RAF Fatalities...A Question for C. Beaty, et al.

[Harry_S.]

On several occasions you have posted the NTSB cases, ref. the RAF fatals. I have the same list in front of my monitor at all times. I don't forget.

While in the shower last night...the Question hit me...WHY DID "THEY" DIE?

Over the years, those that know, and those that parrot them, repeat themselves, ad nauseam, of the design flaws and aerodynamic deficiencies of the RAF 2000 and...why this causes the fatalities.

I concur as to the design flaws. Let's not repeat them again, OK?!

Students, non students, commercial pilots, ATP's, Helo rated pilots and pilots with upwards of 15,000 hrs...They died.

I flew my stock RAF for 90 hrs. and I live.

Hunn, Logan, Fritts, Brewer, Menzie, Mayfield, Patten, Bruty and others flew the stock RAF, accumulated many thousands of hours and they live.

Hundreds of other RAF pilots, around the world, have flown the stock RAF for many thousands more hours and they live.

So...with hundreds of pilots accumulating many thousands of hours in the same design deficient RAF 2000...I ask...WHY DID "THEY" DIE?


.

 

[KenSandyEggo]

"They" were unlucky, Harry. The design flaws can catch anyone at anytime. Don't forget that some RAF CFIs were also killed. Not everyone that drove a Corvair or flew a P-51 Mustang in WW II got killed either. Evel Knievel is still alive, many other daredevils aren't. In dangerous situations, only a certain percentage of participants will be injured or killed. The rest will be luckier. In this case, that possibility can virtually be eliminated by tweaking the design to well-accepted standards such as center-line thrust and a horizontal stabilizer, which in the face of indisputable evidence, RAF refuses to do. That a high thrustline combined with a powerful engine and no stabilizer is a dangerous situation is something that need not be discussed anymore except with ignorant people that don't accept straight physical facts. Whatever the percentage of RAF pilots that pay the ultimate price for these flaws is unacceptable, whether it's 1%, 5% or whatever. They didn't have to die, and did so only for believing RAF's flawed bullsh*t.

 

[C. Beaty]

The answer to that question is simple, Harry.

Over the years, thousands of acrobats have walked high wires without falling to their deaths. Relatively few have splattered.

Most of us don’t have the innate skills for wire walking but a good many of us could acquire them with diligent and rigorous practice.

But the more sensible approach to getting on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls is use one of the bridges rather than a high wire.

For most people, it is more sensible to fly a stable gyro rather than face the danger and extended training required to fly an unstable one.

And like you, Harry, I have flown gyros that were viciously unstable and had no difficulty is so doing. But I was aware of the danger and knew enough to shut the throttle when a Florida summer thermal began to stand the thing on its tail.

 

[Heron]

I dare say that they died because they where once alive!
And what is the meaning of this question please?
The phylosophycal possibilities for answers are too big, we need more parameters.
thanks
Heron

 

[Steve McGowan]

Maybe

Maybe

Somewhere in the sand is written,,

Today is your day to come to me.....without question

Some people do not listen nor do they want to accept without question, those that have been there before them and live to tell about it.

We really only hear about the bad things that has happened,, very seldom do we get to praise the Tim Chick solo's.

and again I say,,,,,,,,,"Ya Done GOOD Tim" I'm Proud Of Ya..

Get back in the shower Harry,,,,, and wash the gunk away, you'll go crazy as hell trying to figure out and change what has happened...and why.


steve

 

[C. Beaty]

Harry, the part of this that I find most troubling is that the same question keeps coming up when the answer is so obvious.

An RAF, by design, is tail heavy and responds about like any other tail heavy vehicle; whether Corvair automobile or Cessna 150 airplane with a shot bag in its tailcone.

The majority of owners were able to drive a Corvair without killing themselves. I owned 3 of them without ever so much as scratching a finger but the overall fatality rate was much higher than for conventional automobiles. It was a serious fiasco for GM.

Most people, with sufficient training, could fly a Cessna 150 with CG behind the aft limit. It would be more difficult, would take more training and the fatality rate would be higher. Most pilots would survive; those who couldn’t master the rhythm or who got into turbulence beyond their skill level would die.

There are those among us who say; “more training” is the proper solution to tail heaviness. There are others who say; “remove the shot bag from the tailcone.”

It doesn’t cost a nickel more to build a gyro that is not tailheavy.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Chuck, I just say that "It is just as easy to build a gyro right as not right." The hard part seems to be to know the difference!!!:der:

Aussie Paul.

 

[Ron Iaconis]

Luck of the draw

Luck of the draw

I know some folks that do not have the ability to safely fly their gyro,,,,yet even after an engine out with no prior practice,,,,have successfully walked away unscaved. Then there are those who have the ability and a small error has taken their lives. Regardless of the machine, design nor other factors, makes a difference of their fate. I am so thankful that the many times I could have , should have, not walked away from a mis-hap,,,,and yet,,,,did! I am just appreciative and thankful. When you know your beast and have the heavens looking out for you and if it's not your time to go,,,,then be thankful that you have flown another day and are satisfied.

 

[C. Beaty]

I believe the religious cultists who handle live rattlesnakes say the same thing, Ron.

 

[Doug Riley]

Since we're repeating stuff, here are a couple points that I like to repeat on this topic.

First, we human critters do learn to manage many unstable systems. Merely standing upright on your two feet is a statically unstable activity, requiring coordinated inputs several times a second to our various toe muscles, all directed by our inner ear and brain. Although the process is unconscious, it's a lot of work, as witnessed by the amount of trouble babies go through to learn it -- and the fact that we stop doing it and lie down if we are weak or tired.

Riding a bike is similar, as are many circus acts.

Second, you cannot guarantee that skill will save you every time in a badly PPO-prone gyro. Plow into a really harsh downdraft at high speed and you just may not get the throttle closed in time. Your skill removes some of the bullets from your roulette pistol, but not all of them. It just improves the odds.

The loss of TV naturalist Steve "Croc" Irwin this weekend is a perfect example for us. With greater than usual knowledge and skill, he out-maneuvered death for a long time.

But not forever. There still was a bullet in the chamber for him, as there is for anyone who flies a PPO-prone gyro.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

What greater epitaph than to live your life doing the things you love and for it to be your demise. I am with the group that can not count the hairs on my head so therefore can not prolong my life and choose not to live in fear. I will do that which gives me pleasure tho dangerous it may be. I chose to fly.
http://www.filecabi.net/video/steve-irwin-rip.html
Thom

 

[brett s]

I choose to fly things that are designed & built properly - there's a difference between that & living in fear.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

I chose to fly

I chose to fly

Yep lane: :focus::rapture:

Thom

 

[Harry_S.]

I choose to fly things that are designed & built properly - there's a difference between that & living in fear.

I agree Brett...but may I add; I don't live in fear!!


Cheers

 

[gyroman]

Magic donut

Magic donut

One of the questions that has been in my mind on some of the fatalities was if the magic rubber donut on the RAF failed. Seems to me there are a lot of forces pressing on this area of the mast.

There's a guy who lives close by with some pictures of what happened to his prop on his RAF when his MAgic donut was a little loose. The prop hit the rotorblades.

I have never seen this magic donut up close so can someone explain if this thing has any stops or any way of keeping the mast from moving too far in any direction?

Just food for thought...

 

[Doug Riley]

Toby, a one-foot thrustline offset times 600 lb. thrust is 600 foot-pounds. I truly believe there is nothing more to these crashes than that.

Ditto for early Air Commands, KB-3s and all of the Bensen accidents that were labelled "porpoising" "negative G" "rotor stall" and so on down the decades.

 

[chuter]

gyroman,

Are you sure the prop/rotor contact was due to the bushing?

I'm guessing this didn't happen in flight?

I believe in stock configuration there is some interference between the two if you let the blades get too low in back while taxiing, etc.

 

[KenSandyEggo]

It has a large bolt through it, so the upper mast can't move very far even if the donut disintegrated.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

It has a large bolt through it, so the upper mast can't move very far even if the donut disintegrated.

Ken, it is a 1/2" bolt, and the OD of the hole that the "magic bush" sits in is
1 1/2". That allows the bolt to move a 1/2" either forward or back. That would allow the head, due to moment arm, to move quite a few inches either forwards or backwards. That is serious change from normal.

I will measure the actual amount of shift today.

Aussie Paul.

 

[KenSandyEggo]

True, Paul, but if the donut disintegrated in flight and totally disappeared (unlikely), a pilot that doesn't panic should be able to get her down safely.