MT03 accident report

[PTKay]

Pilot error, poor training

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_005/nn_223970/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/2008/Bericht__08__3X162__AutoGiro__Thannhausen,template Id=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bericht_08_3X162_AutoGiro_Thannhausen.pdf

[Chuck Roberg]

""Pilot error, poor training""

I'll take your word for it since I can't read a word of it. ;")

[Terry]

""Pilot error, poor training""

I'll take your word for it since I can't read a word of it. ;")

Try Google's translator (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bfu-web.de%2Fcln_005%2Fnn_223970%2FDE%2FPublikationen% 2FUntersuchungsberichte%2F2008%2FBericht__08__3X16 2__AutoGiro__Thannhausen%2CtemplateId%3Draw%2Cprop erty%3DpublicationFile.pdf%2FBericht_08_3X162_Auto Giro_Thannhausen.pdf&sl=de&tl=en).

Simply enter the URL into the text box, and voila! It even translates documents.

[fiveboy]

Zoom climb, unloaded and pancaked in?

[Vance]

Hello Paul,

Perhaps it is just the poor translation but I am having trouble understanding just what happened.

What were the pilot errors?

What was poor about his training?

Thank you, Vance

[PTKay]

Hello Paul,

Perhaps it is just the poor translation but I am having trouble understanding just what happened.

What were the pilot errors?

What was poor about his training?

Thank you, Vance

Vance,

Manufacturer:

1. Discrepancies between master documentation and particular model
2. Discrepancies between genrel flight envelope description and manual
(irrelevant to the accident)

Training:

1. No proper training documentation
2. No solo during training, although 5 hours demanded
3. No record of practical test failed twice
4. No record of the time of the "successful" practical test

Flight:

Probably tried to do a hammerhead, zoomed high, speed dropped
from 124 to 27 km/h, power added, gyro turned inverted to the right
hit ground inverted nose first.

Conclusions of the report:

Poor training
pilot error
unloading rotor

My comment:

Exceptionally correctly described properties of gyro flying and error reasons.

Thank you.

Paul

[PTKay]

Zoom climb, unloaded and pancaked in?

Generally yes, probable power torque roll-over.

[Terry]

This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.

I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.

This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.

[Vance]

This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.

I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.

This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.

Hello Terry,

My limited understanding of the fixed wing flight envelope suggests that your comparison of gyroplanes with fixed wing aircraft is illogical.

Fixed wing aircraft can and do have “stall spin” events at that altitude that is a “non recoverable event.” I read about them all the time on the NTSB reports and they are often fatal.

In my opinion there are many more non recoverable events at low altitude in a fixed wing than in a gyroplane.

Just because you have survived pilot error does not change the importance of flying any aircraft or the existence of non recoverable events.

Thank you, Vance

[Terry]

Hello Terry,

My limited understanding of the fixed wing flight envelope suggests that your comparison of gyroplanes with fixed wing aircraft is illogical.

Fixed wing aircraft can and do have “stall spin” events at that altitude that is a “non recoverable event.” I read about them all the time on the NTSB reports and they are often fatal.

In my opinion there are many more non recoverable events at low altitude in a fixed wing than in a gyroplane.

Just because you have survived pilot error does not change the importance of flying any aircraft or the existence of non recoverable events.

Thank you, Vance

That makes sense, at low altitudes. A stall at low altitude is unrecoverable in a fixed wing.

What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.

[Vance]

That makes sense, at low altitudes. A stall at low altitude is unrecoverable in a fixed wing.

What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.

Your speculation about gyroplane accidents seems particularly off track and may cause concern for others who don’t understand how gyroplanes fly. There is enough danger in any kind of flying to not have to make things up.

In my opinion the accident in question happened at low altitude and any useful comparison with a fixed wing should be in a similar situation with a low time pilot flying outside of his capabilities. I don’t have to look far to see that there are many dead pilots that were not able to recover from a mistake at any altitude in a fixed wing aircraft.

My reading of the NTSB reports suggests that there are many ways to have a non recoverable event at altitude in a fixed wing so I feel you have come up with another unsupportable hypothesis.

Most fatal aviation accidents occur at low altitude because that is where the ground is. In my opinion that does not necessarily indicate that that is where the problem started.

I keep hoping that one day you will say the words “now I have thought about it I can see I was just wrong” without changing the semantics or parameters.

Simply put, I would not feel safe in a fixed wing with any pilot flying in the places or at the altitudes I fly my gyroplane, particularly one who did not understand the limitations of a fixed wing aircraft.

Thank you, Vance

[EI-GYRO]

Most fatal aviation accidents occur at low altitude because that is where the ground is.

Now ain't that the truth. ROTFLMAO.

Can't think of anything that flies that doesn't have an unrecoverable
situation of some sort.

Know about it, avoid it.

[Terry]

Your speculation about gyroplane accidents seems particularly off track and may cause concern for others who don’t understand how gyroplanes fly. There is enough danger in any kind of flying to not have to make things up.

In my opinion the accident in question happened at low altitude and any useful comparison with a fixed wing should be in a similar situation with a low time pilot flying outside of his capabilities. I don’t have to look far to see that there are many dead pilots that were not able to recover from a mistake at any altitude in a fixed wing aircraft.

My reading of the NTSB reports suggests that there are many ways to have a non recoverable event at altitude in a fixed wing so I feel you have come up with another unsupportable hypothesis.

Most fatal aviation accidents occur at low altitude because that is where the ground is. In my opinion that does not necessarily indicate that that is where the problem started.

I keep hoping that one day you will say the words “now I have thought about it I can see I was just wrong” without changing the semantics or parameters.

Simply put, I would not feel safe in a fixed wing with any pilot flying in the places or at the altitudes I fly my gyroplane, particularly one who did not understand the limitations of a fixed wing aircraft.

Thank you, Vance

I agree with that completely Vance. And it is not my purpose to discredit gyroplanes. I was merely pointing out one difference that needs to be fully recognized by novice pilots to make them better pilots. A point which would make me a better pilot. An understanding I suspect you live by.

Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.

I once recovered an Ag-Wagon at under 300' that would not roll out of its pull-up turn at the end of a field. This plane was fully loaded, stalled and on its way onto its back; but training saved the day.

I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.

I have not changed parameters or semantics, but it appears you are reading them into what I wrote. The only error I would correct is when I wrote:A stall at low altitude is unrecoverable in a fixed wing.As it would need to be qualified by circumstances.

[PW_Plack]

Terry, you seem to be feeling your way through some counter-intuitive portions of theory in a public venue. That's great for you, but I hope newbies here don't get sidetracked from correct theory when they read them, or by your sometimes non-standard use of terms.

All aircraft have performance envelopes beyond which trouble lies. Fixed-wing aircraft have maximum airspeeds and G-loads beyond which the control surfaces will enter destructive flutter, the wing attachment points will fail, etc. Gyroplanes depend on positive-G to remain in autorotation, which if not maintained will allow other moments on the airframe to take over in dangerous ways, and loss of which will turn the otherwise-stiff rotor into a bullwhip with the power to lop off other parts of the airframe. Both categories of aircraft have distinct advantages, unique capabilities, and borders which require respect.

Stability describes aircraft responses within a stated performance envelope. It has nothing to do with remaining available altitude or pilot training.

There have been previous questions about the MT03 training syllabus regarding certain maneuvers, and in some countries there are legal barriers to training students in advanced maneuvers in some machines. It sounds as if this guy may have added a cavalier attitude, something with which the US gyroplane community is all too familiar.

[PW_Plack]

This plane was fully loaded, stalled and on it way onto its back; but training saved the day...

With all due respect, Terry, if the plane stalled in the first place, the pilot allowed the wing to exceed its critical angle of attack for the weight, G-loading and environmental conditions. Training saved the day only after human factors threatened it. If it stalled, it was being flown outside its envelope.

(I'm not being judgmental here! Ag flying requires being on the edge much of the time, just as many helicopter missions require spending lots of time within an unrecoverable area of the height-velocity curve.)

Just as disasters following zoom climbs haunt gyros, stall/spin crashes haunt airplanes. There is still about one fatal stall/spin per week in the US. It often happens when pilots used to flying alone fly with full passenger loads, enter a base-to-final turn too close to their level-flight stall speeds, let airspeeds drop too low on climb-out, or try to make an ill-advised turn back to the runway after losing an engine on takeoff. In all these cases, the envelope is known, and the pilot exceeded it.

[Terry]

With all due respect, Terry, if the plane stalled in the first place, the pilot allowed the wing to exceed its critical angle of attack for the weight, G-loading and environmental conditions. Training saved the day only after human factors threatened it. If it stalled, it was being flown outside its envelope.

(I'm not being judgmental here! Ag flying requires being on the edge much of the time, just as many helicopter missions require spending lots of time within an unrecoverable area of the height-velocity curve.)

Just as disasters following zoom climbs haunt gyros, stall/spin crashes haunt airplanes. There is still about one fatal stall/spin per week in the US. It often happens when pilots used to flying alone fly with full passenger loads, enter a base-to-final turn too close to their level-flight stall speeds, let airspeeds drop too low on climb-out, or try to make an ill-advised turn back to the runway after losing an engine on takeoff. In all these cases, the envelope is known, and the pilot exceeded it.

Paul,

There is not one thing about aircraft that I disagree with you over. There is nothing I have written that contradicts what either of you have written. You are both knee-jerking and reading into my comment something I did not put there. You are being defensive where I did not attack.

[birdy]

This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
Gyros are no different to any other machine.
They have limits.
And theres only one person in every case thats responsable for the machine go'n past the limit.

[C. Beaty]

It is my speculation that the pilot of this MT-03 had never heard of the torque roll propensity of such gyroplanes when the rotor is unloaded with the engine running at full power,

Cierva got it right with the C-30 direct control Autogiro by using differential tailplane incidence with tailplane centered in the propeller slipstream.

The earlier fixed head Autogiros handled torque with ailerons.

[Terry]

It is my speculation that the pilot of this MT-03 had never heard of the torque roll propensity of such gyroplanes when the rotor is unloaded with the engine running at full power,

Cierva got it right with the C-30 direct control Autogiro by using differential tailplane incidence with tailplane centered in the propeller slipstream.

The earlier fixed head Autogiros handled torque with ailerons.

What would be your opinion of doing that today?

Perhaps coupling a differential tailplane with rotor or rudder; or using an inverted v-tail or x-tail with differential ruddervator control? Or even a split tall rudder with the top half neutralized or cross controlled by left/right rotor input?

[C. Beaty]

A single full span vertical or horizontal tail does a fair job of removing the swirl from the propeller slipstream and balancing torque without differential incidence. In doing so, it also recovers some of the power wasted in rotating the slipstream; the sailboat effect.

If there is no swirl of the slipstream, there is no torque reaction; counter rotating props or aerodynamic vanes to remove the swirl, for instance.

[Terry]

A single full span vertical or horizontal tail does a fair job of removing the swirl from the propeller slipstream and balancing torque without differential incidence. In doing so, it also recovers some of the power wasted in rotating the slipstream; the sailboat effect.

If there is no swirl of the slipstream, there is no torque reaction; counter rotating props or aerodynamic vanes to remove the swirl, for instance.

Are you suggesting perhaps the MT03 tail should be larger for this reason, or would this have happened anyway?

Counter-rotating propellers would be novel, and perhaps not much more expensive than current single propeller gear boxes and blades, and with more thrust. Perhaps, instead of gearing down, use two smaller propellers at full RPM, but counter rotating. Less expensive propellers and no more expense for the gearbox.

What about thinking of ways to build in greater resistance to operator induced rotor unloading in the first place? Horizontal stabilizers help protect against instability, but is there a design criteria which can make it near impossible to induce rotor unloading without compromising performance? Why was this pilot able to take his MT03 into this condition?

[Vance]

I agree with that completely Vance. And it is not my purpose to discredit gyroplanes. I was merely pointing out one difference that needs to be fully recognized by novice pilots to make them better pilots. A point which would make me a better pilot. An understanding I suspect you live by.

Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.

I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.

I have not changed parameters or semantics, but it appears you are reading them into what I wrote. The only error I would correct is when I wrote:As it would need to be qualified by circumstances.

This is what I am talking about Terry, in my opinion you are just wrong.

One of Ed’s favorite flying maneuvers is a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the left followed by a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the right. I often do this when I am descending.

When we are playing with the hawks in thermals we often do figure eight turns in a more casual way.

In my opinion you make it sound like there is a demon out to get gyroplanes and gyroplane pilots just don’t know how to avoid the demon.

In my first half hour of ground school I was taught to avoid low G events and to be gentle and smooth with the throttle.

In my opinion you have imagined what happened in a completely unrealistic way based on your ignorance. I called you on it and you have now changed your story twice. Fixed wings you can fly out of it and then fixed wings can fly out of it at altitude. Airplanes often spin all the way to the ground with experienced pilots. Cessna’s recent experience with their light sport aircraft comes to mind. SR22s also come to mind.

If you don’t know, ask. Please don’t make statements that are completely wrong and then pretend you weren’t wrong.

You are “merely pointing out differences” that in my opinion don’t exist. It is important for a pilot to have a realistic assessment of his aircraft’s capabilities.

As with most aviation accidents, in my opinion this was a chain of poor aviation decisions.

I agree with Mr. Beaty’s assessment of this accident. My gyroplane doesn’t torque roll because I have a tall vertical stabilizer. Dominators don’t torque roll because they have a horizontal stabilizer set at different angles on each side of the tall full flying rudder. Steve McGowan’s “Black” does torque roll and he teaches people how to manage it.

I feel each time you pontificate as though it were fact you are hurting the gyroplane community. I am not being defensive, I am attacking your inaccurate statements in the hopes you will rethink the way you approach technical matters that you know little about. Temperate has not worked with you.

Ignorance can be cured.

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you and I recall you thinking that people were piling on you.

Thank you, Vance

[Terry]

This is what I am talking about Terry, in my opinion you are just wrong.

One of Ed’s favorite flying maneuvers is a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the left followed by a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the right. I often do this when I am descending.

When we are playing with the hawks in thermals we often do figure eight turns in a more casual way.

In my opinion you make it sound like there is a demon out to get gyroplanes and gyroplane pilots just don’t know how to avoid the demon.

In my first half hour of ground school I was taught to avoid low G events and to be gentle and smooth with the throttle.

In my opinion you have imagined what happened in a completely unrealistic way based on your ignorance. I called you on it and you have now changed your story twice. Fixed wings you can fly out of it and then fixed wings can fly out of it at altitude. Airplanes often spin all the way to the ground with experienced pilots. Cessna’s recent experience with their light sport aircraft comes to mind. SR22s also come to mind.

If you don’t know, ask. Please don’t make statements that are completely wrong and then pretend you weren’t wrong.

You are “merely pointing out differences” that in my opinion don’t exist. It is important for a pilot to have a realistic assessment of his aircraft’s capabilities.

As with most aviation accidents, in my opinion this was a chain of poor aviation decisions.

I agree with Mr. Beaty’s assessment of this accident. My gyroplane doesn’t torque roll because I have a tall vertical stabilizer. Dominators don’t torque roll because they have a horizontal stabilizer set at different angles on each side of the tall full flying rudder. Steve McGowan’s “Black” does torque roll and he teaches people how to manage it.

I feel each time you pontificate as though it were fact you are hurting the gyroplane community. I am not being defensive, I am attacking your inaccurate statements in the hopes you will rethink the way you approach technical matters that you know little about. Temperate has not worked with you.

Ignorance can be cured.

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you and I recall you thinking that people were piling on you.

Thank you, Vance

Opinions are good Vance; and I honor yours; but you are still reading more into what I wrote than what it says.

Maybe it would help me if you quoted the exact statement you think is wrong, and exactly why you think it wrong; because, so far, I agree with everything you've written about stability and do not see anything or understand anything different from what you and Paul wrote, and certainly cannot see where what I wrote contradicts what the two of you have written . . . except that . . . take a gyroplane and a Piper Colt at cruise speed at 1000'; turn them both upside down, reversing the load on their airfoils, and see which makes it safely back to right-side-up level flight.

Take a Cessna Ag-Wagon off the deck at full power up steeply and to the left until the left wing stalls, you lose aileron control and engine torque begins to roll you over - I can recover from that - I've done that. Now, take the MT03 that crashed hard up and in the direction opposite engine rotation, then control it over hard enough the rotor unloads and engine torque takes you over - is there a way to recover from that - has anyone recovered from that?

I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.

[karlbamforth]

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.


Not just in a gyro.
Maintaining controlled flight is number one priority anywhere in aviation, just as maintaining control of your car is important in keeping you and those around you alive.

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

In that order.

[scottessex]

Terry, The best way I can describe it is that every machine has its own operating limitations, take for instance a motorcycle, a motorcycle's natural position is on its side,
unless you use the kick stand, or are moving, that does not mean that they are unstable, unsafe, or waiting to raise their ugly head and bite you.
Same with the gyroplane, gyro's do not like negative G's, if you do a zoom climb and push over at the top, you risk unloading the blades.
I like doing zoom climbs, but what you have to do is do not get yourself light in the seat, If you feel yourself getting light in the seat pull back on the throttle and pull back on the cyclic to load the blades.
that is where your training is important.
just like in a decreasing radius turn on a motorcycle, the worst thing you can do is hit the brakes, you'll stand up, you are better off giving it more throttle and leaning into the turn.
If you feel yourself getting light in the seat, in a gyro, reduce throttle and load the blades.
I wish I could explain myself as eloquently as Vance, but please get yourself a ride and understand how we fly.

[Terry]

Terry, The best way I can describe it is that every machine has its own operating limitations, take for instance a motorcycle, a motorcycle's natural position is on its side,
unless you use the kick stand, or are moving, that does not mean that they are unstable, unsafe, or waiting to raise their ugly head and bite you.
Same with the gyroplane, gyro's do not like negative G's, if you do a zoom climb and push over at the top, you risk unloading the blades.
I like doing zoom climbs, but what you have to do is do not get yourself light in the seat, If you feel yourself getting light in the seat pull back on the throttle and pull back on the cyclic to load the blades.
that is where your training is important.
just like in a decreasing radius turn on a motorcycle, the worst thing you can do is hit the brakes, you'll stand up, you are better off giving it more throttle and leaning into the turn.
If you feel yourself getting light in the seat, in a gyro, reduce throttle and load the blades.
I wish I could explain myself as eloquently as Vance, but please get yourself a ride and understand how we fly.

I agree fully, and have proposed nothing else anywhere in what I have posted in this thread. You did a fine job, and I am looking forward to my first flight.

[WaspAir]

Bold - italics added by me:

Take a Cessna Ag-Wagon off the deck at full power up steeply and to the left until the left wing stalls, you lose aileron control and engine torque begins to roll you over - I can recover from that - I've done that. Now, take the MT03 that crashed hard up and in the direction opposite engine rotation until the rotor unloads and engine torque takes you over
This statement suggests a misunderstanding. Keep pulling aft stick on a fixed wing and you may well expect a stall. But you seem to think a gyro rotor has a similar "stall" mode that will cause it to unload all by itself merely from holding aft cyclic. That's not an accurate statement of what happens.


I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits.

What airframe limits do you mean? Are you including "inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited"? If you are, then the "recoverable from all flight attitudes" statement doesn't mean much.

[Terry]

Bold - italics added by me:

This statement suggests a misunderstanding. Keep pulling aft stick on a fixed wing and you may well expect a stall. But you seem to think a gyro rotor has a similar "stall" mode that will cause it to unload all by itself merely from holding aft cyclic. That's not an accurate statement of what happens.

What airframe limits do you mean? Are you including "inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited"? If you are, then the "recoverable from all flight attitudes" statement doesn't mean much.

Sorry for writing that poorly. I do not think that a gyro rotor has a similar stall mode. I think that a pilot can operate the controls of a gyro in a maneuver to the point of unloading the rotor. So I will go back and edit my error out.

All aircraft have limitations, and their limitations are inherent to their type. My original intent was merely to point that out. Yet . . .?

Flight attitudes are unrelated to airspeed. "Inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited" are placards; not reality. I can recover from inverted flight, spins, and acrobatic maneuvers, intentional or not, in a fixed wing aircraft so that "recoverable from all flight attitudes" applies.

Can a gyroplane be recovered from inverted flight?

[Vance]

Opinions are good Vance; and I honor yours; but you are still reading more into what I wrote than what it says.

Maybe it would help me if you quoted the exact statement you think is wrong, and exactly why you think it wrong; because, so far, I agree with everything you've written about stability and do not see anything or understand anything different from what you and Paul wrote, and certainly cannot see where what I wrote contradicts what the two of you have written.

I am not an aeronautical engineer so these are my opinions. I do not share your love of debate so I see no reason to defend these as anything other than my opinions.

“This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.”

In my opinion when flying all aircraft; maintaining controlled flight is job one. I feel that your statements infer that it is not as important in a fixed wing.

“What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.”

I was trained to avoid this accident in my first half hour of gyroplane ground school and a repeatedly throughout my gyroplane training. Probably this pilot was also trained to avoid this accident; unfortunately he forgot or ignored his training.

You were trained not to stall your fixed wing but you did it anyway. What conclusion would you draw from that?

“I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.”

In my opinion you are pointing out differences as you imagine them, so it is important that people understand that the differences you proclaim are not as described.

“Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.”

This is my favorite one Terry; in my opinion aggressive lazy-eights are not inordinately dangerous in my gyroplane at any altitude that the rotors clear the ground. I have done them many times and have never encountered anything unexpected or that seems to me to be hazardous. The Tower at KSMX agrees and often asks me to do an early cross wind or to fly direct to the numbers when I am on my downwind at 500 feet AGL mid field.

“I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.”

This is not reasonable. That is why they have prohibitions in the pilot’s operating handbook. You should have been taught this very early in your fixed wing ground school, I was.

I just signed off my phase one flight tests with the new engine as follows:

I certify that this aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed and that the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.
Vance E Breese PPL XXXXXXX.

I signed it that way because I test flew it throughout its normal range of speed and through out all manuvers to be executed. I could not find any hazardous operating characteristics or design features.

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

Flight attitudes are unrelated to airspeed. "Inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited" are placards; not reality. I can recover from inverted flight, spins, and acrobatic maneuvers, intentional or not, in a fixed wing aircraft so that "recoverable from all flight attitudes" applies.

Can a gyroplane be recovered from inverted flight?

To me that infers you feel you are a better pilot than all the dead pilots that weren’t able to recover from these flight attitudes.

Your attitude of “I can recover from all flight attitudes,” is in my opinion hazardous and indicative of a dangerous pilot.

I feel you were just lucky that you were able to recover from the very basic mistake of stalling your aircraft.

Gyroplanes have recovered from inverted flight. Gyroplanes were doing inverted flight in the 30s.

It was suggested very early in my training that low G events including inverted flight was not recommended with any two blade teeter rotor. I believed them and I have not flown my gyroplane inverted.

Gyroplanes are in my opinion less likely to become inadvertently inverted.

Bob Hoover, a particularly experienced pilot, has explained to me in some detail how to maintain positive Gs in an aileron roll and loops and I still have no desire to perform either maneuver in my gyroplane.

Thank you, Vance

[Terry]

I am not an aeronautical engineer so these are my opinions. I do not share your love of debate so I see no reason to defend these as anything other than my opinions.

“This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.”

In my opinion when flying all aircraft; maintaining controlled flight is job one. I feel that your statements infer that it is not as important in a fixed wing.

“What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.”

I was trained to avoid this accident in my first half hour of gyroplane ground school and a repeatedly throughout my gyroplane training. Probably this pilot was also trained to avoid this accident; unfortunately he forgot or ignored his training.

You were trained not to stall your fixed wing but you did it anyway. What conclusion would you draw from that?

“I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.”

In my opinion you are pointing out differences as you imagine them, so it is important that people understand that the differences you proclaim are not as described.

“Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.”

This is my favorite one Terry; in my opinion aggressive lazy-eights are not inordinately dangerous in my gyroplane at any altitude that the rotors clear the ground. I have done them many times and have never encountered anything unexpected or that seems to me to be hazardous. The Tower at KSMX agrees and often asks me to do an early cross wind or to fly direct to the numbers when I am on my downwind at 500 feet AGL mid field.

“I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.”

This is not reasonable. That is why they have prohibitions in the pilot’s operating handbook. You should have been taught this very early in your fixed wing ground school, I was.

I just signed off my phase one flight tests with the new engine as follows:


I signed it that way because I test flew it throughout its normal range of speed and through out all manuvers to be executed. I could not find any hazardous operating characteristics or design features.

Thank you, Vance

I am good with your opinions, and am sorry if I offended you. I'm guessing that the lazy-eights were not too much a problem for the German either.

[Redbaron]

Nice avatar terry, is that when you were a baby? :whip:

[Vance]

I am good with your opinions, and am sorry if I offended you. I'm guessing that the lazy-eights were not too much a problem for the German either.

Hello Terry, you have not offended me.

I will not let your statements go unchallenged.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

In my opinion, Chuck explained it well.

I hope you will spend some time to understand what he said.

To reinforce what he said, I will again say that I was taught to avoid low G events with a two blade teeter rotor and to avoid rapid throttle movement with all aircraft.

It is my observation that a torque over is a common event with some fixed wing aircraft particularly at low air speeds and high power settings. Most pilots are trained not to rush the throttle at low airspeeds.

Thank you, Vance

[Terry]

To me that infers you feel you are a better pilot than all the dead pilots that weren’t able to recover from these flight attitudes.

Your attitude of “I can recover from all flight attitudes,” is in my opinion hazardous and indicative of a dangerous pilot.

I feel you were just lucky that you were able to recover from the very basic mistake of stalling your aircraft.

My example was an inadvertent occurrence Vance. I had the opportunity to save the situation and exercised it with split-second effort because I knew the history of that plane, and I had the training to know what to do. Had I been in a gyroplane over tight with unloaded rotor and torque roll, I don't think anyone could recover - basic difference. I once performed a snap-roll in a Piper Tri-Pacer. It failed and I ended up upside-down, wings unloaded and pointed steeply at the ground. I'm still here, but, without training, most pilots would not be here; just as most who have had their Ag-Wagon stall and torque-roll on pull-up are not here. I am here for the same reason Bob Hoover is here, even though we both performed aerobatics in aircraft placarded against it. But no one could pretend to be able to recover from the situation the German found himself in no matter how much training we had.

Gyroplanes have recovered from inverted flight. Gyroplanes were doing inverted flight in the 30s.

How many of them unloaded their rotors, and how many of them had no cyclic, stub wings, ailerons or elevators? How many of them had rotors with an 8" chord spinning at 350 rpm?

It was suggested very early in my training that low G events including inverted flight was not recommended with any two blade teeter rotor. I believed them and I have not flown my gyroplane inverted.

I am going to guess the German had the same training Vance. I'll venture to say he did not intentionally unload the rotor 'til engine torque took over. And I'll venture he did not have the same chance as a snowball in hell of recovery once he got there. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Gyroplanes are in my opinion less likely to become inadvertently inverted.

Thank you, Vance

I agree with that.

Answer this one thing: Is there any example of a modern gyroplane once having its rotor beyond ninety degrees to earth, and unloaded, in a wind or torque induced roll that was recovered, from any altitude?

[JAL]

I dont think what Terry is suggesting is anything about superior flying skills at all I think he is saying what every fixed wing pilot knows and that is you can recover from just about anything given enough altitude (it is taught that altitude is your friend). What brings you down in a gyro at 100 feet will bring you down at 10 000 feet, this is not necessarily the case for fixed wing.

Negative G in a fixed wing is perfectly OK and recoverable, this is the main reason why I think fixed wing pilots like them. Most pilots I speak to accept the risk of stalling at low level over the comfort of having wings that will recover from all attitudes as they see that as the biggest risk (rightly or wrongly) and not stalling on base or final when landing.

I think the constant line that gyros are safer because they don't stall is a bit overdone, it also detracts from what I think are the true benefits of a gyro. The flying I like is low level flying, the reason I fly a gyro is that it is my experience that gyros are much safer at this then fixed wing or even helicopters.

Low level flying is the most dangerous and you should be well aware of the risks before you do it. The gyro advantage is not that is doesn't stall,although helps (but still doesnt protect you from poor energy management), is that they are highly manouverable, have a wide speed range, land in tight areas and have a high wing loading so turbulance is less of a worry. These are things you want if you are flying low.

I think you dont have to worry about putting prospective people off gyros by pointing out their short comings, that way they are coming eyes wide open. Every flying machine has its own set of limitations, what is evident though when reading this forum is that gyros are a lot more fun (and versatile) then other forms of recreational flying and just as safe if properly trained.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves, if you like flying low then you are doing something dangerous regardless off what you are flying. If you are want to take the risk then do in a gyro because in my opinion there is nothing safer to do it in.

[Terry]

Hello Terry, you have not offended me.

I will not let your statements go unchallenged.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

In my opinion, Chuck explained it well.

I hope you will spend some time to understand what he said.

To reinforce what he said, I will again say that I was taught to avoid low G events with a two blade teeter rotor and to avoid rapid throttle movement with all aircraft.

It is my observation that a torque over is a common event with some fixed wing aircraft particularly at low air speeds and high power settings. Most pilots are trained not to rush the throttle at low airspeeds.

Thank you, Vance

OK. Lets take my original statements one at a time then. I'll be the inquisitor.

This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

Challenge them.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

Look again Vance. I never wrote anything to let you assume that he died because he was doing lazy-eights. He died doing lazy-eights wrong, or hammerheads, flying his aircraft to a point of no return. I insinuated that he too thought he was doing his maneuvers correctly, or he would not have been doing them.

[Terry]

I dont think what Terry is suggesting is anything about superior flying skills at all I think he is saying what every fixed wing pilot knows and that is you can recover from just about anything given enough altitude (it is taught that altitude is your friend). What brings you down in a gyro at 100 feet will bring you down at 10 000 feet, this is not necessarily the case for fixed wing.

Negative G in a fixed wing is perfectly OK and recoverable, this is the main reason why I think fixed wing pilots like them. Most pilots I speak to accept the risk of stalling at low level over the comfort of having wings that will recover from all attitudes as they see that as the biggest risk (rightly or wrongly) and not stalling on base or final when landing.

I think the constant line that gyros are safer because they don't stall is a bit overdone, it also detracts from what I think are the true benefits of a gyro. The flying I like is low level flying, the reason I fly a gyro is that it is my experience that gyros are much safer at this then fixed wing or even helicopters.

Low level flying is the most dangerous and you should be well aware of the risks before you do it. The gyro advantage is not that is doesn't stall,although helps (but still doesnt protect you from poor energy management), is that they are highly manouverable, have a wide speed range, land in tight areas and have a high wing loading so turbulance is less of a worry. These are things you want if you are flying low.

I think you dont have to worry about putting prospective people off gyros by pointing out their short comings, that way they are coming eyes wide open. Every flying machine has its own set of limitations, what is evident though when reading this forum is that gyros are a lot more fun (and versatile) then other forms of recreational flying and just as safe if properly trained.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves, if you like flying low then you are doing something dangerous regardless off what you are flying. If you are want to take the risk then do in a gyro because in my opinion there is nothing safer to do it in.

Thanks Jordan. That's exactly the thought I would want to convey.

[Terry]

Nice avatar terry, is that when you were a baby? :whip:

No Buddy; that's me now.

[Vance]

My example was an inadvertent occurrence Vance. I had the opportunity to save the situation and exercised it with split-second effort because I knew the history of that plane, and I had the training to know what to do. Had I been in a gyroplane over tight with unloaded rotor and torque roll, I don't think anyone could recover - basic difference. I once performed a snap-roll in a Piper Tri-Pacer. It failed and I ended up upside-down, wings unloaded and pointed steeply at the ground. I'm still here, but, without training, most pilots would not be here; just as most who have had their Ag-Wagon stall and torque-roll on pull-up are not here. I am here for the same reason Bob Hoover is here, even though we both performed aerobatics in aircraft placarded against it. But no one could pretend to be able to recover from the situation the German found himself in no matter how much training we had.


How many of them unloaded their rotors, and how many of them had no cyclic, stub wings, ailerons or elevators? How many of them had rotors with an 8" chord spinning at 350 rpm?



I am going to guess the German had the same training Vance. I'll venture to say he did not intentionally unload the rotor 'til engine torque took over. And I'll venture he did not have the same chance as a snowball in hell of recovery once he got there. Let me know if I am wrong here.



I agree with that.

Answer this one thing: Is there any example of a modern gyroplane once having its rotor beyond ninety degrees to earth, and unloaded, in a wind or torque induced roll that was recovered, from any altitude?

Hello Terry,

I have listened to Bob Hoover enough to know that he views aviation in a completly different way than you do.

I will try to explain it one more time.

In my opinion, based on the available information the pilot of the MT103 did not unload the rotor until engine torque “took over.” This kind of event usually happens when the rotor is unloaded and then the throttle is rapidly advanced.

Chuck talked about how to prevent it with design and my training taught me to avoid that chain of pilot errors.

Yes, there is an example of a gyroplane recovering from just such an occurrence; in my opinion it was luck and not skill. He posted about it here on the forum.

I keep wondering, what is your point?

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

OK. Lets take my original statements one at a time then. I'll be the inquisitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

It is a pointless statement Terry; all aircraft have a point of no return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

I think you have been lucky, with your attitude I am surprised you survived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

Again a pointless statement, as I have pointed out repeatedly, job one in all aircraft is maintaining controlled flight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

It is a pointless statement because you cannot know what was in his head based on the information you have.

Challenge them.
Quote:
In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.
Look again Vance. I never wrote anything to let you assume that he died because he was doing lazy-eights. He died doing lazy-eights wrong, or hammerheads, flying his aircraft to a point of no return. I insinuated that he too thought he was doing his maneuvers correctly, or he would not have been doing them.

I suspect, based on his actions, that he thought the way you do, that rules and procedures are for other people and he is such a good pilot that he doesn’t have to play by the rules. I am not able to imagine anyone with gyroplane experience telling him that what he did was safe.

Again Terry, what is your point?

Thank you, Vance

[WaspAir]

Flight attitudes are unrelated to airspeed. "Inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited" are placards; not reality. I can recover from inverted flight, spins, and acrobatic maneuvers, intentional or not, in a fixed wing aircraft so that "recoverable from all flight attitudes" applies.

Placards are written because reality is deadly. If you think you can recover from any flight attitude, intentional or not, in any fixed wing, you're alive by luck and divine grace. I've read far too many accident reports of tail slides that broke aileron control rods from reverse flow, unrecoverable inverted flat spin modes, critical engine failures in twins, failures from over-g, etc., etc. to think that way. There are mental attitudes that are deadly, too.

I'll happily concede that low-g is not advised in teetering rotor aircraft (by the way, it's much less of an issue in fully articulated systems). What's the conclusion from that?
If you want to fly in sustained inverted flight, don't get a gyro. Don't get a hot air balloon, or a hang glider, or a weight-shift aircraft, or a powered parachute, or an airship, or a helicopter either, because none of those like being upside down for long.
If you want to fly low and slow, and don't want to join the thousands who have died in stall/spin accidents, stay the heck out of airplanes. They'll kill you.

I don't expect my car to jump, my motorcycle to float, my gyro to fly upside-down, my parachute to climb, or my sailplane to hover. I don't consider any of those inadequacies to be design flaws or unreasonable risks to my safety.

[Terry]

Placards are written because reality is deadly. If you think you can recover from any flight attitude, intentional or not, in any fixed wing, you're alive by luck and divine grace. I've read far too many accident reports of tail slides that broke aileron control rods from reverse flow, unrecoverable inverted flat spin modes, critical engine failures in twins, failures from over-g, etc., etc. to think that way. There are mental attitudes that are deadly, too.

I'll happily concede that low-g is not advised in teetering rotor aircraft (by the way, it's much less of an issue in fully articulated systems). What's the conclusion from that?
If you want to fly in sustained inverted flight, don't get a gyro. Don't get a hot air balloon, or a hang glider, or a weight-shift aircraft, or a powered parachute, or an airship, or a helicopter either, because none of those like being upside down for long.
If you want to fly low and slow, and don't want to join the thousands who have died in stall/spin accidents, stay the heck out of airplanes. They'll kill you.

I don't expect my car to jump, my motorcycle to float, my gyro to fly upside-down, my parachute to climb, or my sailplane to hover. I don't consider any of those inadequacies to be design flaws or unreasonable risks to my safety.

Couldn't say it better myself JR. That's what I meant, and have meant all along. A motorcycle will sink in the water without chance of operator recovery, and a gyroplane will sink upside down in the air without chance of operator recovery. But an aileron equipped, fixed wing airplane can fly or sink upside down in the air with reasonable chance of operator recovery.

You use each one for what they're able to do.

Bob Hoover demonstrated how to do aerobatics without over stressing the airframe beyond design limits, regardless of placards.

I've read far too many accident reports of tail slides that broke aileron control rods from reverse flow, unrecoverable inverted flat spin modes, critical engine failures in twins, failures from over-g, etc., etc. to think that way.

Yet all of these examples are due to pilot error, not a characteristic of basic type.

Thanks.

[Terry]

Hello Terry,

I have listened to Bob Hoover enough to know that he views aviation in a completly different way than you do.

Bob Hoover and I are both alive because of training and skill. We do not need to view aviation in the same way.

I will try to explain it one more time.

In my opinion, based on the available information the pilot of the MT103 did not unload the rotor until engine torque “took over.” This kind of event usually happens when the rotor is unloaded and then the throttle is rapidly advanced.

It does not matter whether torque or rotor unload occurred first, except I am not sure how torque could take over before rotor unload; the gyroplane became unrecoverable because it is a gyroplane, independent of altitude.

Chuck talked about how to prevent it with design and my training taught me to avoid that chain of pilot errors.

Talking about it is not the reality of it; I'm talking about it. I agree with Chuck 100%. I agree with you. The German had training too; but he did not process it well, and got himself into an unrecoverable position unique to gyroplanes.

Yes, there is an example of a gyroplane recovering from just such an occurrence; in my opinion it was luck and not skill. He posted about it here on the forum.

Here is the link to that story (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16974). Makes me wonder if it was the same German.

I keep wondering, what is your point?

Thank you, Vance

My point is that while superior in some ways, gyroplanes have a flight attitude point of no return unique to their type, and inferior to fixed wing aircraft.

[PTKay]

I have a slight suspicion that Terry's avtar is a TROLL...

Maybe this should give us all some second thoughts...?

[StanFoster]

Terry- You arre by your own words a highly trained and skilled fixed wing pilot. ......You were trained by your instructor how to get recover from unusual attitudes and what attitudes to stay away from...............If you decide to train in gyros, you will be trained how to avoid unloading the rotor, and other situations that are not safe..........Gyros are veey unique machines providing the best all around low level flying .......but like any machine they have their characteristics to avoid. .............Vance is so patiently and very correctly trying to get it through to you these points. .........He probably is the most patient person and most eloquent user of the english language I have met.......Just watching these debates you get into with experienced people like Vance, just looks like to me you are taking the devils advocate position just to prolong discussions....that end up in drawn out arguments. Vance does his best to cut these discussions short, by getting to the point, challenging directly any incorrect perceptions......then leaving getting out of the discussion when he feels its useless and counterproductive to say anymore. I see just the opposite coming from your various posts. ....I can tell you right now Vance is just about to feel any more inputs between you two is counter productive. Sorry I am butting in, with the fear that we are "piling on" again... but anymore will be counterproductive, and I am out of comments for this thread. Stan

[Trez]

(From #14, this thread).........

Gyroplanes depend on positive-G to remain in autorotation, which if not maintained will allow other moments on the airframe to take over in dangerous ways, and loss of which will turn the otherwise-stiff rotor into a bullwhip with the power to lop off other parts of the airframe.


Paul,
What a great way of describing gyro-specific wisdom!
The graphic that is 'whipping' around in my brain, based on your description of this Cardinal truth, will be with me forever.
Well done!
Trez
***************

[ckurz7000]

I probably should know better than to jump into the discussion at this point but I feel the wild oat prickling ;)

As much as I try I can't really find objective ground over which it were worth to quarrel here.

Of yourse, each aircraft has to be flown within its envelope to be safe. If you don't do this, the ground will come up to smite you. There is, however, one difference between gyroplanes and FW aircraft that Terry seemed to have pointed out: once you find yourself outside the envelope of a gyroplane, there really is no way to get back inside it. And here I'm talking about flipping upside down because of a torque over as in the accident under discussion. Or, e.g., when rrpm decayed too much.

In a FW the only thing you need to recover from a stall is altitude. In a FW you can more easily get into hairy situations but it is also easier, in my opinion, to get out of them again. No matter whether you are inverted, nose up or down, airspeed zero or negative -- given altitude and some training you can still save the day.

The perceived difference in opinion seems to me to stem from a difference in emphasis, not absolutes.

-- Chris.

[Terry]

Terry- You arre by your own words a highly trained and skilled fixed wing pilot. ......You were trained by your instructor how to get recover from unusual attitudes and what attitudes to stay away from...............If you decide to train in gyros, you will be trained how to avoid unloading the rotor, and other situations that are not safe..........Gyros are veey unique machines providing the best all around low level flying .......but like any machine they have their characteristics to avoid. .............Vance is so patiently and very correctly trying to get it through to you these points. .........He probably is the most patient person and most eloquent user of the english language I have met.......Just watching these debates you get into with experienced people like Vance, just looks like to me you are taking the devils advocate position just to prolong discussions....that end up in drawn out arguments. Vance does his best to cut these discussions short, by getting to the point, challenging directly any incorrect perceptions......then leaving getting out of the discussion when he feels its useless and counterproductive to say anymore. I see just the opposite coming from your various posts. ....I can tell you right now Vance is just about to feel any more inputs between you two is counter productive. Sorry I am butting in, with the fear that we are "piling on" again... but anymore will be counterproductive, and I am out of comments for this thread. Stan

You are right Stan. I am feeling the same way. I am a bit of a knothead.
If it's OK with Vance, I'll disengage here. Tea and cookies anyone?:rapture:

[Vance]

Thank you for the kind words Stan.

I knew from the beginning that Terry would not understand most of what I said.

It is the 700 views that concern me. I would feel remiss if I didn’t challenge his unfounded fantasies.

It would be sad if some believed in his lazy eight demon or that gyroplane instructors weren’t able to teach someone how to avoid low g situations.

Thank you for your input Chris. It is always a treat to see the world through your eyes.

There are a lot of dead fixed wing pilots that would not agree that altitude is the answer to everything that can go wrong flying a fixed wing.

SR22s have a parachute because that is the way they can get around their often non recoverable stall spin penchant. It is my understanding that they don’t teach spin recovery in an SR22, just pop the parachute and lose the aircraft.

Thank you, Vance

[StanFoster]

Terry- I said I was out of comments for this thread....but your post had one more coming out of me. I think that was noble of what you just said...and we all are learning from these discussions.


I did not want to post anything...Vance was handling his presentation fine.....but we all have something to say sometimes.

Have a good Thanksgiving!!


Stan

[WaspAir]

Yet all of these examples are due to pilot error, not a characteristic of basic type.


We are 80% in agreement, but this is where we disagree. It's always a pilot error to get outside the flight envelope in any aircraft. But being outside can be equally deadly regardless of type, if you leave the envelope in a way that's especially unhealthy for that type.

When aileron flutter hits, it's because you have ailerons, and altitude won't help as bits start breaking. When you break your ailerons by allowing a tailslide, it's because you have ailerons, and altitude won't help. When you're in an inverted flat spin, that's because airplanes can be spun that way, and in many airplanes, altitude just gives more time for prayer. Sometimes altitude can help, but the problem is still created by the basic type: when you lose a critical engine in a twin, it's because you have a critical engine (in contrast, multi-engine helicopters don't have one). There are conditions for airplanes for which you can't get back into the flight envelope after departing it if you depart the wrong way.


My point is that while superior in some ways, gyroplanes have a flight attitude point of no return unique to their type, and inferior to fixed wing aircraft.

And my point is that airplanes have equally deadly conditions, too, unique to airplanes. It's just that "inverted" isn't one of them.

(And if you think about it for a minute, it can't be simply a matter of flight attitude alone, because other factors count. For example, a gyro can be looped, and thus be inverted, if the proper g-load is maintained.)

Fixed wing pilots accept the risk of a low altitude stall, of flutter, of unrecoverable spins, of tailslides, of critical engine failures on take-off, and of a host of other things, thinking not that they can recover from them, but that they can avoid them. The typical fixed wing pilot has never done a bank in excess of 60 degrees or pitched above 30, never flown inverted, never stalled at low altitude, and never been in a fully developed spin (sadly, many FW CFIs have never done more than one turn). They stay alive by avoidance, and if they fail to avoid, they die (NTSB records are pretty clear on that). I don't really see a difference with respect to avoiding inverted flight in a gyro, which is no less easy to accomplish.

[Gyro_Kai]

Hello,

wow, what a busy thread, I didn't read all, as I lost track of who is quoting who and who is doing for supporting or countering the quoted statement.

A couple of remarks:
No, "He who lived to tell" is not the person who sadly died. The victim was a very inexperienced pilot who had failed his practicals before.

The biggest watchout here is: Some flight schools don't allow their pupils to fly solo, even though it is a non disputable requirement for even going to a a practical exam. There have been some roll overs leaving the flight school with the damage so they don't let their customers fly solo. For me this means closing down the school.

The "lazy eight" or "hammer-head" figure (we will never know what the plan was) was exactly the same figure which made the other MT-03 flip, luckily for the pilot to "live to tell". Whether this is a peculiarity of the MT-03 I don't know, nor do I care. I simply wouldn't do it. Having airspeed and then hitting the rudder hard may put you into an unhappy situation, in particular if chose the direction of the roll-tourque coupling.

I cannot imagine any sound reason to do this.

Kai.

[PW_Plack]

...It would be sad if some believed in his lazy eight demon or that gyroplane instructors weren’t able to teach someone how to avoid low g situations...

(Edited - Thanks, Rob & Wasp!)

FAA definition of Lazy 8 is found on page 9-6 here (http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-4of7.pdf).

...SR22s have a parachute because that is the way they can get around their often non recoverable stall spin penchant. It is my understanding that they don’t teach spin recovery in an SR22, just pop the parachute and lose the aircraft...

Vance, the decision by Cirrus has its root in courtrooms. The SR22, even the G3 with the more critical wing, can be recovered from a stall or spin without incident. (It has been proven in planes with experimental R&D certificates.) Cirrus simply decided that because spin recovery has been removed from the FAA's Practical Test Standards for the Private ASEL, and is therefore no longer being taught by most flight schools, the legal exposure in recommending a controlled recovery is too great.

The company has no control over who will fly the airplane after it's sold. So, the procedure for escaping a spin in the Pilot's Operating Handbook is to pull the red handle. The usual result is a totaled aircraft, and a pilot who walks away. That's a lot cheaper to settle in the courts than a wrongful death suit.

Cirrus CEO Brent Wouters was quoted last week as saying the company's liability insurance costs are equivalent to the costs of hiring on 250 more employees.

[docrob]

PW:
Better re-read the description of the Lazy Eight in the PTS.

Dr. Rob

[WaspAir]

Guys, there are some reasonable differences of opinion here, but on this "Lazy 8" thing, I'm afraid you're talking past each other.

In the FAA's Practical Test Standards for the Commercial Airplane certificates, a "LAZY EIGHT" is a ground reference maneuver, entirely in the horizontal plane, maintaining a constant altitude.

In aerobatics, the same term is unfortunately used to describe a vertical figure-8 which involves half an inside loop (to the middle of the "8",) then a half-roll to right-side-up, a full inside loop (drawing the top of the "8,") and a half-roll heading into the final inside half-loop to return to the starting point.



I'm afraid you're confusing it even more. There are three different things here.

A "pylon 8" is a ground reference maneuver, in a horizontal plane.

A 'lazy 8" is two linked "wingovers", and is required for the the Commercial airplane ticket. The FAA calls it a "performance maneuver". For FAA purposes, it can be done in a non-aerobatic way, limiting the bank and pitch, but it can also be done with 90 degree banks if desired. This is what Vance is describing.

A "cuban 8" is the acro maneuver with two linked partial loops that you were describing.

[Terry]

I'm afraid you're confusing it even more. There are three different things here.

A "pylon 8" is a ground reference maneuver, in a horizontal plane.

A 'lazy 8" is two linked "wingovers", and is required for the the Commercial airplane ticket. The FAA calls it a "performance maneuver". For FAA purposes, it can be done in a non-aerobatic way, limiting the bank and pitch, but it can also be done with 90 degree banks if desired. This is what Vance is describing.

A "cuban 8" is the acro maneuver with two linked partial loops that you were describing.

Actually, as a clarification; for me it does not matter whether it was a pylon eight, a lazy eight or a cuban eight, all coordinated maneuvers; the pilot entered hard rudder uncoordinated enough to either trip roll or torque roll, or both, to an unrecoverable attitude.

[RotorTom]

My observation (not including any airframe failures or weather):

--If a fixed-wing airplane -- at high altitude -- stalls and crashes into the ground it is because the pilot did not recover.

--If a gyro -- at high altitude -- unloads its rotor and crashes into the ground it is because the pilot could not recover.

IN BOTH CASES THE DUMB ASSES DID NOT AVOID THE AVOIDABLE DANGER.

[Vance]

Actually, as a clarification; for me it does not matter whether it was a pylon eight, a lazy eight or a cuban eight, all coordinated maneuvers; the pilot entered hard rudder uncoordinated enough to either trip roll or torque roll, or both, to an unrecoverable attitude.

Actually Terry, in my opinion based on the limited information we have that is not what the pilot of the MT103 did at all to began the chain of errors that resulted in the accident.

I feel that because you are unwilling to acknowledge that you don’t know even the most fundamental elements of how a gyroplane flies you keep making things up that have nothing to do with how a gyroplane is flown or how it gets into trouble.

I was hoping that you had exhausted yourself when you said you would disengage here. I hoped you would find some other way to express yourself and you need for conflict. By confusing the issue with illogical hypotheses and redefining terms I feel you make it more difficult for others to learn from this tragic event.

In my opinion if you unload a gyroplane two blade teeter rotor in flight then the gyroplane is confused about which way is up and is less able to resist errant control inputs. In my opinion this would include but not be limited to sudden applications of power particularly if nothing has been done to counteract the torque or large rudder inputs producing yaw and the attendant aerodynamic challenges.

This is very basic Terry and perhaps someone will spend time with you while you debate this, I will not.

Thank you, Vance

[birdy]

But no one could pretend to be able to recover from the situation the German found himself in no matter how much training we had.
Thats depends on your ignorance of wots happening and your reaction time.

And I'll venture he did not have the same chance as a snowball in hell of recovery once he got there. Let me know if I am wrong here.
I will, your rong.
Youv got much more chance than a snowball.

Answer this one thing: Is there any example of a modern gyroplane once having its rotor beyond ninety degrees to earth, and unloaded, in a wind or torque induced roll that was recovered, from any altitude?
I do [ i was init]. But i didnt quite let it get to 90*.
Would i do it again? No.
No need to, but at least i now know where the limit is, and know wot to feel for.

And, only the ignorant could get cout, if they dont know wots about to happen, coz the onset of torque roll is pretty gradual.

[fiveboy]

RE: Torque roll. In trying to understand what it is and how it gets set up, am I correct in asuming:

You need an engine thats powerful enough to actually roll the air frame.
You need to apply sudden power.
It will only roll in one direction, so making any change in course toward the roll would snap you into it quickly while applying sudden power.

This right?

[Vance]

RE: Torque roll. In trying to understand what it is and how it gets set up, am I correct in asuming:

You need an engine thats powerful enough to actually roll the air frame.
You need to apply sudden power.
It will only roll in one direction, so making any change in course toward the roll would snap you into it quickly while applying sudden power.

This right?

My opinion on torque roll.

Hello Robert,

A torque roll in a gyroplane as I understand it happens when the rotor is unloaded and power is rapidly applied. There is a tendency for the aircraft to roll the opposite direction of the propeller. If the rotor and airspeed are not providing a flying surface to resist it and there is no provision in the tail surface to resist it then the airframe tends to roll in the opposite direction as the propeller. I feel that a more powerful engine and particularly an engine with a PSRU would increase the pilot’s ability to generate this response. In other words, more torque applied to the propeller causes more roll tendency. If the rotor doesn’t have enough load on it then the pilot may have difficulty commanding the rotor to resist this rolling tendency.

In my opinion the reason that it is usually about a sudden application of power is because it happens fairly slowly and as David pointed out you can arrest it even if it has gone fairly far and unloading the rotor tends to be a transitory condition.

A tall tail or different angles of attack of the horizontal stabilizer from left to right may reduce or eliminate this tendency.

The gyroplane I fly has very little tendency to roll under power at any airspeed or disk loading and it may be because of the tall tail. I still am careful about the power at the top of a climb when the controls seem a little vague. I don’t know what would happen at the top of a zoom climb with full power because this is something I was taught not to do.

In my opinion, accelerating the mass of the drive train with a rapid application of power has a transitory effect but it generally doesn’t last long enough to cause a loss of control.

I feel that if you had control inputs in the direction of the roll it would exacerbate this condition.

I have been told that a torque roll in a fixed wing happens in particularly powerful aircraft when full power is applied before there is sufficient power in the flying surfaces to resist the torque. The P51 had a reputation for torque roll on takeoff and it is rumored that the first prototype was destroyed by the second pilot in this manner.

Thank you, Vance

[Doug Riley]

It is possible to design a gyro that will not do a torque roll, even with the rotor at zero angle of attack (=zero G). The problem has been known since the Cierva era.

Since the problem is so well known, no one should be putting a "consumer"* gyro on the market that can execute a torque roll. Aircraft that exhibit this tendency in testing should be re-designed with appropriate immersed aerodynamic surfaces to provide an anti-torque moment. In pushers, these surfaces can be tall tails or full-span H-stabs, in either case possibly with different incidences on each half-span panel. On tractors, short wings immersed in the prop wash, with differential incidence, might also help.

* By "consumer" gyro, I mean one that is marketed, with the foreign equivalent of a type certificate, to buy-and-fly pilots.

[C. Beaty]

From “Cierva Autogiros” by Peter W. Brooks:

“Pitcairns reached the conclusion that the contra propeller complication was unnecessary. At NACA suggestion, tests were also made with fixed contra-propeller surfaces, mounted at the correct angle just aft of the single airscrew disc. These were intended to straighten out the slipstream and provide torque condensation. It was concluded, however, that this could be best achieved with a single propeller and the right size and differential setting of the trailing-edge tabs on horizontal tail surfaces. The latter were, in fact, modified from those originally fitted to the PA-22. This confirmed the results of earlier tests on the PA-22. Contra-propellers were therefore not incorporated in the design of the later PA-36.”
Here’s a Pitcairn AC-35 with fixed flow straightening vanes behind the propeller. Looks like a catfish.

[quadrirotor]

From “Cierva Autogiros” by Peter W. Brooks:

“Pitcairns reached the conclusion that the contra propeller complication was unnecessary. At NACA suggestion, tests were also made with fixed contra-propeller surfaces, mounted at the correct angle just aft of the single airscrew disc. These were intended to straighten out the slipstream and provide torque condensation. It was concluded, however, that this could be best achieved with a single propeller and the right size and differential setting of the trailing-edge tabs on horizontal tail surfaces. The latter were, in fact, modified from those originally fitted to the PA-22. This confirmed the results of earlier tests on the PA-22. Contra-propellers were therefore not incorporated in the design of the later PA-36.”


Good for PA-22 but Stupidities for aircraft with pendulum effect, like gyros!
There is no substitute to contra propellers!
-No engine torque...
-No gyroscopic torque...
-No differential thrust vs angle of airframe...

And don't tell me that training can be a good substitute!... :(

[GyroCFI]

Doesn't a gearbox cancel out torque roll to some degree?

[Vance]

Good for PA-22 but Stupidities for aircraft with pendulum effect, like gyros!
There is no substitute to contra propellers!
-No engine torque...
-No gyroscopic torque...
-No differential thrust vs angle of airframe...

And don't tell me that training can be a good substitute!... :(

Hello Andre,

What is the Pendulum effect?

How does it affect how gyroplanes fly?

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

Doesn't a gearbox cancel out torque roll to some degree?

Hello Don,

Based on my understanding of torque roll any Propeller Speed Reduction Unit increases the torque to the propeller and exacerbates torque roll compared to a direct drive for the same engine.

In my opinion there is a transitory torque as the engine accelerates but the big flywheel that is being accelerated is still the propeller so the transitory torque canceling by the reverse rotation is minimal.

Thank you, Vance

[C. Beaty]

A gear reducer is a torque multiplier; 2:1 propeller speed reduction doubles the torque available. Same thing as doubling the length of the handle on your torque wrench.

[Arnie Madsen]

There is no substitute to contra propellers!
-No engine torque...
-No gyroscopic torque...
-No differential thrust vs angle of airframe...

.. :(
Yes Andre.

Next question would be the cost and weight .... design a bullet proof gearbox with two counter rotating prop hubs ..... remember to include the cost of the second prop as well.

And remember it has to be bulletproof. Howard Hughes , who had the money and expertise built a beautiful example (fixed wing) with two engines and two sets of contra-props.

He crashed and burned into a Hollywood suburb , he managed to survive but never built another one.

I agree Andre, that contra-props and rotors have some excellent advantages in the air , but the mechanical complexities with all the extra hardware take us in a new direction every time.

Very few designers or manufacturers have gone very far in that direction with great success.

I enjoy all your ideas Andre, and just like you I appreciate the advantages of contra-props and rotors. Practicality turns us back to where we are now , with what works now , and what is affordable.

Thanks
Arnie

[PTKay]

Counter rotating props, they do work: :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Antonov_An-22_1.jpg/800px-Antonov_An-22_1.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/Bear-H-MAKS-2005-Tupolev-1.jpg

[PTKay]

Has been also discussed here:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14852&highlight=counterrotating

with some good examples of functioning solutions.

[quadrirotor]

Don't tell me we have written all this stuff (this forum) for nothing!:Cry:

[Terry]

N23GE really got around.

It seems if you turn a gyro like the MT03 broadside to the wind at a high rate of speed, you've introduced another torque roll on essentially the same axis as the propeller.

Whether the rotor were unloaded or not, it might still be sufficient to turn the craft over.

As a design seeks to balance the forward broadside flat-plate area with proper vstab area and rudder command, it adds to the total of broadside flat-plate area in doing so; thus presenting even more to the wind in an uncoordinated turn.

Adding to these design parameters, the MT03 has a relatively tall mast which provides for more stability in normal flight, and more protection from rotor strikes; but it also places the rotor and head mass farther away from the torque axis of the propeller and broadside flat-plate area, creating more torque in a broadside flight attitude.

Though an MT03 may not enter a rudder induced broadside and not be recoverable from the broadside condition like it is theorized the WindRyder was; it might have sufficient broadside flat-plate area to "trip" or torque roll before recovery can be accomplished.

A tall vertical rudder would help by moving some of the broadside flat-plate area above the torque roll axis, something the MT03 does not enjoy, but in an effort to prevent rotor strikes, it seems it is difficult to get much meaningful area above the roll axis.

There seems to be a catch-22 here, which means that, until design parameters are developed to change these limitations, good training and reasonable operation are the best solution.

[Vance]

Don't tell me we have written all this stuff (this forum) for nothing!:Cry:

Hello Andre,

What is the pendulum effect?

The only reference I can find to the pendulum effect here on the forum is the idea that a gyroplane is hanging like a pendulum under the rotor; is that what you are talking about?

I was not able to find the definition in your drawings.

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

N23GE really got around.

It seems if you turn a gyro like the MT03 broadside to the wind at a high rate of speed, you've introduced another torque roll on essentially the same axis as the propeller.

Whether the rotor were unloaded or not, it might still be sufficient to turn the craft over.

As a design seeks to balance the forward broadside flat-plate area with proper vstab area and rudder command, it adds to the total of broadside flat-plate area in doing so; thus presenting even more to the wind in an uncoordinated turn.

Adding to these design parameters, the MT03 has a relatively tall mast which provides for more stability in normal flight, and more protection from rotor strikes; but it also places the rotor and head mass farther away from the torque axis of the propeller and broadside flat-plate area, creating more torque in a broadside flight attitude.

Though an MT03 may not enter a rudder induced broadside and not be recoverable from the broadside condition like it is theorized the WindRyder was; it might have sufficient broadside flat-plate area to "trip" or torque roll before recovery can be accomplished.

A tall vertical rudder would help by moving some of the broadside flat-plate area above the torque roll axis, something the MT03 does not enjoy, but in an effort to prevent rotor strikes, it seems it is difficult to get much meaningful area above the roll axis.

There seems to be a catch-22 here, which means that, until design parameters are developed to change these limitations, good training and reasonable operation are the best solution.


Witnesses have the speed when he rolled inverted at 27kph, or less than 16kts.

Does that fit your definition of high speed?

Have you calculated the moments at 16kts?

Please share your calculations with us.

Thank you, Vance

[Doug Riley]

Terry, as Vance says, if the airspeed was as low as witnesses report, then a rolling moment caused by a low fuselage center of pressure (C.P.) won't have been a major contributor to this accident.

I'd quarrel with your contention that it is impractical to prevent proverse roll-slip coupling caused by low fuselage C.P. The fuselage C.P. ought to align with the aircraft's CG. "Bathtub" style fuselages tend to violate this rule. What is worse, they behave like anemometer cups, with dramatically increasing drag as their open tops tilt toward the relative wind.

A completely enclosed pod, in which the crew sit semi-reclined and are high enough to create CLT, is apt to have a CP close to CG. A wide mast enclosure (like the sail on a submarine) can add area well above the CG.

In a pinch, stub wings with lots of dihedral can help, too.

Again, though, if the MT03 pilot was travelling slowly, engine torque is more likely the culprit than drag, and none of these measures would have helped.

[Gyro_Kai]

I would always doubt eye witness estimation of speed.

The MT counteracts torque partially by having a laterally offset rotor hinge. So, unloading the rotor was the first coffin-nail. I still think you can safely turn an MT in a flat spin with the rudder IF and only IF you have no airspeed.

As soon as you add airspeed and center of pressure on the fusalage below the prop axle plus the torque, plus missing drag from the unloaded rotor, you start hearing the heavenly choir. Although, doing the spin to the other side may have been a good idea, too.

Kai.

[C. Beaty]

The rate at which a mass accelerates about its CG when subjected to an accelerating torque is:

Angular acceleration = Torque/moment of inertia

Moment of inertia is normally given as slug-ft². It is the sum of each particle of mass multiplied by the square of its distance from the center of gravity. Mass is weight divided by the acceleration of gravity. A weight of 32 lb. has a mass of one slug.

My guess for the MOI of an MT-03 is 100 slug-ft² (and nothing more than a guess).

Torque equals HP x 5252/rpm. Say 100 hp at 2600 rpm and torque is 202 ft-lb.

Then angular acceleration = 202/100 = 2.02 radians/second². There are 57.3 degrees/radian which means that it’s going 127º/second faster after each second.

The time required to invert, go 180º or pi radians is:

Time = square root of (2 x angle/angular acceleration) = (2 x pi/2.02)^.5 = 1.76 seconds.

If the rotor came off, 1.76 seconds would be required to flip inverted at full throttle.

In real life, the rotor doesn’t come off and it takes a bit of time to unload the rotor. The rate of rotor unload is the significant number.

Light in the seat and the machine begins to lean over? Get off the throttle and let things settle.

But it doesn’t have to be that way; as Doug Riley mentioned previously, Cierva addressed that problem 80 years ago. Full span tail surfaces centered in the propeller slipstream, preferably with differential incidence that exactly balances propeller torque.

[Terry]

Terry, as Vance says, if the airspeed was as low as witnesses report, then a rolling moment caused by a low fuselage center of pressure (C.P.) won't have been a major contributor to this accident.

I'd quarrel with your contention that it is impractical to prevent proverse roll-slip coupling caused by low fuselage C.P. The fuselage C.P. ought to align with the aircraft's CG. "Bathtub" style fuselages tend to violate this rule. What is worse, they behave like anemometer cups, with dramatically increasing drag as their open tops tilt toward the relative wind.

A completely enclosed pod, in which the crew sit semi-reclined and are high enough to create CLT, is apt to have a CP close to CG. A wide mast enclosure (like the sail on a submarine) can add area well above the CG.

In a pinch, stub wings with lots of dihedral can help, too.

Again, though, if the MT03 pilot was travelling slowly, engine torque is more likely the culprit than drag, and none of these measures would have helped.

I agree with you Doug. My comments were not really related to the current accident, but to all gyroplane designs in general; so please forgive me for the confusion it caused.

I like your analogy of the anemometer cups. In some degree, the triple vstab over hstab configuration of the MT03 would have a similar effect, with an even lower torque axis.

I also had thought that a vertical airfoil shaped cuff of several square feet broadside area on tall masts like the MT03 would almost eliminate the possibility of torque roll, but didn't post it for fear of being assaulted.

I'd like to calculate the broadside flat plate drag torque of the MT03, but it is a very complex calculation I do not wish to take the time for. It might be easier to relate to this effect if next time one went to the airport he held half a panel of plywood broadside to the wind while sitting atop his pickup bed at 20 miles per hour.

[Terry]

Precious Metal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVWmI1PMUUs&feature=related)

Anyone remember Steve Hinton and the Red Baron?

It was awesome to see the pack come over our right shoulder and hear Bob Hoover call out, "Gentlemen, you have a race", as he peeled straight up out of sight in Old Yeller. And even more awesome then to see the Red Baron dart from the back of the pack to a mile in front of the pack within seconds, where he'd remain until the last lap.

Once, on the last lap, I remember the Baron rounding the pylon on our left onto the front straight while a P-38 ambled by in front of the bleachers in the middle. The Baron beat the P-38 to the last pylon on our right, knife edged, making a noise that made our skin crawl in fear.

Back to work.

[PW_Plack]

I also had thought that a vertical airfoil shaped cuff of several square feet broadside area on tall masts like the MT03 would almost eliminate the possibility of torque roll, but didn't post it for fear of being assaulted...

Terry, you call it an assault, but other members feel the need to jump in when you post assertions which confuse terms. This and other posts suggest you're confusing torque roll with an aerodynamically-induced roll instability. They may occur at the same time in some cases, and one may exacerbate the other, but they're two different things.

A torque roll is caused by the opposite reaction of the airframe to the force applied to the propeller. A center of drag above CG will damp this, but not prevent it, and a center of drag below CG will cause an unstable tendency to roll, but that's unrelated to a torque roll. The aerodynamic roll instability could even happen in the direction opposite the rolling tendency produced by powerplant torque.

The drag of a mast enclosure above CG cannot "almost eliminate the possibility of torque roll" because aerodynamics have no role in the roll, so to speak.

[Terry]

Terry, you call it an assault, but other members feel the need to jump in when you post assertions which confuse terms. This and other posts suggest you're confusing torque roll with an aerodynamically-induced roll instability. They may occur at the same time in some cases, and one may exacerbate the other, but they're two different things.

A torque roll is caused by the opposite reaction of the airframe to the force applied to the propeller. A center of drag above CG will damp this, but not prevent it, and a center of drag below CG will cause an unstable tendency to roll, but that's unrelated to a torque roll. The aerodynamic roll instability could even happen in the direction opposite the rolling tendency produced by powerplant torque.

The drag of a mast enclosure above CG cannot "almost eliminate the possibility of torque roll" because aerodynamics have no role in the roll, so to speak.

Thanks for pointing that out. After I left for work, I realized assault was too strong a word, assail might have been a better choice.

Visiting your examples, let's look at your differentiation between torque roll and aerodynamic roll instability.

Though there is an acceleration torque within the engine/transmission when throttle is increased, it is usually in the opposite direction of the larger force you call torque roll, so we can ignore it here for now. Aerodynamic roll instability is a fine term for the layman, but it does not mean much to the physicist, engineer or designer. Both of your examples are in fact aerodynamically induced torque rolls - the air applying a force(torque) to the propeller, and the air applying a force(torque) to the flat plate resistance of the airframe and engine - both create instability. The result of either of these forces is torque roll - it's all torque roll when it creates a rotation about an axis.

The reason it is difficult to see is because in the case of the aerodynamic pressure against the airframe and engine, it seems as though that could not be torque around an axis because it is applied perpendicular to the axis. Because there is far less aerodynamic resistance at the rotor head in relation to the aerodynamic resistance of the airframe/engine than there is mass in the rotor head in relation to the mass of the airframe/engine, the difference translates as torque roll around the airframe/engine center of mass axis.

In reality, it is not this simple because there are all sorts of other dirty components too numerous for anyone to calculate accurately, so a reverse engineer would do it by dead-reckoning.

My point: It's all Torque Roll.

I suppose my terms look odd to many, but they are the correct terms.

[Passin' Thru]

Good grief! :eek:

If you can't dazzle'um with brilliance, baffle'um with bull sh!t!:rolleyes:
.

[karlbamforth]

Good grief! :eek:

If you can't dazzle'um with brilliance, baffle'um with bull sh!t!:rolleyes:
.

That was my exact thoughts Pete. You beat me to it.

[Vance]

Thanks for pointing that out. After I left for work, I realized assault was too strong a word, assail might have been a better choice.

Visiting your examples, let's look at your differentiation between torque roll and aerodynamic roll instability.

Though there is an acceleration torque within the engine/transmission when throttle is increased, it is usually in the opposite direction of the larger force you call torque roll, so we can ignore it here for now. Aerodynamic roll instability is a fine term for the layman, but it does not mean much to the physicist, engineer or designer. Both of your examples are in fact aerodynamically induced torque rolls - the air applying a force(torque) to the propeller, and the air applying a force(torque) to the flat plate resistance of the airframe and engine - both create instability. The result of either of these forces is torque roll - it's all torque roll when it creates a rotation about an axis.

The reason it is difficult to see is because in the case of the aerodynamic pressure against the airframe and engine, it seems as though that could not be torque around an axis because it is applied perpendicular to the axis. Because there is far less aerodynamic resistance at the rotor head in relation to the aerodynamic resistance of the airframe/engine than there is mass in the rotor head in relation to the mass of the airframe/engine, the difference translates as torque roll around the airframe/engine center of mass axis.

In reality, it is not this simple because there are all sorts of other dirty components too numerous for anyone to calculate accurately, so a reverse engineer would do it by dead-reckoning.

My point: It's all Torque Roll.

I suppose my terms look odd to many, but they are the correct terms.

They are only the correct terms in your mind Terry.

The rest of us try to learn rather than obfuscate our confusion.

Thank you, Vance

[PW_Plack]

Terry, I won't press on with this, but if there's one thing I've learned in 35 years in the communication business, it is this: Communication has nothing to do with what you meant to say, and everything to do with what the other person hears. That means non-standard use of terms constitutes poor communication.

The teenager thinks his nose ring is saying, "I'm trendy." Within his own demographic, that may be true. If he wears it to a business meeting with a bunch of 50-year-old guys in suits, it says, "I'm immature, need attention, and not ready to interact with serious adults." The outcome has little to do with what he meant to say.

Whether you create a roll with ailerons, a rotor, or six fat guys all leaning to the left at the same time, yes - if there is roll, there was torque on the airframe. But if they're all "torque roll," the word "torque" is redundant. If you say "torque roll" in aviation circles, people will assume you're talking about the torque created by a reaction to the powerplant's acceleration of air while making thrust.

If you use "torque roll" to mean any roll caused by the relative wind acting on airframe parts or control surfaces, you'll have to explain your unique definition every time you use it, or expect to be misunderstood.

"I suppose my terms look odd to many, but they are the correct terms."

If their use results in your constantly being misunderstood, I'm not sure that's much of a victory.

[WaspAir]

Aerodynamic roll instability is a fine term for the layman, but it does not mean much to the physicist, engineer or designer. Both of your examples are in fact aerodynamically induced torque rolls - the air applying a force(torque) to the propeller, and the air applying a force(torque) to the flat plate resistance of the airframe and engine - both create instability. The result of either of these forces is torque roll - it's all torque roll when it creates a rotation about an axis.
...

My point: It's all Torque Roll.

You couldn't more wrong about this, because you have the layman and professional notions exactly backwards. By your reasoning, banking an airplane with ailerons is a torque roll, as is turning a bicycle or riding a see-saw. To the layman, with a modicum of understanding of Newton but no context-specific knowledge, all rotation results from torque, and that description might fit. But to the aero-professional, whether engineer, or pilot, or any other role, there are precise meanings to terms, developed over the last 100 years, that you've thrown out. A torque roll is, by convention in aviation, induced by action of the power plant, and is quite distinct from any concerns related to the location of the center of pressure on a fuselage side exposed to the airstream.

In the gyro context, there are even more specific terms, such as "adverse roll with yaw", an aerodynamic effect arising from the distribution of structure surface area, for which no professional with any background in the field would ever use the term "torque roll".

Since you seem to be a fixed wing fellow, check out Bob O'Dell's book "Aerobatics Today" for his description of a "torque roll", and you'll find that he uses the term only to describe a reversal of a vertical roll that happens at the top of the maneuver as airspeed disappears and propeller torque spins the airframe. For the entirety of the Aresti catalog, you won't find the term used for any airframe response not from the powerplant.

You've gotten pretty far into sophistry this time. Re-defining terms to make the facts appear to fit your opinions doesn't convince anybody that you are correct.

[WaspAir]

Whether you create a roll with ailerons, a rotor, or six fat guys all leaning to the left at the same time, yes - if there is roll, there was torque on the airframe. But if they're all "torque roll," the word "torque" is redundant. If you say "torque roll" in aviation circles, people will assume you're talking about the torque created by the powerplant.

If you use "torque roll" to mean any roll caused by the relative wind acting on airframe parts or control surfaces, you'll have to explain your unique definition every time you use it, or expect to be misunderstood.


Paul:
Hmm - seems that you type faster than me, and got your post up a little earlier, but that we are in violent agreement here!

[Terry]

Terry, I won't press on with this, but if there's one thing I've learned in 35 years in the communication business, it is this: Communication has nothing to do with what you meant to say, and everything to do with what the other person hears. That means non-standard use of terms constitutes poor communication.

Whether you create a roll with ailerons, a rotor, or six fat guys all leaning to the left at the same time, yes - if there is roll, there was torque on the airframe. But if they're all "torque roll," the word "torque" is redundant. If you say "torque roll" in aviation circles, people will assume you're talking about the torque created by the powerplant.

If you use "torque roll" to mean any roll caused by the relative wind acting on airframe parts or control surfaces, you'll have to explain your unique definition every time you use it, or expect to be misunderstood.

"I suppose my terms look odd to many, but they are the correct terms."

See paragraph 1, above.

So, what you are saying to me is that no one could understand what I meant by torque roll when they read this post (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=331462&postcount=73).

It looks to me like I did explain what I meant by torque roll in that application. What did I miss. I did it deliberately in order to bring the two types of torque roll into a common understanding as they worked nearly on the same axis in the MT03 with bad effect . . . to simplify. I write the way I do to get people thinking in different terms.

I am not concerned about being misunderstood. But I find the personal attacks by people who cannot or do not want to understand a bit bizarre, and grossly mean spirited. It calls their character into question.

I do not write for victory Paul. Of my two recent posts about torque on this thread, I've had a couple of concurring and decent, respectful responses; but, of my detractors, there has been no substance regarding the subject of my posts; only a gallery of monkeys, enraged I'd dare use a holy phrase out of ordained context, desecrating all scripture, to the point of saying I did it to hide my confusion.

[birdy]

In my opinion the reason that it is usually about a sudden application of power is because it happens fairly slowly and as David pointed out
Vance, While the roll inertia created by rapidly accelerating the spinning bits will cause a roll in the airframe, its not the only way.
In alot of wot i do, im on full power at min AS.
And with a lite machine with a 912, you can take considerable load off the rotor wen in this state.
Wen your slow and on full power, [ hangn off the prop] the prop is carrying alot of weight that is usualy on the rotor, coz the machine is generaly at a very high nose attitude. IOW, the props thrust is almost strate down.
With the motor already on full power, its the drag on the prop blades that, coupled with the low loaded rotor, that makes the machine roll.

The MT counteracts torque partially by having a laterally offset rotor hinge.
Kai, the offset only fixes the hang angle part wen your flyn S/L. Wen the rotor is unloaded, the offset will do nuthn, coz theres no rotor thrust to work with.

[Gyro_Kai]

The MT counteracts torque partially by having a laterally offset rotor hinge.
Kai, the offset only fixes the hang angle part wen your flyn S/L. Wen the rotor is unloaded, the offset will do nuthn, coz theres no rotor thrust to work with.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Once you unload the rotor, this mechnism of torque compensation fails and the torque can work full steam.

Kai

[PW_Plack]

...I am not concerned about being misunderstood...there has been no substance regarding the subject of my posts; only a gallery of monkeys...

Gotcha. Gotta run...the keeper's here with my bananas.

[Vance]

In my opinion the reason that it is usually about a sudden application of power is because it happens fairly slowly and as David pointed out
Vance, While the roll inertia created by rapidly accelerating the spinning bits will cause a roll in the airframe, its not the only way.
In alot of wot i do, im on full power at min AS.
And with a lite machine with a 912, you can take considerable load off the rotor wen in this state.
Wen your slow and on full power, [ hangn off the prop] the prop is carrying alot of weight that is usualy on the rotor, coz the machine is generaly at a very high nose attitude. IOW, the props thrust is almost strate down.
With the motor already on full power, its the drag on the prop blades that, coupled with the low loaded rotor, that makes the machine roll



This is outside of my flying envelope. Aparently I have not unloaded the rotor signifigantly to experience it or my gyroplane is too heavy for the power.

I stand corrected.

Thank you, Vance

[StanFoster]

Terry- At the risk of joining the band of monkeys, I have to say this. I have been watching your technique several times on various topics on this forum. You will state something that when pointed out as incorrect, will result with you coming back with changing terms, editing a little of what you had said, then trying to win the argument by who can post the most words, and the last words. You talk down to us, and its only in your mind that you are always correct. ...... You will back out for awhile,, obviously gathering info for another diatribe post. I dont see this characteristic in any other poster. I dont like getting personal, but this stuff is tiring. Stan

[PTKay]

Terry- At the risk of joining the band of monkeys, I have to say this. I have been watching your technique several times on various topics on this forum. You will state something that when pointed out as incorrect, will result with you coming back with changing terms, editing a little of what you had said, then trying to win the argument by who can post the most words, and the last words. You talk down to us, and its only in your mind that you are always correct. ...... You will back out for awhile,, obviously gathering info for another diatribe post. I don't see this characteristic in any other poster. I don't like getting personal, but this stuff is tiring. Stan

Stan, your description of Terry's activity is spot on. :yo:

This can be summed up with one word: TROLL

Edited to say:

Herewith I am joining the band of monkeys.

:peace:

[Vance]

Thank you all for sharing you expertise with the members of this forum.

I am grateful that I don’t have to live in that head trapped in ignorance by bombastic ravings and pointless debate.

It is unfortunate that for some the learning opportunity from this tragic event is squandered on intractable ego.

I feel that the sky is not falling and the knowledge is available to have prevented this accident.

Thank you, Vance

[fiveboy]

Good grief! :eek:

If you can't dazzle'um with brilliance, baffle'um with bull sh!t!:rolleyes:
.

REALLY! This is becoming a bit of a semantics lesson. Though in fairness anything that causes me to think, consider, visualize, and then apply to my flying (especially if it relates to not dying) is valid..... if not tedious.

[Russ Hobbs]

If nothing else this thread brought out all the real players. And some good thought on the subject.

[fiveboy]

Thank you all for sharing you expertise with the members of this forum.

I am grateful that I don’t have to live in that head trapped in ignorance by bombastic ravings and pointless debate.

It is unfortunate that for some the learning opportunity from this tragic event is squandered on intractable ego.

I feel that the sky is not falling and the knowledge is available to have prevented this accident.

Thank you, Vance

Vance you slay me. I do hope we get to meet some day. BTW if I ever read here again that you have trouble communicating I will simply re post whats above. :whip:

If that's trouble communicating then Shakespeare must have been a mute.

[StanFoster]

Vance- I called you and left a message. I cant agree more with fiveboys assessment of you. That 2nd sentence in your last post just had me in tears it was so correct and funny. God, you are the best at communicating.


Stan

[j bird]

I think Terry just likes to argue, but I like him anyhow!
I like to argue to, but only when I'm right, which is all the time :blabla: :argue: :first: :)

[Doug Riley]

Torque roll, Taylor's Pork Roll, whatever.

To get back to a bit of substance, the phenom that I called proverse slip-roll coupling (where the gyro "leans into" a slip because its body has a low center of pressure) can be corrected by using the wide cuff around the mast, or other additions of side area above the aircraft's CG.

OTOH, torque roll (in the customary aviation sense, namely, roll caused by the torque reaction of the prop) cannot be fixed by this design change -- at least, not in a pusher. Fins in the prop slipstream CAN fix it, however.

I suppose a tractor gyro with a really huge prop might actually have its mast in the slipstream, and in that case the mast cuff could be a "fin in the slipstream." Practical props are much smaller than that, though, and their slipstreams are even smaller in diameter than the props themselves (by about a third).

[PW_Plack]

I suppose a tractor gyro with a really huge prop might actually have its mast in the slipstream, and in that case the mast cuff could be a "fin in the slipstream."

Interesting comment, Doug...placing an anti-torque surface at that point on the airframe would give it a considerable arm, better than you could achieve on any tail which cleared the rotor.

[WaspAir]

To get back to a bit of substance, the phenom that I called proverse slip-roll coupling (where the gyro "leans into" a slip because its body has a low center of pressure) can be corrected by using the wide cuff around the mast, or other additions of side area above the aircraft's CG.

Comparing photos of the prototypes with my production McCulloch J-2, it was clear to me that a fin was added right behind the mast, probably for that purpose.

Note the loss of wheel pants and the addition of fin area between these two shots.

[birdy]

I stand corrected.
Wasnt correctn you Vance, you wasnt rong.
I was only addn to the discussion mate. Only letn you know anatha way torque is applied to the frame. :)

[C. Beaty]

The acceleration of rotating masses connected to the engine has little to do with the torque roll that might have caused this accident.

Blip the throttle of a car with a north-south engine and it leans over from accelerating the flywheel and other stuff connected to the engine. But only as long as it’s being accelerated.

The torque reaction that might have caused this accident is the same thing that requires an anti-torque tail rotor on a helicopter. Lose the tail rotor and the airframe spins.

A gyro without compensating surfaces in the propeller slipstream uses main rotor thrust to balance propeller torque; -the line of rotor thrust passes to one side of the machine’s CG, balancing propeller torque.

No rotor thrust, no torque balance and the gyro spins about its longitudinal axis.

[fiveboy]

The acceleration of rotating masses connected to the engine has little to do with the torque roll that might have caused this accident.

Blip the throttle of a car with a north-south engine and it leans over from accelerating the flywheel and other stuff connected to the engine. But only as long as it’s being accelerated.

The torque reaction that might have caused this accident is the same thing that requires an anti-torque tail rotor on a helicopter. Lose the tail rotor and the airframe spins.

A gyro without compensating surfaces in the propeller slipstream uses main rotor thrust to balance propeller torque; -the line of rotor thrust passes to one side of the machine’s CG, balancing propeller torque.

No rotor thrust, no torque balance and the gyro spins about its longitudinal axis.

So if I read this right and as has been pointed out before.... if the pilot essentially lost the mitigating RRPM, the machine in a panic reaction to regain lift - might well have had the nose nose shoved down along with a sudden jab of acceleration.... and over she goes. (?)

I cant imagine which is worse.... realizing you have lost it, or realizing why.

[C. Beaty]

But it doesn’t have to be that way; only for those machines designed by people unable to grasp the mechanics of Newton: Force = mass x acceleration.

For rotating things, the equivalent is: Torque = moment of inertia x angular acceleration.

[Friendly]

Thank you all for sharing you expertise with the members of this forum.

I am grateful that I don’t have to live in that head trapped in ignorance by bombastic ravings and pointless debate.

It is unfortunate that for some the learning opportunity from this tragic event is squandered on intractable ego.

I feel that the sky is not falling and the knowledge is available to have prevented this accident.

Thank you, Vance
Vance, you puts things so eloquently, I would have said "just shut up and let the monkeys sing"

[Passin' Thru]

So if I read this right and as has been pointed out before.... if the pilot essentially lost the mitigating RRPM, the machine in a panic reaction to regain lift - might well have had the nose nose shoved down along with a sudden jab of acceleration.... and over she goes. (?)

I cant imagine which is worse.... realizing you have lost it, or realizing why.

Robert, either I am misunderstanding what you wrote, or you are misunderstanding what Chuck B. wrote. May I attempt to clarify?

I don’t understand “if the pilot essentially lost the mitigating RRPM,”; did you mean “lost the mitigating ROTOR THRUST” (unloaded the rotor)? If so, then shoving the nose down and applying power is exactly opposite of the correct recovery. (the machine doesn’t panic, the machine doesn’t care, the pilot panics!):sorry:
“- in a panic reaction to regain lift - might well have had the nose shoved down along with a sudden jab of acceleration.... and over she goes.” Why would one shove the nose down to regain lift? That sounds like fixed wing stall recovery. In a gyro, THAT can kill you.:sad:

Robert, please don’t feel I’m trying to be a smart-ass, I have learned that in these type discussions it is often necessary to reiterate a post to clarify some very important points. Refer to Paul Plack’s very astute post #86. Often our fingers on the keyboard get tangled.;)
.

[Vance]

Vance, you puts things so eloquently, I would have said "just shut up and let the monkeys sing"

Thank you Mark,

Your way is more direct.

I actually owe everyone on the forum an apology.

From the posts I can see that I needn’t have been concerned that forum members would believe in flawed hypotheses or imagine because someone pontificated at length that there was truth buried in the words.

I struggled with Terry to expose his weakness in basic aerodynamic knowledge and his need to attack and debate.

I attacked him personally and there is no excuse for that. I was concerned that people might believe his assertion that he had discovered gyroplanes were inherently dangerous and the designers and instructors didn't know how to keep careful pilots safe. I believe this to be false and I value the safety that Mark Givan built into the Predator, what I have learned from my gyroplane instructors and the more knowledgeable here on the forum.

Using interesting words imaginatively arranged does not make my personal attack acceptable.

In my opinion Terry is not stupid and at some point if he read enough he would be able to understand the basics of how a gyroplane operates. It is not by mission to modify his approach.

I have learned if I am too busy trying to defend an untenable position I am not able to understand what others are trying to teach me. I feel that this is primarily what is preventing Terry from learning.

I chose to be drawn into debate with Terry knowing full well what he was trying to do feeling I could stay one step ahead of his fantasies with reasonable observations. I underestimated how important being right was to Terry.

I finally resorted to insulting Terry because I was overwhelmed and exhausted by his unwillingness to grasp the basics and stop defending unreasonable hypotheses by redefining terms and other low end tactics of debate.

I take it much too personally when someone states something that is patently untrue as though they thought I was ignorant enough to believe it.

To be clear; I only nibble around the edges of knowledge when it comes to the technical details of gyroplanes and I picked on someone weaker than myself and bullied him into withdrawing using his weakness and ego against him.

I apologize for feeling that I needed to expose a pretender because I didn’t have enough faith in the members to grasp the fallacious nature of his assertions.

I stand corrected and I am sorry.

I will try to learn from this experience and show more respect for the members of this forum.

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

Robert, either I am misunderstanding what you wrote, or you are misunderstanding what Chuck B. wrote. May I attempt to clarify?

I don’t understand “if the pilot essentially lost the mitigating RRPM,”; did you mean “lost the mitigating ROTOR THRUST” (unloaded the rotor)? If so, then shoving the nose down and applying power is exactly opposite of the correct recovery. (the machine doesn’t panic, the machine doesn’t care, the pilot panics!):sorry:
“- in a panic reaction to regain lift - might well have had the nose shoved down along with a sudden jab of acceleration.... and over she goes.” Why would one shove the nose down to regain lift? That sounds like fixed wing stall recovery. In a gyro, THAT can kill you.:sad:

Robert, please don’t feel I’m trying to be a smart-ass, I have learned that in these type discussions it is often necessary to reiterate a post to clarify some very important points. Refer to Paul Plack’s very astute post #86. Often our fingers on the keyboard get tangled.;)
.

Hello Pete,

When I find myself in a vertical descent at low altitude I let the nose drop because I feel safer with airspeed. To achieve zero airspeed I am usually holding a lot of back pressure on the stick.

It is not hard for me to imagine believing that with a powerful gyroplane that power would always get me out of trouble, my instructors repeatedly taught me otherwise.

I still occasionally try to prove the application of power is the way to address a tribulation.

The counterintuitive application of power has helped me get out of trouble many times in motorcycle racing.

I can imagine unloading the rotor, dropping the nose and giving her full throttle if I did not hear the voices of my instructors or understand the dangers of an unloaded rotor.

I have found that when the gyroplane is not responding the way I directed that relaxing and letting her do what she wants as long as she is not about to hit anything is a reasonable approach to regaining some control.

Airspeed and loading the rotor seem useful.

Thank you, Vance

[Gyro_Kai]

Airspeed and loading the rotor seem useful.
That just about says it all and with all the eloquence required for this purpose :).

Kai.

[Passin' Thru]

.................................................. .
Hello Pete,

When I find myself in a vertical descent at low altitude I let the nose drop because I feel safer with airspeed. To achieve zero airspeed I am usually holding a lot of back pressure on the stick.
I totally agree! But that's letting the gyro settle toward its trim speed, not forcing the nose down with excessive stick presure.
It is not hard for me to imagine believing that with a powerful gyroplane that power would always get me out of trouble, my instructors repeatedly taught me otherwise.
Excellent instructor!
I still occasionally try to prove the application of power is the way to address a tribulation.
Please be careful with that.
The counterintuitive application of power has helped me get out of trouble many times in motorcycle racing.
And in auto racing.
I can imagine unloading the rotor, dropping the nose and giving her full throttle if I did not hear the voices of my instructors or understand the dangers of an unloaded rotor.
I suspect that if I dreamed that, I may wake up screaming!:eek:
I have found that when the gyroplane is not responding the way I directed that relaxing and letting her do what she wants as long as she is not about to hit anything is a reasonable approach to regaining some control.
A good practice! A properly setup gyro tends to seek equalibrum. -Unless it is REALLY jacked out of shape! I fly a relaxed stick and avoid forcing the stick unless I am sure what the results will be.
Airspeed and loading the rotor seem useful.
Often essential!:yo:
Thank you, Vance

And thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences.

[reelmule]

Pete, When you post I take "crib" notes for my final exam. Thanks for sharing your wealth of knowledge with the rest of us.

[Resasi]

The only possibley useful observation that I can offer is that stick forward and power is an inbuilt fixed wing pilot reaction to a rapidly developing situation of this nature.

The more the experience, the more ingrained and instinctive.

I try to remain very aware of this, do feel vulnerable and think this might have contributed to our recent loss.

It is also nice to see gentlemen debating politely, and apologies for perceived lapses.:yo:

[fiveboy]

Robert, either I am misunderstanding what you wrote, or you are misunderstanding what Chuck B. wrote. May I attempt to clarify?

I don’t understand “if the pilot essentially lost the mitigating RRPM,”; did you mean “lost the mitigating ROTOR THRUST” (unloaded the rotor)? If so, then shoving the nose down and applying power is exactly opposite of the correct recovery. (the machine doesn’t panic, the machine doesn’t care, the pilot panics!):sorry:
“- in a panic reaction to regain lift - might well have had the nose shoved down along with a sudden jab of acceleration.... and over she goes.” Why would one shove the nose down to regain lift? That sounds like fixed wing stall recovery. In a gyro, THAT can kill you.:sad:

Robert, please don’t feel I’m trying to be a smart-ass, I have learned that in these type discussions it is often necessary to reiterate a post to clarify some very important points. Refer to Paul Plack’s very astute post #86. Often our fingers on the keyboard get tangled.;)
.

You might be - or I might have just written it badly.

I appreciate your respectful tone and dont think its smart ass whatsoever. Im just as much learning through consideration here as anyone.

As far as what I wrote I was not suggesting that it is what should be done as much as what might have occurred.

CB Wrote:
A gyro without compensating surfaces in the propeller slipstream uses main rotor thrust to balance propeller torque; -the line of rotor thrust passes to one side of the machine’s CG, balancing propeller torque.

No rotor thrust, no torque balance and the gyro spins about its longitudinal axis..

I took this to mean that with RRPM (rotor RPM) decayed and realizing his rotor has just essentially unloaded.... in order to regain 'lift' he might try to reload the rotor by pushing the stick forward to regain some AS while at the same (panicked) moment goosing the gas (again in a panicked attempt to regain some AS and reload the rotor)..... all of these three elements now combine to throw the machine over on its side while unloading even further.

Thats what I thought CB was saying and what my gut (and thats as irrational as a guess) is to what might have happened in this unhappy instance.

Zoom, rotor too slow, starts to unload, pilot tries to regain AS by both reloading as he noses over and gives it gas..... thats all she wrote.

As for FW stall recovery, there have been times that I found my AS getting a little too slow when I am doing ground reference stuff low down (my fave) and after gently increasing power first, I aim toward the ground a bit more, regain AS, load the rotor up and then start my climb out. How is that wrong?

[C. Beaty]

A rotor, in part, is a windmill. A windmill turns from air flowing through its disc. Forward airspeed has nothing to do with maintaining rotor rpm. Push the stick forward, reducing the load it’s supporting and you shut off the air.

A gyro with power pulled and at zero airspeed is a fully controllable parachute; it won’t invert nor do a forward summersault. It most likely won’t kill you if you ride it all the way to the ground in parachute mode.

With power off, all gyros are essentially the same; HTL, LTL,
CLT as well as torque compensation become irrelevant.

[Passin' Thru]

A rotor, in part, is a windmill. A windmill turns from air flowing through its disc. Forward airspeed has nothing to do with maintaining rotor rpm. Push the stick forward, reducing the load it’s supporting and you shut off the air.

A gyro with power pulled and at zero airspeed is a fully controllable parachute; it won’t invert nor do a forward summersault. It most likely won’t kill you if you ride it all the way to the ground in parachute mode.

With power off, all gyros are essentially the same; HTL, LTL,
CLT as well as torque compensation become irrelevant.

Walt, thank you for your kind words. I am honored that you would hold my fumbling efforts in such esteem, but THIS is the man you should take notes on!

Chuck, thanks for the help! You posted so eloquently what I was fumbling to express.:first:

Robert, The initial part of a zoom actualy increases the rotor speed due to increased loading. The partial unloading occurs at the top of the zoom from standing on the prop. Smoothly remove power while relaxing stick pressure permits the gyro to settle under the rotor and and almost instantly restores any lost rotor RPM. Also, if you have enough rotor speed to not be flailing against the stops, you still have full cyclic control.

[JAL]

This thread is of particular interest to me because I fly an Mt03.

If I am following this thread correctly there is a tendency for the gyro to torque roll when you don't have a lot of Rotor Thrust and you apply power rapidly (which makes sense to me). Now to actually bring this discussion to the one machine that is I have experience in.

When reducing power on an Mto3 quickly you have to apply a fair bit of left rudder to counteract the resulting yaw to the right if you want to stay balanced. If you are in the top of a zoom climb and quickly reduce the throttle without applying left rudder then you would be out of balance. This probably would result skidding out any turn initiated at that moment. Also there is fair bit of tail area within the propeller blast so when power is applied rapidly you have counteract that with right rudder to stay coordinated. So you have to co-ordinate your rudder movements with any rapid power adjustments to stay balanced. When making smooth throttle changes this tendency is greatly reduced.

Would this also contribute to the rolling moment caused by the engine torque when the power is applied and speed up the process so that the pilot doesn't get a chance to catch it?

[C. Beaty]

When I first became involved with gyros, there was a general belief among Sunstate Rotor Club members at that time, the late ‘60s, that the rotor might stop turning if the airspeed got too slow.

This “autorotative” diagram from an early edition of the Bensen training manual fed that misconception. Taken literally, the rotor would in fact stop turning at zero airspeed.63744

Also contributing to those early misconceptions was the starting technique for Bensen wood rotors. Give ‘em a swat and haul buggy.

Bensen wood blades were torsionally flexible and were over reflexed; i.e., too much “up elevator.” They were set for very low incidence and as the rotor began coming up to speed, the excess reflex would twist them up to proper flying pitch. That made it seem that forward airspeed was indeed what made them turn.

I took exception and argued that a rotor would autorotate normally in a vertical descent although I’d never seen it done. The response I got was; “OK, smartass, why don’t you prove it?”

Proving autorotation in a vertical descent was one of most difficult challenges I’d ever faced. Nothing to it once you know it works, but until you do, the terror of the unknown.

[C. Beaty]

This thread is of particular interest to me because I fly an Mt03.

If I am following this thread correctly there is a tendency for the gyro to torque roll when you don't have a lot of Rotor Thrust and you apply power rapidly (which makes sense to me). Now to actually bring this discussion to the one machine that is I have experience in.

When reducing power on an Mto3 quickly you have to apply a fair bit of left rudder to counteract the resulting yaw to the right if you want to stay balanced. If you are in the top of a zoom climb and quickly reduce the throttle without applying left rudder then you would be out of balance. This probably would result skidding out any turn initiated at that moment. Also there is fair bit of tail area within the propeller blast so when power is applied rapidly you have counteract that with right rudder to stay coordinated. So you have to co-ordinate your rudder movements with any rapid power adjustments to stay balanced. When making smooth throttle changes this tendency is greatly reduced.

Would this also contribute to the rolling moment caused by the engine torque when the power is applied and speed up the process so that the pilot doesn't get a chance to catch it?The slipstream coming off the propeller looks like a giant corkscrew.

A half-height vertical tail catches the lower half of the slipstream and is pushed in whichever way the propeller is moving. Change the power and the tail responds; yaw-throttle coupling.

Tall tails eliminate this tendency, as does the horizontal tail layout of Xenon inasmuch as it blocks circulating flow.

[JAL]

Thanks for the explanation chuck, makes perfect sense to me. The other thing about the Mt03 is the main central vertical fin is it is offset a few degrees to balance the propeller airflow at typical cruise speed power setting so that the pilot does not have to continually apply right rudder when cruising. This results in in considerable yaw when you cut the power, most noticeable when the power is reduced below 3000 rpm (rotax 912 tach).

Would this offset enhance the torque moment? and considering there is tail surface in the prop blast (but not all the way through the slipstream as you posted) would proper timing and application of appropriate rudder inputs be enough to control the torque roll when quickly applying power when you have decreased rotor thrust.

BTW I am just trying to get a picture in my head what the forces are involved and making sure I understand what the appropriate control inputs are to counteract those forces. I am never intending to actually try this!