Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calidus Instructor Pack

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I have been selling my improved RAF mast bushing for a couple of months now,and just about all of them have been sold from

    the ad on Barnstormer,the point is that most of the buyers say they are not on the Rotarywing forum because of kolibri and his

    hatred for the RAF,which all of them are very pleased with and are not having any issues at all.

    When I sold my RAF blades I asked the guy if he had heard of the hubbar problems,he just grinned and said "don't believe everything you hear,

    Especially from that kolibri.fellow"
    Best Regards,
    Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
    (575) 835-4921

    Comment


    • In my opinion not all gyroplane companies have the same engineering and management philosophies.

      In my opinion the MTO is not a clone of anything . . .
      Vance, have a look at Doug's concise synopsis:

      Hobbycopters have always been an undertaking largely the domain of by guess and by gosh designers and make believe engineers.

      The currently popular Eurotub style was originated by Vittorio Magni, a helicopter mechanic who learned how to design gyros from having built a Bensen.
      Magni purchased a license for the blades and rotorhead of his gyro from Jukka Tervanaki, a real engineer who had interned at Bensen.

      Magni’s low slung Italian sports car styling converted a flying lawn chair into something that many people found attractive.

      The Spanish firm ELA produced a copy of a Magni and raised the seating position in an effort to decrease the CG/thrustline offset.

      The German firm AutoGyro built ELAs under license for several years until going off on their own.

      There have been a number of copies of AutoGyro designs but they’re all about the same.

      The lesson is that when copying someone else’s design, copy something that is already commercially successful.

      It is all the fault of Igor Bensen, an engineer at GE who started it all, playing with a British Rotachute.

      _____
      In my opinion the management of RAF is in no way related to AutoGyro GMBH or ELA simply because they all build kits for experimental gyroplanes.
      It's like trying to explain something to a, well, I don't know . . .
      ONE MORE TIME: what the three mfg. have in common is selling very poor designs and then blaming the customers for the inevitable failures.


      In my opinion to expect a new design to be perfect from the start is unrealistic and childish.
      I agree. However, I never demanded "perfection" . . . only that flight critical components be done correctly and well from the start.
      At least two gyro mfg. have seemed to do so.


      There is no substitute for field testing so the customer will always be testing a product.
      For non-critical items, that's one thing.
      But not for rotor system strength and longevity.



      Vance on Fritts, 2018:
      Dofin Fritts is a busy instructor teaching in a challenging aircraft. He is bound to show up as the flight instructor more often in RAF accidents.
      Vance on Fritts, 2011:
      In my opinion an instructor who has an unusually high number of dead students has a creditably [sic] challenge and it is very relevant to any saftey discussion.
      [Brian,] 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?
      I think that he better understood the matter in 2011 than he does in 2018. Usually, it's the other way around.

      Dofin Fritts as a CFI does not appear to me to have much involvement in this tragedy.
      What a surprise.

      I don't know enough about Dofin's role as a broker to have opined about that. I have not seen the aircraft or inspected the log books.
      No, but I have.

      N5002E maintenance log:
      I've never seen one so bereft of information. There are no details of any individual repairs or service, only the annual certifications of builder Brupbacher from 2003 to 2009. Then it was out of annual for until May 2014, when Brupbacher trailed this sale-pending gyro (having sat in a hot and humid New Orleans area hangar out of annual for 5 years) to Dofin Fritts at Brewton, AL.

      In the maintenance logbook, on a single line, and without any itemized details of repair, Dofin Fritts himself signed N5002E's maintenance logbook on 14 May as having been "Serviced IAW [in accordance with] Manufacturers Recommendations".


      I've carefully reviewed Mahler's flight logbook:

      total dual instruction: 26.0 (ending on 2 August 2014)
      total logged solo: 6.0

      One can imagine the phone call: "Come on out Darren, your bird's ready to go!" Mahler then drove to 12J Brewton for initial transition training 3 days later. He trained at 12J for 13.5 hours over several days, then trailered N5002E home. Fritts then came out to 1L0 on 28 June for 8 more hours of dual, as well as 2 August for a final 4.5 hours of dual. On that day, Mahler soloed.

      The long-since corroded rod end failed just 6 flight hours and 25 landings later. This was the needless and tragic result of a pencil-whipped maintenance and rubber stamp annual inspection.

      Fritts charged $50/hour to train in that signed-off rustbucket, for a total of $1,300. If he charged Brupbacher his normal 5% sales commission, then that'd have been another $1,150.

      $2,450.
      That's all the lives of Darren Mahler and Peyton Wilt were worth.

      Fritts continues to broker old unflown RAFs from the corrosive south. Perhaps his next trusting sucker will be somebody you know. Perhaps the life of your friend or relative will be worth even less than $2,450 to the gentleman from Brewton.
      Click image for larger version  Name:	fetch?id=1034893.jpg Views:	1 Size:	287.8 KB ID:	1138364






      I continue to maintain that seller Chris Brupbacher and CFI/broker/mechanic Dofin Fritts are guilty of Fraud.

      Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.
      In my opinion, the "serviced IAW" log by Fritts and the 2014 annual certification by Brupbacher were a sham, and it got two people killed.



      ____________
      the RAF,which all of them are very pleased with and are not having any issues at all.
      Good, eddie, let's hope it stays that way.

      When I sold my RAF blades I asked the guy if he had heard of the hubbar problems,he just grinned and said "don't believe everything you hear,
      Especially from that kolibri.fellow"
      And that's from the discriminating guy who bought your 650+ hour RAF blades and <2004 hub bar?

      I could have sold my post-2004 hub bar and RAF blades (with just 234 hours), but I wouldn't do that to a fellow gyronaut.
      Rather, I've foregone the $1500+ I could have garnered because I believe in increasing overall gyro safety, not fattening my wallet at another's risk.

      My aviation portal was through certified FW.
      The gyro community will not enjoy aircraft-quality design and materials (currently supplied by only 2-3 mfg.) until such is routinely and firmly insisted upon.
      It is disheartening to not see that happening. Meanwhile, marginal products with pretty paint jobs will continue to have their apologists.

      I not only quoted, but posted Service Bulletin screenshots proving that at least three gyro mfg. didn't know how to provide you safe machines,
      and then blamed you for their mechanical failures.

      But you don't care.
      Fine, then I can no longer care on your behalf.
      Fly whatever you want, and good luck.

      Kolibri out.
      Last edited by Kolibri; 09-17-2018, 08:06 AM.
      PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, SC2), soloed in gliders

      "
      When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either ceases to be mistaken -- or he ceases to be honest."

      Comment


      • Kolibri:
        So you came to gyroplanes from Certified Fixed Wings.
        Great. Let me ask you about the AD's so many of them get on wing spars, engines, leaky fuel tanks, landing gears, tail sections. There are volumes of them. They are released to prevent accidents. If wing spars, leaking wing fuel tanks on Mooneys and the rest are not critical, I would like to know what is critical to you.
        Continued Airworthiness System (COS) is a part and parcel of each certified aircraft life cycle. Its there because they know perfection in every aspect does not exist. Many of the ADs in Type Certificated Airplanes and helicopters are written in blood, after the fact. 100's and 100's of them.
        So what are you going on about here. I would be more concerned about a company that has a good fleet size and has no mandatory bulletins out.
        Copying Doug's rant on current designs is a simple case of Appeal to Authority. Its all easy to sit on the LazyBoy and look around and point fingers. Anyone can do that. From many such posts on this forum, any high wing, tri gear, tractor engine design, standard tail having airplane is a clone of Cessna. All airliners are all clones of each other because their basic form configuration was originally from Boeing. And we know that is all way over simplification.
        If there are specific problems with manufacturers that come to light like with ELA that Mike G brought to light with specific evidence and instances. Great. Stick to that method. Its valid. Its hard to deny specific evidence that forms over multiple instances a pattern and points to QC or design issues. Those have to be addressed by the manufacturer for sure.

        I don't know about Dofin Fritts etc. I'd probably not buy things from him nor train with him but that is a separate matter than manufacturing.
        Last edited by fara; 09-17-2018, 09:23 AM.

        Comment






        • But you don't care.
          Fine, then I can no longer care on your behalf.
          Fly whatever you want, and good luck.

          Kolibri out.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

          My god kolibri is not going to care on my behalf anymore,what will I do?

          Its like I have said before, kollibri you are a friggin idiot !!!

          Oh, dofin has several RAF's from the southwest for sale,they are not rust buckets.

          As usuall your information is wrong !!


          Last edited by eddie; 09-17-2018, 10:14 AM.
          Best Regards,
          Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
          (575) 835-4921

          Comment


          • Let me ask you about the AD's so many of them get on wing spars, engines, leaky fuel tanks, landing gears, tail sections. There are volumes of them.
            So what are you going on about here.
            fara, how many ADs and SBs do Mooney, Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc. blame on the pilots improperly storing or flying the aircraft?


            Oh, dofin has several RAF's from the southwest for sale,they are not rust buckets.
            eddie, have you actually seen them in person? I doubt it.
            And, if they are not rust buckets as N5002E certainly was, then perhaps "Cofin" Fritts has learned something from having killed Mahler and Wilt.

            PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, SC2), soloed in gliders

            "
            When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either ceases to be mistaken -- or he ceases to be honest."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
              Here's an example of Vance's Mediocrity's apologism:

              Just amazing. Two people died in a Gulf Coast rust-bucket N5002E, an RAF which Dofin Fritts brokered weeks earlier with a pencil-whipped maintenance log.
              The already cracked control rod end was so corroded that it looked like a Civil War battlefield bullet. So don't lecture me about my allegedly skimpy RAF pre-flighting.
              Fritts and the seller are, in my opinion, guilty of Fraud for misrepresenting N5002E as currently serviced and airworthy.
              It was neither, and I've seen the wreckage to know.


              Safe flying,
              Kolibri[/COLOR]
              Have a look at the picture of the actual failed rod end from N5002E to see if you concur with Kolibri's histrionic description.

              Attached Files
              Last edited by Vance; 09-17-2018, 06:36 PM.
              Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

              Comment


              • Well there is a rust spot on the one that didn't break and they are dirty,but hardly like a piece of metal that has been buried for 154 years.

                A rust spot does not mean its cracked ,and the almost complete crack on the one that broke means that stress caused the crack a long

                time ago and even kolibri would not have seen the crack as the jam nut would have concealed it.

                The rodend had 40 hours of time on it after the inspection,and is there no proof that the rodend was the cause.The accident was months

                not weeks after the inspection as kolobri reported.



                The FAA report is bogus they said the rodend broke and the rotor blades went to full pitch and caused the mast to bend and the pusher propeller to sever the

                tail,that probably was the pieces the witness saw leaving the Gyro. It sounds like a classic PIO or PPO. I am sure that the blades severed the tail not the prop.


                perhaps when the mast folded that caused the rodend to break or when it hit the ground,who knows for sure.

                there was no real proof that the rodend broke in flight or at the time it hit the ground.

                If you believe the rodend broke and caused the crash,then you will also have to believe that the rotor went to full pitch bent the mast
                and the prop was what chopped the tail off.





                Last edited by eddie; 09-17-2018, 08:38 PM.
                Best Regards,
                Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
                (575) 835-4921

                Comment


                • I was trying to keep it simple Eddie.

                  I feel the picture compared to his description and his hypothesis speaks for itself.

                  For those that are interested the report is located here:
                  https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=LA


                  Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                  Comment


                  • Yes I know Vance,but after reading the FAA accident report it really made me wonder if the rodend was

                    the culprit.

                    There is no doubt that it was fractured before the accident,but did it seperate and become the cause ?
                    Best Regards,
                    Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
                    (575) 835-4921

                    Comment


                    • I agree Eddie.

                      The more common time to break a rod end is on taxi or takeoff where the loads are the highest although it is hard to predict.

                      The description of the damage reads a lot more like a power push over to me.

                      It is common to break a control rod end in a rotor strike.

                      I can't guess what the report means by going to full pitch.

                      If you are correct and the rod end broke on impact Kolibri can now blame the flight instructor for the accident.

                      My point in posting the picture was to point out how divergent Kolibri's account is from reality and how little understanding he has.

                      If he viewed the wreckage sometime after the aircraft had spent the day under water I would expect there to be a lot of corrosion. From Kolibri's posts it appears this has not occurred to him despite me mentioning it several times. The introduction of reality only seems to escalate his rhetoric.

                      I find it more telling that he blames the flight instructor for an accident that he believes was not caused by the pilot.

                      He blames the builder for not finding something very difficult to find and the broker for believing the seller.

                      Perhaps Tim is right and he is an inept personal injury attorney hoping to find a jury moved by his emotional rhetoric unconcerned with the impact of the cost of litigation.

                      I would have replaced the rod ends and hardware for corrosion. It is unlikely I would see the beginning of the crack. I have seen much worse corrosion on many gyroplanes.
                      Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                      Comment


                      • Well there is a rust spot on the one that didn't break and they are dirty,.
                        So, eddie, rusty control rod ends are what a CFI and broker would allow in a used gyro for a newbie?
                        (At least my rod ends weren't rusty, and I wouldn't have purchased my RAF if they were.)



                        but hardly like a piece of metal that has been buried for 154 years
                        OK, here you go:

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	N5002E pitted control rod end.jpg Views:	1 Size:	81.1 KB ID:	1138423




                        The FAA report is bogus they said the rodend broke and the rotor blades went to full pitch and caused the mast to bend and the pusher propeller to sever the
                        tail,that probably was the pieces the witness saw leaving the Gyro. It sounds like a classic PIO or PPO. I am sure that the blades severed the tail not the prop.
                        While the FAA's seemed to misunderstand the dynamics of losing a control rod end in flight,
                        witnesses report a normal takeoff and turn to left crosswind at 200'. This was not a PIO or PPO.

                        Also, it is clear that the rod end did indeed fail in flight, not upon impact.
                        The corrosion in the failed rod was both old and more recent.



                        Click image for larger version  Name:	N5002E corroded control rod ends.jpg Views:	1 Size:	546.1 KB ID:	1138424



                        _________
                        Vance, that pdf you posted was, in my opinion, not the in-flight failed rod end, but an impact-failed one (which was mentioned because of its surface corrosion).
                        The failed rod end was on the lower control yoke. The photo you posted was of the mast scissors.


                        Examination of the flight control linkage revealed one flight control rod bearing stud fractured.
                        The fracture surface contained corrosion, consistent with the crack being present prior to impact.
                        An additional control rod bearing had surface corrosion similar to the corrosion present on the fractured bearing stud.
                        If he viewed the wreckage sometime after the aircraft had spent the day under water I would expect there to be a lot of corrosion. From Kolibri's posts it appears this has not occurred to him despite me mentioning it several times.
                        I did consider it, and dismissed the notion having personally inspected the wreckage.

                        My point in posting the picture was to point out how divergent Kolibri's account is from reality and how little understanding he has.
                        Nice try, though.

                        Vance, you remind me of the trial judge in Pink Floyd's The Wall. (View from about 3:48.)
                        "The evidence before the court . . . is incontrovertible, there's no need for the jury to retire.
                        In all my years of judging, I have never seen a case . . .
                        "


                        Last edited by Kolibri; 09-18-2018, 09:06 AM.
                        PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, SC2), soloed in gliders

                        "
                        When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either ceases to be mistaken -- or he ceases to be honest."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Vance View Post

                          I can't guess what the report means by going to full pitch.
                          I can guess. The investigator does not understand gyroplane rotor mechanics. On a swash plate controlled helicopter rotor, if a pitch link breaks, a blade no longer subject to that restraint may suffer a severe pitch excursion. I believe that is what the report envisioned happening here (a complete impossibility, of course).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
                            While the FAA's seemed to misunderstand the dynamics of losing a control rod end in flight,
                            witnesses report a normal takeoff and turn to left crosswind at 200'. This was not a PIO or PPO.
                            What is it about left turns or 200' that makes a PIO or PPO impossible?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
                              how many ADs and SBs do Mooney, Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc. blame on the pilots improperly storing or flying the aircraft?
                              Let's be fair here.
                              Cessna and its peers do not have to deal with assembly, maintenance, inspection, and even modification by rank amateurs well beyond the control or even the knowledge of the factory, and the professionalism, training, and certification they can reasonably expect from their customers and third party customer support base is far beyond that which is the norm in the world of experimental gyro kit makers. A bit of suspicion would seem natural and probably statistically justified in general.

                              Comment


                              • You continue to make my point Kolibri.

                                It appears to me your posts are emotionally based rather than reality based.

                                It appears to me you have poor reading comprehension.

                                I hope for everyone involved; someday you will be able to let go of your resentments.
                                Last edited by Vance; 09-18-2018, 10:36 AM.
                                Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X