Fatal Gyro Crash- Buckeye Township, Mich. [Archive]

GyroRon

07-05-2005, 05:28 PM

I watched the video, I have good vision and there was absolutely no Horizontal stab on that gyro.

This is sickening. It makes me want to do very bad things to the makers of his kit and the people who sold it to him and the God Dam Murderer who trained him to fly it. Such a senseless death and totally preventable.

I understand this forum can only go so far, along with the PRA as a whole. RAF the company and the ****head instructor-dealers for them will always find people who are out of our loop to sell these machines to.

Why would these people keep selling these things???? Why in the world does the dealers and instructors for this company seem like such nice upstanding people in all respects and then also sell people these death traps?

This crap is part of why I am sure our image will never get better. Can you imagine what all the people in Mr. Beckers area will think of gyroplanes now? No one understands stuff like Horizontal stabs and thrustlines, they just know the gyro was being flown successfully by a well trained pilot and then out of no where the gyro goes down and kills the pilot. How many of us, when we first started in this hobby, would have run out and bought a gyro if we had a well known, well respected pilot in our area that had gotten killed in a crash in a gyro for no good reason.... Or for any reason for that matter??? I know I would probably would not be here now if that had happened around my way.

The report says and while Becker and other pilots are skilled at flying them, it's something some say they would never try. No $hitSherlock! I wouldn't either if my close friend just got killed in one for no good reason!

Well now my question is who sold it to him and who "trained" him?

Cobra

07-05-2005, 05:59 PM

Was he gyro-trained, or just another "experienced" fixed wing PPL who assumed he already knew how to handle the craft? Or was it another in-flight part failure?

This is becomming a bad dream, same story over and over... :mad:

pwendell

07-05-2005, 06:05 PM

According to the NTSB database, Mr. Becker was a Commercial Pilot with ratings for ASEL and Instrument Airplane. He also held and Instructor rating for ASEL. The records also show that, in addition to the RAF, he owned a Cessna 172 and a Piper PA-22. He was obviousely a frequent flyer. Unfortunately, this seems to be the pattern with so many RAF fatals. Experienced FW pilots is stabless RAFs fall out of the sky. Although we can't know what happened yet, it has all the signs of a bunt or a catastrophic mechanical failure of the rotor or control system.

My thoughts go out to his family and friends.

enewbold

07-05-2005, 06:06 PM

pwendell

07-05-2005, 06:56 PM

I hate to even bring this up, but this latest accident has really pissed me off. There have been so many fatalities from high time FW pilots who are legally operating their gyros with very little or no gyro specific training, that maybe it's time to close the loophole that allows a private pilot and above to legally fly an experimental of a category/class that the pilot is not rated in. We all know it is stupid to do so. Maybe it should be illegal as well. I do not like to resort to increased government regulation to solve problems, but there seem to be enough unscrupulous or ignorant sellers and uniformed buyer that maybe the only way to ensure adequate training is to make it manditory.

Since I already hold a Gyro rating, this won't affect me, but I'd like to hear what others, particularly those who are flying without a gyro rating, think about this. I would assume that any regulatory change would have a grandfather clause allowing those who currently operate gyros without a rating to easily obtain one. Just as is being done currently to allow pilots to carry passengers in gyros they have already been flying.

This carnage of the inexperienced and uninformed has to stop.

bartc150

07-05-2005, 07:10 PM

How about the FAA making stabs mandatory. If your machine does not come with a stab you can't sell it in the USA.

PW_Plack

07-05-2005, 07:46 PM

Brian Jackson

07-05-2005, 08:09 PM

Oh, God... I'll read the above posts tomorrow, but I am so saddened by this its beyond words.

KenSandyEggo

07-05-2005, 09:16 PM

Ed, it would be nice if anyone at the NTSB knew anything about gyros, but they don't. You can verify this by reading their conclusions on accidents. They usually rely on what woefully ignorant eye-witnesses think they saw. A large percentage of accident reports (FW also) have one witness saying the engine was cutting in and out and another saying the engine was running at full power until the birth of the crater. NTSB isn't of much help, especially in gyro accidents.

GyroRon

07-05-2005, 09:31 PM

Ya know, it might just be prudent to wait a bit and see what the NTSB has to say about this crash before really bad-mouthing all these people. Just a thought....

Ed Newbold
Columbus, OH

He built it, and I am betting that he bought it from his closest dealer.... That would be Duanne Hunn. Duanne would have also been his instructor is my best guess. Any of you that are buddy buddy with Duanne want to call him and ask?

The NTSB reports are a bunch of bull$hit. I don't need to wait for it.

John Henry

07-05-2005, 09:59 PM

I know this subject generates a lot of passionate discussion but I suggest waiting till the complete report is available before comment. I lost a cousin to an aircraft accident that could/should have been avoided. His widdow went through hell with accusations, and innuendo untill the true reasons were reported. What a lot of people regarded as gross pilot error turned out to be a combination of aircraft equipment failures, repair station calibration errors, airport maintenance failures, air traffic control miscommunications and pilot overload. No one thing at fault just a chain of events that transpired into disaster. He made a bad decision based on faulty information.
This accident could be another similar situation.

PW_Plack

07-06-2005, 12:39 AM

...but if you know the causal chain has one bad link, you replace it. :(

bartc150

07-06-2005, 05:12 AM

Bart,

How about not wishing a drastic, arbitrary measure on everyone else? We have enough stupid laws designed to protect us from ourselves. The goal is stability, not mandatory stabilizers. If somebody figures out a way to achieve pitch stability without an H-stab, more power to them!

Guys, the government won't be needed here. The free market will soon have everyone but suicidal idiots flying with H-stabs in the US. It will start with more and more airports requiring liability insurance for based aircraft. You won't be able to get insurance on an RAF with no H-stab. Buyers who don't look into this issue will learn about it when they find they can't hangar where they like.

Yep - more people will die in the meantime. It may even take a sudden rash of fatal crashes to bring this issue to the front burner, the way it did in Great Britain. Now, there's a great example of being careful what you wish for in government regulation!

Bart, what we need first from the government is a recognition of the role stability plays in gyroplane safety, and the Light Sport Aircraft Consensus Standards will be a step in that direction. Why would the government consider making H-stabs mandatory, when NTSB accident reports still don't acknowledge aircraft instability as a cause in these crashes?

For that matter, all these stabless-gyroplane widows who bring liability lawsuits and lose demonstrate that there's lots more educations that needs to happen first.

I didn't mean to stir the pot, and jump to conclusions about stabs or this accident. But all the reading I've done here, at the pra, and local chapters preaches the need for a stab.

Look some thirty years ago when you could by a lawn mower with no safety system. If you fell off the machine, or let go to pick something up in the case of a push mower the motor kept running and the blades kept turning. This caused a lot of injuries and deaths.

Now look at lawn mowers. It doesn't matter if you buy a $69 push mower from you local grocery store, or a $10,000 commercial mower all have sefety systems. Seems the government saw a need and mandated that a blade, or blades must stop turning within a couple seconds after falling off a machine so the blades won't chop you into pieces. And guess what it worked. When properly working safety systems greatly reduce the chance of injury.

Yea they are a pain, and a lot of people bypass these systems, but the point is they worked. The government saw a need a made it mandatory. I'm sure there were more accidents with mowers than gyros, but there are more mowers out there than gyros.

Point being, if these unstable gyro accidents keeps happening expect the govt to jump in. just my two cents.

Rotornut

07-06-2005, 05:27 AM

Sunstate Wing & Rotor Club PRA Ch# 26 sends out its Prayers and our Thoughts to Kens Family and Friends. May he now have Wings of Gold.

I would also like to Know Who Trained Him and did he build the kit our buy it already built.

So Sad! Another Family Member gone GEEEEZ.

MJ :(

Vance

07-06-2005, 07:08 AM

Hello Bart, I understand your frustration. In your example, lawn mowers have a value that can be percieved by lawmakers, recreational flying machines don't. They could save a lot of lives just banning recreational flying. It would be hard to justify gyroplanes as usefull or necasary.

Law makers and lawers, out of ignorance, have nearly distroyed civil aviation. Many on this forum, out of ignorance, believe they know what happened. We don't have enough information at this time to determin the cause. I would hope that a recognition of this reaction would temper our desire for increased regulation.

I believe that our role as aviation enthusists is to learn as much as we can about how things fly and what causes aircraft fall out of the sky. We then need to share what we have learned with other aviation enthusiasts. There is a big sign in expermental aircraft that points out that it does not have the safty review of certified aircraft. I hope it will stay that way.

When a friend I haven't met dies in a gyroplane it diminishes us all. It puts our sport at risk. It means that we all need to work harder at learning and sharing.

It would be sad if we failed to learn from this death because we are too focused on what many of us percieve to be safty defects. The cause of the death may be an entirely unrelated to our preconception. I expect that we will never know the cause of the crash because most NTSB investigators don't know much about gyroplanes. We have failed in our mission to educate aviation enthusiasts. I believe that all NTSB investigators are aviation enthusists.

I would hope that we will all learn as much as we can about this accident and share it with other aviation enthusists. I would hope that we would not invite more regulation into our sport or leap to conclusions out of ignorance of the facts of the accident.

thank you, Vance

Heather Poe

07-06-2005, 07:42 AM

To add fuel to the fire, the new RAF website says that they are:

"The Gold Standard in Gyroplane Safety".

http://www.rotaryairforce.com/raf2000/

Udi

07-06-2005, 07:43 AM

Unless a gyro-head joins the NTSB investigation, we are not going to learn anything from this accident. For some reason, these guys cannot get themselves educated on the most common modes of failure of gyros. Do we have anyone near the accident site?

Udi

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 08:21 AM

Sure, Udi. Duane Hunn’s home base is Saginaw, MI, just a stone’s throw from the newest victim’s smoking hole.

LGoodhind

07-06-2005, 09:42 AM

What would be required for the builders and owners of RAF machines to be considered a viable class in a civil action? The process of the advertising used to locate the members of such a class would have the side effect of informing the broader market of potential consumers about the issue.

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 10:12 AM

My very recent experience with the NTSB and the FAA is that they are nice and well-meaning people, but that crashes of small homebuilt aircraft are a very low priority for them. They simply have bigger fish to fry. Just as most crimes don't get the high-tech CSI treatment because it's too expensive, investigations of such accidents are limited to "kicking the tin," taking a few pics and writing a limited report. They simply don't have the budget or manpower to do more.

My experience is also that they welcome assistance from experienced members of the gyro community. You have to act fast, though, before the evidence gets badly degraded through movement, tampering, salvage and so on.

Gary_in_Orygun

07-06-2005, 10:21 AM

I did a little online research on the aircraft registry. Also provided is a map on where Ken lived (NW of Saginaw).

------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results
N481KB is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
------------------------------Aircraft Description--------------------------
Serial Number H2-98-9-390 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name BECKER KENNETH A Certificate Issue Date 03/04/2005
Model BECKER 2000 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Unknown Type Engine Unknown
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 51366463
MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO
------------------------------Registered Owner----------------------------
Name BECKER KENNETH A
Street 1037 RADOV
City GLADWIN State MICHIGAN Zip Code 48624
County GLADWIN
Country UNITED STATES
------------------------------Airworthiness--------------------------------
Engine Manufacturer SUBARU Classification Experimental
Engine Model ALL MDLS A/B Category Amateur Built
A/W Date 03/19/2005
------------------------------Temporary Certificate------------------------
Certificate Number T051343 Issue Date 03/04/2005 Expiration Date 04/03/2005

Student

07-06-2005, 10:31 AM

I'll admit I don't know much about RAFs, stabs or anything else. Any opinions have come secondhand and almost exclusively from this forum. I can only assume that you gurus are correct.

I think the issue here is determining who is at fault during an accident. RAF, as I understand it, does not believe they need the stabs and yet the majority of the forum members here beg to differ. These accidents have been becoming far too frequent lately and since I like solving problems, here's how I see we can improve the situation:

I think almost everyone can agree that RAFs with horizontal stabs are more stable than those without. The question is are they required for the machine to be considered stable? Since RAF is a business, they wouldn't be necessarly willing to openly admit that their crafts are unsafe (in fact they're claiming the opposite) until they're forced to by FAA, the government, or whomever has the authority to do so.

It would be interesting to learn how many RAF owners are completely clueless in regards to their instability. Whether it comes down to ignorance or uneducation. Ignorance will only change when A) a law is enforced or B) enough people die that the owners give their head a shake. Ignorance can also be placed in the "I'm a FW buff, so a gyro is a cake walk" pile. However, I believe the majority would be placed in the uneducated category. If you don't know the risk, you fly the craft. People don't know a lot about gyros in general, let alone the fine details such as stability.

I can see this post going on and on, so I'll try to cut to the chase. Information on gyroplanes and gyroplane safety is rare. In fact, if I didn't have this forum, I wouldn't have 90% of the knowledge I do about the subject. I had a hard time finding this website and this forum. Not all - don't shoot me please - but some older people perhaps may have a more difficult time finding it. What if they're not familiar with the internet at all?

Yes, the news crews are working against the cause because they're painting a grim picture of how gyros are deathtraps with rotors. For the general public, that's the only information they'll receieve. And that's really what it comes down to INFORMATION/EDUCATION. As was said before, even the NTSB members are in the dark most of the time. If you want things to change, those things need to change.

I realize you guys have been trying for some time to come up with some type of medium to share information. This forum works extremely well, but your audience is limited. Fly-Ins are a great place, but again, only a limited number of people will be there. If efforts are focused on one thing, it will be done.

This was a tragedy and I'm not trying to take anything away from it. Could this accident have been prevented if more information was available? Maybe. Will an increase in education prevent future gyro accidents? Of course.

I wish I had some plan to follow as I rally the troops, but I don't. However, I know if enough of us think about it - we'll be able to come up with something. Maybe that's just wishful thinking... but I know that wasting our time on prevention is more productive than shaking our heads and sending flowers after the fact.

Respectfully,

Justin Bos

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 11:08 AM

Justin, take a look at the info that Ken J. just posted. Note who the "manufacturer" is -- the victim!

The reason we're stuck in this endless loop is that our machines are built and sold under a legal fiction. The fiction is that each of us is an "experimenter," testing some new design we've concocted. The reality is that most of us aren't doing any research, we just want to go flyin'. The "experimental" regs are a legal cover that allow manufacturers to sell designs that may or may not be proven, all the time staying clear of liability because the regs say the customer is that manufacturer. The (real) manufacturers are strictly on the honor system regarding knowledgeable design, testing and evaluation.

In one sense, this hypocrisy benefits us. We get the machines much cheaper than we would if they were certified, we can customize them if we want, and we even CAN do a little experimenting on the side if we get the itch. In another sense, it's a system that just begs to be abused. And it sometimes is, as in the case of 1980's vintage PPO-prone gyros that are still on the market.

The Sport Pilot system, for its many flaws, does intercept each buyer at the point of purchase -- something that we otherwise can't do, as you observe. Sport Pilot compliant gyros (if the FAA ever approves them) will much more accurately reflect the typical buyer-seller relationship in this game. The reality is that the buyer wants a turn-key recreational aircraft and IS depending on the seller to have done his homework and vetted the gyro for safety issues.

I don't have much hope that we can stamp out dangerous designs within the Experimental world, by education or by regulation of hardware. Such efforts run counter to the whole purpose of allowing experimentation at all.

If the FAA were willing to audit and actually mandate the content of gyro CFIs' courses, that would help as much as anything. The current FAA Rotorcraft Flying Handbook dances around the stability issue and, by default, legitimizes the RAF line about stability as a personal choice (like upholstery color).

Harry_S.

07-06-2005, 11:20 AM

I like your post, Vance. ;)

Much more reserved than mine would be.

.

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 12:46 PM

Doug Riley said:

“The "experimental" regs are a legal cover that allow manufacturers to sell designs that may or may not be proven, all the time staying clear of liability because the regs say the customer is that manufacturer.”

Doug, do you think that subterfuge would withstand a serious legal challenge?

Vance

07-06-2005, 12:47 PM

Thank you Harry, you are one of the people that I look up to so your compliment has a lot of value to me. Thank you, Vance

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 01:22 PM

Chuck, the courts give tremendous deference to agencies' interpretations of their own regs. If the FAA has, for these many years, allowed the "experimental" regs to be stretched to include pre-designed (and heavily pre-fabbed) kits... well, it's their regulation, so presumably they knew what they meant when they wrote it. So I don't think that a court would likely find that selling kit aircraft violated the FAR's, if the FAA said it didn't.

As to whether those regs have anything at all to do with liability law -- the relationship is loose. By default, negligence and products-liability are questions of state law unless Congress wanders in and passes some overriding law under the aegis of regulating interstate commerce. (Congress HAS done that to reduce the amount that can be awarded for pain and suffering against medical service providers. They, of course, have a huge and potent lobby both directly and through the insurance companies). IOW, who is legally responsible for injuries caused by a defective kit aircraft is not necessarily governed by the FAR's.

In the old case in which RAF won a judgment saying that the homebuilder was the manufacturer, I imagine the state court (or federal court applying state law -- same thing) referred to the FAR's for guidance. The state court COULD have decided to ignore the FAR's if it wanted to, though.

I'd argue that the degree of legal responsibility that a kit-maker has should be a function of the relationship he seeks with the customer. If he (a) sells a heavily prefabbed kit complete to the last washer, (b) uses slick advertising that speaks of his engineering, testing, experience and product safety, and (c) guides the buyer to "expert" CFI's who teach stability doctrines that clash with standard engineering but happen to favor the mfr.'s design, I'd judge that the mfr. has taken the deal out of the builder-as-manufacturer world and into the regular consumer-products world. In the latter world, the consumer usually wins.

I've long felt that this kind of fact-specific sliding scale of liability makes more sense than a universal rule that the mfr. is never, ever to blame. Craig Wall was appalled at this idea, though, as will be the EAA and most homebuilders.

pwendell

07-06-2005, 01:34 PM

It would be interesting to learn how many RAF owners are completely clueless in regards to their instability. Whether it comes down to ignorance or uneducation. Ignorance will only change when A) a law is enforced or B) enough people die that the owners give their head a shake. Ignorance can also be placed in the "I'm a FW buff, so a gyro is a cake walk" pile. However, I believe the majority would be placed in the uneducated category. If you don't know the risk, you fly the craft. People don't know a lot about gyros in general, let alone the fine details such as stability.

Justin,

I think this is THE big problem. There have been too many high time, career pilots that have met their ends in an unstable gyro. What are we to make of this? Part of the problem, I believe, is that these high time, FW pilots probably can't even bring themselves to believe that there are people selling and designing unstable gyroplanes, and, through deception or ignorance, promoting them as stable. They assume that the manufacturer knows what they're talking about, and so does the NTSB and FAA. Airplane aerodynamics are so well understood, and every pilot is taught the basics, that it's pretty much impossible for a company to bring a dangerous design to market. Add to that the fact that a gyro may be the first uncertified aircraft that any of these folks have ever owned, and you have a group of customers whose personal experience makes it difficult for them to excersise the appropriate amount of scepticism when buying/building a gyro.

The problem isn't them, it is us. Lets face it, we are the 'Bad Boys' of the aviation community, and many gyro pilots like it that way. We seem to be the only ones who believe that the laws of physics, and in some cases the rules of the air, don't apply to us. How many of us on this forum are flying illegally? 20%, 30%, 50%? By placing ourselves outside the standards and practices of the aviation community at large, we have helped create a culture that has allowed dishonest and/or ignorant manufacturers to thrive, and has resulted in far too many avoidable deaths.

We have been getting better over the last few years. This forum, and Norm's before it, has been an important resource and a way for all gyro pilots to get together to learn and share and improve our knowledge and standards. The professionalism and commitment to honesty and quality training shown by Jim Mayfield/AAI has helped raise the standards of gyroplane flight training to a higher level. The seemingly tireless efforts of Greg Greminger and Chuck Beaty to analyse and explain the principles of gyroplane stability to the rest of us has helped raise the level of understanding and debate in the gyro community. The hard, underpaid work of the many quality flight instructors like Doug Riley, Steve McGowen, Terry Brandt, Ron Menzies(SP?) and others has produced many, many SAFE and informed pilots. The current manufactures/designers like Ernie Boyette, The new Air Command, Larry Neal, Vittorio Magni, AAI, Jim Vanek and Ralph Tagart have made stable, fun gyroplanes readily available and affordable for almost anyone. We have come a long way.

However, we have one high profile and very successful company which is preying upon the uninformed and, in the process, damaging all of us and preventing us from presenting a unified voice to the public and to the FAA about the essential principles and methods for building a stable gyroplane. This company is RAF. This is a fact. Every other U.S. and European manufacturer that I know of currently incorporates a horizontal stabilizer and tries to minimize the thrust line offset in all of its designs. (The only exception is Ken Brock Manufacturing which still sells old, stabless, Bensen clones.) It is RAF that is creating the division in the gyro community over the importance of thrust line offsets and horizontal stabilzers, and, as a result, leading to confusion or disgust on the part of potential gyro pilots. It is RAF's refusal to join the consensus that almost certainly contributed heavily to gyroplanes being excluded from receiving Special and Experimental Light Sport Aircaft airworthiness certificates. (The FAA's position seemed to be that gyros are not well enough understood since the gyro community could not even agree on the basics of stability). It is RAF and its CFIs that are innoculating their customers against the facts about gyroplane stability and hindering their ability be well informed.

I have no problem with anyone flying anything they want to as long as it is an informed decision. I have no problem with anyone on this forum who is currently flying an RAF, even Larry who really ticks me off sometimes :) I have no problem even with Eban who insists on flying a stabless RAF. He has been given the facts and has made his choice. I am very disturbed, however, by the number of pilots who may never have a chance to learn the facts about gyro stability, about husbands and wives and sons and daughters who are flying what they believe, and have been taught, are safe aircraft. Can we, as a family, accept this? Are we comfortable with 'buyer beware' when the price is the death of our own? Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough or were simply used to an aviation industry that had been, in their experience, very safety conscious? If the answer to these questions is "No!" then we have to, as a family, do something about it or we become complicit.

Let's be honest, anything we might do will be difficult and painful. It might cost the PRA and some others money. It may cost friendships. It will certainly cause a lot of anger and sleepless nights. But it is a Moral issue and the determination of what is right, not what is easy, must determine what we do. Whether or not this most recent accident was caused by a bunt, catastrophic mechanical failure, or severe illness (these seem the only likely possibilities) is not really important. These issues have been here for a long time.

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 01:50 PM

Doug, one of the reasons I ask is that 5 or 6 years ago, I was contacted by an engineering consulting firm in the UK that had been retained by the survivors’ solicitors in the case of a lowrider AirCommand tumbling out of the sky. They were looking for an expert witness but I declined.

I suppose the CAA does not maintain the fiction that the twit twirling the screwdriver is the manufacturer.

In this country, I can’t imagine a state court viewing an aircraft kit as much different than a bicycle purchased from Walmart in knocked down form.

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 01:51 PM

Peter, one small footnote: RAF had a rep on the Light Sport Aircraft drafting committee. They agreed to the stability standards the rest of us came up with. At the FAA's instruction, a "design prescription," such as requiring a HS, was NOT to be included in the standards. The standards require the gyro to pass certain stability tests. The FAA will not agree to any standard that requires a specific stability device.

As I understand it, the FAA said they'd consider allowing LSA gyros if we could clean up our safety record. I don't know if they're willing to separate the sheep from the goats -- to toss out any stability-related accidents that occur to obviously unstable craft, like the two recent ones. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they didn't lump all gyros together when doing safety statistics.

Chuck B., you probably know of the case 6-8 years ago in which a court did hold that an RAF victim was his own manufacturer and RAF got a free pass on this issue. EAA (and I think PRA) intervened with some of their own legal and expert help on RAF's behalf. I suppose they did this to protect the "integrity" of the homebuilt-kit "movement" (damn, I hate that expression). They carried the day. EAA trumpeted it as a great victory for the "movement," blah, blah. I quit EAA a few years ago, partly over political stances of this sort.

Interesting discussion, lads, but I'm off to the Yankee Ultralight Flyin.

PW_Plack

07-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Peter,

"Are we comfortable with 'buyer beware' when the price is the death of our own?"

In experimental aviation, if the builder knows what he's getting into, I say yes - but the problem is the "beware" part. There is no "beware" even reaching these high-time fixed-wing career pilots before they build or fly a gyroplane. They're not going to hang out on a gyroplane forum on the internet because, after all, what could we teach them?

"Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough..."

Experienced pilots have spent years questioning the safety of aircraft systems during their pre-flights, looking for defects caused by mistakes in maintenance. Why this indoctrination doesn't translate to due dilligence in evaulating the performance envelope of a kit being considered for purchase escapes me, especially when buying a kit from a manufacturer which employs no engineers or even pilots.

Wilson

07-06-2005, 03:16 PM

When I first joined the PRA in the early 90s there was talk about the need for a HS. My first logged dual instruction was in an RAF with Duane Hunn in 1993. I like the machine a lot and thought Duane was great. However, now days the HS is not a new idea and has been well proven.

Now for a frightening thought about why RAF might not accept the HS. Lawyers :mad: . They (RAF) have claimed the HS is not needed for so long, if they now say they need one, RAF would be inundated with law suits. They would be throwing away their defense and admitting their design was at fault.
Just a thought :confused:
Wilson

pwendell

07-06-2005, 03:26 PM

Peter,

"Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough..."

Experienced pilots have spent years questioning the safety of aircraft systems during their pre-flights, looking for defects caused by mistakes in maintenance. Why this indoctrination doesn't translate to due dilligence in evaulating the performance envelope of a kit being considered for purchase escapes me, especially when buying a kit from a manufacturer which employs no engineers or even pilots.

Paul,

Perhaps it's because it doesn't even occur to them that a kit manufacturer wouldn't employ engineers and professional test pilots. In the airplane world that is the norm. If they have only flown certified aircraft, they have never had any reason to doubt the fundamental design of any aircraft they've ever flown.

I'm not saying that the pilot's attitudes may not be partly responsible. I suspect that there are many experienced FW pilots who would not hesistate to have a CFI check them out in a new type of airplane, but who take gyroplanes much less seriousely. Unfortunately, however, there are also those who do seek training and end up with CFIs who promote unsafe designs through greed or ignorance. I think this may be especially dangerous for the experienced FW pilot who is confident in his skills and whose confidence is reinforced by his instructor's emphasizing how safe his machine is. When this pilot gets in trouble, he is likely to fall back on his FW instincts which are to add power and lower the nose. This is not a problem in a stable gyro, but in a stabless, HTL gyro, it can be deadly. Of course after the fact, the manufacturer is always ready to blame the pilot.

I am just becoming less and less comfortable standing by and seeing people die while waiting for good sense and the Market to take care of the problem. I don't support the FAA regulating the design of our machines. I'm afraid they will simply say, 'O.K. We already do that under Part 23 so from now on all gyros will need to be certified if the experimentals are so unsafe and you guys can't police yourselves.'

There may be some things, however, that the PRA may be able to do in association with the FAA. One might be to change the Gyroplane Training syllabus and update the Rotorcraft Flying Manual as well as the gyroplane specific knowledge test questions to emphasize pitch stability. Another may be to ask that gyro pilots be required to hold a gyroplane category/class rating even when flying solo in an experimental. Perhaps current private pilots should also be required to take a gyroplane specific knowledge test emphasizing the unique safety concerns of gyroplane pitch stability in order to get the addon rating. These are just ideas. I don't know if they are good ones. If we, the PRA, go to the FAA and say that these, or others, are the tools we need to improve our safety record, it will at least show that we are working to police ourselves. I just feel that a pilot should not be able to build, receive instruction in, and fly a gyroplane without, sometime during the process, having to learn about gyroplane aerodynamics and pitch stability. This forum is a tremendous help, but it does not reach enough people.

Ron R

07-06-2005, 05:26 PM

banaari

07-06-2005, 05:58 PM

I don't know, but I've been hanging around gyro's now for about 3 1/2 years, and it seems like people, even experienced people, are meeting doom at an increasing rate. And to be honest, it's giving me some very serious second thoughts about things. I love to fly, but maybe this just isn't a stable way to cure the "crave". My new blades are ready and somehow I'm lacking the gumption to even stick them on my 'Bee. A bad case of nerves, for sure.

Ron, IMHO, understanding leads to confidence. No one's ever died or even been seriously injured in a Gyrobee. The recent crashes have involved high-thrustline, unstabilised aircraft. That doesn't make me nervous - it just makes me bloody angry at the unnecessary death, and the damage to the overall gyro reputation.

Brent_Brown

07-06-2005, 06:23 PM

Doug said "Peter, one small footnote: RAF had a rep on the Light Sport Aircraft drafting committee. They agreed to the stability standards the rest of us came up with. At the FAA's instruction, a "design prescription," such as requiring a HS, was NOT to be included in the standards. The standards require the gyro to pass certain stability tests. The FAA will not agree to any standard that requires a specific stability device."

I would like to know. can a RAF as it is from the factory pass all the standards set by the committee? We need to know what/who is going to hold us back from ever getting LS gyros.

GyroRon

07-06-2005, 07:56 PM

Thank you Harry, you are one of the people that I look up to so your compliment has a lot of value to me. Thank you, Vance

Vance I may be one of those Ignorant people you refer to. I guess we can wait to see the report in a few months and then we will know what really happened.....

Yeah right!

You should know by now that unless it was a medical condition, it was either a power pushover or some part that failed on his ship. And you ought to know by now that the accident report will simply blame the pilot for loss of control. What will we learn from that?

Imho it doesn't matter what happened. The STOCK RAF is dangerous and outdated. It should not be sold to newbies period. I am personally sick of these crashes taking place when they could easily be prevented.

automan1223

07-06-2005, 08:37 PM

This past 4th of july holiday which started on friday and ended monday, over 600 people went home in a body bag from auto accidents.

You guys are worrying about 1 raf driver.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Jonathan

pwendell

07-06-2005, 08:47 PM

Jonathan,

The RAF pilot was one of our own, even if none of us knew him. He died doing what we love to do, and, presumably, left behind friends and family who will never hear the word Gyro without grief. I don't see anything wrong with being upset about that.

automan1223

07-06-2005, 08:57 PM

I agree, I just dont like the legal talk that thinks you can legislate every problem to death or life in our case. All you have to do is turn on todays tv news and tell me how any laws save our society.

I too am saddened by this news. I bet that guy just like every other victim thought his machine flew just fine, just great in stock form. Until it augered in. Who knows what the truth is. Like doug said you have to have a crack gyro team ready to go other that they cut up and haul off the wreckage and leave you a pile of polaroids to gloss over. Stay tuned.

Jonathan

Vance

07-06-2005, 09:01 PM

Hello Ron, we are all ignorant as to the cause of this particular accident. The post was not directed at you. There are plenty of accidents that most of us believe are pio or ppo.

I believe that opinions not backed up by fact reinforce opposing views.

I have not come to your conclusions.

I believe that a high thrust line is a poor design for a pusher gyroplane and contributs to pitch instability. I believe that a generous horzantal stabilizer located on a long arm is usefull for dampening pitch oscillations.

I don't know if this had anything to do with this particular accident.

Thank you, Vance

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 10:01 PM

600 body bags, eh?

One percent of RAF pilots died over the 4TH of July weekend; guessing there might be 100 RAFs actively flying.

A wild guess is that there are 25 million Chevys on the road. If one percent of them died, there would be 250,000 body bags from Chevys alone.

Everyone has the right to be stupid but some abuse the privilege.

Dean_Dolph

07-06-2005, 10:12 PM

....I believe that opinions not backed up by fact reinforce opposing views.

I have not come to your conclusions.

I believe that a high thrust line is a poor design for a pusher gyroplane and contributs to pitch instability. I believe that a generous horzantal stabilizer located on a long arm is usefull for dampening pitch oscillations.

I don't know if this had anything to do with this particular accident.

Thank you, VanceVance, there are times when something needs to be corrected but only a small sample size is available to make a judgment call. In these cases it is not unusual to use empirical data to make a decision or come to a reasonable conclusion. I'm sure you have had to do that during your racing career.

We all know that certain design deficiencies result in an unstable and dangerous gyro. Since the RAF design has been identified as having those deficiencies and has a past history of fatal incidents; I don't think it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that another fatality has occurred because of the design. It seems that we can't trust the NTSB to perform a proper investigation so we may have to accept the empirical info. It could turn out that there was a medical problem but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Vance

07-06-2005, 10:49 PM

Thank you Dean. I am very familiar with the concept of statistical regretion to smooth data points. I don't feel that it has value in this case.

I have found on many occasions that a preconception can cause me to miss a chance to learn something or teach something.

I feel that there are enough accidents that can be reasonably linked to a high thrust line and a lack of a horizantal stabilizer that leaping to conclusions on this accident only helps the non beliver to continue to ignore facts because they can point to an unsubstantiated claim.

I believe if you read the posts that disigree with your point of view you will hear them point to these kinds of claims and ignor the evidense. I feel that sharing this knoledge is so important that great care must be taken to not make claims without facts.

Thank you, Vance

Dean_Dolph

07-06-2005, 11:12 PM

.....I would like to know. can a RAF as it is from the factory pass all the standards set by the committee? We need to know what/who is going to hold us back from ever getting LS gyros.Brent, that is a good question but since LSA gyros aren't being produced yet that means no one is forced to self certify to the consensus standards. I haven't checked AAI's ads lately but I suspect that they, and some other manufacturers, could advertise that they meet the LSA gyro consensus standards. If they start doing that then it will be interesting to see if RAF follows suit. If they do then they are leaving themselves open to serious scrutiny the next time there is a fatality.

I tried to find the name of he RAF rep that set on the ASTM consensus standards committee but haven't come up with it yet. In all fairness it seemed that he was interested in doing the right things and provided some reasonable observations. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge if he was on target.

What is interesting is the fact that we've been told that a fairly high profile FAA employee will retire this year and intends to become a sport pilot instructor. His intent is to use a modified RAF. How modified no one has said. I don't think it is any big secret since I think it was posted here but since I'm not sure; I don't want to mention a name. But I understand he will be giving a forum at Mentone on Friday at 1:00 p.m. so the subject may very well come up.

Brent_Brown

07-07-2005, 04:45 AM

Dean you don't need the manufactures to do the tests and say they meet it. I'm asking if anyone knows if it will neet them. Do the test yourself. I think that is what the FAA is hoping we will do. If we the flyers show what gyros pass and what ones do not it will up to the manufactures to do the test and post the resalts. I read all the time mt RAF flys great hand off. So what lock the sick fixed and fly it then tell us how great it flys.

Rotornut

07-07-2005, 05:39 AM

So Chuck, Did Ken build this kit? And who trained him.?? MJ :)

C. Beaty

07-07-2005, 06:25 AM

MJ, the FAA database lists Kenneth A. Becker as the “manufacturer” of the gyroplane in question.

Those who would know whether Mr. Becker availed himself of the assistance included in the kit purchase price and whether or not he received instruction and from whom have remained silent.

Rotornut

07-07-2005, 06:31 AM

Thanks Chuck. MJ :)

ptope

07-07-2005, 06:57 AM

C. Beaty

07-07-2005, 07:26 AM

Learning to control an unstable aircraft is not unlike learning to perform tricks on a skateboard. Best left for teenagers; Mother Nature compensates the absence of mature judgement with better reflexes.

By the time a pilot has become an airline captain and accumulated 15,000 hours of flight time, he’s unlikely to still be a teenager.

Anyone past 40 learning to fly a gyro for the first time should stick to stable designs.

The claim of “negative transfer” is a red herring.

automan1223

07-07-2005, 08:21 AM

almost fair take on the situation.

600 body bags, eh?

One percent of RAF pilots died over the 4TH of July weekend; guessing there might be 100 RAFs actively flying.

A wild guess is that there are 25 million Chevys on the road. If one percent of them died, there would be 250,000 body bags from Chevys alone.

Everyone has the right to be stupid but some abuse the privilege.

Dean_Dolph

07-07-2005, 10:31 AM

.....Do the test yourself. I think that is what the FAA is hoping we will do. If we the flyers show what gyros pass and what ones do not it will up to the manufactures to do the test and post the resalts. I read all the time mt RAF flys great hand off. So what lock the sick fixed and fly it then tell us how great it flys.Brent, I don't know if anyone can actually answer your question at the moment. Although you are right, the owners can do their own tests, I don't think the FAA cares one way or another!

Greg G. has asked anyone and everyone to test their machines using the stability tests that came out of the ASTM consensus standards effort. He can use this data to substantiate what we have come to believe about gyro stability, or instability, as the case may be. He has warned everyone to do the 'static stability' test only! The dynamic test requires more diligence and is a true test pilots job according to the experts.

Stan Foster can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has performed the static tests and found that his particular machine exhibited the proper profile. However, there is just enough of the 'Show Me' (Birth state!) state left in me to question the results of any individual test unless it is supported by instrument recorded data. And that includes any tests that Greg G. has done.

Al_Hammer

07-07-2005, 10:40 AM

im wondering is there a habbit / training that would become second nature to a fixed wing pilot that could get them in trouble in a gyro? kinda like a high time helo pilot might instinctivly flare too high, which would be normal in helo, but bad in a gyro...

Yes, the prime directive for all airplane pilots is Never Stall the wing. If in doubt, shove the stick forward. That one instinct alone, can get you killed in a helicopter or a gyro. A student and instructor were killed, fairly recently in a R22 helo, when they tried to avoid a kite on climb out. The rotor was seen to depart the aircraft.

You're right, that the flare in a helicopter is often begun at a higher altitude, say 40 ft, as part of the recovery from a practice autorotation, which might end up with the aircraft leveled off at 10 ft. in a "power recovery." In a gyro you flare much lower and hold the flare until , ideally, the tail wheel touches down first.

I flew gyros before beginning helicopter lessons. I was told that it was always better to learn helicopters without having had fixed wing experience first.

I do think my gyro experience was a plus, although I recall the odd look on my instructor's face when I suggested we might try approaching at 60 mph in the R22 and flaring to a landing so that we could stay in autorotation the whole way down for safety. He had noticed my gyro-instilled tendency to hold a bit of airspeed on approach and I had to get used to to slowing up gradually and transitioning to hover in one seemless motion involving control of collective, anti-torque pedals, airspeed, vertical descent rate, pitch attiitude, application of carb heat, cyclic trim off, making a radio call, checking for traffic, and getting out my checkbook.

Harry_S.

07-07-2005, 01:29 PM

You're sumpin' else, Al. :D :D

.

PW_Plack

07-07-2005, 02:13 PM

Al,

"...and getting out my checkbook..."

Only the most aggressive of Part 141 flight schools include this item in the pre-landing checklist. Most group it with post-flight, immediately following "...execute 90 degree bend forward at the waist..." :)

Lotchik

07-07-2005, 02:33 PM

Not sure what you guys were looking at but the RAF on the trailer sure looks like it has a Horizontal Stabilizer. Not sure what kind, how big or how effective but it LOOKS to be there. Obviously not one of those with the winglets. Look at the level of the side rails and at the bottom of the Vertical fin.

This brings up the subject of speculation and heresay. I think I read every post in this discussion looking for facts on the accident and couldn't find any. I am waiting for more info and so should everyone else before accusing anyone or anything.

I grieve and Pray for Ken's family and friends and hope that as I get more into this hobby myself, I can help work out ways to make this a safer sport since I love too flying.

I still feel that the one common answer for all gyro designs is proper training in the aircraft of choice. As I prepare to retire from the Army that is where you will see me in the future. Training and demonstrating what I love to do.

Ken Cerney

GyroRon

07-07-2005, 03:19 PM

Watch the video again Mr. Ken! If you take a closer look you will see the gyro is sitting on a trailer that is not long enough for the gyros tailwheel to sit on. A Raf gyro sits on it's tailwheel when no one is sitting inside it. It looks like he has a board running from one side of the trailers rails to the other side that goes under the keel to support the gyro from flipping over backwards off the trailer. Look again at the video and tell me you still think it had a stab on it.

Besides all the aftermarket stabs for the RAF mount at or under the rudder and you can clearly see there is no stab back there.

KenSandyEggo

07-07-2005, 05:14 PM

"I still feel that the one common answer for all gyro designs is proper training in the aircraft of choice."

God, another Ken. (Oh no!) Many RAF drivers who were killed had been signed off to solo by their CFI. Is it the CFI's fault for not insisting on more training and signing off unprepared pilots? The RAF CFI's continuously preach that the answer to flying the unstable RAF is proper training. How come so many of their students are dead after being trained by them? It can't go both ways.

MichaelBurton

07-07-2005, 08:21 PM

im currious, and am in no way implying that this is the problem, but i too have read a lot of ntsb reports and there seems to be a high number of high time fixed wing pilots that are part of the accidnt statistics. i am not a fixed wing pilot and have only taken one lesson in fixed wing ( uh borring, hehe) but im wondering is there a habbit / training that would become second nature to a fixed wing pilot that could get them in trouble in a gyro? kinda like a high time helo pilot might instinctivly flare too high, which would be normal in helo, but bad in a gyro... again im not implying that that was the issue here i am just currious.... thanks..

1. Part of the problem for a FW pilot is that an airplane is usually quite stable in pitch and roll. The stability is both dynamic and static in nature if not over controlled. A plane like a ball in a dish it will return to the trimmed state after being disturbed.

2. Another problem is in the delayed reaction to the movement of the control stick.

3. A third is that the body of the aircraft is not rigidly connected to the lifting surface. This causes a perception problem during the control of the craft.

4 I have also noticed the tendency of FW pilots to pitch down to descend and to push the stick forward too quickly in a pitch up event.

All of the above items can cause a serious problem for a FW pilot that does not get well trained. I am a FW and Gyro CFI. I continue to fly FW and to teach in both. I find each to have excellent merits. It is obvious to me that it is easier to get a gyro rating after getting a FW rating and that there are some areas of negative learning. However a good pilot of a FW aircraft can be educated and become a good gyro pilot.

I love flying and hope to continue my education in all areas of flight. I regard all pilots as part of the family and am sad to hear of another loss. I hope that all will give those that know the time to investigate and report so that we may all learn and become safer.

Perhaps the PRA should spend some time and monies to educate the public about the need for stability and give reports on the stability of popular gyros.

I am not sure how to solve the problem.

GyroRon

07-07-2005, 08:45 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike. It is too bad cause I think they could make a difference.

Dean_Dolph

07-07-2005, 09:50 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike....First of all Ron, you are forgetting, again, that the PRA is us! If the PRA isn't active in the right ways it is our fault.

You ran a poll to find out how many Forum members were PRA members. I don't recall the number of members who participated but I think it was only around 10%. That doesn't sound like a large number but the professional polltakers work with lesser numbers. From that 10% there were 74+% who were PRA members.

If we have confidence that the sample size was representative then we can say that there are somewhere between 1000 & 1100 PRA members who are members of this Forum. That is close to 40% of the PRA membership based on the last figures I heard. That is a pretty good chunk! This means if we, the PRA, want to get something done, we have the numbers here to do it. The question then comes up on who manages the process, who chooses what gets targeted and etc. & etc. But the real problem is that we, the PRA, talk the talk but we don't walk the walk!

There is nothing to stop Chapter 13, or any other chapter, from working the issues at a local level. In fact to be effective that is where the issues will have to be worked. It would help if there was some coordination between the chapters and this is where the chapter coordinator's participation would be valuable.

When you are ready to lead this grass roots movement then let us know!

pwendell

07-07-2005, 10:36 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike. It is too bad cause I think they could make a difference.

Ron,

I think you're right, but there are some great candidates for the board this time who really know how to get things done. At least one of them is more than capable of running big projects.

Dean is right. In the end it's us that make the difference. Maybe the wind is changing...

GyroRon

07-08-2005, 04:40 AM

If the PRA - speaking of the main board and officers - cared, why invite the two instructors to Mentone to fly in races and other events in their dangerous machines? The two instructors are great pilots, but the fact that they are a invited participant at a PRA Sponsoned event, in front of the crowd... to me shows that the PRA doesn't care what they fly.

Some newbie will be on the ground at Mentone watching this race and taking note of the fact that two of the many gyros in this competition do not have horizontal stabs and have high thrustlines. This newbie may get the impression that this type of machine is okay since it is here racing in front of them. Just imagine if one of those instructors wins.... I would consider banning machines from flying at the convention that don't have horizontal stabs mounted.

This is just one example. I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is.

enewbold

07-08-2005, 05:35 AM

I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is.

Ron, you are obviously a terrific proponent of gyro flight in general and safety in particular. You are also well known throughout the ranks of gyro pilots. Why not prepare something like a "petition" or a "letter of protest" or some such document we can all sign at Mentone, and then present it to (a) the Mentone organizers, (b) the PRA, and (c) the pilots operating the dangerous machines?

It probably wouldn't have much effect on this year's gathering or operations, but it might be a solid first step in the right direction at both bringing awareness of the issues to everyone AND possibly help prevent them from flying in future events.

Passive words and actions never accomplish anything, but proactive actions can sometimes have a snowball effect, garnering attention and support from more and more people and organizations, until something positive happens!

Any thoughts about this?

Ed Newbold
Columbus, OH

Dean_Dolph

07-08-2005, 05:54 AM

If the PRA - speaking of the main board and officers........ It would always clarify these discussions and reduce them if everyone would use PRA BOD instead of PRA when that is what they mean. The officers are part of the BOD and not separate........This is just one example. I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is. Again, you can be effective on a local level. Will ROC ban flying by gyros without a horz stab?

One thing we all have to remember is that we are designing/building/modifying/ experimental aircraft. And for some of us that is one, if not the main, reason we are members of the PRA. Its the Da Vinci gene at work! For that reason banning machines because they don't meet certain safety criteria puts a clamp on innovation that may lead to even better safety solutions.

The exchange of info at PRA gatherings is a resource and inspiration for innovation. Lets be careful in putting limits on it. The FAA would not accept prescriptive solutions such as the horz stab in the ASTM consensus standards for the very reason that to do so would throw up barriers to anyone that invented something that would do that job of the horz stab. It isn't likely but......

If you ban one thing then where do you stop. It is starting to become evident that while the horz stab may offer the most bang for the buck there are a host of other factors at play when it comes to stability and safety. We may accept in a few years that some of these factors are just as important as the horz stab and can't be treated separately. This may be a case where there is a string of things all working together. And disturbing anyone of them may upset the whole system.

I do understand your concerns about the newbie. The newbie is a potential PRA member and recruiting them into a chapter where they can be presented with correct info should be an organization priority. I doubt that all of them will join the PRA even if they participate in a chapter. But, we need to remember the following that was extracted from the PRA by-laws. The general public can mean a non-member newbie.

PURPOSE

A. To encourage, aid and engage in scientific research for the improvement and better understanding of the art of flying by an individual and the science of vertical lift aeronautics.

B.To foster, promote, and popularize education in rotorcraft among it's members and the general public.

Have you ever contacted the BOD and voiced your chapter's and personal opinions/observations? I'm not talking about individual BOD members.

Douglas Riley

07-08-2005, 05:47 PM

Wouldn't banning gyros without horizontal stabs have a perverse effect? It would imply that all you have to do to fix an RAF or early Air Command HTL machine is to stick some eyeball-engineered flat surface out back. The record shows that at least these two brands can still PPO if the only fix is a HS. We wouldn't want to mislead people with such a dangerous half-truth.

As an event organizer, you have to be VERY careful if you get into public evaluations of the safety of a design.

GyroRon

07-08-2005, 05:55 PM

Dean and Doug, no I know it is a unrealistic request that machines like Stock RAFs be grounded or not welcomed at events. It would cause the loss of those members and would probably upset many others. And for us, Chapter 13, we couldn't ban those machines even if we wanted to at ROC because ROC is held at a public use airport and the no stabs guys have every right to be there.

I am just saying that the PRA is not the cure and will never be with the way things are run and the thought process of those in charge. It would be better to keep us a big happy family and live with the turmoil hidden just under the skin than to just get it out in the open and dealt with and on to better times.

Ed, I don't think many people would sign something like that.... Not a bad idea though

Jimmy

07-08-2005, 07:52 PM

Change takes time. During the past 2 years that I've been involved in gyros I've seen a significant change in attitudes and awareness. I think momentum will continue to increase with the release of the new standards, addition of a new board member(s) and continued discussion on this forum and elsewhere. I feel the PRA is critical to eventually pulling things together. I appreciate what the PRA has done for me and I anticipate more good things things in the near future. Every organization has challenges and heated debates.

pwendell

07-08-2005, 09:57 PM

What about the idea of excluding from flyins and expelling from the PRA those who make their living from teaching in and promoting known unstable designs?

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-08-2005, 10:20 PM

pwendell

07-08-2005, 10:46 PM

" What about the idea of excluding from flyins and expelling from the PRA those who make their living from teaching in and promoting known unstable designs? "

That is a no brainer, any flight instructor that has sufficient knowledge and morals would never teach their students anything that endangers their life.

They should be shunned and banned from the group, with no instructors teaching people to fly dangerous machines the fatality rate would decrease.

Chuck E.

Chuck,

This is the third time I've raised this issue in the last few days and NOBODY has directly responded to it. If we, the PRA, are really commited to gyroplane safety, we can no longer accept those who profit from selling or promoting for pofit unstable, dangerous machines. Many of these guys are nice and charming and maybe even our friends or our mentors, but there is no longer any excuse for any CFI or salesperson to push dangerous gyroplanes. We all, now, know better. Accepting those who do promote dangerous designs as members of our family is giving tacit approval to their actions. It is time to make a painful choice, in my opinion, and take a divisive stand against those whom we know are doing wrong in order to preserve the integrity and the future of the sport we love.

Thanks, Chuck, for being so clear.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-08-2005, 11:36 PM

Peter:

In the world of aviation that I work and live in we are governed by strict rules that are designed to ensure "safety".

It would be impossible for me to work in my industry if I were to teach that I have found a way to circumvent the known laws of physics, aerodynamics and safety...sure, I may be able to conn some people into believing that I somehow have the ability to train them to fly with disregard to common sense and fly a known defective machine or a machine loaded out of its center of gravity limits and I could teach them the skills to avoid losing control of said machine...

...But , if I were to do that I would lose my licenses to teach and no flight test examiner would accept my recommendation for the flight test.

In the gyro world you do not have these safeguards and consequently the RAF Ask First Society can ply their trade of deception leaving behind a trail of dead bodies as a testament to their success.

Until this loophole in the safety chain of flight instruction is closed we will keep on reading of more and more accidents where people have died because they wrongly were taught that they could be trained to fly a dangerous design and they could control it under all circumstances....

..So my advice is shun these people and ban them from your group. To accept them is to accept responsibility for the results that keep happening, over and over.

I almost fainted dead away when I read that one of these instructors was voted man and machine of the year, that is truly astonishing and indictive of the ignorance that is allowed to fester within the gyro community.

Chuck E.

route66

07-09-2005, 01:01 AM

With all your expertise and knowledge I am amazed that your simple solution is banning the problematic. Is it really the RAF problem or is it the builder’s problem. I realize the basic RAF has a lot of glitches that need to be corrected, yet this past year in my pursuit to purchase a gyro I looked at over 20 for sale and all had a lot of builder problems. I see everyone is quick to point out the alarming #'s of incidences with RAF in comparison to others, but are all the facts correct? I came close to purchasing an AAI modified RAF in Florida this last year that had a lot of build issues as well as it was registered as a Dominator. I can think of 3 mishaps with AAI machines which are registered as RAF. The way I look at it is RAF has done a remarkable feat by designing and producing their RAF 2000. It is not perfect and I am not promoting it, but it was produced to give us that 2 seat enclosed convenience. Jim and AAI enjoyed what RAF produced and identified some flaws and made a carbon copy with a lot of convenience and safety issues addressed to become the Sparrow hawk. In other worlds this would be a copyright infringement, but not in this business. With our," it was their problem and the ease of lawsuits I understand why Companies can't claim responsibilities. I had the pleasure of flying with Dwayne Hunn at Benson days in his RAF with the stabulator and have to say with not so favorable conditions I was impressed. It seemed to handle as well as the Sparrow hawk I had flown before.
To make a long story short I did buy an RAF and have added the AAI Modification. It was a matter of my choice given what I know and what I have learned. Banning a certain aircraft will not win the war, tolerance and education will! The PRA is an organization for rotorcraft enthusiasts with no bounds as I see it. If there is as much heart to have a safe organization for the same group it needs to be formed. My first thought was Safety First, but we all know that’s wrong. If everybody is serious about changing things, let's start fresh! Don't spend all your time trying to change it, Start Fresh!
I nominate Gyro Ron to be our spokesperson. Hell, he likes to type. A lot of us have the same opinion as far as airworthiness and what is safe. Sometimes you can't change what is there, you need to start fresh and make it work.
We need to build an organization & website to show not only the fun, but the problems and give guidance to overcome them. It's harder than you think, but we can do it. Anybody have a good name for us? Who is in?

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-09-2005, 02:44 AM

"The way I look at it is RAF has done a remarkable feat by designing and producing their RAF 2000. "

The present management of RAF did not design anything, they only took a machine that their uncle built and copied other parts made by others until they had a good looking machine that they can market with slick advertising. I have had the missfortune of not only personally knowing these crooks but worked in their factory when they first opened it, so my knowledge is first hand and credible.

No one in management at RAF have any background in aircraft design nor flying same. The only one in RAf that could even fly one was Dan Haseloh and he was a self taught bone head that had an accident record with gyros that was appaling until his last one which killed not only him but two others in another RAf that he flew into through either ignorance, carelessness or a stability issue that caused the accident...take your choice, it was still his fault.

I personally could care less what you think of me or my experience because I am not presently directly involved in your world of flying, but I am qualified to make the statement that the Ask First Society, as run by Don LaFleure and his minions such as Hunn and Logan are a disgrase to the world of flight instruction, just examine the facts, and I defy you to find another group in aviation that teaches such rubbish as training can overcome the actions of an unstable aircraft, especially instability as exibited by an RAF.

Chuck E.

Rotornut

07-09-2005, 04:58 AM

And for us, Chapter 13, we couldn't ban those machines even if we wanted to at ROC because ROC is held at a public use airport and the no stabs guys have every right to be there.

So True Ron! Sunstate also would not be able to enforce this at BD Days either.
But thinking back to others that I heard Charlie tell they could not fly and wondering how he got away with it. Respect For His Ability as AirBoss. He could pull it off, but for me to say that to a pilot attending BD Days I would be laughed at. MJ

Udi

07-09-2005, 09:17 AM

We need to build an organization & website to show not only the fun, but the problems and give guidance to overcome them. It's harder than you think, but we can do it. Anybody have a good name for us? Who is in?
I've been kicking this idea for a while, Brandon. I am mostly interested in creating a website that will provide accurate information to new and old gyroheads. In time, it can become a membership organization. I have no intention of replacing the PRA, but rather having another organization with the sole purpose of making our sport safer and improving our standing in the eyes of the General Aviation.

Udi

pwendell

07-09-2005, 09:35 AM

I just want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that we ban unstable gyros and their pilots from PRA events, but that we exclude those with a commercial interest in the promotion of unstable designs and/or the teaching of known dangerous practices. I have no problem with what individuals choose to fly as long they have all the information they need to make an informed decision. I do have a problem with those who knowingly endanger others, or who should know they are doing so.

I HATE the idea of excluding anyone, but what other choice do we really have? It really is a moral issue. How can those of us who are absolutely convinced by the physics, the accident data, and our own experiences, that a high thrustline, stabless gyroplane is much more dangerous than it needs to be, and that this dangerous design has been partly, if not wholly, responsible for several deaths, accept among us those who have and will profit from these machines? How can we possibly allow them to do business at our events when we know that a normal part of that business is telling their customers and students lies that might get them killed? I guess these are questions we all have to answer for ourselves.

enewbold

07-09-2005, 09:39 AM

I've been kicking this idea for a while, Brandon. I am mostly interested in creating a website that will provide accurate information to new and old gyroheads. In time, it can become a membership organization. I have no intention of replacing the PRA, but rather having another organization with the sole purpose of making our sport safer and improving our standing in the eyes of the General Aviation.

Udi

I am too, Udi, and have the resources available to do it. If we put our heads together and come up with a good, clean, easy-to-read non-profit site that takes the slant the we will inform, educate and be advocates for the safer gyrocopter designs, rather than attempt to ban any particular person or company, that we could start making some progress at solving the problems.

Including lists of instructors who will provide good, safe instruction in good, safe machines would be one little step in the right direction.

Including lists of recommended kits/plans should be there, with no reference whatsoever to the poorly designed or unsafe machines. This would accomplish two things: (1) Inform possible buyers and pilots of the safe kits/plans available; (2) Avoid any possibility of litigation by not making any references (publicly) of the bad machines.

Providing unbiased and sound builder's and pilot's reviews of the various safe gyros could be another little step.

Recommendations and suggestions of things to do or not to do in the world of gyros could be an invaluable resource to beginners.

I'm game. Let's get started with the planning phase of this project.

Ed Newbold
PRA#40633
Columbus, OH

http://enewbold.com/
EdNewbold@enewbold.com

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:56 AM

"In other worlds this would be a copyright infringement, but not in this business."

Not necessarily true. If so, Bensen would be in violation because there were pusher gyros in existence way before his. Look at all the low wing, tractor prop fixed-wings there are. You can't copyright or patent flight technology unless it's really something unique. Everyone after the Wright brothers would be in violation.

Wish I had an answer to help in this discussion. I too was shocked at that award, especially after he was exposed here for using plagiarism and context shuffling to preach that it's safe to push over a gyro at the top of a climb.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 10:53 AM

From the NTSB prelim report. Looks like he was taking instruction and was signed off to solo....if they got the info correctly. Evidently the CFI thought he had enough training to solo and signed him off. Bold-face is mine.

"On July 4, 2005, at 1900 eastern daylight time, a Becker RAF 2000 ametuer built gyrocopter, N481KB, collided with the terrain following a loss of control while in the traffic pattern at the Gladwin Airport (GDW), Gladwin, Michigan. The commercial rated pilot was fatally injured. The gyrocopter was substantially damaged. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 solo instructional flight was operating in visual meteorolgocial conditions without a flight plan. The local flight originated from GDW shortly before the accident."

Brian Jackson

07-09-2005, 11:40 AM

Perhaps this is a stupid idea, but I am NOT a fan of ostracizing anyone from a group. Lord knows we're small enough already, and it's not the PRA's job to legislate this.

I even thought about a "sticker" or "endorsement" of some sort... kinda like those UL or EPA stickers you see when buying a product. If a group were established and recognized to grant a "SafeDesign" endorsement, whom would be chosen and what criteria would be used? What gray areas would be covered, and how would one guard against personal bias? Could the sole purpose of this new group be limited to a "Consumer Reports" for gyros role?

Finally, how would any such Seal Of Approval be made known? Would a manufacturer take it seriously whether they approved or not?

Just thinking out loud.

Thanks,
Brian Jackson

pwendell

07-09-2005, 11:47 AM

Harry_S.

07-09-2005, 01:07 PM

Let's just wait and see the total hours he had in the RAF...OK?!

And...another thought...maybe I shouldn't *mention* this...did he receive any dual?!

.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 01:38 PM

Does “solo instructional flight” mean a flight conducted under the supervision of a flight instructor like a student pilot’s first solo?

Harry_S.

07-09-2005, 02:01 PM

I know what your saying, Chuck...and I figured someone would call me on that specific.

This is terminology used in the preliminary NTSB report.

I am self taught. Every one of my flights :eek: was a *solo instructional flight*, in a sense. I think you were self taught as well, right?!

So, let us see what was what!

.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 02:32 PM

I don’t understand Federalese, Harry.

I really miss Charlie Presnell on occasions like this. Charley was fluent in government language and would have known whether “solo instructional flight” means, necessarily, under CFI supervision.

The fact that Mr. Becker did not need a solo endorsement could simply mean that he was considered a student in a gyro until the requisite number of hours had been logged.

However, I infer from the silence of Duane’s many supporters and admirers in the area that Mr. Becker was in fact receiving instruction

Udi

07-09-2005, 03:11 PM

“solo instructional flight” means that he was signed off by a CFI to fly solo, under the supervision of this CFI.

14 CFR Part 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, no person other than the holder of a flight instructor certificate issued under this part with the appropriate rating on that certificate may—

(i) Give training required to qualify a person for solo flight and solo cross-country flight;

(ii) Endorse an applicant for a—

(A) Pilot certificate or rating issued under this part;

(B) Flight instructor certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(C) Ground instructor certificate or rating issued under this part;

(iii) Endorse a pilot logbook to show training given; or

(iv) Endorse a student pilot certificate and logbook for solo operating privileges.
When my flight instructor signed me off to solo, he asked me to call him before every flight. He said that his butt, and his CFI privileges, were on the line if something were to happen to me "under his signature".

Udi

Udi

07-09-2005, 03:33 PM

I am too, Udi, and have the resources available to do it. If we put our heads together and come up with a good, clean, easy-to-read non-profit site that takes the slant the we will inform, educate and be advocates for the safer gyrocopter designs, rather than attempt to ban any particular person or company, that we could start making some progress at solving the problems.
I understand your concerns re litigation, Ed, but I have no intention sparing criticism from RAF on any other manufacturer. We are doing it here all the time, and nobody is suing us. There are many organizations who's sole purpose it to review consumer products. The website I want to create will review the good, the bad, and the ugly of every type of gyro. I have nothing to worry about as long as I stick with facts and scientifically acceptable principles. Besides, I don't think RAF will want to draw any additional attention by suing a public service.

Udi

PW_Plack

07-09-2005, 05:20 PM

Chuck,

I don't know how long it's been this way, but all solo flight by a student pilot between the time he is signed off for solo and the time he either passes the practical test, or gets another 90-day solo endorsement are considered solo "instruction." The student is limited by the CFI to specific conditions, areas and airports, and the CFI is held jointly accountable for violations by the student during that period. FAR 61.109(d) terms the minimum required solo experience as "...10 hours of solo flight training..."

Where it gets muddy is whether "solo flight training" can exist for someone who does not hold, and is not eligible to hold a student pilot certificate. This guy had all the certificate he needed to fly anywhere he wanted in his RAF, so long as he didn't carry a passenger. He was not, legally, limited to any guidelines from his instructor.

Papa Smurf

07-09-2005, 05:57 PM

The consumer review styled website idea is good. I hope it can be put together.
This forum is full of very good information but there is a lot of "mud' to wade through to get it.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 06:01 PM

Like I said, PWP, I don’t speak Federalese. Words that mean one thing in Standard English may have a distinctly different meaning in Federal Speak.

Take category and class:

cat·e·go·ry (katÆi gôrÅ, -grÅ), n., pl. -ries.
1. any general or comprehensive division; a class.

My dictionary says those two words are synonyms, dependant upon usage; enough to cause apoplexy in an FAA bureaucrat.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 06:02 PM

I'd think you'd have to have dual to be flying an "instructional solo flight. Doesn't that come after a CFI endorses you to fly solo after sufficient dual?

What difference does it make as to how many hours he had in the RAF? If he was signed off for solo, his CFI considered him a safe enough pilot to fly alone. This is all assuming that's what happened, since we really don't know. Depends if the NTSB info is correct or not, which it often is not.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 06:29 PM

As I understand it Ken, Mr. Becker wasn’t required to have a solo endorsement by a CFI; and likely didn’t.

His log book may show a few hours of dual instruction so we know what the response from RAF and their groupies will be.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:11 PM

Yep. I figured it would be muddled.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-09-2005, 09:24 PM

O.K. I will ask the question direct.

To D. Hunn , J. Logan or any other instructor.

Did the pilot that died in the RAF a few days ago receive a solo sign out from a gyroplane licensed instructor?

Chuck E.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:30 PM

pwendell

07-09-2005, 10:13 PM

Let's see...if he was going for a rotorcraft rating (gyro), wouldn't he still have a student/solo status, even though he could fly his experimental with just his FW ticket if he desired? Can you be a "student pilot" for the purpose of training more than once if you're transitioning into another class/category?

Ken,

I think you're right. Just imagine for a moment that he was training in a certified gyroplane. He absolutely would need a solo signoff in order to act as PIC since he would not have the appropriate rating until he completed the check ride. A certificated pilot can certainly be a solo student flying under the supervision of an instructor when training for a new rating.

route66

07-10-2005, 12:37 AM

Udi, Thank you for reading between the lines of my posts. I am all for anything we can do to educate! If you are thinking a website count me in. I will help in any way needed. I too would never want to replace the PRA or any other group but would like to give them a place to use with the facts and the answers they need for their members and I am sure we can all work together. As I said it is not easy, but we have You, Ed & Me and I a sure Peter, Ken, Chuck, Harry & Brian have the same feelings. It is a start,Lets see if we can make it happen... I look forward to moving forward.

Gerhard

07-10-2005, 02:31 AM

Couldnt say it better than Papa Smurf: "This forum is full of very good information but there is a lot of "mud' to wade through to get it."

An online resource of information for the homebuilder drawn up by the experts will be of great benefit.

Heron

07-10-2005, 06:09 AM

After many years in the forums and seen people die and the despair and anguish of their friends and relatives I understand the frustration show here (you may see it as mud) so get a filter and make good use of the info and content, many lives were saved here.
More than a huge discount they deserve applause.
The only way to stop those kind of accidents is grounding the aircraft, dont mind the cringe and teeth grind.
Heron

Rotornut

07-10-2005, 12:15 PM

Yes Harry Thank You. Lets wait and see all that we can learn before we assume. Just wish there was a easier way of getting the info quicker and faster. But Truth.

MJ :)

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 12:33 PM

First, I am completely disappointed that we are still having these unnecessary fatalities in gyros. I believe that among the gyro people who have been exposed to the stability issues, we have made great inroads in stability safety - no PIO or Buntover accidents among "educated" gyro pilots. The problem is getting the word to those who either assume or get their information from mis-informed sources! I am pressuring the EAA to help us disseminate information about the new, safer generation of gyroplanes. It is unfortunately EAA SEL type pilots, even high-time pilots, that are now having the unnecessary stability accidents!!!! Look for an article in EAA Sport Pilot magazine soon - I hope. Or call the Sport Pilot Editor and request she expedite printing articles that would help to "educate" their non- PRA members. Too many pilots at the EAA events get exposure to pretty machines and poor technical information. We need these people to at least be "educated" enough to ask the right questions!!!

what we need first from the government is a recognition of the role stability plays in gyroplane safety, and the Light Sport Aircraft Consensus Standards will be a step in that direction.

Paul, I completely agree with you that we should be promoting stability, not a specific configuration or color that sometimes might make a gyro more safe!

That is exactly the intent of the ASTM Gyroplane Design and Performance standard. The standard does not "prescribe" how to make a gyro stable, it shows how to determine, through flight testing, if it is adequately stable. There will be a series of articles in Rotorcraft soon - detailing what the standard says about stability and how to determine the static stability margins of any gyro.

A little background on the reason we have developed the gyroplane standard. Several years ago, after a particularly bad summer spate of gyro fatalities, as the gyroplane Sport Pilot interface with the FAA, Sue Gardner asked me what was going on!!?? I told her we think we know what is "going on", but too many people do not agree and the incessant argueing discourages widespread understanding of the issues involved.

Sue Gardner asked us to tell them what we thought was wrong. I agreed to do a study of the NTSB accident reports - applying insight into what the NTSB reports were not really saying but were making obvious - stability issues. This study showed that about 40% of gyroplane serious accident were from lack of training. Another 40% could be attributed to poor gyroplane stability. In many cases, the combination of both of these root causes shared the blame! See the report at: Gyroplane Accident Report to FAA (http://www.pra.org/index.php?module=article&view=23) (This original report to the FAA did include exact manufacturers and models. The report Attachment A published in Rotorcraft and on the PRA website substitutes "Model Codes" at the request of the FAA - this report is the property of the FAA and they did not want the exact report published.)

The FAA, after receiving this report, asked how many gyroplanes in the U.S. were flying and how many flight hours - was the accident rate statistically significant? We did a very rough survey and guestimate that, even if it was off a factor of 10, implied that gyroplane fatalities were several orders of magnitude beyond acceptable!!!!

The FAA, after digesting all this information - all couched with a lot of uncertainty because of poor data - got back to us and said "we've got to do something! This is unacceptable" The FAA admitted they would have no idea of what to do, that if they did something on their own, it would probably not help matters. The FAA suggested that if the PRA and gyroplane community did not take action, the FAA would be forced to take "some kind of action" - that could not be good!

They asked for our advice. We recommended the development of a standard. The FAA agreed that they thought a real "consensus standard", one with the credibility of development by the gyroplane industry and community, might best "influence" manufacturers, designers, purchasers and fliers to fly safer gyros. Since we were just starting the ASTM LSA "Consensus Standards" project, this is what we did.

We are now in the process of disseminating the important aspects of this Gyroplane standard. Note, the gyroplane standard is not a "requirement" for any gyroplane - except for a gyroplane manufacturer who would want to sell a Special LSA gyroplane - which isn't even allowed at this time! The FAA feels a credible and accepted gyroplane standard would, rather than "force" compliance, would instead "influence" market pressures for manufacturers to provide safer gyroplanes. The standard would also increase the "knowledge base" of customers and gyro fliers to make better decisions about what to purchase, build and fly.

The project now is to get this information to the gyro community and fliers and to prospective gyroplane pilots. "An informed customer is a safer customer." We should encourage everyone to ask: "does it meet the standard?" Or, at a minimum ask: "Does it meet the stability criteria in the gyroplane ASTM standard?"

We (and the FAA) had thought we had been positively influencing a better gyroplane accident record over the last several years - probably just from spreading more credible stability technical understanding. We thought we might be getting over the hump. This latest spate of accidents poors cold water on this notion! But, looking at these recent accidents, one common thread is lack of exposure to these important gyroplane stability issues. That tells me we need to do a better job of communication beyond the gyroplane sphere of pilots. How about some "Letters to the Editor" to the EAA magazine editors - relating how important it is to expose their fixed-wing community to these gyroplane issues - before they just assume or buy into a good sales line!

There soon will be articles in Rotorcraft explaining the stability criteria in the standard.

Thanks, Greg Gremminger (I will not be able to further respond on this post until after Oshkosh now - leaving for Mentone now!)

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-18-2005, 01:25 PM

Anyone know if the pilot of this latest RAF 200 fatality had training on the machine, and if so was it a Ask First Society type?

Funny how silent that group gets on these issues.

Hey Ben how about giving Jim a call and see what you can find out?

Chuck E.

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 01:46 PM

Sorry for getting in this thread late, and I'm not sure I was able to read everything in it.

It appears that this RAF did not have a HS, but, does anyone know if this RAF had a "Stabilator"?

I have been hearing reports that the "Stabilator really works". It may, I don't think we have even any Static Stability flight test data on it. I think all these reports are "subjective" feel. Can't objectively determine stability by "feel"! I can see how the "stabilator" can provide a degree of static gust load and airspeed stability - maybe even a large postive static margin! My question would be if this is enough to overcome any G-Load static instability. G-Load static instability is the response of the gyro to a G-load disturbance - it should always be in the stable direction to reduce the G-Load disturbance and start it returning back to 1G. The way this is tested in the ASTM standard is to put the trimmed gyro in a bank and assure that it takes aft stick pressure and displacement to maintain the original level trimmed airspeed. (If the CG is "effectively" forward of the RTV, an increased G-load in the banking turn should pull the nose lower and require aft stick pressure and displacement to prevent higher airspeed in the turn.) G-Load instability is the root of buntovers - a disturbance to less than 1G starts a rapid pitch / G-load divergence to less and less G-load, nose down pitching! Does the Stabilator provide G-Load stability?

A second question would be how well does the "Stabiliator" provide the DYNAMIC stability criteria. Unfortunately, we insist that this DYNAMIC testing should only be accomplished by a professional test pilot - testing it can be dangerous if that gyro is not dynamically stable. There are good technical arguments that good DYNAMIC stability is readily achieved by use of an effective HS placed well aft of the CG. In otherwords, if STATIC stability is achieved with the use of a HS, it is very likely that the dynamic charactertistics would be very docile - PIO insusceptibility.

We have always maintained that there may be other ways to achieve acceptable stability in a gyro - other than the (now pretty-well understood) use of HS and balanced thrust and draglines.) Use of a HS to achieve good STATIC stability may well also assure good DYNAMIC stability as well - therefore our emphasis on STATIC stability criteria which are safe to test. However, if static stability is achieved by means other than a HS, DYNAMIC testing would be required to assure that DYNAMIC stability is also acceptable.

If anyone knows if this RAF had a "stabilator", please let me know. Also, if you are conducting the static tests, please let me know the results.

Thanks, Greg Gremminger

GyroRon

07-18-2005, 01:49 PM

In the picture of it in the parade before the accident tok place the gyro appeared to be a bone stock RAF with no stab of any kind.

MGman

07-18-2005, 05:42 PM

Greg - I realize that we can't enforce the standard on a manufacturer unless they actually build and sell their Gyro as a completed unit, which no manufacturer now does.

However, isn't there some way to require the manufacture to certify that their gyro will pass the standards, if assembled in accordance with their specific directions and materials? They could put in any disclaimer they want, as long as they provide a copy of the standards with their kit. (I know - some of the kits probably won't pass the standards, as designed and sold - but at least the purchasers would have all the information available to make their own decision). If the manufacturer refused to provide the information, could they be censored, sanctioned and/or fined in some way by the FAA? Just a suggestion - I know it is probably unenforceble at this time.

How about requiring all manufacturers to provide a copy of the standard to their customers (actual and prospective) along with their literature, along with information about training requirements (or at least recommendations), and include references to web sites and personnel with phone numbers and/or email addresses for additional information (probably the PRA, EAA or FAA contacts). - Even if they don't certify their gyros will meet the standards. The PRA could also put together a package specifically related to stability and training issues that could be mailed to anyone calling or writing for information.

I agree that somehow getting gyro stability and training information in the hands of all prospective gyro pilots will be a major step in reducing accidents, especially fatal ones, but we do need a way to get the info to the people who are obviously not now getting it. It would seem the FAA, EAA and PRA could lean on the manufacturers to provide this information, as they (the manufacturers) obviously now aren't doing so. I think it is a real crime (and immoral) for the manufacturers to not be required to provide stability information about their kits to prospective purchasers.

Thank you for your efforts in helping to put together the standards, and for working on gyro safety as much as you do. You and others working on the standards have provided a valuable tool for gyro pilots to use in making their build decisons. I am not a pilot (yet), but I have really learned a lot over the past 1 1/2 years that I have been following this forum. We have some very savy and concientious people on this list - even when they disagree, they always seem to be saying the same things, just from different perspectives.

Thanks also to all of you on this list for helping to promote the safety, as well as the fun, of gyros. Somehow the word will get out and gyros will become much more respected when others see how seriously most gyro pilots are taking their hobby.

Dave Bohler

PW_Plack

07-18-2005, 07:22 PM

Dave,

I think if the kitmakers test a "conforming example," built to spec, and it meets the standard, they've done all they can. The accident reports don't suggest problems caused by user modifications. On the contrary, at least one kit which makes news often becomes safer after important user modifications.

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 07:26 PM

Dave, I don't see any way to make the ASTM standard a "requirement", or make any other requirements on manufacturers unless they would be selling aircraft under the SLSA rules. This has always been a dilema. The dilema is more than just regulatory. There have been so many differing opinions on gyroplane stability; and even on the stability side of the argument, it is difficult to get agreement on what should be "required". It has been a long, hard road to get beyond the "prescriptive" arguments - red, blue, this or that HS or thrustline, etc. That is the reason that our gyroplane standard, and all aircraft standards, avoid the "prescriptive" solutions and set criteria based on testing "results".

The FAA is certainly endorsing the new gyroplane standard. At Mentone I will be proposing that the PRA "endorse" the new gyroplane standard - but, I've even got my doubts that will be possible because there are still so many people who truly do not understand the technicalities of stability or the differences between "prescriptive" and "results" criteria. It has been difficult getting a number of the "good guys" to get beyond "prescriptive" solutions, or beyond the clamor for just outlawing certain configurations and models. The FAA and most of the PRA knows you can't just "outlaw" by restrictive configuration "prescriptions" (HS, thrustlines, draglines, etc.) because the combinations of all the factors cannot be "prescribed" in a practical specification unless you specifically require exact and limited configurations. (For instance, It is probably easiest to meet the stability criteria in the standard through employing a HS. But, the standard does not "require" a HS. Any way a designer can meet the "results" stability criteria (testing) is acceptable and should provide the necessary safety margins.)

So, the ASTM LSA gyroplane standard tries to avoid "prescriptive" criteria, and instead sets the end results as the criteria - this is just difficult for some non-technical people to swallow. Therefore, it is a political problem, on even the side of the "good guys", to reach a consensus.

The FAA and others recognized the political problems of the "prescriptive" solutions. So, we moved one step above "prescriptions", to the level of results. Now, anyone can design or modify any way they want, but if they want to comply with the standard, it will have to test to meet the standard. if they modify the standard design, they can perform some simple tests to assure their modified configuration still provides adequate stability margins.

Since we cannont "force" manufacturers, or builders or fliers to comply with the standard, the best way to "influence" the community, industry and users is to create a credible standard and "educate" the community and users on that standard and what it means and how it protects them. Then, an "informed" market can put market pressures to bear on the manufacturers.

What we want to encourage every prospective gyro purchaser to do now is to ask informed questions when they are shopping. Ask specifically:
"Does this model meet the ASTM LSA standard. If not, where does it not meet it?
Specifically, "What are the test results on the three static stability tests. Can you provide a test report that verified the static stability."
"What are the test results for dynamic stability? Can you provide a test report?"

If you start getting excuses or answers that show they are trying to snow you, go somewhere else! Most likely, if they really don't have the engineering expertise or testing experience to answer those questions, it will be obvious.

In other words, the FAA and some of us feel that informed consumers will put market pressures on the suppliers to start complying with the standard - whether they are "forced" to or not! Now, the job is really to "educate" the community, including the non-gyro community, on these issues.

I believe it is not difficult to meet these stability criteria in the standard. It would be nice to meet all the criteria, but those other criteria in the standard may not really be root causes of the fatality record we are trying to change. I believe it is relatively easy to modify or "tune" a design to meet the stability criteria in the standard.

Getting to the "Consensus Standard": We really did reach a "consensus" among the members of the ASTM gyroplane subcommittee. Many people didn't think that was possible. It became possible when we got beyond "prescriptive" criteria such as HS and thrustlines. We did get consensus from all the participating manufacturers, including RAF, AAI, Sport Copter, Air Command, Little Wing, Magni. We also got consensus from the FAA, PRA, the Australian CASA (like the FAA) and ASRA (like the PRA). We also got consensus among individula contributors such as Doug Riley, Dean Dolph and Jukka Tervamaki; and professional Test Pilot types such as Mike Nelson, Bill Zierdt and Jim Mayfield. So, although this standard may not yet be perfect, it's credibility should at least bear a strong influence.

(FYI - RAF, to it's credit, even hired an aeronautical engineer to work with the ASTM subcommittee and eventually gave a positive vote to the final standard. They got on board when we went beyond the "prescriptive" solution of a HS! At least their aeronautical engineer at the time agree to the "results" criteria - it's standard aviation science! My biggest concern now is that too many manufacturers have not really tested their machines and do not really know if they meet the standard criteria - that's why I encourage everyone to run at least the static tests. After we start collecting data, we may find, or be petitioned by a manufacturer, that changes to the standard are necessary. In some cases, the criteria and tolerances can only be verified through testing. If we find that a gyro that has had a good safety record doesn't quite meet a criteria, we may need to review that criteria. But, for now, we just need testing and data. And, if a manufacturer doesn't like the questions from consumers they are getting, they can also petition the subcommittee to review the criteria and consider changes. But, we need the data.

One more thing: You said "Somehow the word will get out and gyros will become much more respected ---" From my training activity this summer, I am seeing more and more traditional FW pilots trying gyros. I believe we may be turning the corner on the bad reputation through education. At least that is what I am seeing - traditional pilots are not so afraid of trying gyros because they are starting to understand the differences between the old dangerous gyros and gyrocopters and the "new generation" of gyroplanes that employ real aerodynamic stability principles.

I've got to go now - see you at Mentone or Oshkosh,

Thanks, Greg Gremminger

MGman

07-18-2005, 08:31 PM

Greg - Thanks for replying to my comments. I know by the time this goes out, you may be gone, so I'm not looking for an answer. It is to your credit that you reply in a courteous and non-preaching manner to everyone who asks questions, even extreme gyro novices like myself.

I guess I didn't really state my comments clearly. As a Mechanical engineer, my experience has been about 30 years of facility engineering maintenance and energy management. I've come to use performance instead of prescriptive specifications for many hi-tech engineering projects, due to the simplicity of quantifyiing performance results rather than hoping for adequate prescriptive methodology results. So I definitely agree that your performance standards are superior to any prescriptive standards.

I was pleased to see in your response that even RAF has agreed to the performance standards. This is a huge step in the right direction. This should put them on a path to creating a more stable design, and maybe even have them have to perform and document the results of meeting the standards. That should open their eyes to proper thrustline and horizontal stab application issues.

Have a good trip - Teach many people about adequate gyro stability :)

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-18-2005, 11:49 PM

" That should open their eyes to proper thrustline and horizontal stab application issues. "

Dave, what you fail to understand is Don LaFleur and Peter and the rest of the RAF decision makers have been denying this issue for over fifteen years, these people are a cancer in the aviation field, like all good shills they talk a good talk sometimes but they are still selling a killer.

You seem to be a thoughtful person with good intentions, would it be possible for you to call either Logan or Hunn and ask if they know if the last victim of an RAF 2000 had any training on his machine and if so how much? And by whom?

Chuck E.

tomhall

07-19-2005, 07:41 AM

I have kept in contact with another Duane Hunn student I met last Oct. When I mentioned this accident, he had not yet heard about it and was stunned. He had met this gentleman while both were training with Duane in Knox, IN recently.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-19-2005, 08:59 AM

Thanks Tom:

I get no pleasure discussing all these terrible losses of innocent human beings, however the death toll in RAF 2000's just keep piling up and the company still deceives the public with claims of how safe their gyro is. Even more deplorable in my mind as a flight instructor is the fact that the company flight instructors keep on following the dictates of RAF rather than change their methods and get stable machines to sell and train in.

I am still waiting for Ben to answer my question, he sure had lots to say to me last year when I stopped posting here because it seemed to be a waste of time trying to argue with the mindset that just can't seem to grasp reality.

Anyhow hopefully someone will sue these people out of business, the sooner the better.

Chuck E.

ben

07-19-2005, 01:45 PM

hey chuck be a man call him yourself

oh yeah by the way jim logan is now a CFI in canada now too

there ya go again calling people names again

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-19-2005, 10:39 PM

" oh yeah by the way jim logan is now a CFI in canada now too "

So Canada can now look foward to more fatal RAF accidents due to more people being taught that they are safe?

Ben, I knew Jim Logan in 1991 when we both started building our RAF 2000's, I quickly discovered that the RAF was dangerously unstable and the RAF management were crooks and I severed my association with them.

I have no idea why Jim keeps flying those death traps, but as an advanced flight instructor I can without reservation state that anyone who knowingly teaches people that an unstable machine such as the RAF can be safely flown with his instruction should have their license cancelled.

In Jims defense I will allow that maybe he does not know the physics and the dangers involved in what he teaches....therefore all the more reason to cancell his license to teach, in my opinion ignorance is not an excuse.

Many years ago on Norms forum I got into this discussion with Aussie Paul, who went ballistic when I stated that the RAF was unstable and RAF were crooks....maybe you could talk to Paul now and ask him if I was wrong?

I truly feel sad that you and many like you are conned by the Ask First instructors and RAF, have you ever sat down and really went over all the RAF deaths and looked for a pattern?

Chuck E.

KenSandyEggo

07-19-2005, 11:49 PM

".....maybe he does not know the physics and the dangers involved in what he teaches....."

I don't think so Chuck. Why did he plagiarize and transfer facts from the heli section of the Rotorcraft Handbook to attempt to prove his point that it's just fine to push a gyro over at the top of a climb? He knew what he was saying was B.S. and he attempted to justify it by posting plagiarized lies.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-20-2005, 12:09 AM

Well Kenny we have tried our best to help the people who get trapped in Ask First's slick selling scheme and there will always be those unfortunate enough to be true beleivers.

It's sort of like Jim Jones and his ilk, they prey on people who will follow them.

Sad but true.

I'm bored out of my skull right now as there is no flying booked until Saturday.

I'll get the J2 book to you when I return to Canada.

Chuck E.

StanFoster

07-20-2005, 04:14 AM

Chuck: I can just imagine one of your bored days. You probably have more memories from the day before than I experience in a year. :D

I can only imagine what one of your active days is like.... :eek:

I am looking forward to the day when you are freed up to pursue your dream of flying gyros. Need a good RAF? modified? :D

just kidding.....take care as I am getting ready to depart for Mentone in my "modified RAF". I cant wait.

Stan

Rotornut

07-20-2005, 04:53 AM

Stan, ENJOY MENTONE. Give a Big Hug to Sue Goldsberry and Anne Cook for me after all the hard work they will be doing for the fly-in they will need it. Have Fun.
Lets Pray for a Safe and Enjoyable Fly-In. MJ :)

Doug Riley

07-20-2005, 07:06 AM

The principles we have to understand to figure out PPO are so simple that they barely qualify as "physics" at all. I've explained this scores of times to all kinds of people, mostly strangers at flyins. I don't know of anyone who didn't "get it" in five minutes or less.

There are two obvious facts that underlie PPO. We know both of them intuitively from playing games as kids.

First, an object floating in space will rotate around its center of mass (CM) in response to a force applied to it, if the force acts along a line that doesn't pass through the CM. This is why baseballs and golf balls normally spin when you hit them. The simplest example of all may be a floating beach ball. Push on it with your finger. If the push isn't perfectly lined up with the center of the ball, it'll spin.

Second, the total force of a gyro's rotor acts along a line that is perpendicular to the rotor disk. The line of this force (rotor thrust) can be pictured as passing squarely through the enter of the disk, like the spindle of an LP record player. "Lift" and "drag" are merely portions of this total force.

That's it. The rest follows automatically once you specify the layout of the gyro. If the prop thrust is 600 lb. and its line is a foot above the gyro's CM, then there's 600 ft.-lb. of nose-down torque on the frame. What prevents the "beach ball spin" effect? Something better be doing it or you're going over!

If the gyro has a really powerful, down-loaded HS, the HS may be doing the preventing. If the HS is missing or too weak, the rotor thrust is doing it. When rotor thrust is lost in a downdraft or maneuver, you're going over.

C. Beaty

07-20-2005, 07:58 AM

The reasons HTL machines tumble out of the sky are clear, simple and obvious to anyone prepared to think, Doug.

I expect the psychology of those in denial is somewhat akin to that of suicide bombers. Accept on blind faith whatever they’ve been told by some “authority” figure. Even slick brochures can be authority icons.

Vance

07-20-2005, 08:14 AM

Hello Doug, If it was really that simple there would be no RAF flying, and that is not the case. It seems to take a series of mishaps to have one tumble out of the sky. The question then becomes; how likely is this series of events?

Part of my challenge to understanding is that when flying an RAF without a stabilizer it feels ok. I don't have a way of understanding how close to the edge I am flying and at what point it become a nonrecoverable event. Once I find that point it is too late.

A way I have delt with risk in the past is to survive. I have not had to deal with a fatal event. It is human nature to say "that won't happen to me!"

I understand your frustration with people not understanding these two simple principles. For me, it is a lack of experance with the fatal series of events and a recognition that many RAFs have flown without incident. Quantifying the forces is only a small part of risk assesment.

Please don't imagine that I am validating high thrust line or lack of a horizantal stabilizer. I am defending those who don't understand as clearly as you do, with your vast technical knoledge and considerable flying experiance. For many of us knoledge and understanding comes slowly. Achieving balance is not so simple for us.

I am always gratefull for an opportunity to learn and I hope you will continue to find new and creative ways to explain the mysteries and the dynamics of flight.

Thank you, Vance

david holmes

07-20-2005, 08:15 AM

It's sort of like Jim Jones and his ilk, they prey on people who will follow them.
Chuck E.

Chuck, it's too bad so few people remember Jim Jones. The caption USED to be one of my favorite sayings but too few people remember what I'm talking about now.

KenSandyEggo

07-20-2005, 09:33 AM

"Part of my challenge to understanding is that when flying an RAF without a stabilizer it feels ok."

That's the rub, Vance. It doesn't feel O.K. The new pilot in a stabless RAF will oscillate wildly in pitch. It took me 2 hours to be able to somewhat keep the nose level, and then it was very iffy and a big struggle. I can't think of any other aircraft that behaves this way. When one encounters a strong updraft, the nose goes shooting up drastically, in the opposite direction that known stable aircraft respond. Any semblance of stability will put the nose into the source of the draft. It is drummed into the heads of stabless RAF students to immediately chop the power if you get into an updraft and the nose starts rising. They are told to only add power to resume flight when the nose settles back down after the updraft ceases. Does anyone think that this is "O.K.?......that it is O.K. to be riding in an aircraft where you lose control of the craft and have to wait it's incorrect responsiveness out?

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-20-2005, 10:10 AM

Hi David :

I see you are still chugging along and you are healthy and feeling well I hope?

Did you ever find out what happened to Jenny?

Chuck

Doug Riley

07-20-2005, 10:36 AM

Vance, it really IS that simple. There's nothing more to the mechanism of PPO than what I've outlined.

I understand your remark about "feels OK." My old HTL, no-HS gyro felt OK, too, within a certain range of conditions. I used to do aerial photo runs in it that involved relatively long periods of hands-off flight. It tracked nicely in calm air. It was hopeless in any turbulence. I figured at the time that was just the way gyros were (and bought a fixed-wing ultralight!).

The "OK" feeling is a result of a fragile balance of forces. The balance is brought about by the freedom of the airframe to "dangle" and therefore to set up a weakly stable situation in which the rotor does the job of holding the nose up to prevent PPO. In hands-off flight, the offset gimbal head will give the rotor (not the airframe, though) a degree of angle-of-attack and airspeed stability. This whole weakly stable situation is powered by rotor thrust. Interrupt the rotor thrust and your balancing force is gone in a flash.

It's fine to say "well, then don't interrupt the rotor thrust." Certainly training can teach us not to try outside loops or abrupt pushovers. However, Mother Nature deals out zero-G turbulence even on pleasant sunny days. You can't escape it unless you fly only in perfect dawn or evening air. If nature sends you a downdraft while you're at wide-open throttle in your HTL gyro, your reflexes in shutting that throttle better be lightning fast. And, if at that moment you're climbing for all you're worth to avoid an obstacle, heaven help you.

The fact that it's so hard to know you're near the edge of the cliff is probably why students who've trained well and been signed off still auger in these unstable gyros. Unlike a simple stall in a well-mannered FW plane, an approaching PPO doesn't announce itself. Either you recognize IN ADVANCE the conditions that are setting you up for PPO, or you're apt to cross the no-return point before you know what's happened.

david holmes

07-20-2005, 01:36 PM

re: Jenny
Chuck you've got some kind of memory. Never found her. There are so many donkeys on my place I could not be sure that she's still here or not.

I moved on to putting my gyro into the parades.
Except the year I painted my baby goose green and we entered into the St. Patricks Day parade.

PW_Plack

07-20-2005, 01:51 PM

Doug, if it were that simple, I don't think we'd be talking about it by now.

The only way I can reconcile the ability of experienced pilots to avoid this phenomenon is to conclude that the downdrafts alone are not sufficient to cause an unrecoverable event. Many accident reports have witnesses observing wild pitch oscillations before the machine starts shedding parts. I think an inexperienced or unprepared pilot's subsequent amplification of the initial pitch disturbance, or at least failure to intervene, must play a role.

I cannot imagine that any stabless RAF CFI has accumulated 8,000 hours without encountering a downdraft, and the demographics of the current RAF CFI corps pretty much rules out lightning-like reflexes as an excuse.

Training and aircraft stability are two links in a short chain. I'm not making excuses here - I agree 100% that the correct one to fix first is the stability part.

KenSandyEggo

07-20-2005, 02:13 PM

"I think an inexperienced or unprepared pilot's subsequent amplification of the initial pitch disturbance, or at least failure to intervene, must play a role."

The thing is, Paul, why should an "inexperienced" pilot have to experience an initial pitch disturbance? I don't recall any during my fixed wing training. I don't recall chasing the nose with the controls until I almost tumbled out of the sky save for my CFI rescuing me for hours on end. Neither do I recall any significant pitch disturbances nor subsequent amplifications. These are traits of unstable aircraft. You won't see these traits in CLT machines to any extent. There is more than one precipitating cause of a buntover. You can unload the rotor with PIO, pushing over at the top of a climb or hitting a severe enough downdraft. Result is the same.....unloaded rotor = buntover. It's much more likely to occur in an unstable, HTL gyro and almost impossible in a CTL gyro.

Doug Riley

07-20-2005, 03:06 PM

The thing is, Paul, the rotor can't distinguish between a downdraft and any other sudden reduction in its angle of attack. Aerodynamically, there's zero difference between throwing the stick forward to position the disk edgewise to the air and encountering a downdraft that (when you add up the vectors of the draft and the gyro's forward airspeed) results in the same edgewise disk stance*. Zero AOA is zero AOA, whether you alter the air's angle to the horizon or the rotor's angle to the horizon. The angle between the air and the disk is the number that matters.

Some accident reports include pre-PPO porpoising, but many do not. Porpoising has been reported less frequently in the last 20 years or so. This corresponds with the appearance of Rotax and RAF redrives that have allowed bigger props and hence higher thrustlines.

* Example: If the gyro is flying at 60 mph airspeed and its rotor disk's initial angle of attack is 10 degrees, a downdraft of 10.6 mph (60 x tangent 10) will reduce the disk's AOA to zero. 10.6 mph is a stiff downdraft (950 ft./min.), but certainly not unheard of. People survive this stuff by slowing down, keeping a ready hand on the throttle and "floating" the stick to let the gimbal head's spring pull the stick back when thrust is lost. You're really dancing along the edge in such situations, though.

Harry_S.

07-20-2005, 04:49 PM

The fact that it's so hard to know you're near the edge of the cliff is probably why students who've trained well and been signed off still auger in these unstable gyros. Unlike a simple stall in a well-mannered FW plane, an approaching PPO doesn't announce itself. Either you recognize IN ADVANCE the conditions that are setting you up for PPO, or you're apt to cross the no-return point before you know what's happened.

I really don't want to get involved with this inferred RAF fiasco but...

10 of 11 fatalities in an XP A/C is hard to argue with and is extremely difficult to debate on this forum. I am not a degreed engineer nor a physicist but I'm no freakin' dummy either. ;) I'm just a SRPP.

I've been involved with the gyro since the 60's. I have many hours; maybe not as many as some of you, but I do have some experience.

Please allow me to give my take on most of these RAF fatals. We (I) cannot discount the mindset of the pilots involved in these accidents. What is wrong with placing the onus on the pilot? It's indisputable that all were new *gyro* pilots.

I'm thinking that if I was younger and if I were taking lessons in an RAF and I saw that it would fly at 100 mph , I would think...100 mph; cool!! So, after my solo signoff...I takeoff; thinking of getting this baby going 100 mph (cause my instr. only had me fly at 65 mph) [plus I was never told or cautioned about PIO or how to recover from PIO] My instr. told me not to fly if the wind was more than 5 mph, but I can handle it.

There's a bit of gusty wind today but nothing I can't handle. So, here I go. I'm going get this baby to go 100 mph.

Fast forward...here I am, way behind the machine, chasing the nose, trying to catch up, full throttle...PIO...rotor chops off the tail...full throttle, nose over...another fatality.

There are hundreds of RAF owner/pilots around the world. I would guess that most or all of these pilots were like me...ease into this machine and build on experience.

I have been flying my RAF close to 500 hrs. and have never tried to approach 100 mph nor do I see any reason to and I have a HS. If I want to go 100 mph I'll sit in a fixed wing.

IMHO...PIO precipitates most, if not all, in flight gyro fatalities.

.

KenSandyEggo

07-20-2005, 05:12 PM

"We (I) cannot discount the mindset of the pilots involved in these accidents. What is wrong with placing the onus on the pilot? It's indisputable that all were new *gyro* pilots."

Harry, the same thing occurs in Dominators and any other CLT machines. They don't have this horrid fatality rate. What do you still see as "inferred?" Read Doug's post. It's even less than simple physics. Nothing inferred. It's pure, basic fact.

C. Beaty

07-20-2005, 09:33 PM

I suppose the thing RAF defenders fail to grasp is that in order to prevent the machine from behaving like a yo-yo, the CG must be behind the rotor thrust line, making it inherently tail-heavy. This is totally unrelated to “hang” angle unless equipped with a horizontal stab. With a horizontal stab, hang angle affects the stab angle of attack and can, as a secondary effect, influence rotor thrust line to CG relationship.

All tail-heavy aircraft exhibit similar behavior; unstable vs. angle of attack. An upward gust causes the machine pitch nose-up, magnifying the effect of the gust. The pitching motion can become self-sustaining unless the pilot takes corrective action.

The action of the Bensen style offset gimbel rotorhead tends to mask the machine’s instability once the pilot learns to float the stick and is at the root of the expression; “it feels good.” Without the Bensen style rotorhead, swashplate control for example, an RAF-2000 would be nearly impossible for ordinary people to fly.

Certainly, with sufficient training and experience, pilots can learn to keep tail heavy aircraft right side up in most situations. The important question is why anyone would want to learn to fly an inherently unstable and dangerous aircraft.

Peter W. Brooks in the landmark book; “Cierva Autogiros,” Smithsonian Institution Press, documents every single accident to befall gyroplanes during the period before WW II. There is not a single instance of one of those machines tumbling out of the sky. Being tractors had nothing to do with it; having proper CG location and horizontal stabilizers had everything to do with it.

Cierva C-30s accumulated many thousands of hours during the early phases of WW II performing radar calibration. The early “Chain Home” radar operated on a wavelength of 11 meters, about the same diameter as the C-30 rotor, making it an excellent radar reflector. A wavelength of 11 meters precluded narrow beam, stearable antennae. Azimuth information was obtained by the use of two widely separated receiving antennae and comparing the phase of the echoes received by each. Phase measuring techniques in use at the time weren’t very precise so each radar site had to be individually and frequently calibrated. C-30s were in the air almost continuously until the CH was replaced by microwave radar.

Mr. Brooks even recounts the tale of one C-30 being jumped by a ME-109. The C-30 escaped by ducking down amongst the trees.

ben

07-20-2005, 10:01 PM

chuck , jim jones damn you got to be kidding give me a break, do you just like calling people names and insulting them. you have no idea what jims record is with his students yet you sit there on a computer where you are safe and attack a mans charater that you wouldnt have the balls to repeat the insults in person to jim or myself and you insult me and you dont know anything about me!!! talk about stupid!!!
well chuck here's a pic of me with my CLT AIR COMMAND but thats right there is no way i can have a clt machine becouse acourting to you JIM Logan has spoon fed me a bunch of lies that he and raf have brainwashed me and i'm going to drink the jim jone cocktail and i'm not man enough or smart enough to make up my own mind on what or how i should fly. it's late and i'm too tired to check my spelling and frankly you aint worth it later

david holmes

07-21-2005, 04:26 AM

Ben,
is your name REALLY Ben Aventurato? Never heard that name down south.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-21-2005, 06:16 AM

Stanfoster:

All that giltters is not gold, to many my life style seems exciting, however for me it is work and you would not believe the hoops we have to constantly jump through trying to maintain our licenses and deal with the bureaucracy here in Europe.

I can't wait for Thursday when the wife and I go to Luxor to spend a week just sightseeing in Egypt.

My RAF is still in the early stages of rebuild, I have most of the cabin finished, I moved the radiator and built it into the floor with a airscoop like in the Crusader navy jet driving the air down through the rad.

When I finish the cabin will be one foot or slightly more higher to get the thrust line corrected.

But first I have to retire from this demanding profession that I am stuck in.

And I just learned that it seems that we will be going to the airshow in Budapest with Red Bull as our sponsor.

Take care and remember the grass sometimes looks greener on the other side of the fence, until you get there and find it is astroturf.

Chuck E.

Brad_King

07-24-2005, 05:23 PM

There are 100's of RAFs logging 1000's of hours. They are not all tumbling out of the sky. So an informed pilot who is trained properly and flys within the envelope can obivously fly these aircraft without dying. Happens every day, week, month, year.

The defenders of RAF on this forum say they understand the risk and make the choice to fly this aircraft. The ones that truly do all put a H stab on them.

So what difference does it make to the rest of us that they choose to do so?

The difference, IN MY OPINION, is that there are people who do not read, reasearch, and understand what they are getting into with this aircraft. Rotary Air Force Marketing,Inc. is not going to tell them. They go to SnF and Osh put a booth in the general public area and do their best to make sure the buyer remains uninformed.

The airline captain, the high time fixed wing pilot, sees it, buys the company line, trains with the company CFI, and never knows what he really has. The company "Sets the Gold Standard in Gyroplane Safety". He flys. He tumbles. He dies. Pilot error. Not many. Just a few. One here. One there.

I want to ask the RAF defenders how many of these deaths are acceptable?
How many does it take before it makes a difference? How many before you say "This is wrong?" The company should be held accountable. 100's of RAF's. 1000's of hours. How many DEATHS does it take. Please I would really like to know. I look forward to the day when we reach that number so we can all say enough is enough. I really really do.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

GyroRon

07-24-2005, 05:29 PM

Big 10-4 to that Brad. I feel the exact same way.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-24-2005, 10:29 PM

Excellent post Brad.

Please allow me to add my thoughts....

" Not many. Just a few. One here. One there."

There have been around twenty so far, including four right at their own factory, with the death of their president you would think that the penny would have dropped and common sense would have caused them to re evaluate their product....

...But as long as the company is run by conn artists and supported by instructors who do not have either the integrity or the brain power to demand a stable safe aircraft the loss of life will just go on and on.

Unless of course someone sues them out of business.

Chuck E.

gyroplanes

07-25-2005, 12:51 AM

As long as there are name callers and haters, the "wall" you've built will continue making it more difficult for the Doug Rileys, Stan Fosters and Vance Breezes of the world to get the message to the uninformed.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-25-2005, 02:06 AM

Quote"

" the "wall" you've built "

Your comment shows your bias against my posts Tom.

However I am certain that most people with the ability to think will figure out that I am not alone in making like statements concerning RAF and their instructor group.

And I am not at all impressed with your labeling me as a hater Tom, I just have an aversion to certain types of people, especially enablers of people like RAF.

Chuck E.

Brad_King

07-25-2005, 05:23 PM

Chuck,

I can't help but feel that more progress can be made in swaying public opinion if we ask people with an opposing position to defend that position verses attacking the people themselves.

My goal is to get Don Lefleure to change his stance by getting the knowledgable and informed pilots who actually choose to fly the RAF to put peer pressure on him and his supporting CFI's to educate their clients about exactly what they are getting into. That under certain conditions, that can appear without warning, the gyro they are flying will try to kill them. That there are specific changes that can be made to their aircraft that will help prevent this from happening. Then, if they choose to take the risk, as others have done, we will have at least made a step in the right direction.

If we stick to facts and not attacks most will not automatically dismiss what we have to say as bashing or having an ax to grind.

I really don't care about anything but stopping the next smoking crater. I think if the RAF supporters will look inside themselves they really want that also.

At this point I would be satisfied just to see effective H stabs on all HTL machines, mainly, because I don't know of any machine that is equipped with a stab that has bunted.

When I read your post supporting my position I could almost hear the doors I was trying to open slamming closed.

Respectfully
Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

Vance

07-25-2005, 05:58 PM

Mr Northam's RAF had a large horizantal stabilizer and he had what apears to be a PIO followed by a fatal impact with terain on 11/16/2003. Thank you, Vance

Brad_King

07-25-2005, 06:12 PM

Vance,

If that is the case I stand corrected. My apologies for speaking before researching all the facts. For the sake of clarity, when you say PIO do you mean the forward snap roll and tumble?

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

Udi

07-25-2005, 06:16 PM

Mr Northam's RAF had a large horizantal stabilizer and he had what apears to be a PIO followed by a fatal impact with terain on 11/16/2003. Thank you, Vance
That was Capt. Northam, Vance. The most recent HLT Air Command bunt (VT., 1 fatal), was also a case of a stab-equipped HTL.

I am concerned that the new ASTM standards for gyroplane stability do not completely address the PPO problem. A gyroplane could pass the stability test, and still be prone to PPO under certain circumstances. The only way I know to address this issue will probably not fly with the FAA, as it would be too "dictative".

Udi

Vance

07-25-2005, 06:34 PM

Pilot induced occilations. The ship was seen to be bobbing up and down and that was followed by an inverted trip to the ground. He was an airline pilot with training in a gyroplane. The area is known for unstable, sometimes vertical wind conditions. It is one out of many without a horizantal stabilizer. Thank you, Vance

Vance

07-25-2005, 06:35 PM

Sorry Ehud, I stand corrected. Thank you, Vance

pwendell

07-25-2005, 08:47 PM

Brad,

Up to this point the RAF factory and Factory instructors have been immune to evidence.

Vance,

There has been One fatal accident in a stab equipped RAF and at least 10 in the U.S. in stabless RAFs. From what we can tell anecdotally, there is no hard data available, a good percentage of RAFs currently flying have stabs -- 40%-60%. That makes the 10-1 fatal accident ratio a fairly powerful argument for stabs.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-25-2005, 11:17 PM

Brad :

I understand your desire to get Don LaFleur to change his stance.

The problem you are up against is some of us have been trying to change his stance since 1991. I know him and Peter and Linda very well having lived in Dons home, I can assure you that there have been many, many knowledable people present the facts to them. In Canada there have been at least half a dozen flight instructors that have left RAF because of their refusal to take advice about their product. Not to mention the high time helicopter pilot who was their company instructor that bunted at the factory in a factory gyro.

I have no direct connection with the gyroplane industry as I am to busy flying in another segment of aviation so I have no other reason to keep up my campain to expose these people for what they are except the fact I detest their kind.

If my attitude is the cause of the ongoing loss of life in RAF's then there is a real problem in that group of people. So I guess RAF will eventually kill off the part of the gene pool that thinks being soft and polite to a group who continue to go against the rest of aviation is the best way to handle the problem.

Remember my position is to improve safety and save lives....can you say the same for RAF and the couple of renegade instructors that still stand by LaFleure and RAF?

Chuck E.

KenSandyEggo

07-26-2005, 01:54 AM

"My goal is to get Don Lefleure to change his stance by getting the knowledgable and informed pilots who actually choose to fly the RAF to put peer pressure on him and his supporting CFI's to educate their clients about exactly what they are getting into. That under certain conditions, that can appear without warning, the gyro they are flying will try to kill them."

Brad, your post earns you the award of the most optimistic person in the universe. You have a tough job ahead. Sure is a worthwhile goal, but I won't hold my breath. Good luck anyway.

Harry_S.

07-26-2005, 07:20 AM

Brad:

I applaud your post #148. Good luck in your quest for positive input.

.

Doug Riley

07-26-2005, 07:29 AM

Yes, the early Air Command gyro that crashed here in VT recently had a stock HS. The HS, in fact, was quite intact at the crash site. I'll post some photos when I get a chance to edit down the file sizes.

The thrustline offset of a first-edition Air Command (which this was) is a little over half that of an RAF. The thrust of the Rotax 532 is about half that of a big Soob, so the pushover moment (in foot-lbs.) is in the neighborhood of a quarter to a third as much.

If you do the arithmetic, it's improbable that a stab of the type typically added to RAF's is powerful enough to prevent a PPO at all combinations of airspeed and throttle setting. The Virginia crash certainly supports that conclusion. What stabs do best is to provide damping, which discourages development of PIO (porpoising). PIO frequently leads to unloading the rotor, which will trigger a PPO in a susceptible machine. The stab greatly improves your odds.

I'm beginning to worry (as Udi is) about whether the RAF will pass the Light Sport flight tests with the help of a "whale tail" aerodynamic trim device. I am not convinced (without much more research) that a 600 ft.-lb. PPO moment can be built into the airframe and then RELIABLY neutralized only by the rotor thrust. Yet that's the premise behind the "training, training, training" and whale-tail solutions offered by RAF.

I think RAF is afraid to change for fear of admitting that their design was flawed. Of course, Air Command did it, but that company had changed ownership twice. If RAF were to do a corporate reorganization with some change of ownership, that might provide the necessary legal "distance" between their old design and a hypothetical "improved" one. It could be done.

Brad_King

07-26-2005, 11:04 AM

Harry,

Guy like you are the ones I am really talking to. Those of us who don't fly RAFs are always going to have our motives suspected. If enough pilots who fly the RAF apply peer pressure, to the few remaining CFIs who support the company position, to put stabs on their ships. The company will have no choice but to change.

To Ken J and Chuck,

I have no illusions about Don's altruism. He will not make a change until he is forced. I do think that he will make that change rather than see the company go belly up.

I came into this sport in 1997. Considering the nature of an experimental aircraft enthusiast, the amount of progress in educating the public about what makes a gyro stable is enormous. It is unfortunate that the company with the most popular gyro is headed by people who put ego and money ahead of their customers lives. We are making progress. 40-60% of all RAF have Hstabs that is major progress.

People are still dying unnecessarily. That's why I am calling on all of you educated knowledgeable pilots. The ones who understand the risks and still choose to fly the RAF to find a way to put pressure on the CFI's to put an Hstab on their machines. If you see anyone flying a RAF without a stab make sure he is educated to what the risks are. I don't have the ability influence these people that you do because I don't fly a RAF.

Come on guys. I AM begging you to do what I can't. People are dying because of misinformation and ignorance. YOU can make a difference.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

C. Beaty

07-26-2005, 11:33 AM

The “dunny lid” stabilizer (to use the Australian slang) could conceivably make the RAF-2000 pass stick free stability tests.

Not in all eternity would it pass the stability criteria stick fixed.

I’m not convinced RAF’s fear of litigation drives their intransigence.

The problem, Doug, is that RAF doesn’t have pockets deep enough to make big time product liability lawyers salivate. You can bet that whatever tangible assets, if any, owned by RAF are pretty well shielded by other “owners” and leased back to the Corporation.

Perhaps you and Solicitor Holmes would like to take them on pro bono?

Doug Riley

07-26-2005, 12:26 PM

Chuck, I'm a deals-and-transactions guy and don't do litigation as a rule... and never in the personal-injury arena.

Anybody selling aircraft would do well to protect his or her assets from attachment, to the extent legally possible. Some very good people in the amateur-aircraft world, such as Wayne Ison of TEAM aircraft, have been shut down by suits stemming from crashes. Your product doesn't have to be "defective" (in the sense that we usually understand the word) in order for that to happen. I don't find the victim-as-manufacturer argument very convincing at all, and I bet a lot of judges wouldn't, either. RAF got lucky on that case (with help from PRA and EAA, by the way).

Since the shiny cabin and car engine of the RAF seem to appeal to so many people, I'd rather see the market accommodate those buyers safely. I think that the company could reorganize with non-identical ownership and come out with a CLT-plus-HS version (i.e. a Sparrowhawk copy!) and a retrofit kit, a la Air Command. They could announce it as a "performance enhancer" for the "classic" RAF 2000. If they changed the pod to streamline it back over the engine somewhat, the claim would be quite legitimate.

That ought to make everyone reasonably happy, while saving lives and ending the bickering.

I dunno about the whale tail and testing. I do know that rotors sometimes quit making thrust temporarily. Both the pilot's stick skills and the whale tail are only as potent as rotor thrust is at a given moment in time. If the rotor thrust is interrupted long enough for the frame to pitch down a critical amount (I'm guessing 20-30 degrees of nose-down frame rotation), then the PPO process will be irreversible.

Anyone who claims the whale tail can reliably prevent this by merely altering stick pressures has a pretty heavy burden of proof, IMHO.

C. Beaty

07-26-2005, 01:26 PM

Sufficient modification of the RAF-2000 to make it statically and dynamically stable would require the services of an engineer knowledgeable about gyros, Doug.

The lack of that capability is, in my opinion, what makes them cling to the status quo; not litigation fear.

The most expedient way would be for them to purchase a license from Goen Brothers. That’s about as likely as getting killed by a meteorite.

Harry_S.

07-26-2005, 02:45 PM

I will not say anything other than, I am with your post #161.

Udi

07-26-2005, 03:21 PM

From what I've picked up, and to the best of me recollection, the ASTM standards for stability do not require fixed-stick stability, only free stick. Even if it did, some stabbed RAF-2000 and other stabbed HTL gyros may pass these tests, while being prone to PPO. These gyros will, of course, be less likely to enter a PIO or a spontaneous PPO, but they will always face the risk of a zero-G induced PPO.

RAF don't have to copy the Sparrow Hawk, and they don't need a gyro engineer on staff to come up with a better design. Look at Larry Boyer's modified RAF, which is based on Ausi-Paul's modified RAF. Larry has made relatively simple changes to achieve, in my opinion, a much safer gyro. A gyro does not have to be a perfect CLT to be safer.

In my opinion RAF is not fixing their design simply because they are ignorant and are trying hard to stay this way. They don't understand the issues, and they don't know how easy it is to fix the problems. Their ignorance is fueled by a large circle of equally ignorant users and agents/instructors. Their brains are totally numb from being pounded on all these years. They don't even listen anymore.

Someday they will see the light and a new and safer design will emerge. Enthusiastic RAF pilots like Larry Boyer, who improved his own RAF, should be the ones helping RAF out of their ignorance (hey, look guys, it REALLY flies better). If litigation is what they worry about – Doug’s advice above should help them improve their design while protecting their behinds.

I will be happy to volunteer my time and knowledge to help make the RAF-2000 a safer machine. I am sure others will too. I don’t think this is what they are missing, but if it is, this is a public offer for them to have my services - free.

Udi

Timchick

07-26-2005, 07:42 PM

Companies come out with improved models and products all the time. It wouldn't take much for RAF to discontinue the RAF 2000 model and come out with an improved model. It's a normal progression. Car manufacturers adapt new technology and features into new models every year. This same progression applies just as much to the gyroand aircraft industry. We aren't still flying Wright flyers and driving model T's. Of course, this solution would require RAF to realize there actually are improvements over the 2000.

Rotornut

07-27-2005, 07:21 AM

Four Years Ago I got a EAR Full from Don about my talking bad about the RAF's. I debated with him and listened and from what I understood they (HE) will not Change a thing. I as most know Speak my Mind Freely, and Don sees everthing thru his Eyes Only. When we get calls or emails from interested persons wanting to buy or purchase a RAF I (me) try to make them see and understand just what they are buying into. This does not always discourage them but like Brad said I Tryed.

Most will try to see the difference, but then they talk with CFI's for RAF and my Thoughts get throwed out the door. I like and Respect Jim Logan and Duanne Hunn, Doffin Fritts but lets admit what we KNOW they believe in DON and RAF!

I want to ask that all the Family try to thrash this out without hurting others feelings or calling anyone names. My Father always said to me "What you say out loud that others hear you can not take back" you can say your Sorry but they will Always Remember what you said even when they say its ok I forgive you!

My Feelings for Jim, Duanne,Dofin are they are Heck of Pilots, but not all have that ability, but could learn it. But at Whose Expense!

This is only MY two Cents not Richards MJ :)

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-27-2005, 08:47 AM

MJ you are a real sweetheart and we are all proud of how you defend the family.

I always read your contributions and would some day like to meet you and Richard.

Maybe next year I will have enough free time to attend Bensen days again.

Wouldn't it be nice if this RAF thing were settled by then?

Just look at the number of bitter feelings that just one company generates in such a small group, it's truly sad.

Chuck E.

Rotornut

07-27-2005, 09:15 AM

Thanks Chuck E for the Kind Words. I do Hope to Meet you Soon, like 2006?
This issue with RAF has cost me some of my Family Dofin and Marissa Fritts no longer attend BD Days over this Crap. I do MISS Them Both.

We all will not always see things the sameway or agree with each others views and opinions but when the Going gets Rough we are all there for Each Other.

Sometimes when I need to talk I email Chuck or see him up at Wauchula we all need each other and this is a good thing.

OK I know stop the BS. This is my feelings for whatever its worth.

MJ :)

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-27-2005, 10:00 AM

MJ it is not B.S. unfortunately it is for real.

I also phone Chuck from time to time, I was supposed to go to Florida and check out a guy on the water in his Super Catalina and thak Chuck for a ride, but it just gets put off from one year to the next...

..Chuck is a real good type and I admire his base of knowledge and his way of explaining the complex in a simple manner. And of course we have many others that post here that do the same.

Hopefully some day things will settle down and there will be no more needless loss of friends either by anger or worse by death.

Anyhow MJ we gotta get more positive...take care.

Chuck E.

PW_Plack

07-27-2005, 09:32 PM

MJ, you illustrate a point I've tried to make before...

Predictable, yet ironic, that when the argument gets nasty and the attacks personal, the RAF guys stop participating in these discussions, and instead market to people outside sport gyroplane circles, not aware of the debate. Who wouldn't?

If someone really doesn't believe you, yelling louder or name-calling doesn't work. Make sure newbies are aware of the issues, and encourage them to do their homework, but once they've put their money down it's too late. Stop driving them away, and maybe someday they'll come around.

This reminds me of older folks who wouldn't wear seat belts in cars, saying they were safer if they were thrown free in a crash. We didn't convince them by telling them they were stupid, or criminals. It just took time, and the facts.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-27-2005, 10:52 PM

" Stop driving them away, and maybe someday they'll come around. "

Paul if you are referring to RAF and their company instructors they have not come around in fifteen years, what are the chances of that changing now?

The best thing for the gyro community would be for them to just go out of business.

However that is not likely to happen because they recruit their victims from a never ending supply of uniformed readers of their slick promotion material.

So I guess that nothing will really change.

Chuck E.

spaceman spiff

07-27-2005, 11:00 PM

Pretty sure Plack means owners, not factory guys.

People can and do get driven away if they are being hacked on too much.

Harry_S.

07-28-2005, 07:49 AM

Cobra Doc

07-28-2005, 10:55 AM

As of today there still isn't anything new on the NTSB report. Unfortunately, since it is an Experimental-Amateur built, the Final Report may not say much more than the Preliminary. Which means as in most of these cases we are left to speculation. I am getting tired of speculating about RAF crashes. I've been in contact with some of my former Army buddies that are recognized world-wide as the definitive authorities on rotor-craft. Overall they like gyros. I asked them to take a look at 8 specific models, some of those in various configurations. Their responses on the RAF 2000 with and without the "whale-tail" or even the most common stabilizer, leave me with a delima. I was trying to categorize the RAF the same way we look at the extreme aerobatic airplanes. The common thread to the responses was that short of completely changing the aircraft into a different model (Sparrowhawk mod) the aircraft can not be flown safely. Even a Knight Twister can be flown safely! The only aircraft they could come up with that was even close in the likelyhood of a given flight ending unsuccesfully was the 1903 Wright Flyer. Your odds of success are better in the Wright. I guess I need to reconsider my position on the RAF.

Harry_S.

07-28-2005, 01:06 PM

Hi Cody:

It's been a while since I saw you here.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers, but...as regards your helo buddies...how many hours do they, as individuals, have as PIC of an RAF and in what configuration?! IMO, one cannot give a *qualified* recommendation on the safety of the RAF gyroplane unless they have flown the different configured aircraft for a number of hours. If they have flown the RAF for say, 100-150 hrs., I can accept their evaluation, if not...

Cody, look thru the NTSB accident reports since 1993 and you will find, except for ONE unknown, all pilots involved had less than 75 hrs. experience in the RAF. One had *0* hours and 4 had less than 9 hrs. gyro experience.

I cannot find an RAF accident involving an RAF pilot with over 100 hrs. PIC.
So, I believe training and experience means...something. I don't know what your pre-requisites for RAF coverage are, but 150-200 hrs. as PIC would be good with me...but...I'm not the underwriter. :rolleyes:

Cheers :)

I have to add here...150-200 hrs. with the addition of a horizontal stab.

KenSandyEggo

07-28-2005, 02:45 PM

Harry, so how do they get to 100 hours? Should their CFIs not sign them off to solo until they reach that plateu? I don't get your reasoning.

Again Harry, you don't have to fly an unstable gyro to determine that it's unstable. I believe that some scientific studies have proved that. Just having a thrust-line that high above the C of G tells anyone with just a hint of aeronautical knowledge that it's not safe to be flown that way.

I'm sure you believe that it was unsafe to have flown the Graf Zeppelin loaded with helium. If you agree, how do you know? Did you ever fly one?

Cobra Doc

07-28-2005, 04:00 PM

Harry;
I don't know that any of them currently have any RAF PIC time, from their findings, I doubt they ever will. Part of their findings are that any stab mounted on the tail boom is better than no stab. If they want to be identified, they'll publish something. I can guarantee that the computers they worked the sims on are more powerful than anything we have access to. Since I know these people personally and have flown (and done other interesting things) with most of them, I can trust them implicitly. Hence my dilema. RAF pilots say the machine is safe. Experts that are also test pilots want a warning when one will be in their area so they can escape the fall out. (Don't ask me to go for a ride in one. I've already turned down two offers.) I'll continue, for now, writing RAF 2000s with horizontal stabs for experienced gyro pilots. I figure with a 150-200 hours gyro time, a pilot would have a good idea what's in store.

C. Beaty

07-28-2005, 05:18 PM

I'm sure you believe that it was unsafe to have flown the Graf Zeppelin loaded with helium. If you agree, how do you know? Did you ever fly one?

Just a minor detail or two. That was the Hindenburg and the gas was hydrogen.

KenSandyEggo

07-29-2005, 12:22 AM

Hmmmmm......guess I should have stayed awake in history class.

Ted Eggleston

07-29-2005, 02:11 AM

1. Why not ask the PRA to write to aviation insurance companies pointing out the abnormally high risks with the non stab'd gyro's like RAF. These companies react to statistics, and in the process may significantly increase the premiums for these type of aircraft. Nothing hurts like a hit to the back pocket.

2. As indicated much earlier, change the flight training manuals and ask the FAA or relevant body to ensure ( by endorsing) that all training to include a strong section in relation to static stability.

3. Limit non stab'd gyros from participating in promotional events, which involve the general public. As a sport you need to be seen to be proactive not reactive.

4. There must be a swag of statistics available to collate and use as evidence to confront the "RAF's are safe" statement. There are a number of highly experienced people in this forum ( in both flight time and understanding of flight aerodynamics) who continually promote the belief that RAf's in an unstab'd configuation are unsafe. They can't all be wrong.

5. Create a positive catch phrase and use on T Shirts or car stickers, promoting the lower risk involving stab'd machines. Wear these at airshows where RAF are being promoted.

6. Write to Promoters of Air Shows suggesting that by promoting high risk aircraft, that they may well be targetted by lawyers on behalf of surviving members of the family for the death or injury of a person.

7. This is not a question of courage here, just will power. You need to take a stand, draw a line in the sand and say 'I will do this to try and improve the sport for everyone'.

Ted

Lotchik

07-29-2005, 06:27 AM

Cody, as a new guy getting into the Gyro business you and I have two things in common it sounds like. One, we are both Army Cobra nuts, you as a former Cobra doc and I as a former Cobra pilot and IP. Second neither one of us knows that much about gyros and are trying to get straight facts about them to make good decisions. As an insurance underwriter, I would hope that you are making your decisions on facts and personal knowledge from the industry you are underwriting so that those of us looking for insurance in that industry will be able to afford it when we finally get our aircraft built.

Basing this important decision on Opinions from either side of any argument on this website or any other for that matter is in my Opinion not a good sound business practice. You should know from experience that aircraft type and design has less to do with accidents than does pilot experience and even worse, pilot decisions. We have already had two deaths here at EAA Airventure 2005 and it appears that both may have been caused by gross errors in decision making and nothing to do with the aircraft. Two other accidents appear to have been pilot error and not aircraft design issues either. Growing up in the Oshkosh and Fond du Lac, WI area I am once again here at EAA Oshkosh where I would like to invite you to come and ask the hard questions of those that are here about why one aircraft may be more insurable than the other. And Yes I will even ask you to take orientation rides in both the RAF and the Sparrowhawk since both are here and sit 50 feet from each other at the Fond du Lac Airport with some of the best CFI’s in the industry demonstrating to customers why theirs is the one you should buy. Your underwriting will be an important part of that decision for the new gyro pilot that is buying, building and beginning to fly.

Someone asked how you get to the 100 to 150 hours then to get insured. Maybe you need to start working with the CFI’s and linking your prices and insurance availability to the type, and quality of instruction instead of trying to decide on an arbitrary number of hours as a way to minimize the risks of insuring the low time beginning pilot. Those that take lessons and signed off by CFI’s before they take things into their own hands would be insurable. Or something like that. Just like ATV’s, personal watercraft and vehicles, the insurance industry can also help with unsafe flying through dictating terms that new pilots can actually live with instead of having to hang it out there for that critical 150 hours while they learn.

I submit to you that it would be worth every minute of your time if you could come up here this weekend and talk to Don and Linda LaFleur about their company’s decisions. Come and see what the Stabilator will do and why every RAF 2000 here at Oshkosh now has one on. Come and talk to Duane Hunn, Jim Logan, Dofin Fritts, and Steve McGowan and other AAI demonstrators about what they are doing to make sure the Gyro industry as a whole is a safer place. And most importantly come and talk to the customers that are flying and that are building (like me) why your decisions are so very important to us and the safe growth of this industry.

Finally, don’t let a place to stay or a lack of transportation stop you either, (All Hotels and rental cars are usually spoken for this week) I can take care of both those issues for you.

Hope to see you here this weekend and sorry for the late invite. Ken Cerney

Doug Riley

07-29-2005, 08:56 AM

PPO-inducing nose-down torque on your airframe caused by a high thrustline is an "opinion" in exactly the same way that 50 foot-pounds on your torque wrench is an "opinion."

C. Beaty

07-29-2005, 09:00 AM

P.T. Barnum was right.

Udi

07-29-2005, 09:20 AM

The phrase you are referring to, Chuck, was actually stated by David Hannum, owner of the Cardiff Giant (which later turned out to be a hoax), not P.T. Barnum. Unfortunately, even informed people can make the wrong decision in the hands of a real slick sales person. Especially people without a scientific background.

Udi

Vance

07-29-2005, 10:24 AM

Ken sounds open minded and he has a good background in rotary wing aviation. He seems to want to join in the fun.

I don't think that insulting him is the best way to get him to listen. I would expect that he wasn't insulted at the RAF booth.

I believe that people making informed choices is the goal of most of the knoledgeable people who post here.

The people from RAF are very good at making their case and some of us are not willing to expose our ignorance by challenging their assertions.

All flying machines are compromised in some way and it is a complex enough challenge to hold my interest. The forces are not hard to quantify and understand, but I don't feel that the results of forces are so easy to understand. It is, on the other hand, easy to blame someone who is not here any longer for making a mistake that someone with good training and experance feels they wouldn't make.

I hope Ken will search out the information that is located all over this forum to make a good choice. I know that when people insult me it only increases my resolve to stick to my opinion and prove them wrong.

Thank you, Vance

Doug Riley

07-29-2005, 10:49 AM

Vance, I respectfully have to disagree that RAF are good at making their case. They have not to my knowledge supplied clear, defensible answers yet when certain simple questions are asked. The questions are:

(1) Do you agree that a thrustline above CG imposes a nose-down torque on the airframe equal to thrust x distance of thrustline above CG?

(2) What counters this torque on a gyro without a H-stab located on the airframe?

(3) Under what circumstances can the source of the counter-force produce inadequate or zero counter-force?

(4) What will happen when the counter-force IS inadequate or zero?

(5) Cannot CLT eliminate the event identified in #4?

(6) What is the reason you have not revised your design to CLT?

Courteous, intelligent discourse is a two-street. Both sides must agree that they will refer to fact and science to defend their claims. Name-calling, as you say, isn't helpful. Neither is mis-characterizing science and fact as "opinion."

Harry_S.

07-29-2005, 10:51 AM

Ken J.; One gets to 100 hrs. PIC of an RAF the same way hundreds of other RAF pilots have gotten to 100+ hrs.

And...I think I have a basic understanding of HTL. I flew my RAF, in stock configuration, for 90 hrs. before I installed your HS. I installed your HS due to your claim of improved performance...not because I was uncomfortable with the HTL.

.

Cobra Doc

07-29-2005, 10:57 AM

Ken;
One of my contacts is some one you more than likely since you have spent probably more time at Mother Rucker than I did. Does "Kermitt" ring a bell? If it does, then you know who ran the numbers and how it was done. Unfortunenatly OSH is out my future this year, but I will be available for rides and discussions at Copperstate. I'm not exactly completely new to gyros. I helped rebuild the Pitcairn in the museum at Eustis. I have been around others also. On my first day at Ft. Eustis we learned why Snakes and Hueys have stabilators. It's for the same reason that the RAF needs one: high thrust line. I'm doing everything I possibly can to keep gyro insurance reasonable and, more importantly, available. All indicators are that high thustline nonstabilized gyroplanes are contrary to my efforts. That doesn't mean insurance is not available for them. We are not the only company writing gyro insurance. My competitors in Texas are fond of the stock RAF. It's my understanding that they will not write a modified RAF 2000. I can not, in good conscience, write an aircraft that I believe is unsafe . It's bad for us, the insurance agent, the aircraft owner and the gyro community in general. The only way I can tell any aircraft "manufacturer" to fix their aircraft is by not underwriting it. I will continue to give experienced pilots the benifit of the doubt. Yes, I am writing insurance for gyro training facilities. My "20 hour dual prior to solo" requirement is not an option and the instructors don't have a problem with it. I am fully aware of Light Sport requirements. I also know that the FAA doesn't pay claims.

Vance

07-29-2005, 11:18 AM

Doug,

The evidence that they make a good case is all the RAF's they have sold.

Please don't misunderstand me. I agree with you and your understanding of the forces.

The point I was trying to make is that is not as clear as you feel it is. Many people that are no longer with us were not able to grasp the impact of the forces. I suspect that most of them were smart people. I believe that this makes civil discourse and the sharing of knoledge very important.

I feel that people buy for emotional reasons and not facts and figures. I would have a very hard time rationaly justifying the purchase of a gyroplane kit.

The only thing I was trying to say is name calling won't help and I believe we agree on this.

Thank you, Vance

Udi

07-29-2005, 11:47 AM

Vance,

I can't agree with you completely because, every time I hear of another smoking hole in the ground, which I KNOW was completely preventable, I can't avoid the emotional response that makes me call the people who are responsible for this criminal stupidity names (you see, I just did it again...).

Research shows that most people cannot comprehend sentences as long as the one I wrote above, so the risk of me offending anyone who cannot understand these stability issues is minimal. But I know you do. :cool:

Udi
p.s. I thought I might add the purpose of this post was to inject a bit of humor into this stiff discussion and it doesn't require any thoughtful reply... I read some of the other posts in this thread also as a bit of a joke and if we take them lightly nobody will get offended...

jdalexa

07-29-2005, 12:23 PM

Why would these people keep selling these things???? Why in the world does the dealers and instructors for this company seem like such nice upstanding people in all respects and then also sell people these death traps?

Ron,

While there is no doubt that H.S.'s make a gyro safer, what would you have RAF do? They are hamstrung by the state of litigation in this country.

Should they put a H.S. on the design? That would simply admit that the version without one was faulty. They would loose everything in the storm of lawsuits that would follow within milliseconds.

Should they just pack it in? The company owners and workers and RAF-2000 owner base probably aren't too keen on that.

Come up with a completely new design. I'm sure if you financed it they would be happy.

The RAF is a fine machine - though with shortcomings. Railing against them is counter productive. Constructive education of folks is the ticket.

jdalexa

07-29-2005, 12:30 PM

Paul has an excellent point here. I would be willing to bet that in their private hearts, the RAF folks would love to put a H.S. on the design. Of course to do so right now admits a faulty design. Then the bottom feeder lawyers gather.

Now, if insurance requires a H.S. for coverage, then RAF has a legit reason to hang a H.S. on the design without painting a great big target on their factory for all the litigation lawyer scumm to home in on.

C. Beaty

07-29-2005, 12:32 PM

Udi, PT Barnum referred to himself as “Prince of Humbugs” which was brought to mind by reference to discussions with RAF Marketing principals.

Barnum’s side show exhibits were in large part fakes but his customers were entertained which is what show business is about so it wouldn’t be entirely accurate to say they were gypped. At least, they weren’t subjected to bodily harm.

I do recall reading “a sucker is born every minute” was incorrectly attributed to Barnum.

There are going to be smoking holes in the ground as long as those humbugs in Saskatchewan operate. With a population of nearly 300,000,000 in this country alone, they’ll never run out of poorly informed, gullible people mesmerized by shiny objects.

Vance

07-29-2005, 01:04 PM

I have spoken with several people at RAF and they say that they tried a Horizantal stabilizer and it made the ship dangerous. They are of the opinion that their Stabilator and their magic bushing provide all the stabilzing that anyone could use.

When I flew in an RAF with a stabilator, the CFI I flew with said that he felt that a horizantal stasblizer would be a good thing for someone like me, who was not able to keep the ship steady.

I don't think that the idea of it being a legal issue holds up. When the EAA and the PRA helped RAF win in court it is my understanding that a horizantal stabilizer was not the legal issue. My source on this is weak, so if someone knows differently please correct me.

Making changes in a design is a normal process. RAF doesn't have the assets to attract an attorney with much in the way of resorces. I believe that the legal jargon is "judgement proof".

The person who designed the ship is no longer involved at RAF and they may feel that they are not capable of improving on the design.

Ehud, I am amazed at your grasp of this culture, although I didn't reconize the humor, sorry. The smart people I was speaking of were the dead pilots who were cleaver enough to get into the air, but may have lacked and understanding of the gravity of the situation. I believe that the people at RAF are smart also, but they are not aeronautical engineers.

Thank you, Vance

automan1223

07-29-2005, 01:16 PM

Raf is judgement proof. They have no liability insurance and to bankrupt them would be the only reward you could do to them. Most victims of the raf bunt/ppo/pio issue do not have the legal resources to do that.

Its pointless.

I remember a saying.

"Buyer Beware". Do your homework. If you accept the risks then proceed on your own.

Jonathan

Cobra Doc

07-29-2005, 01:27 PM

Makes me want to give up the business of aviation all together and go in the custom composites business so I can buy an HU-16 and hang out in the Carribean with Jimmy. Anybody have a vaccuum pump that wiil pull 20" they need to get rid of?

Brad_King

07-29-2005, 05:36 PM

Vance and Ken,

Since you seem to be on good terms with Don, Jim, and Duane. Can you get them to show you the math on how the Stabilator and "Magic Bush" work in a full power zero G event? If they can't it is just an opinion. If you will notice all of the people behind CLT and H stabs CAN show the math. That means it is NOT an opinion. I know Duane and Jim. They really are nice pleasant people to talk to. They sound reasonable and knowledgable and can fly the heck out of their aircraft. But if they can't back up their words with FACTS its just an opinion.

I will admit I am amazed that someone would think that an aircraft is not unsafe if it take 150 hrs of experience to be able to keep it from suceeding it killing them.

You are right number of kits sold is a fact. It shows RAF is good at marketing.
So was Dennis Fetters with the old HTL Air Command and the Mini 500. Doesn't say anything about the stability of the product. Just what a good paint job and a superb salesman can do to the uneducated.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

Vance

07-29-2005, 06:11 PM

Brad, I am sorry you missed my points.

The first point was that intelligent people have made choices based on the information thay had that cost them their lives. Insulting people increases their resistance to the information.

The second point was, that as interesting as numbers are, flight of anything is sufficently complex to confuse intelligent people and the aplication of the numbers is not clear. I personaly could not tell how close to disaster I was flying an RAF without a horizantal stabilizer.

I try to be on good terms with everyone and I hope I am on good terms with all the people you mention. I do not have ready access to any of them at this time.

Your logic is badly flawed, being able to quote numbers does not make it fact, not being able to quote numbers only means that they are not able to describe how the machine that they didn't design works. In my experiance most aircraft salesmen can't corectly explain how a Cesna flys and Helicopter salesmen are even worse.

Your assumption that I am a supporter of RAF is wrong. I am a supporter of the exchange of knoledge and I dislike name calling. I would like to see the saftey record of gyroplanes improve and I would like to prevent people from making a smoking hole in the ground. When people use flawed logic to support a legitimate position it weakens the position and makes room for a missunderstanding.

I hope that you don't learn the hard way that no teeter rotor will tolerate a zero g event for more than a few seconds. There are a lot of dead Huey pilots and Robinson pilots who didn't understand that simple fact that is taught in the first hour of most rotorcraft training with any teeter rotor.

Thank you, Vance

Brad_King

07-29-2005, 07:06 PM

Vance,

Most of my post was in response to Ken. You commented also so being lazy I lumped you 2 together. However, this is in reply to your post #198

I have flown at zero G and full power, not intentionally, but, I did none the less. With my ship I have those precious few seconds before my rotor rpm decays too much. I have time to do something after the event not just before.

How can you call it flawed logic when the only gyros that have PPO'd are HTL machines. When the math matches what you see in the accident statistics, you have to give it some weight. When I say numbers I'm not talking about BS that a salesman spouts. I'm talking about physics and aerodynamics Numbers that others can see and work with to prove or disprove.

Don owns the company. Duwayne designed the Stabilator. So you are telling me that, since they can't give me facts to back up their claims, that they don't understand how their gyro works in reguards to stability.

Yet, you tell me to give their position equal weight to the people who can give me facts, about which gyros PPO and why, and then back them up with sound aerodynamic principles.

I'm not talking about salesmen. I'm talking about people whose only motivation is to help stop the carnage. If you want to talk motives. Who are the only people defending the stock RAF?

You point out that intelligent people have made choices based on information that they had and it cost them their lives. Everyone has that right, but what about disinformation. Should we stand quietly by while the company tells the newbie that H stabs are dangerous?

Tell me where my logic is flawed. Educate me.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

GyroRon

07-29-2005, 08:46 PM

Ron,

While there is no doubt that H.S.'s make a gyro safer, what would you have RAF do? They are hamstrung by the state of litigation in this country.

Should they put a H.S. on the design? That would simply admit that the version without one was faulty. They would loose everything in the storm of lawsuits that would follow within milliseconds.

Should they just pack it in? The company owners and workers and RAF-2000 owner base probably aren't too keen on that.

Come up with a completely new design. I'm sure if you financed it they would be happy.

The RAF is a fine machine - though with shortcomings. Railing against them is counter productive. Constructive education of folks is the ticket.

John, this is a common idea that people often use to make sence out of why RAF will not follow the rest of the gyro community and use a Stab or go to center line thrust. But it is not the case.

I fly a Vans RV-4 airplane that was designed back in the 70's. Vans came out with a RV-6 a few years later. Should I sue Vans cause the RV-6 is better? Should family members of people killed in RV-4's sue Vans now that there is RV-6 - and also RV 7's 8's 9's and now 10's -???

What about cars and trucks? When ford redesigned the new F-150's a year ago, did that give owners of all ford F-150s the right to sue? The new truck is all new.....

Nothing is stopping RAf from coming out with a RAF-3000 that could be the same ship just with a few changes. Or a RAF-2000 Limited edition or something.... that includes a Horizontal stab.

And as for the lack of talent or funds to design a new ship.... Come on John, you got to come up with something better than that! Look at the sparrowhawk, it is a collection of crap stolen from other gyro manufactors. All RAF has to do is now copy the sparrowhawk and It is that easy. I bet that if allowed, Chuck Beaty or some others here would gladly draw up the blue prints for RAF to make a improved model.

I am not for the death of RAF. They are great at promoting gyroplanes. If they could offer a improved model, they would be a great asset to the sport. But as they are now, they are selling machines that are far more dangerous than need be, and that hurts us hard every time one of them comes down.

spaceman spiff

07-29-2005, 09:38 PM

Vance

07-29-2005, 11:18 PM

Brad, If you have flown a teeter rotor at zero g's for a few seconds that is quite remarkable. Generaly the rotor will hit something shortly after achieving zero g. Part of the sequence of events in a ppo is the rotor striking the tail as the pio reaches negitive g's. A teeter rotor knows which way is up because of gravity and it becomes confused quickly when gravity is removed. A helicopter with a powered rotor and no thrust cuts it's tail off as you drop down the back side of a line of trees. Low G events are to be avoided with a teeter rotor.

Your flawed logic is self contained. Not being able to show me the math is not evidence that it is just an opinion. Being able to produce math is not evidence that it is fact. There may be other evidence that supports your conclusion, but it was not contained in your statement.

I have never said to give RAF's position equal weight. I said that calling names is not going to change someones mind and works against someone absorbing the information.

I am advocating making an effort to educate people to be able to recoginize the challenges that certain design omissions creat. Calling names and drawing unreasonable or exaggerated conclusions is counterproductive. As interesting as the NTSB information is, with the limited data points and ignorant observaions I would have a hard time saying that it proves anything. It is certainly an indication of a design limitation and the information on the aircomand would support the conclusion that a high thrust line in a pusher is bad and a horizantal stabilizer is usefull. I believe this to be the case, but I would not call someone names because they didn't draw the same conclusions.

I have flown in a RAF with a stabilator and it was more pitch stable than an RAF I flew without one. It is dificult for me to understand how someone could believe that it or a small horizantal stabilizer on a short arm cold make up for the thrust offset of an RAF. A very smart friend of mine likes the way his RAF flies with a small horizantal stabilizer on a short arm. I would not call him names because his opinion is not aligned with mine.

I am not able to imagine any reason to build an aircraft that is dificult to fly and has a tendency to tumble out of the sky. Part of what I love about gyroplanes compared to helicopters is they are easier to fly and harder to crash. I don't see any value in a high thrust line in a pusher. I am not able to imagine any reason to build a short coupled aircraft without a horizantal stabilizer.

pwendell

07-29-2005, 11:21 PM

The second point was, that as interesting as numbers are, flight of anything is sufficently complex to confuse intelligent people and the aplication of the numbers is not clear. I personaly could not tell how close to disaster I was flying an RAF without a horizantal stabilizer.

Vance,

We've met. I know that you are a genuinely nice person who only has what's best for gyros in his heart, but your statement above demonstrates precisely why we must give more weight to scientific arguments that are founded on provable theories and demonstrable facts, than we do to anectdotale reports made by (possibly) interested parties. It is easy to become confused!!! The one indisputable fact about the RAF organization is that they have refused to engage in the debate about gyroplane safety in any public forum. Even if they are right, their refusal to participate has done a disservice to us all. If they are right, they owe all of us, and especially their customers, a convincing and verifiable reason(s) why they are. I personally don't feel that stating the proven, and up to now unchallenged, physics of gyroplane stability without apology is in any way inflamatory or divisive.

Sometimes the Truth is offensive to some people, maybe even to people we like and care about. That can't be helped. We owe all those about whom we care the best we can give.

pwendell

07-29-2005, 11:30 PM

I have flown in a RAF with a stabilator and it was more pitch stable than an RAF I flew without one.

Vance,

Respectfully, all you can say is that it 'Felt' more pitch stable to you. You have no data to prove that it actually was more stable.

Vance

07-29-2005, 11:44 PM

Peter, I like you too.

My point is still that if a person doesn't see the world the way I do it doesn't mean they are stupid or dishonest or suckers. It only means that given the same information they drew a different conclusion. It is not simple and moving someone off of a position is not easy.

It is not the truth that is ofensive, it is people calling other people names and not having respect for others reasoning that I find offensive.

Thank you, Vance

P.S. Just to be clear, my gyroplane design is a tractor with very close to centerline thrust and a very large horizantal stabilizer on a very long arm. I haven't built and flown it yet so it is just my opinion and I would not tell anyone that they were wrong to have a different design, especialy if theirs had flown sucessfully. I have lots of math to back up my thoughts, but that doesn't make it fact.

Vance

07-29-2005, 11:51 PM

Peter, I could let go of the stick and the pitch excursions stoped with the stabilator, I needed the CFI to dampen the excursions in the RAF without a stabilator or horizantal stabilizer. I was carefull to make it clear that it was a different aircraft in case the stability came from some other source.

Thank you, Vance

KenSandyEggo

07-30-2005, 01:06 AM

John, that logic is erroneous, even though the masses of people believe it. Improving a product for safety does not open the manufacturer to liability in any way. Otherwise, you would not see finger-guards on machines, foot-guards on power mowers, 3-prong electrical outlets and cords, seat-belts, radial tires, air-bags, safety-glass, chain-guards....I don't think I need to go on. It's an established tenet in civil law that a manufacturer's safety improvements to a product cannot be used as evidence of prior negligence. That argument would be thrown out immediately by any judge, and the attorney would be chastized for sleeping in class. If this were the case, no manufacturer would dare add a safety improvement to their products.

KenSandyEggo

07-30-2005, 01:08 AM

"We didn't convince them by telling them they were stupid, or criminals."

Paul, in every state, I believe, you indeed are a criminal if you or your passengers fail to hook up your seat belts. The fines are often stiffer than if you mugged a grandma on the street.

C. Beaty

07-30-2005, 07:18 AM

It doesn’t require exceptional intelligence or scientific training to understand in a qualitative way why a yo-yo rolls down a string or why a rotary lawn sprinkler spins.

So how can it be that otherwise rational people deny that the universal laws of nature which govern the behavior of yo-yos and lawn sprinklers don’t apply to gyros? A gyro of course isn’t a lawn sprinkler or a yo-yo but Mother Nature doesn’t care. Mass is mass; center of mass is center of mass; moment of inertia is moment of inertia and torque is torque.

Not all suicide bombers are mentally retarded but all believe as a matter of faith that after blowing themselves up and killing a number of innocent people, they’ll instantly enter Paradise and romp with 76 virgins.

It seems to me that the mindset of those who accept the gospel according to Don LeFluer is the same as that of suicide bombers; irrational faith.

Proselytizing the true believers is a waste of time. The only good that can come from these never ending discussions of basic principles is that those whose minds aren’t yet closed might be saved from boring a smoking hole.

GyroRon

07-30-2005, 07:35 AM

Why hack on Sparrohawk for doing what you wish RAF would? Everyone stands on someone elses shoulders. Some do it better than others.

Why hack on John over a theory? Sure its irrational, but guess what? RAF is irrational. Johhs theory is as good as any.

I am not hacking on anyone Spiffy, this is the world of experimental aircraft.... most of everything out there is a collection of parts or ideas that someone else has already come up with. The sparrowhawk is a good machine and takes the key goodies off of many designs to end up with a dam fine machine.

Johns idea that RAF is forced to not improve their gyro or come out with a new model altogether out of fear of a lawsuit is just plain wrong. I used to think this idea made sence too, but it just doesn't.

Harry_S.

07-30-2005, 07:53 AM

I have spoken with several people at RAF and they say that they tried a Horizantal stabilizer and it made the ship dangerous.

Maybe they had it installed upside down...backwards...etc. :rolleyes: Just kidding, Vance. :D

Seriously, that statement by RAF Marketing is downright ludicrous. Every gyro person on earth knows better, as do the people at RAF Marketing, as well? Statements such as that, certainly don't help their reputation.

You know...maybe the feedback from a poll of the RAF owners would get them off center?!

Cheers :)

C. Beaty

07-30-2005, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by vance
I have spoken with several people at RAF and they say that they tried a Horizantal stabilizer and it made the ship dangerous.

I’m intrigued as to the origin of that statement.

One of RAF’s CFI/dealers sent them a stab years ago and they came out with the pronouncement that it made the machine too stable and Dan H. flew right into the ground because he couldn’t flare. Others have claimed RAF tossed it in a corner and never installed it on a machine.

I’ve heard the late Bill Parsons express concern that a horizontal stab was dangerous because a gust might blow the tail up into the rotor. Duane Hunn was Bill’s understudy for a number of years where he could have picked up that tidbit of voodoo aeronautics.

Cierva flew one of his early direct control prototypes without a horizontal stabilizer just to prove that direct control made it possible to do so. But not practical; all production Autogiros had enormous stabs.

Vance

07-30-2005, 10:55 AM

Hello Chuck, Three different people in the booth at Oshkosh in 2002 told me that. I don't know their names. I interviewed them seperatly. One of them discribed an incident where some RAF, I wasn't clear if it was theirs, wouldn't flair properly with the horizantal stabilizer. He used this story to illustrate how dangerous it was to second guess their engineering staff.

Thank you, Vance

Brad_King

07-30-2005, 11:32 AM

Vance,

Posted by Vance:
Not being able to show me the math is not evidence that it is just an opinion. Being able to produce math is not evidence that it is fact. There may be other evidence that supports your conclusion, but it was not contained in your statement

I am not sure what you would consider to be acceptable supporting evidence. If a person can use known physics and aerodynamic formula to explain how a PPO works and then show physical evidence that matches what the math predicts, how can that be called an opinion?

Posted by Vance:
One of them discribed an incident where some RAF, I wasn't clear if it was theirs, wouldn't flair properly with the horizantal stabilizer. He used this story to illustrate how dangerous it was to second guess their engineering staff.

If RAF truly does have an engineering staff they shouldn't have any problem showing us the math behind their claims.

My zero G incident was due to a push over at the top of a high speed zoom maneuver. I was either going faster or pulled the stick back harder then I realized. The gyro shot up so abruptly it suprised me and I pushed the stick forward. Since I fly a CLT Hstab machine. There was no PIO/PPO moments to contend with, because the ship rose vertically with very little nose up attitude,almost like an elevator. All I had to worry about was keeping my RRPM from decaying too much. I reduced power and put the ship into a turn to reload the rotor. My point is that the seconds I needed to do this were available because of the configuration of my gyro. If I had beeen in a stock RAF I would be DEAD. I made a mistake. People shouldn't die in a gyro because they make this kind of mistake.

We know there are specific situations that can cause a rotor to experience a zero G incident. Some are caused by pilot error. Some are caused by atmospheric conditions. They are rare but they happen. We know that a HTL nonstabbed gyro will kill you in these situations and there is nothing the pilot can do to prevent it. This is NOT an opinion. It is a well documented statsistically proven mathmatically verified FACT.

It is really hard sometimes to play the lets all be adults and be civil game when people are dying due to some few people spreading intentional misinformation.

I too feel like I am butting my head against a brick wall at times. If it keeps one person dying because all he knew was this misinformation, then I guess the lumps will be worth it.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

C. Beaty

07-30-2005, 11:35 AM

Thanks, Vance.

That statement appears to have its origins in the Dan Hasseloh tale of not being able to flare because of a horizontal stabilizer. Most likely pulled out of thin air.

It amazes me how much credence such tales receive.

Ken J’s stab plans came originally from someone in New Zealand who had heard and believed that tale and therefore designed it with considerable dihedral; the supposition being that air would spill out from underneath during the flare.

Along came Pat McNear (Ft. Myers FL area) who either hadn’t heard that tale or didn’t believe it and installed a Don Parham straight stab on an extension behind the vertical tail in a position so low that it nearly clips the grass. Flares just fine and Pat probably has the most stable of all HTL RAF-2000s.

StanFoster

07-30-2005, 11:42 AM

I have to second that on Pat McNears RAF being probably the most stable RAF out there. I rode with him at Bensen days....and knowing how nice my RAF handled....Pat putting the same stab another 20 inches further back has to even be better. Another point too is Pats is probably running the most horsepower ...nearly 200 according to him.

Stan

Harry_S.

07-30-2005, 11:49 AM

My point is that the seconds I needed to do this were available because of the configuration of my gyro. If I had beeen in a stock RAF I would be DEAD.

Not so, Brad.

I'm still here?! :D

Cheers :)

Brad_King

07-30-2005, 11:54 AM

Harry,

Are you telling me you went through a full power true neg G event in your RAF before you put the Hstab on it?

Details please.

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

Udi

07-30-2005, 12:02 PM

...One of them discribed an incident where some RAF, I wasn't clear if it was theirs, wouldn't flair properly with the horizantal stabilizer. He used this story to illustrate how dangerous it was to second guess their engineering staff...
This story, Vance, makes the reasoning for RAF’s objection to a stab crystal clear. Pure ignorance. Let's just make it clear that when I say the RAF people are ignorant, I am not calling them by names. Ignorant is simply a person who is not informed, or educated, on a given subject.

I am ignorant of many subjects. I am ignorant of opera, sailing, rocket science, and even gene therapy. I am not ashamed to say I am ignorant in these subjects. I am not ignorant about gyroplane aerodynamics.

It is a big problem when people who make and sell aircraft are ignorant of the aerodynamics of the aircraft they make. Their ignorance cannot be forgiven when it costs people their lives, and they insist on staying ignorant.

Your story above reminds me of many conversations I used to have with operators at a chemical plant I used to work for. I loved to be with the operators, and I always asked for their opinions before I made changes to processes, or when we had problems. The operators are not stupid - many of them are very smart, and many times they had a unique insight that was valuable for me to hear. These operators, however, did not have the education to help them understand what was really going on inside pipes, pumps and reactors. So, many times, the explanations operators were giving for problems they observed were totally reasonable for them, but very obviously wrong for anyone educated in Chemical Engineering.

There is nothing wrong in telling people they are wrong, or that they are ignorant on the subject. Obviously, you want to say it with tact, but it's not like you are telling them they are stupid.

I used to give seminars to the operators in our plant. They loved it, and I always got ahhs and oohs from them. They always wanted to understand better their business, and they TRUSTED the engineers and scientists. They didn’t mind letting go of their voodoo thinking.

The people at RAF live in a cave and they don't trust anyone outside their group of followers. Their website and advertisements say their gyros are not only safe, but the safest! Sorry, Vance, these people are either ignorant, or criminal (if they say the RAF2000 is safe when they know it is not), or both. If you understand gyroplane aerodynamics, you should not respect their voodoo theories.

Udi

StanFoster

07-30-2005, 12:08 PM

Udi: Your last post totally explains the difference between calling someone stupid and someone ignorant. I have always respected how you handle people and do it in a polite but correct way. Like you said...we are all ignorant of different areas of life. Dont even get me started on areas I am ignorant in. I cant type fast enough and if I could...it would take two days to finish. What I dont want to be is "stupid". Ignorant is not knowing something.....stupid is not being able to learn something.....big difference. That being said....I know there are areas of life that I am also "stupid" in. But being called ignorant is more pleasing to the ears. :D

Stan

Harry_S.

07-30-2005, 12:11 PM

After I *successfully* installed the KJ stab, I went for an extended fly. On return to the base, I approached the landing phase as I did with my stock machine. As I entered the attitude for my usual flair...the nose didn't come up as before and she seemed to *float* on past where I normally would have touched down. No yaw excursions or any other anomalies. The tail wheel didn't come down as before.

That barn door back there catches a lot of air. ;)

After a few more landings...I had the flair and the touchdown point nailed.

Cheers :)

Vance

07-30-2005, 12:17 PM

Brad, I will be gratefull when you come to understand we are on the same side. I am trying to help you understand why it is not as clear as it might be to inteligent pilots and to sugest a calmer way of approaching the educational process.

In my opinion you are very fortunate that you survived your push over incident. I suspect you did not reach zero or negitive Gs. You are corect that your machine didn't act as badly as some other machines might have.

Thank you, Vance

Harry_S.

07-30-2005, 01:18 PM

Harry,

Are you telling me you went through a full power true neg G event in your RAF before you put the Hstab on it?

Yes Brad...I was at full power and did a full PPO?!

I don't know as to the neg G's? I don't believe I was neg. as I don't think you were either.

I'm not too sharp on descriptive wording, so's, I'd rather describe my happening...eyeball to eyeball. I checked your profile for your location...not much there.

Mind you...I don't want nor recommend anyone mess with neg G. I would like to see all CFI's and BFI's expound on; and in layman's language; the recognition of and recovery from PIO. IMO, this is the killer, more so than HTL.

I know recognizing PIO saved my ass.

C. Beaty

07-30-2005, 01:26 PM

The reason, Harry, your RAF in a flare didn’t behave as it did before you installed the stab was caused by momentum, not air under the stab.

Without the stab, there is very little damping which causes the machine to overshoot your control inputs as a result of its momentum (it’s a flywheel). Your toss and catch routine was something pilots should not have to learn. It’s a behavior that some pilots can acclimate themselves to; others can’t.

A stab reduces both lag and overshoot about the pitch axis.

C. Beaty

07-30-2005, 01:58 PM

A gyro undergoing zero “G” doesn’t tumble or do anything violent so long as there’s not a force trying to turn it into a rotary lawn sprinkler.

A rotor during zero “G” follows the rotorhead so long as the tilting rate does not exceed its ability to follow.

A rotor immersed in a vacuum won’t follow rotorhead motion whether exposed to negative or positive “Gs.”

A rotor immersed in air is fully controllable but can exert no control force on the fuselage during zero "Gs."

A gyro rotor exposed to zero “G” slows down quickly but the pilot has a number of seconds before the rotor slows to the point of no return, depending upon airspeed. A rotor will recover rpm more quickly in a vertical descent.

The “mast bumping” incidents of Bell helicopters have all occurred while performing violent pitching maneuvers. The airframe outruns the rotor and such incidents are not that strongly related to “G’ load.

Harry_S.

07-30-2005, 03:41 PM

I really like and appreciate your explanations, Chuck. Thank you. ;)

Cheers :)

Rotornut

07-30-2005, 07:02 PM

Ken, If you happen to see Marissa Fritts Please tell her I said Hello, and wish her well.
Thanks MJ :)

Douglas Riley

07-31-2005, 04:38 PM

Ken J. is right, technically, about the law. Evidence of post-accident "fixes" is inadmissible to prove that the thing that caused the accident "used" to be more dangerous. The rule arises precisely to avoid producing a perverse disincentive to repairing dangerous situations.

Of course, one of the things that distinguishes a top-notch trial lawyer from a meek bozo is a knack for sneaking around the rules of evidence and getting things into evidence that shouldn't come in. You can see this done on any lawyer show on TV.

So there's a grain of truth to the legal-risk-of-improvements argument. I've suggested ways around this, hoping against hope that the free advice might find its way back to RAF. Obviously, Air Command thought an improvement was worth the legal risk.

As for zero G instantly killing you in any teetering rotor craft -- to some extent you are tapdancing on a land mine when you unload a teetering rotor. In zero G, it doesn't generate any thrust and hence doesn't produce any control forces. That's why an unloaded teetering rotor in a helo can cause trouble. Without rotor thrust, the thrust of the tail rotor (often NOT directed through the aircraft's CG in the roll axis) tends to roll the helo over. A roll control input with the cyclic won't stop the roll, but it will cause the rotor to hit its teeter stops violently. This is a helo version of a PPO, in the roll axis.

In an autogyro, the situation is both better and worse. If the designer arranges all the forces OTHER than rotor thrust so that they balance without the rotor's help, then the craft is MORE stable than the helo when in zero G. IOW, if so balanced, the gyro won't pitch, roll or yaw when the rotor in unloaded -- it will just track straight and level. Like Brad, I've unloaded the rotor in a stable gyro and nothing much happened. You feel like you're going to float out of the seat, then the rotor thrust comes back and on you go.

The special danger of zero G in a gyro -- a danger that is not limited to teeter hinges or any other particular rotor attachment scheme -- is loss of RRPM. We all know that stuffing air through the rotor faster than it can take it will cause excessive flapping -- retreating blade stall. A zero-G event in a gyro is an extreme reduction in rotor angle of attack. This cuts off the autorotational forces that drive the rotor, and hence allows it to slow down. As Chuck Beaty has observed, it'll slow down extra-quickly if you don't take it all the way to zero G, but give it a very shallow angle of attack and keep it lifting a bit without adequate autorotational force to keep it going.

THAT's the inevitable problem with zero G in a gyro, but it's much less threatening than violent instability of the frame. Thankfully, we can design out frame instability simply by following Cierva's 60-plus-year-old patent on CLT.

automan1223

08-01-2005, 11:31 AM

I know you guys say the math proves if you apply x lbs to a mast x feet or inches you get y results. but that is strictly in a static world. Gyros and aircraft are not in a static situation all the time.

Have any of you thought about the power needed to dampen a ppo situation, in other words once the roll gets started, how much force would you need to stop it since you have the weight of the machine and the force of the offset, you have a lot of inertia building I would think.

Kind of like trying to get a balance beam scale to measure out, if you put to much weight on it may overshoot even if the forces are equal.

Any thoughts on inertia, ?

Jonathan.

Doug Riley

08-01-2005, 11:58 AM

You're right, Jonathan.

The more delay there is in arresting a PPO that has started, the more impulse (force x time) is needed to stop it. That argues for a setup in which the PPO moment is continually and completely offset by a counter-moment that doesn't quit on you. IOW, it's better to have a HS that's down-loaded in an amount that counters the PPO moment WITHOUT the gyro having first to pitch over a ways. A gyro with HS at zero incidence DOES have to pitch over a ways before it creates a counter-moment. By then, there's a chance that the rotational momentum of the frame will overpower the HS.

A HS has been "overpowered" if it reaches and exceeds its stall angle of attack without stopping the PPO.

Tandem gyros have a higher pitch-axis moment of inertia than S X S gyros of the same mass. IOW, tandems act like heavy flywheels. They are slower to start rotating, but also more difficult to stop once they get going.

OTOH, a S X S gyro has a higher moment of inertia in the roll axis than an equivalent tandem.

automan1223

08-01-2005, 12:45 PM

I was thinking about this inertia as I watched the monsoon rain season here in NC. I was working on an updated lower bearing mount for my rudder and I was visualizing certain things when I thought about 2 kids on a see saw. I was remembering how if the weight of the person on the other side was close to yours it was fun to do. If the weight was not you either got bounced around by the heavier person or you had to work pushing off against your own weight if you weighed more. Once the other person passed the point of the apex you usually accelerated past your start speed. What this has to do with gyros.

I was just thinking how much force if you in fact had 600 lbs 1 ' of offset and you are crusing say at 60 mph in a fully loaded raf say 1500 lbs. and the mast say rotates forward a few feet, or a few degrees could you mathematically figure out how much weight it would take to push back and save the ship. I am guessing that a 4x8 sheet would almost have enough but I dont know. But who would hang a tail that large to correct an offset.

Or maybe take some scales lift 600 lbs above the scales and drop them from 1'. I wonder what the weight the scales would see.

I am on my 3rd version of my bearing mount, cause my math can get a bit fuzzy late at night.....

Jonathan

jdalexa

08-01-2005, 01:13 PM

The RV-4, 6, and so forth are different designs. Not changes to existing designs. Vans has been able to sell enough of each to afford the cost of tooling and such for new designs. Heck, more RV's are completed a year than all the other GA aircraft put together. Gyros on the other hand is a niche market within a market that isn't robust by any means.

Quad City Challenger is in the same boat with their vertical stab. It is insufficient. In Europe they must sell them with a V.S. having more area. You can't get that V.S. here in the states. With doors on, that plane has some serious adverse yaw. Litigation laws here prevents them from making a change and they stick to the hard line on the V.S as they must.

Rather than bash RAF, accept what they are likely stuck with and educate new folk. I've recommended the RAF to a number of folks with the caveat of adding a H.S. It's a fine machine. Just needs builder tweaking.

gyrogreg

08-02-2005, 01:35 PM

From what I've picked up, and to the best of me recollection, the ASTM standards for stability do not require fixed-stick stability, only free stick.

Udi

Udi and all. I'm in the middle of trying to catch up on this thread after Mentone and Oshkosh. I'm still not near the end of the thread! But, I need to set the record straight on this one.

The ASTM standard does require both fixed stick and free-stick for dynamic stability. I hope the ASTM will allow this small exerpt from the standard:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
4.5.6 Dynamic Longitudinal Stability
4.5.6.1 The gyroplane under smooth air conditions must exhibit no dangerous behavior at any speed between MPRS and VNE with primary cyclic controls fixed and with primary cyclic controls free.
4.5.6.2 No longitudinal oscillations with periods less than 5 s shall be exhibited with primary cyclic controls fixed and with primary cyclic controls free.

4.5.6.3 Any excitable longitudinal oscillations with periods longer than 5 s do not diverge with primary cyclic controls fixed and with primary cyclic controls free.

4.5.6.4 Conditions--Dynamic stability must be met at the following power and trimmed airspeed conditions:
(1) Steady altitude at MPRS,
(2) Full power at the lesser of VH or of VNE,
(3) Engine idle at MPRS, and
(4) Engine idle at 80 % VNE.

---------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic testing should only be accomplished by a professional test pilot. The intent of verifying the oscillatory tendencies of any aircraft runs the risk of exciting oscillations that cannot be stopped (PIO). Fixed stick testing invites PIO on a gyro that has quick and un-damped natural oscilatory inclinations! Don't be trying the fixed-stick testing. Leave this to the manufacturers and professionals.

It is interesting to note that, even though the standard does not allow natural oscillatory periods less than 5 seconds (starting to get quick enough that a pilot can't keep up), aerodynamicists have found that a critically damped oscillation rate of less than a 3 second period actually improves maneuverability performance of an aircraft - without exciting PIO. this is becasue such oscillations are damped in 1/2 cycle - the airframe responds quickly but without bad overshoot that excites pilot over-reaction. This standard can actually be met with a natural oscilatory period of less than 5 seconds as long as it is critically damped so as not to produce oscillations. It is suggested that this critically damped but short period oscilation response is possible with a HS place far enough aft. The standard requres that quick natrual oscillations are not present that might excite pilot over-control. but, if an aircraft can achieve that with critically damped quick reactions, the maneuvering performance is enhanced. But, if the standard is met by simply preventing any quick natural oscillations at all, it will still be safe, but not quite as quickly maneuverable. This also implies that a dynamically unstable, (quick, un-damped natural pitch rate reaction) might be more maneuverable than aircraft with only long period natural oscillations, but the pilot must be adequately skilled to dampen the short period oscillations themselves - or else it is PIO! I beleive there are pilots flying some gyros today that have developed such skills - but others certainly have not!

The static criteria are safe to test. There are some technical reasons why meeting the static criteria of the standard with a HS that is far enough aft of the CG will actually assure desireable dynamic stability.

The PRA Rotorcraft magazine has started publishing a series of articles that explain the gyroplane standards criteria for static stability.

One more note. We'll be making this announcement in other places and media. The PRA Board of Directors has endorsed the ASTM gyroplane Design and Performance standard. This is endorsed as a guideline, not as a requirement. The standard does not specify a HS or particular thrustline. s you all have discussed in this forum, the standard criteria is flight test results oriented. We encourage people to conduct the static stability tests and report the results. This is easy. I did them all this morning in a 1/2 hour flight again - just to have fun!

Doug Riley

08-02-2005, 01:58 PM

Greg, I'd rather not be a nit-picking weenie, but it's probably too late to avoid it.

I think we have to be really careful to distinguish between PIO and stick-fixed divergent oscillations. PIO is PILOT-induced, while stick-fixed oscillations can't involve the pilot because the stick IS locked. A craft may not technically be divergent -- it may be very weakly damped, or perfectly neutral -- and still be a PIO candidate. The persistent natural oscillation of a weakly damped gyro (that's perhaps ultimately stable, if you wait long enough) can tempt an inexperienced pilot to chase the oscillations and make them worse. IOW, the system made up of a weakly damped gyro and newbie pilot CAN be dynamically unstable, even if the craft by itself, stick locked, technically isn't.

The difference isn't just academic. Rotors have a little bit of natural aerodynamic damping all their own, but obviously it's not enough always to prevent PIO.

I think the tests will smoke out the marginal craft in practice. Hope I'm right!

gyrogreg

08-02-2005, 02:24 PM

5. Create a positive catch phrase and use on T Shirts or car stickers, promoting the lower risk involving stab'd machines. Wear these at airshows where RAF are being promoted.

Check out this PRA internet store: Just Stab it (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/Ntt-PRA_nr-1_N-20472735_Ntk-All_D-PRA_Nao-1)

Click the attachment below to see the logo:

- Greg Gremminger

gyrogreg

08-02-2005, 03:22 PM

I think we have to be really careful to distinguish between PIO and stick-fixed divergent oscillations. PIO is PILOT-induced, while stick-fixed oscillations can't involve the pilot because the stick IS locked. A craft may not technically be divergent -- it may be very weakly damped, or perfectly neutral -- and still be a PIO candidate. The persistent natural oscillation of a weakly damped gyro (that's perhaps ultimately stable, if you wait long enough) can tempt an inexperienced pilot to chase the oscillations and make them worse. IOW, the system made up of a weakly damped gyro and newbie pilot CAN be dynamically unstable, even if the craft by itself, stick locked, technically isn't.

Doug, I agree completely. Probably oscillations in even fixed stick mode would not be divergent. But if they were, from excessive control play or some weird airframe aerodynamics, the basis of the "not divergent" criteria is that this would likely be more difficult for the pilot to correct. Divergent pitch oscillations more commonly result from improper pilot intervention - out of time so as to exacerbate the natural oscillations - much like a kid in a swing PIOs by pumping their legs in the right phase.

The basis of the dynamic stability criteria is that for slower natural oscillations - damped or not - the pilot can "keep ahead" and not induce PIO. But for faster natural oscillations - less than critically damped - the pilot is more likely to "get behind" the pitch movements and PIO is more likely. The basis is that even poorly damped oscillations will not induce pilot over-control and PIO.

My real question with this is whether a 5 second oscillation period is the correct cutoff point. Time out a 5 second period and see if it looks like a pilot ought to be able to dampen that oscillation easily. Some suggestions are that natural oscillations quicker than a 10 second period might assures the pilot is not likely to PIO. But, a 10 second period oscillation seem absurdly slow and any pilot ought to be able to provide control inputs in the right phase to avoid PIO divergence to the buntover stage! That's much slower than a kid on a swing pumping their legs - and they can even stop the swing from swinging (dampen it) by pumping their legs in the right phase!

Time and data will tell the story. But, even if a gyro is susceptible to a slow rate PIO, if it always remains G-Load statically stable - airframe pitch reliably follows flight path - I don't think it can bunt over anyway - and the static G-Load pitch reaction will help to self dampen the PIO G-Load divergences.

I sure would like to see the static stability tests on the RAF with Stabilator! If it passes the static criteria, we would then really need to know if the rotor damping can overpower any dynamic oscillatory tendencies. This is an area we are certainly not sure of. Unfortunately, the final validation of the standards stability criteria might be the accident record. But, I feel current guidelines in the standard are a whole lot better than nothing. They are based mostly on what aerodynamicists have learned are the capabilities of human pilot reactions and control. Too quick of a natural oscillation or pitch response rate is difficult for the pilot to keep up with - depending on skill levels. Slower natural oscillation tendencies and reaction rates are easier for the human pilot to "dampen" effectively. In the better machines, the pilot "damping" workload can be near zero, either because of the inherent damping of the machine, or because it has no tendencies to oscillate in the first place.

- Greg Gremminger

Mike Jackson

08-04-2005, 07:48 PM

Hi Greg,

I haven't seen the RAF stabilator closely, but it appears to me it might be a way to modify stick forces - apparent static stability only.

The moment arm from device to approx cg doesn't appear large enough to provide any serious airframe moment.

I can't see where any real stability, static or dynamic, is seriously altered from the original configuration.

I may be wrong - just a casual observation. What's RAF's spin?

Cheers,

Mike

gyrogreg

08-05-2005, 06:49 AM

Mike, I have not heard any official "spin" on the "stabilator". Individuals who have flown it say it "feels" more stable. I understand it does present strong cyclic pitch feedback forces - which I consider a good thing to help prevent possible over-control (PIO) by the pilot.

Whether this stick forces deterent to over-control can prevent buntover, I don't think we know yet. To find that out requires the G-Load stabilility testing to verify that the whole gyro responds in the corrrective direction to G-Load changes. Since this is such an easy test to do, I don't understand why no one has done it:

Static G-Load stability test:
In calm winds, trim the gyro for straight and level, hands-off flight. Then bank into a spiraling turn of 30-40 degrees, do not adjust power, and, with cyclic pitch inputs, maintain the same original airspeed. If the aircraft is G-Load stable, aft stick force AND position will be required to prevent higher airspeed from building in the increased G bank. Repeat this test for all operating airspeeds - in about 10 mph increments - and power combinations - MPRS, full power and idle power. If, at any airspeed or power combination, it starts requiring forward cyclic pressure OR displacement in the turn to maintain airspeed, that is the airspeed / power combination at which a sustained buntover is possible. That may identify the safe Vne of that aircraft.

Whether the improved stick forces can prevent PIO requires professional dynamic stability flight testing. The testing would verify that the aircraft will not oscillate at rates with a period shorter than 5 seconds - both fixed-stick and free-stick. This can be dangerous testing - trying to induce rapid oscillations - in a gyro capable of rapid oscillations, and should be done only by a professional who is taking the proper precautions. If an aircraft is capable of being excited into poorly damped rapid oscillations, testing for that can actually produce PIO. The manufacturers should conduct these tests with professional test pilot assistance!

But, I feel that the strong pitch stick forces that are reported with the stabilator will be a help to discourage pilot over-control. G-Load instability can be a component of over-control PIO. If the nose pitch attitude, responding in the wrong direction to a G-load change, inspires the pilot to input wrong-phase control inputs, divergent fast pitch oscillations can occur (PIO). If the strong pitch forces from the stabilator can prevent pilot wrong-phase inputs from the pitch responses, PIO pilot responses MAY be discouraged. In my opinion, this could reduce susceptibility to PIO for even G-Load unstable aircraft. But, if the aircraft is statically G-Load stable, as readily verified above, it should not induce pilot wrong-direction cyclic pitch inputs at all!

None of this is to say the stabilator equiped gyro will meet the full stability criteria in the standard - inherently statically and dynamically stable. But, any improvements in stability safe operating range, and especially pilot understanding of that safe stable flight envelope, can improve the accident potential greatly!

---------------------------------
Here is how I think about the stabilator function: The stabilator AND the offset gimbal provide improved static stability to the rotor. (I do not see how it can affect the airframe stability issues). The offset gimbal provides a degree of G-Load static stability to the rotor by pitching the spindle (and rotor disk) in the corrective direction upon a G-Load disturbance. In a similar way, the "stabilator" provides a degree of Airspeed static stability by pitching the spindle (and rotor disk) in the corrective direction to a relative wind direction change. I feel this has to do some good! Whether it does enough good to overpower any airframe instability contribution, I don't know!

The offset gimbal and "stabilator" work by tilting the spindle in pitch. As Chuck and others point out, for this to be effective requires that the pilot allow the stick to move freely. Especially if the airframe is unstable to Power, G-Load or Airspeed disturbances, it is imperative that the pilot allow the stick to "float" so at least the spindle reactions from the offset gimbal and "stabilator" can work! Sometimes, at least for the less experienced and somewhat stressed low-time pilot, the pilot may actually grip the stick harder when things get tense - negating the stabilizing effects of the "stabilator" AND offset gimbal .

Also, the spindle has limited pitch movement range - about 18-20 degrees total! That means that if the disturbed airframe pitches about 9-10 degrees from normal flight, there is no further corrective spindle movement available and the spindle then follows the airframe pitch movement directly. So, if the airframe G-Load pitch response in the wrong direction is excessive, or the pilot is preventing the stick from free movement, the self-accelerating diverging nose-down G-Load pitch reaction is not prevented by any rotor stabilizing mechanisms at all - a buntover is still possible!

These are my "thoughts" on the function of the stabilator and it's limited contribution to preventing PIO or buntovers. I present these thoughts as fuel for discussion and understanding. I do not make these statements as known fact or refute any claims made by others as to the effect fo the "stabilator". I do hope someone would actually do some comparative flight stability testing on the three configurations of this model gyroplane - factory configuration, with a strong H. stabilizer, and with the "stabilator". A most interesting comparison would also be to test it with both a stabilizer and the "stabilator" - maybe improving the stability of both the rotor and of the airframe would go a long way to actually meeting the standards criteria and providing the full degree of safety we should be striving for.

Doug Riley

08-05-2005, 10:39 AM

Because of the effect of flapping (blowback), the gimbal head provides airspeed stablity as well as AOA/G stability. As a result, it seems to me that the gimbal head can be made to provide the same control pressures that the stabilator does, simply by fine-tuning the offset of the gimbal head and selecting appropriate springs. One advantage of the stabilator is that, unlike a spring, it doesn't create large stick loads while the craft is on the ground. Even this advantage can be obtained with a cockpit-adjustable trim spring, which most 2-place gyros have, anyway.

The "dark corner" of the gyro envelope that has intrigued and worried me for decades is the sudden entry into a strong downdraft. The gimbal head, the whale tail and the skilled RAF pilot all react the same way to this type of weather incident -- they pull (or allow the machinery to pull) the spindle back. This is fine as far as it goes. However, it may not be enough to save your bacon.

The gimbal head, whale tail or trained pilot all react to a loss of "G" load (or angle of attack) on the rotor. At the same time that these devices "feel" the lost "G," the airframe feels it, too. In a HTL craft under power, without a balancing down-load on the tail, the airframe reacts to the sudden imbalance of forces by nosing down. When the frame noses down, it brings the aft control stop with it. The rotor can't tip back farther than the stops will allow. Thus the (unstable) reaction of the frame itself compromises the ability of the pilot/gimbal head/stabilator to restore a positive AOA to the rotor.

Add to this the problem of the vertical speed gradient in the downdraft. If the rotor is tilting back, trying to restore positive AOA at the same time that the gyro is penetrating the downdraft into progressively faster descending air, the gyro is in a race with the changing relative wind. I'm no meteorologist, but I'd imagine that there are combinations of gyro airspeed and real-world downdraft structures that will keep the gyro in zero G for a precious interval of time even with the contributions of the good pilot, stabilator and gimbal head. As long as the G's are low, the frame is going to continue pitching over the whole time, in reaction to engine thrust.

All in all, I think that relying only on the rotor (with or without trim devices attached) to offset a prop-induced pitching moment on the frame is very unwise. There are circumstances in which the rotor simply is not effective in this role. The fact that good RAF pilots chop power in downdrafts proves that they actually agree with me on this issue.

I don't know if the static tests can detect this type of latent instability, since rotor-supplied stability DOES work up to point... until it doesn't.

Udi

08-05-2005, 11:00 AM

The above two posts should be sent to Rotorcraft magazine for publication. They are both very good and, put together, they tell the whole story. I wouldn't want to be the pilot testing the whale tail-equipped RAF for dynamic stability. I wouldn’t want any of my friends to be this pilot either.

By the way - does anyone know if the accident that started this thread involved an RAF equipped with a whale tail?

Udi

birdy

08-06-2005, 04:59 AM

but I'd imagine that there are combinations of gyro airspeed and real-world downdraft structures that will keep the gyro in zero G for a precious interval of time

You don't have to imagine Doug, it happens regularly.[so its a good thing I don't fly high, I don't get time to be in a 0g situation for a very long, when I'm fly'n bout at 50'] ;)

Brad_King

08-06-2005, 10:42 AM

Birdy,

Just Curious. What is your technique for surviving a Zero G event at 50 ft?

Brad King
N6372K
Mad Max II LTC

PS Met Mitch and Alan at Mentone. They had very high reguard for you and your piloting skills.

birdy

08-06-2005, 09:35 PM

To date, none have lasted more than a milly second. Just had time to leave the seat and tighten the shoulder straps.[ any longer than a milly second and I'll be eat'n dust.]

Technique??? nuthn, theres no time to do anything in a milly second.

scott heger

08-06-2005, 10:45 PM

Brad, anybody doing a zero "G" at 50 feet for very long won't have the ability to post here...or this world..... Hope all is well with you. You sure lead a exciting life in the last few months, try to keep it safe!

Scott Heger, Laguna Niguel, Ca N86SH

Doug Riley

08-08-2005, 07:17 AM

A gyro properly designed for pitch stability SHOULD cruise through zero G and correct automatically. The combination of loss of lift (which will cause the machine to begin sinking and re-establish angle of attack) and "weathervaning" in the pitch axis (if you have a HS and near-CLT or LTL) should do what's necessary without any action on the pilot's part. Use a normal grip on the stick and hold it still. Maintain cruise power.

In a significantly HTL machine, reduce power smartly and hold the stick very lightly to allow the gimbal head spring to tilt the head back. Do not fly at the high end of your speed range in turbulent air. Convert the gyro to a safer configuration as soon as possible.

If you don't know whether your machine is pitch-stable or not, you should investigate it by doing CG tests, and then flight tests for static stability as described by Greg Gremminger.

Hognose

08-08-2005, 08:41 AM

If we stick to facts and not attacks most will not automatically dismiss what we have to say as bashing or having an ax to grind.

I really don't care about anything but stopping the next smoking crater. I think if the RAF supporters will look inside themselves they really want that also.

Brad, guys and gals:

I met a guy at Oshkosh who is a perfect illustration of what Brad says. Chuck Lukas has an award-wining (silver? Bronze Lindy? From 2003) RAF 2000 that Duane Hunn flew in the manufacturer showcase (the only other gyro was Larry Neal in the Golden Butterfly).

Chuck has absolute faith in Duane, who taught him, to steer him straight. Duane has 8,000 gyro hours, mostly in unstabbed RAFs. And Chuck doesn't come to this forum (or even know where it is anymore) because of the negativity.

He's not a dumb guy. He's not suicidal. He's not any of the names that people here sometimes call guys "over there." He trusts his instructor to keep him safe.

I believe Mr Becker, whose demise led to this long thread, did the same.

Ultimately, as Brad King says, we have to reach Don Lafleur, Jim Logan, Duane Hunn. And, as Brad says, we have to do it with open faces and in the mutual interest of safe flying.

Look at it from their point of view. THEY BELIEVE THEIR MACHINE IS PERFECTLY SAFE. In the bunker at Kindersley, they seem to think all this stability stuff is a bunch o hooey conjured up by Jim Mayfield to steal their market. (If you know Jim, you know that's not at all true; actually, if you know physics, you know where Jim's coming from). How did they get into that defensive mentality? Well, look at what folks say about them.

I don't know how to proceed, but I do know that claiming that they're all a gang of murderers is going to help us reach a goal that is quite honestly achievable in our lives if we pull together: a year with four times the gyro hours we're flying in 2005 and with ZERO fatalities.

So, Brad's approach ought to be considered. I have at least met all of these guys and I've flown in an unstabbed RAF with Dofin Fritts (and I'd fly with Jim or Duane at the drop of a hat). They are as motivated to make safe gyros and train safe pilots as anyone.

They do not want to believe that their product has a safety deficiency. Would you? We are asking proud men to swallow a very bitter pill. Their reluctance is understandable.

Now put yourself in the pilot's seat with Chuck Lukas, who has trained for many hours with Duane Hunn, and clearly likes and trusts him. He looks in on this forum and Duane is described as all but having horns and a tail. What does he think? The principle of primacy alone will tell him that this site is full of that which is brown and stinketh.

And he'll never come back here again.

Paradoxically, the very vehemence with which we promote safety is driving away the very aviators who would benefit most directly from our message.

This post is not an attack on anyone, so please don't take it that way. Take it as a call to remember the silent majority of people who read these pages and never say "boo" -- but form opinions nonetheless.

cheers

-=K=-