View Full Version : RAF 2000 Stabilator vs HS
09-25-2005, 07:31 PM
That last post was meant solely to poke fun at all of us and not meant to insult anyone in anyway whatsoever!!!!
PS. Thanks for putting up with me.
One other quick note. Debbie and I attended an Elvis convention and Talent contest this weekend. We had 3 days of ELVIS.It was awsome! Thank-you. Thank -you very much. :D
09-25-2005, 08:07 PM
. Did I for get RON A..He will only believe it works after a $2000 an hour test pilot flies it. :D
Larry, I am sure someone is out there who can fly it for free and give a un-biased report on how it flys in comparison to a Stock and or a Conventionally modified RAF. A 2000 dollar a hour test pilot is not needed!
If you bring it to ROC there will be several folks there that could give at least a un-biased flight report on it. I will even buy you some gas if you take me up in it so I can experience it.... And if you know me, then you know I am brutally honest.
Why do I believe it is important to have your mod tested by a test pilot or at least someone very alot of gyro experience and who would be totally un-biased????? Because we have heard all too often how gyros we know are not stable or we know have flight quirks, how these gyros fly so " stable " and so "great" and "hands off", etc.... I mean look at it this way, If we are to believe everything we hear, then there should be no need for your mod to start with. Stan F., and Gary K., and Harry S., and you Larry, Ken J., And a slew of others over the years has told us that their Stock RAFs with only the addition of a stab flew great and stable and was trouble free. People before them - and even a few now such as the dealer from South Africa - have told us the totally Stock RAF flys great and stable and nothing including a aftermarket stab is needed..... See my point?
Like I have said, you mod is a certain improvement safety wise for the RAF2000. I have no doubt it flys better due to the reduction in thrust offset, and because now the stab is partially in the prop slip stream. If I owned a RAF I would very likely want to do this mod myself cause I would hate to have to spend all the money on the AAI mod and all the time to install it.
I want for your mod to get the credit it is due. But what I want is for someone like Chuck B or Doug R to run the numbers and find out how much offset is still there.... Find out if the stepped keel mods have made the lower rear keel now too weak.... and then have someone that is un-biased run it through it's paces and report on how it flys. THEN when we really know what you got, your Larry Boyer mod would be something worth reccommending to others as a alternative on the same level as the AAI mod. Again do you see my point, and understand that this is in no way a attack on you or what you have done?
09-25-2005, 08:08 PM
With AAI's recent announcement of their 100 kit/mod milestone I think RAF's days as one of the leading manufacturers may be numbered. The stock RAF's are already outnumbered at the fly-ins by modified one's with stabs or AAI kits. Their refusal to address the stability issues will help put themselves out of business.
09-26-2005, 04:24 AM
Larry: I still say you have something there. Anything approaching the CG is an improvement. I like the simplicity of your design and it looks nice as well.
Instead of "running the numbers" how about just a plain and simple double hang test like Paul Bruty has done. Take a picture with a plumb bob....or in my case...a rotary laser. Then hang it from another point to get a good angle. Where these cross is the CG and it can then be measured with the thrust line. Document this with two overlying pictures and you have undisputed proof where the CG. Actual tangible evidence instead of some numbers on a paper that only the ones really into their math will be convinced.
09-26-2005, 09:37 AM
Ron, thank you for your input. I am attempting to get clearance to test fly it at Aiken airport as I write.I will bring if I can fly there. I do not have the 40 hours flown off yet.So I need an exclusion on the area I was assigned. Stan, how are you. I miss your RAF flying adventures!!! Hope you are well.Good suggestion on the cg test. is that test done with the blades on?
09-26-2005, 03:47 PM
Larrye, the pic hanging from the teeter bolt does not need to have the the blades fitted.
The second hanging pic or balancing in the mains MUST have the rotor blades fitted. Both have to have the pilot/s and approx 1/2 a tank of fuel on board.
09-26-2005, 05:53 PM
Larry: I am doing just fine and am enjoying myself working on the SparrowHawk. I will be air born next year. I could get addicted to building these things. I wish there was a way to make my stair shop rate.... :D
09-28-2005, 06:34 AM
Stan, good luck on your sparrowHawk project. I know you will do a fine job and have a showpiece not to mention a fine flying machine. I love to build and tinker, also. I am going to work on a engine project this winter. I am gi=oing to convert the EJ-20 I have to nonturbo.I want to buy a planetary drive system for it and have a super reliable HO engine. :)
09-28-2005, 05:32 PM
Larrye did you get my message? What is your privat email?
Mine is firstname.lastname@example.org
Aussie Paul. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.