RAF Rotorblades [Archive] - Rotary Wing Forum

barnstorm2

08-30-2006, 04:53 PM

Rick,

I can give you my 2 cents....

RAF rotorblades.

Mine were smooth and performed well and I trusted them.

The RAF Hub bar that I acquired with my Twinstarr was an older style hub bar.

Some people have reported cracks or fractures forming on this vintage hub bar.

One failure I know of killed a student and injured an instructor. However, this failure may have been aggravated by mis-treatment of the blades.

The design of the hub bar and the new version of the hub bar use a bolt in an unusual configuration that some people don’t trust.

Harry and many many others fly these blades and the same style hub bar and have no problems.

I would have flown the hub bar and felt fine but because I had an accident last year in which a hardware failure was a principle factor I wanted to make super sure I had covered my bases.

I called RAF and got what I perceived as poor customer service and a higher price then others had gotten when they had their hub bars replaced with the newer sturdier version.

I then decided to switch to Sport Rotor blades and I could not be happier.

RickAbercrombie

08-30-2006, 06:05 PM

Thank you Tim. I remembered something about the hub bar.... Rick

Harry_S.

08-31-2006, 10:27 AM

I sent you a PM, Rick.

Let me know if you received it, OK?!

Cheers :)

barnstorm2

08-31-2006, 02:30 PM

Thank you Tim. I remembered something about the hub bar.... Rick

No problem. Keep in mind lots of people are flying these blades with no problems.

GyroRon

08-31-2006, 03:01 PM

No problems till someone has a problem.... The people who know metal, and know how to machine aluminum safely for aircraft purposes have looked at the older RAF hubbars and said that these are NOT properly designed. RAF must have took note of the comments going around here and elsewhere after the one set of blades broke apart and then a few people in OZ had cracks in their hubbars and RAF came out with a new hubbar design that is improved. To continue to fly old blades with a old hubbar, just because others have happily done so for years is a bad way of thinking about your personal safety.

I spoke with and even took a ride with Jim Logan at Mentone this year. I asked him about the older RAF blades and do not remember exactly what his responce was, so DO NOT take this as his words as I maybe wrong, But I could have sworn he said any RAF Blades besides the newest and most current generation are no longer considered airworthy and would need replacement before that aircraft is flown.

I asked him specifically about a club member of ours that has a new in the crate RAF2000 kit that is pretty old, one that came with a EA-82 engine to show just how old. This kit has brand new RAF rotors and hubbar. I asked him about it and I swear I remember him telling me the blades were garbage even though they were still new in the box.

I wouldn't press my luck with those blades no matter how many people chime in with how they aren't having any problems with them. Someone, somewhere WILL have a problem at some point. Then what....

Aussie_Paul

08-31-2006, 03:28 PM

If I remeber correctly, they are ok for 500 hours, then have to be changed.

The cracked Raf hub bar was in NZ Ron, not Oz. Fair go mate!!! :)

Aussie Paul. :)

dragonflyerthom

08-31-2006, 03:31 PM

Ron Ron Ron Ron Ron.
Where do you get your infor??????
I'm trying to decide if I should jump in here. Even if I were to agree with you, this person still has 500 hours on the old style hub bar. 500 hours. If I flew 2 hours a week that would be five year before I would have to replace them. The inspections and points that are done each flight, 25 hours, 50, 75, 100 every 25 hours shows what to inspect what to replace, etc etc. These are thing that you have to do if you have a heavy.

But I'm not getting into this.

Thom

GyroRon

08-31-2006, 03:41 PM

Chuck Roberg

08-31-2006, 03:42 PM

But I'm not getting into this.

Thom

But you already did...:rolleyes:

Ask the people who know. Call RAF in Canada. Mention that this call is being recorded for quality control purposes. :) And ask what they advise on the blades and hub bar.

GyroRon

08-31-2006, 04:02 PM

What is your take on it Chuck? Don't you use RAF blades on your SnowBird?

Chuck Roberg

08-31-2006, 04:40 PM

What is your take on it Chuck? Don't you use RAF blades on your SnowBird?

Nope, I use Sport Rotors.

If I had an older set of RAF blades I was concerned about. I would call RAF to see what they say. I don't know if they have serial numbers or not.

dragonflyerthom

08-31-2006, 06:31 PM

Yes they do Chuck. Serial numbers that is. Each number is assigned to the original purchaser. They know where every blade originally went and it is advised if you sell them to inform the person who bought them to inform RAF that you have purchased them so they can update their information.

Thom

Aussie_Paul

09-01-2006, 02:34 AM

Thom, I am not making this stuff up. Contact Jim Logan and ask him. Either I don't remember what he told me - and I got a pretty good memory - or he was wrong. He is a Factory sale rep and instructor.

Don't be so defensive over your brand machine!

Ron, you sure do go off half cocked some times:(

Please check the facts first before posting on something as important as this.

Aussie Paul.:)

dragonflyerthom

09-01-2006, 03:11 AM

G day Paul.

I can see how you have been sooo maligned Paul. You who have done more modifications on the RAF than anyone I know. Even to the point that you now have a new machine, The Firebird. I know that you use a different rotor on your machine. One that comes from the manufactures there. I have a question for you Paul.

Have you done the best job that can possibly be done on the Firebird??
Is it the perfect machine technologicly at this time?
Now that you are almost done. Would you change anything in the near future?

Do you expect to make any changes?

Thom

Aussie_Paul

09-01-2006, 04:12 AM

G day Paul. Hi Thom.

I can see how you have been sooo maligned Paul. You who have done more modifications on the RAF than anyone I know. Even to the point that you now have a new machine, The Firebird. I know that you use a different rotor on your machine. One that comes from the manufactures there. I have a question for you Paul.

Have you done the best job that can possibly be done on the Firebird??Thom, I have done the best job that I can do with the knowledge I have at this time.
Is it the perfect machine technologicly at this time?Thom, I have no idea, as I said it is the best than I can do at this time.
Now that you are almost done. Thom, getting close now finally. Would you change anything in the near future?I won't know until I conduct the final flight testing Thom.

Do you expect to make any changes? I expect that there will be some mods come along as we learn more, especially after I have put a few hundred hours up to see if there are any "fixes" required.

Thom I think that was several questions Thom.:D

Aussie Paul.:)

GyroRon

09-01-2006, 04:24 AM

Ron, you sure do go off half cocked some times:(

Please check the facts first before posting on something as important as this.

Aussie Paul.:)

Check what facts Paul? I shared my opinion on a open forum and gave a source to contact if you wanted to. If you don't like what I say, then don't read it.

Aussie_Paul

09-01-2006, 04:32 AM

Check what facts Paul? I shared my opinion on a open forum and gave a source to contact if you wanted to. If you don't like what I say, then don't read it.

Don't worry me Ron, or is that Bob??:D

Aussie Paul.:)

dragonflyerthom

09-01-2006, 04:47 AM

Paul

Sorry for the many questions;) I just got started and then was carried away.

My point is that you have done everything you can to put out the best product you can. It really doesn't matter who the mfg is, they try to continue in business by doing the same thing. RAF has more than 670 kits that they have sold and they continue to upgrade and change and sell more kits because of the upgrades. It doesn't matter if it is the first kit or the 670th kit. You have to do the best you know how. Now I have heard so many on this forum melign RAF for doing a bad job on the CLT. Many of the owners of RAF have modified theirs to stabilize the airframe. Now magni is a HTL ship but because they haven't had a bad accident here in the U.S. they are not in the gun sites of the great Gurus of this forum. Greg G has done a lot of research on the CLT or near CLT machines as well as H/S . Giving us the many stability test that the manufactures should be shooting for.

Now I have read the NTSB reports on the RAF and as far as I can see most are from idiots with little or no traing in gyros and they try to self teach. There have been several PPOs and some PIO accidents but not that many. So the slamming continues. Some of our esteemed members fly LTL machines which is unstable the other way. But I'm not slamming them. Some of the most vocal on this forum don't even own a Gyro. But their opinion is taken at face value based on their research and understanding of the aerodynamics of Gyros. I take that as a person that has read how to fly but has never flown, with a grain of salt.

Now the problem, If you scream wolf enough then no one will hear you.
I really don't want that to happen. We have many new people, including me, that join or read this forum. It has to have value. It must have value. In order to warn others of the dangers of flying anything be gyro, fixed wings, trikes ete etc.

You know most of the posts which are based on hear say would not be admissable in a court of law. Ha

Thom

GyroRon

09-01-2006, 04:48 AM

No it isn't bob here, I didn't tell you how it is okay to make rotorblades out of two 15 foot long planks of pine lumber and a old lawn chair for the hubbar. Do I need to dig around for the threads concerning the hubbar? They are on this forum, maybe a year or so old now....

Harry_S.

09-02-2006, 10:33 AM

I spoke with and even took a ride with Jim Logan at Mentone this year. I asked him about the older RAF blades and do not remember exactly what his responce was, so DO NOT take this as his words as I maybe wrong, But I could have sworn he said any RAF Blades besides the newest and most current generation are no longer considered airworthy and would need replacement before that aircraft is flown.

If Jim Logan did in fact say the above quote...I would have to argue with him...or, anyone else, qualified, to make that statement.

.

Harry_S.

09-02-2006, 10:49 AM

I wouldn't press my luck with those blades no matter how many people chime in with how they aren't having any problems with them. Someone, somewhere WILL have a problem at some point. Then what....

Common sense dictates, Ron...someone, somewhere, will have a problem with any product, at some point. Then what...

.

Harry_S.

09-02-2006, 10:56 AM

If I remeber correctly, they are ok for 500 hours, then have to be changed.

Remembered from what qualified source, Paul?!:confused:

Cheers :)

Aussie_Paul

09-02-2006, 02:31 PM

Remembered from what qualified source, Paul?!:confused:

Cheers :)

Harry, from the Raf product notices. All of the original, and subsequent Raf owners who sent Raf owner transfere updates, recieved the product notices.

This is the way that Raf have always notified owners of updates.

I emailed Raf approx a year ago to see if the number of hours had been lifted for the hub bar supplird with the new blades and and they said no.

Aussie Paul. :)

Harry_S.

09-02-2006, 03:58 PM

Harry, from the Raf product notices. All of the original, and subsequent Raf owners who sent Raf owner transfere updates, recieved the product notices.

This is the way that Raf have always notified owners of updates.

I emailed Raf approx a year ago to see if the number of hours had been lifted for the hub bar supplird with the new blades and and they said no.

Aussie Paul. :)

Paul...I think I have received all of the PN's and I don't have or recall a PN putting a 500 hr. limit on the rotor blades.

Your referenced e-mail above seems to be ambiguous. You state you asked 'em if the hour limit had been lifted for the HUBBAR supplied and they said no. No reference here as to the previous BLADES.

I do believe the OLD HUBBAR was still being supplied with the new blades until they made the improvement for the NEW HUBBAR. Make sense?!

I still see nothing with a 500 hr. time limit on the old blades, not saying there isn't, but I have yet to see anything official from RAF Marketing, as stating such.

Cheers :)

C. Beaty

09-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Now I have read the NTSB reports on the RAF and as far as I can see most are from idiots with little or no traing in gyros and they try to self teach. Thom
You and Harry have evidently found a different NSTB site than the one I’m familiar with.

Of the RAF fatalities listed below, perhaps 2 of the victims could have benefited from more dual instruction. Most of the victims don’t sound like idiots to me except for their choice of aircraft.

(11) 7/4/2005 Gladwin, MI Becker RAF 2000 N481KB Fatal(1)
Tumbled: Commercial pilot, 3115 hrs., his gyro had 40 hrs in log books, under supervision of CFI at time of crash.

(10) 11/16/2003 Nelsonia, VA Northam RAF 2000 N999GC Fatal(1)
Tumbled: ATP pilot, 14,550hrs., 20 hrs. dual instruction in RAF and 50 hrs. solo time.

(9) 1/24/2003 Brewton, AL Long 2000 N8YF Fatal(1)
Tumbled: ATP pilot, 800 hrs., gyro log book showed 69 hrs. and pilot was under supervision of CFI at time of crash.

(8) 7/16/2002 Ogden, UT Wheeler Doug 2000 N2058T Fatal(2)
Tumbled: Commercial pilot, CFI rating, 1230 hrs., signed off for solo after 13 hrs of dual instruction and total time in RAF was 30 hrs.

(7) 6/29/2002 PALMER, AK DENZER RAF 2000 N435PR Fatal(1)
Tumbled: PPL, 204 hrs., 32 hours of dual in RAF, 40 hrs. total.

(6) 10/4/2000 MUSKEGON, MI Moseler RAF 2000 N1187 Fatal(1)
Tumbled: PPL, gyroplane rated, 25 hrs. solo time in RAF.

(5) 7/29/2000 MANISTIQUE, MI Peters RAF 2000 N11ZK Fatal(1)
Unknown. ATP rated pilot with 17,600 hrs., disappeared without a trace over Lake Michingan. No distress call was heard.

(4) 4/30/2000 GILLETTE, WY GREEN GTX-SE-FI N2411V Fatal(1)
Tumbled: ATP, CFI, helicopter rated, total time 7884 hrs., 31 hrs. in RAF.

(3) 3/27/2000 OVERTON, NV Stuart RAF 2000 N60739 Fatal(1)
Tumbled: PPL, 5,000 hrs, no gyroplane training. The pilot was 85 years old and dual training is unlikely to have altered the outcome.

(2) 11/28/1998 THE COLONY, TX BLANTON RAF 2000 Fatal(1)
Tumbled: PPL, gyroplane rating, 508 hrs. total of which 72 hrs. were in RAF.

(1) 11/2/1996 ADRIAN, MI Frost RAF 2000 N914VT Fatal(1)
Tumbled: student pilot, 23 hrs. total of which 8.8 hrs. were dual instruction in RAF.

PW_Plack

09-02-2006, 05:29 PM

There are two positions on how to solve fatal loss of pitch control, and I'm not sure you guys really hear each other when this argument breaks out. Some say the solution to bunts is training, others say it's more stable machines.

Both positions are plausible, but if statistics indicate that the threshhold for safe flight in a given machine is 100 hours in-type, proponents of training-only solutions need to address the paradox: How do you get safely from solo sign-off to 100 hours?

KenSandyEggo

09-02-2006, 06:09 PM

Paul, quit causing trouble with your questions. Obviously, you have to take 100 hours of dual.

C. Beaty

09-02-2006, 06:45 PM

Our choices in most things, Paul, are based more on emotion than on reason.

If only nutritionists were able to choose breakfast cereal for children, there would be no boxes emblazoned with tigers or super heroes.

If women chose shoes based on rationality, there would be no high heels with pointed toes.

If most men knew anything about machinery, NASCAR racers wouldn’t have fake fiberglass bodywork to make them resemble production cars.

And so it goes. Generates good income for market researchers, advertising agencies and the whole business of huckstering.

dragonflyerthom

09-02-2006, 07:43 PM

I think this is the greatest group of guys in the world. I say it is great that there is such a diverse point of view on everything.

Physian heal thy self. I know what this means but do some of you?? I can relate this to the group of high time pilots that think they know how to fly. But look at the number of them that can't fly a RAF. Why is this. Maybe they didn't listen when they should have. Maybe they didn't ask the right question. Maybe they just thought they knew better than the instructors. Unfortunately there are a lot of high time pilots who think they do know most everything.

I personnaly think they tried to fly tooooo fast for conditions. Maybe they weren't cautious enough until they were thoroughly familiar with this type aircraft. I am sure of one thing tho. If they posted around here they were told and didn't heed the warning.

Those of us who fly the RAF know one thing for certain. We are flying a very heavy gyro with 30 ft of rotor dish. We have to fly the rotor at all times and we also must know where the fuselage is at all time. The closer you get to the 0 degree on the rotor the easier it is to buntover. Fly safe.

Thom

GyroRon

09-02-2006, 07:58 PM

Thom??? Do you fly a RAF? Last I heard you were training in a Center line thrust modified RAF and your RAF was still having final tweaks done before it's madien flight.... Did I miss something?

Aussie_Paul

09-02-2006, 08:20 PM

Paul...I think I have received all of the PN's and I don't have or recall a PN putting a 500 hr. limit on the rotor blades.

Your referenced e-mail above seems to be ambiguous. You state you asked 'em if the hour limit had been lifted for the HUBBAR supplied and they said no. No reference here as to the previous BLADES.

I do believe the OLD HUBBAR was still being supplied with the new blades until they made the improvement for the NEW HUBBAR. Make sense?!

I still see nothing with a 500 hr. time limit on the old blades, not saying there isn't, but I have yet to see anything official from RAF Marketing, as stating such.

Cheers :)

Ok, I will have to be a bit careful here or Ron will be able to accuse me of not getting the facts!:)

FWIW, what I recall is that the winglets (the short 2.5" x 1" bar) that attaches to the blade straps was the part that was cracking. I showed pics here last year of the old hub bar and the new hub bar. Identical!! The winglets were substantially beefed up.

I do not believe that the blades entered into the scenario even though there was cosmetic cracking.

Next came the new blades, made out of house with the new winglets, and new style of 1" bolt holding the winglets to the hub bar. The actual hub bar itself is still identical to the one used since 1996. There have been a number of changes to the teeter block BUT not IMHO the actual hub bar.

What is really required with this rotor blade discussion, is a complete and accurate copy of all the RAF product notices from an unbiased source.

Now I am not a RAF supporter, BUT I will not bash for something that is not correct, BUT I will criticize RAF for the wrong things they do. However I will not, as some of the RAF owners seem to do, try and make the figures look ok for their own justification or whatever reason.

Thom, I am afraid you are a long way away from really understanding the RAF "real world" instability problems that HAVE killed so many people through their design flaws.

The reason I can say that is, I was in exactly the same position in 1999, justifying that our stabs were good enough. I really thought that they were. Then Chuck B and others made me look much harder with their rational explanations. That and my desire to understand how things actually work convinced me to build a RAF kit with CLT in mind. Hybrid was born, and I conducted the testing required, and then came Firebird. :D

Aussie Paul.:)

C. Beaty

09-02-2006, 09:37 PM

KenSandyEggo

09-02-2006, 09:37 PM

"We have to fly the rotor at all times and we also must know where the fuselage is at all time. The closer you get to the 0 degree on the rotor the easier it is to buntover."

Thom, how do you know when you're near the 0 degree angle? I don't recall getting any kind of gauge with my RAF kit. The only place I know a fuselage is on a gyro is beneath the rotor. What do you mean, "know where the fuselage is at all time?" How does one tell exactly when they are flying too fast for conditions? How is that determination made?

Why should anyone have to be concerned about any of the above? With a centerline ship as the SparrowHawk, one does not have to be concerned in the least about a buntover, save getting caught in a cyclone or tornado.

Aussie_Paul

09-03-2006, 03:10 AM

Paul B., sometimes rational dialogue is impossible.

It is like trying to explain to a person in love that his fiancée has gonorrhea. He doesn’t want to hear it and the most you can do is to make an enemy.

.......if I make an enemy while doing the right thing, so be it.

I feel on the important issue of gyroplane stability, it is better to have tried and made an enemy, than not to have tried at all.

Aussie Paul.:)

dragonflyerthom

09-03-2006, 04:49 AM

What I am talking about is speed. Speed in any gyro is done by setting the cruise and then moving the rotor (cyclic) forward to reduce the drag of the coning rotor.
Now as the hub of the rotor comes closer to the 0 degree of incidence or plane the more susceptible the rotor will become to unloading by downdraft induced unloading of the rotor. Now IMHO it is this incidence of the rotor and the speed that can cause the PPO s Kinda like when you ride a cycle, at lower speed you have to use more input to make turns and change lanes but at higher speed you can just about think it and it is done. Speed changes the amount of input needed in a bike and speed will change the amount of input in a gyro. Now it is the reduced amount of input whether from the cyclic or external conditions(downdrafts) that becomes more dangerous at high speeds. Most of you fly lower power to weight ratio gyro so you don't get into this problem. While those who fly heavies are more susceptible to these PPOs and PIOs. Any kind of building or design flaw will become apparent more quickly because of this. There is a big difference between 300 lbs of thrust and 700 lbs of thrust.

Now our friend Aussie Paul has made it his lifes work to try to improve on a great design with poor aerodynamics. I would say he has done a very good job of it also.

[QUOTE]
.......if I make an enemy while doing the right thing, so be it.

I feel on the important issue of gyroplane stability, it is better to have tried and made an enemy, than not to have tried at all.

Aussie Paul. [QUOTE]

Now what really upsets me is the lack of recognition that he has gotten for the many improvements he has made in the CLT or NCLT designe of Hybrid and his new Firebird(love the name). Most of his changes go unnoticed but this will all change in the near future.

Now all of this is my own observations and experiences.

Ron A how is it that your opinion has sssoooo much value???

God this is starting to sound like B..s

GyroRon

09-03-2006, 04:52 AM

Well before Thom or Harry or any of the other strong supporters for the RAF machine come in and say this is just another thread that got hijacked by RAF haters.... Keep in mind that the only thing being asked is a scientific and rational explaination of what they are saying.

Thom, my opinion is not any more valueable than anyone elses here. You said this in one of your posts above....

Those of us who fly the RAF know one thing for certain.

If I didn't know better I would read this and assume you have been flying your RAF for years, and unless I missed the whole Thom Solo'ed his gyro thread here on the forum I would have to say you do not fly the RAF, you only own one you built..... This is all I was pointing out Thom. It is not to say my opinion is better than yours or that your opinion does not count.

dragonflyerthom

09-03-2006, 05:16 AM

Ron you silver tongued devil

You have more moves than Mayflower Van Lines. But you are right I own and have built a RAF and train in a RAF so does that qualify me to use the term us. I think so it doesn't mater whether I have one or a thousand I still am a RAFer YOu own a toyota lets say does that qualify as an owner. I would say so. I have been waiting to go back and hang mine. Then fly off the 40 hours. Then watch out Ron A lol Maybe I will go with 100 hours dual on Mine lol

Thom

C. Beaty

09-03-2006, 07:27 AM

“Most of you fly lower power to weight ratio gyro so you don't get into this problem. While those who fly heavies are more susceptible to these PPOs and PIOs. Any kind of building or design flaw will become apparent more quickly because of this. There is a big difference between 300 lbs of thrust and 700 lbs of thrust.”

Thom, I really, really hate to keep poking holes in your theories but lets review some facts:

Pitcairn PA-33, 420 HP R-975, rotor diameter 50 ft., max AUW 3,300 lb., top speed 150 mph.

Pitcairn PA-36, 175 Hp Warner R-500, rotor diameter 43 ft., max AUW 2.050 lb., top speed 117 mph.

Kellett KD-1A, 225 HP Jacobs L-4MA-7, rotor diameter 40 ft., max AUW 2,400 lb., top speed 123 mph.

None of these machines ever tumbled and in fact, had a lower fatality rate than contemporary fixed wing aircraft.

In the entire history of pre WWII gyroplanes, there is only one record of a bunt; that was to a Cierva C-30 fitted with floats and the pilot somehow survived.

The most important determinant of performance is power to weight ratio, not gross amounts.

Harry_S.

09-03-2006, 07:43 AM

You and Harry have evidently found a different NSTB site than the one I?m familiar with.

Chuck B....why pick on me...I didn't rain on your parade.:rolleyes:

I am well aware of the ref. site above. I have kept the list on the slant board right in front of me, for years.

Now back to this thread and the reasoning of why I started it.

I finally saw the logic and the benefits of having shorter threads, rather than having ONE voluminous thread. So, following Mike's suggestion...I started RAF specific threads which should allow for more efficient forum *searches* for persons interested in locating RAF specific info.

This thread is "RAF ROTOR BLADES"...

Cheers :)

Gary_in_Orygun

09-03-2006, 07:45 AM

Ron, this is just another thread got hijacked by RAF-haters.;)

Chris Burgess

09-03-2006, 10:41 AM

Harry_S.

09-03-2006, 12:01 PM

For Harry S, RAF Product Notice #33, dated 18 June 2001. I can't post the whole thing but I will type in the first sentence of the notice:

"A time change factor of 500 hours is being put on the rotor blades and hub bar until further notice."

Maybe you didn't get this one. I am 65 hours from 500 and will be ordering a set soon. The notice goes into detail of why this was done. This is two times over the safety factor since 1000 hours was considered one half the expected life. On the observations of a vibrations guy, Jim Butler, it was noted that RAF can not have any way to know how much vibration any given aircraft has or the actual abuse it is subject to, ie storage, transport etc. All this in mind prompted them to place this 500 hour time change on the rotor.

Hey Chris...I thank you for your post. I am not in receipt of that PN.:( That was 5 yrs. ago. Do you have anything on *any further Notice* as ref. above?!

Do any of you RAF'rs know when they started supplying the new blades?

I don't really know but I would guess Duane Hunn had several thousand hard hours on those blades when RAF decided to put a tentative 500 hr. change factor on 'em.:rolleyes: :D

That's definite info in black and white...not speculation or supposition.

Thanks Chris.

Cheers :)

C. Beaty

09-04-2006, 02:49 AM

Harry, I wouldn’t give much credence to numbers pulled out of thin air.

To arrive at meaningful numbers for rotor life cycle requires instrumenting with strain gauges so that stress levels are known and then performing the engineering calculations.

I don’t think any supplier of rotorblades outside of mainstream helicopter manufacturers has that capability.

The endurance of blades and hub depends more than anything else upon specific application. Well tuned blades running on an RAF with magic rubber bushing will out live both of us. Blades vibrating like a jackhammer on a Marchetti or Parsons trainer won’t last very long.

StanFoster

09-04-2006, 04:56 AM

Chuck: Your last post says it all. I was riding along in a gyro last year that the rotor shake was awful. I could not or would not have continued flying it like that. I was thinking of all the unneccessary wear on the cyclic controls...etc.

I would have grounded the machine myself.

I have heard of compasses actually sitting in their own vibration induced foam from so much jackhammer shake.

My RAF blades werent too bad.....but when I put the sportcopter blades on it...it was even smoother.

Stan

GyroRon

09-04-2006, 05:52 AM

For Harry S, RAF Product Notice #33, dated 18 June 2001. I can't post the whole thing but I will type in the first sentence of the notice:

"A time change factor of 500 hours is being put on the rotor blades and hub bar until further notice."

Maybe you didn't get this one. I am 65 hours from 500 and will be ordering a set soon. The notice goes into detail of why this was done. This is two times over the safety factor since 1000 hours was considered one half the expected life. On the observations of a vibrations guy, Jim Butler, it was noted that RAF can not have any way to know how much vibration any given aircraft has or the actual abuse it is subject to, ie storage, transport etc. All this in mind prompted them to place this 500 hour time change on the rotor.

THANK YOU CHRIS FOR POSTING THAT!!!! I was about as sick of Harry and Thom telling me I was full of crap as a person could be.

GyroRon

09-04-2006, 05:57 AM

Hey Chris...I thank you for your post. I am not in receipt of that PN.:( That was 5 yrs. ago. Do you have anything on *any further Notice* as ref. above?!

Do any of you RAF'rs know when they started supplying the new blades?

I don't really know but I would guess Duane Hunn had several thousand hard hours on those blades when RAF decided to put a tentative 500 hr. change factor on 'em.:rolleyes: :D

That's definite info in black and white...not speculation or supposition.

Thanks Chris.

Cheers :)

Well Harry.....that's all I get? "speculation or supposition"................ Cheers

Harry_S.

09-04-2006, 06:45 AM

Well Harry.....that's all I get? "speculation or supposition"................ Cheers

That's all you had, Ron. You had nothing in black and white backing you up...just your mouthing it as gospel.

If you check back in the postings...I didn't say there WAS NOT a 500 hr. time life on the RAF blades...I said I had never seen anything stating there was and asking for anyone to show paperwork from RAF to that fact.

I thank Chris B. for posting the info. I'll see if I can get a copy of it.

Cheers :)

Harry_S.

09-04-2006, 07:02 AM

The endurance of blades and hub depends more than anything else upon specific application. Well tuned blades running on an RAF with magic rubber bushing will out live both of us. Blades vibrating like a jackhammer on a Marchetti or Parsons trainer won?t last very long.

I'll go along with that, Chuck.

My rotorhead, blades and controls are babied just as much as the engine. The entire rotor is completely covered. In addition, each blade end is supported with an 8 ft. standoff, when hangared.

Cheers :)

KenSandyEggo

09-04-2006, 08:43 AM

Chris, wouldn't an investment in SportCoper blades and hub make more sense than ordering new RAFs every 500 hours?

Timchick

09-04-2006, 02:31 PM

One of the guys who shares a hanger with Steve M. had a set of RAF blades on his tandem machine and was having a lot of stick shake. They tried everything they could think of to adjust them and never could get them smooth. They finally called RAF and found out the blades were circa. 1993 and were recalled. RAF told them not to fly them and wanted them destroyed. RAF offered him a discount off some new blades and he now has a new set of RAF blades/hub with no shake.

Aussie_Paul

09-04-2006, 02:37 PM

Chris, wouldn't an investment in SportCoper blades and hub make more sense than ordering new RAFs every 500 hours?

I would have thought so Ken.:confused:

With a bit of luck I get to fly a set of SC blades in November while certifying Firebird in NZ. I have been waiting for this opportunity for a long while now!!!:D

If and/or when I get Firebird to the US I will probably have people buy SC rotors, and the "above the torque tube" part of the SC rotor head. The Firebird torque tube and below is specific to the Firbird control system.

That would be a cost saving by not having to freight rotors both ways.

Aussie Paul.:)

dragonflyerthom

09-04-2006, 03:03 PM

Thanks Chris for posting

I will be getting that product notice also.
Ron A you are still silver tongued.

Thom

Aussie_Paul

09-04-2006, 03:33 PM

A friend in Westen Oz was not getting the RAF product notices, so he contacted raf and they sent him a complete updated list.

Aussie Paul.:)

LARRYEBOYER

09-04-2006, 03:55 PM

Don't be calling my friend Ron a RAF hater. I have it on video tape when Ron and Jim became a---- buddies at Mentone. Ron said (as he was exiting the Raf after a flight with uncle Jim Logan) that he was pleasantly surprised at how stable the RAF was with the stabalator and it was far different than what he(RON) had heard or experienced.I believe he was pleasantly surprised!

On the subject of rotor blades, I have the 24th generation RAF blades. They are smooth and I get "0" stick shake. I have had many people fly my ship and they are amazed at how nice the blades are. I wouldn't want to trade for anything else but I would trade the hub bar if it was unsafe.

Chris Burgess

09-04-2006, 04:03 PM

I have seen no negative post on the SC blades, but I have a student that I have flown his and they are not smooth. We worked on them a good bit but he decided to give up and go DW. I think we could have gotten them smooth. I feel that way about all blades. The SC blades are a "rougher ride" if you are use to fiberglass. Bonded are just "rougher" by design, not much flex. There, you got my opinion. I liked the Skywheels where some did not. You could get those smooth also. No twist, and they spun up quicker than RAF. Lift is about equal. Just keep in mind, these are my 35 year experience opinions. No data to back it up. If I could get Skywheels with manufacture support, I believe that is where I would go. Anybody interested in my 500 hour RAF's when I change mine out???

dragonflyerthom

09-04-2006, 04:06 PM

Chris

I might be interested in an extra set. How much???

Thom

dragonflyerthom

09-05-2006, 07:47 AM

Larry

It would appear you have the best, at this time. The hub up grade is about 300. U.S. You probably already have the upgrade tho.

Ron getting out of a RAF(Priceless)

Thom

P.S. Ron I still like ya even tho you do P...me off sometimes. Talking with you on this forum keeps me young and thinking not Stinking

Brent Drake

09-05-2006, 09:17 AM

I'm understanding that RAF is not letting people upgrade the hub bar any longer. Just a trade in on your old one. for about $600

Chris Burgess

09-05-2006, 12:03 PM

Yes, I did upgrade mine for about $300 and about another $100 shipping and fees in early 2005. I feel there should be no compromise when it comes to your rotor.

bbushong

12-18-2006, 11:38 AM

Looks to me, according to PN 21, that the OLD hub bar (before the middle of 1996), is good for 150 hours of flight time. This hub bar has a 7/8" center thickness.

The newer hub bars and rotor blades (made after middle of 1996), with a 1" thick center thickness, according to PN #33, are to be changed at 500 hours until further notice. It also looks like the winglets were later further upgraded with better machining in PN 39, 15 Dec 2004, with the new bolt.

As I understand from the PNs that I have, the only hubs that are LESS than a 500 hour replacement are the ones manufactured prior to mid-1996, and the PN says only that the center section (not the winglets) are to be changed out.

Here are the notices that I have:
16 (2 May 95, Rotor Blade Strikes)
19 (1 Nov 95, Improper or No Support/Outdoor Storage)
21 (10 Oct 96, Hub Bar)
31 (19 Dec 00, Rotor Blade Storage and Transportation)
33 (18 Jun 01, 500 Hr Time Change Requirement)
35 (18 Dec 02, Rotor Blade Replacement Program)
37 (15 Dec 03, Components Requiring Insp after Incident)
39 (15 Dec 04, Hub Bar Winglets/AN12 Bolt)

I'd be glad to share if you'd like the files.

Ben