarding (re)placing my failures ;)

[BUD ONEAL]

Paul I understand, but the how part of my question was aimed more toward who would spearhead such a thing vs the mechanism of what would happen. This community is fragmented and incohesive at best. Except for a marginal website (John will change that I am certain) and a magazine that preaches only to the choir, the PRA seems to exist primarily as a means to an end, that end being an airport that serves some infrequently. I really do not see how this transition and/or coalescence would occur (At this point in the screenplay we cue Greg Gremminger to fly in under his own power with music up?).

I say less thread more action!

NB: Though I dinged PRA I do believe anyone who flies a gyro, or intends to, should be a member. I also think the PRA should become much more professional (ie: organized) in representing the long term interests of gyrocraft & gyronauts. Right now it feels very mom and pop out in a cornfield.
Gary Goldsberry tried to make the pra more professional and he got stompped bad for his efforts. One man can only do so much before he throws up his hands and swears off.
Trying to get two or more gyro owners to agree is akin to herding a bunch of long tailed tom cats in a room full of rocking chairs

[All_In]

Gary Goldsberry tried to make the pra more professional and he got stompped bad for his efforts. One man can only do so much before he throws up his hands and swears off.
Trying to get two or more gyro owners to agree is akin to herding a bunch of long tailed tom cats in a room full of rocking chairs

Your right on regarding one man can't do it!!

However I'm getting way to much credit I've got some great volunteers, Rob= Fiveson is a volunteer, so is Kevin, Tim Chick, Dave Bacon, Leigh, Helipatty, and many others that are really making it happen behind the curtain, and I'll be requesting more help including your help too Bud, soon!!!!

(I've left many of you off the list, sorry!)

This BOD is actually part of the solution and Tim O is putting in as much or more effort as I am, so I'm very hopeful!!

Tools will soon be available that will help anyone who wishes to make a real difference actually happen!

But it will only happen if more of you will help us make it so!


We can do IT!

PS:
Please stay tuned, tools are coming very soon, just stared on the last phase of adding & converting my database to the new PRA MYSQL database and were ready to let you all see how this could happen. Maybe 2 more weeks if I can keep working 20 hour days. We are very close to the end of the hard part!

I also hope to have an online version of the magazine by the end of July!

[PW_Plack]

Let me say this, and then its all yours;

I took this to mean Dennis was done with this thread, but in case I misunderstood, I'll keep this brief.

Five, of the options available, I think it would have to be an industry association that gets this started, not a group representing individual enthusiasts. The group would be made up of companies which have quantified the market potential to their own satisfaction, and understand the potential of adding the US to the mix. In other words, the association might be dominated by non-US companies, at least at first. (As the LSA fixed-wing world has been.)

Assuming that process has not already begun might be inaccurate.

Vance is on-target here, but I disagree that a market does not exist. It is untapped and unproven, but research could determine whether it exists, and how big it is.

My hunch is if you got together a group of 100 people who have investments of $50K or more in other recreational powersports equipment, and showed them how they could fly gyros for the same money or less, some significant percentage of them would do it in a heartbeat. But hunches are not an adequate research. Research companies have techniques for estimating these things with enough accuracy to satisfy the needs of investors.

If European countries can support competing manufacturers of factory-built light sport gyroplanes, then what's the difference? I believe it's the cost of regulation. Currently there are only two paths open to companies which would serve the US: Experimental Amateur-Built, and full-on Part 23 Standard Category. EAB is what we have now, and clearly few people are interested in building, and even fewer wind up with flying machines that are safe and dependable. Part 23 is a $100-million or more proposition for most new aircraft. LSA would fall in the middle, and make possible machines like we see produced in Europe now.

Expecting the PRA to lead such an effort is unrealistic. There's nothing wrong with PRA, it's just that the organization represents the interests of its membership, and if those 2- or 3,000 people don't care much about LSA, the low priority is perfectly understandable.

IF LSA gyros were to happen, the makeup of PRA would shift over time, as more newcomers to the sport became PRA members.

[BUD ONEAL]

Your right on regarding one man can't do it!!

However I'm getting way to much credit I've got some great volunteers, Rob= Fiveson is a volunteer, so is Kevin, Tim Chick, Dave Bacon, Leigh, Helipatty, and many others that are really making it happen behind the curtain, and I'll be requesting more help including your help too Bud, soon!!!!

(I've left many of you off the list, sorry!)

This BOD is actually part of the solution and Tim O is putting in as much or more effort as I am, so I'm very hopeful!!

Tools will soon be available that will help anyone who wishes to make a real difference actually happen!

But it will only happen if more of you will help us make it so!


We can do IT!

PS:
Please stay tuned, tools are coming very soon, just stared on the last phase of adding & converting my database to the new PRA MYSQL database and were ready to let you all see how this could happen. Maybe 2 more weeks if I can keep working 20 hour days. We are very close to the end of the hard part!

I also hope to have an online version of the magazine by the end of July!

As somebody famous once said"I am but one,I cannot do it all but will do what I can" so let me know what you may need that I can do and I will give it one he-- of a try

[All_In]

As somebody famous once said"I am but one,I cannot do it all but will do what I can" so let me know what you may need that I can do and I will give it one he-- of a try
See we're getting better and stronger everyday!
I knew I could count on you BUD!!!!

[birdy]

If your are a succes or a failure, can it bascically come from any other place than oneself?
?????????????????
And in inglish that means????????????

[PW_Plack]

Birdy, I think the point was that in order to lead a successful venture, an ego is necessary.

[WaspAir]

Birdy, I think the point was that in order to lead a successful venture, an ego is necessary.

Or perhaps, if in a literary mood, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.

[Passin' Thru]

Or perhaps, if in a literary mood, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.


It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.

-- William Earnest Henley "Invictus"

[birdy]

Birdy, I think the point was that in order to lead a successful venture, an ego is necessary.
Sumone sayn he dont hava ego problem is like a madman sayn he isnt mad.
Ones ego is everyone elses perception.
I have no idea if i have an ego problem or not.
No one [ of note at least] has said so.
But if wot you say is rite Paul, i gota have the biggest ego ere. ;)