Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calidus Instructor Pack

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

  • ...

    We are making aircraft and the quality of the people and processes doing special processes like brazing, welding, heat treatment etc. matters. Not any joe shmoe should be used for aircraft structural welding.

    Kolibri wrote:
    Yes, I agree, but you still did allow six of the earliest AR-1 gyros to go out with those lousy looking mast welds.
    You had that improved subsequently -- bravo.
    Making a weld look pretty (which I admire btw myself) and having a weld done to spec are two very different things Kolibri. Of course its best if both aesthetics and spec are both high end but one should never be mixed with the other. Of course I brought the fabrication and welding in-house to bring the aesthetics up to my standards while keeping the welding spec intact or even improving it. That is a natural progression.

    Also, you Silverlight seems to take more care in their welding than does AutoGyro or ELA, so again, bravo.
    I think we do. I am not sure what the others do exactly but mainly from what I know for sure, they seem to not do welding processes the same way we do. Without boring people with technicalities, simply put 300 series SS and Titanium all need shielding from Oxygen all around while welding.

    You and I (and others) disagree on the appropriateness of using 304 stainless for the mast.
    You claim that AutoGyro's 2017 Calidus SB on (stainless steel) mast plate cracking is due to their welds.
    In part, I would agree, but you ignore the fact that AG also mentions the mast plates themselves, not just the welds.
    I continue to believe that the stainless steel itself is part of their problem. I hope that it never becomes one of yours.
    ...
    Its due to their (AG) welds in a specific zone and those are forced by design of the plates (not material of the plate). Unless they are saying that the material they got was not to spec 304. I don't want to sit here and analyze it but you can find a Mechanical engineer or aero engineer and show them the SD and photos and discuss it with them. This is another example of you talking about things you are not understanding and that should be expected from you being from financial industry (?), but the problem is you are saying it like you are an engineer and experienced on structures and people will start to believe your assertions. You reach your conclusion first (its the stainless steel) and then you look at the SD and think about it and you don't get the details of what is happening there in that specific area.
    Last edited by fara; 09-20-2018, 06:36 PM.

    Comment


    • Just about all of the gyros manufactured today use stainless with the exception of a very few,so that tells me

      there is probably a good reason for doing so.

      Its like Vance says he is a TROLL and if we don't feed it, it will go away.





      Best Regards,
      Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
      (575) 835-4921

      Comment


      • Originally posted by eddie View Post
        Just about all of the gyros manufactured today use stainless with the exception of a very few,so that tells me

        there is probably a good reason for doing so.
        I hate to get involved in this long and completely hijacked thread, but... Magni has made over 1100 gyros and doesn't use SS. I don't think that's "very few".

        Comment


        • Thought I would give an example of what happens to rod end bearings when they bend. I was changing some AFR settings on the ECU and at 4500 rpm with the brakes on the axle turned 90 deg. Thought it would start to slide if that was too much thrust. Turned out that the earlier RAF instructions only called for tightening the center axle bolts but later on they also required a roll pin in each clamp, in addition to clamping it down. The outer clamps had roll pins so it stayed in place and bent the rod end bearings. Draw your own conclusions, but with all the discussion about failing rod end bearings I found it interesting that up to 45 deg. they bent but only completely failed after a 90 deg. bend. And no, I don't do this anymore, with or without roll pins.
          David Craft

          Comment


          • The reports by witness's read exactly like a power push over to me.

            In my opinion the damage to the aircraft fits a power push over.

            My contention is that I don't know what happened.
            Dealing with Vance is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
            Mr. "Have It Both Ways".

            Let's comb through the witnesses' reports:


            He accelerated to a point he became airborn (sic), lifting about 30-40 feet off the ground traveling north bound on the Runway for about 1,000 feet. He began climbing to an altitude of about 200-300' above the runway at a position leaving the threshold of Runway 17, I then watch the gyrocopter start a turn to the west (left). At that point the roto blades folded upward. Pieces of the craft came off, the gyrocopter fell rapidly with slight forward motion . . .
            Everything appeared to be going fine - the gyrocopter accelerated and lifted off the runway and maintained an altitude of approximately 30+ feet for a distance of approximately 1000 feet down the runway. The gyrocopter then began to climb to approximately 200 to 300 feet and initiate a turn to the west at which the rotor blades appeared to fold and the gyrocopter fell to the ground or so it appeared.
            A Power Push Over is a forward rotation of the airframe around its center of mass. It noses over, and often tumbles.
            It looks something like this:



            Click image for larger version

Name:	Bunt.gif
Views:	1
Size:	102.7 KB
ID:	1138567


            Notice that not a word was said about the gyro tumbling or even nosing over, which would have occurred in a PPO.
            This is why I don't believe that a PPO caused the crash.

            Also, in an HTL gyro like the RAF, to experience a PPO rotor thrust must first somehow be significantly reduced (without concurrent reduction in power).
            There was nothing about the winds (5 kts.) or the pilot's behavior (pitch or power) to indicate that rotor thrust was significantly reduced.
            There is no evidence that he experienced zero g force -- in fact his rotor was loaded during climb and bank, not unloaded.

            A normal ground effect acceleration to Vx or Vy and sedate climb to 200-300' left crosswind are not the conditions to cause a PPO.

            If a control rod end failed in flight, it would have resulted in rotor flap and tail strike. As Doug Riley commented about N5002E:


            The rusted-through rod end bearing says it all. Control continuity most likely was lost, and the
            rotor experienced a large uncommanded cyclic input that caused it to stall on the retreating side and
            teeter down into the prop or tail.
            The gyro would have fallen from the sky just as the witnesses reported seeing N5002E fall.

            The PPO theory is a fantasy attempt to redirect culpability away from those responsible for a falsified logbook and lack of honest maintenance.

            More Kolibri "
            histrionics"? Well, let's recall Vance's recent post:

            I also assign responsibility [of the crash] to the pilot in command for . . . not doing a more thorough preflight [to discover suspect control rod ends].
            Well, if a PPO caused the crash and not a separated control rod end . . . what difference would it have made that Mahler didn't catch those corroded rod ends?

            According to Vance, Mahler is guilty in both divergent Universes:
            the one in which Mahler PPO'd -- and the other in which he flew on critically damaged parts after a poor preflight.


            Mr. "Have It Both Ways".




            There are mechanics I respect who would not have replaced the rod ends for corrosion in the pictures I posted.
            Please supply their names so I won't take my aircraft to them.

            Vance has previously posted that he'd have failed my RAF for the condition of its OEM control rod ends.
            Here is a photo just before I replaced them with Heims. They are in much better condition than any on N5002E.
            Even the worst one was visibly better than what Vance or his "respected" mechanics would have accepted in N5002E.



            Click image for larger version  Name:	original OEM rod ends from 2003 after 315 hours.jpg Views:	1 Size:	938.7 KB ID:	1138563


            He implies that N5002E was airworthy despite its corroded control rod ends.
            He stated that my RAF was not airworthy because of control rod ends in much better condition.

            I've no more time for the hypocrisy and quantum bizarreness of Mr. "Have It Both Ways".
            I pin him down in one Universe, and so he creates another one, playing them both off against me as required.
            It is actually bizarre.

            Regards,
            Kolibri
            Last edited by Kolibri; 09-21-2018, 10:07 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


            • Draw your own conclusions, but with all the discussion about failing rod end bearings I found it interesting that up to 45 deg. they bent but only completely failed after a 90 deg. bend.
              From such a slow but powerful force, I'm not surprised that they bent and then broke as you pictured.
              However, in a high g impact, rod ends snap, so I'm unclear about your point.

              Regards,
              Kolibri
              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


              • The most traditional materials and the seat that allows you to do the most traditional job. Someone posted it on FB and I thought of Kolibri's posts on materials. Very safe.
                Couldn't resist :)

                Comment


                • My new screen wallpaper

                  Comment


                  • "From such a slow but powerful force, I'm not surprised that they bent and then broke as you pictured.
                    However, in a high g impact, rod ends snap, so I'm unclear about your point."


                    So let's clarify that you are saying the infamous rod end failure was from a "high G impact" induced by the pilot? Um, OK. We can all play "Have it both ways" game Kolibri.

                    Comment


                    • Fara that was probably built by kolibri himself,but I did not see a toilet paper holder,

                      and I am sure it would have had one if he was the designer.

                      The rodends that david showed being broke were caused by the

                      230 HP turbo Subaru engine I built for him. @ 4,500 RPM he was below max HP.

                      Last edited by eddie; 09-21-2018, 03:09 PM.
                      Best Regards,
                      Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
                      (575) 835-4921

                      Comment


                      • In a power push over the rudder often comes up and hits the rotor; there is a loud bang and parts are seen to fall off the aircraft. Sometimes the rotor loses rpm and folds up and sometimes the forward tumble continues. Sometimes there is a roll.

                        12/29/2007 ALTHOUSE RAF 2000 GTX N136DG, Crowley, TX 2 Fatal
                        The amateur built gyrocopter was destroyed following a loss of rotor rpm and subsequent collision with terrain while maneuvering. A witness initially heard a "loud pop" and then observed the gyrocopter, approximately 50-feet above the ground, descending at a nose down angle of approximately 60-degrees. The gyrocopter impacted the ground approximately 100- feet from where the witness was located. The witness further reported that before the impact, the rotor blades appeared to be spinning "slowly." Inspection of the wreckage revealed that the rotor blades had struck the rudder twice. In addition, the rotor hub and rotor blades exhibited evidence of upward coning, consistent with the rotor blades having lost rigidity due to low rpm. Inspection of the wreckage did not reveal any mechanical failure/malfunction which would have resulted in the loss of control.

                        This reads similar to N5002E to me.

                        Mahler was the pilot in command and he was directly responsible for and the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft. This is a simple concept that appears to confuse some people.

                        I had a client with an RAF 2000 on a training flight experience PIO on the downwind enough to unload the rotor and several of my pilot friends watching did not see the oscillation. I saw the reduction in rotor rpm.

                        "Also, in an HTL gyro like the RAF, to experience a PPO rotor thrust must first somehow be significantly reduced (without concurrent reduction in power).
                        There was nothing about the winds (5 kts.) or the pilot's behavior (pitch or power) to indicate that rotor thrust was significantly reduced.
                        There is no evidence that he experienced zero g force -- in fact his rotor was loaded during climb and bank, not unloaded."

                        Statements like these demonstrate the extent of the misunderstanding. In my opinion a low G event or a wind shear is what starts a power push over. It would be very difficult in a gyroplane to reach zero gs. It would be impossible to see a low level wind shear from the ground. The weather report was from 18 miles east of the accident airport.


                        I would replace the rod ends in the picture because they are badly gouged and show evidence of exceeding the misalignment available in their environment.
                        .
                        Last edited by Vance; 09-23-2018, 04:59 AM.
                        Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by eddie View Post
                          Fara that was probably built by kolibri himself,but I did not see a toilet paper holder,

                          and I am sure it would have had one if he was the designer.

                          The rodends that david showed being broke were caused by the

                          230 HP turbo Subaru engine I built for him. @ 4,500 RPM he was below max HP.
                          I hope Kolibri can take a joke. I just thought it was funny.

                          I don't want to get involved in the RAF or Dofin Fritts and the rod end accident debate. I have not followed it and I don't know enough about RAF construction to be qualified to comment on detailed specifics. All I do know that there are multiple things in RAFs that I have seen personally that I would have done differently. Their lack of HS coupled with a very high thrust line is very puzzling to me
                          Last edited by fara; 09-23-2018, 09:19 AM.

                          Comment



                          • the RAF was one of the first enclosed cabin gyros that had an appeal about it at the time,and your right there are an awful

                            lot of things done wrong on it,but at time which was over 20 years ago there were a lot of gyros being built without an H-stab.

                            fortunately we have figured out a lot of the major problems and have really nice behaving gyros now.

                            if a person can do the work the RAF can become a really good gyro for the money.and there were

                            some other gyros that a worse fatality record than the RAF.

                            My RAF performs very well for me,and I am a happy camper,thats really the bottom line anyway.
                            Best Regards,
                            Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
                            (575) 835-4921

                            Comment


                            • Howdy all, I've been traveling extensively and meanwhile enjoyed an internet sabbatical.

                              So let's clarify that you are saying the infamous rod end failure was from a "high G impact" induced by the pilot?
                              Um, OK. We can all play "Have it both ways" game Kolibri.
                              HighAltitude, no, that is not what I've ever claimed.
                              Please acquaint yourself with the FAA report of probable cause for N5002E's crash.
                              A control rod end, previously corroded in the shank, separated in flight.
                              (The other rods ends broke upon subsequent impact.)



                              ___________
                              I would replace the rod ends in the picture because they are badly gouged and show evidence of exceeding the misalignment available in their environment.
                              Are you saying that you'd replace them merely from personal preference, or that in your opinion the gyro was not then airworthy because of those rod ends?

                              Mahler was the pilot in command and he was directly responsible for and the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft.
                              This is a simple concept that appears to confuse some people.
                              Well, I'm not confused about it, if that's what you're implying.
                              Certainly, Mahler was PIC that day, but his operation of N5002E did not cause its crash.
                              Rather, it was in-flight mechanical failure. That's the FAA's opinion, and I agree.


                              In a power push over the rudder often comes up and hits the rotor; there is a loud bang and parts are seen to fall off the aircraft.
                              Well, after the rotor and rudder make contact, all such incidents could resemble a PPO if you looked at it from that moment on.
                              The key question here, however, is why did the N5002E rotor strike the tail?

                              Regarding the Althouse PPO,
                              "The witness further reported that before the impact, the rotor blades appeared to be spinning "slowly.""
                              Neither of the two N5002E crash witnesses, however, reported unusually low RRPM.
                              The gyro was quartering away from them only few hundred yards away, so they were in a good position to view it.
                              Mahler had been flying for some time that day, so folks on the ground would have had a good baseline for what was normal flight.


                              In my opinion a low G event or a wind shear is what starts a power push over.
                              It would be very difficult in a gyroplane to reach zero gs. It would be impossible to see a low level wind shear from the ground.
                              Mahler was reputed to be a conservative pilot. I doubt that he would have continued to fly in conditions of wind shear.
                              Also, the pilot witnesses would have likely commented on any wind shear had it been experienced.


                              The weather report was from 18 miles east of the accident airport.
                              And you are some 1800 miles west of it, yet you can imagine wind shear?
                              Completely contrary to the established mechanical failure causing the crash, you've settled on PPO and are hunting for corroborating theories.
                              Neither low g nor wind shear hold up. You're grasping at straws.

                              Fraudulent maintenance claims of a mechanically neglected and unsafe gyro sold to a trusting FW pilot new to gyros is what caused this crash.


                              Regards,
                              Kolibri

                              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


                              • "I would replace the rod ends in the picture because they are badly gouged and show evidence of exceeding the misalignment available in their environment."


                                Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
                                [COLOR=#006400]

                                Are you saying that you'd replace them merely from personal preference, or that in your opinion the gyro was not then airworthy because of those rod ends?

                                Regards,
                                Kolibri
                                I don't understand your question.

                                Please help me understand what you feel is the difference between "I would replace the rod ends" and "not airworthy."
                                Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X