RAF cabin small?

[StanFoster]

Some say the RAF cabin is small. I disagree......but....maybe its because of where I came from....or should I say was pried out of. :eek: ..my Air Command. :D

[GyroRon]

Yes the aircommand pod is rather cramped!

[Harry_S.]

Yeah, the RAF cabin is a little *tight* for two heavyweights but...it's an inch wider than a 150 and has more head room.


Cheers :)

[Heather Poe]

I find the RAF 2000 cramped for two people. I find the Sparrowhawk much more comfortable, especially for the prospect of a cross-country trip.

[GyroRon]

I have yet to fly in a RAF with the doors on. With no doors my shoulder is hanging out in the slip stream. It may be wider than a 150 at the hips, but not sure if it is the same width up higher. Sure beats a open gyro with no pod this time of the year though! ;)

[Chopper Reid]

I find the RAF 2000 cramped for two people. I find the Sparrowhawk much more comfortable, especially for the prospect of a cross-country trip.

At least the RAF only needs a 2.2 Suby to make it fly well and even a Rotax 912 can power the RAF with ease. also the cost and weight of SH is very daunting.Also the fuel burn has to be taken into consideration as well and the 2.5 Suby is using about the same as a C172.
Just my opinion. :)

[Chopper Reid]

I find the RAF 2000 cramped for two people. I find the Sparrowhawk much more comfortable, especially for the prospect of a cross-country trip.

You pay a big price for comfort Heather and also need a bigger engine using more fuel to push the SH along.

[B8MFlorida]

Yeah, the RAF cabin is a little *tight* for two heavyweights but...it's an inch wider than a 150 and has more head room.


Cheers :)

Uh,Hello? one word "Dieting"
(my attempt at bringing humor to this thread, I know I shouldn't quit my day job just yet: )
John
:)

[PW_Plack]

Chopper, I haven't found anyone who got a new RAF with stab built for under $30K US. The SparrowHawk lists for $27K, and is reportedly a much more complete kit. Performance, 2.2 vs. 2.2, seems very similar from reports so far. The higher-altitude guys are anxious to get the 2.5, but you'd have the same problem with an RAF at high altitude, right?

The weights should be close, within about 3 per cent, and having sat in both, that bigger cabin is a huge improvement for anyone not built like a drinking straw.

[Russell]

Paul
The SparrowHawk lists for $27K
Here is a copy right off the AAI web site. Where did you get the 27K from???
Price
$29,900
Crating - 4 containers $480
Total $30,380
Russ :confused:

[PW_Plack]

Russ,

Sorry! I had an outdated quote. So, they're about the same. Unless the recent fall of the American dollar causes Canadian prices to move higher here...

[Hognose]

Paul and Russ, AAI raised prices a week or so after Oshkosh. My take is that a Sparrowhawk will cost you about $5k more than a similarly prepared RAF. The list on the GTX SE FI is $25,500, minus $500 discount for paying in full. They state that price in US, not Canadian, dollars.

I think the SH has advantages. As Heather points out it is much roomier. You have to sit in it to believe it... for a gyro, that thing is huge.

Also, it has adjustable bucket seats in place of the fixed RAF seat/tank. The seats are a big deal if you have people who are different heights as it is easier to adjust the seat than to adjust the pedals on the RAF. Unless you are a tall cat with long legs, you can put your Jepp bag behind your seat in the Sparrowhawk. I think tall folks are also accommodated in the RAF (being too tall is not my problem), but it is much easier to change the Sparrowhawk for various heights of people -- which ought to make it more attractive to instructors than the RAF cab.

The Sparrowhawk panel is much smaller so if you want or need more than the factory's minimum VFR rig, you have some fabrication to do. It's a little helicopter pod, as opposed to the big RAF panel.

The RAF is a much more aesthetic design, IMHO. It really looks nice with the curves and the landing lights in the nose. The Sparrowhawk trades style for practicality.

The RAF is easier to in- and egress if it is not modified for CLT. I favour the CLT modification, so that's not a factor from my POV.

cheers

-=K=-

[darrellwittke]

Did AAI do anything for crash/flameproofing of the gas tank/fuel cell? I've never seen one but assumed it was an RAF style molded seat. If this is not so, maybe they went one better (and in the proper direction, IMHO) to provide a crashworthy fuel tank? Thanks in advance, darrellwittke

[Harry_S.]

Are there any crashworthy fuel cells on any gyros?? Are they necessary??

[darrellwittke]

A couple. Off the top of my head, it seems David Gittens Ikenga used a crashworthy fuel cell. And as for necessity, wasn't it Jamie Bodie who got burned badly? Or also David Holmes gyro pyro?

Might not be worth it to most people but probaly would have been for those two. Will be somebody else in the next 5-10 years.

It seems to me to be a worthy design goal, simply on the strength of those two accidents, to try to eliminate future accidents.

[Hognose]

Darryl, Harry --

I diiscussed this with someone at AAI -- maybe Hank. It's not the RAF style seat tank but it is just a fibreglass tank. Most lead sled total hull loss crashes that I'm aware of caused a fire, but it was immaterial to survival because the deceleration forces were non survivable. At that point all a crashworthy fuel system does is give the undertaker a fighting chance of being able to fix the ex-pilot up enough to display him with the lid open.

Mild mishaps rarely cause a fire. If you check eBay or the for sale ads here, every once in a while there is a gyro "fixer-upper" that rolled on takeoff or landing and reverted to kit form.

The principal reasons I hear for non-crashworthy fuel tanks are (1) weight and (2) futility.

I could start a whole rant on gyro crashworthiness. There is NO REASON an impact at the speed Jamie hit should have messed him up like that. Of course, if the machine was designed properly it would not have a flight mode where two strong men couldn't overpower the stick and lift it out of a dive.

To survive a crash, several things must happen:
1. The deceleration forces must be survivable.
2. The aircraft structure, or items outside the aicraft, must not intrude into the passengers
3. The passengers must be restrained inside the aircraft and not make contact with the structure or great outdoors.
4. The passengers must be able to egress the wreck safely.
5. No fire until pax are clear.

That is the target. Ah, but hitting it! That is not so easy. It can be done, though. (So far, no Diamond Aircraft machine has ever had a post-crash fire).

cheers

-=K=-

[darrellwittke]

I am in agreement with your 5 survivability rules, Kevin. Interesting that the lead sleds do have fires after slamming in, and interesting Diamond aircraft has evidently mitigated that problem? Any knowledge of how they did that?

We all are in somewhat close agreement, I believe. IE. it would be ideal for a gyro to be crashable (and survivable) without catching fire. It is a problem that will be addressed in the future, I am sure, when more prominent problems shake themselves out. I kind of figured AAI, with their professional staff may have already jumped on this particular problem but not yet evidently. I am sure they will in time.

I also should say thank you sharing your knowledge and insight with us Mr. O'brien. I never like to take those who take the time to post valuable nuggets of information lightly. Please recognize that I and many others really appreciate your participation in this forum.

[mceagle]

Also, it has adjustable bucket seats in place of the fixed RAF seat/tank. The seats are a big deal if you have people who are different heights as it is easier to adjust the seat than to adjust the pedals on the RAF.

Adjusting the seat instead of the rudder pedals is far better for balance considerations which is also a big advantage

[MichaelBurton]

A crash proof tank liner should do the trick.

What if the tank were lined like some aircraft? Then the fuel tank would be less prone to leak if the structure were to crack. I think neoprene is fuel proof, puncture resistant, resists burning, and has outstanding resistance to damage caused by flexing and twisting

I found a site that sells the stuff and the glue. You could do it at home I think.

http://www.seattlefabrics.com/neoprene.html

This also looked good.
http://www.innovativetech.us/FutureProd-em.htm

[Mike Hook]

Does anyone know if Rino-Liner is listed as fuel resistant?? If so you could take it down to you local dealer and have them spray the inside of the tank.
I have taken a tank off of one of the fire trucks here and had it lined by them and it had a five year warranty.

Mike

[PW_Plack]

Harry,

Sport Copter uses a roto-molded fuel cell separate from the seat, held in place without holes or bolts, to lessen chances of a fire in a crash. It's completely behind the seat, so the pilot's body mass doesn't add to problems in a hard vertical landing.

Survivability of the pilot isn't the only advantage in avoiding fire in a crash. I'd like the investigators to be able to examine the pieces afterward, and perhaps tell others why I crashed. Many RAF accident reports have included something like, "remnants of the control system were consumed in the resulting fire, and could not be examined."

If you crash in a dry forest, on someone's home, or in an industrial park, I can think of a few other good reasons to avoid causing a fireball when you hit, even if you don't expect to be around to read the headlines!

[Cobra Doc]

Now that post-crash fires are being brought up, as a former recovery team leader there was something I noticed, but never really paid any attention to: Hueys burned, Cobras didn't. The Cobra's self-sealing fuel tanks were also substantially heavier than the Huey's plain rubber bladder tanks. On one Cobra we recovered, we had to saw through a tree limb running all the way through the rear tank. If we had removed the branch, the hole would have been too large for the sealant to handle. Since we were off post, we couldn't safely drain the tanks and guarantee not to spill fuel. We also had to airlift the helicopter out and couldn't take the chance of dripping fuel across two different states. Leaving the branch in place worked just fine. A Huey with a puncture like that probably would have burned before the pilot could have shut down the engine. But like I said, the Cobra tanks were very heavy. They were also awkward to work with if you didn't know how to handle them. However, the technology could be useful in a gyro application. After all, I don't think most gyro pilots are concered about sealing a hole made by a 50 cal.

[teiland]

I noted the recent conversation about Sparrowhawk pricing vs. RAF’s. I believe RAF has done a good job in keeping prices in line. I also agree that they both cost “too much” as does most of what else I buy these days, but the costs to produce them are high.

Today I received a copy of the new RAF Product Notice along with a price sheet.

While hard to compare apples to apples, it looks to me like Sparrowhawk is less than $2000 more than an RAF with 2.2 FI, rather than the figures mentioned here. Base price on the RAF GTX SE FI is $27,900, and on the Sparrowhawk $29,900.

RAF charges extra for pitot tube, teeter stops, nickel leading edges, and twin fuel pumps. Not sure about double bearing head. They include as standard wheel pants and heater. Being from Canada, you would assume customs fees and shipping might be higher.

Sparrowhawk charges extra for wheel pants, heater, and crating. Included as standard on SH is pitot tube, teeter stops, nickel edges, 72” prop, twin fuel pumps, electric fuel gauge, compass, EFIS with warning system, vertical speed indicator, Sport Copter blades, double bearing head, and cam grind.

The 2.5 upgrade is $3,600 on RAF and $3,000 on SH.

Also, Sparrowhawk has better looking dealers……………..Well I do exaggerate some things.

[GyroRon]

No doubt about it, new RAF verses new Sparrowhawk the Sparrowhawk is the hands down winner. It is a complete kit, you need only paint and radios to have a nice flying ship. does not need any additional instrument which can make up the 2 grand difference all in itself.... Plus much better blades which will cost you more than the 2 grand difference if you upgraded later. I would bet the farm that there will never be a recall or AD on those blades.

I just hope that Sparrowhawk can keep the prices where they are for a while.

Terry I sure hope you will grace us by stopping in at Wauchula over the weekend. I should be there Thursday afternoon. Would like to go for a ride with ya. :)

[animal]

No doubt about it, new RAF verses new Sparrowhawk the Sparrowhawk is the hands down winner. It is a complete kit, you need only paint and radios to have a nice flying ship. does not need any additional instrument which can make up the 2 grand difference all in itself.... Plus much better blades which will cost you more than the 2 grand difference if you upgraded later. I would bet the farm that there will never be a recall or AD on those blades.

I just hope that Sparrowhawk can keep the prices where they are for a while.

Terry I sure hope you will grace us by stopping in at Wauchula over the weekend. I should be there Thursday afternoon. Would like to go for a ride with ya. :)
Ride? don't make me laugh Ron...we all know you want to get your grubby little hands on it and wring it out like you do so well... have a safe trip.
I think I have this spare Scorpion project sold, so now maybe i can get back to work on the Scorpion-162.
oh and of course get lots of good pics with that new camera,for us poor souls that won't get to be there.

[teiland]

Ron, I have been planning on coming, but it is not looking good right now. I'll just have to see. I sure want to.

[Hognose]

Jeez, guys... please don't call me Mr O'Brien. All my life people have only said that when I messed up. (Like when mom is angry and uses full name and all middle names... let me guess, non of you ever ticked off your mom). I mean, nobody who admits people call him Hognose can take his name too seriously, can he? Kevin works... as those of you who've met me in person know.

On fire safety -- A liner like in a race car fuel cell might help, but I know that some a/c with bladder tanks have had problems with wrinkles forming inside the tanks and trapping fuel, causing premature fuel exhaustion. I don't know the secret to Diamond's apparently non-inflammable aircraft, but will ask some Diamond folks about it. They are proud of their machinery and as willing to share safety information as any of us.

The point that somebody made, that fire is a problem for crash investigation, is so true. A good fuel fire can get going pretty hot and leave the investigators very, very little to work with. That's compounded by the fact that the great (and amazingly underpaid) investigators at NTSB, and the FAA inspectors who do a lot of their leg work and field investigations in GA accidents, know more about the mainstream of aviation than they do about our quiet little backwater.

They would probably deny this, but if one of us kills himself in a gyro, it's just not going to get the attention that an airliner crash or a crash involving a celebrity or political figure gets. (Since the 1920s, hundred of pilots have gone into the drink near Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard. Only one's plane was located on the seabed and raised for the investigation. Guess).

Everything in aircraft design has crash-survival effects -- but there are a lot of other reasons that designers design aircraft the way they do, and so many of these effects are pure unintended consequences. Note that the DA-20 has egress problems if you overturn (which is harder to do in a DA-20 than some a/c like the Cessna trainers) but the DA-40, I believe, will let you get out the back gullwing door. Then, there have been people who drowned in overturned C206 floatplanes because you can't open the back door if the flaps are down (and where are the flaps when you are landing or taking off... about the only times you'd flip a floatplane...?)

There is no absolute safety except sitting on the ground. And then, we might all get creamed by that meteorite in 2037 or whenever -- so I'm gonna go flying.

Terry, thanks a lot for your input. I hadn't seen the new RAF prices. Sounds like their one advantage over the Sparrowhawk is gone. Don't they save a lot of money by using those cheesy rod ends and hardware store fasteners? Money the operator usually lays out sooner or later.

I do think that customs is no big deal. The USA and Canada are all part of a big free trade zone -- trying to sort out the US from Canadian content in that Canadian product would probably drive the inspectors nuts. What shipping costs, I betcha, depends more on where you live vis-a-vis the two plants. Neither Saskatchewan nor Utah is the geographical centre of North America (everybody knows it's Boston, right? Ducking and covering up heah...)

Terry, please feel free to correct anything I say about the SH. I have not even flown in one (only in the AAI-mod RAF). I try to transmit information accurately, but I am human and sooner or later will get my wires crossed.

cheers

-=K=-

[teiland]

Kevin,

I don't recall a problem with anything you have said about SH, but if I do see something of significance from anyone that needs to be clarified, I will try to respond. Thank you for your interest and opinions.

I am only a dealer, but I think the "press" our product has received has been more than fair. And in all fairness, it is not a perfect product or a perfect company. I do think the manufacturer is working hard to do a good job, and are serious and ethical folks.

I recommend Dominators all the time, and have only good to say about Sport Copters, Air Commands, etc. Sparrowhawk is just one of a number of good gyroplanes out there. All of us at AAI are working hard to improve ours, just as these others are.

[Aussie_Paul]

...I'd say that pretty well sums up AAI and the team. :)

Terry said,"and have only good to say about Sport Copters, Air Commands, etc."

I hope that you can say that about my Firebird when I finally get there!!!!! LOL :D

Aussie Paul. :)