Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A contender...

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

  • #31
    When I fly and air show I am required to be 500 feet from the crowd. I donít recall ever landing close to people.
    Since you fly Sport Rotors, your spectators are safe.

    In my opinion there is nothing wrong the mast on an RAF despite it not being 4130 or particularly robust.
    Actually, as well as Sport Rotors, it has the Sport Copter mast plates (bolted, not riveted), but I'll inform prospective buyers of my RAF that you said so, thanks.

    The gyroplane Kolibri claims to fly . . .
    Are you just being snotty, or have you evidence that I don't fly an RAF? You can apologize, or accuse, your choice.

    In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the mast on a Tercel.
    And I'll stick with my "Not much material there".
    Caveat emptor.
    Good day.
    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


    • #32
      Here is a photo showing the AutoGyro Rotor System 2 parts, including the "taco" shaped "doubler" (which serves in place of a thicker blade root pad).

      Click image for larger version

Name:	AutoGyro Rotor System 2.png
Views:	1
Size:	517.9 KB
ID:	1143241




      For a detailed look at AG blade breakage, there is this one:

      AutoGyro MTOSport D-MDOZ 20160911 in-flight single blade strike, tail chopped, a rotor blade broke off

      Ein Rotorblatt war am Ende des Blattgriffs am Rotorkopf abgerissen.
      Das abgerissene Blatt wurde trotz intensiver Suche nicht gefunden.

      A rotor blade was torn off from end of the blade mount of the rotor head.
      The torn blade was not found despite intensive search.
      Click image for larger version  Name:	D-MDOZ - 5.png Views:	1 Size:	627.1 KB ID:	1142907

      Click image for larger version  Name:	D-MDOZ - 2.png Views:	1 Size:	578.9 KB ID:	1142908



      As seen in the bottom photo, this MTOsport had Rotor System 2, with a claimed service life of 2500 hours.
      All 6 bolts remained in place, but that blade tore out after the last bolt, ripping apart the taco "doubler".

      I do not believe that a rotor blade should break off from an in-flight tail strike.

      I do not believe that it is "
      fear-mongering" to say so.

      AutoGyro owners: please inspect your blades' bolt holes regularly (at least every 100 hours according to AG, if not more often).
      You'll have to pull them from their tension straps to see, but you'll never otherwise catch any crack initiation.

      Regards,
      Kolibri

      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


      • #33
        Mike,

        I was the original US importer for the Xenon in 2007-2008 when Celier and Artur Trendak were partners. I've owned two of these gyros and love the way they fly. The magni, and auto gyro models seem to me far more stable in flight than the Xenon- this means a gust would affect the Xenon more than the others- it also means intended turns and banks take far far more stick effort in Magni and Auto- Gyro than in a Xenon.

        I've flown my Xenon from Florida to Colorado, Colorado to Oshkosh and other long XC trips and it is very relaxing with just thumb and index finger lightly holding the stick and very little stick shake. Turns require almost no effort. I did my last BFR in an Auto-gyro tandem and was astonished by how tired my arm was at the end of 1.2 hours of flying from the much heavier grip and stick force required, plus the significant stick shake. Other than that there are minor pluses and minuses in each machine in terms of construction, features, visibility, etc.

        I have an original Xenon RST - the 912 engine with the aftermarket Turbo- I live in Colorado and my home airport is at 7,500 feet and it performs well here and flying over 10,000' passes.. Of the 10 machines I originally imported the only one that had an issue with the turbo was fortunately a 914. Rotax warrantied it fine. The 7 machines with the aftermarket turbo have been here for 11 years now and I never heard any turbo issues- that being said there is no doubt the 915 with fuel injection would be preferable today.

        I recently upgraded my engine with the larger pistons - a mod done by the Rotax guys in Mississippi. This should have boosted me from about 122 HP to 140 HP- have not flown it enough yet to have any feedback.

        In terms of acquiring a Xenon - I think you would be OK with the Xenon 2's imported in 2007 as E-LSA as these were made in the Trendak factory and are supported by them. Or any of the subsequent Trendak manufactured machines. I would avoid at all costs anything made by Celier. Raphael was first in France where he made the xenon 1 (none still flying to the best of my knowledge) Several French folks told me He stole the molds and escaped in the middle of the night to Poland. There he made Xenon2 with Trendak- but was ripping off all their worldwide dealers so eventually Trendak kicked him out. Subsequently I think he has had 3-4 other factories working with him, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Malta, maybe one more in there somewhere. Eventually all his partners part ways. He is certainly not to be trusted.

        If Trendak did have a real dealer in the US that is offering support that certainly is an advantage.

        If you have any specific questions about the Xenon feel free to ask.

        Rob Dubin
        www.gyroamerica.com
        Rob Dubin

        Comment


        • #34
          The 6 bolts on the failed blade side of the rotor are all still in place. Once again Kolibri makes ridiculous statements about Autogyro and states "I do not believe a blade should break off from a tail strike in flight". Seems to me that you are demonstrating fear mongering pretty well. Why do you then quote the POH regarding checking the rotor blade bolt area when it has absolutely no bearing on the crash you reference? Fear mongering? Yep.

          While you at it, why not comment that the cotter pin appears to be missing from the teeter bolt? It's a fuzzy photo so I AM NOT SURE ITS MISSING. It also has no relationship to the failure.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ventana7 View Post

            If you have any specific questions about the Xenon feel free to ask.

            Rob Dubin
            I really appreciate the insight and the offer Ron.

            Mike

            Comment


            • #36
              The 6 bolts on the failed blade side of the rotor are all still in place.
              Once again Kolibri makes ridiculous statements about Autogyro and states "I do not believe a blade should break off from a tail strike in flight".

              Why do you then quote the POH regarding checking the rotor blade bolt area when it has absolutely no bearing on the crash you reference? Fear mongering? Yep.
              AutoGyro's "Rotor System 1" saw blade cracking at the outboard bolt hole underneath the blade straps.
              An AD was issued, limiting the airworthiness to just 700 hours.
              The blade straps 6 bolts stayed in place; the blades were cracking.

              For "Rotor System 2" (which a -- paid? -- university study declared a service life of 2500 hours) the blade straps were changed, but AFAIK the blades themselves are identical.

              MTOSport D-MDOZ with "Rotor System 2" lost a blade in flight, presumably from chopping the tail.
              (Or, it could have been in the process of separating and then struck the tail.)

              AutoGyro's "Rotor System 2" does not impress me for strength, for the blades tear off in about the same place:


              Click image for larger version  Name:	AutoGyro D-MNHS-0026.png Views:	1 Size:	202.6 KB ID:	1143140

              Click image for larger version  Name:	AutoGyro D-MOIX MTOSport 20150325 - 1.jpg Views:	1 Size:	381.4 KB ID:	1143144


              I'll stand by my "I do not believe a blade should break off from a tail strike in flight".
              I also certainly do not believe that a gyro blade should break off from a mere ground incident tip-over, as at 2017 Mentone:


              Click image for larger version  Name:	AutoGyro N571UJ - 2.png Views:	1 Size:	407.0 KB ID:	1143139



              Below is an M912 blade after hard landing and tip-over, which would have likely broken an AG blade:

              Click image for larger version  Name:	N229MG - Vortex M912 - 20150605.JPG Views:	1 Size:	92.1 KB ID:	1143145


              Below is an SCII blade root portion after a takeoff flap and ground/prop strike.
              Not only did the blade not break off or tear out, there aren't even cracks in the bolt holes.


              Click image for larger version

Name:	SCII rotor blade after ground strike.png
Views:	1
Size:	431.5 KB
ID:	1143239


              Click image for larger version

Name:	SCII rotor blade after ground strike-2.png
Views:	1
Size:	365.7 KB
ID:	1143240

              Sport Rotors will not tear off, period.
              I enjoy that peace of mind. I suffer no post-purchase cognitive dissonance.
              I do not have to "whistle past the graveyard" of weak flight critical parts.


              I have noticed, however, that those who accuse me of AutoGyro "fear-mongering" are usually somehow connected with AG, most often as gyro owners.
              So, I "consider the source" of such criticism.

              Regards,
              Kolibri
              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


              • #37
                On a related subject, here's a rather illuminating crash for those who believe that buckling/breaking masts are not a safety issue.

                On 27 July 2017, AutoGyro MTOSport G-GCPG had a rotor blade ground strike. Only by a fluke was the pilot not hurt or killed:


                Before landing on the grass Runway 28, he looked at the windsock and assessed that the wind had not changed since his departure, when it was from 230 at 12 kt. Just before touchdown the gyroplane veered left, and the pilot believes that he then moved the control stick too much and either there was not enough airflow over the rudder to maintain directional control or his input to the rudder was insufficient. Consequently the rotor blades struck the ground and the rotor mast broke and collapsed, but the gyroplane remained upright and came to rest near the edge of the runway (Figure 1).

                As the rotor blades slowed to a halt, one of them dropped gently into the pilotís lap, without injuring him, and he was able to lift it, unstrap and step out (Figure 2).
                All three propeller blades were damaged and the pilot assumes they made contact with the rotor during the accident.
                Click image for larger version  Name:	AutoGyro MTOSport G-GCPG 20170727 photo2.png Views:	1 Size:	423.6 KB ID:	1143382




                Another example is the 23 Aug 2008 crash of an AutoGyro MT03 in Sweden:

                Click image for larger version

Name:	AutoGyro MT03 SE-V   20080823.png
Views:	1
Size:	830.2 KB
ID:	1143443


                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by SpyderMike View Post
                  I am a survivor of the self taught generation - building and flying a Bensen back in the late 1980s at El Mirage. My little craft was first VW powered and then MAC 72 powered. I had a blast. I have been flying fixed wing before that and ever since. Now I am retiring and looking to change my flying experience (lower and slower). I am looking at 2 place enclosed machines of the major brands and intend to travel to experience the final 3 or so contenders before making a decision and starting formal training and the purchase. I came across the www.airgyro.com website and the AG-915 Model and it looks very interesting. The other models I am looking into are tandems. I understand that this is a variation on the Xenon/Tercel model, but I don't see much feedback on this forum regarding it.

                  I am looking for any direct knowledge on this model (or earlier generation versions) and the company behind it.

                  Thanks in advance.

                  Mike
                  OK, back to the OP's purpose of this thread.

                  If I understand correctly, MBL produces ALL of the kits no matter what the name AG915, Tercell, Xenon etc...
                  .
                  AAT purchase their kits from MBL and gives them AAT names ie Tercell.
                  R. Celier/Fly Argo purchase their kits from MBL and gives them Celier/Argo names i.e. Xenon.
                  Air Gyro purchase their kits from MBL and gives it the AR915 name.

                  So what you are purchasing with any of these companies is an MBL kit which seems to have a great record.

                  Air Gyro is now the U.S. distributor of the MBL kit meaning you won't have to deal with a Polish company (AAT) or ones that appear to have a shady history (Celier/argo).
                  So in the states you now purchase from Air Gyro who has a good reputation and get the same great product.

                  Please clarify if I am still misunderstanding.

                  ​​​​​​​Jason

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    MBL makes the bodies.

                    There is a lot more to a gyroplane kit than the bodies and I donít know who makes what.

                    The Tercel I flew was not the same as the Xenons I have flown in many details.

                    Airgyro is using composite rotor blades where Xenon and Atur Trendak use extruded aluminum rotor blades.

                    Airgyro is using a Rotax 915 where both Xenon and Artur Trendak were using a 912 with an aftermarket turbocharger. I have not been keeping up so this may have changed.

                    The AG-915 appears to me to be unique in many details.

                    I look forward to flying one soon.
                    Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Thanks Vance.

                      First-- since you mention composite vs aluminum rotor blades it reminded me. I just got a demo ride in the Cavalon yesterday in Nephi Utah and the owner claims that composite rotor blades will deteriorate if flown in rain unless a special (nickle) leading edge is applied. He's a composites engineer so I can't argue but that surprised me since there seems to be a lot of gyro's with composite rotors.
                      Do those with composite rotor blades really not fly in rain? Or is he just trying to sell me on AutoGyro's extruded aluminum blades?


                      Second-- My bad....I left out Manufaktura Lotnicza which must be where the parts come from if MBL only makes the bodies.
                      Still Air Gyro claims that these manufacturers make all the kit parts for AAT, Celier and Argo as well. So I assume the quality would be just as good as an AAT model.

                      Here is a Quote from Auto gyro:

                      "NO! we donít buy or cooperate with any company related to Celier, our Kits come right from the manufacture, MBL and Manufaktura Lotnicza, they are the same that produce all parts for Celier, Argo and Trendak actually, we remove the middleman of the equation, reducing the price as you can see, (from $125K to $98K ) and Airgyro became the direct responsible for pars and support in the US, engines Rotax and avionics GCA all In US soil. "

                      Jason




                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X