Tractor Training

[Desert Flyer]

Does anyone here have any thoughts regarding the best way to receive training that would be useful and applicable to flying a tractor gyro? Am I correct in the conclusion that there is currently no 2-place tractor trainer available?

Based on the inquiries I have made so far, the initial conclusion I am reaching is that for for general ground-handling skills, learning in a fixed wing tail-dragger would be the best option. Is it reasonable to assume the landing techniques might best be practiced in a fixed wing tail-dragger as well, but with the emphasis on landing tail-wheel first?

I am a little concerned about spending a lot of time and money learning control inputs for a fixed wing aircraft, only to have to un-learn these skills later in order to pilot a gyro safely.

In regards to in-flight handling characteristics, are there differences between a Sparrowhawk and the Pitbull I am building? And (most importantly) are these differences significant enough that training in the Sparrowhawk would actually offer no benefits in terms of transitioning to the Pitbull?

If I reach the final conclusion that training in a Sparrowhawk is not a realistic option, then it would appear I have exhausted every avenue for obtaining training to fly the model of gyroplane I have chosen to construct. As always, I am just seeking opinions on this matter and any thoughts are appreciated.

[karlbamforth]

Little Wing gyros are tractor tail draggers.
Not sure if anyone is using them for training.

[chuter]

Hi Dan,

As far as I know there is no instruction available in a tractor gyro.

I took my training with Ron Menzie in his AAI modified RAF, and his Parsons trainer (open frame tandem). He test flew my tractor for me, and gave me some tips on how best to transition.

My tractor had some squirrelly taxi problems I had to work out, mostly mechanical problems. Once I got that straightened out it was a breeze.

Take off is different in that you can't rock back to balance on the mains, you just move the stick forward to increase airspeed, and it makes a 3 point take off. At least mine does, not sure about a Pitbull.

Mine takes off about 35-40mph, I think if it was much faster the tail would start to lift, which shouldn't really be a problem.

Landing is really no different that the pushers I trained in.

[Vance]

Hello Dan, A lot of the training I have recieved in pusher autogyros has been about rotor control and managing energy. I would think this would apply to all unpowered rotors.

I have heard many stories of improperly managed rotors costing money. I believe that training in any autogyro is a good way to avoid this expense.

I would think that Ron Heron would be a good one to ask. He has been very good about getting back to me with answers to my emails.

Thank you, Vance

[Desert Flyer]

Michael,

It is heartening to know you were able to transition without significant difficulty. I have watched the film of your gyro in flight and my hat is off to you (figuratively of course) for having the tenacity and ability to design and fly your own machine, especially a tractor gyro.

When I have conversations with fixed wing pilots, they always dismiss gyroplanes as unsafe aircraft and anyone who would fly them as irrational; almost as if gyros and their pilots were outcasts in the world of aviation.

And the more I study about this area, the more it appears that tractor gyros are regarded as the "outcasts of the outcasts" since there appears to be no training available and no manufacturers left, aside from the Littlewing company. While I admire the Littlewing, the cost and construction time involved put that model out of my reach from day one.

Given all the benefits of having the engine in front, combined with the simplicity of a keel and mast design, I was a little surprised to see the Pitbull model dismissed as a "scary pile of junk" by so many here on the forum. Hopefully, I will someday be able to post my experiences with this model here on this forum and have some positive things to say. If not, at least I will have learned from the experience, I suppose.

Thanks again for your thoughts...


Vance,

Others have suggested I contact Ron regarding his thoughts on training. I'll send him a message...

[chuter]

Dan,

There's a person on the forum; username "pbool", that flies a Pitbull, perhaps he'll chime in her with some more info, or you can look up some of his past posts.

[Alan_Cheatham]

If no one is currently giving flight training in a tractor gyro then is it possible to get a sport pilot license for tractors? I thought SP training had to be given in the specific gyro set.

[GyroRon]

The pitbull is nothing more than the same stuff a Bensen is made out of.... 2x2 aluminum tubing.

The main landing gear, the frame itself, the engine mount and the bodywork on the pitbull is as good as any other gyro.

The parts that aren't as good are the control system - entire system, the way the seat is attached, the tailwheel assembly, the rudder pedal assembly. I also am not a fan of the PitBull rotorhead.

Otherwise it is a good gyro, just different.

Flying it in the air will not be much different from a pusher, just less of a view. It is the takeoff that is mostly different and I ditto everything Chuter said in his post as he is spot on.

As for training I would suggest trying to find someone with a open tandem machine to give you at least the last 2 or 3 hours of training just to get you used to flying out in the wind and not in a cabin.

[chuter]

If no one is currently giving flight training in a tractor gyro then is it possible to get a sport pilot license for tractors? I thought SP training had to be given in the specific gyro set.


I think the way it works is; you have to be signed off to solo by an instructor who has 5 hours in that set. It doesn't say you have to be trained in a gyro of that set.

[pbool]

I am not currently flying the pitbull because, in an effort to improve it, I really did the opposite. I now endeavor to put it back like it was. Takeoff is not the same. I finally found that it will take off with the stick fully back but must be nosed down as soon as it does. This shortens the run and helps eliminate the squirrely part that you get when you're really steaming down the runway and push the stick forward. All that seemed to do was to really accelerate it and get light on the wheels. I suggest taxiimg a time or 2 with the gear as is. If you have problems, as I did, I added some toe-in to the wheels and pretty much cured it. I also converted the tailwheel to steerable but it still takes practice.
As far as air handling, it is different. I have flown a bensen since 1984 and the big difference I ran into is rudder use. With the bensen, I really don't use the rudder except when landing or take-off. The pitbull, though, does'nt turn well without some rudder input and making sure you don't raise the nose in the process.
Concerning the view, the mast does'nt present much of a problem. I guess it's so close that you don't even focus on it. I managed to get 130 hours in it before I "improved" it but the takeoffs had gotten pretty routine by then. I still have some photos of various parts and will post them if desired. John M

[John Stahl]

There is a Bull for sale because it tried to do a ground loop. It happened twice to him. What would cause it to ground loop? Is there a fix? Or is it pilot error?

[Ga6riel]

Im thinking there is something wrong with the geometry of the mains on this machine. The thing about taildraggers is the CG needs to be forward of the CL for stability ~ as in any aircraft, but the maingear needs to lead the CG, the amount is fairly critical. From the number of comments I read about this type, it seems to me it ought be examined in detail. And given that there are other taildraggers that do not seem to attract such discussion.

I have seen Luftwaffe training films with Ju88s taking off as 3 point take off, I guess with a load of high explosive these guys didnt mess around. However fighters of the day commonly lifted the tail on take-off, I have never understood why that was so. At the time, there were very few surfaced runways in europe, on the introduction of trike gear heavy bombers that situation had dramaticly changed.

That said, my understanding of taildraggers is, groundloops are managed via a combination of good geometry and training. If no gyro was available for this purpose then I suspect some time on a fixed wing would offer worthwhile instruction.

[karlbamforth]

Most second world war bombers had engines mounted on the wings and therefore had a reasonable view over the nose. Fighters such as the spitfire or mustang had something like 12 feet of engine etc in front of the windscreen, raising the tail gives a better view and reduces drag. :D

[Chris Burgess]

If you hit the wheel brakes in a tractor rather than using the rotor for aerodynamic braking, you can flip it up on the nose. Not exactly a ground loop but just as "ugly". I know this has happened to one fellow.

[Doug Riley]

The Little Wing certainly isn't an outcast in the sense of being in any way suspect. Just the opposite -- it's a deluxe machine that even the fixed-wingers probably will admire. Ron Herron's marketing is low key, and there just aren't than many of them out there yet.

I've only seen a Pitbull fly once -- maybe five years ago at Mentone. My impression from just watching was that it was not all that pitch-stable. I wonder if the tail surfaces are big enough or properly set up.

[Chris Burgess]

Recent article on Andy Keech, world record setter in the LittleWing LW5 two-place.

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060309_keech.html

[Desert Flyer]

The Little Wing certainly isn't an outcast in the sense of being in any way suspect. Just the opposite -- it's a deluxe machine that even the fixed-wingers probably will admire. Ron Herron's marketing is low key, and there just aren't than many of them out there yet.


Just to clarify, I was in no way disparaging the Littlewing; I was only making the observation that the vast majority of gyros being manufactured today are of the pusher configuration.

And in retrospect, regarding my comment about fixed wing pilots, I should clarify that I have had actual person-to-person conversations with only five pilots about gyros - certainly a small population when compared the number of licensed general aviation pilots in the USA. That is likely too small a sample to draw the conclusion that ALL fixed wing pilots regard gyros as unsafe.

However, I can say all five pilots I spoke to were vehemently opposed to the thought of flying a gyro. The CFI I spoke to last week about tail-dragger lessons even refused to give me training when I told him I was planning to transition to a gyro - he said he wanted no part of that. He is the brother of a good friend of mine, and he counseled me to avoid gyros at all costs.

I also have a co-worker who is a fixed wing pilot, and his comments are no more reassuring. All the negative reinforcement gets a bit old after awhile...:mad:

[Doug Riley]

Dan: Your experience is typical. The Bensen approach to gyroplanes took a wonderful type of aircraft and utterly trashed its (formerly) good reputation. We have yet to dig out from under that.

The lingering bad press is partly because pilots are conservative and have long memories, and partly because flawed designs are still flying (and crashing).

Things are getting better, we think.

[mcbirdman]

Dan, go to the www.littlewingwonder.com website. Maybe print out some of the very interesting information there. You might want to ask your friends if their own planes flying right now are likely to end up on permanent display at Smithsonian.

Maybe they could understand that this old technology being revived with exciting results - even in this age of jets - is opening new possibilities for the future. It is hard to imagine building an aircraft in your backyard of a design that has broken 19 world records. The fact that the MU1 barrier was broken last year by another company and the fact that there are now a few promising kits out there that employ current technology along with the availability of instructors being improved. One company used a gyro to guard the winter olympics one year.

Yes there has been the bad for far too long. I think more attention should be focused on the new designs out there that are starting to change the negative perception that has been earned. All the tinkering and stuff you have to know besides what you are told by the company is too complicated for the average pilot to accomplish as it was promoted. New companies are coming in are now addressing all these areas of shortcomings.

There is a lot to be learned that is often misunderstood about gyros. But if you start seeing what some of them are doing you / they just might be surprised....... jtm

[PW_Plack]

Dan,

Most of the complaints about the Pitbull deal with landing gear geometry, and failure of main gear support cables. There are also a number of people who've tried to build them as legal ultralights, which requires using a Rotax 447, and wound up with machines with dangerously low performance. Some have not been able to climb out of ground effect.

As Vance noted, rotor management skills are critical to learn when transitioning to gyros, and can be learned in any gyro.

As for tailwheel ground handling issues, they're going to be very similar for airplanes and gyros. With the CG behind the main gear, there will always be a tendency to "swap ends," requiring superior rudder skills. I believe you could transfer much of what you'd learn in a tailwheel airplane to a tailwheel gyro.

Getting tailwheel time in airplanes will be MUCH less costly than the rates likely to be charged when two-seat tractor gyro training becomes available. I was paying $35/hour including fuel for Aeronca Champs two years ago, and that aircraft is about to go back into production as a LSA.

[PW_Plack]

Doug said,

The Bensen approach to gyroplanes took a wonderful type of aircraft and utterly trashed its (formerly) good reputation. We have yet to dig out from under that.

Doug, there are still way too many people with shovels throwing the dirt back on the pile. Gyros may always be held back by the fact that they attract builders looking for the cheapest way to get in the air.

[Desert Flyer]

Dan,

Most of the complaints about the Pitbull deal with landing gear geometry, and failure of main gear support cables. There are also a number of people who've tried to build them as legal ultralights, which requires using a Rotax 447, and wound up with machines with dangerously low performance. Some have not been able to climb out of ground effect.

As Vance noted, rotor management skills are critical to learn when transitioning to gyros, and can be learned in any gyro.

As for tailwheel ground handling issues, they're going to be very similar for airplanes and gyros. With the CG behind the main gear, there will always be a tendency to "swap ends," requiring superior rudder skills. I believe you could transfer much of what you'd learn in a tailwheel airplane to a tailwheel gyro.

Getting tailwheel time in airplanes will be MUCH less costly than the rates likely to be charged when two-seat tractor gyro training becomes available. I was paying $35/hour including fuel for Aeronca Champs two years ago, and that aircraft is about to go back into production as a LSA.

Thank you for your input. I gave up on the ultralight goal a long time ago, and I am planning on having at the bare minimum, a 60 hp powerplant in my Pitbull. Given my weight and the altitude I will be flying at, I will most likely either install a good Rotax 618 (75/70 hp) or a MZ 303 (85 hp). I realize this will limit my range due to fuel consumption, but that is okay.

In regards to ground handling, I am not averse to modifying the gear if that is a desirable option. And assuming I can find acceptable tail-dragger training here in Reno, I will get some experience there. We'll see how things develop.

Those Littlewings are nice. If only I had the time to build one...:(

[Ga6riel]

Dan
at the very least, get familiar with the technical aspects of taildragger design, and investigate the geometry and structure of the machine in question. Thats a good way to while away the hours and keeps you on track. And of course, we would all be interested in the findings.

[pbool]

There have been several comments about the tendency to groundloop with the pitbull. When I first started getting it to anything near takeoff speed, I had several of the most scary groundloops imaginable. I flew taildraggers, Luscombe 8A and Bellanca cruisair, for a lot of years and have a lot of taildragger time. I was fairly sure it was'nt faulty tecnique so much as a problem with the gear. Remembering a problem with my model A when replacing the tie rod, I carefully made sure everything was carefully lined up and the car handled terribly.
I then read about toe-in and adding a little cured it completely. I bent the axles on the pitbull forward a little to put in some toe-in and this little adjustment went farther toward curing the problem than anything else I did. With the gear as first installed, push the gyro in a straight line and see if it tries to go one way or the other. With the toe-in, try it again and you'll see the difference.
Some will say that you should do toe-out but I don't if one way is better than the other. I hope this dissertation can be of value to someone. John M

[Doug Riley]

The textbook theory says that you should use toe-out because it allows a little bit of yaw misalignment to occur before the "inside" wheel starts to fight the gyro's direction of travel. It's the wheels' resistance to sideways travel that gets the ground-loop sequence going.

It would seem that, with a vigorous use of a good prerotator, you could have enough RRPM to lift the tail early in your roll, minimizing the time you spend in ground-looping conditions. OTOH, the throttle setting you need to get those RRPM's might be enough to pull you over on your nose. Would a controllable elevator or all-flying HS be helpful?

[chuter]

Mine has a characteristic I haven't heard mentioned before; Ron Menzie was the first to notice it when he was helping me test fly it.

When on the ground with the blades spinning close to flying speed (like you've just touched down at landing), if you tilt the rotor to the right, it swings the fuselage around into a left turn, and visa versa. I think this is because the rotor is behind the mains.

This can be tricky if you're landing with a crosswind. Example; crosswind from the right, you have the rotor tilted to the right, into the wind, and a little left rudder. As soon as you touch down this tends to swing you into a left turn (the right rotor tilt and the left rudder you were holding).

So I have to be ready to make a quick correction soon after touch down. It's caught be by surprise a couple of times and I almost went off the runway.

I don't know if this is just for mine, or a general characteristic of other tractor gyros too.

[Doug Riley]

We normally lay out our gyros so that the rotor is behind the CG when the airframe is in cruise stance. Since rotor thrust is angled back about ten degrees in flight, this arrangement allows the rotor thrust line to pass through/near the CG when the aircraft is level. If you moved the rotor forward relative to the CG, the machine would fly very nose-high. The situation should get better (but still not perfect) the flatter your airframe stance is on the ground. Of course, that cuts into your allowable prop diameter unless you use long main gear legs and add a long tail gear leg.

[Ga6riel]

is it my imagination, or do many C-30's and the like cruise nose high anyhow?

[pbool]

I was somewhat worried about the possibility of digging the prop into the ground when the tail was up. I had a 68" prop on it and the clearance just did'nt look like a lot. Then I put the prop vertical and lifted the tail up just to see how high it would have to go to contact the ground. I found that it would really have to go up way higher than I ever would have thought. I would have had to actually tip it over center to do it. It was no longer a concern after that.
My prerotator would spin up to 110 at which time I would apply some power and start taxiing with the stick full back. I would watch the rotor tach until I saw 175 at which time I would add more power. When it reached about 250, I would put on full power and still hold the stick back. It would spin up fast then and would lift off still with the stick full back. I would then lower the nose to a nearly level attitude and let the speed build up to at least 45 and hold it there while it gained altitude. This all took practice and eventually became second nature. Truly though, the takeoffs in the bensen are still easier for me. John M

[Desert Flyer]

I was somewhat worried about the possibility of digging the prop into the ground when the tail was up. I had a 68" prop on it and the clearance just did'nt look like a lot. Then I put the prop vertical and lifted the tail up just to see how high it would have to go to contact the ground. I found that it would really have to go up way higher than I ever would have thought. I would have had to actually tip it over center to do it. It was no longer a concern after that.
My prerotator would spin up to 110 at which time I would apply some power and start taxiing with the stick full back. I would watch the rotor tach until I saw 175 at which time I would add more power. When it reached about 250, I would put on full power and still hold the stick back. It would spin up fast then and would lift off still with the stick full back. I would then lower the nose to a nearly level attitude and let the speed build up to at least 45 and hold it there while it gained altitude. This all took practice and eventually became second nature. Truly though, the takeoffs in the bensen are still easier for me. John M

Thanks to all for offering their thoughts. I can see that learning to fly my Pitbull is likely going to require more effort and time than I had originally hoped for. However any goal worth achieving is worth working for.

John, when I get my kit on the gear this summer I will try to put some toe adjustment to the wheels as you recommend. Thanks for all the info you have offerred.

[chuter]

Doug,

I was thinking that while on the ground, the RTV/CG relationship wouldn't be the governing force, but rather the rotor thrust pulling on the rotorhead, which is behind the mains............is my thinking correct?

[RHerron]

Hi all,

I have posted this before in other threads but this seems an appropriate place to rehash it.

The proper takeoff technique in a Little Wing will practically eliminate ANY adverse ground-handling difficulties common to "taildraggers".

This is simply getting the rotor going (a good prerotator is desireable but definitely not required) then begin a steady roll, straight ahead, with the stick neutral or slightly aft of neutral. As soon as the blades start picking up speed, ease the stick further back. Once the blades have accelerated up to 200 RPM (Dragon Wings) you may apply full-power. With the drag of the blades, the machine is moving rather slowly and has no tendency to dart.

With the Little Wing shock absorber system, you only have to watch for slight shock extension, easy to do because they are in your field of vision. Once the shocks begin to extend, the deck angle is increasing nose-high and you need to ease the stick forward (decrease rotor disc drag) as necessary to allow for smooth, steady acceleration.

The machine will lift off, three-point and there will be no problem keeping it straight on the runway. In fact, it is less "darty" than a stock Bensen.

Once airborne, lower the nose as required to reach best-rate climb speed.

Landing is even less demanding and, with the high deck-angle, the machine practically "sticks" to the ground, nose-high.

While I have experimented with takeoffs and landings with the tail up, it is NOT the best way to do it and, in fact, makes it much more difficult to handle.
Hope this helps to answer any questions concerning this point of discussion.

I will gladly answer any other questions anyone may have regarding handling technique, etc.

[pbool]

here is something I thought I would mention that could save you some grief in the future. It is'nt really shown where to mount the rudder horn on the rudder. I am posting a pic that shows clearly the 3 different places I put it before it was finally right. The shiny label was a way of filling one of the mistakes. I also added some swash plates to the horizontal stabilizer simply because I noticed all the other tractors seem to have them. I never flew it with them on so can't say if they are any value or not. John M
I have a better pic but have to compress it and resubmit.

[pbool]

Here is the other swash plate pic. John M

[Doug Riley]

Mike: The RTV/CG relationship still counts indirectly -- but in the yaw axis, not where we usually deal with it (which is in pitch). It's the RTV/wheels relationship that's the real problem, though.

Pretend you're a seagull looking down at your gyro. Picture where the CG, main wheels and rotor are. The rotor is aft of the CG (as it normally is). The wheels are forward of the CG. The wheels are the yaw pivot point while they're contacting the ground. Right-tipped rotor will then pull your tail to the right and your nose to the left -- and vicey versey. IOW the rotor acts like a rudder.

Once you're off the ground the CG becomes the pivot point and the rotor should then have virtually no yaw effect in cruise flight (because the RTV passes through or nearly through the CG).

Obviously you can't put the CG ahead of the wheels or the gyro will do a nose-plant. Since the rotor must be a bit aft the CG for the machine to cruise level, you're more or less stuck with this layout. That means you're stuck with some amount of reverse yaw reaction to lateral stick on the ground. I don't see a way around it, though perhaps someone else has thought of one.

I think you still would use the stick on the ground the same as in a tri-geared gyro -- point the rotor into any crosswind. That should actually help prevent weathervaning.

[chuter]

Thanks Doug,

I think it actually does help when taking off; gradually gaining speed and tilting the rotor into the wind means less rudder needed to keep it straight on the runway.

It's when touching down with cross controls that it goes suddenly from flying to driving that you have to be careful.

I figure it's kind of like not putting the nose wheel down with it turned in a pusher; just something you have to watch out for (unless you've got a free-castering nosewheel).

[Desert Flyer]

Here is the other swash plate pic. John M

John,

Nice pictures; those plates look neat!

One of these days maybe you could post a picture of how you set up the steerable tail wheel. Are those cables I see going down the wheel?

Thanks,

Dan

[pbool]

Here are a few pics of the tailwheel rig. John M

[Alan Coats]

A few months ago I visited the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, a small but nice museum on the Tulsa (Oklahoma) Airport grounds.

Back in the far corner sat a blue Pitbull, with rotor blades mounted. There were no signs or information about it posted and the museum's volunteer guide didn't know anything about it.

Any of you guys know anything about it, like who it belonged to?

Alan

[Desert Flyer]

Here are a few pics of the tailwheel rig. John M

Thanks John, That looks like a good set up. I assume that has worked well for you. I look forward to engineering soemthing similar on mine this summer when I start assembly...