7 July 2018 - N623AG Calidus - hard landing - Tacoma Narrows Airport - minor injuries

the NTSB Factual report #CEN17LA302 states - "On August 3, 2017, about 0917 central daylight time, a Hake MTO Sport gyroplane, N571UJ, was substantially damaged when it tipped over on landing at Mentone Airport (C92), Mentone, Indiana. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot sustained minor injuries. The local flight originated about 0930. According to the pilot's accident report, when he touched down on the main landing gear, he applied "moderate" right rudder to maintain runway alignment and to avoid slipping. He stated he should have raised the nose to reduce airspeed, but instead he lowered the nose and struck the runway. The pilot explained that on this particular gyroplane, the nose wheel and rudder are interconnected; that is, the nose wheel does not pivot on a caster. When the gyroplane touched down, it 'jerked" abruptly to the right and tipped over. The pilot concluded, "This accident was the result of pilot error. There was no malfunction [of the gyroplane, flight controls, or engine]."
Actually, the accident was the result of pilot error regarding a poorly designed nosewheel.
With a castering NW, he could have safely "
applied "moderate" right rudder to maintain runway alignment and to avoid slipping" and touched down without tipping over.


___________
Its not rather the nose wheel castors or not its the pilot that's the basic problem.I was taught to land with the nose off the ground and keep the

cyclic back until stopped,in a low wind condition.If your landings are like that there wont be any forward speed for the nose to deal with.Everyone is

taught to land like that,so why don't they ?
Because it's almost impossible to do so 100% of the time. You've admitted to some near tip-overs. I've had a couple of them myself.

Now, during takeoff rolls, even with perfect technique, a sudden gust or wind shear could cause an abrupt nose movement which even
an excellent pilot could neither anticipate nor correct in time.



___________
I feel it is a mistake to say only one system is correct and the rest are wrong.
I'll stand by my assertion that a (trailing link) castering NW (with differential toe brakes) is the solution to the issue of linked-NW tip-overs.


On some soft or rutted surfaces I prefer a linked nose steering.
And what's your time ratio of hard runways over such "soft or rutted" surfaces? 30:1? 80:1?

I prefer a trailing link castering NW, which will self-correct even over most soft and rutted surfaces.

I cannot recall any RAF experience of mine where I was glad that it had a hard-linked NW.

Below is a screenshot of Jim Vanek landing a Vortex M912 crabbed about 30 degrees, and then pushing up on two wheels.
Try that in any other gyro . . .


Sport Copter crossed up intentionally on landing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zWLTQXcUI

Jim Vanek crossed up landing Vortex M912.png

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
Vance;n1135710 said:
I want the transition from ground to flight to be as smooth as possible. With the nose on the ground I am steering a short wheel base narrow track tricycle with a high center of gravity trying to go near 60 miles per hour. On most gyroplanes I have flown with linked steering the steering becomes twitchy as the speed builds.

With a hard linked nose wheel I deal with three phases of control on takeoff.

[1]The nose wheel is on the ground and there is no compensation for cross wind because she is controlled by the tire contact patch. A wind from the left may require left pedal to stay on the centerline.

[2]The nose wheel in the air where I am controlling my ground track with the rudder and dealing with the effects of a cross wind. This tends to be less twitchy and the faster I go the better it works. For a wind from the left I likely have right pedal in to keep her on the centerline.

[3]The lift off; when she first lifts off I will have the correct rudder in and if I have guessed correctly I will have the correct cyclic position. If I have guessed wrong it doesn’t take long to correct the cyclic to keep her over the centerline because now the cyclic controls my position over the centerline. I prefer to keep her aligned with the runway using the rudder pedals incase a gust sets me back down although this may require uncoordinated flight that will slow my climb out. She no longer steers with the rudder pedals.
[/LIST]
I prefer to have her operating in the number two mode as soon as possible so she is more stable. I keep the nose low so I don’t lift off prematurely and stay light on the pedals in case I accidently set the nose wheel back down

From a FW pilot's perspective, I never get a 2 wheel preview of the wind. My Challenger is nose wheel linked and it tracks nicely down the runway requiring quite a bit of right rudder. Yes it is possible during lift off I will feel the full force of the wind and have to compensate.

I understand a rotor applies complex forces compared to a wing. Aren't those forces more dangerous when on the ground? Maybe combined with a castering NW, a 3 wheel base offers more stability against these forces while not interfering with rudder forces. Allowing one to go from solid 3 point base with rudder control to airborne more directly via Eddie's method or the "no pop up" takeoff technique.

Sorry for being such a "Terrier with a bone" on this topic but take off accident rates are too high and the current methods/hardware needs to be challenged. IMHO
 
Please excuse my relative ignorance of RW dynamics, but wouldn't the taildragger configuration of the original Cierva Autogiro fix or greatly reduce this mains-balancing issue? With most of the weight aft of the mains, and with no elevator to "force" the tail up early, the tail can only come up when a substantial percentage of lift needed to climb is already present. It follows, that if substantial lift is being generated, that rotor rpm has to be present too.

With respect to canopy vs door, I'll add that the egress safety of both is enhanced when one can "pull the pins" on the hinges. This is an FAA requirement for aerobatic certificated FW aircraft and is wide-spread among sailplanes. (Wings can break off under high G and it's common to share a thermal with other sailplanes in close proximity, risking a mid-air collision). It's hard to bail out unless one can get out. Pull a red handle down near my right knee on my old Citabria and the entire door fell off. Same idea with the canopy on my Salto unlimited aerobatic sailplane. Good to have, IMO, though like most safety features, misuse can create its own hazards.
 
Great discussion! I love these puzzles.

So are you saying that we would be better off with a tail wheel design? I think the issue is the design of the mains themselves. The Vanek's photo tells me that the mains need a swing arm trailing link to naturally pull the gyro straight on touch down, regardless of the yaw at touchdown. Many aircraft use this to add stability on ground roll. Six or eight inch arms would do it AND also effectively move the mains back (add a little weight to the nose) as a side benefit described by Eddie.

On a completely different tangent, I have never read anything about setting the tracking of the two main wheels. The kitfox and other tailwheel designs go to great length to check and double check alignment to take out "twitchiness". I am throwing it out there that the main gear is not necessarily perfect on every gyro out of the factory. Maybe the speeds are so slow that its not an issue?
 
NJpilot;n1135736 said:
From a FW pilot's perspective, I never get a 2 wheel preview of the wind. My Challenger is nose wheel linked and it tracks nicely down the runway requiring quite a bit of right rudder. Yes it is possible during lift off I will feel the full force of the wind and have to compensate.

I understand a rotor applies complex forces compared to a wing. Aren't those forces more dangerous when on the ground? Maybe combined with a castering NW, a 3 wheel base offers more stability against these forces while not interfering with rudder forces. Allowing one to go from solid 3 point base with rudder control to airborne more directly via Eddie's method or the "no pop up" takeoff technique.

Sorry for being such a "Terrier with a bone" on this topic but take off accident rates are too high and the current methods/hardware needs to be challenged. IMHO

At the risk of reading like a t shirt; learn how to do wheel balancing well and it will give you a better perspective on how it works.

In my opinion most takeoff accidents are from people not understanding what accelerates the rotor and how important rotor rpm is before forward speed.

It appears to me that some people are unwilling to abort a takeoff that is not going well and often do all the wrong things.

A gyroplane takeoff is simple if you take your time and do things in order when they are ready.

If it is not going well abort the takeoff and taxi back.
 
Last edited:
HighAltitude;n1135739 said:
Great discussion! I love these puzzles.

So are you saying that we would be better off with a tail wheel design? I think the issue is the design of the mains themselves. The Vanek's photo tells me that the mains need a swing arm trailing link to naturally pull the gyro straight on touch down, regardless of the yaw at touchdown. Many aircraft use this to add stability on ground roll. Six or eight inch arms would do it AND also effectively move the mains back (add a little weight to the nose) as a side benefit described by Eddie.

On a completely different tangent, I have never read anything about setting the tracking of the two main wheels. The kitfox and other tailwheel designs go to great length to check and double check alignment to take out "twitchiness". I am throwing it out there that the main gear is not necessarily perfect on every gyro out of the factory. Maybe the speeds are so slow that its not an issue?

In my opinion a tail wheel design give less feedback to the pilot on takeoff and may have a rudder to rotor interference challenge.

The Predator has a tail wheel and I can assure you that the takeoff sequence doesn’t go as well with her tail wheel on the ground.

In my early days I used to get hard on the tail wheel when taking off in a SparrowHawk. The only reason it worked is because we didn’t fly if there was any wind.

With a tail wheel configuration you have to be more careful about everything and the gyroplane speaks more quietly about its needs.

My tires last longer if she is tracking well. It is adjustable on The Predator.

I ran through a set of tires before I figured this out and never noticed a difference on her performance.
 
Last edited:
why would anyone land a gyro in a crab when one of the great things about the gyro is its ability to land directly into the

wind in a very short distance,I have landed sideways on the runway,landed at intersections,taxiways,but never would I be stupid enough to

land a gyro in a crab. I just hope new pilots don't took at that picture and think they can land like that.Perhaps an explanation about that

landing will help new pilots understand that's a really big no no.
 
Vance;n1135740 said:
At the risk of reading like a t shirt; learn how to do wheel balancing well and it will give you a better perspective on how it works.

I'm quiet good at balancing on the mains of my Challenger. I do it each and every time I land, mainly to save on brakes. It does take more rudder work. Next time I fly I will let her set down on the nose wheel right away to feel the difference. I'm gonna guess it will require less rudder work.

Given the value gyro manufactorers place on getting off the nose wheel during the take off roll... Why is it not in the POH for fix wing aircraft?

I think there is value in maintaining the state of the aircraft, in other words don't stop something once started. Stay on all 3 wheels until lift off speed is reached then allow the nose wheel to lift into full take off.

Vance;n1135740 said:
It appears to me that some people are unwilling to abort a takeoff that is not going well and often do all the wrong things.

I agree, and I think the complexity contributes to that. In a FW take off I'm really only concerned with airspeed. With gyros there's rotor speed and air speed and arresting then managing the nose wheel. Oh and don't dare let the nose wheel drop. Throw in another complexity and bad thinks can happen. Certainly training, including recognizing when to abort, is essential. I'm suggesting simplifying the task should be considered as well.

On that note... Why can't a pre-rotor bring the rotor up to 290-300? Is there a reason it only takes it to 200-250? Wouldn't starting the take off roll with full rotor speed eliminate the air speed vs rotor speed juggling task?
 
Last edited:
In my opinion balancing on the mains in a fixed wing has little to do with balancing on the mains in a gyroplane.

Learn to balance on the mains in a gyroplane and when you understand you will have a basis for improving the takeoff procedure.

I have not found a way to takeoff in a gyroplane that works better than balancing on the mains.

I have flown with 33 CFIs and none of them have been able to show me a better way.

I have more than 3,000 landings in my log book as pilot in command. Each required a takeoff.

I have had students mismanage things when taking off and I suspect I have been close to trouble. My preference is to talk them through it.

I don’t recall seeing an NTSB report were a takeoff accident was attributed to the takeoff procedure being too complicated on that particular model.

In my opinion the most common error leading to a takeoff mishap in a gyroplane is for a fixed wing pilot to simply forget about the rotor rpm and when he remembers do exactly the wrong thing (bring the cyclic back with too little rotor rpm and too much forward speed).

The linked nose wheel is more of a challenge on landings. Misuse of the nose wheel on takeoff usually just leads to the gyroplane telling the pilot he needs more practice balancing on the mains.

If I take the controls from the client on takeoff it is usually from early lift off or lateral movement across the runway just after liftoff.

An early lift off and too slow a climb out leads to stall spin accidents in fixed wing aircraft that are much more likely to be fatal.

In my opinion compared to learning to fly a fixed wing anything learning to fly a gyroplane is fairly relaxed and benign.

I have several fixed wing CFI friends/mentors and they all validate this impression and most are successful on their firs takeoff and landing with nothing more than a briefing; no demonstration.

In my experience more pre-rotator rpm has very little to do with shortening the takeoff distance.
 
John without moving more weight to the nose wheel the nose wheel will not stay on the ground if you have the rotor at a good angle to accelerate the blades to takeoff speed,

if you use the rotor to hold the nose wheel on the ground then the rotor is at a bad angle to accelerate to flying speed and you end up running off the end of the runway or you try

to pull the gyro off with a slow rotor that is not flying and then you turn over on takeoff.

Even with the rotor close to flying speed before takeoff you still need to accelerate so the air blowing through the rotor is greater than what the rotor speed already is,what happens next is

that the rotor is moved forward because as you go to wide open throttle the nose comes up from the rotor drag and you lower the nose with the rotor causing it to lose speed,and then here you go

again down the runway without enough rotor speed to fly. This is where good training comes into play,flight instructors will help you get through these pesky little problems that

absolutely ruin your day if you don't know to deal with them. This is the reason I prefer to have my nose wheel on the ground and also have a perfect rotor angle for a

shorter and faster takeoff with really good ground control.
 
Vance;n1135758 said:
I don’t recall seeing an NTSB report were a takeoff accident was attributed to the takeoff procedure being too complicated on that particular model.

We'll have to agree to disagree. A 43% accident rate during take off on an aircraft that does not stall vs 25% on fixed wing that obviously does, is not acceptable. In my opinion staying the course will only maintain this accident rate.
 
eddie;n1135761 said:
John without moving more weight to the nose wheel the nose wheel will not stay on the ground if you have the rotor at a good angle to accelerate the blades to takeoff speed,

if you use the rotor to hold the nose wheel on the ground then the rotor is at a bad angle to accelerate to flying speed and you end up running off the end of the runway or you try

to pull the gyro off with a slow rotor that is not flying and then you turn over on takeoff.

Eddie, have you seen the videos demonstrating a take off procedure that avoids wheel balancing? I'd be very interested in your opinion.
https://youtu.be/kW65IY39MPU
https://youtu.be/-RDNpLd1Dcw

The first link compares this technique to the established, the second is brand new and goes into wheel balance in depth including history and is only part 1.

His no wheel balance technique basically trades high drag full aft stick with a more forward stick and less drag providing more air speed to spin up the rotor.

Even his established technique demo seems bit different in that he prescribes a preset initial throttle setting instead of full throttle. Presumably less throttle limits the nose wheel rise and then full throttle is applied along with forward stick... interesting.
 
why would anyone land a gyro in a crab when one of the great things about the gyro is its ability to land directly into the

wind in a very short distance,I have landed sideways on the runway,landed at intersections,taxiways,but never would I be stupid enough to

land a gyro in a crab. I just hope new pilots don't took at that picture and think they can land like that.Perhaps an explanation about that

landing will help new pilots understand that's a really big no no.
eddie, I don't understand how you somehow inferred from my post that anyone w/should land in a crab. They shouldn't, obviously.
I only referenced the Vanek clip to demonstrate that at least his gyros can be landed in a severe crab, because of their superb suspension and trailed castering NW.
I.e., a bad landing needn't wreck a gyro, if it's correctly engineered.

You know, if one were to get really technical about it, we ALL land crabbed, if enough decimal places of angle are employed in deviation from runway heading.
Most of the time, with a hard-linked NW, we "get away with it", however we've probably all chirped a tire and thus barely avoided a roll over.
Good engineering makes an aircraft more forgiving and thus safer to fly.

Regarding this thread's subject of N623AG Calidus which tumped over [during takeoff], I suspect that the cause was the notoriously unforgiving linked NW.
It's unforgiving of shoddy pilot technique, but, more importantly, it's sufficiently unforgiving of a good pilot trying to deal with gusts or wind shear.
I forecast that most gyro mfg. will be generically forced within 5 years into finally providing trailed castering nosewheels.

Hard linked NW is the non H-stab issue of today. Quite the no-brainer, but only an issue because of stubbornness amongst most mfg.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
Kolibri;n1135769 said:


Regarding this thread's subject of N623AG Calidus which tumped over upon landing, I suspect that the cause was the notoriously unforgiving linked NW.
It's unforgiving of shoddy pilot technique, but, more importantly, it's sufficiently unforgiving of a good pilot trying to deal with gusts or wind shear.
I forecast that most gyro mfg. will be generically forced within 5 years into finally providing trailed castering nosewheels.

Regards,
Kolibri





In my opinion your suspicions are flawed because witnesses describe it as a takeoff accident.

In my experience there is nothing unforgiving about a linked nose wheel as long as the pilot is light on the pedals.

I prefer a free castering nose wheel but I would not suggest everyone else is wrong for preferring a linked nose gear.

In my experience there are down sides to a free castering nose wheel.
 
We used to retrieve accidents for insurance companies. Vance is correct about pilots not aborting bad take-offs at least in FW aircraft and expect in this they are the same. Most we could have aborted twice and all of them once and just started over.
It's not a race for time it's a race for perfection or abort.

Same with so many landing in Gyro's including the last one at Mentone.

Pilots knows he should a have just gone around but wasn't taught to allays do it AUTOMATICALLY with no thinking required.

To become automatic you have to train pretending botched landing in all phases of the touch down and actually going around so it is automatic like engine out and forced landing procedures. Same thing for take-off and landings yet only our school taught students to practice until automatic because we had Navy CFI retired who knew no other way so I didn't either.
 
Last edited:
PS: Blue angle and top gun pilots abort automatically so why don't we new pilots in any make, model, or category???????????
 
A go around is one of the things that is supposed to be in a student’s log book.

I have clients abort several takeoffs during their training.

I feel the assumption should be that the takeoff isn't going to work out and a plan should be in place for what to do when it doesn't.

Same thing with landing; if you are not over the centerline at the correct indicated air speed when it is time to round out; just go around.

Many people try to over control near the bottom when things aren't working out and that is a very bad time to over control and be moving laterally across the runway.

An engine out of takeoff is pretty much of a nonevent in a gyroplane when done properly.
 
Last edited:
Yaw Mon. This is exactly it Vance.

Vance "I feel the assumption should be that the takeoff isn't going to work out and a plan should be in place for what to do when it doesn't."

It's like racing or driving over the speed limit on the freeway always expecting the worse and a way out or slow down. With take offs and landings, when you haven't experienced every wind condition there is, certainly if you have less than 100 hours in any aircraft ABORT, do it again like the blue angle's and real pro's. Especially at fly-in's no one care unless you smack the ground like last year.
 
In my opinion your suspicions are flawed because witnesses describe it as a takeoff accident.
Corrected, thanks, but it's almost irrelevant. A hard linked NW adds needless complication and risk during takeoffs and landings.


In my experience there is nothing unforgiving about a linked nose wheel as long as the pilot is light on the pedals.
To me, that's like saying there's nothing unforgiving about a stock RAF without an H-stab as long as the pilot is light on the stick and quick to chop power to avoid a buntover.

I still stand by my statement that a hard linked NW is unforgiving of shoddy pilot technique, but, more importantly, it's sufficiently unforgiving of a good pilot trying to deal with gusts or wind shear.
Balancing on the mains during a gusty crosswind takeoff is tricky, especially for a new pilot. We've all had the NW drop down and chirp the runway.
Chirping the NW during such should not be an unforgiving event, as it often is for those without a trailed castering NW.



I prefer a free castering nose wheel but I would not suggest everyone else is wrong for preferring a linked nose gear.
Of course you prefer a free castering NW. And, of course you wouldn't suggest that those who do not are wrong.
You're a gyro CFI and must deal with owners of various gyros. You've political and business implications to consider in what you say and write.

You've also written in other threads that while you "
prefer" 4130 chrome-moly steel in a gyro's mast and frame construction, "there's nothing wrong" with using stainless steel.

I doubt that you would ever directly criticize the way AutoGyro designs its product. :wink:

I disagree with such a bland "we've all our own opinions, and nobody is wrong" philosophy when it comes to quality engineering and materials for safe and rugged gyros.



In my experience there are down sides to a free castering nose wheel.
Whatever you allege that they are, their total is far less than those of a hard linked NW.
In fact, so far, you've only mentioned
"On some soft or rutted surfaces I prefer a linked nose steering." without replying to my query about how often such surfaces are actually encountered.
It smacks of a straw man argument.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Last edited:
I have experience with most of the gyroplanes being sold and the people who buy them.

The DPEs and CFIs I use for proficiency check rides and practical tests all fly gyroplanes with linked nose wheels and none of my clients have had problems adapting to this design with nothing more than simple briefings combined with reading and following the POH.

Some clients find the use of differential braking for steering difficult and I spend the time to get them comfortable.

Some clients have difficulty identifying the airspeed that they no longer need the brakes for steering. The tendency is to equate it with ground speed.

Some clients have used the brakes going too fast leading to stability challenges as they try to modulate the brakes. In The Predator part of my landing instructions to clients is to keep their feet away from the brakes when landing.

I teach clients to operate on all surfaces so what percentage of time I spend on rutted surfaces is irrelevant.

At this time more gyroplanes have linked steering than a free castering nose wheel with differential braking for steering. In my opinion that by itself is enough reason to learn how to use linked steering on a gyroplane.
 
Top