Kolibri
FW and Gyros
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,636
- Location
- Wyoming
- Aircraft
- Cessna 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 206 -- Piper 180 -- RV-7A -- Calidus -- RAF2000 -- Sport Copter II and
- Total Flight Time
- 1000+
I asked why you would have replaced them: because you didn't like them (although you thought them still airworthy), or because you thought them not airworthy.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."
Meaning, would your replacement have been elective (as a matter of personal taste), or (from an airworthiness concern) imperative?
_______
The FAA report, I will partially agree with you, was at least clunky. It contained some factual errors.
Mahler had owned the gyro for 3 months, not 3 years.
The "full pitch" language was inept, probably (as WaspAir explained) due to using helicopter understanding.
The mast didn't fold at altitude, but during impact. Etc.
The narrative also mistakenly reordered the sequence of two key events: when the blades folded, and when parts came off.
Factual Information
HISTORY OF FLIGHT
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.
However, this is not what the first witness reported in their statement. His sequence described the reverse:
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 . . .
The report's errors, however, are not material errors.
They do not invalidate the FAA's finding of a corroded-through control rod end, which broke in flight and not during impact.
And even if it hadn't broken that day, it was about to, and thus should have been replaced during the work by either Fritts or Brupbacher.
Remember, it wasn't mere surface corrosion; it was a fractured part with internal corrosion.
Yes, typically. But N5002E was not a typical crash.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.
Mahler was in an unremarkable climb, exhibiting no downdraft or loss of RRPM from any wind shear.
Still in that climb, he began to bank left. Climbing and banking, his rotor would have been adequately loaded.
It was at that point the compromised control rod end gave way.
Whoever claimed that?In my opinion imagining a PPO won't happen because a pilot can anticipate turbulence and wind shear is dangerous.
It's statements like these that strike me as very odd.
All I wrote was that nobody flying that day reported any wind shear, and that Mahler would have stopped flying had he begun to experience it.
Regards,
Kolibri
Last edited: