Magni M-14

[Airborne]

Hi,

I'm interested about flying Magni M14. It seems so quite about this compact 2-seater: No posting, really nothing. So is there anybody in the world who has a story about it ? For example how stable a flight is. Perhaps the short fuselage ( against a M-16) will be a problem.
Photos are also welcome cause they are also rare.

Greetings from a cold Germany
Stefan

[C. Beaty]

I believe Brian Pearson in the UK flies an M-14. He occasionally posts here, logging in as bpearson.

[bpearson]

I have the regular M16 Chuck but we have one M14 in the UK and everyone who has flown it says it flies great.

I am surprised more manufacturers don't offer the 1 plus 1 seating arrangement. The M14 is quite a bit smaller than the 16. I have a Dominator video somewhere with one on but didn't seem to catch on.

[gyrogreg]

Just for your information, there is just one Magni M14 in the U.S. This one is Rotax 914 powered, so it is really a rocket! I'm reluctant to post information about this owner, but I will let him know there has been an inquiry on the Rotary Forum.

The owner of this M14 also has Doug Riley's old 2-seat Dominator - he swtiches back and forth between flying the two.

This is the M14 that flew from Conneticut to New Mexico a few years ago - article in Rotorcraft.

I found the M14 cockpit a bit smallish and confining - at least for my size. It has essentially the same performance, stability and handling qualities as an M16 or M22. With this seating arrangement, you can get real familiar with the rear passenger - the Italians love it!

Actually, there has not been much call, worldwide for the M14. The M16 and M22, and now the M24 are much more popular Magni models. But, the M14 is still in production and an approved kit version is available for the U.S.

- Thanks, Greg Gremminger

[C. Beaty]

Which model Magni did Bill Parsons have, Greg, and do you know what became of it?

My recollection is that it had an Arrow engine but that was a long time ago.

[gyrogreg]

Originally Posted by C. Beaty

Which model Magni did Bill Parsons have, Greg, and do you know what became of it?

My recollection is that it had an Arrow engine but that was a long time ago.

Hi Chuck,

I don't know for sure what model Bill had, but I've assumed it was an Arrow powered VPM16. That is the same model that is actually legal in Britain - pre Section "T". I believe that, obviously, the M14 came along before the M16, but, I don't believe it was available for production until after the M16 came along. The prototype M14 was probably an Arrow powered VPM14. [The numbers in Magni model names designate the sequence of new prototypes. The letters stand for the designer(s): MT (Magni Tervamaki), VPM (Vittorio P. Magni), "M" (Magni - Vittorio and sons)]

The VPM16 was Arrow powered. This is the model that many people in Britain would like to install the much more reliable Rotax engines on - but British rules inexplicably do not allow VPM owners to make it more reliable and safe!!!! - without great certification expense.

As I understand it, the Arrow engine originally was designed specifically for the VPM16. Originally, Vittorio did not like the engine options - auto conversions, Hirth and certified engines, etc. He had a friend that owned an engine manufacturing company, and Vittori asked him to design a light 100 HP engine for him. I am told this was the orgination of the Arrow engine. The VPM used the Arrow for several years, but as we know, it did not prove out to be very reliable. After the Rotax 91X series started getting some good time of use and the reliability and performance was looking pretty attractive, Vittorio "bit the expense" bullet and switched to the Rotax engines and re-designated it the M16. - "Hang the cost, Safety rules!" - Reliability has since been very good, but the poor British are stuck with the Arrow powered VPM16. I understand that Magni is working to comply with the British Section "T" - that would allow M16s in Britain. I doubt that would help allow the VPM owners to install a Rotax on their VPM - although I understand a few VPMs have somehow been converted to Rotax. The later model M16s have some configuration and structure differences that would probably not allow the old VPMs to be certified with just an engine change.

I understood that Bill had sold that original VPM back to Vittorio - or somehow it went back to Italy. I'm pretty sure it did not stay in the U.S.

- Greg

[John Fonseca]

I flew an M16 for a good while here in Umbria. Have two friends with Mi4s one of whom I've flown various cross country tracts (me in mine, he in his) and never noticed any difference in handling btween the two machines, The M14 maybe a little more sensative to control inputs, but just as stable as the 16 (this conclusion abviously comes from a visual assessment - while flying close-by - and general discussion)

I realize that the anti-Magni on this forum like Birdy and others will somehow prove that anything positive about them is seriously overstated and should be totally ignored by those looking for information.

John Fonseca.

[All_In]

Originally Posted by John Fonseca

I flew an M16 for a good while here in Umbria. Have two friends with Mi4s one of whom I've flown various cross country tracts (me in mine, he in his) and never noticed any difference in handling btween the two machines, The M14 maybe a little more sensative to control inputs, but just as stable as the 16 (this conclusion abviously comes from a visual assessment - while flying close-by - and general discussion)

I realize that the anti-Magni on this forum like Birdy and others will somehow prove that anything positive about them is seriously overstated and should be totally ignored by those looking for information.

John Fonseca.

Oh John, don't take their comments as negative, I don't believe any of them said it wasn't a fine aircraft. It's just the experts cannot explained how it achieves this, but were all still trying to figure it out.

And the kind of flying birdy does, well any heavy gyro would be terrible, as much of the time he's not flying he seems to float!

[bpearson]

All the VPM's in the UK have been, or are waiting to be converted to either Rotaxes or Subaru.

The Rotax conversion involves a costly overengineered adaptor instead of simply cutting the old brackets off and welding new on that the factory do.

It is telling that the UK authorities didn't consult Magni about the conversion. He has little regard for our regulators.

I believe the M14 in the UK is the original one and maybe at one time was a trike! It is only certified as a single seater.

[C. Beaty]

A bit of history, Greg…

One year at Bensen Days, held at Okeechobee in the 1980s as nearly as I can recall, Bill Parsons showed up with the Arrow engine designer in tow. I can’t remember his name (Gino?) but he seemed to be very knowledgeable. He had brought with him an Arrow engined trike that looked to be a Magni airframe with the sail attached to the teeter bolt. He flew it a good bit and it appeared to perform well.

*Brian, you posted that bit about the trike while I was typing this.

[gyrogreg]

Originally Posted by C. Beaty

A bit of history, Greg…

Arrow engine designer ---- I can’t remember his name (Gino?)

Chuck, the name does ring a bell - Greg

[John Fonseca]

And why are the VPMs in the U.K. still trying to survive with the Arrow??????
Because the imbecilic - One might say, murderous - beurocracy there, which has prevented for years the adition of horizontal stabilizers on the RAF (which ahs resulted in the deaths of at least 4 or 6 people) and the acceptance of the M16, a machine that has a great safety record.............

How come the M03 was suddenly O.K.???????????? The M03 is basically a copy of the ELA......... And the ELA is, quite frankly a COPY of the Magni

So, are there envelopes full of whatever travelling quietly under tables?????

Figue it out for yourselves. I'm probably too stupid to do it on my own.

John Fonseca

[gyrogreg]

Originally Posted by All_In

It's just the experts cannot explained how it Magni) achieves this, but were all still trying to figure it out.

I have attempted to explain what I believe is the "secret". But, the experts don't always agree with me:

In simple terms it’s the airframe DYNAMIC damping:

• Large airfoil shaped tail (tip airfoils help too!) placed far aft on the keel, provide strong DYNAMIC damping.

• Strong DYNAMIC damping "extends" the AOA STATIC stability margin - to make it highly buntover resistant. I have come to understand that static AOA stability is more than a function of just the static RTV/CG moment! It is also a function of of DYNAMIC damping

• Strong dynamic damping makes it strongly “Dynamically stable” - Long-period "phugoid" oscillations are quickly damped to zero. DYNAMIC Stability is the flight test that best identifies STATIC AOA stability - buntover resistant. [A statically AOA unstable (G-Load unstable) gyro is readily capable of a buntover!]

• Strong dynamic damping also provides "critical airframe damping" for SHORT-period AOA oscillations. "SHORT-PERIOD" AOA oscillations are the quick pitch oscillations that are the root of PIO. These are different than the slow "phugoid" oscillations that are typically observed on a lot of tailless gyros. But, apparent and continued slow "phugoid" oscillations on a gyro indicate lack of strong airframe dynamic damping that can allow short-period PIO.

• “Critical” damping of the airframe DOES NOT prevent rapid pitch maneuvering. The airplane analogy that a stable gyro is less maneuverable is not valid for gyros – a gyro is not a “fixed wing”! The pilot can move the “wing” of any gyro and alter the flight path very quickly. The “critical” damping of the airframe forces the airframe attitude to very quickly adjust to the new flight path – without overshoot or oscillation that might inspire PIO.

• “Critical” airframe damping does not slow the response to a control input; it only makes the airframe attitude respond quickly and accurately to the new flight path. Since the pilot control precision relies on airframe attitude feedback, this quick and accurate and no-overshoot airframe response provides accurate visual cues to the pilot to more accurately control that maneuver! IMHO, some mistakenly feel that an unstable gyro is more maneuverable and “fun” simply because it swings around a lot on a quick maneuver. This is not desirable, from a stability standpoint and from a novice pilot standpoint. Only very experienced pilots can accurately control a gyro whose airframe is swinging around and not providing accurate feedback on what the flight path is doing. The reason some experienced pilots can safely fly their unstable gyro is because they have learned to discard the airframe attitude feedback and rely mostly on “seat of the pants” (G-Load) feedback. But, the "seat of the pants” sensor takes a long time to develop in a pilot. That is the main reason the learning time on a stable gyro is much shorter (and safer) than on an unstable gyro – visual feedback works when the “seat of the pants” G meter does not!

• An under-damped airframe will respond quickly to a new flight path, but the over-shoot and continued swinging can excite the pilot into PIO control inputs. For quick short-period AOA overshoot or extended oscillations, PIO is likely because the pilot senses them and instictively might respond with late or slow cyclic inputs!

• An over-damped airframe will still just as quickly adjust attitude to a new flight path, but it will resist the control input – part of the reason I believe the Magni cyclic is “heavy”. It will move, but you have to use some muscle to do so.

• The most discussion about the Magni DYNAMIC damping has been whether the source of the damping is the heavy rotor or the HS on the airframe. IMHO, the heavy rotor provides strong dynamic damping for the rotor - heavy stick. The HS provides dynamic damping for the airframe. IMHO, the “harmony” between these is what gives the Magni the comfortable feel almost everyone who flies a Magni reports. I believe the lack of PIO and buntover incidents in Magni gyros is related to the fact that the airframe and rotor dynamic reaction rates are “harmonized” so that the rate of pitch of the airframe can correct for the change in G-Load on the rotor before the rotor can do anything bad. This might be similar to a heavy rotor being able to make it through a wind gust before it slows down enough to precess stall. I believe the Magni AIRFRAME pitch rate and reaction to attitude changes is quicker than the heavy ROTOR – due to its strong dynamic damping from the dynamically strong HS – therefore providing a “heavier” stick at higher airspeeds where dynamic damping is stronger by the SQUARE of the airspeed (rotor weight does not change at higher airspeeds, but stick resistance does!) All of this is done purposefully for safety and ease of learning/flight.

• IMHO, the Magni HS derives its DYNAMIC effectiveness from its size, aerodynamic lift factor and its placement well aft of the CG. For dynamic damping, the HS effectiveness is the SQUARE function of its moment arm from the CG. For STATIC stability, the HS effectiveness is merely a straight function of its moment arm. So, to get the strong dynamic damping, the Magni HS is locate far back (in air that is not affected by engine power – so its stabilizing effectiveness is not affected by engine power.)

I’m sure I will now get a lot of differing opinions.

Thanks, Greg Gremminger

[bpearson]

Originally Posted by John Fonseca

Because the imbecilic - One might say, murderous - beurocracy there,

Oh yes John, we are very, very good at beaurocracy. World leaders infact!

[bpearson]

Originally Posted by gyrogreg

So, to get the strong dynamic damping, the Magni HS is locate far back (in air that is not affected by engine power – so its stabilizing effectiveness is not affected by engine power.)

Not so with the M14 though, whose tail seems to be very close to the prop, yet it is as stable as it's longer brothers.

I think Chuck got to the bottom of the Magni's stability although I don't believe they are as htl as looks would suggest.