Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

S-turns

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Philbennett View Post
    Hey matey - sorry the relevance to the Wallis reference was that actually how different was it (technique wise) all the way back in 1966 with an aircraft that people may accept was a step further on from the Bensen B8M of the same period. Without wishing to go down a rabbit hole the 40KT was reference the approach speed not touch down speed - which nobody is referencing. He also talks of an obvious float rather than the zero/zeo (I.e you run out of height and speed at the same time and is a helicopter technique) landing similar to that described by JM. But anyway the wider point is we are all in an era where those with a lot of experience are often legacy single seat guys and sometimes it compromises operations in 2019 with factory type aircraft. I can not fly super slow circuits because the airfields in the UK mean I get under the feet of many fixed wings and at some point the complaints come and then you are banned, etc, etc.

    On that engine issue Vance what did Autogyro and Rotax say?
    I feel I will get the most value from your experience if I understand exactly what you are saying Phil. Please forgive me if I seem pedantic.


    When learning to fly a helicopter I was taught to come to a hover at three to five feet AGL and then slowly descend to the ground.

    In an autorotation to the ground I typically had some speed to slide off on touch down.

    I had not heard of the zero/zero touch down technique you have described.


    I would not expect to see aggressive maneuvering in your vertical descent video Phil because you are heading into a twenty knot wind and you arrest your descent with power.

    I have found when making an engine at idle landing with a vertical descent in low wind conditions that I have a pretty aggressive nose down to pick up airspeed after the vertical descent to reach my approach speed.


    How does a slow touch down speed equate to a slow speed in the pattern and getting under feet Phil?

    I have found I spend less time on the runway with a slow touch down speed and my approach speed is no different. It seems simple to me to teach and the tower doesn’t have any trouble sequencing me with fixed wing aircraft doing pattern work.


    From what you have written it appears to me you recommend a faster touch down speed than I teach and calling what I teach a "compromised technique" reads to me like you feel there is a problem with it. I am trying to understand what you feel about a round out and slow touch down speed as a compromised technique and not SIMPLE.

    Takeoffs and landings are what I spend the most time teaching and most clients are not landing well consistently untill they have around ten landings in their log book. Because of my syllabus it is usually not till their third hour. I would love to find a faster simpler way to teach landings that did not compromise safety.

    The way I read the POH for the Cavalon the technique I teach is the recommended technique.

    "4.14 Landing
    Align gyroplane with rudder and correct drift with lateral control input, even if this results in a side slip indication
    Maintain approach speed until approximately 5m above runway
    Initiate round out to reduce sink rate and let ground approach
    Perform final flare close to ground as speed will decay rapidly
    Let gyroplane settle on main gear with nose wheel slightly above the ground
    Hold nose wheel closely above ground and let it sit down with pedals neutral at the lowest possible ground speed
    Maintain aft control stick to reduce speed until walking speed. Wheel brake may be used to assist, if needed"


    When I discussed my experience with what appeared to me to be vapor lock an AutoGyro USA representative told me I was the first one that ever had a problem with vapor lock in a Cavalon.

    The Rotax distributor I talked with said they were familiar with the problem of vapor lock in a Cavalon and did not have a solution.
    They gave me some things to check about how it was plumbed and it appeared to me and the Rotax trained A&P mechanic I was working with that it was plumbed correctly.
    Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
      EdL, glad to read this, but where were you in that thread in which I advocated penetrating a gusty final with higher AS and a very low roundout?
      You seem to carry more speed (and do so lower) after roundout than even I do.
      Per the M-16 flight manual:
      "3.12 LANDING

      Power - Idling
      Speed - 65 mph

      Maintain alignment with runway with pedals and control stick.
      At 2-3 meters from ground - first flare gently to reduce the glide path with a slight reduction of speed. Continue to progressive(ly) flare to level in ground effect.
      In ground effect, continue the flare until the main wheels touch the ground.

      To stop the gyroplane upon contact with the ground, progressively move the control stick to rear limit stop.

      Use the rudder pedals to control the gyroplane's direction.

      3.12.1 LANDING WITH CROSSWIND

      The procedure for landing with crosswind is identical to that of normal landing.

      The alignment with the runway must be maintained with the control stick into wind and rudder in the opposite direction.

      WARNING DANGER:
      Maximum cross-wind component for take-off is 25kts
      ."

      (All bolding is theirs and, yes, the cross-wind warning for takeoff is in the "landing" section and no limitations for landings are stated there; 5.13 later says "The maximum crosswind component allowed for takeoff and landing operations is 25 kts.")


      Originally posted by Kolibri View Post
      Regarding S-turns to lose altitude, it seems a FW technique vs. a gyro one.

      Regards,
      Kolibri
      Actually, in my Warrior, as noted in the OP, I have plenty of other options and use slips quite frequently. Those are much more effective at steepening the effective approach in that craft than would be S-turns, even in an emergency landing. I rarely use S-turns in the Warrior for any phase of flight; the only time that comes to mind is when I was leading two Saratogas in a large formation package and they wanted me to help them maintain 100kts while the rest of the package (ahead of us) was at 90 kts. That worked out fine but there was 1/2 mile spacing between the 3-ship elements and we were all well-seasoned formation pilots.

      /Ed

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Vance View Post

        I feel I will get the most value from your experience if I understand exactly what you are saying Phil. Please forgive me if I seem pedantic.

        You have more experience than me Vance and I'm not trying to be superior, its just a view. its just good to swap ideas etc.


        When learning to fly a helicopter I was taught to come to a hover at three to five feet AGL and then slowly descend to the ground.

        In an autorotation to the ground I typically had some speed to slide off on touch down.

        I had not heard of the zero/zero touch down technique you have described.


        Yeah part of helicopter licence over in the UK. This is quite a good reference I found from a random heli trainer in the UK - look under Ex26 page 39 in the link
        http://www.aeromega.com/wp-content/uploads/CHL-Aeromega-EASA-PPL-H-Training-Manual-Revsion-EASA-4-PDF.pdf



        I would not expect to see aggressive maneuvering in your vertical descent video Phil because you are heading into a twenty knot wind and you arrest your descent with power.

        I have found when making an engine at idle landing with a vertical descent in low wind conditions that I have a pretty aggressive nose down to pick up airspeed after the vertical descent to reach my approach speed.


        Look again.
        https://youtu.be/w6NpQr5BKMc?t=120

        The recovery is to the glide?? Yes I do take your point that the upper wind was around 35mph that day but once we recovered airspeed to 60mph (which we did without power) we obviously climbed away as our ex. was vertical descents. But yes agree in low wind the delta to 60mph would be greater although I'd rather that than get my low time student weaving around without all that much of a plan. S-turns look more Gucci too I suppose.

        How does a slow touch down speed equate to a slow speed in the pattern and getting under feet Phil?

        I have found I spend less time on the runway with a slow touch down speed and my approach speed is no different. It seems simple to me to teach and the tower doesn’t have any trouble sequencing me with fixed wing aircraft doing pattern work.


        I guess it doesn't need to - sorry it was my turn to get the wrong end of the stick as you'd remarked when I quoted an approach speed. In the UK there is a range of techniques and to be fair whatever works and you are used to - the differences stem from the airfield operating out of. Some can fly tight circuits at 500ft and 60mph as they are out of a farm strip or similar. I operate at a bigger airfield and often share the circuit with twins, light jet, warbird and Cirrus types, sadly with a 737 noise abatement type circuit and fly at 60mph and if I don't trip people up then I get 3 circuits in during the hour!!

        From what you have written it appears to me you recommend a faster touch down speed than I teach and calling what I teach a "compromised technique" reads to me like you feel there is a problem with it. I am trying to understand what you feel about a round out and slow touch down speed as a compromised technique and not SIMPLE.


        Honestly I'm genuinely not mis-directing you but I don't look at the ASI at touchdown either as a pilot or back seat instructor. It lands when it runs out of energy but I can look at a video to give you a number. OK so I approach trimmed out at 70mph and it actually touches down on the mains at a smidge under 40mph. Stick is then held at the same position - which keeps nose high(ish) and it comes to a complete halt within 5 seconds. Here is a short clip of an approach - the on board film I have is in edit for a crosswind landing film I need to publish.

        https://youtu.be/qRaLHIfRFxY

        From teaching my guys the challenge with students getting slow and almost placing it on the runway is partly the same challenge you highlight in the vertical descent - i.e. wind speed.

        I'm sure you'll be the same but from circa 200ft my guys are all looking out of the front. Forget the instruments, the aircraft is trimmed for the approach speed and the ASI is not going to change all that much tbh.

        So we are looking out of the window, why? because we want to judge our height to round out, then our yaw and our drift - referenced off the centreline typically. Lets keep consistent approach speeds at 70mph. So the round out will be the same, the float will be the same (assuming the same weight/wind/aircraft) so now if we do nothing more than use the lift equation... its going to touch down when? Well if I said 40mph then I have an AoA of X. If you want your students to touchdown at <40mph then the AoA must be >X. That isn't all that comfortable for new guys, it also promotes ballooning as they haul back on the stick too early and because the tailplane isn't working as well lateral stability isn't as good so yaw becomes a bigger issue - especially in a crosswind as the component is larger.

        All that before I mentioned wind speed!! The issue with that is because now we are looking out of the window the perception of speed is ground speed now. So now two things can bite. Either the wind stops blowing or the wind on the day is significantly less than the day before and they feel they are faster than the ASI is showing because the ground speed looks high. (it is high on a relative basis) and now the aircraft runs out of energy before they are ready and it falls out of the sky. OR the wind is high so the energy is relatively high. The ground speed is low, they haul back on the stick to flare only to balloon and loose all the energy at the top of the balloon... hard landings are assured.

        I get you and they are neat to do if done well but student pilots are not that are they? They are student pilots and that isn't to be mean to students. Its a reflection of the reality of a student with <10hrs P1. We have all been there and when I look back at my early years I'm surprised I'm here!!

        I'm not sure if you recognise any of that but that is how I have found stuff. I'll get the crosswind landing film made and there is in cockpit landings from me. I'd send you the raw film but its a big file.


        Takeoffs and landings are what I spend the most time teaching and most clients are not landing well consistently untill they have around ten landings in their log book. Because of my syllabus it is usually not till their third hour. I would love to find a faster simpler way to teach landings that did not compromise safety.


        Yeah snap and I agree that keeps your guys as safe as they can be. Indeed to the point where I think you could almost spend 90% circuits and 10% all other things! maybe extreme but you take my point.

        Wow you teach landings a lot earlier than me. Honestly my guys (if they are true new pilots i.e no glider, powered or microlight experience) if they are guys that can get the whole thing done in 40-50hours


        The way I read the POH for the Cavalon the technique I teach is the recommended technique.

        "4.14 Landing
        Align gyroplane with rudder and correct drift with lateral control input, even if this results in a side slip indication
        Maintain approach speed until approximately 5m above runway
        Initiate round out to reduce sink rate and let ground approach
        Perform final flare close to ground as speed will decay rapidly
        Let gyroplane settle on main gear with nose wheel slightly above the ground
        Hold nose wheel closely above ground and let it sit down with pedals neutral at the lowest possible ground speed
        Maintain aft control stick to reduce speed until walking speed. Wheel brake may be used to assist, if needed"


        All of that fits what I've said above? it will touchdown at a faster IAS with less AoA, slower with a higher pitch attitude.


        When I discussed my experience with what appeared to me to be vapor lock an
        AutoGyro USA representative told me I was the first one that ever had a problem with vapor lock in a Cavalon.

        The Rotax distributor I talked said they were familiar with the problem of vapor lock in a Cavalon
        and did not have a solution.
        They gave me some things to check about how it was plumbed and it appeared to me and the Rotax trained A&P mechanic I was working with that it was plumbed correctly.

        Comment


        • #34
          Thank you for the clarifications Phil.

          I appreciate the benefit of your experience Phil and thank you for your patience.

          It reads to me like we are not quite as far apart as I imagined.

          The FAA minimums for a primary student for Sport Pilot, Gyroplane is fifteen hours of dual and five hours of solo before taking the practical test.

          This may foster an unrealistic expectation of how much training people need to be safe and engender a fantasy of uniformity that seldom exists in primary students.

          I would prefer more dual so we can encounter a greater variety of challenges.

          As it is now I sign people off to solo with very low wind and weather limits because they have not had the variety of experiences.

          I love teaching people to fly gyroplanes and the challenge is part of what makes it fun.
          Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Philbennett View Post
            Honestly I'm genuinely not mis-directing you but I don't look at the ASI at touchdown either as a pilot or back seat instructor. It lands when it runs out of energy but I can look at a video to give you a number. OK so I approach trimmed out at 70mph and it actually touches down on the mains at a smidge under 40mph. Stick is then held at the same position - which keeps nose high(ish) and it comes to a complete halt within 5 seconds.
            I'm happy for you if that works out for you and your students.
            In my case, with the A&S 18A in particular, 40 mph is nowhere near running out of energy. I don't see a ground speed at touchdown more than the high teens, with zero as the ideal. I would touch down at 40 IAS only into a 40 mph wind. Dead calm conditions means a little bit of roll is unavoidable, but nothing remotely close to five seconds (perhaps best measured in units of the length of the aircraft, not time). I'm firmly in the "stop and then land" camp, rather than the "land and then stop" group. An advantage is that it takes all the worry out of crosswind landings if you can do them with essentially no roll. You just point it into the wind and put it down, coordinated the whole time, and if there's enough wind to think about crosswind components, there is enough wind for a zero roll touchdown. Even narrow runways are big enough to land at an angle if you're not going to roll.

            I'll attach a video link for what was a very long and hot landing for me. In this clip, I was planning to stop on the grass just before a paved taxiway, but moments before touchdown I noticed that an airplane was going to be taxiing toward me on that taxiway (from my right) and I might be in his way. To be polite to him, I stretched it out with power to cross to the far side of the pavement so that he would feel free to taxi across behind me (you can hear the engine growling). Without that last minute stretch, I'd have been stopped short of the pavement. Not much speed here.

            https://youtu.be/Bn9894qKPEU

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by WaspAir View Post
              I'm happy for you if that works out for you and your students.
              In my case, with the A&amp;S 18A in particular, 40 mph is nowhere near running out of energy. I don't see a ground speed at touchdown more than the high teens, with zero as the ideal. I would touch down at 40 IAS only into a 40 mph wind. Dead calm conditions means a little bit of roll is unavoidable, but nothing remotely close to five seconds (perhaps best measured in units of the length of the aircraft, not time). I'm firmly in the "stop and then land" camp, rather than the "land and then stop" group. An advantage is that it takes all the worry out of crosswind landings if you can do them with essentially no roll. You just point it into the wind and put it down, coordinated the whole time, and if there's enough wind to think about crosswind components, there is enough wind for a zero roll touchdown. Even narrow runways are big enough to land at an angle if you're not going to roll.

              I'll attach a video link for what was a very long and hot landing for me. In this clip, I was planning to stop on the grass just before a paved taxiway, but moments before touchdown I noticed that an airplane was going to be taxiing toward me on that taxiway (from my right) and I might be in his way. To be polite to him, I stretched it out with power to cross to the far side of the pavement so that he would feel free to taxi across behind me (you can hear the engine growling). Without that last minute stretch, I'd have been stopped short of the pavement. Not much speed here.

              https://youtu.be/Bn9894qKPEU
              I think we are in some danger here of talking around the issue and mis-understanding each other.

              First of all (and I don't want to either patronise you or the qualified pilots / instructors who will already know this - but for the sake of new guys perhaps students reading this) the aircraft touches down when it runs out of lift and in simple terms we can express that as a combination of AoA and Airspeed. So as I highlighted in my post the AoA - i.e. stick position I have that gets my aircraft touching down on the main gear touches at perhaps 35-38mph somewhere there I guess but to be honest that is just what the ASI is showing and I suspect there is a lot of position error with the pitot tube as it is and the higher AoA. But I digress.

              We can make it slower by simply holding off for longer and having a greater nose high pitch attitude but I don't teach this "standing on the tail" seemingly desirable landing because for all of the reasons I said in post 33. You have very little opportunity for an out (i.e. recovery / go around) if the student pilot makes a mess of things.

              I would not want to teach landings that gives a pitch attitude that is shown in your video at 13seconds because at some point with a student he falls from the sky and either bends your aircraft or rolls. Not only that but in a Magni you couldn't hold such an attitude without a tail strike. See this film at 2m 17sec for an example

              https://youtu.be/GA9REA4YQ3E?t=137

              You are coming at this as a pilot of experience but I am coming at this to teach new guys a safe repeatable process that displays good airmanship. In that context I also completely disagree with this:-

              I'm firmly in the "stop and then land" camp, rather than the "land and then stop" group. An advantage is that it takes all the worry out of crosswind landings if you can do them with essentially no roll. You just point it into the wind and put it down, coordinated the whole time, and if there's enough wind to think about crosswind components, there is enough wind for a zero roll touchdown. Even narrow runways are big enough to land at an angle if you're not going to roll.
              I'm not sure where you instruct from or how many students you instruct but telling a new guy to land across the runway is dangerous because not only are you not giving him the tools to deal with the time he can not make up some odd circuit to land as he pleases - you are certainly not going to be able to do that kind of approach to any controlled airfield in the UK for example. Beyond that what about the undershoot/overshoot ? Engine failure on approach or the need for a go around? What threats or hazards exist. Yet you are advocating all of that to guys who can pass an FAA gyro test with 20 hours total time??

              It is just poor airmanship to teach students to consistently landing across a runway leaves no margin at all and it is certain that pilots make errors or events and situations evolve. Indeed your own film shows exactly how things can change. Sure once you have a few hours of experience and you are at a small grass strip or have explicit permission (that should not be assumed) to do it at a more controlled airfield then fine but surely only after being sure of your route in and out?

              Here are two good examples of what consequences exist for rounding out too high and running out of airspeed and trying to be smart and landing across runways.

              https://assets.publishing.service.go...CFCG_08-10.pdf

              https://assets.publishing.service.go...CFKA_02-13.pdf

              Comment


              • #37
                In response to the last two posts, first, I realize I have far fewer hours than the posters and am not an instructor (yes, I'm bringing a knife to a gun fight). Also, as previously noted, all my time is in the Magni M-16.

                I agree with Phil's points and they seem to make particularly good sense for the Magni.

                The landing technique WaspAir describes appears to me to be driven by maybe three factors: one, the bent keel ALLOWS a higher nose on landing than the Magni therefore, two, it's a lot of fun to see how short one can make the landing. Three, and probably the most important, is that for many gyros the nosewheel has its axle forward of the turning point of the wheel, which means it's at very high risk for darting off to the side if one touches the nosewheel down if it's not aligned perfectly straight ahead and if there's significant forward movement.

                By contrast, the Magni (and the AR-1 and the Titanium - and it even looks like WaspAir's A&S) have a trailing axle, which means the nosewheel tends to "auto-correct" on roll-out because of the craft's inertia. Which makes me wonder why other manufacturers don't do the same? So many accidents I've read about appear to be directly related to that.

                Except for the nosewheel issue, I'm not sure I see an advantage of the "stop and land" technique; there is no gyro (other than maybe a Carter Copter) that can take off in less runway than it can land, so one still must land somewhere with enough runway to take off again. Disadvantages seem significant, as Phil notes (and I've noted previously), especially in gusty conditions. Seems to me, remaining as close to the bottom of the "total drag curve" (generally, around Best Rate of Climb speed) for the landing for as long as possible gives far more options.

                Can anyone help me understand why big players such as Autogyro and ELA have the nosewheel configuration they do?

                /Ed

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Philbennett View Post
                  I'm not sure where you instruct from or how many students you instruct but telling a new guy to land across the runway is dangerous because not only are you not giving him the tools to deal with the time he can not make up some odd circuit to land as he pleases - you are certainly not going to be able to do that kind of approach to any controlled airfield in the UK for example. Beyond that what about the undershoot/overshoot ? Engine failure on approach or the need for a go around? What threats or hazards exist. Yet you are advocating all of that to guys who can pass an FAA gyro test with 20 hours total time??

                  It is just poor airmanship to teach students to consistently landing across a runway leaves no margin at all and it is certain that pilots make errors or events and situations evolve. Indeed your own film shows exactly how things can change. Sure once you have a few hours of experience and you are at a small grass strip or have explicit permission (that should not be assumed) to do it at a more controlled airfield then fine but surely only after being sure of your route in and out?
                  We need to get a few things straight.
                  1) I don't teach Sport Pilots to fly the A&S18A because they cannot legally pilot it. The gross weight on this aircraft is 1800 pounds, and it has a fully articulated 3-bladed rotor with constant speed prop, so it requires at least Private Pilot privileges, and 20 hours just won't do for that. My goal is not to train in the shortest possible time; nobody solos an 18A without being able to do a decent flare, and in practice, it is remarkably easy to do in this aircraft. I don't find it hard to teach.
                  2) Landing into wind does not mean that your whole pattern is distorted. All it takes is a small position adjustment on final, slightly offset downwind to make the angle work. No tower controller in the U.S. has ever complained to me, and I've landed at an awful lot of controlled fields. If it's a pure 90 degree crosswind (bloody rare actually) then we're back to the topic of this thread -- half an S turn will set you up fine.
                  3) It is easy to pick a taxiway intersection as your touchdown point, offering extra "diagonal" room and margin for error.
                  4) Nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down. (By the way, the 18A, as in many airplanes, has a centering collar that straightens the wheel when the gear strut extends in flight without a compressing load.)
                  5) I've seen plenty of pilots struggle with crosswinds in all sorts of aircraft (some of my glider students really stress over slipping with a low long wing). With a gyro (mine, at least) you can eliminate that risk entirely by simply landing into the wind and using the exact same technique as for any other landing. This is really, really easy for students. No cross controlling, no worry about maintaining the centerline, just point it and go. In effect, you never do a "crosswind" landing. That's a huge advantage. You also touchdown with minimal energy, which is a safety advantage for sure.
                  6) As to EdL's comment about getting out again, I prespin to 150% of flight rpm, point it into the wind once more, and jump. You can track the centerline all you want once you're off.
                  7) Maybe you don't have a choice in the Magni. If so, I think it's too bad that one has to use airplane techniques in a rotorcraft.
                  8) If you tried to teach a student to do a roll-on crosswind landing in the 18A, touching down on the upwind wheel and attempting to keep it all together until stopped, that's what I would call "poor airmanship".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Definitely with Waspair on turning into the wind. This may not be the first thing to teach a pilot, but then it's probably not the best thing to start with crosswind landings anyway. Once the trainee gets the feel for direct into the wind landings, planning a more diagonal final approach and transitioning into the wind in crosswind landings before touchdown in a gyro is an approach I've always found to be a far more stable way to touch the ground and which facilitates a lesser degree of cross controlling and more stability on any rollout. I also agree that one can also still fly a completely normal pattern with the exception that on final one would line up on the downwind side of the runway. Even if one cannot realistically land directly across the runway, any degree that one can turn into the wind and track diagonally across the runway will decrease the crosswind component and make for a safer landing. Even going back to fixed wing, I find it helpful to plan a more diagonal into the wind final approach to reduce the crosswind component. Probably the only real advantage on a takeoff and landing that a gyro has over a FW is the ability to do this easily and safely in most circumstances - one should definitely take advantage of it. I am not a CFI, just a relatively low time gyro pilot doing things in the easiest and most logical way. I feel fortunate that I was trained by someone who seemed to integrate standard pattern and landing teachings with the advantages provided by a gyro. In any aircraft, including fixed wing that has short landing ability, training oneself to track diagonally across a runway to decrease the crosswind component is helpful,and I think safer.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by WaspAir View Post

                      We need to get a few things straight.
                      1) I don't teach Sport Pilots to fly the A&S18A because they cannot legally pilot it. The gross weight on this aircraft is 1800 pounds, and it has a fully articulated 3-bladed rotor with constant speed prop, so it requires at least Private Pilot privileges, and 20 hours just won't do for that. My goal is not to train in the shortest possible time; nobody solos an 18A without being able to do a decent flare, and in practice, it is remarkably easy to do in this aircraft. I don't find it hard to teach.
                      2) Landing into wind does not mean that your whole pattern is distorted. All it takes is a small position adjustment on final, slightly offset downwind to make the angle work. No tower controller in the U.S. has ever complained to me, and I've landed at an awful lot of controlled fields. If it's a pure 90 degree crosswind (bloody rare actually) then we're back to the topic of this thread -- half an S turn will set you up fine.
                      3) It is easy to pick a taxiway intersection as your touchdown point, offering extra "diagonal" room and margin for error.
                      4) Nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down. (By the way, the 18A, as in many airplanes, has a centering collar that straightens the wheel when the gear strut extends in flight without a compressing load.)
                      5) I've seen plenty of pilots struggle with crosswinds in all sorts of aircraft (some of my glider students really stress over slipping with a low long wing). With a gyro (mine, at least) you can eliminate that risk entirely by simply landing into the wind and using the exact same technique as for any other landing. This is really, really easy for students. No cross controlling, no worry about maintaining the centerline, just point it and go. In effect, you never do a "crosswind" landing. That's a huge advantage. You also touchdown with minimal energy, which is a safety advantage for sure.
                      6) As to EdL's comment about getting out again, I prespin to 150% of flight rpm, point it into the wind once more, and jump. You can track the centerline all you want once you're off.
                      7) Maybe you don't have a choice in the Magni. If so, I think it's too bad that one has to use airplane techniques in a rotorcraft.
                      8) If you tried to teach a student to do a roll-on crosswind landing in the 18A, touching down on the upwind wheel and attempting to keep it all together until stopped, that's what I would call "poor airmanship".
                      Seems like we're pulling a lot of 18A-specific attributes into the conversation here and I think we'd all agree it's an unusual gyro indeed, especially with its fully-articulated rotor.

                      As I posted in another thread, the Magni's published crosswind limit is 25kt, takeoffs and landings, and the procedure is "identical", with alignment maintained with the stick into the wind and the rudder in the opposite direction. 25kts is 8kts greater than the limit on my Warrior. I learned cross-wind takeoffs and landings in the Magni early on and have found them less of an issue than even in the Warrior (which itself is not an issue). Landing diagonally on a runway takes away a lot of safety margin.

                      Sure, "nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down". But it's the cause of an accident if you DON'T put it down with no speed and the gyro darts off the runway because of the design. The accident reports sure seem to back this up. And when the accidents occur, they seem to be blamed on "poor pilot training/performance". I'd contend they're "poor pilot training/performance in a poorly-designed aircraft". Again, I'm at a loss to understand the benefit of the axle-forward design, especially in craft designed for low-time pilots.

                      As to "...[using] airplane techniques in a rotorcraft", seems like we're circling back to "flying like a gyro" (with which I personally fully agree): there is far more difference in landing and takeoff techniques between a helo and a gyro (both rotorcraft) than there is between a tricycle gear and a tail-dragger (both fixed-wing) yet everyone recognizes the differences in the latter. Gyros need to be flown like gyros - some of that is like a fixed wing (just as some of a helo's is like a fixed wing), some a bit like a helo, and some is unique to the gyro. In fact, it sounds like there are differences between the 18A and other gyros, so maybe it's better to say to fly it like YOUR gyro. I would not expect to fly an MTO Sport exactly the same as the Magni, primarily because of that nosewheel.

                      I'll have to take your word on the "poor airmanship" of teaching roll-on crosswind landings in the 18A. I'd say it would be very, very poor instructing to not teach that in a Magni, where the approach procedures are published to be the same for headwind and crosswind landings and up to 25kts is acceptable.

                      /Ed

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Flying like a gyroplane pilot isn't helping our accident rate is it?

                        Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.

                        All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".

                        In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.

                        I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.


                        Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.

                        Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by EdL View Post
                          In response to the last two posts, first, I realize I have far fewer hours than the posters and am not an instructor (yes, I'm bringing a knife to a gun fight). Also, as previously noted, all my time is in the Magni M-16.

                          The landing technique WaspAir describes appears to me to be driven by maybe three factors: one, the bent keel ALLOWS a higher nose on landing than the Magni therefore, two, it's a lot of fun to see how short one can make the landing. Three, and probably the most important, is that for many gyros the nosewheel has its axle forward of the turning point of the wheel, which means it's at very high risk for darting off to the side if one touches the nosewheel down if it's not aligned perfectly straight ahead and if there's significant forward movement.

                          By contrast, the Magni (and the AR-1 and the Titanium - and it even looks like WaspAir's A&S) have a trailing axle, which means the nosewheel tends to "auto-correct" on roll-out because of the craft's inertia. Which makes me wonder why other manufacturers don't do the same? So many accidents I've read about appear to be directly related to that.

                          Can anyone help me understand why big players such as Autogyro and ELA have the nosewheel configuration they do?

                          /Ed
                          All of the gyroplanes I have flown have had some caster (trail) built into the nose wheel geometry. That includes the MTO Sport, the Cavalon and the Calidus. I have no time in an ELA but it appears to me they have caster.

                          If landed on the mains with the nose off the ground until nearly stopped the linked nose wheel steering is not a problem even if a lot of rudder is in because of a cross wind.

                          In my experience as long as you are light on the pedals even if you touch the nose prematurely it is not a problem.

                          The problems happen when someone won’t allow the nose wheel to caster and they are premature in their nose wheel touch down.

                          A lot of trail makes the steering at low speeds heavier. I did not find that to be a problem in the American Ranger or the Titanium Explorer.

                          I don't recall noticing it in the Magni.

                          Many of my clients have taken their proficiency check ride in a Magni M16 and most comment on how much less maneuverable it is on taxi.

                          The Predator can be turned around in about ten feet.

                          I am careful to explain the difference between a linked nose wheel and a free castering nose wheel as a part of their transition training.
                          Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Phil

                            Not 100% sure I’m getting all your points and I suspect we may actually be in closer agreement than it appears - or maybe not.

                            “Flying like a gyro pilot” does indeed up the risks, unfortunately, and I contend too many times it’s because it’s not “flying a gyro like a gyro”. More specifically it’s not “flying MY gyro the way MY gyro is intended to be flown by the designer”. For the Magni, that means crosswinds up to 25kts are permissible and training for them is appropriate. But to your point it seems the apparent mechanical simplicity of the gyro leads especially less-experienced pilots to believe they’re more forgiving than they are. Plus stuff on YouTube, including stuff shared on this forum, seems to encourage risky behavior.

                            For crosswind landings, either in the gyro or my Warrior, I set up for a longer Final leg, do a stabilized descent with power, turn the ailerons or rotor into the wind until I’m tracking (not pointing) straight down the extended centerline, and point the nose straight ahead with the rudder once on short final. Once I get the aileron or rudder dialed in, the rest is easy for me. Maybe having years of experience in fixed wings just helps with confidence - not sure. I will say I like crosswinds in the gyro far better than in the Warrior, especially when it’s gusty.

                            An additional point: if there’s more crosswind than one is comfortable with, DON’T FLY! Not taking off with 100 ft ceilings is a no-brainer for any reasonable gyro pilot. Why is taking off in excessive crosswinds different? Ad if one’s only option is to land “non-traditionally”, such as diagonally or on a taxiway, one should rethink their preflight planning, IMHO.

                            /Ed

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Philbennett View Post
                              Flying like a gyroplane pilot isn't helping our accident rate is it?

                              Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.

                              All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".

                              In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.

                              I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.


                              Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.

                              Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.
                              In my opinion your two example accidents are what we refer to as stupid pilot tricks and neither of the examples was being flown like a gyroplane.

                              In my experience any method of flying can be done badly and people doing it badly doesn’t make the technique wrong or dangerous.

                              The reason I teach a touchdown at slow speed is because it works well and in my opinion it is safer than touching down at a higher speed.

                              Flying like a Gyroplane Pilot has worked well for me in over 3,000 landings.

                              I understand you feel and teach differently Phil.

                              I have landed across a runway because the wind came up while I was up flying. One example was at San Carlos (SQL); wind 220 degrees at 28kts gusting to 34kst on runway three zero. I feel it would be a mistake to land on the runway heading in such conditions. It was part of an airshow and the landing was completely benign using less than half of the 75 foot wide runway.

                              It is something I teach on request to an experienced gyroplane pilot.

                              The last spot landing contest I won was at two feet.

                              If I can learn it with one eye I feel anyone can learn to do accurate slow speed landings without undue risk.

                              In my opinion there are many other benefits to landing at a slow ground speed.

                              I get what you are saying Phil, I just don’t agree with your premise or your proof.
                              Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by EdL View Post

                                Seems like we're pulling a lot of 18A-specific attributes into the conversation here and I think we'd all agree it's an unusual gyro indeed, especially with its fully-articulated rotor.

                                As I posted in another thread, the Magni's published crosswind limit is 25kt, takeoffs and landings, and the procedure is "identical", with alignment maintained with the stick into the wind and the rudder in the opposite direction. 25kts is 8kts greater than the limit on my Warrior. I learned cross-wind takeoffs and landings in the Magni early on and have found them less of an issue than even in the Warrior (which itself is not an issue). Landing diagonally on a runway takes away a lot of safety margin.

                                Sure, "nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down". But it's the cause of an accident if you DON'T put it down with no speed and the gyro darts off the runway because of the design. The accident reports sure seem to back this up. And when the accidents occur, they seem to be blamed on "poor pilot training/performance". I'd contend they're "poor pilot training/performance in a poorly-designed aircraft". Again, I'm at a loss to understand the benefit of the axle-forward design, especially in craft designed for low-time pilots.

                                As to "...[using] airplane techniques in a rotorcraft", seems like we're circling back to "flying like a gyro" (with which I personally fully agree): there is far more difference in landing and takeoff techniques between a helo and a gyro (both rotorcraft) than there is between a tricycle gear and a tail-dragger (both fixed-wing) yet everyone recognizes the differences in the latter. Gyros need to be flown like gyros - some of that is like a fixed wing (just as some of a helo's is like a fixed wing), some a bit like a helo, and some is unique to the gyro. In fact, it sounds like there are differences between the 18A and other gyros, so maybe it's better to say to fly it like YOUR gyro. I would not expect to fly an MTO Sport exactly the same as the Magni, primarily because of that nosewheel.

                                I'll have to take your word on the "poor airmanship" of teaching roll-on crosswind landings in the 18A. I'd say it would be very, very poor instructing to not teach that in a Magni, where the approach procedures are published to be the same for headwind and crosswind landings and up to 25kts is acceptable.

                                /Ed
                                Ed, the reason there is some 18A specific content in my posts is because I started my remarks with,"In my case, with the A&S 18A in particular, 40 mph is nowhere near running out of energy... ", which I was prompted to say as I was a bit shocked that people were landing gyros that fast, and I then attempted to defend my practice for my particular aircraft. My aircraft is not irrevocably "done flying" with that much energy still on board. But my basic premise is NOT A&S18A specific.

                                Landing into wind is a good thing and always has been a good thing, no matter what you fly, since the days of broad flying "fields" where nobody ever made a crosswind landing or takeoff. Aircraft that must necessarily touch down at high speed on tarmac are constrained by the fellow who paved the runway, but many, many rotorcraft are immune to that ailment and have other, often better, easier, and safer options. I remain absolutely convinced that landing slow is good and landing into wind is ideal. They are also complementary goals, one helping you achieve the other. Both are also easily achieved in many gyros. Perhaps that is not the case for the Magni, which if so, I see as a design shortcoming (if I have to take off and land like a Cub in similar distances at similar speeds down runway centerlines, I might well rather fly a Cub).

                                High speed on the ground is not your friend, and easily leads to many varieties of grief. And while I am happy that you have mastered and perhaps even enjoy crosswind technique in your aircraft, I would hope that readers in general might recognize that always landing into the wind makes all landings essentially the same and can actually simplify training. While we dance around the topic of airplane versus gyro mindset, I think it is valuable to consider that many of us simply don't need to approach, touchdown, and rollout at speed down a centerline and might be doing it because it is familiar, not because it is best, safest, or easiest.

                                By the way, my comment on "poor airmanship" was provoked by an accusation against me first using those exact words about teaching landing unaligned with the pavement. I've been doing it for 30 years without incident and take exception to the characterization.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X