New RAF website

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

P.s Chuck E and Chuck B - I have made numrous attemts to contact you to discus some stuff with you in private. Do you have email address that I can email you.

Eben:

I e-mailed you from Greece a few weeks ago and said I would contact you when I returned to Canada, my lap top with all my stuff in it had a melt down and I lost all my records. Could you e-mail me again and let me know what I may be able to help you with.

[email protected]

Ron A.....

although I don't see where Chuck E would be of any help there....



We all know that you are the resident know it all of the forum, so tell me how you got around fifty hours of float plane time and still don't have a float plane endorsement on your license.

Is it because you can't meet the minimum standards to get the rating because you are self taught?

 

[C. Beaty]

What? Redesign the RAF and kiss those “thousands of hours of engineering” goodbye?

When someone possesses the ability to correct the flaws, he doesn’t have to start with a dead horse. That’s more of a handicap than an asset.

Simply chopping the keel and sliding the engine package down a few inches doesn’t do very much; lowering the propeller is good, lowering the weight is bad. Working at cross-purposes.

Not a single individual that raves about the improved stability from the engine drop has documented the results of a double hang test. I expect the real improvement is about the same as I get when I wash and wax my car; “drives better, rides better and gets better gas mileage.” Or so it seems.

 

[C. Beaty]

P.s Chuck E and Chuck B - I have made numrous attemts to contact you to discus some stuff with you in private. Do you have email address that I can email you. SARAF

Eben, I believe the chances are slim to none that you’re looking to redesign the RAF. If I’m wrong, the only practical way to remove the flaws is to follow the lead of your friends in Darwin, Australia; Ozy Russ and mates.

Other than that, if what you’d like to say to me can’t be said on an open forum, I’m not interested.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

Eben

As you can see these guys don't want to help. Their strong suit is critical analysis, can't do if you help someone improve it. I will post my double hang test for all the good it will do after the Fly In here. I will have some help and witnesses so the test can't be skewed. Chuck B I know you have observed Paul Bs mods so you have seen something but your still not a believer. Your attitude all alone has been looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. This is a new company which it seems you won't or don't want to see succeed. What is wrong with giving them a little time to research and engineer the corrections to the design. Just in case you haven't noticed the last two accidents weren't RAFs.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

As you can see these guys don't want to help. Their strong suit is critical analysis, can't do if you help someone improve it.

You obviously can't or won't read Thom.

I have offered to communicate with Eban.

Maybe we all should just leave the advice giving to you and Ron A?

The real experts.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

As you can see these guys don't want to help. Their strong suit is critical analysis, can't do if you help someone improve it.

You obviously can't or won't read Thom.

I have offered to communicate with Eban.

Maybe we all should just leave the advice giving to you and Ron A?

The real experts.

I really wan't talking about you Chuck E. I can read very well thank you. Oh Oh Oh I comprehend what I read also.

 

[barnstorm2]

This is a new company which it seems you won't or don't want to see succeed. .

Thom,

I hope you will take a step back and see that you are just as reactionary as those you are criticizing.

As I and many others have posted including ChuckE we WANT them to succeed but to do so they need to produce a STABLE aircraft.

What is wrong with giving them a little time to research and engineer the corrections to the design. .

What is wrong with giving them time to research and engineer corrections to the design? NOTHING. However, what is wrong with criticizing the fallacies they are posting on their web site?

What is wrong with waiting until they have a safe machine before starting production and what is wrong with being honest in what the company advertises on their web site? Why are you not asking these questions? You only react to criticism against RAF.

It appears as if you are just fine with anything they say due to your owner pride you can overlook RAF's statements but not those from ChuckB or E.

You did not have a thing to day about the topic until you had a chance to criticize the Chucks.


If you think the statements on RAF website are not incorrect or misleading lets here your case.

Chuck E IS trying to communicate with NuRAF and Chuck B has PUBLISHED everything RAF needs to know.

If he (CB) does not want to get involved with a company that posts things like this on their website and has such a horrendous safety and ignorance record I don't blame him one bit. If I were a respected authority I doubt I would want to be directly associated with spinsters with a record that that either.

Chuck has already told them what they need to know. Start FREASH.

Maybe RAF could copy back the SparrowHawk?? :lol:

Just in case you haven't noticed the last two accidents weren't RAFs.

Yes, and interestingly they were not PPO's either...


.

 

[barnstorm2]

I will post my double hang test for all the good it will do after the Fly In here. .

I am looking forward to this data. I think your posting of your modifications has been a very good and positive effort for our community.

Even if the offset is not entirely eliminated the stability enhancements are great news and I applaud your effort and sharing the work.


.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

I really wan't talking about you Chuck E.

B.S. Thom, here is the post in question


Originally Posted by SARAF View Post
P.s Chuck E and Chuck B - I have made numrous attemts to contact you to discus some stuff with you in private. Do you have email address that I can email you. SARAF

I'm getting tired of your crap every time I post something about safety on this forum.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

Thom,

I hope you will take a step back and see that you are just as reactionary as those you are criticizing.

As I and many others have posted including ChuckE we WANT them to succeed but to do so they need to produce a STABLE aircraft.

Boy you could have fooled me on this one

What is wrong with giving them time to research and engineer corrections to the design? NOTHING. However, what is wrong with criticizing the fallacies they are posting on their web site?
For any business you have to have sales. We don't know what they have done. You guys are going on pictures of the old RAF. Maybe that is all they have at the moment
What is wrong with waiting until they have a safe machine before starting production and what is wrong with being honest in what the company advertises on their web site? Why are you not asking these questions? You only react to criticism against RAF.
I'm not asking question because I feel they do need time. As is they have to hit the ground running or they too will be out of business.
It appears as if you are just fine with anything they say due to your owner pride you can overlook RAF's statements but not those from ChuckB or E.
I take it that you have no pride in YOUR HTL Twinstar. Is this right Tim
You did not have a thing to day about the topic until you had a chance to criticize the Chucks.
Actually I was waiting for you to come back Tim. You are alway there to run interference for CB.


If you think the statements on RAF website are not incorrect or misleading lets here your case.
Apparently it doesn't matter what I think only what you think Tim.
Chuck E IS trying to communicate with NuRAF and Chuck B has PUBLISHED everything RAF needs to know.
I hope he does. At least we can get his problem resolved.
If he (CB) does not want to get involved with a company that posts things like this on their website and has such a horrendous safety and ignorance record I don't blame him one bit. If I were a respected authority I doubt I would want to be directly associated with spinsters with a record that that either.
Hopefully CB is tired of whipping a dead horse. Maybe you will be too one of these days.
Chuck has already told them what they need to know. Start FREASH.

Maybe RAF could copy back the SparrowHawk?? :lol:

Maybe you could redesign the Twinstar also. Right



Yes, and interestingly they were not PPO's either...


.

Tim

Dead is dead no matter how it comes. Lets just agree you are an antagonist and I am a Protagonist where RAF is concerned.:drama:

 

[C. Beaty]

Thom, when you die, I expect you to be buried in your RAF.

My suggestion for your tombstone is that it have a large RAF logo chiseled on the upper half with the words underneath:

“What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”

 

[barnstorm2]

I would agree that I am antagonistic towards ANY company that sells an unstable gyro, misleads and lies about its characteristics and recommends the product not be stabilized especially when that product has a 10 inch offset, SxS config and high-power engine.

I would find it sad to say that you would support anything a company says or does including misrepresentation, lies and producing unsafe products just because you are a "Protagonist" of the company.



Find me any statement by Farrington Co. that states a recommendation to fly without a horizontal stabilizer and I will condemn that statement just as you should be condemning these statements made by NuRAF.

Not have any photos of an RAF with a Stab? come on get real. They could have a pile of them in a day with a few simple queries.

Have you read post #10? I think the RAF is a GREAT machine once stabilized, or are you just scanning for the negative comments?

Thom, please read my posts before you came in here claiming knee-jerking and I think you will find them to be CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

No one was stating they wanted RAF to go out of business again we are just scratching our heads on why NuRAF appears to be making the same tragic mistakes as the original RAF and giving some darn good advise to the new company. Those are all your words.

At least you made a positive statement to Eben about the stability fixes you have applied to your machine. That is POSTIVIVE and the very same thing the rest of us have been doing in this thread.

Why would you support keeping the flaws when you fixed them in your own machine?

.

 

[dragonflyerthom]

Tim

If this is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism I don't want to hear your DESTRUCTIVE criticism.

I have changed my RAF. I built it so I can change it to suit me. I have learned a lot here on the forum as well as researched many of the changes that I have done. This is me. What others do is up to them.

Any flaws in the RAF are up to the builder to correct. It comes under the 51% part of the build. As the builder it is up to them to do any correction.

I do think it would be nice if SARAF would make some of these mods available but that is telling them how to do their business and I'm not going to do that.

Tim you and your mentors need to back off. Give these guys a chance before you try to put them out of business. There are a lot of RAF owners that will be needing parts in the future.

Chuck B

When I die my family will sell my RAF. I am going to be cremated. Then my ashes to be spread to the winds. My wife laughed when she read this. You really should go into comedy.

 

[EI-GYRO]

It should be perfectly straightforward for the new company to announce
their intention to supply a horizontal stabiliser as standard.
That would allay the main concern that most people have.
I am surprised they havent done this already.
They should do so ASAP.
Nobody wants to see an action replay of RAFs disgraceful conduct.

 

[Heron]

Shut up all of you! I have a headache!
Saraf go ahead and rebuild the whole thing and give it another name.
thanks
Heron
Thom . . .take care!

 

[dragonflyerthom]

Heron

Thats what she said as I tried to snuggle up to her. Thanks Heron.

 

[barnstorm2]

Stable RAFS are GREAT.

Stable RAFS are GREAT.

Tim

If this is CONSTRUCTIVE criticism I don't want to hear your DESTRUCTIVE criticism.

Any flaws in the RAF are up to the builder to correct.

Tim you and your mentors need to back off. Give these guys a chance before you try to put them out of business. There are a lot of RAF owners that will be needing parts in the future. .

Thom,

Lives and honest business mean more to me than an easy source of spare parts.

Destructive?

In my humble opinion I think it is CLEARLY in NuRAF's best interest as a company to come out front, be honest, offer at least a horizontal stabilizer option and be frank about stability.

How can you not see that this would dramatically help NuRAF's business?

You get to sell stabs to your installed base, your critics have less to complain about and you bring BACK a portion of the SparrowHawk business that has been lost because of your flawed design. How can you not see that as a good idea even from strictly a sales position?

How is recommending this not constructive if it will help them stay in business? What don't you get?

Do you think that RAF offering a stable kit of the RAF will HURT business and sales???? Crazy.

And get this straight. As I have said many times I LIKE THE STABLE RAF.

1. The stable RAF has GREAT range.
2. The stable RAF has a rotor - brake management system I like
3. The stable RAF has a trim system I like
4. The stable RAF looks very good.
5. The stable RAF has a good pre-rotator IMHO
6. The stable RAF is a gyro I would own and fly happily.
7. I have enjoyed every flight I have had in a stable RAF.

and the list goes on...

I like stable RAF's and so do a lot of people that criticize misinformation about stability and that want a safer community.

If you love the product and want the company to stay in business you should want the best for the company not just blindly defend it no matter the cost.

What is best for RAF is for them to offer a stable product.

Thom, if you don't believe me then simply look at the POLLs!!

Any marketer or sales person would be a FOOL not to take these into consideration for a new company, any company!

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12306&highlight=poll

28 to ZERO RAF should offer a stable gyro.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12417&highlight=poll

38 to 3 RAF should offer a stable gyro.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12296&highlight=poll

Only 4.55% Think that RAF should sell the same Stock RAF.



If you want RAF alive and well you want them selling a stable machine PEROID.

.

 

[Timchick]

Guys, Why don't we let Saraf get organized and see what changes they'll be making or offering. Right now nobody knows what they're doing and all this back and forth is useless. I hope they make some changes and Saraf said they were looking at making changes. I think they should've put something like "Coming Soon, the new and improved RAF" instead of making their web sitelook like it was business as usual.

 

[GyroRon]

P.s Chuck E and Chuck B - I have made numrous attemts to contact you to discus some stuff with you in private. Do you have email address that I can email you.

Eben:

I e-mailed you from Greece a few weeks ago and said I would contact you when I returned to Canada, my lap top with all my stuff in it had a melt down and I lost all my records. Could you e-mail me again and let me know what I may be able to help you with.

[email protected]

Ron A.....

although I don't see where Chuck E would be of any help there....



We all know that you are the resident know it all of the forum, so tell me how you got around fifty hours of float plane time and still don't have a float plane endorsement on your license.

Is it because you can't meet the minimum standards to get the rating because you are self taught?

Chuck, you are a rating chaser. Is that fair to say?

What is a rating chaser? A rating chaser is a person who will do the training needed to obtain a rating, not because they really need it, but just to have it.... just for the sake of the satisfaction of knowing you hold that rating.

I am not a rating chaser. I am not going to spend 1200-1600$ to get my seaplane rating if I am not going to need it. I got far better things to blow my money on...

Like I said, I have owned two float planes. I have also flown in two others. None of the planes I flew legally required a seaplane rating, so I did not have a immediate need to run out and spend the money to do the hours with the cfi and to take the tests with the examiner. Had I decided that float flying was so great that I wanted to take passengers, or fly a certified airplane on floats, well then I would have spend the money to go get the rating.

You can brag all you want here about your thousands of hours in everything from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle.... and you can brag about how many ratings you hold and how you hold them in hundreds of countries across this great Earth.... But in my mind Chuck, you are a little $hit of a person, Sorta like a guy with little pee pee syndrome, who likes to talk with big words and talk big about himself, but in reality, isn't any better than the next person. Your $hit stinks too Chuck! Accept it, celebrate it, and get on with life.

 

[GyroRon]

As you can see these guys don't want to help. Their strong suit is critical analysis, can't do if you help someone improve it.

You obviously can't or won't read Thom.

I have offered to communicate with Eban.

Maybe we all should just leave the advice giving to you and Ron A?

The real experts.

Chuck, your a professional pilot. That makes you a expert at what?

I see professional drivers everywhere..... Bus drivers, tow truck drivers, pizza delivery guys, etc... I guess those guys are the true experts on all things automotive. They would know more about race cars than a race car driver.....