I let a potential customer down this past week.

[Mayfield]

Earlier this week I received a very civil e-mail from a gentleman named Steve Beck. Mr. Beck had called our office to ask some questions.

The chief pilot was on another call and I was in my Salt Lake City Office. The only person available was Jaap Van der Westhuizen; our chief engineer. Jaap apparently talked to Mr. beck but it seems that Mr. Beck was not satisfied with the responses.

In his e-mail to me, Mr. Beck says that because of the poor customer service he percieved; he called a competing company and that they were much more upbeat, cordial, and helpful in answering his questions.

He indicated that he would be taking his business to a competing company.

In my e-mail to Mr. Beck I apologized for treating him poorly and told him that I understand that there is no excuse for doing so. I told him that I was poorly positioned to ask him a favor but that I felt I must.

I requested that he ask the competing company two questions and to get the answer in writing:

1. Can your machine suffer a power push over?

2. Is your machine statically and dynamically stable in pitch?

I probably have missed it, but I can not remember reading a simple declaration to that effect.

Therefore, I will make this statement in writing.

"If assembled in accordance with the assembly instructions provided, without unauthorized changes, the SparrowHawk and the AAI Stability Augmented RAF 2000 can not suffer "Power Push Over" and are statically and dynamically stable in Pitch."

I will send that statement, on company letterhead, and with my original signature, to any customer that requests it.

I recommend that you request the same statement from any manufacturer of enclosed two seat gyroplanes. If they are not willing to provide that statement; ask why?

Respectfully,

Jim Mayfield

[Udi]

If this customer is basing his buying decisions on a single phone call than he deserves the consequences. I am amazed an aircraft buyer can be so shallow and posses such poor decision making skills. Anyway, too bad your lovely office manager couldn't take the phone call. She can win anyone's heart with her Phoenixian accent. ;)

Udi

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Very good advice Jim.

There of course may be at least one company that would not be able to answer the question due to the fact they may not have anyone availiable who understands the issue.

And for any potential gyro buyer here is two more questions that should be asked.

(1) How many gyro kits sold by your company are flying or have been flown?

(2) How many people have been killed flying the gyro kits sold by your company?

These are questions that are very important to have the answers to.

If you do get answers to these two questions, then come back here and double check their numbers.

Chuck E

[Mayfield]

Thanks for the supportive comments Steven. I agree with every point you have made, and thank you for them.

I hope Mr. Beck does the research necessary to make an informed decision. I truly wish him well.

Notwithstanding the above, it is incumbent upon us to educate all potential customers as much as possible. I am busy trying to organize a tech support phone line, but have not put it in place yet.

Every manufacturer walks a very dangerous path. You want to present your product to the market in the most favorable light, but you can not prevaricate.

I will "put it in writing." This, I hope, will give customers a comfort level heretofore unobtainable.

If we can educate folks on these relatively simple issues I think we will have come a long way.

If a customer asks me "Is the SparrowHawk stable?" I can say "yes!" If they ask me if it can suffer Power Push Over; I can respond with a resounding "NO!!" I do not have to beat around the bush and explain why stability is not important.

We will strongly suggest that potential customers request the same statement, in writing, from any manufacturer. If the manufacturer is reluctant to "put it in writing" the customer will, hopefully, understand what that means.

Thanks Steven,

Jim

[GyroRon]

Fat chance RAF will put it in writing.

[Gary_in_Orygun]

There is a good point here to remember when companies compete with each other. Different people will value different things...differently.

I had a short email conversation with Steve and he pointed out that when asked what the cabin width was, the chief engineer said he didn't know but would get him the spec. Now personally, that is an acceptable answer for me. I can totally understand not having memorized all the specs on a machine even if I was the chief engineer, because my memory isn't that good. That is why I carry a Palm Pilot (my electronic brain).

But obviously not everyone has the same expectation. I would not fault AAI at all here. But it does open some interesting points to consider. I comment only because I have the utmost regard for AAI and its reps (the ones I met) and I would like to see them succeed in every way.

Something to consider... Answering someone's concerns about customer support may not best be answered with a question about product stability or quality. Some may regard CLT as of the utmost importance (and yes, it is high the on the list). But others may put customer service just as high. Or, of similar importance might be whether the company will still be in existence in 3 years when support may be sorely needed.

Chuck asked about how many units were sold, built, and crashed (in reference to RAF I expect). That seems a little far fetched. Yes, there is a PPO possiblity in some gyros out there. Teach the potential buyers which ones they are or how to recognize these characteristics (in conferences like this and publications that talk about the issues), what might be done to help the situation, and what flight limitations a machine like that has.

So each area (such as customer service) needs to be worked on (as I see Jim M. is trying to do with his followup email to Steve). I'm also a big one for good documentation, because I am not a builder at heart or by trade. I needed all the help I could get. That was another reason why I turned down some other possible gyros.

In summary, what I am trying to get across is that you shouldn't use CLT and product quality to answer questions or concerns of customer support, which may include documentation and later phone support.

IMHO... ;)

[PW_Plack]

Jim,

Forget putting it in writing. Put it in HTML! That promise, and the challenge to other manufacturers, needs to be on the AAI website, along with a thorough explanation of the physics of PPO and pitch stability.

Perhaps this guy was as frustrated as I was when I first started looking for info on gyros. A recent poll on the other forum suggests that internet search engines are far and away the number-one place newbies start looking for info. Some find the forums, where it's cumbersome and time-consuming to find qualified answers to specific questions. I was looking for manufacturer specifications, and was very frustrated by the skimpy web sites maintained by kitmakers.

I'm not sure any industry with which I have to deal on a regular basis overlooks the web so badly in their marketing. All the sites lack much content, some apparently never even get proofread. One site talks about the company's rotor blades offering "a lift capability from ultralight thru 14 lbs. G.W." Understandable, I guess, considering how small the blades must be...that same company brags about its "5 sq ft facility that houses a complete machine shop with state of the art advanced welding capability." And this mistake has been there for years now! Another major blade maker misspelled "chord" in ads for a long time. These gaffs are less than confidence-inspiring.

Try going to the Brock site, and actually figure out what it will cost to build one of their kits without a phone call.

AAI's site doesn't have anything quite that goofy, but like others, needs more content. I'd love to read about the company and its products in great detail without having to waste an engineer's time. The PRA site should have comparative data for various kits, produced by testing gyros confirmed by the kitmakers as conforming examples, and in at least as much detail as we get from cars reviewed in Motor Trend.

We might all be safer if we could get as much pre-purchase consumer information about these various flying machines as we can about cars or computers.

Now...someone help me move this soapbox out of the way before someone trips over it...

[Gaylon]

Hi All,

I am begining to think this AAI/RAF comparison is alot like Ercoupe/Piper comparisons made in the 40's. Fred Weik designed an airplane that would NOT STALL. It was so stable in yaw that it did not even need rudder pedals. It was supposed to be the plane in every garage, yet Piper's planes killed people. But of course so did the Ercoupe in due time. Ercoupe changed owners several times and went out of business. However, Piper hired Fred Weik to design their revolutionary plane, the Cherokee. It killed people too. I guess time will tell.



Thanks


Gaylon

[Udi]

No, Gaylon. A more accurate analogy will be between a WWI fighter plane and a Piper Cub. One is inherently unstable, and the other is super stable. Some of the WWI fighter planes were built intentionally unstable, because they didn't know how else to make them more maneuverable.

You may also take the same stable Cub, and move it’s center of gravity about two feet behind the center of lift. Then you get an RAF. Fly the two Cubs and tell me the difference. In gyroplanes, less stable does not translate to more maneuverable, only to a higher workload and risk.

Another problem with your analogy is that the RAF does not have any advantage over the Sparrow Hawk. They are basically the same aircraft, only the Sparrow Hawk is better engineered.

Udi-
p.s. Gylon - I am not on AAI payroll. These are my opinions, and I encourage you to spend the time I have spent learning gyroplane aerodynamics, so you can have your own in-depth understanding of the subject.

[Gary_in_Orygun]

Udi says: "Another problem with your analogy is that the RAF does not have any advantage over the Sparrow Hawk. They are basically the same aircraft, only the Sparrow Hawk is better engineered."

They are not the same aircraft. RAF has a folding mast, meaning more flexibility for trailering and storing, Sparrow Hawk does not.

Sparrow Hawk claims a bigger cabin, which means it is more comfortable (I hope).

RAF is a low rider--some like the looks and ergonomics better than the high-rise SparrowHawk.

SparrowHawk is more stable in pitch and yaw than the stock RAF. AND that can translate into safer. This is the sole point most people focus on, while discounting the others as unimportant. But to some, those unimportant items may make or break a sale.

Ya can't loose customer focus and think strictly engineering. The whole package has to be taken into account when marketing and selling a product.

[gyromike]

Gary,

Not to be argumentative, but how many times do people fold their mast for trailering/storage vs. flying their machine?

If I had to fold and unfold my mast and remount my blades anytime I wanted to fly, I would just cut a slot for the mast over the doorway of the building instead. Much easier and quicker too.

And I can't imagine choosing a 'low-rider' over a CLT machine just because it's easier to board. It's not as though an extra half-hour is required to enter/exit the aircraft.

I got into Terry Eiland's machine with no problem, and I'm only 5'8". There was even a couple of people shorter than me who got into it no problem.

I have to disagree with your statement that "Ya can't loose customer focus and think strictly engineering. The whole package has to be taken into account when marketing and selling a product.". The stability of the aircraft must take precedence over the styling. And the customers need to start learning this.

Form follows function.

[Gary_in_Orygun]

Wow, that is a strong statement Mike: "The stability of the aircraft must take precedence over the styling. And the customers need to start learning this." I don't think you should get into marketing. I don't think I should either.

If you want to sell something, you have to sell something that the marketplace wants, not what you think they should have. Now to counter that, you also want to make sure you don't kill your customers. If safety is the sole motivator for someone to purchase your product, then by all means go for it.

Telling me that because I only use my folding mast twice a year, therefore I don't need it is a very silly marketing statement.

If I want to buy a fast, sporty car I better be aware of how it can hurt me. So, teach me what I need to know. But don't tell me I can't have it because it might hurt me. Same goes for a Pitts biplane.

Paul mentioned that it would be nice for manufacturers to put some "useful" information on their websites. Since AAI has a machine that won't PPO, they have nothing to loose and everything to gain to put up some simplified, yet technical descriptions of what a high thrust line can mean to the stability of a gyro.

And it can't be written to say that ALL machines that are not CLT will fall out of the sky, because I and many other RAF drivers can point to many successful flights. BUT, there is a risk associated with those flights. Especially without a horizontal stab.

That is what should be communicated. Let's just keep informing people what the tradeoffs are and what issues are involved with the different designs. Then leave it up to the customer to determine what he wants to do with those risks.

Well, that's how I see it anyway.

[Gaylon]

Is a Benson a CLT machine?????



Gaylon

[gyropilot]

If you want to sell something, you have to sell something that the marketplace wants, not what you think they should have.
Actually Gary, a good marketer will create demand where none exists by making you think you need his product even if you didn't start out wanting it.

[Udi]

Actually Gary, a good marketer will create demand where none exists by making you think you need his product even if you didn't start out wanting it.


And my dear wife is a living proof...

[gyromike]

Is a Benson a CLT machine?????
Gaylon


If you build it right, it is.

The Mac engine I have swings a 52" prop, with 1" of clearance from the keel. Also using rotor blades that are heavier than standard Bensens, like my 24 ft. Rotordynes, will also raise the CG. My stabilizer isn't the best, being a flat plate mounted on the keel, but it makes for a noticable difference in handling over a Bensen sans stabilizer. I have a set of plans for a Ron Herron T-tail that I want to build for it, when I get a chance.

[gyromike]

Gary,

I guess it is a strong statement. I would be a shi**y marketer, I suppose. But then again, I ain't sellin' nuthin'. I'm not even a very good promoter for flying gyroplanes, unless the person attempts to learn some of the basics.

As for the folding mast, you can have whatever you want. It's your machine. I would just make a taller door opening in whatever I was using for a hangar. But that's just me.

I said that I can't imagine choosing a lowrider over a CLT, because of all that I have learned on Norm's Forum over the years. When I first started out, I didn't understand the rationale behind the Dominator design, until I started reading about the thrustline offsets produced by swinging a large re-driven prop. Once I understood the Function, the Form made sense to me. I see no benefits to having a large thrustline offset.

This is what the customers/public/beginners need to learn. I agree that more manufacturers need to put this type of info on their websites. Or at least post a link to the PRA Safety report on the PRA website. Here it is: http://www.pra.org/Greg%20G/report_from_the_pra_board_of_dir.htm
Also the Fourcade article:
http://www.asra.org.au/L_Stability.htm
There may be others that I don't know about.

If a person has access to all of this information, and still chooses a less stable design, then that's their choice. I am in no way saying that they shouldn't be allowed to fly them, even if it ain't close to CLT.

And I didn't mean for it to look like a personal attack against you. If it appeared that way, I apologize.

[Hognose]

Forget putting it in writing. Put it in HTML! That promise, and the challenge to other manufacturers, needs to be on the AAI website, along with a thorough explanation of the physics of PPO and pitch stability.


Jim -- What Paul said.

Guys, Jim does an absolutely mind-blowing chalk talk on gyroplane stability and control. A version of that on the website would go a long way to educate people.

One of the RAF guys told me, "of course the Sparrowhawk will PPO" and said that he would volunteer to put on a parachute, take it to altitude, and push the stick full forward to demonstrate... and then bail out of the broken gyro. First, that could well be suicide - rotor blades in a buntover go where it pleases the laws of physics to take them, including through the cabin. Second, and more importantly, it showed that this guy, someone close to the factory, doesn't know a bunt-over (which can be a result of control inputs forcing negative G) from PPO (which is essentially an UNCOMMANDED bunt-over from reduced of zero G conspiring with a high thrustline).

Sadly, this individual who told me this has three rotorcraft/gyroplane ratings, and ought to know better.

Like Jim says, it's not an opinion. Once the machine goes over it's too late to change your mind.

cheers

-=K=-

[Gary_in_Orygun]

Ken J. emailed me the following web address.

http://www.americanautogyro.com/Centerline%20Thrust/Centerline%20Thrust%20P1.htm

Looks like AAI had the CLT issue documented on their website already. From what Paul said earlier, it sounded like this kind of info was not up there.

[GyroRon]

Where is Ken J? Why isn't he posting anymore?

[gyromike]

Thanks Gary,

Another one to add to the list. I'll add it to the "Technical' links on our Chapter page.

[PW_Plack]

Thanks, Gary...Bravo Jim! I hadn't seen that info when I went there last time.