Calidus down in Mich. ???

[gyroplanes]

The FAA daily reports have a Calidus down with minor damage in Thompson, MI.

The registration show it as a fixed wing with no airworthiness certification date.

Anyone know anything about this?

[PTKay]

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=455BW

The owner = manufacturer, so must be kit.

Interesting s/n. Not to AutoGyro GmbH standards.

[Texasautogyro]

I know the owner but do not know what happened at this time. When did it happen?

[PTKay]

10/07, 2011, in Thompsonville, MI.

10/07/2011 1800 THOMPSONVILLE, MI 455BW EXP I MINR 0 AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED MINOR DAMAGE UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THOMPSONVILLE, MI

[rfsolutions]

Is it a gyro or a fixed wing?

[rfsolutions]

This is odd? The FAA registry definitely lists it as a fixed wing but this site has it listed as an AutoGyro Calidus in the USA???

http://modernautogyros.blogspot.com/2011/08/calidus-production.html

[gyroplanes]

The fixed wing error is not too uncommon in FAA record keeping. Probably half of the aircraft on the FAA registry are incorrectly listed or gone altogether. That's why they went to the 3 year registration renewal.

[barnstorm2]

The fixed wing error is not too uncommon in FAA record keeping. Probably half of the aircraft on the FAA registry are incorrectly listed or gone altogether. That's why they went to the 3 year registration renewal.

My Aircommand is in the FAA database as a Fixed Wing.

.

[ultracruiser41]

My SnoBird was listed as a turbine!
No wonder it performes so well!

[Texasautogyro]

The Calidus went down on landing and rolled onto its side. They had a trim problem and the pilot was not checked out on the craft. He home built it from a kit. I think he was fighting a full trim to one side issue. I was told this by someone familiar with the situation.

[rfsolutions]

Any indication from them that a castoring nose wheel would have would have helped the situation?

[Texasautogyro]

I know that if you land in a crab with forward speed it causes the MTO and Calidus to hop. This is like a fish tail in a car on ice. It can cause it to want to role over. Most students over correct this and make the situation worse. In say an RAF the tail wheel helps by draging the tail to make the nose align with center of motion. This corrects the crab on landing. I would rather see the pilot keep it correct in the first place. When you come in crabed and keep thinking the tail wheel will fix your problem you can have a reverse gyroscopic twist trying to role your aircraft in the other direction. In these aircraft they only have a single hand brake both wheels together so a Caster would not work to stear the gyro. The nose wheel is connected to the rudder. I am not sure if this was the broblem in this case. I think other things were happening. The trim is an air driven pump and may have not been set to the correct specs on the build. It has side to side as well as nose to tail trim in the stick. The rotor head might not have been installed right or the cyclic push rods not set to spec.

[rfsolutions]

Have you ever flown an aircraft with a castoring nose wheel?

[Vance]

When you come in crabed and keep thinking the tail wheel will fix your problem you can have a reverse gyroscopic twist trying to role your aircraft in the other direction.


Hello Desmon,

What is a “reverse gyroscopic twist”?

How does it roll the aircraft in the other direction?

Thank you, Vance

[Texasautogyro]

It might be my poor choice in words. But when you have a rotor spinning in one direction and like a toy gyro in hand twist it quickly sometimes you feel it want to yaw or twist to the other direction. Its my way of saying crabbing on approach to landing is a bad idea. Learn how to keep the nose strait with direction of motion. This is done with a basic slip procedure some old time CFI's call Slips accross a road or rail road track. It is taught to maintain speed altitude and direction. Keep nose and center of motion in line with runway, road, fence or what ever and slightly slide accross left to right not crab. After this is mastered you do it with a controled decent to landing in cross winds rather then crab and correct with rudder at the last min on landing. This usually does not require much cross controle to do only say about 3 to 5%. I hope this helps answer what I mean

[Vance]

It might be my poor choice in words. But when you have a rotor spinning in one direction and like a toy gyro in hand twist it quickly sometimes you feel it want to yaw or twist to the other direction. Its my way of saying crabbing on approach to landing is a bad idea. Learn how to keep the nose strait with direction of motion. This is done with a basic slip procedure some old time CFI's call Slips accross a road or rail road track. It is taught to maintain speed altitude and direction. Keep nose and center of motion in line with runway, road, fence or what ever and slightly slide accross left to right not crab. After this is mastered you do it with a controled decent to landing in cross winds rather then crab and correct with rudder at the last min on landing. This usually does not require much cross controle to do only say about 3 to 5%. I hope this helps answer what I mean

Thank you for your patience with my ignorance Desmon.

“It might be my poor choice in words. But when you have a rotor spinning in one direction and like a toy gyro in hand twist it quickly sometimes you feel it want to yaw or twist to the other direction.”

Are you speaking of gyroscopic precession or some other principle?

I still have no idea how this relates to toching a tail wheel on landing.

“Its my way of saying crabbing on approach to landing is a bad idea. Learn how to keep the nose strait with direction of motion. This is done with a basic slip procedure some old time CFI's call Slips accross a road or rail road track. It is taught to maintain speed altitude and direction. Keep nose and center of motion in line with runway, road, fence or what ever and slightly slide accross left to right not crab.”

What is the difference between “Slips across” and a crab?

What is a slide accross and how does it differ from a slip?

“After this is mastered you do it with a controled decent to landing in cross winds rather then crab and correct with rudder at the last min on landing. This usually does not require much cross controle to do only say about 3 to 5%. I hope this helps answer what I mean”

I still have absolutely no idea what you are describing.

Are you saying you can land in a crosswind with only 3 to 5% rudder deflection?

A controlled descent to landing sounds good to me!

Perhaps I can schedule some instruction with you in March on my way to Sun N Fun or on the way back from Bensen Days.

Thank you, Vance

[Texasautogyro]

Yes gyroscopic precession.
Slide across is descriptive like ice skating over a line back and forth. A crab does not have the aircraft alligned with the runway or road. In order to cross controle or slip across requires constant slight pressure. Then a control smooth reversal to slide the other way this only requires about 3 to 5 % cross controle in a minor slip so you do not loose altitude. On approach you controle decent with power. We are not useing the slip to decend just to keep aligned with the runway.

Some tail wheel gyros if landing crabed will under the right conditions and pitch attitude feel like they want to roll in one direction or the other if not corrected on touchdown. I just like to make sure when i teach students i train not normally use this kind of approach.

[StanFoster]

Desmon- I am confused along with Vance. I don't see any connection with gyroscopic precession and aligning a gyro parallel to your groundtrack. When I flew gyros, I found it much more comfortable to land with the longitudinal centerline of the gyro parallel with the groundtrack at touchdown. Having the tail wheel planted assured that I had a lower landing speed because of the higher flare, and that nice little tug of the tail wheel tended to correct my yaw errors. I never received any gyro instruction as I taught myself in all my gyros. It seemed to work well for 800 hours of gyro time. Stan

[dinoa]

I think the "slip" crosswind method is also called the "wing low" method. The controls are crossed with stick upwind and rudder downwind setting up a slip to counteract crosswind drift. Upwind wing will be low, slip ball and yaw string not centered but the fuselage will track parallel to the runway.

When "crabbing" the controls are centered, yaw string and slip ball centered but the heading of the aircraft is biased into the wind relative to track hence the crab. As the fuselage is not aligned with the runway a "kick-off" of rudder is done just before touchdown to line things up and in a gyro prevent a rollover.

Both methods have their advantages like when landing airliners with engines hanging low the wing low method might cause an engine strike so the crab is used.


Dino

[barnstorm2]

I am afraid I am confused with the description as well.

It sounds like the terms are crossed with F.W. and or powered rotors.

Do you have a slip ball in your gyro? With no ailerons I would like to know how you make an uncoordinated turn in a gyro (or rather why you would worry about it) or have rotor precession in an unpowered rotorsystem.

On a cross country I keep the relative wind indicator (yarn) lined up but otherwise, not so much.

Should I go out an put a tail rotor on by gyro? ;)

I use slips in Cubs and Aronicas to drop alt on final when I need it but no such need in a gyro. Vertical descents and excess airspeed are not a problem.

Line it up and land!

Are you running out left or right cyclic? I see no reason not to be lined up with the runway throughout final.

Why would these gyros not have a castering nosewheel? I thought everyone learned the lesson with the RAFs?

I just back from Sat Morn patterns and we have 20mph wind gusting to 30mph, almost direct crosswind. I had no problem staying lined up with the runway all through final. I had no need to turn into the wind to maintain groundspeed and vertical speed. If the wind is too strong to maintain a stable groundtrack crosswind, then it is time to find a way to land more into the wind IMHO.

.

.

.

[Passin' Thru]

When "crabbing" the controls are centered, yaw string and slip ball centered but the heading of the aircraft is biased into the wind relative to track hence the crab. As the fuselage is not aligned with the runway a "kick-off" of rudder is done just before touchdown to line things up and in a gyro prevent a rollover.
Dino, that's exactly how I have always done it. On a long approach with a considerable cross-wind componant, my flight path will track the extended runway centerline, but my nose may be weather-vaned into the relative wind with my yaw string dead centered, cordinated. Just before the flair, I toe in enough rudder to align the airframe with the centerline. In the flair I always touch the tail wheel before the mains touch.
Being self-taught (by the manual) maybe I had an idiot for an instructer! :yo:

[gyrogreg]

Landing a gyro is just like landing a fixed wing in the sense that it is important that the wheels be pointed in the same direction as the movement of the aircraft at the moment of touchdown. The shorter wheel bases of gyros make this even a bit more important. In practice though, it is most often possible to align only the two main wheels with the direction of motion at the exact moment of touchdown. We do this to avoid any sideways momentum from trying to tip the aircraft over when the main wheels touch. (I also teach this to students to avoid having to replace tires more often than should be necessary!) Touching slowly also minimizes any tendency to roll over due to not having the "nose straight" with the direction of motion upon touchdown.

BUT, this is not so easy to do with the nose wheel. For almost any landing, due to engine torque, crosswinds and also for correction of airframe yaw due to prop precession during flare, nimble rudder deflection is probably necessary to "straighten the nose". For gyros that control nose wheel steering with rudder pedals also, that most often means that the nose wheel WILL NOT be aligned with the direction of movement upon touchdown.

Most such rudder/nose wheel configured gyros provide some "bias" between the rudder and nose wheel direction to account for the mis-match caused from propeller torque bias in normal cruise flight. This normally means that, upon landing flare, when there is little engine torque and with other things going on, the nose wheel WILL NOT be straight aligned with the direction of motion upon touchdown.

There are several common and popular gyro designs that exhibit problems due to such non-aligned nose wheels upon touchdown. I won't mention any names, but the affect is commonly referred to as a "nose-dart" action if the nose wheel is touched at too high of airspeed on landing - or on takeoff as well!

Gyros that exhibit such "nose-dart" tendencies have more occasions of ground roll overs. A common way to avoid a roll over tendency from this "nose-dart" action is to land very slowly, nose high, and allow the nose wheel to touch only after the gyro is very slow.

Another way that designers avoid the "nose-dart" tendency is to utilize sufficient caster in the nose wheel to cause it to self-straighten when the nose wheel touches at any angle or any speed.

I hope this helps someone avoid ground roll-overs - Greg

[gyromike]

There are several common and popular gyro designs that exhibit problems due to such non-aligned nose wheels upon touchdown. I won't mention any names, but the affect is commonly referred to as a "nose-dart" action if the nose wheel is touched at too high of airspeed on landing - or on takeoff as well!

Gyros that exhibit such "nose-dart" tendencies have more occasions of ground roll overs. A common way to avoid a roll over tendency from this "nose-dart" action is to land very slowly, nose high, and allow the nose wheel to touch only after the gyro is very slow.

Another way that designers avoid the "nose-dart" tendency is to utilize sufficient caster in the nose wheel to cause it to self-straighten when the nose wheel touches at any angle or any speed.

I hope this helps someone avoid ground roll-overs - Greg

That's why I use very soft springs from the rudder pedals to the nosewheel on my Bensen. They are so soft I can fully deflect the pedal whtout moving the nosewheel if I'm not rolling. While taxiing out the nosewheel will move with the rudder pedals, but it's very lazy.
No darting for me.

[Texasautogyro]

Greg and Dino have a good feel i think for what I am saying. It does not matter if you have a tail wheel or not the aircraft on touch down should be not weathervained. I see alot of this and they allow the tail wheel to fix it on touchdown. I find it easier to teach the wing low over the crab and kick rudder at the end style. I just think it developes a better habbit

[Steve_UK]

Hi

I hope the pilot/passenger managed to get out of the rolled over Calidus safely.

Am I correct in thinking that the cockpit hinges are on the port side- ie the canopy opens on the starboard side - what happens if the machine has rolled over onto that starboard side - how do you get out quickly ( or very very quickly if fuel was spilled ) ?


Steve

[Vance]

Yes gyroscopic precession.
Slide across is descriptive like ice skating over a line back and forth. A crab does not have the aircraft alligned with the runway or road. In order to cross controle or slip across requires constant slight pressure. Then a control smooth reversal to slide the other way this only requires about 3 to 5 % cross controle in a minor slip so you do not loose altitude. On approach you controle decent with power. We are not useing the slip to decend just to keep aligned with the runway.

Some tail wheel gyros if landing crabed will under the right conditions and pitch attitude feel like they want to roll in one direction or the other if not corrected on touchdown. I just like to make sure when i teach students i train not normally use this kind of approach.

Thank you Desmon,

It seems I have a deficient understanding about cross wind landings.

It is not unusual for me to get full rudder in when landing near my crosswind component limit, 20kts with a 10kt gust spread. I will look forward to learning how to only use 3 to 5% of my available rudder.

The Calidus I flew seemed to have less rudder authority than the gyroplane I usually fly so if the MTO, which seems to have a similar empennage, has a similar response I can see where my skills are deficient.

Perhaps the Pilot who rolled his Calidus over had the same deficient understanding.

What you are describing is not aligned with my perception of my experience landing in gusting crosswinds.

Because I fly near the Pacific Ocean and around hills it is often windy.

Some of the airports I fly into do not have a crosswind runway.

I will contact you when I am sure of my dates for my Sun N Fun/Bensen Days journey to schedule some training.

I look forward to a productive learning experience.

Thank you, Vance

[PTKay]

I think the "slip" crosswind method is also called the "wing low" method.

I always used this method when landing my Rallye.
It was spin resistant, and had very good rudder authority.

I discussed it with Raphael, an he prefers crab landing,
with fast decrabing on touch-down, like the airliners.

"Wing low" means also "one wheel low", hence landing on one wheel.
This is additional stress for the gear, one wheel has to take
the whole weight.

When the other wheel is touching down a strong rolling jerk is
applied to the whole machine.
Of course, if you are skilled, you can put the other wheel down gently,
this is how I always did it, but the aircraft CoG was low
relatively to the main gear span.

On a gyro like MTO or Calidus it is very high. Not that high on Xenon,
nevertheless this "one wheel" landing and then rolling on the other wheel
can send strong moments to the rotor and mast, and, according to Raphael,
should be avoided.

At the same time in an aviation magazine in Poland an article has been
published by another gyroplane CFI, suggesting "wheel low" landings.

I am still dumb, as I was in the beginning.

My intuition tells me, to catch the exact moment to decrab, is tricky,
and doing it too early or too late may cause a lot of trouble.

I always preferred the one wheel landing, and even rolling down
the runway for some time on one wheel to touch down
the other one gently.

[gyrogreg]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about cross-wind landings and “straightening the nose” for touchdown. Almost every landing, if the nose is aligned straight with the flight path on touchdown, will touch one wheel before or more firmly than the other. Very rarely would all the offsets to the nose yaw attitude add up to a perfectly balanced load on each wheel.

In most landings though, those that do not require a lot of nose straightening, the difference can be hardly noticed. The airframe might be in a small crab so that it does touch both wheels exactly at the same time, and that might result in so little yaw disturbance on touchdown, that it could be arguable that the landing was perfect or not perfect.

If the gyro rudder and rotor side balance is tuned for zero yaw in normal cruise (normally is), it is likely that some rudder input would be required on touchdown when there is only idle power (less engine torque). The opposite is true for higher than cruise power (engine torque) on immediate takeoff to hold the nose pointed straight down the runway. (This should be done on initial lift off until at least there is no more chance that the wheels might touch the ground sideways!)

There are at least three major reasons you will need rudder input to straighten the nose on touchdown.
1. Gyro engine torque yaw is not trimmed or balanced or biased to align the airframe at idle power, low airspeed. (It should be trimmed for cruise speed and power)
2. Crosswinds or even no winds are rare to not require some crosswind cross control to both point the nose straight and stop the drift (with cross-controlled side stick)
3. Final flare requires pitching the nose up at the touchdown point. This tilts the prop disk aft and propeller precession immediately yaws the nose left or right – depending on direction of rotation of the still spinning prop.

So, it is very rare that rudder input would not be needed upon touchdown.

I hear some suggestions here that it may be advisable to touch the wheels in a bit of a crab, instead of touching one wheel first to align the nose with the direction of movement down the runway. I find it hard to believe that any manufacturer would suggest a crab touchdown to avoid a “one wheel first” touch landing. Touching any main wheel in a sideways direction that is not aligned with the rolling direction of the wheel puts unnecessary stress on the airframe and landing gear and wheel and tire. It also wears out tires faster. Touching one wheel first, a wheel that is aligned to the rolling direction of the tire, and then touching the other wheel in this same rolling condition, is much easier on the airframe - AND pilot - than causing a sudden torque on the landing gear, wheels, tires and airframe when that crooked wheel attempts to straighten itself out!

The confusion has to be whether to hold a cross-control to compensate cross-wind on more of the final approach, or just “kicking the rudder” just before touchdown during the final flare. It doesn’t really matter which technique is used. The objective of both is to touch the main wheels straight when they touch. I find it is easier for students to apply the cross control for cross wind correction higher on the initial approach, just so they can see what it takes to “straighten the nose” and “stop the drift” during the approach. For certain, adjustments will need to be made in this cross-control in the final slower, lower, and pitching final flare, but at least the student has a “ballpark” idea of what it might take if they compensate for the cross wind higher up on initial flare – then constantly correct it, probably reduce both rudder and side-stick input, as the gyro slows in the final flare. It is much more difficult for a student to “kick the rudder” precisely correctly at the last second as the wheels touch. With experience, most pilots can revert to “kicking the rudder” at the last second as their skills and proficiency and familiarity with that gyro improve.

There is one reason why a pilot might elect to maintain the cross-wind correction CRAB most of the way on final approach. That might be to extend the glide range – especially if the engine is truly unavailable to help extend the glide. Flying under cross control creates more airframe/enclosure drag and steepens the descent – the same way as slipping a FW to steepen the glide on approach.

In my opinion, and I believe the proper way to land any aircraft, is the “one wheel down” technique. Unless you are flying a B52 bomber (that can actually rotate the LG in the direction of movement while the airplane is landing in a crab), the “one wheel down” landing has been taught for over a century now. There is no good reason to land in a crab. There are plenty of reasons not to. Gyros are no different, except that their narrow and short wheelbase, and their sometimes higher CG, can make gyros even more susceptible to the feared “ground loop”. (A “ground loop” in a FW airplane usually just damages one wingtip as it touches the ground. In a gyro, touching one “wingtip” in a ground loop, even if it not a total roll-over, can be very damaging to the whole aircraft.)

Thanks, Greg

[thomasant]

This youtube video illustrates the above points quite well. Really liked the last one:

TOP 10 BEST LANDINGS (and missed approaches) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQnDPIkaJ34&feature=related)

Thank you.

[PW_Plack]

..."Wing low" means also "one wheel low", hence landing on one wheel. This is additional stress for the gear, one wheel has to take the whole weight...

If you land on one wheel before the other, the rotor is still holding a portion of the machine's weight, same as if you lift one wheel first on takeoff. If your gear can't handle that, it's not adequate for the machine.

[WaspAir]

Am I correct in thinking that the cockpit hinges are on the port side- ie the canopy opens on the starboard side - what happens if the machine has rolled over onto that starboard side - how do you get out quickly ( or very very quickly if fuel was spilled ) ?


That's an excellent question.

In the sailplane world, in addition to the normal open/close release, there's also a jettison handle on the hinge-line side. For normal opening, you use only the normal latch release. In an emergency, you pull them both and say goodbye to the entire hood. Some acro airplanes are set up this way, too.

[barnstorm2]

Greg's post I understand, it aligns with my experience and understanding (pardon the pun) :drum:

There are 2 things I do not understand from the previous posts:

1. I understand propeller gyroscopic actions on landing but if I am reading the original post(s) correctly there is mention of ROTOR gyroscopic action or effect on landing and that is new to me and I don't understand what is being described. I only know of ROTOR gyro action during pre-rotation and rotor breaking, not during autorotation. The offset should be constant and reflected in the "centered" position of the cyclic, unchanging throughout the flight envelope.

2. The philosophy of teaching students to "slip" a gyro during the landing phase (final) of flight. When flying a fixed wing a slip is useful for loosing altitude without gaining appreciable airspeed.

I don't personally like using the term "slip" for aligning or weather veining with the wind because in a fixed wing you only particially align with the wind, you are arresting an alieron turn with the rudder. We don't have alierons in any modern gyroplanes. We don't corrindate turns in gyros because we don't have ailerons.

So why would we do a "forward slip" in a gyro?

In fixed wings it is only done on purpose to allow you to loose excess altitude without gaining additional airspeed.

In a gyro we can easily loose altitude without gaining excess airspeed.

If I am reading the explaination correctly the motivation to "forward slip a gyro" is the OPPOSITE of a fixed wing forward slip, to KEEP from loosing altitude on final.

Also, the explaination given seems to indicate you are not really slipping as you are aligning the yarn (relative wind indicator) with the wind.

From the post the motivation for this is apparently to keep from loosing altitude on final. In my experience, in all of the gyroplanes I have flown, I have never seen a significant loss of lift / vertical speed when staying aligned with the runway while landing in even very strong cross wind conditions.

This ease of landing in a crosswind is supposed to be one of the advantages of flying a gyro.

If there is no significant loss of lift when flying in a crosswind aligned with the runway, and no need to increase vertical decent rate using a manner other than reducing power, why do this manuever?

It seems to me that aligning with the wind and then, at some arbitrary moment on final before flair, aligning with the runway is additional workload for the student. The student also now only has seconds to work out the crosswind corrections needed when he/she could have had all of final to come to terms with this.

Unless there is some gyro type that I have never flown before, one that looses vertical lift greatly when aligned with the runway in a crosswind, we would be teaching students to do a fixed wing landing in a gyro with no clear advantage, additional workload and it does not even apply to skills that could be used in a fixed wing.

Explaination of Forward Slips in FW's: http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleSlips.html

The only time I align the gyro with relative wind is when leaving the pattern for efficient cross county travel.

Please let me know what makes/models this proceeduce should be done for and what exactly is gained over using power to adjust vertical speed.


If you land on one wheel before the other, the rotor is still holding a portion of the machine's weight, same as if you lift one wheel first on takeoff. If your gear can't handle that, it's not adequate for the machine.

Agreed.

[Vance]

Hello Tim,

For me landing happens too fast for the VSI to give an accurate portrayal of my flight path.

I can tell you that if I am even slightly misaligned with the yaw string in straight and level forward flight The Predator will began to climb with the same power setting and indicated air speed when I get her lined up.

It is my perception that when my base and final turns have any adverse yaw that I land sooner.

It is my observation that when performing a simulated engine out from enough altitude to have the VSI represent what is happening that my rate of descent is lower if I avoid adverse yaw.

If I am overshooting my touchdown point in a simulated engine out I find that adding some rudder will shorten my glide.

The basics for me are the cyclic keeps me over the centerline and the rudder aligns me for my transition from flying to rolling.

I am not a CFI and I hope no one will imagine that this is advice on how to fly.

This is what I have observed and how I perceive it as a fairly new low time pilot with less than 3,000 landings.

Thank you, Vance

[WaspAir]

We don't have alierons in any modern gyroplanes. We don't corrindate turns in gyros because we don't have ailerons.
Whether you have ailerons, differential spoilers, wing warping, or cyclic pitch control, if you're keeping the yaw string straight and the ball centered, you are coordinating your turn. It is a matter of matching the yaw rate to the bank, not a question of how you achieve the bank. Granted, ailerons can make it harder because of the adverse yaw they create, but absence of ailerons does not mean that you are not coordinating your turn.

This ease of landing in a crosswind is supposed to be one of the advantages of flying a gyro.

Yes and no. The ability to handle a crosswind, by methods such as aligning yourself at an angle to the runway to reduce the effective crosswind component, is a definite advantage for gyroplanes (in effect, you don't actually land crosswind, but cross-runway). But if you truly are crosswind, the low speed and low power combination typical in gyro landings can also bring the risk of inadequate rudder authority. Many have come to grief because of that.

[barnstorm2]

It is my perception that when my base and final turns have any adverse yaw that I land sooner.

I am sorry for my poor post Vance. I was not trying to make a case that pointing into the wind is not more efficient, it certainly is.

However, it certainly seems a MUCH less drastic change then in a fixed wing.

My personal style is to center the yaw string when I think I can gain something significant from it. In terms of the pattern that might be a long downwind or extended final, or climb out from a short field.

What I don't see a significant advantage to is taking this all the way down to near flair alt.

I am not trying to say doing this is wrong, not at all.

In my style of flying in a strong cross wind, I like to have the time on final aligned with the runway to get a "feel" for how much rudder input I need to hold track, and how much side gusting I can expect as I decend into surface winds.

For me it seems worth the extra few RPM and ounces of fuel to get "in the grove" for landing.

If I am going to be landing at the rudder stops, I would like to know this at 100ft not 10.

.
Granted, ailerons can make it harder because of the adverse yaw they create, but absence of ailerons does not mean that you are not coordinating your turn.

I see what you mean from the flight path perspective. I have always thought the term "coordinated" as meaning correcting adverse yaw rather than flight path.



Yes and no. The ability to handle a crosswind, by methods such as aligning yourself at an angle to the runway to reduce the effective crosswind component, is a definite advantage for gyroplanes (in effect, you don't actually land crosswind, but cross-runway). But if you truly are crosswind, the low speed and low power combination typical in gyro landings can also bring the risk of inadequate rudder authority. Many have come to grief because of that.

Yes, exactly. My Twinstarr for instance does not have rudders in the prop-stream. I would NOT want to be using my rudders at the last minute to align with the runway and find out I don't have enough authority to make the alignment.

.

[rfsolutions]

I completely agree with Tim. If you have a nose wheel coupled to the rudders you should find out if your landing will have the rudders at the stop before touch down. If the cross wind component is too great for a centered landing, then land into the wind on an intersection taxiway. I've never needed a crosswind runway when the cross wind is that strong! your landing roll should be near 0 mph ground speed.

However, if you're flying a castoring nosewheel aircraft with differential braking you can touch down crabbed just like the jetliners in the YouTube and the aircraft will straighten itself out! Anyone that has flown a castoring nosewheel aircraft recognizes how much easier and safer cross wind landings are.


Unfortunately in the case of the Calidus it's susceptible to roll over incidents and the canopy is not equipped with an emergency jettison handle! Something to consider if you're flying one.

[All_In]

Sorry to hear about the crash.
But this is an great learning experience it helps a FW pilot understand the differences, most excellent!

[gyroplanes]

I'm not familiar enough with the design, but I'll bet a soft (or softer) link between the pedals and nosewheel steering is needed. The McCulloch J-2 suffered from a hard linked pedal, as did the original Air Command (for a short period of time, and possibly only on the prototype)

Landing with an out-of-line nosewheel, that is not allowed to caster into trail, often leads to a roll over.

[ckurz7000]

It's interesting to note that none of the Magni or ELAs nor Calidus or MTOSports have a castoring nose wheel (I don't think the Xenon has one either). I wonder why that is? The Arrow-Copter has a freely castoring nose wheel with differential braking. That's makes for better ground handling (tighter turns), less susceptibility to misalignment on landings and hence easier cross wind landings.

-- Chris.

[gyroplanes]

Chris, Does the MTO have a hard linked pedal, or is it soft linked (Spring, etc,) to the nosewheel?

[Gyro_Kai]

hard linked, all of the mentioned ones.

Kai.

[EI-GYRO]

When the MT03 first came out, I was told that ten or twelve of them were
turned over on the ground in short order. Maybe I was misinformed.
I'm pretty sure the first one into the UK was overturned.

I heard a rumour that some sort of mod was applied to the UK machines.
Perhaps some UK user could confirm/deny.

Never understood the logic behind a rigid nosewheel/rudder link.
A soft link makes sense, but not a rigid one.

[mark treidel]

"However, if you're flying a castoring nosewheel aircraft with differential braking you can touch down crabbed just like the jetliners in the YouTube and the aircraft will straighten itself out! Anyone that has flown a castoring nosewheel aircraft recognizes how much easier and safer cross wind landings are."
Dont ever be foolish enough to think you can do this safely in a tall stance gyro.
If you tried that in a Dominator, you would roll it over. Perhaps you could get away with it in a low CG configured unit such as a KB3 or the like but not in a tall one. These are not airplanes!! That is why it is ill advisable to do run-on style landings in any high stance machine.
I used to have an Air Command with a rudder/nose wheel connection and would only consider landing into the wind. It is hard for me to understand why the high $$$ Euro machines are designed this way....a definate weakness IMO. As the advice says below my name, it risks the safety margin and is on the edge of the safety envelope. IMO, it is an unsafe feature that I will NEVER fly with again. Differential braking and free castoring are the only way to go.......For me, it's a deal breaker......just sayn'

[gyrogreg]

It's interesting to note that none of the Magni or ELAs nor Calidus or MTOSports have a castoring nose wheel (I don't think the Xenon has one either). I wonder why that is? The Arrow-Copter has a freely castoring nose wheel with differential braking. That's makes for better ground handling (tighter turns), less susceptibility to misalignment on landings and hence easier cross wind landings. -- Chris.

Hi Chris, FYI: The Magni has a large caster moment on its nose wheel. It does not have a "soft" connection to the rudder pedals and rudder, but the strong caster overpowers the rudder inputs when the nose wheel touches the ground. The self-straightening straightens the airframe if it touches down sideways - similar to many airplanes that also rely on caster to prevent student over-turn moments on the ground. I have many hours of students landing with the nose not even close to straight - maybe a dozen today! I did have to replace my well worn nose wheel today though!

FYI2: Many of the nose wheel configurations that have "soft" coupling to the rudder pedals, actually do not have castering nose wheels where this would do much good - The "Air Command dart" comes to mind. Thanks, Greg

[WaspAir]

The McCulloch J-2 suffered from a hard linked pedal, as did the original Air Command (for a short period of time, and possibly only on the prototype)

My J-2 came from the factory with nosewheel steering just like a Piper warrior. The only odd thing about it was the use of a square-shouldered tire, like a Beech 18 tailwheel, to reduce shimmy at high speed.

[bones]

Well god damn i must be doing it all wrong, cause my nose wheel dont touch until the craft has stopped or just about, so it dont matter if i got full rudder applied, and yes i got it hard coupled, and something else i would love, love to see someone take off from some of the place i have to with wheel steering, with sand, and rocks and crap everywhere.

[GyroCFI]

My J-2 came from the factory with nosewheel steering just like a Piper warrior. The only odd thing about it was the use of a square-shouldered tire, like a Beech 18 tailwheel, to reduce shimmy at high speed.

Someone told me (I think it was Don Farrington actually) when I had my J-2 that the squared shoulders were to keep the spray pattern down and out of the prop if the front wheel hit a puddle, but I can see the shimmy reduction makes more sense.

[birdy]

Bloodyell, wot alota waffle!!! :(

If you fly a gyro like a gyro is sposed to be flown, theres no such thing asa xwind landing, just the approach.

You can approach backwards if you like, but solong as you touch with no roll, therell never be a rollover.

Im often landn on roads. And for those who dont know wot a central Oz road looks like, its usualy only two ruts windn through the scrub, and you have to find a length of it long and streight enuff to get off again. And this length must obviously be clear of any trees within rotor reach. Wind direction dont come into it, but its usualy a xwind of sum degree.
Landn on such a road isa pice of cake, its the taken off, tryn to keep it in the ruts and not hit any trees which are only a coupla feet off/under the tips while countern prespinner torque on wildly varied ground traction is the tricky bit.
To land on the road, approach how ever you want, but the key to stayn on the road and not end up in the trees is to rotate your flair into the xwind for a 0 roll.
By rotate the flair i mean to stick into the wind as your AS bleeds off. You pull back to initiate the flair and as the xwind componant of you AS starts to blow you sideways you apply corrective side cyclic. Timed rit, youll touch with the stick centered in roll and on or rean the backstop, the nose will have veined into relitive and you wont roll, all with no power.
Of course, if you can spot it ona 2 wheel track in scrub witha xwind, you can do same ona airport.

Fly a gyro like a gyro and not like a FW and you wont roll it, simple.

[ckurz7000]

Fly a gyro like a gyro and not like a FW and you wont roll it, simple.

No qualms about that, mate. It's the students and low-time pilots that tend to roll it with a hard linked nose wheel. Of course you can land a gyro with a hard linked nose wheel, and if you do it right, the nose wheel touches the ground when the gyro is stopped anyway. But the margin of error is smaller, and that makes a difference in the rollover statistics.

Regarding the UK version of the MTO: To gain BCAR Section-T compliancy the MTO modified the nose wheel geometry to include some castoring moment (is that the correct term for it?) The Calidus also had its steering geometry toned down a bit between the original version and the now standard seriel version. At the expense of turning radius, of course.

The hard linked nose wheel has the edge in some pretty extreme take-off conditions. But the few for whom that matters don't balance the lot who fly just from regular airstrips (hard or soft top).

-- Chris.

[bones]

No qualms about that, mate. It's the students and low-time pilots that tend to roll it with a hard linked nose wheel. - Chris.

Well then why arent they taught to land the right way?
Why do instructors let them learn bad habits?
The people i have taught KNOW if they let the wheel down they gonna hear about it :flame:
There is a guy here who has over 300hrs now and i still chat him if he does the wrong thing :D to the piont he wants til i leave before he takes off sometimes :party:

[ckurz7000]

Well then why arent they taught to land the right way?

Who says they aren't? Accidents happen despite best teaching efforts. You can only try to minimize them.

-- Chris.

[bones]

Who says they aren't? Accidents happen despite best teaching efforts. You can only try to minimize them.

-- Chris.

Very true and i agree, however after reading this and other forums for years it seems there is a believe that the gyro is fine to be landed like a FW, everytime i land around people who have never seen me land before they always say, damn you lucky that little wheel at the back is there, cause it was the only thing to touch til you stopped, ITS THE WAY THEY ARE SPOSED TO BE LANDED is my reply.

[jeff b]

Hi Bones,

I'm hearing you :-) My QLD Instructor was the same as you. Don't let the nose wheel touch the ground or I heard about it! The gyro should be pretty well stopped when the nose comes down. Good advice & I use it.

Jeff.

[gyrogreg]

There are other reasons why the nose wheel touching should not cause the nose to dart to the side and not possibly contribute to a roll-over:

SHORT FIELD takeoffs: The U.S. FAA Practical test for Private Pilot requires demonstrating a short field takeoff. The procedure for this is really whatever the manufacturer says it is in their POH.

Standard SHORT FIELD takeoff is intended to both gain flying speed as quickly as possible - on the ground - and initiate a best angle of climb immediately upon lift-off. This procedure gets you off the ground as quickly as possible and avoids a long acceleration ground effect run to achieve best angle of climb airspeed.

A NORMAL takeoff is the traditional "balance on the mains" until liftoff at a nominal airspeed - normally below the best angle or rate of climb airspeed. So, a NORMAL takeoff requires only enough airspeed - on the ground - to allow the aircraft to lift off. Then the gyro should be held close to the runway, in ground effect, to accelerate to the best rate of climb airspeed and climb out at that best rate of climb. This is the NORMAL takeoff that must also be demonstrated in an FAA Practical test. But, the NORMAL takeoff necessarily requires more runway for rolling, AND more length of runway used to accelerate to best rate of climb airspeed before it can start a good climb.

The SHORT FIELD takeoff the FAA expects is different than a NORMAL or SOFT field takeoff. The principle of a SHORT FIELD takeoff is to first "make a wing" by getting the rotor up to flying speed ASAP (Same for all takeoff types). Normally, the rotor is verified to be a "wing" when it is able to lift the nose of the gyro. At this point, after the rotor is prepared to perform as a "wing" - has enough RRPM to lift the aircraft off the ground - the nose should be lowered, the nose wheel placed back on the ground, and the stick positioned mostly forward to eliminate most of the rotor disk drag. With the rotor disk fairly flat, the rotor disk DRAG is minimal and allows the gyro to accelerate very quickly to, or near, best angle of climb airspeed. This happens very quickly, usually in second or two - using much less roll on the runway that a NORMAL takeoff, in “balanced” configuration, would. As soon as the best ANGLE of climb is achieved, or very nearly so, the pilot "rotates" the gyro to lift off and immediately establish a climb at that best angle of climb airspeed. Both the shorter roll on the runway and the immediate climb allow the gyro to fly out of a short runway. (This SHORT FIELD takeoff is required to be demonstrated on the Private Gyroplane Practical Test, but I do discourage students from using this procedure if you actually think you need to clear an object on the end of the runway - too many things need to be near perfect under those stressful conditions!!) But, this procedure does require putting the nose wheel back on the ground at higher airspeed - usually when you are holding a lot of rudder for engine torque or crosswind compensation.

This procedure is a bit difficult to do in some models that do not employ caster in the nose wheel. Putting the nose wheel back on the ground at higher rolling speeds on takeoff can provide a nasty surprise if the nose of the gyro then tries to follow the direction the nose wheel is actually pointing.

Now, the manufacturer can prescribe any procedure they want as their SHORT FIELD takeoff. And that is what the pilot applicant is required to demonstrate on the Practical Test. What I believe several manufacturers suggest for SHORT FIELD takeoff is really a SOFT FIELD takeoff. (This is also a distinct procedure that must be demonstrated on the Practical Test.) A SOFT Field takeoff is simply hold the nose up as soon as it first lifts and get the wheels off the soft or rough ground as slowly and quickly as possible. The gyro can lift off the ground at some amazingly slow speeds in very short distances. This is the intent of a SOFT FIELD takeoff. However, this type of takeoff eats up a lot of runway in the process of “digging it out” in ground effect to build up to best rate or angle of climb airspeed before the gyro can begin to climb (safely). Some gyros with good HP might be able to climb almost immediately upon a SOFT FIELD lift off at very low airspeeds. But that will likely cause that gyro to climb into its forbidden Height Velocity curve as soon as it is 10-50 ft above the ground. Proper and safe SOFT FIELD takeoff requires building up airspeed in ground effect – “digging it out” – under the shelf of the HV curve, to allow climb out without getting into the HV curve where a sudden engine loss would be difficult to land the gyro safely. This is meat for a different subject – HV curve. The point is that a SOFT FIELD takeoff does not really do what a SHORT FIELD takeoff is intended to do – get high a quickly and in as short of distance as possible - safely. But, if this is the procedure a manufacturer describes as its “SHORT FIELD” takeoff procedure in that gyro’s POH, then the FAA will not argue with you as long as you do not also demonstrate flying inside the published HV curve.

IMHO, there may be more opportunity for a roll-over, and more need for a self-aligning landing gear configuration on takeoffs, rather than on landings. But, on both, especially on tandem configurations where the nose is heavier, novices and students have many opportunities to accidentally touch the nose wheel while the gyro is still rolling pretty fast on the ground. Maybe with developed skills, a pilot may be able to reliably keep their nose wheel from touching the ground at high rolling speeds. But students do not have this skill immediately and would prefer to not have to repair major damage and replace rotors and props as a function of learning how to land or takeoff their gyro.

Thanks Greg

[JAL]

Why is there a requirement to lift the nose then put it down, that sounds like a disaster with the risk of actually porpoising. Why wouldn't they say for short field take - off to accelerate to higher than normal wheel balance speed while keeping the nose wheel planted on the ground by increasing forward pressure on the stick as the gyro accelerates , whether its castoring nose wheel or not.

By letting the nose come up and then putting it back down on the ground would automatically increase drag resulting in a longer take off run then just increasing forward pressure of the stick to keep the aircraft level which actually reduces drag. Not only does take out a lot of the risk it makes the take-off shorter.

[Vance]

In my opinion a rigid nose gear and linked steering are two poor design choices.

I feel adding caster only provides a partial mitigation of these poor design choices.

The aircraft I fly has a full castering nose wheel I feel it works well.

Steering with toe brakes and differential braking at low speed works better and is more natural than I expected.

In calm winds at speeds over around 10kts the rudder takes over and the transition is very natural. In gusting conditions the transition happens a little later but is easy to manage.

Her rigid nose gear puts loads into the frame that I don’t like if the take off surface is not smooth or when I have an inelegant landing.

The expensive European gyroplanes that I have flown appear to embrace a rigid nose gear and linked steering.

In my opinion many very expensive rollover accidents would have been prevented with front suspension and a full castering nose wheel.

I have never made a takeoff from a two track bumpy dirt road with lots of obstacles so I don’t know how a full castering nose wheel would work under these conditions.

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

Why is there a requirement to lift the nose then put it down, that sounds like a disaster with the risk of actually porpoising. Why wouldn't they say for short field take - off to accelerate to higher than normal wheel balance speed while keeping the nose wheel planted on the ground by increasing forward pressure on the stick as the gyro accelerates , whether its castoring nose wheel or not.

By letting the nose come up and then putting it back down on the ground would automatically increase drag resulting in a longer take off run then just increasing forward pressure of the stick to keep the aircraft level which actually reduces drag. Not only does take out a lot of the risk it makes the take-off shorter.

I was required to demonstrate a short field takeoff during my FAA practical test that consisted of getting the power in without flapping the blades and using best angle of climb.

There was no bobbing of the nose gear.

I suspect I fulfilled the FAA practical test standard requirements or I would not have my license.

Thank you, Vance

[gyrogreg]

Why is there a requirement to lift the nose then put it down, that sounds like a disaster with the risk of actually porpoising. Why wouldn't they say for short field take - off to accelerate to higher than normal wheel balance speed while keeping the nose wheel planted on the ground by increasing forward pressure on the stick as the gyro accelerates, whether its castoring nose wheel or not.

JAL, the Manufacturer might say this - if they do not want the nose touched back to the ground for any dangerous tendency that might create in their gyro - "darting", loss of control, porpoising, etc. The reason for allowing the nose to rise first, then putting it back down in this Short Field takeoff procedure is to be sure you have “made a wing” out of the rotor – enough RRPM to fly. When the rotor is able to lift the nose, it is a “wing” and now able to fly. For the Short Field takeoff procedure I’m describing, you only then lower the nose wheel back to the ground and lower the rotor disk AOA for acceleration on the ground.

By letting the nose come up and then putting it back down on the ground would automatically increase drag resulting in a longer take off run then just increasing forward pressure of the stick to keep the aircraft level which actually reduces drag. Not only does take out a lot of the risk it makes the take-off shorter.

But, maintaining the gyro in a "balanced" condition does actually increase the rotor disk drag because there is significant disk AOA (lift and drag) to do this. Some available engine energy is being expended in creating lift and drag, not just forward acceleration. And, when you do leave the ground from “balanced” attitude, your airspeed will be slow and less efficient behind the power curve in the air, which eats up more engine energy just to create rotor lift and drag, and eats up more runway length in ground effect to accelerates to best angle of climb speed – there is a lot of rotor disk drag when slow, behind the power curve, needing to accelerate to best angle of climb airspeed. By putting the nose wheel fully back on the ground, and reducing the rotor disk AOA to nearly zero, the disk aerodynamic drag goes to nearly zero and the acceleration to best angle of climb speed, with the wheels on the ground, is much quicker and shorter roll on the ground. With little aerodynamic drag, most of the engine energy is applied to airspeed acceleration – on the ground. When done correctly, this feels like you just lit afterburners for this short period of acceleration up to the best angle of climb speed.

Note, you do not, or should not, or should not even be able to mechanically put the stick so far forward that you are actually reversing the flow through the disk. Ideally, you lower the disk AOA enough to feel the sudden acceleration, very low disk drag. This takes very little time – and runway distance – and the rotor does not slow down appreciably during this ground acceleration.

JAL, I'm not sure how you would say that the drag is more in this condition - you are not creating much rotor disk lift and therefore the rotor disk aerodynamic drag is minimal – less than in a “balanced” condition where the rotor is creating lift and drag..

The ground roll and climb over an obstacle is dramatically and very noticeably reduced with this procedure when done correctly - therefore it is the "SHORT FIELD” takeoff procedure commonly recognized by the FAA. But, do whatever your POH says to do - the manufacturer should have identified operations that it does not want done in their machine.

All the above may be especially more true for tandem configurations that probably require more rotor lift, and drag, to raise the nose to the “balanced, NORMAL takeoff attitude. This SHORT takeoff procedure is almost exactly similar to a short takeoff procedure in any airplane – especially tail draggers – the tail is raised to minimize wing drag and accelerate quickly on the ground to best angle of climb speed where the aircraft is then rotated in pitch to maintain best angle of climb airspeed in the initial climb to clear an obstacle. For tricycle gear airplanes, the nose is held on the ground with some forward pressure to minimize wing drag and accelerate quickly to climb airspeed while on the ground. The only real difference is that for a gyro, you must “make a wing” out of the rotor first – then treat it as you would any wing – level the “wing” AOA to minimize drag and accelerate to desired airspeed more quickly in shorter length of runway. This all makes sense from an energy management standpoint – without having to expend energy lifting the aircraft in the air, all of the engine energy can be used to quickly accelerate on the ground to the desired climb speed.

NOTE: This short field procedure should not be “stretched” to try to achieve a more rapid and steep “zoom” climb upon pitch rotation at higher airspeeds than best climb speed. More is not better in this case. Pitch rotation should be done at or just before airspeed reaches best angle of climb speed. To hold it on the ground for higher airspeeds may be tempting, but this can allow the rotor to slow down a bit more and, in the extreme, could “flap” the rotor at higher rotation airspeed. Proper application of this procedure is to rotate at or near the best climb airspeeds, not a lot higher than those airspeeds.

Always read and follow your POH to see what your manufacturer recommends for Short Field takeoffs.

All of this is talking about perfection. It may be a stretch to expect a novice or student pilot to always be able to maintain a perfect “balanced” attitude for takeoff acceleration (NORMAL takeoff). Before anyone becomes a “perfect” pilot, you can expect they will touch the nose a few times at least on takeoff trying to achieve a “balanced” NORMAL takeoff attitude. IMHO, this is reason enough that any gyro or aircraft should not do bad things if the nose wheel is touched to the ground at any forward airspeed. It is also common for students to touch the nose wheel at the same time, or even before the mains touch on landing – at high airspeeds – not slowing the gyro well before touchdown. The FAA once told me it is their intent with any aircraft design that a student be able to make a mistake in that aircraft without that aircraft killing them for making that mistake.

I hope this helps - Greg

[EI-GYRO]

I expect the nose rising is indicative of the fact that the rotor is now capable
of absorbing full takeoff power, so it is then safe to return the nosewheel
lightly to the ground and accelerate rapidly and lift off at best climb speed.

Without lifting the nosewheel there is the danger that full power might be
applied with insufficient RRPM or inadequate disc angle to keep the rotor
accelerating as the machine acelerates.
This could result, and indeed has, resulted in high speed flap on takeoff.

I've seen one instance of this on video from Eastern Europe, read of two or
three others over the years, and seen what looked like very near misses
on other videos.

[gyroplanes]

My J-2 came from the factory with nosewheel steering just like a Piper warrior. The only odd thing about it was the use of a square-shouldered tire, like a Beech 18 tailwheel, to reduce shimmy at high speed.

The first J-2s had the hard link, after a few roll overs (at least one, in CA) they copied the fixed wing, soft link conventions.

I was told the square tire with unusual tread was an attempt to keep rain water take-off spray from getting into the prop.
Our J-2s all had nosewheel shimmy dampers IIRC.

[barnstorm2]

While it is true that you can avoid the negative landing issues of a non-castering nose-wheel by making a zero roll landing what are the positive aspects of such a design?

Not all landings are best when done as a zero-roll. If you don't have rudders in the prop stream, or engine is out and landing exactly into the wind is not the preferred option you are going to get times you want a "fixed wing" landing (run on). Not having a tailwheel complicates this as if you pull up too aggressively you plant the prop.

Sure it would be great if everyone flew over open outback and could always pull off a landing into the wind. Also, I have had instances where on takeoff or landing a gopher hole or other unseen imperfection has knocked my nose down early. While down-wind takeoffs and landings should always be avoided in gyro like the plaque, some unfortunates will find themselves in that situation at some point. Again, DW T&N can be done well with a non-castering nose-wheel but the workload and skill bar is higher.

Not everyone is born a thousand hour pilot and can make every landing a certain zero-roll.

Tell me if I have this right...

Castoring:

Pro:
1. Little to no chance of "nose-dart" or worse roll over.
2. Less workload for cross-wind takeoffs and landings
3. Lower student crash rate
4. Landings can be run-on or zero roll

Con:
1. requires additional design effort and or differential break steering.

Non-Castoring:

Pro:
1. Simple Design
2. ????

Con:
1. Greater chance of student / low time roll-overs
2. Greater work-load in cross wind conditions
3. Requires all landings to be zero-roll.

Can you tell me what the operational advantage(s) are to non-castoring ??

.

[rfsolutions]

In my opinion a rigid nose gear and linked steering are two poor design choices.

I feel adding caster only provides a partial mitigation of these poor design choices.

The aircraft I fly has a full castering nose wheel I feel it works well.

Steering with toe brakes and differential braking at low speed works better and is more natural than I expected.


It's proven that a full castering nose wheel adds safety margin to less than perfect landings and makes taxiing with differential braking very maneuverable. Why wouldn't an advanced design incorporate as many safety features as possible?

When adding real suspension (another safety feature) to a gyro you may not be able to keep the nose wheel from contacting the ground when the suspension compresses.

To see the advantages demonstrated look at this video.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sportcopter?blend=2&ob=5#p/u/12/D8jeYl3TuKY

The SCII has the same capabilities!

[Vance]

It's proven that a full castering nose wheel adds safety margin to less than perfect landings.

Hello Marv,

Who proved that a full castering nose wheel adds a safety margin to a less than perfect landing?

How was it proved and how did they quantify the safety margin?

It is my feeling that a full castering nose wheel works better but I am not able to imagine how to prove it.

It appears to me to be a matter of preference and the expensive European gyroplanes like the Magni and Xenon seem to prove that people prefer linked steering to a full castering nose wheel and no front suspension.

Thank you, Vance

[EI-GYRO]

Vance, I dont imagine the customer has been given much of a choice.
They take what is available.
Mods to the machine are not encouraged, and probably not allowed in most
countries.

That is the joy of true homebuilts. Much more freedom to modify, up to a point.

[StanFoster]

Maybe my Turbinator could have some castoring skids fo run on landings?? Ha. Stan

[rfsolutions]

Vance,

Anyone landing a gyroplane at an offset angle from the center-line and setting the nose wheel down while still moving at a significant speed proves it every time! If you do that with a hard linked nose wheel you would roll it over almost every time, hence the requirement for teaching not to do this. I have significant time in both configurations and know the difference.

This excerpt from AAIB Bulletin: 9/2006 G-RSUK EW/G2006/04/39

There have been a number of similar ground rollover
incidents in Germany. Design analysis by the Uk Type
Approval holder has shown that the sensitivity to rollover
could be significantly reduced by the introduction of a
self-centering, fully castoring nosewheel.

If you need additional proof, I can demonstrate a few landings in my SCII at a 40 degree angle from the center-line and prove it will straighten itself upon landing. I can then sell you my Sparrowhawk and let you land it at a 40 degree angle from the center-line while setting the nose wheel down at speed and prove it will roll over! You will of course have to pay cash before proving it :)

It appears to me to be a matter of preference and the expensive European gyroplanes like the Magni and Xenon seem to prove that people prefer linked steering to a full castering nose wheel and no front suspension.

I don't believe either manufacturer gives a choice between linked or castering nose wheel? You buy what they make. If they offered a choice then you could see what the preference of the customers is.

[gyromike]

If you need additional proof, I can demonstrate a few landings in my SCII at a 40 degree angle from the center-line and prove it will straighten itself upon landing.

Are you saying that you can touch down on the mains (not the tailwheel) with the nose aimed 40º away from the ground track and the gyro will straighten itself out?

If so can you shoot a video of this?

[Master Roda]

Mike,

When the red SCII was born, Jim and I tested this scenario. If I can't find the video, we'll shoot new. Jim touched it down 35-40° (the machine straightened)....then lifted off again to touchdown 40-45° the opposite side (and again straightened)....well this was more violent but still recovered (this was approximately 40-50MPH). We expected damage, but there wasn't any. I suppose it is due to the suspension built in the nosewheel. There was no sense of roll-over. Maybe due to the mains suspension.

Jon

[rfsolutions]

Are you saying that you can touch down on the mains (not the tailwheel) with the nose aimed 40º away from the ground track and the gyro will straighten itself out?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Jim Vanek demonstrates it every time he gives a ride in a machine. They may have video of it already? If not we can arrange to film it. It's the same principal as the video of jetliners crabbing into the wind, landing on the mains and straightening out (youtube above).

Having superior suspension also helps.

[PTKay]

It is my feeling that a full castering nose wheel works better but I am not able to imagine how to prove it.


I have the same problem.
I cannot persuade Raphael, it is better... :)

[Vance]

Vance,

Anyone landing a gyroplane at an offset angle from the center-line and setting the nose wheel down while still moving at a significant speed proves it every time! If you do that with a hard linked nose wheel you would roll it over almost every time, hence the requirement for teaching not to do this. I have significant time in both configurations and know the difference.

If you need additional proof, I can demonstrate a few landings in my SCII at a 40 degree angle from the center-line and prove it will straighten itself upon landing. I can then sell you my Sparrowhawk and let you land it at a 40 degree angle from the center-line while setting the nose wheel down at speed and prove it will roll over! You will of course have to pay cash before proving it :)



I don't believe either manufacturer gives a choice between linked or castering nose wheel? You buy what they make. If they offered a choice then you could see what the preference of the customers is.


Hello Marv,

I understand you enthusiasm for a castering nose wheel but do not agree with some of your statements.

I have landed both a Goren Brothers modified RAF and a SparrowHawk with pedal linked steering many times badly misaligned with the runway without rolling her over.

I have watched as people have landed misaligned gyroplanes with linked steering without rolling them over.

I have seen Jim Vanek do things with a gyroplane that I would be uncomfortable doing.

I don’t feel linked steering is wrong; only that in some circumstances a full castering nose is better suited to the task.

There have been a lot more gyroplanes sold with linked nose wheel steering than gyroplanes with full castering nose wheels. To me this demonstrates customer preference.

When I was a Harley Davidson dealer many of my customers preferred models that I felt were inferior because they liked the way they looked. They were slower, vibrated more and didn’t handle as well as the models I preferred but the customers liked the way they looked.

The gyroplane we are building will have a full castering nose wheel and front suspension with a coil over hydraulic damper. I feel it will work better but I probably won’t perform inelegant landings just to prove it.

I am grateful I do not have to build to market tastes or demonstrate to anyone but me the value of a full castering nose wheel.

Thank you, Vance

[rfsolutions]

Vance,

I had an RAF(for 350 hours), have a Sparrow Hawk and a Sparrow Hawk conversion. They both have springs on the rudder linkage to reduce and soften, not eliminate the probability of a roll over. Those are band aids not a solution to the problem. Putting the nose wheel down while moving 30-40 MPH and off the direction of travel by 30 degrees will not typically end well.

Read the statement made by the UK Aviation authority. Are you saying they're wrong?

The customers are buying what is designed and sold. I had a Grumman Cheetah with castering nose wheel. I miss the feature very much. Unfortunately Mooney doesn't build airplanes with that feature. I'm building a Lancair and it will have a castering nose wheel. It's not as critical in an airplane but it's definitely a benefit.

If I planned on keeping my Sparrow Hawks I would convert them. Instead I'll focus on a machine with advanced suspension, castering nose wheel and a long list of safety features.

You're confusing product availability with customer preference. If more pilots were exposed to castering nose wheels and differential braking there would be more requests for it. The UK authority didn't request it, they required it.

[Vance]

Hello Marv,

I feel you may be confusing opinion with facts.

I did not find a time when I touched the nose wheel down at 30 to 40 miles per hour at 30 degrees out of alignment with my direction of flight in my 50+ hours of flying Modified RAFs and SparrowHawks.

When I was taking off I found the propeller blast enhanced the rudder performance and I did not land faster than 10 miles per hour so the situation did not arise. On my worst day I cannot imagine doing something like that.

I was learning and I was not a very good student or very a fast learner.

Yes I feel that the UK aviation authority was wrong if they required a fully castering nose wheel. I didn’t know that they did. To me that is not evident from the statement you posted.

Fully castering nose wheels have been around for as long as tricycle landing gear and the market has chosen linked steering for the majority of tricycles.

There are even gyroplanes available with a fully castering nose wheel.

There are not many of them sold.

It is hard for me to imagine that all the people who are buying these expensive gyroplanes like the Magni are simply ignorant or don’t have options available to them.

I have been told you will be marketing Sport Copter; perhaps you will be able to change the market perception.

I am not a viable customer for a Sport Copter aircraft so how I feel about them is not important.

We are using Sport Copter blades on the gyroplane we are building.

I don’t know enough or have enough information to proclaim that a fully castering nose wheel is better than linked steering. I just know what I like and I ask questions and try to learn.

Thank you, Vance

[Master Roda]

Here's some of the video we shot today. I don't have time to edit and render the whole video right now so here's a teaser clip.
Crossed up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zWLTQXcUI)

[barnstorm2]

Some of these posts seem to be worded as if the designs are black and white ( including my post, I think).

Reading back over the thread it seems most machines are really a hybrid, no castor, some dampening, full castor.

As our sport evolves I think it will be natural for features to become popular and go from rarely discussed to a widely desired feature. A semi or full castor nose wheel seems a likely candidate.

.

[karlbamforth]

Maybe my Turbinator could have some castoring skids fo run on landings?? Ha. Stan

How about this Stan ?
G force style, full castoring. Makes landings so easy even the Royal Navy can do it.

This is the Westland Wasp as used by the Royal Navy. The wheels were for ease of deck landings and ease of movement around the deck. The Army used the same aircraft but fitted with conventional skids.

[ckurz7000]

Here's some of the video we shot today. I don't have time to edit and render the whole video right now so here's a teaser clip.
Crossed up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zWLTQXcUI)

I'm not sure what that video was intended to show: how to do it or how not to do it.

Initially I see a nice and stable approach, aligned with the runway and the correct (for the cross wind) amount of side slip. Then, for no apparent reason (gusts maybe???) the gyro yaws strongly to the left. It does so again during the flare and touches the nose wheel down at a speed that seems too fast. Additionally, the nosewheel is not straightened out when it touches down, which fact causes a significant nose swing.

So I see some dos and some don'ts here.

-- Chris.

[Master Roda]

I'm not sure what that video was intended to show: how to do it or how not to do it.

-- Chris.

The video shows that with the proper design, a crossed up landing (the wrong way) can be recoverable. Castering nosewheel, suspension.

The video was intentionally showing a messed up landing. Try doing that with other designs and you'll be ordering parts. :p

[rfsolutions]

Are you saying that you can touch down on the mains (not the tailwheel) with the nose aimed 40º away from the ground track and the gyro will straighten itself out?

If so can you shoot a video of this?

That's exactly what the video shows.

Vance,

I don't think I'm confusing anything. The fact is the more rigid the nose wheel link is, the more prone it is to landing accidents. The level of skill required by the pilot increases. While not an issue for the 500 hour pilot, students may get into trouble. Most manufacturers choose to soften the link to help reduce accidents or eliminate the link with fully castering nose wheels. Other things contribute to a designs landing stability. Gear geometry, center of gravity (height), suspension, etc. Most designs also have a tail wheel to land with. The German designs do not.

Attached (again) is the accident report requiring the design change. If you feel the authority is wrong feel free to disagree with them. I don't have the data in front of me that led them to their decision but based on my experience I would say it's probably warranted.

[gyromike]

Here's some of the video we shot today. I don't have time to edit and render the whole video right now so here's a teaser clip.

Interesting.
Now let's see the SCII doing that at 40-50 mph. :)

After thinking about it, I realized that the mains on the Sportcopter are set futher back from the CG than many others. Otherwise it wouldn't sit on it's nosewheel while empty. The further back they are, the greater the stabilizing force.

My Bensen won't sit on it's nose while empty. The mains are ahead of the CG until I sit on it.

Most Dominators I've seen will sit on the nose, or on the tail wheel, depending on how you park it.

[rfsolutions]

Interesting.
Now let's see the SCII doing that at 40-50 mph. :)

After thinking about it, I realized that the mains on the Sportcopter are set futher back from the CG than many others. Otherwise it wouldn't sit on it's nosewheel while empty. The further back they are, the greater the stabilizing force.

My Bensen won't sit on it's nose while empty. The mains are ahead of the CG until I sit on it.

Most Dominators I've seen will sit on the nose, or on the tail wheel, depending on how you park it.

Mike,

Actually the SCII does do it! My demo ride in the red machine sold me on the design.

I completely agree with your observation of weight distribution and gear geometry. They all add up to stability. You certainly wouldn't (couldn't) land your Bensen like that. Nobody is proposing to make landings like that but when things go wrong it's nice to have help from a design with built in safety margins.

[Passin' Thru]

You certainly wouldn't (couldn't) land your Bensen like that.

If Mike has the later "break-away" connection, (the two little bellcranks with the spring between them) it probably will. It breaks away to free caster with the slighest provocation.;):first:

[gyromike]

If Mike has the later "break-away" connection, (the two little bellcranks with the spring between them) it probably will. It breaks away to free caster with the slighest provocation.;):first:

Nope. No breakaways on mine.
But then again I know how to land my aircraft. BWAAAHaaaahaa!
:D

[WaspAir]

The A&S 18A has a not-quite-free-because-it-is-kind-of-stiff castering nosewheel. It will spin completely around, but but takes some effort to get it to change directions, so one usually does a bit of "stab and roar" with brakes and throttle to steer it around taxiways. If it's not set to be somewhat stiff, there's a shimmy risk when rolling fast. It does self-center at full extension of the oleo strut suspension. I really don't care for the set up, and prefer the easy steering of the J-2.

[ckurz7000]

That's exactly what the video shows.

Got it. I would think that a similar maneuver done in a hard linked nosewheel setup in any of a Magni, Auto-Gyro, Xenon or Ela would most certainly lead to a roll over accident.

-- Chris.

[birdy]

But, this procedure does require putting the nose wheel back on the ground at higher airspeed - usually when you are holding a lot of rudder for engine torque or crosswind compensation.
Zactly Greg, and thatys why rudder/nose wheel sync should be set for WOT, coz thats the most likely time your go'n to get into trouble.

If you don't have rudders in the prop stream, or engine is out and landing exactly into the wind is not the preferred option you are going to get times you want a "fixed wing" landing (run on).
Tim, there isnt [ or at least shouldnt be any difference between powered and no powered landn, no matter where your rudder is.
A 0 roll landn dont care which way the machine is pointn, never mind the nose wheel. No roll means no roll over.

Not everyone is born a thousand hour pilot and can make every landing a certain zero-roll.
Gess i was lucky then, coz ol Max never let me use power to land, from the start.


Non-Castoring:

Pro:
1. Simple Design
2. ????

Con:
1. Greater chance of student / low time roll-overs
2. Greater work-load in cross wind conditions
3. Requires all landings to be zero-roll.
Pro; much more effective to have a castering hard liked nose wheel if the ground is variable.
Con????
2; If theres any work load ina xwind its coz the nose wheel and rudder aint synced. Theres shouldnt be any yaw felt wen the machine goes from nose wheel down to nose wheel up at WOT, no matter which way the wind is blown.
And 3;, why 0 roll??
You can still roll, just keep the nose off.

[tadel001]

I think what is so amazing in this discussion is that any time there is an accident various manufacturers (or their diehard representatives) start to argue that it is a design flaw that caused the accident. The lack of training, training curriculum, experience, etc. seemed to be missing. There is no pilot-proof aircraft that will prevent an accident no matter what the pilot does.

Personally, I think once the industry (through FAA support) really focuses on professional and consistent training, accidents will decrease. These discussions are interesting, a while I disagree with some of the comments, the difference between nose wheels that are steerable, partially steerable, castoring is not going to significant reduce accidents.

[gyrogreg]

But, this procedure does require putting the nose wheel back on the ground at higher airspeed - usually when you are holding a lot of rudder for engine torque or crosswind compensation.
Zactly Greg, and thatys why rudder/nose wheel sync should be set for WOT, coz thats the most likely time your go'n to get into trouble.



Hi Birdy, I apologize, but I've been meaning to ask you, WOT does "WOT" mean?

[Gyro_Kai]

Hi Birdy, I apologize, but I've been meaning to ask you, WOT does "WOT" mean?

wide open throttle.

Kai.

[Master Roda]

the difference between nose wheels that are steerable, partially steerable, castoring is not going to significant reduce accidents.

Then why have any safety equipment at all? Your thinking is flawed. No disrespect intended.

[tadel001]

Marv, I don't know your aviation experience. However, part of my aviation experience is based on a flight school with over 12,000 hour flight training in Castoring and non-castoring nosewheel aircraft with a runway that has crosswinds 70% of the time.

You said, "Anyone that has flown a castoring nosewheel aircraft recognizes how much easier and safer cross wind landings are."

I disagree with you. When you land a tricycle gear aircraft, you land with the mains first. Assuming you are not in alignment when you land, at the time mains touchdown, the aircraft will jerk to center line (of course this assumes lift has translated into gravity and there is sufficent weight on the wheels. If there is not sufficent weight on wheels, then directional control is maintained by rudder/roll control). Once the aircraft slows down for the nose to touch down, the wind will want to make the aircraft weathervane. A castoring nosewheel makes weathervaning extremely easy and requires danagerous differential braking control. Dangerous in that skidding a tire to maintain directional control can cause the opposite. Rather, nose wheel touches down, pilot controls direction with steering and roll control. Depending on the aircraft, rudder authority will diminsh around the time that nosewheel steering is needed.

There are pluses and minuses of both designs. Our students have done better with crosswind landings on rollout with steerable nose aircraft. My data is based upon over 10,000 hours of inexperienced (new pilots). Not on a seasoned pilot extremely familiar with his own plane.

At this stage in aircraft design, the key to accident prevention is training. yes, improvements can always happen in aircraft design. However, I would argue that most of the modern gyroplanes can by flown safely with training unique to that aircraft. I wish more industry representatives were more focused on training then bickering about their design. I have to complement Greg. He gets this more than most people and does a great job of promoting training and safety.

[Master Roda]

Our students have done better with crosswind landings on rollout with steerable nose aircraft.

.

This statement contradicts your statement about training. They should be equal according to you.

[tadel001]

No, it doesn't. Our students can fly both types of aircraft. We train them to proficiency. When they are done training, they can fly the aircraft in crosswind landings regardless of the type of nose. WIth that said, some phases of training (i.e. crosswind landing and takeoff with steerable nosewheel) are easier in some planes than others.

You are missing the point. An accident happens in the gyroplane world. The first thing that happens on this forum is certain industry representatives start offering their opinions on why the aircraft design caused the accident. Of course, most of the time they have no idea of the facts but make wild ass guesses. Rarely to do I see these "accident experts" focus on training. For some reason, they believe if they can distinguish their aircraft as a better design based on a crash it will improve their sales. They is the same shortsight that has crippled the LSA industry.

Once training becomes more professional and common, the industry will be safer. Once it is safer, it will become more accepted. Once it is more accepted, more sales will happen for all.

[Master Roda]

Hey Tim, arent you an advocate for AutoGyro?

[tadel001]

Yup, and I am an advocate for all gyros. You will notice my posts aren't saying the Calidus is so much better than XYZ. I don't need to point out your deficiencies to be successful. However, I do need point out the industry’s self-destructive behavior to be successful.

[Master Roda]

Yup, and I am an advocate for all gyros. .

Then you should be promoting safety as well. Castering nosewheels are safer. Its a fact.
Nobody was saying that brand X was better than brand Y. But you seem to push steerable nosewheels. Why?

[jcarleto]

I don't really see much of a difference in landing behavior for a nosewheel, having had both types of nosewheel on the same machine (opting for the castoring type, based on my own tests and a preference for the take-off property differences).

My forward speed is as close to zero as makes any difference after a landing at the point my nosewheel hits the ground. Crosswind or not. It could be sideways and I won't care a great deal with regard to landing.

I do like the castoring type on take-off. If you happen to bounce the nose wheel while balancing on the mains with a non-castoring type while correcting for a crosswind or P-factor, it jerks the nose when the wheel hits at an angle. At take-off speeds, that's unsettling.

[tadel001]

Then you should be promoting safety as well. Castering nosewheels are safer. Its a fact.
Nobody was saying that brand X was better than brand Y. But you seem to push steerable nosewheels. Why?

Because you say it is a fact, it is a fact? If nothing else, this thread proves you wrong. Some argue for it and some argue against it. It is a pilot's choice. There are plus and minuses with both types. I prefer steerable. I always have. I have found that weathervaning is much easier to manage with steerable and that seems to be a major issues with low time pilots.

Keep thinking you can design an aircraft that is accident proof. I will focus on training pilots to fly castoring and steerable nosewheel aircraft to ensure they are safe in whatever aircraft they choose.

[Master Roda]

Because you say it is a fact, it is a fact? .

It's physics, I don't have to prove it.
How many hours do you have in gyroplanes anyway? What is your experience level in gyroplanes?

[Master Roda]

I don't need to point out your deficiencies to be successful. .

What deficiencies?

[barnstorm2]

I prefer steerable. I always have. I have found that weathervaning is much easier to manage with steerable and that seems to be a major issues with low time pilots.

Can you elaborate on this? Example?

Most CFI's I have talked to seem to feel students have an easier time with full or partial castors.

Keep thinking you can design an aircraft that is accident proof.

Just because some people want to make improvements and those improvements are likely to reduce accident rates does NOT mean they are trying to make anything "accident proof".

That is like saying the people that designed safety glass for autos were trying to make cars accident proof. No, that is ridiculous, they were trying to make a bad situation less likely to become a disaster. Do you think it would be a success to remove safety glass from all automobiles and simply train all drivers to not have accidents?

I am not saying one design is "right" or "wrong" by any means.

As stated in a previous post, many people have listed the advantages of a full or partial castor. However, I have yet to see anyone post advantages to a non-castoring system other than it is simple to design and possibly more light weight.

Can you explain the advantages?

.

[WaspAir]

It sounds like you guys are talking past each other.
There are far more than two possible systems, including at least:
1) castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension
2) castering, with steering by differential braking, and with suspension that self-centers on full extension
3) steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
4) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
5) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals and with suspension that self-centers on full extension

Many have complained of risks with (3).
My J-2 had (5); the 18A has (2). I much prefer (5), especially for instructing.

[barnstorm2]

It sounds like you guys are talking past each other.
There are far more than two possible systems, including at least:
1) castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension
2) castering, with steering by differential braking, and with suspension that self-centers on full extension
3) steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
4) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
5) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals and with suspension that self-centers on full extension

Many have complained of risks with (3).
My J-2 had (5); the 18A has (2). I much prefer (5), especially for instructing.

Great post!

BTW, my Twinstarr has 1.5

1.5) castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension, self-centering.

.

[rfsolutions]

These discussions are interesting, a while I disagree with some of the comments, the difference between nose wheels that are steerable, partially steerable, castoring is not going to significant reduce accidents.
Tim, this is a quote from the UK aviation authority not from me. I’m sure they’ve spent more time and money using persons with greater knowledge on the subject than me and this is their opinion of a roll-over on a similar design.
There have been a number of similar ground rollover incidents in Germany. Design analysis by the Uk Type Approval holder has shown that the sensitivity to rollover could be significantly reduced by the introduction of a self-centering, fully castoring nosewheel.

Marv, I don't know your aviation experience. However, part of my aviation experience is based on a flight school with over 12,000 hour flight training in Castoring and non-castoring nosewheel aircraft with a runway that has crosswinds 70% of the time.
There are pluses and minuses of both designs. Our students have done better with crosswind landings on rollout with steerable nose aircraft. My data is based upon over 10,000 hours of inexperienced (new pilots). Not on a seasoned pilot extremely familiar with his own plane.

Tim, I have very limited experience compared to your 12,000 hours but I do know that landing fixed wing tricycle gear and landing gyroplane tricycle gear are apples and oranges comparisons so I will limit this discussion to gyroplanes.

A castoring nosewheel makes weathervaning extremely easy and requires danagerous differential braking control. Dangerous in that skidding a tire to maintain directional control can cause the opposite.

Specifically what castering nose wheel gyroplane are you and your students comparing to the linked nose wheel type? It sounds like you’re using a cross wind, fixed wing landing scenario to compare to a gyroplane???

You are missing the point. An accident happens in the gyroplane world. The first thing that happens on this forum is certain industry representatives start offering their opinions on why the aircraft design caused the accident. Of course, most of the time they have no idea of the facts but make wild ass guesses. Rarely to do I see these "accident experts" focus on training. For some reason, they believe if they can distinguish their aircraft as a better design based on a crash it will improve their sales. They is the same shortsight that has crippled the LSA industry.

Not to open any wounds here, but I got my first rating flying in an RAF-2000. I belong to a select group of pilots that have received an extreme amount of criticism (beatings) for the gyroplanes they fly, right here on this forum. If you have any doubts search the forum. That design has seen changes to improve the safety and the saga continues but that is another story:D It sounds like you may need to fill out a “Hurt Feelings” report :D

This section of the forum is here specifically for the discussions of accidents (read the header) with a focus hopefully on future prevention? I do not personally know the pilot or have details on what caused the roll-over. This forum is here to help educate us all (consider it ground school or training that you promote).
• Would training have avoided the outcome of the gyro being discussed? Maybe.
• Would a design change have avoided the outcome? Maybe.

I wasn’t in the cockpit and cannot say for sure? Neither were you?
There are many pilots flying what other pilots consider inferior or “less safe” designs, yet they continue to rack up hours, hopefully to match your 12,000 hours. However, most mature gyro designs move toward improving safety based on unfortunate and sometimes tragic experiences. I live at an air park and have lost 3 pilot friends to aviation mishaps and do not wish to lose any more :sad:

What we are discussing here is a fellow pilot that spent some hard earned coin on a shiny new gyroplane. Due to a chain of events, he was thankfully uninjured (I hope) but put his shiny toy on its side. Having done this myself, I know this to be an unhappy and expensive event. Hopefully others will read this and a few things will happen.
• New pilots (including students) will take note and receive proper training before venturing out with their shiny new toys.
• Manufacturers will pay attention to events in the field and improve their designs to reduce these events.

You have not provided a strong argument FOR hard linked nose wheel gyroplanes. An Aviation Authority has recommended a design change. Most mature gyroplane designs evolve toward a soft linked or castering nose wheel for the reasons being discussed here. Why wouldn’t a manufacturer take notice?
Nope. No breakaways on mine.
But then again I know how to land my aircraft. BWAAAHaaaahaa!

Some pilots like Mike are aware of mods to their designs but are completely comfortable with the configuration they have. Heck, I’d hop in an RAF and take it around the patch, maybe even without a horizontal stab? Would I recommend it to a newbie??? Certainly not!

Keep thinking you can design an aircraft that is accident proof. I will focus on training pilots to fly castoring and steerable nosewheel aircraft to ensure they are safe in whatever aircraft they choose.

I don’t remember anyone claiming any gyroplane to be accident proof??? Again, what gyroplane do you train people in that has a castering nose wheel???

At this stage in aircraft design, the key to accident prevention is training. yes, improvements can always happen in aircraft design. However, I would argue that most of the modern gyroplanes can by flown safely with training unique to that aircraft.

Most designs seek to mature toward accident reduction based on experiences in the field. Surely with 12,000 hours of experience you’ve seen more than a few AD’s that needed to be complied with in the aircraft you fly & teach in? Where do those AD’s come from? Civil authorities investigating accidents & incidents and manufacturers paying attention!

When people are dropping $75K-100K US dollars on a gyroplane and it rolls on it’s side after landing and then found out a castering nosewheel could have prevented it, I’d be pissed to say the least! Gyroplane insurance has always been a premium to obtain. Broken gyroplanes and injured/dead pilots = no more gyroplane insurance!

[gyrogreg]

It sounds like you guys are talking past each other.
There are far more than two possible systems, including at least:
1) castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension
2) castering, with steering by differential braking, and with suspension that self-centers on full extension
3) steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
4) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
5) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals and with suspension that self-centers on full extension


I have another one to add to this list:
Castering and steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals.

Not suggesting this is better than any others, but this is what Magnis use. I had my doubts at first, after modifying the nose wheel of my High Command many years earlier to castering with soft links, I thought soft links were definitely needed to allow caster to work. Somehow, I was deficient in my full understanding. Somehow, in the Magni configuration, the amount of caster overpowers your feet without even realizing it. Disadvantage: not as tight turning radius as free castering with dif brakes might have. FYI:, the nose wheel / rudder / rudder pedals mechanical arrangement on the M24 is different and does provide very tight ground steering with the hard link to strong caster. I propose that different systems work differently with other characteristics of a design - such as a long wheel base might take better advantage of one or the other.

I think the real thing to be avoided is simply avoid whatever might make the nose "dart" suddenly to one side. If that is zero speed nose touch or special steering mechanics, we do want to somehow avoid rolling over if we make a mistake.

As mentioned above, and apparent in the SC video, the main wheels have a lot to do also with the self-centering of the machine. The CG forward of the wheels, as on any tricycle gear aircraft, tends to straighten the machine even before the nose wheel touches.

I always did think the ability to pivot a Dominator or Grumman Tiger on a locked wheel was an impressive ability. Years ago, I modified a Dominator nose wheel to provide a soft link steering to the castered nose wheel, but the linkage loosened up in tighter turns so that the wheel could turn 90 degrees and still allow pivot on a locked brake. I liked this a lot because I didn't have to depend on dif brake steering as long as I was moving in a relative straight line, but could use dif brake steering and rudder pedal inputs to turn on a dime when taxying slower. The arrangement used cross-over cables from the pedals to the nose fork. The cross-over cable arrangement went slack with tighter nose wheel angles for tight turns. Springs in the cables allowed the caster to work in spite of rudder input, but still allowed precise steering when rolling straight and faster.

- Interesting discussion - Greg

[barnstorm2]

1) castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension
2) castering, with steering by differential braking, and with suspension that self-centers on full extension
3) steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
4) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals, no suspension
5) steerable, with a soft link to the rudder pedals and with suspension that self-centers on full extension
6)Castering and steerable, with a hard link to the rudder pedals.
7)Castering, with steering by differential braking, no suspension, self-centering.

[PW_Plack]

...A castoring nosewheel makes weathervaning extremely easy and requires danagerous differential braking control. Dangerous in that skidding a tire to maintain directional control can cause the opposite...

"Dangerous differential braking?" If the crosswind is strong enough to drag locked wheels across the ground, will your nosewheel really have more traction than your main gear?

Maybe I'm just a chicken, but if the crosswind is strong enough to make me drag one main gear wheel in an unsuccessful attempt to steer while taxiing, I think I've found the limit at which I stay in the hangar.

If you're locking up a wheel before the mains are down with weight on them, that's a training issue.

I don't have a lot of gyro time, but most has been in machines with castering nosewheels, some has been in stiff winds, and the differential brakes have had generous headroom on control authority, provided I wasn't ignoring the role of the rotor in maintaining directional control.

Just an observation: People who have tried both and don't like differential braking seem to have had their experience with cable-actuated and/or band brakes that weren't smooth. Good hydraulic brakes that don't have too much runout or other "grabby" tendencies are a sweet way to steer.

[PW_Plack]

...As mentioned above, and apparent in the SC video, the main wheels have a lot to do also with the self-centering of the machine. The CG forward of the wheels, as on any tricycle gear aircraft, tends to straighten the machine even before the nose wheel touches...

This is an element of Sport Copter design philosophy that goes back 50 years to the early Vancrafts. As was once explained on the Sport Copter website, Chuck Vanek said he found that moving the main gear back a little made the machine less prone to PIO on takeoff. Perhaps the self-aligning tendency was a welcome side effect.

[ckurz7000]

On the note of weathervaning: there's a huge difference in weathervaning between a FW and a gyro. The former has much more surface area behind the CG because (a) the empennage is longer and (b) the front mounted engine moves the CG further forward than in a pusher configuration.

Specifically, I didn't find weathervaning a huge problem in most of the gyros I flew. The Calidus even seems to weathervane its nose away from the wind, indicating that the area in front of the CG offers more resistance and moment arm than the area behind.

-- Chris.

[tadel001]

This is going to continue as a circular discussion. So, in an effort to bring some conclusion to my points, I will clarify:

1) I think training is the most important aspect of accident prevention. That was the intent of my original post. When an incident/accident occurs, there seems to be very little discussion of training and much more on identifying design features.

2) I think the discussion on castoring v. steerable is a good one. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. That is why you see some manufacturers use them and other don't. I don't agree with the statement that a castoring nosewheel is a "fact" safer. I do appreciate the advantages discussed. I do not agree completely with the apples to oranges comparison of FW and gyro. There are actually many similarities in crosswind landing. The most important, keep flying the aircraft until it stops. Some incidents I have seen on castoring include (pilot begins takeoff with nose canted in one direction with strong crosswind, while traveling slow, the pilot did not have good directional control and started to go off the runway. This was a problem of playing rudder and differential braking. Again, not a fault of castoring as much as training and experience. I have seen one incident of a left brake becoming inactive (don't recall if it was fluid, brake pad, etc.), the pilot could not steer or stop the aircraft while taxing in a row of planes and ended up contacting another aircraft. A steerable nosewheel would have allowed the pilot to taxi to the grass and stop on the grass. If you have differential toe brakes and happen to have your foot on the right brake while landing, the "dart" experience will be significant. So, there are advantages and disadvantages.

3) I think with each aircraft FW, Gyro, Glider, seaplane etc. there is a level of training that is needed to fly that aircraft. I think the tremendous benefit of a community, such as this, is the experience. there are many steerable nose wheel aircraft that have landed in crosswinds without rolling over. In looking at accident data of roll overs in AutoGyro, many were not on landing ("dart") but on turn off from the runway without slowing down and not having good rotor management. The nose-dart has not been a noticeable problem.

4) The accident in question was not the result of "nose dart".

Again, I am not trying to argue necessarily for one design over the other. Yes, I do prefer steerable but that is my own preference. I respect those that prefer castoring. I am just advocating that there is an increased focus on training. Understanding that there is a broad choice of aircraft out there, I think training should focus on each aircraft's unique design features. With that type of training, accidents will go down. Simply arguing that if the aircraft had a castoing nose wheel, the accident wouldn't have happened (which seems to be the suggested argument), I believe undermines the safety analysis of an incident.

p.s. I am not going to say anything bad about any manufacturer, including Sport Copter - a company that has asked me to represent them on a number of occasions. I am confident that most of the current designs on the market could be flown safely with training and, therefore, I like all these gyroplanes!

[C. Beaty]

One can walk barefooted over hot coals with proper training. But why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking

[rfsolutions]

Chuck,

Are the feet hard linked or castering?

[Vance]

The preliminary report on this accident is out.

"Injuries: 1 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On October 7, 2011, about 1320 eastern daylight time, an experimental, amateur-built Wilhelm Calidus gyroplane, N455BW, was substantially damaged during a loss of control on landing at the Thompsonville Airport (7Y2), Thompsonville, Michigan. The private pilot sustained minor injuries. The gyroplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was not operated on a flight plan. The local flight departed about 1315.

The pilot reported that this was his first flight in the gyroplane and intended to be the first full flight of the required flight test operations phase. He noted that a mechanic had conducted 3 momentary flights over the runway after the gyroplane had been completed. The gyroplane was then transported to Michigan.

The pilot stated that the takeoff seemed normal but, on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the gyroplane tended to roll to the right and he had difficulty keeping it level. He completed the traffic pattern and successfully touched down on the runway. However, he was unable to maintain control and the gyroplane departed the runway pavement into an adjacent grass area, rolling over. The gyroplane sustained substantial damage to the rotor mast and fuselage.

The pilot reported that he departed from and landed on runway 27 (2,900 feet by 75 feet, asphalt) at 7Y2. He noted that there was a south wind at approximately 5 knots at the time of the accident."

I don’t have an opinion on the cause of the accident.

Thank you, Vance

[Master Roda]

It was gremlins Vance!! I've seen them in cartoons!!

(this is me joking)

[Jason O]

Hello,

Could you please explaing the physics that prove a castering nose wheel is better than a steerable. I might suggest in the future you just put the mathamatical proof into your e-mails instead of just stating "its physics", it would cut down on alot of back and forth.

Regards
Jason

It's physics, I don't have to prove it.
How many hours do you have in gyroplanes anyway? What is your experience level in gyroplanes?

[Master Roda]

Hello,

No. You really need help with this one Jason? You can't understand it? Really? Really?

Regards,
Jon

[Master Roda]

I'll attempt to explain this for you Jason.

Imagine your gyroplane is ground tracking the runway at an altitude of 5 feet. Your gyroplane is actually oriented 30 degrees to the left due to a crosswind. You attempt to land and when you touchdown,

Scenario 1: You have a fixed steerable nosewheel (you don't correct on touchdown, I dunno, maybe your reactions are slower this day), you ground loop or skid off the runway or roll or a combination thereof. The reason why Jason is because all three wheels are still pointing 30 degrees away from the runway (and possibly the nosewheel more). Does that make sense?

Scenario 2: You have a castering nosewheel, refer the the video I posted in this thread where it shows you in living color what actually happens.

I thought by watching the video you would get it Jason. Do I need to video someone in a gyroplane with a steerable nosewheel crashing to prove a point?


Safety Jason. It's not IF you need a castering nosewheel, it's WHEN.

[Gyro_Kai]

Additionally the Calidus also has a pronounced torque reaction, adding yaw movement on any throttle change.

Kai.

[Jason O]

Now I am really confused. You stated that a castering nose wheel is better than a steerable nose wheel and as proof you state "its physics". All physics as they apply to flight can be explained with math. In your example below, scenario 1 goes bad because a pilot failed to use the proper input on the controls. So are you changing your explination from its physics to its better because it may not require proper pilot input in certain situations? If you are sticking with physics, please show me the math.

Regards
Jason

I'll attempt to explain this for you Jason.

Imagine your gyroplane is ground tracking the runway at an altitude of 5 feet. Your gyroplane is actually oriented 30 degrees to the left due to a crosswind. You attempt to land and when you touchdown,

Scenario 1: You have a fixed steerable nosewheel (you don't correct on touchdown, I dunno, maybe your reactions are slower this day), you ground loop or skid off the runway or roll or a combination thereof. The reason why Jason is because all three wheels are still pointing 30 degrees away from the runway (and possibly the nosewheel more). Does that make sense?

Scenario 2: You have a castering nosewheel, refer the the video I posted in this thread where it shows you in living color what actually happens.

I thought by watching the video you would get it Jason. Do I need to video someone in a gyroplane with a steerable nosewheel crashing to prove a point?


Safety Jason. It's not IF you need a castering nosewheel, it's WHEN.

[Master Roda]

Now I am really confused. You stated that a castering nose wheel is better than a steerable nose wheel and as proof you state "its physics". All physics as they apply to flight can be explained with math. In your example below, scenario 1 goes bad because a pilot failed to use the proper input on the controls. So are you changing your explination from its physics to its better because it may not require proper pilot input in certain situations? If you are sticking with physics, please show me the math.

Regards
Jason

You want me to take the time to type out all the math that is involved? Your crazy. I guess I'll be needing my ignore button?

This crap is black and white to most folks here. I'm not catering to you.

[Master Roda]

Then you should be promoting safety as well. Castering nosewheels are safer. Its a fact.
Nobody was saying that brand X was better than brand Y. But you seem to push steerable nosewheels. Why?

This is what I was referring to in the first place. Read the thread.


SAFETY!

[Master Roda]

In your example below, scenario 1 goes bad because a pilot failed to use the proper input on the controls.

Regards
Jason

Ok, how about engine out? how about microburst, how about any other scenario?

Are you just an antagonist or what?

[Master Roda]

So are you changing your explination from its physics to its better because it may not require proper pilot input in certain situations?

Regards
Jason

No, I'm explaining it in terms you may understand instead of math. But you obviously dont want to get it.

[Jason O]

You seem to have the time to type lengthly explinations about why you feel it is better. I think your unwillingness to take the time to type out a simple explination of this cg ahead of this point, caster camber bla bla bla, says volumes about defending a point you say is proved by physics and undisputable and anyone who says other wise is changing the laws of nature vs your PREFERENCE in landing gears. You are so brainwashed you are unable to distinguish between the two.

Regards
Jason

You want me to take the time to type out all the math that is involved? Your crazy. I guess I'll be needing my ignore button?

This crap is black and white to most folks here. I'm not catering to you.

[Master Roda]

I think your unwillingness to take the time to type out a simple explination of this cg ahead of this point, caster camber bla bla bla,

Regards
Jason

Your examples are just as good as mine. Blablabla

My explanation was simple, castering nosewheel in front of you....duhhhhhhhhhh

[gyrogreg]

Think shopping cart wheels! Caster is when the point of contact with the ground is behind the nose wheel pivot axis. Drag at the contact point with the ground pulls that point directly behind the caster pivot axis. The contact point drag is exacerbated - more - if the wheel is not aligned to the direction of movement. The final result, as in a shopping cart wheel, is that the wheel straightens out to roll in the direction of movement to avoid side thrust from an offset wheel.

Actually shopping cart wheels also display an issue with castering nose wheels that does need to be addressed - "shimmy". Cessna and others solve this with "shimmy dampers". But, friction in the caster axis can also damp "shimmy" ala Dominator.

[Master Roda]

I think your unwillingness to take the time to type out a simple explination of this cg ahead of this point, caster camber bla bla bla, says volumes about defending a point you say is proved by physics
Regards
Jason

I think the fact you bought a machine, taught yourself "how to fly" then crashed speaks volumes about you and your lack of understanding why things are.

[Master Roda]

Think shopping cart wheels! Caster is when the point of contact with the ground is behind the nose wheel pivot axis. Drag at the contact point with the ground pulls that point directly behind the caster pivot axis. The contact point drag is exacerbated - more - if the wheel is not aligned to the direction of movement. The final result, as in a shopping cart wheel, is that the wheel straightens out to roll in the direction of movement to avoid side thrust from an offset wheel.

Actually shopping cart wheels also display an issue with castering nose wheels that does need to be addressed - "shimmy". Cessna and others solve this with "shimmy dampers". But, friction in the caster axis can also damp "shimmy" ala Dominator.

That's a good explanation Greg, but it lacks math so I dont understand it (my sarcasm)

[Jason O]

It is clear from all the posts on this thread that there are various opinions on which type of nose wheel steering is prefered. I totally understand why in some situations a castering wheel might be better and other situations a direct steering wheel may be better. I understand why some people FEEL strongly that the castering wheel might help a pilot manage x wind landings. There are some situations that a direct steering arrangement might also help a pilot avoid an accident. What I am unwilling to do is give someone a bye who makes the statement that one configuration is better than other because of physics and then proves that point with if a pilot is having a bad day this might happen with this type of gear. If you are going to introduce the human factor in to it, it becomes a training and familarity issue not an issue of physics. I just feel the need to question anyone who makes absolute statements and says it is a simple matter of physics so if you question it you are questioning the laws of physics themselves. I have heard of gyroplanes with direct steering wheels going over and I have heard of gyros with castering wheels also tipping over, both had the laws of physics apply to them after it was induced by pilot error.

On another note, in a thread a while back you invited me to come to a PRA chapter meeting and I declined because I had heard how the chapter was run. You said you were now the president and hoped you were changing things. It appears from this thread that things continue just as they were. I had heard that if you did not tow the (manufacturers) party line or asked questions like "why" you were you were made to feel like an outsider. I had heard the people who run the chapter would say to you "you know that gyro accident you had about 30 years ago, clearly that proves you have no idea what you are talking about".

Best Wishes
Jason

[ferranrosello]

From my point of view there are too many tipping over accidents on take offs and landings. I agree entirely with Jason. The problem is not that kind of nose wheel arrangement. The problem is poor piloting technique, lack of training and thinking that a gyrocopter is landed just the same than a fixed wing plane.

There is a specific way for taking off and landing a gyrocopter. It involves landing at very low speed and lifting the nose wheel very soon (at very low speed in the take off). This is not difficult to do, and it is mandatory flying autogyros.

Not doing take offs and landings in this way is an error.

Ferran

[Vance]

From my point of view there are too many tipping over accidents on take offs and landings. I agree entirely with Jason. The problem is not that kind of nose wheel arrangement. The problem is poor piloting technique, lack of training and thinking that a gyrocopter is landed just the same than a fixed wing plane.

There is a specific way for taking off and landing a gyrocopter. It involves landing at very low speed and lifting the nose wheel very soon (at very low speed in the take off). This is not difficult to do, and it is mandatory flying autogyros.

Not doing take offs and landings in this way is an error.

Ferran

I don’t agree Ferran.

To begin with, in my opinion only a Gyroplane or Autogiro designed by Igor Bensen is a Gyrocopter because it is his trade name.

I feel that autogiro is the proper term but the FAA calls them gyroplanes because a particular spelling of autogiro was also a trade name.

I feel there is more than one way to land a gyroplane well.

I feel it is best to land the gyroplane I fly in gusty conditions or with a tail wind with some forward ground speed.

Because I fly out of busy airports and I want to get clear of the active runway quickly forward speed is useful for a quick exit.

I have flown gyroplanes where I felt slow landings were usually best.

The one I fly has a relatively wide track, a relatively long wheelbase, a large vertical stabilizer, good rudder authority and a castering nose wheel. When the power setting is changed there is little change in pitch or yaw.

In my opinion all of these things contribute to a safer flying experience with more takeoff and landing options to manage a challenging transient environment.

Most of my training was in a short wheel base linked steering gyroplane that pitched up and right with an application of power. In my opinion this put me closer to the edge of trouble.

I am not perfect and neither are the conditions I fly in. I am bound to make mistakes and I feel that the gyroplane I fly helps to manage those mistakes without consequences.

I am grateful for the perceived advantages the gyroplane I fly gives me.

In my experience any inelegant landing has more than one cause.

In my opinion the best technique depends on the circumstances and the gyroplane.

Thank you, Vance

[ferranrosello]

Vance, thank you very much for the explanation about autogiro's wording. Having different opinions is very good to explore different approaches to the problems. But I think that our opinions are not so different, the main problem for me is explaining things in a foreign language.

I agree with you that if we need to land with heavy cross winds we will need more forward speed in the touchdown, in order to maintain enough control authority on the rudder (we can use power on the landing or a combination of more forward speed and power).

But I not was talking about this kind of landings; I was talking about normal landings.

About the need to speed up landings because of very busy airports I think that flight safety is much more important than other things (like the next plane doing a go around). Any way you can plan your landing in order to touch down much closed to the exiting point and perform a sane and safe slow autogiro landing.

Landing autogiros at high speed is dangerous, they are much more prone to tip over than fixed wing planes.

Ferran

[Master Roda]

It is clear from all the posts on this thread that there are various opinions on which type of nose wheel steering is prefered. I totally understand why in some situations a castering wheel might be better and other situations a direct steering wheel may be better. I understand why some people FEEL strongly that the castering wheel might help a pilot manage x wind landings. There are some situations that a direct steering arrangement might also help a pilot avoid an accident.


Best Wishes
Jason

Jason,


Castering nosewheels are safer as recognized by professionals in the field and the CAA as noted in this thread. The physics involved are quit lengthy.
Your opinion is is just that. Your preference could be 4 wheels instead of three. Doesnt mean anything. Preference means jack.
You obviously have a personal vendetta for me and thats fine. just don't confuse facts with your emotions.
Educate yourself Jason instead of "hearing" something someone said once and basing your posts on that.

Jon

PS your still invited. In fact you can get a ride in a machine with castering nosegear. Jim can demonstrate it for you. No math lessons necessary.

[gyromike]

The physics involved are quit lengthy.

Don't worry about using up Forum resources.
We have plenty of bandwith and storage.

:)

[Master Roda]

There are some situations that a direct steering arrangement might also help a pilot avoid an accident.

Best Wishes
Jason

Name a few.

[gyrogreg]

There is a specific way for taking off and landing a gyrocopter. It involves landing at very low speed and lifting the nose wheel very soon (at very low speed in the take off). This is not difficult to do, and it is mandatory (?) flying autogyros.

Not doing take offs and landings in this way is an error. Ferran

I have to comment on this statement. I have several thousand hours of providing gyroplane flight training, and there are necessary reasons why you sometimes do not want to take off at very low airspeeds – lift the hold the nose up at very low airspeed.

First, The U.S. Private Pilot Gyroplane Practical flight checks, the Practical Test Standard (PTS) requires the applicant to demonstrate SHORT FIELD takeoffs. Unless the manufacturer specifies something different in their POH, the FAA expects you to do this as it is done in many airplanes as well. (Once the rotor becomes a “wing”), put the nose wheel back on the ground, lower the rotor disk AOA with forward stick – planting the nose wheel firmly on the ground - and quickly accelerating with the reduced rotor disk drag to or near the best angle of climb airspeed. This technique reduces the rolling distance on the runway, breaks from the ground quickly and cleanly, and initiates a best angle of climb immediately upon liftoff.

Second, When winds are gusty, strong crosswinds, and especially under strong gusty crosswinds, leaving the ground at “very low (air)speed”, far behind the power curve, subjects the craft to more disturbance than you may have control authority or pilot proficiency to handle. In these conditions, it is best to apply a degree of “short field takeoff” to gain sufficient airspeed to be able to handle the wind conditions and avoid significant risk of inadvertently contacting the ground again in a side slipping or surprising mode. In such conditions, the short field takeoff technique is advisable to break the ground cleanly and keep clear of the ground with good control authority to do so. Breaking ground at very slow airspeed far behind the power curve, is inadvisable in challenging wind conditions. Accelerating to higher airspeeds on the ground also allows more time for the rotor to achieve full flight RPM before liftoff. A liftoff at low airspeeds where the rotor may not have achieved full flight RPM, presents a short period of time immediately after takeoff where the rotor can barely sustain flight – allowing a good opportunity for wheels to re-contact the ground with even minimal wind disturbance. At the point of liftoff, a wind gust can balloon the gyro higher out of ground effect where it is even further behind the power curve and make it more difficult to accelerate to better airspeed before inadvertently re-contacting the ground.

In adverse wind conditions, it is also extremely helpful to gain some airspeed while there is still nose wheel (on the ground) steering control to gain adequate rudder yaw control when the nose wheel is lifted from the ground. Under cross wind conditions, the rudder authority should be adequate to prevent an immediate “weathervaning” into the wind upon liftoff. At least until you are sure you will not be re-contacting the ground after liftoff, you should hold the nose pointing in the same direction of craft motion to avoid touching down sideways and – you know the rest!

Thanks, Greg

[Vance]

Hello Ferran,

Thank you for your pleasant attitude.

You seem to do very well with English.

I do not do well with Spanish even though more than half the people who live in Santa Maria speak Spanish. I do like the question marks ahead of a question and the masculine and feminine choices..

We may still be having a language challenge.

When the winds are gusting is when I touchdown with more forward speed. A gust is a sudden burst of wind that may or may not be in a different direction as the prevailing wind.

A little more forward speed can lessen the changes in the lift as the wind gusts or suddenly stops.

In a strong steady wind I will let her point into the wind at touchdown with little landing roll.

I always try to land near the taxiway but it is still a long way to the hold short line if you are moving slowly. Until I cross that line I am possession of the runway for some distance depending on the aircraft involved it is 3,000 or 4,500 feet.

It is generally considered bad manners to dawdle on the runway.

I would not compromise safety for the convenience of others. If I were to tip over my aircraft on landing before the hold short line it would shut down the runway all together. The rules say that they can’t move the aircraft involved in a flight incident until the NTSB has a look at it so this is a very large incontinence for the other users of the airport. It can take some time to bet the NTSB to the accident site.

It is in everyone’s interest that I keep the rotor side up and the rubber side down.

I feel there is value in good ground handling and it should be a design consideration.

Naturally the environment the gyroplane operates in affects the design as well.

Thank you, Vance

[ferranrosello]

About the slow take offs.

Gents, I’ve not talked about slow take offs in my posts. The only thing I’m trying to explain is that the nose wheel should lift off as soon as possible. And there is a very good reason for that: the nose wheel is the main tip over producer in autogiro’s take offs and landings. This machine is much easier to tip over in the ground than a fixed wing aircraft, and is still easier to tip over if the main rotor is spinning fast. Besides, autogiro’s landing gears are not designed for high speed rolls.

Having the nose wheel rapidly lifted in take off doesn’t mean performing a slow speed take off. If you lift the nose wheel only a little, you will perform a nice take off, lifting at a good climbing speed.

If you lift the nose wheel a little bit more you will perform an intermediate speed take off. After that take off you will have to level the flight path immediately and fly much closed to the ground until reaching a good sane climbing speed (Vy).

Finally, if you put a high nose up attitude in the take off, you will be able to get airborne very soon (provided that your nose up attitude is balanced to the your available power, of course). But after that you will need to work harder, you will be deeply in second flight regime (the back side of the power curve).

Probably the well done take off is the most difficult manoeuvre to do flying autogiros. In my opinion the perfect take off is performed with the nose wheel barely touching the ground, and maintaining a steady rocky attitude during the whole manoeuvre. I think that this is what makes different very good autogiro’s pilots from average ones (and not making dangerously stupid exhibition manoeuvres very closed to the ground).

Ferran

[Master Roda]

the nose wheel is the main tip over producer in autogiro’s take offs and landings.

Ferran

Agreed. Thanks for posting.

I believe most CFI's train that aspect (lifting the nose first). My worries are always about the "what if" scenario when the unexpected happens. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has had an unexpected situation that leaves them at the mercy of their machine.
In those cases, wouldn't you agree that having a design that isn't prone to roll over be ideal if not preferred?

Jon

[Early Bird Dave]

Wow! I'm comparative low time but look at this thread.
I am higher hour in a tandem Dom but took my flight test in Ron Menzie's modified RAF. Thanks Ron.
I was stunned how easy it was to keep the nose wheel up after landing in the RAF but CG is different. Side by side.
The tandem Dom needs (and has) castering nose wheel because the weight is out front.
You won't keep the nose up like an RAF or single place.
Each aircraft is different but castering is more forgiving.
How many roll-overs are listed in the NTSB files on aircraft that caster?
Tandem designs tend to not be able to hold the nose up on landing. (At least mine sure won't). Of course the best landing is near 0 speed.
If a strong crosswind, why not land into it? I do it often. Confuses the tower but.... Besides I spend a lot of time in Wauchula which is cross wind central.
Some Gyro's can hold the nose wheel up so if they want linked, so be it.
Just follow the accident reports, how many roll-overs with linked vs non-linked?
As for take-offs and wind problems... ?
Castering nose wheel on take-off may shimmy a bit but lift to the mains and gain speed.
With high cross wind I angle the runway or tilt the rotor.
The time I took off in 30 plus wind I rotated at 0 mph and lifted in about 20 feet.
It's a gyro.
Of course heavier aircraft will vary. Mine is about 600lb empty.

[Jason O]

Not being prone to roll over is a issue of stability, stability comes in a couple of different ways. The vertical CG in relation to the width of the gear, of course we have to trade this off with vertical CG in relation with the thrust line when flying. The lateral CG in relation to the main gear, the further forward the more stable (easier to track a straight line when moving) of course this also has to be balanced with the ability to rotate when taking off and making sure the aircraft does not land nose wheel first (Im not sure, but this might technically be called dynamic stability because the aircraft must be moving for it to play much of a part). The camber and toe in/out of the main gear has some affect on how it feels when rolling but isnt really a stability issue, just as the nose wheel configuration is not a stability issue. The camber, toe in/out and nose wheel configuration may make the aircraft easier/tougher to handle in various situations and if the pilot does not react properly, then the stability of the aircraft will be tested. So of course we all want an aircraft that is not prone to rolling over, but that has to be balanced with alot of other design factors that are just as important (if not more) than stability on the ground.




wouldn't you agree that having a design that isn't prone to roll over be ideal if not preferred?

Jon

[NoWingsAttached]

The tandem Dom needs (and has) castering nose wheel because the weight is out front.

.

Why would castoring nose wheel advantage have anything to do with the pilot's weight being over the front, which is probably a misconception anyway? The COM is still in the same place as any onther gyro that is airworthy - right below the rotor head.

The way I see it, the issue with having a coupled nose wheel on a Dom Tandem is more a result of an excessively high COG on the ground, a narrow wheel base on the mains, and the active suspension which allows the superstructure to move vertically.

BTW, there is another reason to keep the nose wheel down on take-off: If the mains are placed a bit too forward, the nose wheel comes up too quickly.

And another reason: With DWs on the Air Command Tandem, I never had an issue with premature lift off, AS under 40 mph. However, with Sky Wheels, I routinely find myself wheels-up at 30 mph, or even less, and that is AS, not GS + apparent wind. (I am not disparaging the DWs, as I also found that they produce AS of +5 mph. Where I was going 70 mph with DW's, I am now only going 65 mph with McCutcheons.)

I don't know about all this discussion. I do know a couple of things I have learned after having flown the Bee and the Tandem, with Ernie's tall tail on it and SKy Wheels, and that is this:

The Bee couldn't land straight in a cross wind if your life depended on it, if the wind is starboard. IF it is port (left, you landlubber) then everything is fine. You MUST land either into the wind or drag the tailwheel to straighten you out before getting the mains down in the first example.

The Calidus can't do that, it has no tail wheel to drag along behind to set you up for the touchdown.

It also doesn't have a tall tail, so when you add power to help straighten a crab, can it also perhaps make things worse, not better (unlike the RFD tall tail will), same as the Bee???

The Air Command Tandem gyro I fly now will do whatever the heck I tell it to. You want to get sloppy and let it crab, then give it rudder and even perhaps some power to straighten it out? It obeys perfectly.

I was rollicking in cross winds all day today. Don't want crab today? No prob. I didn't crab once. Just push the stick into the wind, let it side slip to the cross wind and keep the nose lined up down the runway and drop it in neat. That's what the tall tail does, it balances power from the prop in such a way that you don't get adverse yaw out of the throttle which can compund a cross wind something terrible.

I don't know if the Calidus has that kind of authority over the cross winds, but looking at it it looks like it has a short tail, and it won't work as well as RFD's tall tail will for slipping while landing...I do know that once I got caught in a situation with the Bee that I was 3 feet off the ground, and NO WAY was the nose going to straighten out, that thing was going to land sideways and I couldn't even get it to land INTO the wind at that moment! I just had to throttle up, and came back for another try, this time I gave up on practicing a cross-wind landing and set down on the RW approach.

Oh well, my ramblings dont' amount to a hill of beans, don't know why I even bother to carry on like this.

[thomasant]

Regarding the posts about the take off technique, I would like to know if the type of gyroplane has a lot to do with the technique used.

The FAA rotorcraft gyroplane handbook clearly states,

For a normal take off:

"Using a speed of 20 to 30 m.p.h., allow the rotor to accelerate and begin producing lift. As lift increases, move the cyclic forward to decrease the pitch angle on the rotor disc. When appreciable lift is being produced, the nose of the aircraft rises, and you can feel an increase in drag. Using coordinated throttle and flight control inputs, balance the gyroplane on the main gear without the nose wheel or tail wheel in contact with the surface. At this point, smoothly increase power to full thrust and hold the nose at takeoff attitude with cyclic pressure. The gyroplane will lift off at or near the minimum power required speed for the aircraft. VX should be used for the initial climb, then VY for the remainder of the climb phase."

For a short field take off:

"The technique is identical to the normal takeoff, with performance being optimized during each phase...Once maximum rotor r.p.m. is attained, disengage the rotor drive, release the brakes, and apply power. As airspeed and rotor r.p.m. increase, apply additional power until full power is achieved. While remaining on the ground, accelerate the gyroplane to a speed just prior to VX. At that point, tilt the disk aft and increase the blade pitch to the normal in-flight setting. The climb should be at a speed just under VX until rotor r.p.m. has dropped to normal flight r.p.m. or the obstruction has been cleared. When the obstruction is no longer a factor, increase the airspeed to VY."

Regarding crosswind take off:

"As airspeed increases, gradually tilt the rotor into the wind and use rudder pressure to maintain runway heading. In most cases, you should accelerate to a speed slightly faster than normal liftoff speed. As you reach takeoff speed, the downwind wheel lifts off the ground first, followed by the upwind wheel. Once airborne, remove the cross-control inputs and establish a crab, if runway heading is to be maintained."


I find that during take off in my tandem AC, when putting the nose wheel back on the ground during acceleration to make firm contact with the runway, I get a significant impact and bounce. I have experienced this in the MTO Sport as well, as this was how I was taught recently. If there is a cross wind component involved, I can clearly feel the lateral force on the nose wheel as it impacts. I find this quite unsettling.

I believe that keeping the nose wheel up a little and balancing on the mains while accelerating, as posted by Ferran and recommended by the FAA handbook, will minimize some of the stresses that are imparted to the nose gear, as well as reduce frictional forces with the ground and help lift off earlier.

It is not my intent to comment on anyone's technique in particular, except highlight the technique written in the FAA Handbook. I believe that the FAA handbook pertains to the three certified gyroplanes of many years ago. The handbook itself is from the year 2000, and there are a large number of higher performing gyroplanes today.

Thank you.

[gyrogreg]

For a short field take off:

"The technique is identical to the normal takeoff, with performance being optimized during each phase...Once maximum rotor r.p.m. is attained, disengage the rotor drive, release the brakes, and apply power. As airspeed and rotor r.p.m. increase, apply additional power until full power is achieved. While remaining on the ground, accelerate the gyroplane to a speed just prior to VX. At that point, tilt the disk aft and increase the blade pitch to the normal in-flight setting. The climb should be at a speed just under VX until rotor r.p.m. has dropped to normal flight r.p.m. or the obstruction has been cleared. When the obstruction is no longer a factor, increase the airspeed to VY."

Regarding crosswind take off:

"As airspeed increases, gradually tilt the rotor into the wind and use rudder pressure to maintain runway heading. In most cases, you should accelerate to a speed slightly faster than normal liftoff speed. As you reach takeoff speed, the downwind wheel lifts off the ground first, followed by the upwind wheel. Once airborne, remove the cross-control inputs and establish a crab, if runway heading is to be maintained."



Thank you for this post Antony.

You do realize, I guess, that to accelerate to near Vx as the FAA describes Short Field Takeoffs, the nose wheel will need to be on the ground with the rotor disk AOA shallow in order to remain on the ground until or near Vx airspeed. Otherwise, the gyro will lift off the ground well before Vx.

This is often the case for crosswind takeoffs, where extra airspeed is desirable in order to handle the cross or gusty cross wind. But, for some gyros, some speed "slightly faster than normal liftoff speed" may be achievable with the nose wheel held very close to the ground. But, in this situation, it can be difficult to avoid touching the nose wheel and incurring a "nose dart" to the side if the rudder and nose wheel aren't perfectly synchronized (in controlling yaw direction) in that exact set of conditions (crosswind component, power, load, etc.) It may also be difficult for the rudder to maintain directional control at the low speeds where the nose may rise - until the airspeed is adequate for rudder control of yaw alone. Of course this all depends on the strength of the crosswind you need to compensate with the rudder. But, I maintain, even for the FAA's guidance for cross wind takeoffs, the nose wheel should be firmly on the ground to maintain adequate ground steering at least until the rudder control is adequate for that crosswind condition. That avoids the opportunity for "nose dart" if the nose wheel is intermittently inadvertently touching the ground while trying to build a higher than normal airspeed while remaining on the ground.

Tandem gyros tend to leave the ground quickly once the rotor is able to lift the nose. So, it is more essential to plant the nose wheel firmly on the ground in order to build higher airspeed before leaving the ground in challenging wind conditions. Other configuration aspects of the gyro can affect the degree to which the FAA guidance can be adhered to – such as placement of the wheels relative to the CG, rotor disk loading, etc. Follow your manufacturer’s guidance – or the maximum crosswind component specified by the manufacturer.

But, for check rides in the U.S., the FAA expects these takeoffs to be accomplished as described in your post - unless the POH for that gyro describes a different procedure.

[Early Bird Dave]

Thanks all!
This post opens my eyes to so many differences in our gyros, even within the same model due to powerplant or changes made by the builder.
I have not experienced some of what many list here.
On topic, I do remember the Calidus that I watched at Mentone was set for speed.
It took most of the runway to depart and I do not remember how slow it could land but I believe it was not a 0 mph lander.
Vance, didn't you take it around?
Gerg, my gyro nose lifts around 260+ blade rpm with about 20-25 mph airspeed but wheels up occurs closer to 45+. I can pop it up sooner (grass).
On landing the nose drops almost immediately as I'm below that airspeed before touchdown (unless strong head wind) and the blades (DW) decay from the 340 rpm flight speed while landing to lower 200's.
Greg, I am fortunate to have a tall tail because the nose wheels on a Dom quiet often can pick up a shimmy. This can be a weakness in free castering. I can depart with a crosswind on my mains.
If I tighten on the dampers to much, ground control/ taxiing can become very difficult.
You do not want a Dom doing 45-50 mph on it's nose wheel unless you have modified it from original design. I am aware many gyros can do this, even some Dom's but with the narrow gear and higher CG I choose not to.
I only state this so people not familiar with the different designs can realize how rules for one need to be altered for another.
As has been stated, take instruction from someone who is familiar with your gyro type.
Just my 2 cents, and it's not even worth a penny today! :)

[WaspAir]

I believe that the FAA handbook pertains to the three certified gyroplanes of many years ago. The handbook itself is from the year 2000, and there are a large number of higher performing gyroplanes today.

No. Those FAA handbook take-off procedures are NOT derived from the A&S18, J-2, or Avian. If you try these procedures in one of them, you will never get off the ground.

For take off in the A&S 18A and the J-2, one pre-spins to well above flight rpm before moving at all. In the 18A, I pre-rotate to 370 and fly at 220; in the J-2, pre-rotate to almost 500 and fly around 420. If you do any ground roll, you will lose, not gain, rpm. There is no such thing as "balancing on the mains" while gaining rpm. Both aircraft begin their roll, if any, at full power.

In the 18A, balancing on the mains is impossible. The blades are held in flat collective pitch until you press the take-off button on the throttle, which causes it to jump completely off the ground. In the J-2, you release the spin up lever, accelerate at full throttle quickly to about 45 mph, give a touch of aft cyclic, and it takes off (with proper technique, total roll is 50 to 200 feet depending on load and winds).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a large number of higher performing gyroplanes today", at least with respect to takeoff. The 18A jumps routinely with two on board, and very, very few of "today's" gyros can do that. Here's a video of a rolling take-off (not a full jump) in an 18A with two people in it; notice how little runway is used.

http://youtu.be/hI5cAgWmShU

[thomasant]

Thanks for all the excellent posts which have clarified the take off techniques a lot. To me it seems that the FAA handbook gives a generalized version of take offs. And my POH is even more sketchy. It is my understanding that there is a new handbook soon to be released by the FAA pertaining to gyroplanes.

I appreciate the explanation given by Mr. Stark regarding the take off technique for the 18A, and the video was fantastic. After watching that take off of the 18A and many videos of the other newer models, I agree that that kind of take off performance is hard to match. I am sure it must be a treat to fly one.

I am thankful for the wealth of information that I am able to get on this forum, keeping in mind the huge shortage of instructors.

Thank you.

[rfsolutions]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a large number of higher performing gyroplanes today", at least with respect to takeoff. The 18A jumps routinely with two on board, and very, very few of "today's" gyros can do that. Here's a video of a rolling take-off (not a full jump) in an 18A with two people in it; notice how little runway is used.


Actually comparing the takeoff performance of Lycoming powered certified gyros with complex rotor systems and the "modern" Rotax powered two place machines is apples and oranges. My SCII (Lycoming powered) will take of in as short (even shorter) a distance as my J-2 (although not a super) without the complexity of the pitched rotor system. However it's not as light as the LSA machines and burns more fuel. I watched Rotax powered two place machines taking off on a 100 degree (F) day and to say their performance was marginal would be an understatement. I could still climb @800ft/min with nearly full fuel and 2 persons on board at the same place and time.

The sexy little 2 place machines cannot perform with the raw grunt of an aircraft engine or an automotive conversion like the 300 HP Subaru on the Butterfly. If you want a light weight aircraft for recreational use the Rotax will probably suffice? If you fly in high (density) altitude areas you need all the margin you can get if you want to fly safely year round. Rotorcraft are not as efficient as fixed wings.

There's no replacement for displacement!

[Master Roda]

The subliminal message is: Avoid hard coupled nosewheels.
I found this in another thread http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31839 and found it appropriate. May I be struck down if it isn't.

[MichaelBurton]

After reading the comments on this thread I decided I needed to add some information.

One post recommended planting the nose wheel firmly on the ground during take-off run for short field performance.
This is a dangerous practice and is not as specified by the PTS in the USA.

Another poster thought that it would be hard to keep the nose of a tandem seat gyro off the ground during landing. This is not true. The ability to keep the nose off the ground is dependent on the placement of the main wheels and control limits not on the seat arrangement.

The argument has been made that all gyros should have nose wheels that caster and differential breaking. While I do like this arrangement it does not prevent the gyro pilot from tipping over the gyro. It does however remove one landing hazard. It adds to the complexity of take-off for new pilots. I find that most new students have a hard time with differential break steering and less trouble with pedal steering. Part of this trouble is that there is a transition between break steering and rudder steering.

Now my comment on the accident. The pilot reported that they ran off the runway and then tipped over. This does not sound like it was caused by the nose wheel.

He also reported that the gyro rolled to one side and that there was insufficient control to overcome this flight attitude. The gyro had only been flown briefly over the runway by the mechanic.

I believe the FAA will conclude that the accident was caused by improper control input by the pilot. Contributing factors may include improperly rigged controls and cross wind.

My conclusions: A pilot with limited flight experience should not be place at the controls of a gyro that has not had proper flight testing. A new pilot in a new gyro should choose near perfect conditions for initial flights after flight testing has concluded. Inexperienced pilots need transition training for gyros that are different those they have previously flown.

In all I believe that impatience was the cause of this accident. By the description of the events it sounds like the pilot had the gyro in a side slip during the flight and landing. The pilot was unable to recognize and correct this condition due to inexperience.

[rfsolutions]

The argument has been made that all gyros should have nose wheels that caster and differential breaking. While I do like this arrangement it does not prevent the gyro pilot from tipping over the gyro. It does however remove one landing hazard. It adds to the complexity of take-off for new pilots. I find that most new students have a hard time with differential break steering and less trouble with pedal steering. Part of this trouble is that there is a transition between break steering and rudder steering.


Specifically what make/model gyroplane with a castoring nosewheel and toe brakes are you making this comparison about? If you're making a comparison to a gyro with a castoring nose wheel and hand brakes it could be confusing. But if the gyro has a castoring nose wheel and differential braking with toe brakes it's extremely intuitive.

A gyro with a castoring nose wheel is extremely hard to roll! You have to put a wheel in a hole, break one off or catch one on a cable, branch or bush!

[MichaelBurton]

Specifically what make/model gyroplane with a castoring nosewheel and toe brakes are you making this comparison about? If you're making a comparison to a gyro with a castoring nose wheel and hand brakes it could be confusing. But if the gyro has a castoring nose wheel and differential braking with toe brakes it's extremely intuitive.

A gyro with a castoring nose wheel is extremely hard to roll! You have to put a wheel in a hole, break one off or catch one on a cable, branch or bush!

Marv,

I am not referring to any make, model of aircraft. I have been teaching students since 1999 and noticed these tendencies. Students usually try to steer with the stick first. The break steering appears to be the least intuitive and adds complexity during the transition from break steering to rudder steering.

As you mentioned having the nose wheel caster removes a roll over hazard caused by nose wheel dart. I believe this is a good configuration and prefer it to other steering arrangements. It does not prevent the pilot from causing a roll over event due to side slip on touch down or some other improper pilot technique.

Students are quite creative and nothing is student proof.

[Master Roda]

Marv,

It does not prevent the pilot from causing a roll over event due to side slip on touch down or some other improper pilot technique.



Maybe you missed the video Michael, but it clearly shows a gyro landing in a side slip and preventing a roll over.

I also think Marv was asking you what machine you have flown/taught in that has a castering nosewheel with differential toe braking. I was curious myself. If you havent flown one, you are welcome to come here and fly with Jim.

Of course nothing is foolproof, but we can at least reduce the percentage with a properly designed gyro.
Here's the video again:

Crossed up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zWLTQXcUI)

[MichaelBurton]

I have seen the video. I suggest that the ability to land in a slip is greatly enhanced by the addition of a suspension system that can absorb the impact and main wheels well behind the cg not just a castoring wheel on the nose.

It was also being flown by an expert. I don't think Jim will tell any student to try that same landing. I have also seen him loop and roll a gyro.

I have flown the Dominator and the Sportcopter lighting. I have also flown nurmerous other aircraft that use a castoring nose wheel.

I like castoring nose wheels but also recognize that they have limitations and even a small downside. It is not my intention to argue only to add an informed opinion.

[Master Roda]

I have seen the video. I suggest that the ability to land in a slip is greatly enhanced by the addition of a suspension system that can absorb the impact and main wheels well behind the cg not just a castoring wheel on the nose. .

That's what I mean by proper design. although, the lightning doesn't have much suspension.

It was also being flown by an expert. I don't think Jim will tell any student to try that same landing. I have also seen him loop and roll a gyro.
.
Your wrong, he does the same landings with students to show them how it works.


I have flown the Dominator and the Sportcopter lighting. I have also flown nurmerous other aircraft that use a castoring nose wheel. .

But no training...right? You mention noticing a difference in students with the different types of gear yet you havent trained in type. You can't possibly have an informed opinion where that's concerned.


I like castoring nose wheels but also recognize that they have limitations and even a small downside. It is not my intention to argue only to add an informed opinion.

The downside? Shimmy? That's a design concern. Properly designed gyro's won't shimmy.....or roll over.

I don't want to argue either Michael. I think this is a constructive conversation where we are all learning something :)

[rfsolutions]

Michael,
I have seen the video. I suggest that the ability to land in a slip is greatly enhanced by the addition of a suspension system that can absorb the impact and main wheels well behind the cg not just a castoring wheel on the nose.
It was also being flown by an expert. I don't think Jim will tell any student to try that same landing. I have also seen him loop and roll a gyro.
Greatly enhanced would be an understatement! You should know that you don’t have to tell students to make lousy landings. Even an expert pilot cannot react quick enough to recover from that lousy landing! The beauty of the design (geometry, suspension & nose wheel) is that a student would get the same result as Jim did. The best thing about Jim’s loop & roll is that not only does he do it, his rotor system can too (again & again)!
I have flown the Dominator and the Sportcopter lighting. I have also flown nurmerous other aircraft that use a castoring nose wheel.
The Lightning is a single place ship and unless the Dominator was a tandem you haven’t instructed in either? Fixed wing has it’s similarities but it’s not the same thing as a gyro. I have hundreds of hours in a Grumman Cheetah and it was nothing like a gyro. Your claim is that you have instructed in one (or more) and students have difficulty with it wasn’t it?
I like castoring nose wheels but also recognize that they have limitations and even a small downside.
What are the limitations or downside?

Students are quite creative and nothing is student proof.
That is exactly why the design should be as safe as possible in the first place. The UK aviation authority recognizes it and required a change of a design without it. With all of the knowledge that has been gained over the decades of people flying and bending gyros, why would any modern design lack a configuration that doesn’t eliminate or reduce nose darting on landing?

[MichaelBurton]

Oh why do you cause such fatigue.

Yes I do have students training in the Sportcopter and the Dominator.

Your point is I hope that he demonstrates the landing not that he allows students to do them.

Any gyro can roll over. The only way to make it unroll-able is to permanently affix it to the ground.

The down side of a castoring nose wheel is as I stated complexity for the student.

As I have said starting in the first post I like this steering arrangement.

Lets go beat some other dead horse.

[MichaelBurton]

Michael,

Greatly enhanced would be an understatement! You should know that you don’t have to tell students to make lousy landings. Even an expert pilot cannot react quick enough to recover from that lousy landing! The beauty of the design (geometry, suspension & nose wheel) is that a student would get the same result as Jim did. The best thing about Jim’s loop & roll is that not only does he do it, his rotor system can too (again & again)!

The Lightning is a single place ship and unless the Dominator was a tandem you haven’t instructed in either? Fixed wing has it’s similarities but it’s not the same thing as a gyro. I have hundreds of hours in a Grumman Cheetah and it was nothing like a gyro. Your claim is that you have instructed in one (or more) and students have difficulty with it wasn’t it?

What are the limitations or downside?

That is exactly why the design should be as safe as possible in the first place. The UK aviation authority recognizes it and required a change of a design without it. With all of the knowledge that has been gained over the decades of people flying and bending gyros, why would any modern design lack a configuration that doesn’t eliminate or reduce nose darting on landing?

Are you saying that I don't have proper experience with castoring nose wheels to comment on student action and problems. That is quite a laugh for me I may recover by spring. Take a chill pill

[rfsolutions]

You rode the dead horse into the corral?

[Master Roda]

Yes I do have students training in the Sportcopter and the Dominator.
.

Do they sit on your lap? Because I know you don't have a two place trainer (sportcopter or dominator).

[MichaelBurton]

You rode the dead horse into the corral? Yes but you shot it, butchered it, and served it for dinner.

Enjoy

[MichaelBurton]

Do they sit on your lap? Because I know you don't have a two place trainer (sportcopter or otherwise).


I do not need to experience castering steering in a gyro with a student. I have trained students with nose wheel and break steering in other light aircraft. I have also trained many gyro students and have experience in gyros with and without castering nose wheels.

What is your point?

[Master Roda]

I do not need to experience castering steering in a gyro with a student.

What is your point?

You just made it. Have a good night Michael.

[MichaelBurton]

You just made it. Have a good night Michael.

I love you too. Not much of a point as I have thousands of training hours in a castering nose wheel aircraft.

[bones]

ohhhh the ol jedi and the black sheep are getting their feathers ruffed abit.
i too would just love to see the physics behind all this secret stuff, as Mike said he got plenty of bandwidth :) but alass i will be gone agin before i get to read it, so i hope i dont roll my poor ol gyro in a ball before i get a chance to read all your info and make my day complete.
What a whole load of utter crap sorry but this is starting to look like a raf thread :)

[Master Roda]

but this is starting to look like a raf thread :)

I hear ya Bones.....I'm done with this thread.

EDIT: Ok, so I had to add this cause I'm a smarta$$....horizontal stabs dont stabilize, and castering nosewheels don't point in the direction of the aircrafts travel when it touches down.....man was I wrong. Where's Chuck B when ya need him? He can straighten me out on this. Pun intended :)

[MichaelBurton]

I don't think your a smart a$$. I have never argued against a castoring nose wheel or an h-stab as you will see if you check my posts.

A well designed aircraft is important but no substitute for proper knowledge. attitude, and experience.

[Master Roda]

Your right Michael. I agree with you.
I sometimes hate that we can't talk face to face. I feel conclusions would come faster and we would understand each other better.

Have a good day!

[PW_Plack]

Your right Michael. I agree with you.
I sometimes hate that we can't talk face to face...

Easy! Come to Rotors Over The Rockies.

If it's not intuitive, differential braking for steering is easy to practice with no risk of getting off the ground. Start with the rotor not installed if you have to, and master go-cart mode first. If the brakes are set up well, and the pedals aren't in some goofy place, it works very well.

I've made that 15º crabbed landing in the Sport Copter tandem, and I wasn't even a formal gyroplane student yet, just some taildragger airplane time. I was on an intro flight with Jim in the back seat at a Chapter 73 meeting years ago. There was a tire chirp and it straightened out with no drama. Jim did tell me not to try that in other machines.