MT03 accident report

[Terry]

Continuing

Continuing

A single full span vertical or horizontal tail does a fair job of removing the swirl from the propeller slipstream and balancing torque without differential incidence. In doing so, it also recovers some of the power wasted in rotating the slipstream; the sailboat effect.

If there is no swirl of the slipstream, there is no torque reaction; counter rotating props or aerodynamic vanes to remove the swirl, for instance.

Are you suggesting perhaps the MT03 tail should be larger for this reason, or would this have happened anyway?

Counter-rotating propellers would be novel, and perhaps not much more expensive than current single propeller gear boxes and blades, and with more thrust. Perhaps, instead of gearing down, use two smaller propellers at full RPM, but counter rotating. Less expensive propellers and no more expense for the gearbox.

What about thinking of ways to build in greater resistance to operator induced rotor unloading in the first place? Horizontal stabilizers help protect against instability, but is there a design criteria which can make it near impossible to induce rotor unloading without compromising performance? Why was this pilot able to take his MT03 into this condition?

 

[Vance]

I agree with that completely Vance. And it is not my purpose to discredit gyroplanes. I was merely pointing out one difference that needs to be fully recognized by novice pilots to make them better pilots. A point which would make me a better pilot. An understanding I suspect you live by.

Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.

I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.

I have not changed parameters or semantics, but it appears you are reading them into what I wrote. The only error I would correct is when I wrote:As it would need to be qualified by circumstances.

This is what I am talking about Terry, in my opinion you are just wrong.

One of Ed’s favorite flying maneuvers is a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the left followed by a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the right. I often do this when I am descending.

When we are playing with the hawks in thermals we often do figure eight turns in a more casual way.

In my opinion you make it sound like there is a demon out to get gyroplanes and gyroplane pilots just don’t know how to avoid the demon.

In my first half hour of ground school I was taught to avoid low G events and to be gentle and smooth with the throttle.

In my opinion you have imagined what happened in a completely unrealistic way based on your ignorance. I called you on it and you have now changed your story twice. Fixed wings you can fly out of it and then fixed wings can fly out of it at altitude. Airplanes often spin all the way to the ground with experienced pilots. Cessna’s recent experience with their light sport aircraft comes to mind. SR22s also come to mind.

If you don’t know, ask. Please don’t make statements that are completely wrong and then pretend you weren’t wrong.

You are “merely pointing out differences” that in my opinion don’t exist. It is important for a pilot to have a realistic assessment of his aircraft’s capabilities.

As with most aviation accidents, in my opinion this was a chain of poor aviation decisions.

I agree with Mr. Beaty’s assessment of this accident. My gyroplane doesn’t torque roll because I have a tall vertical stabilizer. Dominators don’t torque roll because they have a horizontal stabilizer set at different angles on each side of the tall full flying rudder. Steve McGowan’s “Black” does torque roll and he teaches people how to manage it.

I feel each time you pontificate as though it were fact you are hurting the gyroplane community. I am not being defensive, I am attacking your inaccurate statements in the hopes you will rethink the way you approach technical matters that you know little about. Temperate has not worked with you.

Ignorance can be cured.

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you and I recall you thinking that people were piling on you.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Terry]

This is what I am talking about Terry, in my opinion you are just wrong.

One of Ed’s favorite flying maneuvers is a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the left followed by a steep three hundred sixty degree turn to the right. I often do this when I am descending.

When we are playing with the hawks in thermals we often do figure eight turns in a more casual way.

In my opinion you make it sound like there is a demon out to get gyroplanes and gyroplane pilots just don’t know how to avoid the demon.

In my first half hour of ground school I was taught to avoid low G events and to be gentle and smooth with the throttle.

In my opinion you have imagined what happened in a completely unrealistic way based on your ignorance. I called you on it and you have now changed your story twice. Fixed wings you can fly out of it and then fixed wings can fly out of it at altitude. Airplanes often spin all the way to the ground with experienced pilots. Cessna’s recent experience with their light sport aircraft comes to mind. SR22s also come to mind.

If you don’t know, ask. Please don’t make statements that are completely wrong and then pretend you weren’t wrong.

You are “merely pointing out differences” that in my opinion don’t exist. It is important for a pilot to have a realistic assessment of his aircraft’s capabilities.

As with most aviation accidents, in my opinion this was a chain of poor aviation decisions.

I agree with Mr. Beaty’s assessment of this accident. My gyroplane doesn’t torque roll because I have a tall vertical stabilizer. Dominators don’t torque roll because they have a horizontal stabilizer set at different angles on each side of the tall full flying rudder. Steve McGowan’s “Black” does torque roll and he teaches people how to manage it.

I feel each time you pontificate as though it were fact you are hurting the gyroplane community. I am not being defensive, I am attacking your inaccurate statements in the hopes you will rethink the way you approach technical matters that you know little about. Temperate has not worked with you.

Ignorance can be cured.

This is not the first time this has been pointed out to you and I recall you thinking that people were piling on you.

Thank you, Vance

Opinions are good Vance; and I honor yours; but you are still reading more into what I wrote than what it says.

Maybe it would help me if you quoted the exact statement you think is wrong, and exactly why you think it wrong; because, so far, I agree with everything you've written about stability and do not see anything or understand anything different from what you and Paul wrote, and certainly cannot see where what I wrote contradicts what the two of you have written . . . except that . . . take a gyroplane and a Piper Colt at cruise speed at 1000'; turn them both upside down, reversing the load on their airfoils, and see which makes it safely back to right-side-up level flight.

Take a Cessna Ag-Wagon off the deck at full power up steeply and to the left until the left wing stalls, you lose aileron control and engine torque begins to roll you over - I can recover from that - I've done that. Now, take the MT03 that crashed hard up and in the direction opposite engine rotation, then control it over hard enough the rotor unloads and engine torque takes you over - is there a way to recover from that - has anyone recovered from that?

I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.

 

[karlbamforth]

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.

Not just in a gyro.
Maintaining controlled flight is number one priority anywhere in aviation, just as maintaining control of your car is important in keeping you and those around you alive.

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

In that order.

 

[scottessex]

Terry, The best way I can describe it is that every machine has its own operating limitations, take for instance a motorcycle, a motorcycle's natural position is on its side,
unless you use the kick stand, or are moving, that does not mean that they are unstable, unsafe, or waiting to raise their ugly head and bite you.
Same with the gyroplane, gyro's do not like negative G's, if you do a zoom climb and push over at the top, you risk unloading the blades.
I like doing zoom climbs, but what you have to do is do not get yourself light in the seat, If you feel yourself getting light in the seat pull back on the throttle and pull back on the cyclic to load the blades.
that is where your training is important.
just like in a decreasing radius turn on a motorcycle, the worst thing you can do is hit the brakes, you'll stand up, you are better off giving it more throttle and leaning into the turn.
If you feel yourself getting light in the seat, in a gyro, reduce throttle and load the blades.
I wish I could explain myself as eloquently as Vance, but please get yourself a ride and understand how we fly.

 

[Terry]

Terry, The best way I can describe it is that every machine has its own operating limitations, take for instance a motorcycle, a motorcycle's natural position is on its side,
unless you use the kick stand, or are moving, that does not mean that they are unstable, unsafe, or waiting to raise their ugly head and bite you.
Same with the gyroplane, gyro's do not like negative G's, if you do a zoom climb and push over at the top, you risk unloading the blades.
I like doing zoom climbs, but what you have to do is do not get yourself light in the seat, If you feel yourself getting light in the seat pull back on the throttle and pull back on the cyclic to load the blades.
that is where your training is important.
just like in a decreasing radius turn on a motorcycle, the worst thing you can do is hit the brakes, you'll stand up, you are better off giving it more throttle and leaning into the turn.
If you feel yourself getting light in the seat, in a gyro, reduce throttle and load the blades.
I wish I could explain myself as eloquently as Vance, but please get yourself a ride and understand how we fly.

I agree fully, and have proposed nothing else anywhere in what I have posted in this thread. You did a fine job, and I am looking forward to my first flight.

 

[WaspAir]

Bold - italics added by me:

Take a Cessna Ag-Wagon off the deck at full power up steeply and to the left until the left wing stalls, you lose aileron control and engine torque begins to roll you over - I can recover from that - I've done that. Now, take the MT03 that crashed hard up and in the direction opposite engine rotation until the rotor unloads and engine torque takes you over

This statement suggests a misunderstanding. Keep pulling aft stick on a fixed wing and you may well expect a stall. But you seem to think a gyro rotor has a similar "stall" mode that will cause it to unload all by itself merely from holding aft cyclic. That's not an accurate statement of what happens.

I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits.

What airframe limits do you mean? Are you including "inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited"? If you are, then the "recoverable from all flight attitudes" statement doesn't mean much.

 

[Terry]

Bold - italics added by me:

This statement suggests a misunderstanding. Keep pulling aft stick on a fixed wing and you may well expect a stall. But you seem to think a gyro rotor has a similar "stall" mode that will cause it to unload all by itself merely from holding aft cyclic. That's not an accurate statement of what happens.

What airframe limits do you mean? Are you including "inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited"? If you are, then the "recoverable from all flight attitudes" statement doesn't mean much.

Sorry for writing that poorly. I do not think that a gyro rotor has a similar stall mode. I think that a pilot can operate the controls of a gyro in a maneuver to the point of unloading the rotor. So I will go back and edit my error out.

All aircraft have limitations, and their limitations are inherent to their type. My original intent was merely to point that out. Yet . . .?

Flight attitudes are unrelated to airspeed. "Inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited" are placards; not reality. I can recover from inverted flight, spins, and acrobatic maneuvers, intentional or not, in a fixed wing aircraft so that "recoverable from all flight attitudes" applies.

Can a gyroplane be recovered from inverted flight?

 

[Vance]

Opinions are good Vance; and I honor yours; but you are still reading more into what I wrote than what it says.

Maybe it would help me if you quoted the exact statement you think is wrong, and exactly why you think it wrong; because, so far, I agree with everything you've written about stability and do not see anything or understand anything different from what you and Paul wrote, and certainly cannot see where what I wrote contradicts what the two of you have written.

I am not an aeronautical engineer so these are my opinions. I do not share your love of debate so I see no reason to defend these as anything other than my opinions.

“This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.”

In my opinion when flying all aircraft; maintaining controlled flight is job one. I feel that your statements infer that it is not as important in a fixed wing.

“What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.”

I was trained to avoid this accident in my first half hour of gyroplane ground school and a repeatedly throughout my gyroplane training. Probably this pilot was also trained to avoid this accident; unfortunately he forgot or ignored his training.

You were trained not to stall your fixed wing but you did it anyway. What conclusion would you draw from that?

“I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.”

In my opinion you are pointing out differences as you imagine them, so it is important that people understand that the differences you proclaim are not as described.

“Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.”

This is my favorite one Terry; in my opinion aggressive lazy-eights are not inordinately dangerous in my gyroplane at any altitude that the rotors clear the ground. I have done them many times and have never encountered anything unexpected or that seems to me to be hazardous. The Tower at KSMX agrees and often asks me to do an early cross wind or to fly direct to the numbers when I am on my downwind at 500 feet AGL mid field.

“I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.”

This is not reasonable. That is why they have prohibitions in the pilot’s operating handbook. You should have been taught this very early in your fixed wing ground school, I was.

I just signed off my phase one flight tests with the new engine as follows:

I certify that this aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed and that the aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features.
Vance E Breese PPL XXXXXXX.

I signed it that way because I test flew it throughout its normal range of speed and through out all manuvers to be executed. I could not find any hazardous operating characteristics or design features.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

Flight attitudes are unrelated to airspeed. "Inverted flight prohibited", "intentional spins prohibited", "acrobatic flight prohibited" are placards; not reality. I can recover from inverted flight, spins, and acrobatic maneuvers, intentional or not, in a fixed wing aircraft so that "recoverable from all flight attitudes" applies.

Can a gyroplane be recovered from inverted flight?

To me that infers you feel you are a better pilot than all the dead pilots that weren’t able to recover from these flight attitudes.

Your attitude of “I can recover from all flight attitudes,” is in my opinion hazardous and indicative of a dangerous pilot.

I feel you were just lucky that you were able to recover from the very basic mistake of stalling your aircraft.

Gyroplanes have recovered from inverted flight. Gyroplanes were doing inverted flight in the 30s.

It was suggested very early in my training that low G events including inverted flight was not recommended with any two blade teeter rotor. I believed them and I have not flown my gyroplane inverted.

Gyroplanes are in my opinion less likely to become inadvertently inverted.

Bob Hoover, a particularly experienced pilot, has explained to me in some detail how to maintain positive Gs in an aileron roll and loops and I still have no desire to perform either maneuver in my gyroplane.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Terry]

I am not an aeronautical engineer so these are my opinions. I do not share your love of debate so I see no reason to defend these as anything other than my opinions.

“This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.”

In my opinion when flying all aircraft; maintaining controlled flight is job one. I feel that your statements infer that it is not as important in a fixed wing.

“What I was referring to was inherent airframe stability given sufficient airspace. Do the same thing this guy did at 3000' and you'd still be dead. All are trained to recover from abnormal flight configuration in a fixed wing, but you cannot be trained for it in a gyroplane, as there is no recovery from abnormal flight configuration.”

I was trained to avoid this accident in my first half hour of gyroplane ground school and a repeatedly throughout my gyroplane training. Probably this pilot was also trained to avoid this accident; unfortunately he forgot or ignored his training.

You were trained not to stall your fixed wing but you did it anyway. What conclusion would you draw from that?

“I am merely pointing out the differences all should be aware of.”

In my opinion you are pointing out differences as you imagine them, so it is important that people understand that the differences you proclaim are not as described.

“Were you practicing aggressive lazy-eights at altitude, even at a thousand feet, the same thing that happened to the German could happen to you with no chance of recovery. Were you in a fixed wing, there would be an excellent chance of recovery for a knowledgeable pilot.”

This is my favorite one Terry; in my opinion aggressive lazy-eights are not inordinately dangerous in my gyroplane at any altitude that the rotors clear the ground. I have done them many times and have never encountered anything unexpected or that seems to me to be hazardous. The Tower at KSMX agrees and often asks me to do an early cross wind or to fly direct to the numbers when I am on my downwind at 500 feet AGL mid field.

“I should add that all commercially manufactured fixed-wing aircraft are designed to be recoverable from any flight attitude with skill and within its airframe limits. The Cessna you refer to was in testing to verify that it could do that before being released to market - it failed and was not released with that problem. This is not to say that some do get released, but then, those are discovered and modified after the fact.”

This is not reasonable. That is why they have prohibitions in the pilot’s operating handbook. You should have been taught this very early in your fixed wing ground school, I was.

I just signed off my phase one flight tests with the new engine as follows:


I signed it that way because I test flew it throughout its normal range of speed and through out all manuvers to be executed. I could not find any hazardous operating characteristics or design features.

Thank you, Vance

I am good with your opinions, and am sorry if I offended you. I'm guessing that the lazy-eights were not too much a problem for the German either.

 

[Redbaron]

Nice avatar terry, is that when you were a baby? :whip:

 

[Vance]

I am good with your opinions, and am sorry if I offended you. I'm guessing that the lazy-eights were not too much a problem for the German either.

Hello Terry, you have not offended me.

I will not let your statements go unchallenged.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

In my opinion, Chuck explained it well.

I hope you will spend some time to understand what he said.

To reinforce what he said, I will again say that I was taught to avoid low G events with a two blade teeter rotor and to avoid rapid throttle movement with all aircraft.

It is my observation that a torque over is a common event with some fixed wing aircraft particularly at low air speeds and high power settings. Most pilots are trained not to rush the throttle at low airspeeds.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Terry]

To me that infers you feel you are a better pilot than all the dead pilots that weren’t able to recover from these flight attitudes.

Your attitude of “I can recover from all flight attitudes,” is in my opinion hazardous and indicative of a dangerous pilot.

I feel you were just lucky that you were able to recover from the very basic mistake of stalling your aircraft.

My example was an inadvertent occurrence Vance. I had the opportunity to save the situation and exercised it with split-second effort because I knew the history of that plane, and I had the training to know what to do. Had I been in a gyroplane over tight with unloaded rotor and torque roll, I don't think anyone could recover - basic difference. I once performed a snap-roll in a Piper Tri-Pacer. It failed and I ended up upside-down, wings unloaded and pointed steeply at the ground. I'm still here, but, without training, most pilots would not be here; just as most who have had their Ag-Wagon stall and torque-roll on pull-up are not here. I am here for the same reason Bob Hoover is here, even though we both performed aerobatics in aircraft placarded against it. But no one could pretend to be able to recover from the situation the German found himself in no matter how much training we had.

Gyroplanes have recovered from inverted flight. Gyroplanes were doing inverted flight in the 30s.

How many of them unloaded their rotors, and how many of them had no cyclic, stub wings, ailerons or elevators? How many of them had rotors with an 8" chord spinning at 350 rpm?

It was suggested very early in my training that low G events including inverted flight was not recommended with any two blade teeter rotor. I believed them and I have not flown my gyroplane inverted.

I am going to guess the German had the same training Vance. I'll venture to say he did not intentionally unload the rotor 'til engine torque took over. And I'll venture he did not have the same chance as a snowball in hell of recovery once he got there. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Gyroplanes are in my opinion less likely to become inadvertently inverted.

Thank you, Vance

I agree with that.

Answer this one thing: Is there any example of a modern gyroplane once having its rotor beyond ninety degrees to earth, and unloaded, in a wind or torque induced roll that was recovered, from any altitude?

 

[JAL]

I dont think what Terry is suggesting is anything about superior flying skills at all I think he is saying what every fixed wing pilot knows and that is you can recover from just about anything given enough altitude (it is taught that altitude is your friend). What brings you down in a gyro at 100 feet will bring you down at 10 000 feet, this is not necessarily the case for fixed wing.

Negative G in a fixed wing is perfectly OK and recoverable, this is the main reason why I think fixed wing pilots like them. Most pilots I speak to accept the risk of stalling at low level over the comfort of having wings that will recover from all attitudes as they see that as the biggest risk (rightly or wrongly) and not stalling on base or final when landing.

I think the constant line that gyros are safer because they don't stall is a bit overdone, it also detracts from what I think are the true benefits of a gyro. The flying I like is low level flying, the reason I fly a gyro is that it is my experience that gyros are much safer at this then fixed wing or even helicopters.

Low level flying is the most dangerous and you should be well aware of the risks before you do it. The gyro advantage is not that is doesn't stall,although helps (but still doesnt protect you from poor energy management), is that they are highly manouverable, have a wide speed range, land in tight areas and have a high wing loading so turbulance is less of a worry. These are things you want if you are flying low.

I think you dont have to worry about putting prospective people off gyros by pointing out their short comings, that way they are coming eyes wide open. Every flying machine has its own set of limitations, what is evident though when reading this forum is that gyros are a lot more fun (and versatile) then other forms of recreational flying and just as safe if properly trained.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves, if you like flying low then you are doing something dangerous regardless off what you are flying. If you are want to take the risk then do in a gyro because in my opinion there is nothing safer to do it in.

 

[Terry]

Hello Terry, you have not offended me.

I will not let your statements go unchallenged.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

In my opinion, Chuck explained it well.

I hope you will spend some time to understand what he said.

To reinforce what he said, I will again say that I was taught to avoid low G events with a two blade teeter rotor and to avoid rapid throttle movement with all aircraft.

It is my observation that a torque over is a common event with some fixed wing aircraft particularly at low air speeds and high power settings. Most pilots are trained not to rush the throttle at low airspeeds.

Thank you, Vance

OK. Lets take my original statements one at a time then. I'll be the inquisitor.

This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.

Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

Challenge them.

In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.

Look again Vance. I never wrote anything to let you assume that he died because he was doing lazy-eights. He died doing lazy-eights wrong, or hammerheads, flying his aircraft to a point of no return. I insinuated that he too thought he was doing his maneuvers correctly, or he would not have been doing them.

 

[Terry]

I dont think what Terry is suggesting is anything about superior flying skills at all I think he is saying what every fixed wing pilot knows and that is you can recover from just about anything given enough altitude (it is taught that altitude is your friend). What brings you down in a gyro at 100 feet will bring you down at 10 000 feet, this is not necessarily the case for fixed wing.

Negative G in a fixed wing is perfectly OK and recoverable, this is the main reason why I think fixed wing pilots like them. Most pilots I speak to accept the risk of stalling at low level over the comfort of having wings that will recover from all attitudes as they see that as the biggest risk (rightly or wrongly) and not stalling on base or final when landing.

I think the constant line that gyros are safer because they don't stall is a bit overdone, it also detracts from what I think are the true benefits of a gyro. The flying I like is low level flying, the reason I fly a gyro is that it is my experience that gyros are much safer at this then fixed wing or even helicopters.

Low level flying is the most dangerous and you should be well aware of the risks before you do it. The gyro advantage is not that is doesn't stall,although helps (but still doesnt protect you from poor energy management), is that they are highly manouverable, have a wide speed range, land in tight areas and have a high wing loading so turbulance is less of a worry. These are things you want if you are flying low.

I think you dont have to worry about putting prospective people off gyros by pointing out their short comings, that way they are coming eyes wide open. Every flying machine has its own set of limitations, what is evident though when reading this forum is that gyros are a lot more fun (and versatile) then other forms of recreational flying and just as safe if properly trained.

I think we shouldn't kid ourselves, if you like flying low then you are doing something dangerous regardless off what you are flying. If you are want to take the risk then do in a gyro because in my opinion there is nothing safer to do it in.

Thanks Jordan. That's exactly the thought I would want to convey.

 

[Terry]

Baby?

Baby?

Nice avatar terry, is that when you were a baby? :whip:

No Buddy; that's me now.

 

[Vance]

My example was an inadvertent occurrence Vance. I had the opportunity to save the situation and exercised it with split-second effort because I knew the history of that plane, and I had the training to know what to do. Had I been in a gyroplane over tight with unloaded rotor and torque roll, I don't think anyone could recover - basic difference. I once performed a snap-roll in a Piper Tri-Pacer. It failed and I ended up upside-down, wings unloaded and pointed steeply at the ground. I'm still here, but, without training, most pilots would not be here; just as most who have had their Ag-Wagon stall and torque-roll on pull-up are not here. I am here for the same reason Bob Hoover is here, even though we both performed aerobatics in aircraft placarded against it. But no one could pretend to be able to recover from the situation the German found himself in no matter how much training we had.


How many of them unloaded their rotors, and how many of them had no cyclic, stub wings, ailerons or elevators? How many of them had rotors with an 8" chord spinning at 350 rpm?



I am going to guess the German had the same training Vance. I'll venture to say he did not intentionally unload the rotor 'til engine torque took over. And I'll venture he did not have the same chance as a snowball in hell of recovery once he got there. Let me know if I am wrong here.



I agree with that.

Answer this one thing: Is there any example of a modern gyroplane once having its rotor beyond ninety degrees to earth, and unloaded, in a wind or torque induced roll that was recovered, from any altitude?

Hello Terry,

I have listened to Bob Hoover enough to know that he views aviation in a completly different way than you do.

I will try to explain it one more time.

In my opinion, based on the available information the pilot of the MT103 did not unload the rotor until engine torque “took over.” This kind of event usually happens when the rotor is unloaded and then the throttle is rapidly advanced.

Chuck talked about how to prevent it with design and my training taught me to avoid that chain of pilot errors.

Yes, there is an example of a gyroplane recovering from just such an occurrence; in my opinion it was luck and not skill. He posted about it here on the forum.

I keep wondering, what is your point?

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

OK. Lets take my original statements one at a time then. I'll be the inquisitor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
This brings to mind that one place where, as safe as gyroplanes are, there is a point of no-return when flying them.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

It is a pointless statement Terry; all aircraft have a point of no return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
I have been in some awful predicaments in fixed-wing aircraft, but was always able to fly out of them.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

I think you have been lucky, with your attitude I am surprised you survived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
In a gyroplane, seems job one is maintaining controlled flight configuration.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

Again a pointless statement, as I have pointed out repeatedly, job one in all aircraft is maintaining controlled flight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
This guy was apparently feeling his oats doing an aerobatic demonstration.
Is this statement right or wrong? Why?

It is a pointless statement because you cannot know what was in his head based on the information you have.

Challenge them.
Quote:
In my opinion the fellow in Germany did not die because he was doing “lazy eights.”

Your ending statement suggests to me that you don’t understand that yet.
Look again Vance. I never wrote anything to let you assume that he died because he was doing lazy-eights. He died doing lazy-eights wrong, or hammerheads, flying his aircraft to a point of no return. I insinuated that he too thought he was doing his maneuvers correctly, or he would not have been doing them.

I suspect, based on his actions, that he thought the way you do, that rules and procedures are for other people and he is such a good pilot that he doesn’t have to play by the rules. I am not able to imagine anyone with gyroplane experience telling him that what he did was safe.

Again Terry, what is your point?

Thank you, Vance