No announcement yet.

J2 article

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • J2 article

  • #2
    Nice to see the bird mentioned, but there is much that is simply wrong in this article, as I have suggested on another thread. Even the little technical details are off; for example, the VNE of 106 was certainly not set to avoid retreating blade stall, and suggesting that as the case shows true ignorance.

    Although the author botched one roll out and blamed design, the production nose wheel worked just fine, and there are no other accidents reported like his. I reviewed all the NTSB reports and the suggestion of "five more rollovers" as if they were similar to the author's prang up is simply not true either; he seems to count any event in which the wreckage came to rest on its side as if it were a nosewheel design-induced rollover, regardless of the probable cause. They certainly wouldn't have built 85 of them if the production aircraft were as prone to roll-over as the author asserts.

    True, performance wasn't great with the initial wooden prop, but it was soon supplanted by a three-blade all metal controllable Hartzell, raising the gross weight, useful load, ceiling, and take-off performance. That wasn't just an "experiment" as the article suggests -- it was routine production. Mine (the one he mentions as surviving in New Zealand) never required more than 200 feet for a take-off run, and was usually off in 75. Ground handling was never an issue.

    Many of his complaints (need to wear headsets for noise, takes time for spin-up, worse efficiency than a fixed wing) remain true of all gyros today.

    The author, a low-time rotorcraft pilot who admits to overcontrolling the J-2 at low speeds (might that have something to do with his landing accident?), rolled one up and isn't in a hurry to take the blame. Here's his NTSB report.

    I think he has an unjustified bias against them.


    • #3
      Totally Agree Wasp! I loved my Super J-2 and flew it for hundreds of hours. I never had a problem with directional control on takeoff or landing and my recollection is that it wasn't that much of a wild thing as they describe in the article. I do agree though about the noise level, it was much louder than the current crop of eurotubs. whenever I flew touch and goes the tower would get phone calls and complaints about the noise
      Don Randle
      Gyroplane CFI

      "Flying a Gyro is the most fun you can have with your clothes on!"


      • #4
        I had a muffler on mine that worked reasonably well, but the real issue was that I had a three bladed rotor in the 400 rpm range, a three bladed prop in the 2500 rpm range, and those prop blades passing four exhaust outlets, so the the mixture of all those frequencies made the sound ultra distinctive, even if not ultra loud. Everybody looked up to see what was making that strange growl, and because it didn't fly terribly fast, they had plenty of time to notice.