A few corrections.
A few corrections.
Maybe he was referring to a damage history xenon for 70-80k? Anything else would be higher than that if you were looking for some of the newer side by sides. all HLT mind you.
If you are looking at a RAF that was a kit post at least 2006 then you shouldn't have any issues with part stuff Ron was referring to. I came up with that date because that's my kit year. I'll add that there was never a hub, blade, or torque tube failure. There was a jackshaft issue back then that has also been corrected. These were actually failing though. All of these were addressed from RAF when Canada was running the show and issued recall/replacement notices. Any new RAF manual you pick up has all of these notices inserted so it would not be hard to determine if one reviewed the manual and had the machine looked over. All blades are serialed to check generation. I don't agree with Rons setup as if RAF puts out crap parts. I don't really know if that's what he was getting at. Most important, all of the parts that were found to not be functioning as intended have been addressed. I recall a seat belt bracket breaking on another popular gyro lit recently. Happened, addressed.
A student was killed when one of the bolts that hold the hub bar together broke. The RAF rotor was not on an RAF and had been used for training. It was found that RAF was not using the bolt that the bolt manufacturer recommended.
There were some control system failures because RAF was using poor quality spherical rod ends.
There is one in a hangar in Lompoc near hear. I talked to the fellow who crashed it with his son on board when the spherical rod end broke.
I don’t know how much has been fixed or how much more there is. The above are the things I have personal knowledge of.
In my opinion not all dead RAF pilots were short on training and experience.
There was a campaign of misinformation launched by RAF marketing a few years back. Their fantasy about how an RAF swung under the rotor was not at all reasonable. I learned in the eighth grade that bodies rotate around their center of gravity.
It is natural that the people who denigrate the RAF sound the same. How many ways can you say high thrust line and no horizontal stabilizer?
How many ways can you say that an RAF stabilator does not perform the function of a horizontal stabilizer and is not a stabilator in traditional aeronautical terminology?
In my opinion it is not reasonable to compare an RAF to a Magni even though both are high thrust line.
In my opinion an instructor who has an unusually high number of dead students has a creditably challenge and it is very relevant to any saftey discussion.
I don’t know enough to quantify the benefit of Thom’s fix.
I am impressed with the safety record that RAF SA has achieved.
I was impressed that RAF Marketing in Canada managed to stay in business as long as they did. In my opinion they were working off some very short margins and as near as I can tell had reasonable customer service. They created a market where others had failed. They built an attractive aircraft.
I feel that a person purporting that they know enough to make flat statements have an obligation to check the validity of their statements.
I feel that honesty and knowledge are critical tools in risk management.
I have no advice for Daniel other than to learn as much as he can and check the sources of the information.
I am not an aeronautical engineer and I have not flown a gyroplane that I designed and built.
I probably have less than 5 hours in an RAF and I don’t know enough to know how close to trouble I was.
I only have 900 hours in gyroplanes and have no experience crashing one.
I have no interest in entering into a debate about the merits of a particular gyroplane, I have presented my opinions as my opinions and only history that I have direct knowledge off.
In my opinion I have not done anything to “bash” RAF marketing in Canada or RAF SA.
Thank you, Vance