Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calidus Instructor Pack

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


  • speaking of sportcoptor has anyone seen or heard about the beefy and robust M2 flying,Kolibri said

    the prototype would be flying by the end of last month.

    It looks like a sparrowhawk with a euro designed tail.

    And I wonder why we haven't heard from the Aussies,he said they were clamoring for it,and yet

    there is nothing but silence coming from down under.I would suspect that the titanium Gyro has that market.
    Best Regards,
    Eddie Sigman,Polvadera,nm
    (575) 835-4921

    Comment


    • Yes, I did ask, fara. Jim often contracts for engineering design opinions, and has described several to me.
      If anyone doubts the ability of Sport Copter, they need look only to the cabin class SCII model with Lycoming IO-360.
      Try to keep an air-cooled 235hp pusher's CHTs under 360░ even during a Phoenix summer.
      (My certified FW with 180hp O-360 won't.) And they accomplished that over 10 years ago.

      Patience, eddie, patience.
      Last edited by Kolibri; 09-10-2018, 02:53 PM.
      PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), 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
        Yes, I did ask, fara. Jim often contracts for engineering design opinions, and has described several to me.
        If anyone doubts the ability of Sport Copter, they need look only to the cabin class SCII model with Lycoming IO-360.
        Try to keep an air-cooled 235hp pusher's CHTs under 360░ even during a Phoenix summer.
        (My certified FW with 180hp O-360 won't.) And they accomplished that over 10 years ago.

        Patience, eddie, patience.
        What the heck is "contracts for engineering design opinion"? Is that code for no its really not designed by an engineer but sometimes when we are stuck we ask an engineer to get us out of a bind?

        Either the design is done by engineers or its not. Its simple. Having an idea of what someone wants to do is not design. An engineering design discipline is much more elaborate. This process is iterated multiple times to get to a proper solution at the end. So you can't go to an engineering design by asking for an engineer's opinion. That is not engineering design or design process in engineering.

        Cooling of air cooled engines in aircraft had been figured out for a lot longer than 10 years ago, good they applied those techniques successfully. However, not many SC-II have ever been produced or sold in 10 years. 1 per year is not what I would call production. Obviously it was a design looking for a market and that market did not exist (law enforcement)

        Anyway, this is really not about SC. This is about you and your ridiculous ways. You honestly have done Jim no favors. God knows how many new people will be turned off because of your argumentative ramblings here.
        Last edited by fara; 09-10-2018, 06:18 PM.

        Comment


        • "Their Rotor System 2 is shown in my post-crash photos to have torn off from the same tension strap end hole from which Rotor System 1 developed cracks.
          Perhaps that betokens something, or nothing. You're the potential AG customer: you figure it out for yourself.
          I've no further time for the stubbornly blasÚ."


          Kolibri, you repeatedly accuse fara of not answering questions and yet you skip by my questions by classing my comments as blase'. I will say it one more time - how a rotor fails AFTER a crash has no factual implication on the design. It "betokens" nothing. None have separated in flight, none. BTW - I am no longer a "potential AG customer". I "figured it out for myself" and became a customer.

          Comment


          • Is that code for no its really not designed by an engineer but sometimes when we are stuck we ask an engineer to get us out of a bind?
            No, fara, and what a snotty reply.
            You don't even make your own rotor blades, yet sneer at a shop
            which not only does so, but to Boeing Spec. 555?

            Is SC gyroplane designed with involvement of any engineers?
            Absolutely.

            Cooling of air cooled engines in aircraft had been figured out for a lot longer than 10 years ago . . .
            For tractor FW, certainly.
            However, show me any pusher gyro of 20kt slow flight using a successfully cooled cowled Lycoming of 10:1 compression making 235hp.
            I doubt that you could have done it yourself.

            As far as my "
            argumentative ramblings", let's be honest: you don't seem to mind them when I'm focused on your competitors (e.g., the post-crash photos thread).
            However, you do mind them when they embrace your stainless steel masts.

            As far as potential SC customers being "
            turned off" by me, your premise is hardly compelling: because of one SC enthusiast's posts on one forum,
            somebody will allow that to be the deciding factor between Sport Copter (ruggedness, safety, versatility, ease of training, and longevity) and ___________?
            Do you really imagine the gyro market to be that shallow and simple-minded?



            _____________
            I will say it one more time - how a rotor fails AFTER a crash has no factual implication on the design. It "betokens" nothing.
            Sure, HighAltitude, blades that don't break off even upon impact are not stronger in flight than ones that do?
            And if they are stronger, such doesn't increase flight safety?
            Does that even sound logical?


            None have separated in flight, none.
            Two ELAs did. EC-KOS and A12DOB.

            And, pre-2011 AutoGyros with their Rotor System 1 were about to fail in flight because of early blade cracking, but the U.K. CAA caught the looming problem in time.
            (In aviation, it's vital to get it right . . . the first time. If they get it right in the beginning, then you're not the involuntary test pilot.)

            But now with their Rotor System 2, AG owners can bank on 2500 hours? Time will tell.
            All new brooms sweep cleanly, but will the older broom do so is the question.
            Last edited by Kolibri; 09-11-2018, 08:59 AM.
            PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), 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
              If anyone doubts the ability of Sport Copter, they need look only to the cabin class SCII model with Lycoming IO-360.
              Try to keep an air-cooled 235hp pusher's CHTs under 360░ even during a Phoenix summer.
              (My certified FW with 180hp O-360 won't.) And they accomplished that over 10 years ago.

              Fan cooling a Lycoming is not historically unprecedented. It is my observation piston helicopters have been getting similar fan cooling to work on Lycoming and Franklin air-cooled aviation engines since the mid-forties; some with much higher output and at much lower indicated air speeds.

              The Air and Space 18A and the McCulloch J2 were able to cool similar four cylinder Lycoming engines in a pusher gyroplane.

              It is admirable that Jim got his engine to cool and I suspect there was a lot of hard work and testing involved in selecting the most marketable compromises.
              Last edited by Vance; 09-12-2018, 02:52 AM.
              Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

              Comment


              • Uh, Kloibri, you were not talking about ELA rotors failing in flight and neither was I. I guess I have to reply to you more clearly since you seem to forget your own topic.

                Let me fix my response:
                No AG gyro has ever failed in flight and I ordered a MTO2017 with rotor system 2 in 8.6m length for my altitude and temperature. It will be driven by the 914 engine. I would be tickled pink if I get 2500 hours on my gyro. At that point I will be more worn out than the blades!

                Back to OP's question and the title of this thread... I ordered the rear controls. However, the MTO Sport POH states that the stick should be removed from the back seat unless a qualified instructor is in the back seat. They quick pin the rear stick making it simple to remove. I like that feature as designed. My passengers can enter and exit the gyro without swinging a leg over the stick. I don't have to worry about fighting them if they happen to jamb it or grab it. Since the rudder pedals are adjustable, I will probably slide them as far forward as possible in the rear seat.

                Comment


                • Yes, point taken, but AG's RS1 would have soon after begun to fail in flight without CAA interdiction.
                  (To my knowledge, AG hadn't preemptively issued an SB or recall.)


                  "I would be tickled pink if I get 2500 hours on my gyro." Yes, you would be!
                  PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), 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
                    Yes, point taken, but AG's RS1 would have soon after begun to fail in flight without CAA interdiction.
                    (To my knowledge, AG hadn't preemptively issued an SB or recall.)


                    "I would be tickled pink if I get 2500 hours on my gyro." Yes, you would be!
                    How you think the CAA "interdiction" stopped failures in flight worldwide?

                    I thought the CAA was an organization to regulate aviation in the United Kingdom.

                    As far as I know there hasn't been any AutoGyro GMBH blades fail in flight anywhere in the world and it appears to me they have a worldwide market beyond the United Kingdom.

                    I give AutoGyro credit for addressing a potential problem before someone was injured.


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

                    Comment


                    • How you think the CAA "interdiction" stopped failures in flight worldwide?

                      I thought the CAA was an organization to regulate aviation in the United Kingdom.
                      Are they still selling any gyros outside the U.K. (Australia, Canada, etc.) with Rotor System 1?
                      No, not that I'm aware of.
                      So, the CAA's MPD created on AG the market pressure outside the U.K. (etc.) to attempt to fix the problem.



                      I give AutoGyro credit for addressing a potential problem before someone was injured.
                      Wellllllll, at least they applied Rotor System 2 to their entire production after 2011.

                      RAFSA, for example, did not do so with the MPD on their control system parts, and included the beefier parts only to U.K. kits.
                      All the other kits got the thinner walled components, and still do.

                      Nevertheless, AG had sold hundreds of gyros with the failure-prone Rotor System 1, and (as far as I know) didn't catch it themselves.
                      When would have they? Who can say?
                      Last edited by Kolibri; 09-11-2018, 01:49 PM.
                      PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), 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
                        Wellllllll, at least they applied Rotor System 2 to their entire production after 2011.

                        Nevertheless, AG had sold hundreds of gyros with the failure-prone Rotor System 1, and (as far as I know) didn't catch it themselves.
                        When would have they? Who can say?
                        You appear to look through such a dark window of ignorance and apparently imagine others are motivated by the same things that motivate you.

                        It appears to me the redesign was a process begun by AutoGyro before the CAA did anything and before there was a failure.

                        There is no substitute for field experience.

                        The short term way to address the cracks was to limit the life of the rotor system.

                        The long term solution was to redesign the blade grips.

                        Design, testing and manufacture all take time.


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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
                          No, fara, and what a snotty reply.
                          You don't even make your own rotor blades, yet sneer at a shop
                          which not only does so, but to Boeing Spec. 555?


                          Absolutely.


                          For tractor FW, certainly.
                          However, show me any pusher gyro of 20kt slow flight using a successfully cooled cowled Lycoming of 10:1 compression making 235hp.
                          I doubt that you could have done it yourself.

                          As far as my "
                          argumentative ramblings", let's be honest: you don't seem to mind them when I'm focused on your competitors (e.g., the post-crash photos thread).
                          However, you do mind them when they embrace your stainless steel masts.

                          As far as potential SC customers being "
                          turned off" by me, your premise is hardly compelling: because of one SC enthusiast's posts on one forum,
                          somebody will allow that to be the deciding factor between Sport Copter (ruggedness, safety, versatility, ease of training, and longevity) and ___________?
                          Do you really imagine the gyro market to be that shallow and simple-minded?



                          _____________

                          Ha. Kolibiri.
                          I was not the one who started questioning "my" qualifications. In years of being on many forums including this one, have you seen me keep claiming my degrees as proof of something or did you even know what degrees I had? The answer is no. One time that I have done that with hesitation years ago here and you had not seen it . To me ... degrees are not so important. They do indicate that one has a higher chance of being disciplined, persistent, methodical and educated in tools of the trade but they do not indicate more than that higher chance. In the end it teaches you how to think and solve problems methodically. You are the one who started saying I am not this, I am not that, I didn't do this, how can I lead a project to design a gyroplane? What a bunch of garbage you spew. I just sent you down a path of your own poison with your obvious bias and favored brand and you melt down like a piece of wax in a couple of messages. Learn to handle garbage you dole out when its thrown back at you.

                          Listen, I don't care about if SC is designed by engineers or not. Never once have I brought that up before for any gyroplane in the market. The products speaks for themselves. Our products don't overlap so much I don't think. I wish them the best. You on the other hand definitely need something much better to do and a lot of correction and knowledge where its obvious to me you don't know what you are talking about but insist to give your version of expert advice to newcomers. Not all of it is wrong or bad but its a very mixed bag imo and when you start delving into structural analysis you are mostly lost.


                          Your comments about air cooled engines ... not even worth replying to. I think Vance already hinted at where you should look
                          Your posts with crash photos are freaking ridiculous. I care not to comment on them more
                          Last edited by fara; 09-12-2018, 06:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • The short term way to address the cracks was to limit the life of the rotor system.
                            Heh, just as RAF did with their 200 hour and 500 hour hub bars.

                            The long term solution was to redesign the blade grips.
                            The best solution is to have understood gyro flight stresses on the rotor system, and correctly designed something safe/long-lasting from the start.
                            AG did not do so. Their MTO3 was essentially an ELA clone, and they seemed to have learned little subsequently about rotor design.

                            I would not reflexively trust a company's Rotor System 2 after they'd made such ill-advisedly stiff hub barred Rotor System 1.

                            If I were an AG owner or potential customer, I'd very carefully study the university report that AG commissioned,
                            and decide for myself if Rotor System 2 would likely see an untroubled 2500 hours as claimed.
                            (That report has not been easy to locate. Anybody have a link to it?)



                            _________
                            You are the one who started saying I am not this, I am not that, I didn't do this, how can I lead a project to design a gyroplane?
                            Technically, fara, your company redesigned an existing gyroplane, and somebody reported to me that Greg Spicola was the unsung talent (and test pilot).
                            And as I equitably admitted, Silverlight seems to have made some worthy refinements to the Apollo AG1.
                            But let's not inflate that to having designed a completely new machine from blank paper.

                            What's odd to me is that the "face" and majority shareholder of Silverlight is not even a rated gyro pilot.

                            Regards,
                            Kolibri
                            Last edited by Kolibri; 09-13-2018, 03:58 PM.
                            PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), 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

                              _________

                              Technically, fara, your company redesigned an existing gyroplane, and somebody reported to me that Greg Spicola was the unsung talent (and test pilot).
                              And as I equitably admitted, Silverlight seems to have made some worthy refinements to the Apollo AG1.
                              But let's not inflate that to having designed a completely new machine from blank paper.

                              What's odd to me is that the "face" and majority shareholder of Silverlight is not even a rated gyro pilot.

                              Regards,
                              Kolibri
                              LOL. Whatever you say.
                              Looks to me like Greg is not so unsung if you who have never even met him or even talked to him on the phone (right) but have somehow heard about his engineering design abilities. He is famous :).
                              BTW, did you look at the engineer's LinkedIn profile I put earlier who designed the mast assembly.
                              Anyway, hope you will soon be flying the SC gyro model you have ordered and be able to sell the RAF that you have; the make and model (RAF) you admitted is completely bogus and crap. Good luck with that.
                              Our products do the talking but when you spread your ignorant views with stuff that you don't know about, letting that pass as truth isn't going to happen. I am not saying you are doing it out of malice but you don't know what you don't know. These things are better coming from the mouth (keyboard) of Jim Vanek if he believes in these things you say.
                              Last edited by fara; 09-13-2018, 07:34 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
                                Heh, just as RAF did with their 200 hour and 500 hour hub bars.


                                The best solution is to have understood gyro flight stresses on the rotor system, and correctly designed something safe/long-lasting from the start.
                                AG did not do so. Their MTO3 was essentially an ELA clone, and they seemed to have learned little subsequently about rotor design.

                                I would not reflexively trust a company's Rotor System 2 after they'd made such ill-advisedly stiff hub barred Rotor System 1.

                                If I were an AG owner or potential customer, I'd very carefully study the university report that AG commissioned,
                                and decide for myself if Rotor System 2 would likely see an untroubled 2500 hours as claimed.
                                (That report has not been easy to locate. Anybody have a link to it?)


                                Regards,
                                Kolibri[/COLOR]

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

                                Someone who lacks technical sophistication purchased an RAF 2000 without learning about it first and was disappointed when it did not live up to his fantasies so now he hates everything about RAF and whines to the world. The historical context of RAF seems to elude him as does his role in his unhappy gyroplane experience.

                                It appears that his hatred and distrust is spilling over on to AutoGyro GMBH and ELA.

                                RAF didn't have any RAF pitch a blade in the USA. There is some question about the history of the blades on the non RAF trainer that broke the bolt on the hub bar.

                                In my opinion the MTO is not a clone of anything and the Calidus is very different from an MTO and the Cavalon is a further departure.

                                In my opinion each of the currently available gyroplanes have unique features and benefits.

                                Having a rotor on the top, a simple frame and a pusher configuration does not make something a clone of all other gyroplanes.

                                My hope is that the gyroplane community will recognize the ravings of someone who is not technically astute and continue to purchase and enjoy gyroplanes.

                                Tim is a graduated from Cal Poly engineering and looked at all the gyroplanes carefully before purchasing a new MTO Sport kit despite all the negativity he found on the Rotary Wing Forum.
                                Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X