S-turns

There is no "fits all" answer.

If your chosen landing spot is right below you and is otherwise a landable surface (not water, trees, rocks, swamp or other crashy substances), then IMHO it requires less skill and luck to maintain airspeed and do S-turns, circles or whatever is necessary to set up a normal engine-out glideslope. This is not to build up rotor RPM, it's to adhere to a uniform glideslope, to make your aim more accurate. Any buildup of RRPM before the last second just messes up your glideslope. So there's no need to pull big G's in your S-turns.

Yes, a vertical descent can be used to bleed off altitude, but recovering airspeed from an engine-out vertical requires a steep dive and a stunning amount of altitude. It's a fairly radical maneuver that makes it much harder to guage your landing spot.

OTOH, a vertical descent (probably one entered very low) is the thing to use when landing on water, in trees, or other surfaces that are going to trash your machine anyway. In this case, our goal is personal survival. A pusher gyro has far better crash protection when "pancaked" in than it does in a frontal crash.

The Cierva-family machines had long-stroke gear that allowed routine landings from vertical descents; that feature, however, has since been un-invented. Perhaps this happened for the sake of simplicity, light weight and cost reduction. Certainly the technology has been around for nearly a century.
 
Doug, I agree with all of that and it makes sense.

WaspAir, I also agree with what you're saying and realize the "standard" H/V curve includes some "WTF?" time in it, to figure things out, and the latter is not needed when you KNOW the fan stopped blowing. Nonetheless there IS an H/V curve for engine-out, specifically for the reason Doug notes: I've always been surprised by how much altitude it takes to recover from 20mph with the engine at idle. I contend S-turns done at the proper speed allow more options and avoid a big drop.

Phil's statement was "...ref the HV curve in VERTICAL descent" - not in STEEP descent. A truly vertical descent with a fixed-pitch rotor would give zero ability to flare. But the more forward speed, of course, the more ability to flare and land safely. Phil may have actually meant "steep" - or it may be a carry-over from helos (and I notice your pix is of a gyro with variable pitch rotor blades) - wasn't sure.

I've piloted only Magnis, with their straight keel, so I was taught to always have good forward speed until right before touchdown. I was really surprised to see an ELA in the pattern and watch them "flare" about 10-15 feet up in the air: my first reaction was "holy cow - that's gonna be a hard landing!". I think the bent keel encourages people to be more aggressive about their touchdowns and that seems to work 99+% of the time. But, IMHO, some of the mishaps I've heard about on here seem to be related to getting bitten by that assumption. That's particularly true for gusty conditions, I suspect, where the air up through the rotor the pilot thought the wind had promised suddenly goes away and there's nothing else to convert to lift.

By the way, this also relates to go-arounds. If one slows to 20mph, one simply cannot power out of that in our gyros; there needs to be a loss of altitude to gain enough speed to fly out of it (the "behind the power curve" discussion). In my Piper Warrior I'm always able to go around, even down to the last inch before touchdown, because I have enough lift from my forward speed and haven't slowed down too much. With the Magni that's almost the same because I carry 65mph until a foot or so off the ground. But slowing to 20mph 10 feet above the ground? You're committed to land at that point. I honestly don't know if y'all actually slow to 20mph at 10 feet, but the point is there comes an airspeed and altitude where you're committed and cannot go around with that method. Holding more speed avoids that.

/Ed
 
Phil if that gyro in the video post# 8 is yours, it needs a rotor track and balance, lots of 1/rev. Could I get a copy of the video I need a good example of 1/rev stick shake for my Rotor Track and Balance training program?
Mike
 
Hey Mike - yes please take the video from YouTube. Yes you are right lots of 1P!

So the reference to the H/V curve are absolutely relevant. i.e. if you are back at flight idle and in an established vertical descent (I’m not clear on where the parachute term comes from but I’m referencing a usual vertical descent) then there is no surprise. Clearly you’d be a complete fool to continue the descent below a height that you knew recovery was possible. But the point remains that flight at slow speed with a reliance on the continued operation of your engine is very different to flight at slow speed with the engine back at idle because the attitude of the aircraft is totally different and your awareness / expectation is different.

Again if you watch my film on vertical descents then I think the technique for them is quite clear and the recovery to the glide consumes circa 150-200ft to achieve 60mph and the pitch attitude isn’t extreme.

https://youtu.be/w6NpQr5BKMc?t=75

I'm surprised the view re vertical descents and extreme measure and you can see (I think??) that the cockpit view doesn't look very dramatic.

To recap my point on S-turns and vertical descents.

The problem with S-turns is No.1 the danger is vision as you are either looking where you are placing the aircraft in the S-turn OR you are looking at where you ultimately want to go to OR you are looking at instrumentation. You can not do all things. So one video I posted was the guy doing S-turns and almost collecting wires. That was because he just wasn’t looking / wasn’t aware because he was too busy flinging the aircraft around. No.2 it is dynamic which requires more control input than a vertical descent.

I've even flown with guys who even loose sight of the field they were making an approach to and get lost!


The other point I’d like to make – and it is a very important point – is that it is one thing practicing all this to your local airfield but it is another to be putting these things into practice over open countryside, especially in a terrain as is typical in the UK when very often trees, fences, wires, hedges and other countryside furniture waits to snag you. Using S turns or doing orbits puts you at greater risk.

On the other hand if you have an engine out – which seems increasingly likely in a Cavalon using the recommended Rotax fuel of MoGas (I'd still like to hear the story!) – then you have two choices. Fundamentally you either need to get to your chosen field, or you are there and you just need to descend. So either set best glide speed and transit or descend vertically and position on a base leg to your chosen field.

I would find it quite incredible to believe that a pilot confident to S-turn his way accurately into a random field could not equally safely descend vertically to (say) 4-300ft on a base leg before recovering airspeed to 60mph and judge an accurate glide from there.

If you can’t judge your glide accurately from 300ft then that is something else but it strikes me I can’t think your S-turns are going to be done any better??

In the end like all things it is a matter of practice but you have to be realistic. You are flying for fun and with other distractions, it is better to make the task as simple as possible and just because you could do things and did things at your training airfield and got pretty good means what? 1000ft glide approaches with a few S turns over the perfect environment of an airfield doesn’t really relate to engine outs when the best field is where, which is how large, what shape, with other hazards?

Vertical descent – keep your eye on the field, looking for hazards, looking out of the window to ensure you recover on time and you only have 300ft to make a hash of! There is literally old one hazard once you are in range and that is recovery of airspeed but you can practice that effectively anywhere.

Finally there are a lot of guys getting hung up on approach/landing speeds but that (perhaps) comes from the very experienced guys having a legacy in single seaters which do not handle well on the ground. However unless you actually are flying an old single seater I’m not entire sure why people would want to use a compromised technique for an aircraft that doesn’t suffer the old vices. I leave you with the words of the FLIGHT test pilot in 1966 having tested Ken Wallis’ WA116. 40kt approach in a light single seater to level attitude. Hmm that seems a far cry from the zero/zero type approaches advocated. The key word is SIMPLE.
….although there is no problem to a deadstick handling but, of course, the flare must be precise and is complicated by the approach angles involved—much steeper than for most light fixed-wing aircraft. Normal touchdowns from a power-on approach at 40kt are perfectly simple —just keep the aircraft level and the ground cushion will do the rest….
 
Vance;n1142368 said:
I have had two engine outs in two different Rotax 914 powered Cavalons from a sinking float.

I have had one engine out in a different Rotax 914 powered Cavalon when the battery failed.

I have had five engine outs in three different 914 powered Cavalons from what I believe is vapor lock. We were using alcohol free automotive gas. Switching to 100LL appeared to solve the problem.

Most of these events happened at altitudes and temperatures not commonly found in England.

Based on the above quotation, I have three questions (for anyone to answer, not only Vance):
1) Why would a dead battery cause the engine to quit?
2) Why might 100LL be less susceptible to vapor lock than E0 unleaded?
3) Is there something in the design of the Cavalon that might make it more susceptible to vapor lock?
 
(1) A 914 has two electric fuel pumps, the battery developed an internal short and the alternator did not make enough power to run the fuel pumps.

(2) Alcohol free unleaded automotive fuel may have a higher Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) than 100LL. The Reid Vapor Pressure is a common measure of the volatility of gasoline. Vapor lock occurs when fuel, normally in liquid phase, transitions to vapor in the fuel line.Often in the winter months they raise the RVP in automotive fuel to make for easier cold starting.In my opinion this increases the tendency to get vapor lock.

When I switched to 100LL in frustration two of the Cavalons ran and started fine.I did not get a chance to put 100LL in the third.The automotive fuel was from two different sources but in my opinion both were formulated for winter.

(3) Yes, in my opinion the Cavalon has high under cowl temperatures; pattern work, high density altitude and the turbocharger exacerbate this. One carburetor is directly over the turbocharger and is often hot to the touch.
Pull the throttle back (set to idle at 1,800 engine rpm) and the engine would sometimes go quiet and would usually not restart.

One began to run erratically on climb out after it had died while landing on a cross country.The tank was half empty and we filled it with 100LL and returned home with no further issues.

The pressures and temperatures were all in the green in every one of the episodes and the second fuel pump was on.

It would typically start and run fine in about forty minutes if I had not run down the battery.

We did not find anything wrong with any of them.

I am not a Rotax trained mechanic but both of the A&P mechanics working on the engines were.
 
Philbennett;n1142418 said:
Finally there are a lot of guys getting hung up on approach/landing speeds but that (perhaps) comes from the very experienced guys having a legacy in single seaters which do not handle well on the ground. However unless you actually are flying an old single seater I’m not entire sure why people would want to use a compromised technique for an aircraft that doesn’t suffer the old vices. I leave you with the words of the FLIGHT test pilot in 1966 having tested Ken Wallis’ WA116. 40kt approach in a light single seater to level attitude. Hmm that seems a far cry from the zero/zero type approaches advocated. The key word is SIMPLE.


In my experience an inexperienced pilot will be challenged in a thirty five knot touch down in a Cavalon on a concrete runway particularly in gusting and/or crosswind conditions.

I don't think of a less than fifteen knots of ground speed at touch down to be a "compromised technique."

A zero/zero type approach is not language I am familiar with.

I teach my clients to maintain approach speed (fifty knots indicated air speed in The Predator) until rounding out around 15 feet above the ground and run out of altitude about the same time they run out of indicated airspeed with a nice flare just before touch down. Typical touch down ground speed would be less than fifteen knots.

What is the relevance of the Ken Wallis test pilot report?

I have very little experience in what you may be referring to as legacy single seaters so they have no influence on my approach to landing.
 
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've piloted only Magnis, with their straight keel, so I was taught to always have good forward speed until right before touchdown. I was really surprised to see an ELA in the pattern and watch them "flare" about 10-15 feet up in the air: my first reaction was "holy cow - that's gonna be a hard landing!". I think the bent keel encourages people to be more aggressive about their touchdowns and that seems to work 99+% of the time. But, IMHO, some of the mishaps I've heard about on here seem to be related to getting bitten by that assumption. That's particularly true for gusty conditions, I suspect, where the air up through the rotor the pilot thought the wind had promised suddenly goes away and there's nothing else to convert to lift.

With the Magni that's almost the same because I carry 65mph until a foot or so off the ground.
But slowing to 20mph 10 feet above the ground? You're committed to land at that point.
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. Prepare yourself for howls of disapproval.



In my experience an inexperienced pilot will be challenged in a thirty five knot touch down in a Cavalon
Without wishing to go down a rabbit hole the 40KT was reference the approach speed not touch down speed - which nobody is referencing.
Ah, Phil, now somebody else understands how it feels to be so inexplicably misquoted.
Rabbit hole indeed.

___________
Regarding S-turns to lose altitude, it seems a FW technique vs. a gyro one.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Philbennett;n1142431 said:
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.
 
Kolibri;n1142444 said:
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.")


Kolibri;n1142444 said:
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
 
Vance;n1142445 said:
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.
 
No Title

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.
 

Attachments

  • photo127329.jpg
    photo127329.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 0
  • photo128293.jpg
    photo128293.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 0
Philbennett;n1142447 said:
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
 
WaspAir;n1142473 said:
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

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.g...torsport_UK_MT-03_gyroplane__G-CFCG_08-10.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.g...otorsport_UK_MT-03_gyroplane_G-CFKA_02-13.pdf
 
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
 
Philbennett;n1142477 said:
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".
 
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.
 
WaspAir;n1142480 said:
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
 
Top