If I get an RAF 2000 ...

J2 McCollough a certified gyro, m24 Magni, UFO, xenon, calidus MTO, just to name a few that would be on my list. Of course the J2 tops it. It has jump take off. Why do you ask 98?
 
Last edited:
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.

Ron I'm not offended. I gotta hang out with you at Bensen days etc so whatever. It's all good.

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.
 
Well, there were issues with some of the quality of some of the parts in the kits. Like heim bearings, redrive sprocket bearings, non aircraft grade bolts, crappy motor mounts and non vulcanized magic bushings etc...They are small things that can be upgraded to greatly improve the longevity, safety, performance, reliability, and piece of mind while flying. They are well worth the extra money and effort to upgrade your machine.
 
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
 
Not bad form, I find chucks analogies very funny. If cb didn't care he wouldn't say anything and let darwins theories work their magic! :sad:

cb has been doing this way before me and you were born so listen up and get that genesis going! :)

That's not the reason Chuck and that was total bad form. Way to draw a clear line in the sand. Good grief.
 
Last edited:
Vance let me tell you a bit more of the story. Of the four he spoke of, three were operating outside of the limitations that the instructor had set. I have nice little paragraphs written in my log book of what I could do and what conditions I could fly in as a student and I followed them to the letter. I was reminded daily of one of the fatalities because I circled the cross in the middle of the airfield he bore a hole in. He decided to fly with the doors on and had no prior training in them. Additionally, he was doing down wind maneuvers that had the airfield attempting to get him on the radio yet he was not able to be raised.

I don't think four (especially taking my previous info into consideration) crashes are "unreasonable" as you say...when the instructor has trained hundreds and racked thousands of dual training time. The guy is renowned for his instruction and travels all over the country to do so. If I may be so bold, I think your application of the numbers are a bit ignorant of a larger picture. And I mean that as nice as I possibly can.

I think it's stupid to attach a death toll to an instructor of his caliber, and that's not a back scratch. That's about as stupid as NTSB attributing weather as a primary cause of a crash. Every pilots makes a decision to fly when, what, where, etc. I make it every time. And shame on anyone that puts a checkmark next to someone else's name if I go down. Put it next to my name and get over it.
 
Nor was I offended.

I did all my mods right from the get go.
And like Ron said, “ It isn’t a RAF any more”

I also thank the guys here on the form with real hands on experience in like aircraft for the help with the mods.

Earlier
I asked a member how many hours he had in a RAF or modded RAF
To make his observations and the validity of them clear for others and myself.

I still can’t find how much time he has in a RAF to make these astute observations.
 
Please don’t misquote me.

Please don’t misquote me.

Vance let me tell you a bit more of the story. Of the four he spoke of, three were operating outside of the limitations that the instructor had set. I have nice little paragraphs written in my log book of what I could do and what conditions I could fly in as a student and I followed them to the letter. I was reminded daily of one of the fatalities because I circled the cross in the middle of the airfield he bore a hole in. He decided to fly with the doors on and had no prior training in them. Additionally, he was doing down wind maneuvers that had the airfield attempting to get him on the radio yet he was not able to be raised.

I don't think four (especially taking my previous info into consideration) crashes are "unreasonable" as you say...when the instructor has trained hundreds and racked thousands of dual training time. The guy is renowned for his instruction and travels all over the country to do so. If I may be so bold, I think your application of the numbers are a bit ignorant of a larger picture. And I mean that as nice as I possibly can.

I think it's stupid to attach a death toll to an instructor of his caliber, and that's not a back scratch. That's about as stupid as NTSB attributing weather as a primary cause of a crash. Every pilots makes a decision to fly when, what, where, etc. I make it every time. And shame on anyone that puts a checkmark next to someone else's name if I go down. Put it next to my name and get over it.

Hello Brian,

Please don’t put quotes around a word I didn’t use and attribute it to me.

What I said was, “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 safety discussion.”

Which part do you feel is “stupid”; that I feel he has an unusually high number of dead students or dead students are relevant part of a safety discussion?

What do you attribute this statistical anomaly to?

Do you imagine he has trained so many more students than other instructors that it is natural for him to have more dead ones?

Did you believe everything he told you about how a gyroplane flies?

Thank you, Vance
 
Sorry Vance I misquoted you. I meant to quote unusual, not unreasonable. The app on my phone I post with does not allow me to scroll back through the post ad I type a new message.

I suppose for one to assume something unusual one would have to determine what would be usual. Which in this case, being a low number in my opinion, usual may be zero? Which yes, I think is stupid. There are plenty of others out there that have lost their lives due to a variety of things and I don't think it's time to take a tally for the CFIs. I imagine this would be one reason one may not consider a CFI path. I question whether I would if it would be constantly assumed that an accident would be a direct reflection of my instruction, regardless of the facts. As they say...f * c k that, sir.

This is a tangent I hate to be on so I'll bow out. I don't want to make light of lost ones, and I don't think anyone can be right here. Only a matter of opinion. Moving on.
 
J2 McCollough a certified gyro, m24 Magni, UFO, xenon, calidus MTO, just to name a few that would be on my list. Of course the J2 tops it. It has jump take off. Why do you ask 98?

I ask because if it turns out to be somewhat doable to certify a gyro here in Israel that has not previously flown here, then I would consider spending more money, 70-80k is not out of my range. I love the looks of the Magni M24, but I fear that model is too "new" to have all the issues sorted out. How long is long enough for a new machine to prove itself?
 
Daniel
MAybe an Ela 07 would work for you.

There is one already in Israel so certification issues should be straightforward

Reg 4X-ORR

Heres a pic:

95688_1256831261.jpg
 
Here's my two bobs worth, sure, the RAf has been around for approx 20 years or more, they have changed very little over time and they have been superseeded to a large degree by machines like the ELA 07 or the MTO which I have both flown which are just so easy to fly and unless you were to do something extremely silly, you will not get any negative or dangerous reaction out of them. You have better rotors / pre rotating sytems etc etc etc, to me the choice is simple, how much is your life worth ??
PaY THE EXTRA AND GET A MODERN UP TO DATE GYRO THAT FLYS BETTER, IS MORE COMFORTABLE AND YOU WILL ENJOY FLYING LOTS MORE. The sitting position in a RAF is crude to say least and a belt re drive ??? you got to be kidding, a Rotax 912 or 914 is going to give you many trouble free hours unlike the Suby's and the broken cranks cuse of the crook re drive set up !

The ELA's /MTO's Magnis/ Xenon are over priced, true ! but are streets ahead of the RAF and light years ahead in the safety stakes. Choice is simple !
 
Last edited:
@helipaddy - Thanks for the suggestion, I know about the israeli ELA, in fact I will be talking to the pilot a bit later, however I am looking for an enclosed machine, and preferably not tandem.

@Chopper Reid - The fact that the RAF has been around for over 20 years gives me some confidence that a lot of the kinks have been ironed out, however it does concern me to fly a 20 year old model that may or may not (I'm still researching this) have been updated enough to keep up with newer safety standards as they come up (and I'm not talking about the H/S debate, nor do I want to talk about it again, I'm talking about things like materials, rotor designs, construction, etc.)
I have done a bit of research (not enough) and, for example, I know of 2 issues with the Magni M24 that have been discovered simply through time, one is the door flying off mentioned in this forum, and the other one is the rudder pedal mounting block (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4433), I'm sure these issues will be addressed (the mounting block apparently already has been addressed) by Magni. (I absolutely love the Magni M24, and I'm seriously considering it as my first gyro)
Money is certainly NOT a consideration in my case.
I don't want to be a "test pilot" for any new gyro, so, in your opinion, how much time is enough for a gyro to be flying in order to consider it past the "test-flying" phase? For me, a machine that has not been flying for at least 1 year is not one I would even consider, therefore, for example, the Cavalon is out for me. And (although I'm not 100% sure about the time it was released), so is the SportCopter II.
 
Brian

How much is your life worth??? This is what I'm talking about is the attitude that a lot of forum members have here. You guys act like you treasure your life more than I do. This is absurd. I fly safely whether it's an airplane or a gyro. I get training check my aircraft carefully before each flight. Pre and post flight. I am always listen, looking for emergency landing areas and set up each landing for best glide for the aircraft I am in. I don't do stupid maneuvers like I have seen some of you do in a gyro. I am safe. I inspected my gyro build making sure the bolts and nuts were aviation quality. I didn't like the chineeses Heims ends so I replaced them with Aircraft Spruce aviation grade rod ends. This is an experimental gyro that I am responsible for my build not RAF. Yes they supplied me with kit (not much of a kit) that I had to make a lot of the parts. Which I did following the build manual. So I believe my RAF is as safe as any other gyro out there. This was also modded for my peace of mind. That said let's move on. I have used this forum as a resource in my build. I talked with other RAF owners and prior owners and other gyro owners. By the way I own experimental air craft because k don't trust A&Ps they mess up a lot
 
Last edited:
So I believe my RAF is as safe as any other gyro out there.
But beliefs aren't reality unfortunately, that's the problem here.

Unless you've dealt with the high thrustline it's not as safe as another gyro that doesn't have this design deficiency.

A typical horizontal stabilizer alone isn't enough to prevent an otherwise stock RAF from PPO, it's not powerful enough (especially when mounted down on the keel & out of propwash) - it's just a step in the right direction.
 
Brian,

Regarding Dofin's capabilities as an instructor:

I know there are lots of RAF owners who swear that Dofin is a great instructor. But, how do you explain the anomaly of four student's deaths in a 12-month period? Any instructor could get one student who is able to hide the fact that he will make deadly decisions to fly outside his training/expertise window.

But to have four students of his die in a 12-month period, to me, implies a couple of things. First, and most likely, he is signing off students that really shouldn't be flying, or signing them off too soon, especially to be flying a stock RAF.

Second, he's obviously not cautioning them about how quickly an RAF can enter PPO, which is a known fact. That puts them at a huge disadvantage, even if they are marginally good pilots.

Any instructor worth his salt, has either had students he refused to train, stopped training when he realized they weren't cut out to be pilots, or withheld the keys, the rotor blades, or the whole machine, until the student was really ready to fly. I know personally of instructors who have done all of those things to keep their students safe. The four deaths are pretty clear proof to me that Dofin doesn't.

Fortunately for me, I found an instructor who taught the dangers of PIO and PPO, and convinced me to buy a machine with CLT, especially since early in my training, I really struggled with recognizing and controlling pitch excursions.

While I was getting my Sport Pilot certificate with Ron Menzie, we discussed my flying abilities regarding my RAF. Ron agreed that I was ready to fly my RAF, with the cautions about using 60mph climb outs, no zoom climbs, and flying slower in turbulence, even with the stab. He said that the stab would help reduce the chance of PPO, but to remember that the danger was still there.

Personally, having worked with the various instructors I have, and knowing the facts about Dofin, he would never get a chance to train me.
 
For these two unfortunate victims, no doubt believing they could never end up in the bottom of a smoking hole, a horizontal stab wasn’t enough.
 

Attachments

  • Northam before and after.JPG
    Northam before and after.JPG
    23.7 KB · Views: 4
  • Peasant Frog.JPG
    Peasant Frog.JPG
    60.7 KB · Views: 4
Just curious, does anyone know if and how many of these students were signed off to fly or did they take it upon themselves to fly when they shouldn't have. I have seen students that have some training but have not yet reached their sign-off from their instructor jump into their machine and fly. We just had a member of our club do that and he tore up his machine. Would that be the instructors fault?

Also, how many other models have crashed with high time pilots? Was that the fault of the machine or fault of the pilot?

I own an RAF and am aware of the dangers. At this time I only have a HS but I'm planning to do a drop keel. I also have access to s Sparrow Hawk kit that I will probably install some day. Safety is certainly my upmost concern and anything I can do to make my machine safer is well worth the money to do so.

I have however have seen from past forum posts that whenever an RAF goes down it is always blamed on the machine. Any other model is always blamed on the pilot, just wondering what the difference is.
 
Step away from the mirror Thom.

Step away from the mirror Thom.

Brian

How much is your life worth??? This is what I'm talking about is the attitude that a lot of forum members have here. You guys act like you treasure your life more than I do. This is absurd. I fly safely whether it's an airplane or a gyro. I get training check my aircraft carefully before each flight. Pre and post flight. I am always listen, looking for emergency landing areas and set up each landing for best glide for the aircraft I am in. I don't do stupid maneuvers like I have seen some of you do in a gyro. I am safe. I inspected my gyro build making sure the bolts and nuts were aviation quality. I didn't like the chineeses Heims ends so I replaced them with Aircraft Spruce aviation grade rod ends. This is an experimental gyro that I am responsible for my build not RAF. Yes they supplied me with kit (not much of a kit) that I had to make a lot of the parts. Which I did following the build manual. So I believe my RAF is as safe as any other gyro out there. This was also modded for my peace of mind. That said let's move on. I have used this forum as a resource in my build. I talked with other RAF owners and prior owners and other gyro owners. By the way I own experimental air craft because k don't trust A&Ps they mess up a lot

In my opinion your assertion is absurd.

I don’t understand why you feel personally attacked when someone challenges anyone’s assertions about RAFs or questions the process of conclusions.

I feel a responsibility to challenge those things that are stated as fact that in my opinion are untrue or simply someone’s opinion.

I find it counterproductive when people try to move the discussion to personalities.

In my opinion denigrating others is not a way to show you are right.

It is nice that you feel that your modified RAF is as safe as any gyroplane out there and still looks good.

Please leave it at that and stop attacking people for having a divergent opinion about anything RAF.

Thank you, Vance
 
At this point it has nothing to do with RAF. I'll tell mike since some of you continue to talk about something you know nothing about. The other fatality, the guy wasn't even in an RAF. He was trained dual and then climbed into a single place, instructed to only do taxi and hops. He decided to go around the pattern and crashed in front of his wife. I shouldn't have to sit here and debunk ****. know 100% of the story. I attacked mr Beaty's sly post because it eludes to bad instruction and RAF. Which is a complete mucking. Christ.
 
Top