Eben Mocke Sr.

Mayfield

Gold Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,240
Location
Avondale, Arizona
Aircraft
Aero SP AT-4 (Gobosh 700X), TAG Titanium Explorer
Big Aviation checks out AirVenture
By Peter S. Lert
They looked like anyone else wandering the showplane lines and vendor displays at AirVenture this year: shorts, T-shirts, camcorders, sunburn. But they weren’t "just visitors"—they were a team of engineers from General Electric and Airbus Industries, on what they themselves described as a "treasure hunt for innovation."
Of course, engineers visiting AirVenture is nothing new. Indeed, it probably isn’t the first time an engineer has managed to figure out a way to come to Oshkosh at company expense. This group, however — including members from both firms and from Europe as well as the United States — came with a very specific objective in mind, and with a highly detailed plan in place for achieving it.
The objective was simple: "Stimulate the GE and AI teams on themes of innovation for the aerospace industry."……………..

………………In terms of inspirational pioneers, one group chose John Monnett; another chose Eben Mocke Sr., who produces and markets the RAF gyroplane kits; and the third chose Canadian "Fern" Villeneuve, who started flying as a civilian after WWII, joined the RCAF, and led its first jet formation aerobatic team.


http://www.airventure.org/2008/7sat2/big_aviation.html
 
You guys come up with the best information. It's like having our own research department, I can't tell you how much time you really save us/me learning.
I really appreciate it Jim!
Thank you
 
The last time I spoke to Mr. Mocke he was going to Mentone so people will have a chance to ask him. I found him inspirational as it said in the article. I hope that people will treat him as nicely as he treated me.

He has some interesting interpretations of Newtonian physics and some creative ideas on gyroplane stability.

He feels that people disparage RAF stability for financial gain or other personal motivations. He feels that the criticism is unfounded. Many that stopped by the booth felt the same way.

Mr. Mocke was proud of the originality of design of the RAF.

He, his son and daughter were all very nice to me and allowed me to listen in on many of the interactions so that I could learn even after I explained to them I was not a viable customer. He seems a very good father and is charming and affable.

There was a lot of interest.

Mr. Mocke is out of the hotel and real estate development industry.

He loves flying gyroplanes and he has flown the RAF at over 120 miles per hour to debunk the rumors about stability.

He has stated that he will continue to support RAF owners even if they modify their RAF.

Thank you, Vance
 
Last edited:
Vance,

Can you tell us some of his "interesting interpretations of Newtonian physics and some creative ideas on gyroplane stability"?

I admire your ability to find the positive side of people and situations.

I'm sad, disappointed, and discouraged that the RAF will probably go down in history as an innovative gyro mainly because of marketing savy and lack of understanding.

I really find it hard to believe that this "debate" still goes on.
 
For What it’s Worth Department:

Don’t pay too much attention to the name dropping in EAA press releases, Jim. I doubt of either GE or Airbus has lent their company’s name and prestige to the cited EAA awards.

RAF received an EAA award for “Outstanding Achievements in Safety” several years ago.
 
RAF received an EAA award for “Outstanding Achievements in Safety” several years ago.

Wasn't that award for the fire-proofing foam they put in the gas tank, which later was found to come apart and clog fuel systems?
 
Hello Michael,

Mr. Mocke Sr. was describing why the RAF was stable and summed it up with, “is is all just Newton.” I was not able to understand the explanation and how it related to Newton.

He explained how the Stabilator caused the rotor to respond the correct way in an updraft and how a horizontal stabilizer does exactly the wrong thing.

I spent several hours in the booth over 8 visits. I found it informative and was treated with kindness and patience.

As to the “debate”, for some of the people who came by it is not a debate at all and they do not understand how people can question the stability of an RAF. I hypothesize, based on some of their statements, that some who came by felt unjustly persecuted by a pack of self-serving people with limited cognitive skills.

Some felt that their personal survival while flying an RAF without a horizontal stabilizer proved conclusively that it was completely safe and the people who crashed needed more training.

I do the same thing when I read the NTSB reports on aviation accidents. I postulate I won’t make that chain of errors that led to an unpleasant end to a pleasant flight, based on training, personal experience and what I believe to be a reasonable knowledge base.

I cautioned Mr. Mocke that there would be some strongly held opinions at Mentone that were divergent from his. I hope people will display good manners. He is a guest in our country, he has brought his family and he has invested a lot in the gyroplane sport. I feel it is a very bold business move to purchase a company that did not make money over many years and move it to South Africa.

Thank you, Vance
 
Yes, Michael, and it works when properly implemented.

Race cars have used plastic sponges in their fuel cells for years to prevent gross spillage in the event of a rupture.
 
Last edited:
The CG is the universal “hinge” about which all aircraft rotation occurs.

There can be no moment about the “hinge” if there is no arm.

You must have both a force (engine thrust) and an arm (engine thrust offset) to have a moment (nose pitching force).

The stock RAF has an over turning (nose down) moment of about 400 lb/ft at cruise speed.

Force X Arm = Moment.

With a stabless HTL gyro the rotor thrust vector must be directed in front of the CG in order to hold the nose up against the over turning moment generated by the offset engine thrust.

When RTV is ahead of CG the aircraft must be pitch unstable.

A reduction of rotor thrust will result in an uncommanded nose down moment. If not stopped the nose down rotation can turn into a PPO.

Now the problem begins! I have articulated why the RAF, and other HTL machines, in stock form, are dangerous.

I have asked the RAF folks to articulate why the above is not so. The only response I’ve ever seen is:

It’s not unsafe.

You guys are bashers.

Real men fly aircraft that require real manly reflexes.

Just because.

Mr. (insert name here) has flown the RAF for (insert huge number of hours here) and he says it’s fine.

I have never heard, or seen, a response that says:

The RAF 2000 is not pitch unstable because………Force………Arm…….Moment…….CG………Balance…….Etc……

The Mocke family had a golden opportunity to revive the RAF brand and do a great service to the community.

I suspect there was not a lot of airframe inventory shipped to SA. For less than $20,000.00, in design and tooling cost, they could have redesigned the keel/cluster plates and the landing gear, fabricated a generous horizontal stabilizer, and produced an aircraft that was stable at most loadings and speeds.

I hope they will someday do so.

Jim Mayfield
 
Last edited:
Hello Mr. Mayfield,

Based on what I have heard him say, I suspect that Mr. Mocke does not agree with your opinions.

He son described Mr. Mocke going 120 miles per hour and feeling completely safe. They have it on video as “proof” of the stability of the RAF gyroplane.

I was not able to pin down exactly where your opinions diverge from his. I postulate that he feels that the forces are not enough to cause an instability based on his skills and personal experience. In my experience, it is human nature to diminish the perceived risk through repeated exposure to the risk without consequences. I didn’t want to be rude or disruptive because I was not a viable customer prospect and they have spent a lot of money to be face to face with the potential customer. They are also guests in our country.

It is my opinion the Mr. Mocke is an intelligent man that has spent some time thinking about these issues and reached divergent conclusions. I did not detect any malevolence.

Thank you, Vance
 
People have sat on flag poles for days; therefore it must be safe.

I'm going to sell flag pole kits, with an assembly video of course.

If a gust of wind blows you off, please don't blame me, you should have practiced more in low-wind conditions.
 
Vance,

I also do not believe the Haseloh family, the LaFleur family or the Mocke family has/had any evil intent.

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that these issues become so emotionally charged.

Hopefully, over time, their "opinions" will change.

Jim
 
I am sure the RAF is a fun to fly aircraft. I am sure experienced pilots feel very comfortable flying it. We know that most RAF fatalities happen to inexperienced pilots. So the experienced pilots say - well since mostly inexperienced pilots have crashed this gyro - this is a proof that with more training EVERYONE can fly this gyro safely.

There is only one problem with this argument. Mastering this gyro sufficiently to fly it "safely" is just like a mouse mastering eating the cheese out of the mousetrap, without making the trap trigger and kill you.

It is very unsafe for an untrained mouse to eat the cheese out of a mousetrap - they will most likely trigger the trap and knack - they are dead. So the mouse is taking trap training to eat the cheese without triggering the trap. After about 100 hours of training, the mouse can go solo into the trap and eat the cheese.

But hey - look - over there you can eat cheese that is not inside a trap! Smart mice are telling the trap-trained mice all about it but the trap-trained mice are not interested, they have already mastered the trap and they know how to do it "safely".

An RAF gyro is just like a mouse trap. It is a whole lot of fun and really safe, as long as you don't trigger the trap. The RAF guys will say - bullsh1t - none of us has ever experience "the trap". Of course not - anyone who've experienced the trap is now DEAD - and there are A LOT of them!

The trap analogy is not just a literary analogy - the PPO mechanism is a whole lot like a mouse trap. There is a moment of no return in the PPO progression. If the pilot is quick enough to cut the power or respond quickly enough with the stick, it can be stopped. But if the pilot is not quick enough (hence the poor beginners), it gets to the point of no return and the pilot becomes a passenger.

The problem is that when the Mockes are showing their sexy aircraft at Airventure - there is no sign that says MOUSETRAP on it. New mouse recruits don't know that they are
signing up to operate a mouse trap - and that they can just as easily eat cheese REALLY safely somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
This is one mouse recruit that that will just select the cheese without the trap, thank you very much.

You keep breaking it down to its simplest terms, simply brilliant!

When the cat away the Manufacture will play, but poor old cat got on teeth so all the forum mice can do is teach and preach!

How can I a trust the rest of the math behind a manufacture current engineering if they can’t understand 6th or 7th grade math and then what about college aerodynamics skills without a math understanding?

Every time I’ve heard someone say it’s all Newtonian I also have asked “Which principles?” funny but all but a very few told me “it’s very complicated” or near the same phrase. I've heard that before somewhere?

Reminds me of the teachers that use to tell me the same thing or that was a stupid question, and I was so foolish to believe them. Until one day in the 1st year of college an older woman challenged the teacher saying well we would all like to know the answer to John’s question, if you know? Well “it all very complicated and we don’t have the time”. He didn’t KNOW and I was in shock, but no teacher got away with that again either. Who’s really ignorant the one asking the questions or the professional who can’t answer the question?
 
Last edited:
Yes all very Newtonian alright!
After these stock RAF afficionados have attempted to cook/bend/distort/ignore the laws of physics and such in an attempt to claim the safety and stability of the machine of their dreams, when it all goes wrong they still have to contend with the one last law they cannot avoid:

My point is, wasn't it Newton who was sitting under a tree and a bloody apple fell on 'is 'ead?
And didn't this lead to the discovery of GRAVITY? Quite fitting really!!
 
The ability to fly a particular unstabbed machine at 120 mph and feel perfectly comfortable and safe can be attributed to a number of things.

Good reflexes, experience, smooth conditions, lack of fear, no imagination, a good legally airtight Will (oh, and complete faith in ones executors).:)

Edited with reference to the submission below.

Vance if my attempt at humor appeared crass, or misplaced, I apologize to both you and Mr Mocke.

Nearly all the gyro time I have is in a stock RAF, due to the fact that the CAA in the UK moves somewhat glacierly. I would if I could have been, in a stabbed machine because the many arguments I have read in the forum have convinced me that in it's present form it is a more unforgiving and therefore more dangerous machine. The instructor I fly with is of the same opinion. I am certainly with you 100% in thanking the more erudite on the Forum giving us the benefit of their knowledge and teaching us what is dangerous and what is a safer way to go.
 
Last edited:
Top