FATAL - Magni M24 Plus 05-TD, Guillestre, near Mont-Dauphin - St-Crépin Airfield, Hautes, France 08 MAR 2022

Greg i think you are an experiance pilot with probably more than the average piloting skills

i think i know of 2 DTA fatal , with only the pilot on board with rotax 914 turbo and the 2 machine torque roll

yes it is usually pilot error

you are also a good helicopter pilot , vs only gyroplane pilot with many time the accident pilot are low time

i think with euro style gyro with the big tail far back from the CG they dont PPO i think they torque roll before PPO

and more easily with how lightly loaded and higher power the machine is

i am just a student pilot , but i know a couple torque roll , in the condition i said above

one of the problem i see the more the power with lighly loaded machine the closer the coffins corners are

that can bite a low hours pilot that do the mistake in a steep climb to push the cyclic at the top or even the midle of a sustained high angle climb without reducing the power in is climb before aplying the cyclic forward

whe know this is more accident prone with a high power 915

whe see the flying data from Abid flight testing the GWS from Mike

i can post this in another thread to not polute this thread and remove it from here

the problem is always that whe dont know what we dont know... about high power machine g load rotor rpm

steap climb and how closed... we are from the coffins corners that can bite fast a mistake

DTA with a 914 is definitely "not" overpowered
 
A good instructor who teaches you to feel the machine is invaluable, having high power is never a problem (the DTA was not over powered by any means) I see it often the instructor teaches by numbers alone I prefer that a student pilot feels and experience’s the roll pitch and torque and your instructor should be able to identify with your levels of exp and comfort
the key with high power gyroplanes is to feed in the power smoothly and be able to feel if it will cavitate. ( prop slipping) same as vortex ring state in a Heli she warns you a few seconds before the aircraft enters that condition and as long as your trained on how to get out if it’s no issue .
Of topic but as a matter of interest the Trojan Gyro I fly has a tad over 300Hp again we are just gentle with the power application , again one of its draw backs is it can climb so fast we can actually lose Rrpm during a long climb and therefore despite it being able to achieve 3000Ft/m climb we demonstrate and discourage that rate of climb angle
I would agree with the broad statement "teaches you to feel the machine"; I think the old school guys learned to fly and feel the rotor.

"again one of its draw backs is it can climb so fast we can actually lose Rrpm during a long climb and therefore despite it being able to achieve 3000Ft/m climb we demonstrate and discourage that rate of climb angle"
I will simply offer a challenge here, Take the machine and the goal is to maintain a specific Indicated Airspeed, say 65MPH/58knotts during the climb. Regardless of rate of climb just simply maintain the specified airspeed; I think you will see the rotor rpm maintain a stable and steady state and not decay.
The testing I have done demonstrates a steady RRPM for any given airspeed so long as a 1 G environment is maintained, straight ans level or climbing or descending.
 
The story about Cierva's efforts at prop-torque control has been told many times.

In the aileron-controlled models of Cierva-style tractor gyros, the ailerons provided torque control. Ailerons are not affected by G-loading (or the lack of it). If the ailerons were only fractional-span, located on the outer ends of the wings, however (i.e. if they weren't full-span), they would quit working at very low airspeeds.

Once Cierva switched to direct cyclic, he didn't need the wings and ailerons for roll control -- but in losing them, he lost torque compensation, too.

The rotor will provide torque compensation, but only when it is generating significant thrust. If you turn off the thrust by reducing the disk AOA, your torque compensation will disappear and a torque-over becomes imminent.

Cierva tried anti-torque vanes located on the nose of the 'giro, just aft of the prop. A more elegant solution was differential incidence, and/or an upside-down cambered airfoil on one side, of the H-stab.

Also told many times is Ron Herron's retracing of Cierva's steps as regards torque compensation. He ran up the engine on his Little Wing, with scales under each main wheel. He adjusted the different incidences of each half of his H-stab until he had equal loads on each scale. This indicated torque compensation via the H-stab WITHOUT the help of the rotor.

Magni obstinately insists that foot-high thrustlines don't matter, and that it's not necessary to locate the H-stab in the propwash. It is, in fact, necessary to locate the H-stab in the wash if it's to function as a torque compensator.

The H-stab can be outside the propwash and may, after some nose dip, "catch" a PPO in time. One hopes.
 
The Magni horizontal stabilizer is indeed largely outside the propwash. This was not an accidental design choice.
"Obstinate" seems a rather pejorative term.
I have not heard of any issues with PPO in Magnis (have you?)
Anyway, it seems to me that PPO is largely unrelated to issues of engine torque.
I agree that torque roll is always mainly compensated for by rotor thrust. If you lose rotor thrust, you are going to have all kinds of problems including torque roll. The recent fatal accident caught on video in Utah immediately comes to mind (and that gyro was designed with its HS mostly in the propwash).
 
Also told many times is Ron Herron's retracing of Cierva's steps as regards torque compensation. He ran up the engine on his Little Wing, with scales under each main wheel. He adjusted the different incidences of each half of his H-stab until he had equal loads on each scale. This indicated torque compensation via the H-stab WITHOUT the help of the rotor.
The Aviomania single seater also has torque compensation. Actually a great, small gyro - reminding me of the Wallis Agile 116.
 
Tyger, I have not dug deeply into the accidents involving Magnis. Yes, I recall some accidents that involved so-called "buntovers" -- a steep pullup followed by a pitchover. Maybe PPO, maybe loss of RRPM, maybe one amplified by the other.

"Obstinate" is intentionally pejorative. Sorry. If Magni tested their H-stab and produced lift curves for it, then quantified the PPO moment created by their high thrustline PLUS the nose-down drag-over moment caused by the pod, compared the good and bad moment numbers and then said "Voila! We have more than enough H-stab power to counteract these pitching tendencies, at zero rotor thrust, in all flight regimes," why, then, I would shut up. Instead, we get subjective reports and recommendations to add friction to the controls.

The gyro safety record is so god-awful that I believe that every designer should do this. People should adhere to an abundance-of-caution strategy rather than intentionally building in a high thrustline and no torque compensation, and then claiming that either (a) these things have been dealt with using some secret sauce, or (b) the pilot can handle it with enough training.

As per earlier posts, none of us should be impressed by "mine fly's good" pilot reports.

Cripes, err on the side of safety -- even redundant safety. Just line up the damn CG and thrustline. Use an immersed stab, or some other strategy that creates a counter-torque independent of the rotor. Lord knows we need all the help we can get.

In my opinion, of course.
 
Tyger, I have not dug deeply into the accidents involving Magnis. Yes, I recall some accidents that involved so-called "buntovers" -- a steep pullup followed by a pitchover. Maybe PPO, maybe loss of RRPM, maybe one amplified by the other.
OK, you have not dug deeply, as you say... but would you mind giving any further information on those actual accidents that you can recall involving the "so-called 'buntovers'" of Magnis?
 
I would agree with the broad statement "teaches you to feel the machine"; I think the old school guys learned to fly and feel the rotor.

"again one of its draw backs is it can climb so fast we can actually lose Rrpm during a long climb and therefore despite it being able to achieve 3000Ft/m climb we demonstrate and discourage that rate of climb angle"
I will simply offer a challenge here, Take the machine and the goal is to maintain a specific Indicated Airspeed, say 65MPH/58knotts during the climb. Regardless of rate of climb just simply maintain the specified airspeed; I think you will see the rotor rpm maintain a stable and steady state and not decay.
The testing I have done demonstrates a steady RRPM for any given airspeed so long as a 1 G environment is maintained, straight ans level or climbing or descending.
Climb has nothing to do with 1 G loading …as you climb there is a bit more happening than a flight maintained at 1g as you climb air becomes thinner as an example

feel free to post your findings and demonstrations you have flown with gyroplanes that climb at 3000ft per minute or more I would be happy to learn ( as any test pilot will) I have flown a climb at 4000 indicated and trust me it’s not sustainable despite the abundance of available power

I did not know that apart from our Trojan there are other Gyroplanes capable of delivering that climb? Happy to learn
 
DTA with a 914 is definitely "not" overpowered
Yes Abid you are correct

but i know that you know how the atmospheric condition affect the performance of a flying machine

engine power , propeller thrust , rotor blades bite lift

possible ... ? condition..

sea level cold temperature high pressure

skinny light guy less than 150 pounds , half fuel , gyro perfo over boost box

all the flying condition and temperature play a big factor in power and thrust even on a turbo engine

example some of the stock 150hp dyno chart mapping i see of the rotax 915 are in cold ambient air dyno room nearly like winter weather temperature

with liquid to air intercooler 3 time the size of the stock rotax air to air intercooler with 14 deg celcius or 57,2 deg F

water inside the cooler and very low intake air temp , this same power is impossible in Florida heat on boost , the knock threshold is lower , the power is less , sustained climb power even less than in cold ambient temperature

even the yamaha sidewinder turbo in snow cold winter ambient temperature on full boost run ramp up the intake air temp fast at 100 deg f intake air temp - can be normal ambient + air temp.. in some USA hot state- and the ecm retard ignition timing and lower the boost and can easily lost 20hp to protect the engine from knock detonation in winter temp

all the rotax IS EFI have knock sensor from rotax to protect the engine from damage cause by a bad batch of low octane mogas
 
Is it possible ? that the light weight guy in Utah with the 915

order is machine with a bit bigger longer rotor blades option ? for his all dress enclosed canopi machine

to fly in higher altitude environment at gross weight
 
Last edited:
Is it possible ? that the light weight guy in Utah with the 915

order is machine with a bit bigger longer rotor blades option ? for his all dress enclosed canopi machine

to fly in higher altitude environment at gross weight

Sorry I don't quite understand the question. For higher altitudes I would always recommend slightly longer rotors. 915 is also a good choice as long as you know how to use its power. Abrupt pullups start to unload the rotor. Also the simple rule of thumb that if in trouble, cut power and neutralize the stick or slightly pull back on it seems to simply be not in use with most pilots
 
Sorry I don't quite understand the question. For higher altitudes I would always recommend slightly longer rotors. 915 is also a good choice as long as you know how to use its power. Abrupt pullups start to unload the rotor. Also the simple rule of thumb that if in trouble, cut power and neutralize the stick or slightly pull back on it seems to simply be not in use with most pilots
Thanks for the reply

the question is for my better understanding

i am not very good in english
 
Sorry I don't quite understand the question. For higher altitudes I would always recommend slightly longer rotors. 915 is also a good choice as long as you know how to use its power. Abrupt pullups start to unload the rotor. Also the simple rule of thumb that if in trouble, cut power and neutralize the stick or slightly pull back on it seems to simply be not in use with most pilots
It seems to me that to cut power and not reflexively put the stick forward is against the first instincts of many pilots who have a lot of hours in airplanes.
 
Thanks for the reply

the question is for my better understanding

i am not very good in english

Hi.
Your English is much better than my French, German or Italian. I wish I could speak those languages but they are not one of the four languages I do speak. Next time I go to Europe for a longer stay I am going to try to immerse myself more into learning the language than I have done in the past.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that to cut power and not reflexively put the stick forward is against the first instincts of many pilots who have a lot of hours in airplanes.

It really comes down to if these actions are taught and practiced properly by the instructor. I taught many airplane pilots to fly trikes before. It is completely opposite controls. Throttle is on the left foot, brake on right foot. No rudder. Push control left you turn right. Push forward and you stall. Pull back and you dive. After a certain point none of them seem to have any problem but generally speaking for each 100 hours of airplane flying time, I added an extra hour of training for them for up to 10 extra hours. Spent time on creating scenarios where they would have to do something unexpected.

The issue with Gyroplane is it’s very similar to airplanes except … and you have to respect that exception and train specifically for it and do it long enough. I don’t believe neither airplane pilots nor instructors training them are focusing on it. The proof is right there in takeoff blade sailing accidents and in keeping power all the way in while the whole thing goes to crap and/or pushing stick back or forward abruptly on top of it to really seal the deal. These are easy signs showing they were not properly prepared for any kind of emergencies and were probably signed off early.
 
Last edited:
Climb has nothing to do with 1 G loading …as you climb there is a bit more happening than a flight maintained at 1g as you climb air becomes thinner as an example

feel free to post your findings and demonstrations you have flown with gyroplanes that climb at 3000ft per minute or more I would be happy to learn ( as any test pilot will) I have flown a climb at 4000 indicated and trust me it’s not sustainable despite the abundance of available power

I did not know that apart from our Trojan there are other Gyroplanes capable of delivering that climb? Happy to learn
I attempted to comment on your post#19; it did not show the quote as i thought it should/would.
You are the one that stated you can demonstrate a 3000' rate of climb and would loose rrpm; not me.
I am under the impression that as the density altitude increases (air molecules become less dense) the rotor rpm will increase to compensate for the same all up weight; and the engine produces less power and the propeller produces less thrust for the same engine rpm. I cannot attest to higher altitudes, I rarely fly above 1500' agl and even in the summer months don't get to DA of 5000'.
Allow me to ask this another way, Please.
On your next flight, have the goal of maintaining a constant airspeed while S&L and climbing and descending. Maintain the IAS during the entire phase of the test; and report your findings regarding RRPM, please. Thank You.
 
It really comes down to if these actions are taught and practiced properly by the instructor. I taught many airplane pilots to fly trikes before. It is completely opposite controls. Throttle is on the left foot, brake on right foot. No rudder. Push control left you turn right. Push forward and you stall. Pull back and you dive. After a certain point none of them seem to have any problem but generally speaking for each 100 hours of airplane flying time, I added an extra hour of training for them for up to 10 extra hours. Spent time on creating scenarios where they would have to do something unexpected.

The issue with Gyroplane is it’s very similar to airplanes except … and you have to respect that exception and train specifically for it and do it long enough. I don’t believe neither airplane pilots nor instructors training them are focusing on it. The proof is right there in takeoff blade sailing accidents and in keeping power all the way in while the whole thing goes to crap and/or pushing stick back or forward abruptly on top of it to really seal the deal. These are easy signs showing they were not properly prepared for any kind of emergencies and were probably signed off early.
But that's just it, isn't it? Trike controls are SO different, there's little chance of airplane guys reverting to airplane habits.
As you say, gyro controls basically seem the same, but they often need to be used very differently. IMO, gyro CFIs really need to make extra sure their airplane students really understand what's going on in a gyro, and not just with a head nod.
 
"But that's just it, isn't it? Trike controls are SO different, there's little chance of airplane guys reverting to airplane habits."

This is dead on, I have been the external pilot, or test pilot on a number of projects with UAV's other than my own and have run into issues specifically with
the autopilot switch assignment.
There is no standard, but the prevalent norm is for the upper left 3 position switch to be set with:
1st. position: (Low) as full "manual"
Middle position: "Fly by wire A"
Upper position: "Full Autopilot"
I have had people hand me a radio with the positions reversed, or on a different switch and they get upset with me when
I tell them to reprogram it.
When their $65K+ whiz bang has just shed parts and gone inverted in lawn dart mode, I don't even want to think about what switch
to flip, or which pattern is being used. Most of the time you only have about 2 to 3 seconds to do something that will save it, then it's out of your control...
I think you need to reprogram your own instinctive response for a given aircraft and that takes a lot of repetition....
 
This is dead on, I have been the external pilot, or test pilot on a number of projects with UAV's other than my own and have run into issues specifically with
the autopilot switch assignment.
There is no standard, but the prevalent norm is for the upper left 3 position switch to be set with:
1st. position: (Low) as full "manual"
Middle position: "Fly by wire A"
Upper position: "Full Autopilot"
I have had people hand me a radio with the positions reversed, or on a different switch and they get upset with me when
I tell them to reprogram it.
When their $65K+ whiz bang has just shed parts and gone inverted in lawn dart mode, I don't even want to think about what switch
to flip, or which pattern is being used. Most of the time you only have about 2 to 3 seconds to do something that will save it, then it's out of your control...
I think you need to reprogram your own instinctive response for a given aircraft and that takes a lot of repetition....

Yup and gyroplanes are not becoming airplanes anytime soon so that re-programming is essential for transitioning airplane pilots. When you are able to fly within normal operating parameters, you don't need such instinctive responses quickly but when you are already so marginal and that you let it get to a state where we would consider it upset attitude, the response required has to be quick, smooth and instinctive.
The bottom line is train and remain current properly and do it enough.
 
Top