Calidus Instructor Pack

What's especially heartbreaking about this crash is that Mahler did not benefit from the freakishly good timing of two other RAFs (G-____ and ZU-RHO)
which crashed only a few feet after takeoff. Such timing saved the lives of 4 people. Had N5002E's rod end failed just after takeoff, Mahler and Wilt may have survived.
Tragically, however, the rod end handled a few extra seconds of control input, enough for N5002E to reach a fatal altitude for failure.

I harped on control rod end replacement a few years back, and I'll mention it again now:
PLEASE inspect at least the three outside lower control yoke rod ends (two are 3/8 and one is 1/4).
They take a lot of ground handling shock, and are in the worst of elements.

PLEASE take a mere hour of your time to at least remove them for careful scrutiny.
(I'll wager that you'll find corrosion on the shank that it otherwise invisible from a pre-flight. I did.)

For the price of an average lunch, you can replace them with Auroras.
For any paupers among us, PM me your name and address and I'll buy them for you with your promise of immediate installation.

During your preflight, PLEASE use a flashlight and hand mirror to carefully inspect your lower control yoke and its rod ends.

Safe flying,
Kolibri
 
Its just amazing that he can absolutely say that the rodend broke and caused the crash,even the FAA said probably,leaving open the

chance that they are mistaken,But not the kolibri, his word is final without exception.

And now he is telling us how to preflight and inspect our own machines,what a guy.

He is way better than Ralph Nader.
 
Kolibri;n1138515 said:
Vance, is it your contention that no control rod end separated in flight, causing an uncommanded rotor and consequential crash?
I.e., that the control system was intact in the air, but the pilot somehow allowed reduced rotor thrust while maintaining power and caused a PPO?
That all the broken control rod ends were broken upon impact?
That is your theory?

Regards, Kolibri[/COLOR]

My contention is that I don't know what happened.

In my opinion to rule out a power push over for the reasons stated demonstrates a lack of understanding about power pushovers.
 
Kolibri;n1138515 said:
You're still acting as if no surface corrosion existed to raise concern about the part. Some did, and right along the jam nut/shank junction.
You're also still trying to dump all of this on poor preflighting, and ignoring the rubberstamped maintenance logbook by Fritts and Brupbacher.


Regards, Kolibri[/COLOR]

You make things up faster than I can respond.

I have been clear there was surface corrosion and the NTSB is clear there was surface corrosion.

What part of that don't you understand?

There are mechanics I respect who would not have replaced the rod ends for corrosion in the pictures I posted.

I am not trying to "dump all this" on anything or anyone.

You are the one pretending to have the answers and placing blame.

You are escalating your emotional rhetoric that is unrelated to my posts.

I see no reason to give you more words to misunderstand.

A good friend of mine sent me an email about Kolibri saying simply; "DON'T FEED THE TROLL."

I feel that is good advice.
 
...

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:
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.
 
eddie;n1138535 said:
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".
 
No Title

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.
 

Attachments

  • photo130893.jpg
    photo130893.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 3
  • photo130894.jpg
    photo130894.jpg
    26.4 KB · Views: 3
  • photo130895.jpg
    photo130895.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 4
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:



original OEM rod ends from 2003 after 315 hours.jpg

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
 

Attachments

  • Bunt.gif
    Bunt.gif
    80 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
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
 
No Title

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 :)
 

Attachments

  • photo130897.jpg
    photo130897.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 4
"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.
 
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:
No Title

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.
.
 

Attachments

  • photo130900.jpg
    photo130900.jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
eddie;n1138579 said:
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:
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.
 
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
 
"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."


Kolibri;n1138718 said:


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."
 
Kolibri;n1138718 said:



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.)



___________

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.



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.



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.



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



Probable Cause:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The failure of the flight control rod bearing due to an undetected preexisting corrosion-induced crack, which resulted in the main rotor blades going to full pitch and the rotor mast folding; this allowed the pusher propeller to strike and sever the tail."

The probable cause report is obviously flawed.

Factual information:
"Witnesses reported seeing the gyroplane take off on runway 35, turn left onto the crosswind leg, and climb to about 200 feet. They "saw something fall" off the gyroplane, then the rotor blades folded, and the gyroplane crashed into a canal and sank."

In my opinion based on my experience pilot induced oscillations strong enough to slow the rotor may go unrecognized by observers.

In my opinion with a fixed pitch semi rigid rotor when the rotor blades fold in flight it is typically because the rotor has slowed.

In my opinion as a flight instructor any pilot who imagines the weather will be the same 18 miles away has a lot to learn.

In my opinion as a flight instructor any pilot that imagines they can anticipate turbulence or wind shear has a lot to learn.

I don't know what happened to N5002E because I was not flying that aircraft in that place at that time and neither does the NTSB.

I do not subscribe to any particular theory for the cause of the crash. I simply pointed out that the accident has many things in common with a power push over and the probable cause is obviously flawed.

I feel this is important because it appears to me that a power push over (PPO) is not well understood by some here.

In my opinion imagining a PPO won't happen because a pilot can anticipate turbulence and wind shear is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Top