Calidus Instructor Pack

Kolibri you have become your Alabama gyro CFI. He repeated things he had learned from people he respected and trusted. In his own eyes he was right no matter what others tried to tell him. He knew that the RAF could be flown "tail-less" or stabilized by just proper flying techniques. You applied what you experienced with him and listened to others. You sincerely try to help make the gyro community safer. BUT the time has come for you to reevaluate some of the things you have "learned" that are either "half truth" or outright false teachings.
You said, " They know not what they do". Well, neither do you.
For the second time in two years, the video link to a stock Bensen being barrel rolled has been posted to this forum in response to your equating the ability of one pilot to roll one machine to the assumption that makes for a better engineered gyro. You still don't get it. Jim had a special childhood growing up. In his own words he kept pushing the family gyro steeper and steeper until he went over. One pilot. For all the Aussie muster pilots with thousands of hours swooping and zooming, I don't see them looping or barrel rolling that make or model of machine. History lesson time. In the early days of flight the maneuver we know as a stall spin was an unrecoverable event. After many deaths the designers and flight instructions gave us a repeatable recovery procedure. For decades it was taught in initial flight training. We are not yet there with a two blade tetering rotor system in an inverted or greatly lowered "g" flight condition. That's the reason for the No Aerobatic Flight limitations. It has nothing to do at all with the structural integrity of the airframe and flight components.
I know personally that the AR-1 was first on paper and in computer engineering software evaluated for flight loads and failure factors such as fatigue before the first choice of structural materials was considered. Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. Why sink in ? Because when it has been said to you over and over in a nice way you have missed it. Just like your old Alabama CFI again. Now, once the loads were laid out the materials were selected. Yes 4130 has good on paper numbers. Weight and strength in line with the requirements but.....a very big but....it was not available in those sizes in a documented certified source in commercial quantities. Stainless steel in the weight and strengths needed are available with traceable certification at prices and quantities that allows manufacturing with room left for possibly making a profit on the finished machine.
So, quoting your prior post, "I very specifically criticized stainless steel masts" shows your lack of knowledge about the subject. I don't personally know your educational background. But I do know Abid Farooqui's Engineering education and his professional work in aviation leading to making other types of flying machines safer. I know he has been the lead engineer on several aircraft getting their Type Certification. If Abid designed the one piece stainless mast, then I have no fear trusting mine or my family's safety to that use of material. You are wrong in your assumptions about one piece stainless steel mast in this machine.
Dr. Bensen pushed for "tail-less" airframe and self instruction. For whatever legal advice or personal pride that was accepted as "truth" for 25 years. There are many good pilots in their graves because of this dogma. There have been fewer modern era crashes due to tail feather size and location. This leads to another misconception on your part. And again I quote you, " to dismiss the structural strength needed in a low positive-G maneuver is to ignore, for example, the issue of mast flexing". Truth is in a low positive-G maneuver there are less forces on the mast than in a normal G range. In normal flight traditional physics works like this: the weight and aerodynamic drag of the gyro are offset by the lift of the rotor. The lift line goes in a direction mostly parallel to the mast. In a sudden low G situation like the high speed zoom up followed by a leveling control input, the upward inertia of the gyro lowers the apparent weight of the machine and pilot ( that light in the seat feeling) but the rotor is still producing lift in an upward and slightly rearward direction. If unchecked the rotor will in a split second tilt rearward often with enough movement to chop off the tail. Since any turn in any aircraft produces higher G forces (weight) the proper flight instruction is to turn at the top of a climb adding "weight" to the rotor to balance the lift being produced. There are no or so small as to be not a factor mast bending forces in a low G situation.
Good engineering puts tail surfaces large enough and far enough back from and vertically from the center of gravity to aid in limiting those momentary contol inputs that some machines need just to fly straight and level. However, there is a group thought that less dampening of the machine is " better" for mustering or circuits around a pattern. There is a group thought that dampening is safer for pilots. I know that on a cross country machine I enjoy the trim and sit back aspects of a non-divergent machine. This leads to the ASRA rules via way of the Arrowcopter and the British rules. That machine is the eye candy of the modern gyro era. It is fast. It goes cross countries. Plural intended. It is maneuverable in the hands of good pilots. It has over 700 hours of logged flight test times with data points and standards met. However, someone's opinion in the British rules department is that since it is divergent above about 70 knots as I recall it is limited by placard to slow flight to be certified. That's the point being made about Aussie rules. Some are good but like the British one, other rules are opinion based.
You have some very good and specific knowledge about some areas of gyros and gyro safety. I'd never talk down to you about rod ends. That has been a great addition to the knowledge base for all gyros.
Don't become that person that takes away from or leads astray others. Abid, Chuck,Eddie,Vance,Jason, all spoke these same ideas but in a much less blunt way.

And now your final quote, it's in your tag line area:

When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either ceases to be mistaken - or he ceases to be honest.
 
For the second time in two years, the video link to a stock Bensen being barrel rolled has been posted to this forum in response to your equating the ability of one pilot to roll one machine to the assumption that makes for a better engineered gyro.
Sure, I guess pretty much any gyro could be looped or rolled once, or even a few times, but I've never hung my entire point on looping and rolling.
You and others have made more of what was obiter dicta in reference to vigorous flying.
In short, I don't see any gyros on the market that can be flown as hard and for so long as what Sport Copter sells.
Something the ASRA calls "high-energy maneuvers":


High-energy manoeuvres are defined as those where the angle of bank consistently exceeds 45 degrees,
or where changes in pitch attitude cause a g-loading in excess of + 2 g or – 0 g.
https://www.asra.org.au/application/...spensation.pdf


If Abid designed the one piece stainless mast, then I have no fear trusting mine or my family's safety to that use of material.
You are wrong in your assumptions about one piece stainless steel mast in this machine.
You're welcome to trust Abid's opinion there. It's a free market. It's curious, however, that he'd admittedly prefer to use 4130 in a gyro made for the military.

I, however, prefer to trust in the experience, knowledge, and skill of a man who's been intimately involved with designing gyros for nearly his entire life.
Vanek's background in welding for nuclear engineering applications is also unique.
He helped write the proposed ASTM design standards for certified gyros.

Furthermore, at Oshkosh, I spoke with two unrelated and random aeronautical engineers. (I have their business cards.)
They did not think much of the idea of stainless steel gyro masts. I.e., this is not purely a Jim Vanek opinion.
Feel free to refute my representation of the relative disadvantages of using stainless steel in gyro masts.
And please explain how SS is structurally superior there to 4130 chrome-moly steel.



Yes 4130 has good on paper numbers. Weight and strength in line with the requirements but.....a very big but....it was not available in those sizes in a documented certified source in commercial quantities.
Then how does Sport Copter manage to acquire it?
Let's not ignore the fact that Abid chose SS because he could afford it, not because it was superior to 4130.
Had SS been superior, then he wouldn't have priced 4130 at all. Let's be honest about that. He decided that SS was "good enough".



4130 i not available in dimensions needed and one would have to order a full mill run to get it to what is needed
or go 1/8" wall thickness which is way overkill and heavy.
fara -- https://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/ro...08#post1128108
That supply argument is just not credible, sorry.
I looked into it, and certified 2" square tubing 4130 less than .125 wall is available in affordable quantities for a small factory.
If I find him such a source, will he change over to 4130? :smile:


Stainless steel simply cannot hold up to stress and vibration as well as mild chrome-moly.
This is something I knew before ever hearing of Jim Vanek or Sport Copter.

Some AR-1 mast screenshots from Abid's video. Neither the material (stainless steel 304) nor the welds impress me, sorry.
There is no way I'd fly on that skinny upper length of stainless 2" square tubing.
Just my opinion; not trying to embarrass anyone, but offering food for thought.



AutoGyro stainless steel mast weld cracks.png



You have some very good and specific knowledge about some areas of gyros and gyro safety. I'd never talk down to you about rod ends.
That has been a great addition to the knowledge base for all gyros.
Thank you, I appreciate the hat tip.


Don't become that person that takes away from or leads astray others.
I would never consciously become so, and am always open to constructive correction with all relevant facts.
Thank you for your post attempting to do so.

I disagree with your equating the stubborn ignorance of Dofin Fritts to me.
He represented for years a knowingly unsafe brand of gyro. I do not.
If I err, it's on the side of caution -- something he's not known for at all.

Regards,
Kolibri
 

Attachments

  • Silverlight AR-1 mast of SS304.png
    Silverlight AR-1 mast of SS304.png
    67.8 KB · Views: 7
  • Silverlight 304SS mast.png
    Silverlight 304SS mast.png
    74.1 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Thank you Tom great article,I know that from time to time I go over the edge and need a nudge back .
 
JJ Campbell;n1135854 said:
I'm in the early stages of planning to buy and build a Calidus (Currently working on Sport Fixed-Wing License.) Since I'll soon be 73, it is taking me a lot of hours to get my license and then I need my gyro endorsement and then the huge expense of the Calidus.

Needless to say, I'm worried about having the funds to do all this and am taking a good look at all optional expenses.

I'd love the groups input on the Pros/Cons of including the Instructor Pack in my build.

I know this may sound quite harsh, but if your age (73) is resulting in you taking a lot longer to get your rating, as you imply, is it really smart to be doing this in the first place? I don't think age is necessarily an issue on it's own, and clearly everyone is different, but if it adversely affects your learning abilities by taking more hours as you imply, then the honest advice may be to reconsider.

As to all the advice here on different gyros I think they are all great options, they are all more than strong enough for your needs, especially as you are unlikely to go anywhere near their expected lifetime use.

Ultimately you have to fly them, see which you prefer, and which fits your price point the best
 
Last edited:
Kolibiri:
You are using the ASRA compliance as some gold medal for Sport Copter and saying European models are inferior. Well FYI, MTO Sport, ELA, Magni and so on are all also ASRA compliant. I am not sure what point you are making there but it is not valid.
You need to look at why the mast being limber warranted? It has nothing to do with structural loading. And putting a bunch of rubber or Urethane bushings there solves nothing in terms of structure. You need to ask Mike Goodrich about that subject. He is rotary machine balancing engineer from his previous days and a good consult on things like that. The reason for those bushings and limber mast supposedly is to reduce the transmission of 2/rev to the bottom half of the frame. 2/rev originate in the rotor/rotor-head, best isolation would be right where rotor-head attaches to the mast but its complicated to execute it there.

Just putting any bushings in there does not reduce them either. In fact it can make it worse. Stainless Steel is ductile than 4130. Sure it can work harden (in fact that is the only way to actually harden it, unlike heat treatments for 4130 or other carbon steels) but after work hardening .... . But that's an entirely different subject that I'd rather not divulge into. I wish you the best in your gyro adventure. I just wanted to point out some things I noticed that you have that are worth pointing to.

For your reference, here is a comparison of 4130 to 304 SS. If you know what you are doing, you can figure out how to make a structural element with desired properties out of either adjusting some dimensions and structural elements.

https://www.makeitfrom.com/compare/A...30-Cr-Mo-Steel

Yes 4130 would be lighter and 304 will be 10% heavier for a given structure to get the same out of both and yes as a purest I would thus like to use 4130 but then I have to source the 4130 in the sizes that I actually need to get that lightness and "wake up call" comes in. But hey if you want a 4130 welded frame, pay me enough and I'll do it for you. May have to be rectangular tubing instead of square. Probably not save much weight because the wall thickness really needed isn't there.

Have at it and best.
 
Last edited:
Loftus - Do you really think someone 73 years old learns new physical skills a quickly as a 20 or 30 something? How old are you? How many seniors have you trained as pilots? My CFI - an AOPA award winner says I'm doing fine but it will just take me longer than her younger students for the flying part. My study/homework ethic has the kids beat hands-down.

Yes, your remark was harsh. It was also ill informed and churlish.
 
JJ Campbell, if you fly a Calidus gently for only <300 hours, you'd likely not experience any structural failure.
That, for you, may suffice for lifetime.

I get into all this only so folks may ask deeper questions about how gyros are made.
I certainly wish you a safe and enjoyable tour beneath your rotating wings.



___________
You are using the ASRA compliance as some gold medal for Sport Copter
fara, actually the "gold medal for Sport Copter" is their utter lack of in-flight failures of mast, rotorhead, hub bar, and rotors.
All else I mentioned (i.e., aerobatics, ASRA) was in support of their unique safety record.



You need to look at why the mast being limber warranted? It has nothing to do with structural loading.
And putting a bunch of rubber or Urethane bushings there solves nothing in terms of structure.
I agree, and sorry if I seemed to imply such. See below.


The reason for those bushings and limber mast supposedly is to reduce the transmission of 2/rev to the bottom half of the frame.
2/rev originate in the rotor/rotor-head, best isolation would be right where rotor-head attaches to the mast but its complicated to execute it there.
There is more to the Sport Copter mast/rotor system than merely its In-Air Suspension.
The larger hub bars have Heim joints on their two huge NAS bolts, allowing the rotors to find their lead/lag and coning angles with less stress on the bar.
There are also PU bushings in the rotor head.
Jim is very stern about reducing nodes of frequency to a level that the 4130 can easily handle.



yes as a purest I would thus like to use 4130 but then I have to source the 4130 in the sizes that I actually need to get that lightness
C'mon, man, you can't find .065 or .080 wall square tubing in affordable quantities?
Sport Copter doesn't have to buy mill runs of it.



I wish you the best in your gyro adventure. I just wanted to point out some things I noticed that you have that are worth pointing to.
Many thanks, and likewise, fara.

Just to clarify, I am not accusing you of intentionally choosing a material, design, or process that you know to be inferior or dangerous.
I believe that you believe such to be satisfactorily safe.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
JJ Campbell;n1136235 said:
Loftus - Do you really think someone 73 years old learns new physical skills a quickly as a 20 or 30 something? How old are you? How many seniors have you trained as pilots? My CFI - an AOPA award winner says I'm doing fine but it will just take me longer than her younger students for the flying part. My study/homework ethic has the kids beat hands-down.

Yes, your remark was harsh. It was also ill informed and churlish.

Well if your CFI says your are doing fine, then I guess that's OK. I also know that this is how CFI's make their living. However it was you who used the term 'lots'. I honestly believe that no matter what the age, one should be able to complete the PPL in the average 40 hours, and if one takes significantly longer then one has to question whether that individual is going to be a safe pilot, both for themselves, and for possible passengers. If a 20 year year old were taking an excessive number of hours I would give the same advice. I am not a CFI, I am a surgeon, and I have trained surgeons. Sometimes I have needed to be honest and advised younger trainees that surgery may not be their vocation. This is not nasty or churlish, just honest.
I am 64, I expect by 73 I may be close to hanging up solo flying. Unfortunately as we age, it does take longer to learn new skills, I believe our abilities unfortunately to react appropriately and in a timely fashion to emergencies, our eyesight etc, all deteriorate, whether we like it or not. Obviously there is a huge range of age related abilities for any given age and you may be well within your abilities. I think learning to fly should be challenging, but only to a point. Only you can make that honest assessment. I mean nothing personal, it's just that in your first post you gave the impression that this endeavor was not easy, if I am mistaken and ill-informed I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Kolibri:

Like I said I could not get a reliable US made supply of 4130 square tubing in the size I needed. I am not about to sit here and tell you exactly what size that was.
So if you are not accusing me of intentionally choosing a material, design or process that I know to be inferior than what are you doing? :)
Anyway, 4130 is superior to 304. I already said that. But its because if I could get what I exactly needed I could shave off about 11 pounds. Its not because of any other reason. I took the 11 pound hit and got similar properties and life as I would have from 4130 tubing of the right size.
The other advantage is no powder coating that over time chips off and no worrying about rust inside of the structure for the customer.

I know the Sport Copter rotor system. I cut one into pieces here. Nothing you are telling me is new to me.

I have yet to make some more clarifications on what you state about below.
4130 doesn't handle any specific frequency that is of concern in designing aircraft. The "structure" overall as put together defines its resonance frequencies and those depend on mainly mass and rigidity of the whole structure. Not much else. The frequency to keep away from are the ones that the system creates. System creates frequencies from the rotor RPM, the prop RPM and the engine crankshaft RPM in fight climb, and cruise So there are at least these sets of frequencies that will be of interest to avoid having harmonic excitement in the system that is the frame, the tail, rudder, body etc. You have to make all these components so the frequency of the above mentioned systems does not create resonance in them. For example Rotor RPM of 360 is frequency of 6 Hz. Two per rev gives 12 Hz. Prop RPM of 2100 gives 35 Hz. If there are 3 blades you may also need to examine 35 x 3 = 105 Hz to see what is happening to the whole system and its components.

What you should be talking about perhaps if you really want a valid technical reason on European production gyroplanes is the welding process they use. But that starts to get into very detailed stuff. Mike Goodrich brought that up once in a separate thread somewhere in regards with ELA. If you don't weld SS like Aerospace standards ask for, you will have rusting in welds from inside out and they will crack prematurely.

I think that's enough on this subject already. I am not here to teach people how to engineer a proper aircraft and I am sorry to the original poster that this thread is gone off in a bit of a tangent
 
Last edited:
So if you are not accusing me of intentionally choosing a material, design or process that I know to be inferior than what are you doing? :)
Inferior for the task. Of course you know that SS 304 is inferior to 4130. What I mean is that I believe that you believe SS 304 is nonetheless adequate.
I.e., that you are not consciously making something you know to be intrinsically unsafe.
Put another way, I'm "accusing" you of having more faith in your SS mast than I or Vanek would.


I took the 11 pound hit and got similar properties and life as I would have from 4130 tubing of the right size.
A SolidWorks comparison would be interesting . . .
I don't believe your material and design is impressively strong (especially over the hard and long haul), but you believe it is strong enough for the product to whom it is marketed.


I think that's enough on this subject already. I am not here to teach people how to engineer a proper aircraft

OK, fair enough. We've both sufficiently explained our mutual opinions, and I wish us all safe flying.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
JJ I am not here to tell you what to do you have earned that right a long time ago,I fly just about every day,my pilot skills are just fine,the

problem I have is agility,to build a gyro from scratch would be a really big undertaking at this time of my life I have built 2 aircraft from scratch

and wouldn't want to do that again.If I were in your position I would just concentrate on Gyro flight training as fixwing will help but you can also

learn the same skills while flying a Gyro as you don't have any flight time to start with,it will be faster,cheaper and more usefull. I would also look

for a machine hat you really like that's already built and ready to go. I have over the last seven years or so enjoyed modifiying my RAF to suit my

personal needs (high altitude) easier,safer to fly,etc. I am 74 and still feel that my piloting skills are up to par,I am flying probably one of the most

powerfull RAF gyros ever built,and feel that my age is not a problem handling that much HP and torque.

Anyway whatever you choose to do in aviation just make sure that its an enjoyable experience ,flying is what keeps me young,in good health and happy.
 
Kolibri;n1136242 said:
Inferior for the task. Of course you know that SS 304 is inferior to 4130. What I mean is that I believe that you believe SS 304 is nonetheless adequate.
I.e., that you are not consciously making something you know to be intrinsically unsafe.
Put another way, I'm "accusing" you of having more faith in your SS mast than I or Vanek would.



A SolidWorks comparison would be interesting . . .
I don't believe your material and design is impressively strong (especially over the hard and long haul), but you believe it is strong enough for the product to whom it is marketed.



OK, fair enough. We've both sufficiently explained our mutual opinions, and I wish us all safe flying.

Regards,
Kolibri

Kolibri:
You do know that I have designed or co-designed 5 aircraft and I have worked on certifying structurally 5 other aircraft and even today I have contracts to help companies on the side to get through design and flight testing so they can pass FAA scrutiny.
Of course you have a right to your opinion but I am not sure if I should worry about your opinion in this specific case. If your whole argument against our design is built on they have stainless steel, I am not too worried. Just FYI, SU26 Sukhoi has complete fuselage and engine mount made from properly welded stainless steel structure. Almost 75% of all Turbo prop engine mounts are welded stainless steel structures. Having said this the most common crack on mast I have seen in SS frames on European production gyroplanes are right around the engine mount but that is not because its Stainless. Its improper design and bad welding process
Here is one of my handy works. Trust me I know a tiny little bit about 4130 and its welding and structure and how bush planes are made. I know it may be hard for you to believe but ..
https://www.facebook.com/LegendAircr...E2MjcyMzg2Mjk/

Fly safe.
 
Last edited:
No Title

Here is a picture of AR-1 frame and what its welding is like. But yet its not just about the beauty of the weld its what you can't see and how it was back and front purged and not over penetrated nor a under penetrated for the application that really determines its proper life and strength.
 

Attachments

  • photo130467.jpg
    photo130467.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 3
  • photo130468.jpg
    photo130468.jpg
    83.5 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
No Title

Here are some pictures after a crash vertical descent landing and after rotors hit grass of Chromoly 4130 mast. If the magic answer was 4130, the mast wouldn't break right next to a weld. Obviously you have to know what you are doing and welding process has to be defined.
In Barry Maggio's accident for instance when he hit power lines and gyro fell to the ground and rotor struck tarmac ground etc. etc. His mast bent but did not break off and his welds held. And yes that was Stainless Steel 2" square mast.
 

Attachments

  • photo130469.jpg
    photo130469.jpg
    61.2 KB · Views: 3
  • photo130470.jpg
    photo130470.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 2
  • photo130471.jpg
    photo130471.jpg
    83.3 KB · Views: 3
  • photo130472.jpg
    photo130472.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 3
fara, I'm not alleging that you've no or poor skills. However, you yourself admitted that you'd have built your gyro from 4130 had the material cost been lower.
Had you used 4130, you'd have tackled the issues of corrosion . . . like other aircraft companies which routinely use 4130.
You further explained that you then chose SS 304 as having similar strength/properties if built 11 lbs. heavier.

In 2" square tubing, the weight penalty for going up a wall size (i.e., .065 to .095, or .095 to .120)
is about .6 lbs./ft.,
so your 11 lb. "hicky" for using the weaker SS 304 over 4130 works out to ~18' total length of material, which seems in the ballpark for a gyro frame and mast.


Stainless Steel is [more] ductile than 4130. Sure it can work harden (in fact that is the only way to actually harden it, unlike heat treatments for 4130 or other carbon steels)
but after work hardening .... . But that's an entirely different subject that I'd rather not divulge (diverge?) into.
Yes, and it's little surprise why. SS doesn't graciously take flexing or vibration cycles, and work hardens from it, eventually to the point of sufficient embrittlement for failure.


What you should be talking about perhaps if you really want a valid technical reason on European production gyroplanes is the welding process they use. But that starts to get into very detailed stuff. Mike Goodrich brought that up once in a separate thread somewhere in regards with ELA. If you don't weld SS like Aerospace standards ask for, you will have rusting in welds from inside out and they will crack prematurely.
Yes, agreed, which is one big reason why aircraft companies prefer the much easier weldability of 4130, in addition to its superior strength:weight ratio.
I also agree that many European gyro mfg. cannot consistently make quality SS welds, AutoGyro in particular.

However, SS welds are not the only weakness to using SS. For example, that 2017 AutoGyro Service Information Letter on cracking mast plates
specifically mentioned not just the welds, but the side plates themselves:


Check the side plate and the weld seams of the side plates to the mast for cracks (see fig. 1 and 2).
Use appropriate equipment such as magnifying glasses.
AG-SIL-2017-01-A-EN Calidus frame mast inspection
Calidus stainless steel side plate.png




Almost 75% of all Turbo prop engine mounts are welded stainless steel structures.
If so, then I suspect that it's probably because turboprops are much smoother than reciprocating engines, and without the violent power pulses.
I.e., fewer and weaker cycle loads. And, no doubt their welding is top-notch. And, they likely use something other than pots and pans 304 SS.



If your whole argument against our design is built on they have stainless steel,
It's a very large portion of my argument, but not all of it. Rigidity, dampening, design, etc. also matter a great deal.


If the magic answer was 4130, the mast wouldn't break right next to a weld. Obviously you have to know what you are doing and welding process has to be defined.
I've never claimed that material alone was the magic answer. Of course welding remains very important.

On that ELA, some people are not convinced that the steel was actually 4130, while others report that the gyro dropped in from some 30 feet and its mast would have broken regardless of material.



Here is a picture of AR-1 frame and what its welding is like.
Those welds look much better than of your earlier one. (And, you apparently added a gusset.)
And, you seem to be careful about how you weld SS, probably more careful than most other gyro mfg.


Silverlight AR-1 mast in SS 304 - old and new welds.png


How many gyroplanes have you designed?
What's the highest number of flight hours you've so far tested one of your gyros? I'd be surprised if any have yet reached 1000+, or even 500.
So, how can we know how tough and long-lifed your SS masts are? "A new broom sweeps clean."
Your SS mast may indeed prove better than that of AutoGyro, Trixy, etc. but only time can tell.

On the other hand, there are Sport Copter airframes with 2000+ hours on them, and their 4130 dampened two-piece masts have amply proven themselves throughout much very hard flying.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
I think it counter productive to talk about a product by constantly trying to demean other manufacturers products - just tell us about the great things about your product.

I keep a good eye on new gyro production and registration - I haven't seen many new machines registered over the past year from the Sport Copter stable.

How many new gyros have they delivered ( approx ) over the past 12 months - what would be your estimate ?

Four new gyros registered here in the UK this week - none were Sport Copters.

When are Sport Copter going to obtain a TC for the Vortex from the FAA - it seems strange that a non US manufacturer has completed this process ( TC Calidus ) but well established incumbents like SC have not.

The process is long and costly and the product has to meet high standards to achieve this - Auto-Gyro meet the standard required by the FAA TC team and that says a lot about their product, quality, engineering and ambition and drive. They aren't three men and a dog.

Magni and Auto-Gyro also previously meet the UK CAA Section T standards and achieved UK Type Approval - no mean feat either - ELA failed this process so no ELA sales into the UK- hopefully one day Sport Copter will seek this standard ( I've no doubt they may well do so if they apply and supply for scrutiny ).

You mention older gyros - There are over 40 examples of the older MT-03 ( later evolved into the MTOsport ) still here flying in the UK some are now over 12 years old, some have over 1200 flight hours - they aren't grounded - they fly.


I've no doubt the Sport Copter product is a good product.

I hear good things.

Like all gyros of all makes they too come down with a bump sometimes.

I've put together a simple Blog of Sport Copter production - plenty of gaps in my notes so any updates, corrections or additions are welcome.

If interested the Blog can be viewed here


https://scvortex.blogspot.com/



Regards
 
Good informative post Steve,full of useful facts.
 
I haven't seen many new machines registered over the past year from the Sport Copter stable.
Steve, you're soon to see that change, beginning with the Vortex M2.


I think it counter productive to talk about a product by constantly trying to demean other manufacturers products - just tell us about the great things about your product.
When it comes to design, material choice, and construction of a gyro mast, I think transparency and lots of discussion is vital.
JJ is interested in a Calidus, and probably wasn't aware of the challenges to using SS as structural material in gyros, or the problems with AutoGyro's welds.



When are Sport Copter going to obtain a TC for the Vortex from the FAA - it seems strange that a non US manufacturer has completed this process
( TC Calidus ) but well established incumbents like SC have not.
hopefully one day Sport Copter will seek this standard ( I've no doubt they may well do so if they apply and supply for scrutiny ).
Sport Copter is currently looking into the cost:benefit ratio of TCs for its models.
I agree that SC would indeed meet the required standards.



I've no doubt the Sport Copter product is a good product.
I hear good things.
Like all gyros of all makes they too come down with a bump sometimes.
But not because of structural failures. That has been my primary point.

Thanks for your new SC blogspot!

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Eddie - I'm really excited about building my own gyro! I worked my way through college as a mechanic but post master's, I ended up being a computer geek administrator who's only tool was a pencil.

I really wish I could go the straight to gyro certificate route but the logistics are nightmarish. Much easier, to get the FW and then travel somewhere for a couple of weeks for the gyro endorsement. Take a break, travel somewhere else to build the gyro. Then get additional training on the gyro as I do the Phase 1 40 hours.
 
Kolibri;n1136284 said:
Steve, you're soon to see that change, beginning with the Vortex M2.



When it comes to design, material choice, and construction of a gyro mast, I think transparency and lots of discussion is vital.
JJ is interested in a Calidus, and probably wasn't aware of the challenges to using SS as structural material in gyros, or the problems with AutoGyro's welds.




Sport Copter is currently looking into the cost:benefit ratio of TCs for its models.
I agree that SC would indeed meet the required standards.




But not because of structural failures. That has been my primary point.

Thanks for your new SC blogspot!

Regards,
Kolibri

Do you know how many structural failures there have been in Autogyro aircraft, when they occurred and which aircraft type, and if there have been any reported in any Autogyros sold lets say in the last 5 years? Which of the structural failures occurred in flight with resultant loss of the aircraft?
My sense is that the issues originally reported have now been resolved. Are there any reports of issues beyond the 2-3 cases in early MTO's reported over and over. If this is a continuing problem, where does one get this information or what information do you have. I am unable to find any reliable information on this. I flew an MTO for 200 hours without issues except for a prerotator bracket. I am considering a new MTO. Despite all the naysayers I am a real Autogyro fan.
If anyone has any clear information as to the frequency of the problems and their severity (inflight catastrophe) and whether there continue to be any documented problems I would appreciate it.
 
Top