- Joined
- Oct 30, 2003
- Messages
- 18,363
- Location
- Santa Maria, California
- Aircraft
- Givens Predator
- Total Flight Time
- 2600+ in rotorcraft
Kolibri;n1130039 said:loops and rolls in Sport Copters: The reason I mention them is not because I think we all should be looping and rolling our gyros,
but because only a robust rotor system will keep us alive over time, especially with hard flying or in vigorous air. Personally, I want a
rotor system that is sufficiently overbuilt that it could often handle loops and rolls.
Jim originally flew Skywheels during his gyrobatics, but they eventually began to crack, so he then started to construct his own.
___________
Ah, how quickly some forget . . .
Vance, who was it who had RAF control rod ends analyzed by a metallurgical lab to report their low-carbon Grade 0 AISI 1112b material?
Examined personally the wreckage of N5002E that killed Darin Mahler?
Urged (with many photos of my own) the South African RAF owners to carefully inspect RAFSA's hub bar washers for milled flats so that they'd lay flat and not fail the bolt head like the crashed ZU-RHO?
In December I enjoyed a private tour of a factory which makes probably the best replacement helicopter blades in the world (all composite).
Who just last week posted photos of the highly inappropriate hub bar bolts from an Auto-Gyro, which they may still be using?
Was any of that knowable from the internet? I'm out in the real world learning things, and sharing them here.
And I won't pretend that you're correct that I ever made such blanket statements. I haven't.
If you continue to falsely invent words from my keyboard, I'll continue to call you out on it, and you can continue to "stand corrected" (twice in the past week).
What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that one takes more of a risk with purely extruded T-4 blades vs. something built like Sport Rotors.
I've never accused Averso Stellas of being "dangerous". However they cannot be flown as hard as Sport Rotors, and they cannot last as long.
Any simply extruded T-4 blade will fail before an SC blade does. Thus, they are inherently more risky, which is different from calling them dangerous.
Risk assessments are personal, and every gyro owner must decide on their own level.
Have any Averso Stella rotor systems failed in flight. Apparently not, is the consensus here. Great.
But, let's not imagine that they've the same lifespan as Sport Rotors, or can take Vanek-level flying.
Even for you, Vance, what a baseless and snotty remark.
My documented improvements on my own RAF are testament that I am dedicated to safety, and that my "arrogance" has yet to hurt me.
If anything, I consistently urge of others that they never skimp on quality for their gyro maintenance.
When I upgraded to the SC rotor system, I properly went through the FAA for the Phase 1 fly-off. An arrogant person wouldn't have.
My hope is that you find a different semi-profession before your technical fence-sitting gets somebody hurt.
I cannot recall a single instance where you have insisted on superior quality design, materials, or construction.
Rather, your consistent attitude seems to be "If it's not failing, why kvetch about it?"
You practically assuaged eddie's continued use of $2 crap control rod ends because normal loads won't usually exceed the strength of even the poorest steel.
You expressed no alarm about the Auto-Gyro hub bar bolts improperly having turned down threads within the clamped parts,
and pooh-poohed the importance of bolt grip length. (Even fara agreed with me there.) Chuck Beaty, btw, had a pithy observation about bolts in shear:
In my RAF I'm currently having a new and stronger PRSU mount and horseshoe CNC'ed out of 4130, as the aluminum ones have cracked near the jackshaft.
If I like it, I plan on making them available to others.
When I do, I'm sure you'll have some snide comment about my continued "bashing" of RAF.
In short, Vance, I question your commitment to engineering excellence and quality maintenance in gyros.
You don't take unequivocal stands against lousy parts or design, while berating me for doing so.
You could have at least blandly agreed with me about eddie's control rod ends.
In this regard, I think you set a poor example to your students and the forum's readers.
You made no mention of the hub bar, a component I view as critical.
I believe that Sport Copter currently offers the best. Massively strong, a 7/8th inch NAS bolt, and with an ingenuous lead/lag Heim joint.
___________
Wrong, eddie. I've never come out against carbon fiber blades. I actually think they're the future for gyros.
I have, however, questioned G-T's relative inexperience with gyro rotors, and especially their hub bar. I still do.
I promote meanwhile Sport Rotors because I've not so far seen anything stronger, safer, or with a longer life. They also perform superbly.
Wow, eddie, "very dangerous" is quite an accusation coming from a guy won't even condescend to replace his RAF OEM crap control rod ends.
Who flew a crack-prone <2004 RAF hub bar for 650+ hours.
Who adds a turbo to a 10" HTL machine and then relies solely on an aftermarket H-stab to handle the increased pitchover forces from 230hp.
Dude, do you really think you can call me "dangerous"?
Regards, Kolibri
Harder spherical rod ends may not be better because they won't handle being bent as well. That is a part of why AN bolts are softer than SAE grade eight bolts.
If someone knowledgeable was truly seeking answers they would have done failure analysis and destructive testing rather than pretend that they knew how hard they should be.
The spherical rod ends in your RAF when you purchased it would have failed my first preflight as would much of the rest of the aircraft.
A better preflight would go a lot further to enhance safety than pretending to know enough to make judgements about engineering decisions.
As someone who is interested in gyroplane safety; I feel crying wolf about many things that have not failed despite considerable fleet hours detracts from the important things.
I have no way to determine how long rotor blades will last or how they handle aggressive flying without a through engineering analysis. In my opinion; to make claims as though it were fact demonstrates a lack of understanding.
To imagine that Jim is putting higher loads on the blades because of his aerobatic performance denigrates Jim's skill as a pilot.
In my limited experience a properly flown aerobatic maneuver puts fewer loads on the blades then the stabbing at the controls that many new gyroplane pilots regularly do.
I have not been able to exceed 2.1 Gs in any gyroplane doing any maneuver that I attempted.
I don't fly inverted. It is my understanding that a properly executed barrel roll puts no additional loads on the blades. The fact that someone could perform barrel rolls with the very lightly built Bensen rotor system adds credibility to my opinion.
I have no desire to try to teach you anything because instead of listening you argue. I have never won an argument. I have no feeling about you personally. I do find some of the misleading statements you make annoying.
Last edited: