Reply to Duane Hunn.

It is very interesting to see Duane here and defending his position.
also the way the debate is going with Chuck kinda holding his horses and keeping the ball rolling.
thanks to both of you!
An Duane if you feel tired stop and lets go talk BS on the Off Topic Sand Box :D
Udi and Doug, you guys rock!
So stabilator does improve rotor stability?
Heron
 
I believe the vane goes partway toward compensating for the disdvantages of an unstable airframe.

A trim spring connected to a stable airframe would do the same thing. It would also continue to work during the onset of a PPO. The vane will not. Neither will anything else that uses rotor thrust as a stabilizing device.

Rotor thrust cannot be relied on to be there when you need it. You must obtain your stabilizing forces from a more reliable source. A HS works in all combinations of negative, positive and zero G. Rotor thrust works only during pos G flight. As a stablizing force, rotor thrust quits just when you need it most.
 
Not much info there Chuck, but this bit makes me wonder how a broken rudder cable can cause a flight instructor to crash with sufficient force to die?

" PS: I asked about the other crash in Canada during Airventure. A CFI was testing an RAF2000 and during a phase of takeoff a rudder cable barrel adjuster separated. I was told only 3 threads of the steel end were into the turnbuckle. "

I have been trying to remember the last time a flight instructor got killed in the fixed wing industry in my area, I can't recall any and considering there have been hundreds of flight instructors flying tens of thousands of hours in fixed wing aircraft here in the past fifteen years got me to wondering why the fatatility rate is so high for gyro instructors in Canada.

In the past fifteen years I know of three gyro instructors who died flying gyros here in Canada and there couldn't have been many more than 20 to 25 ever licensed in Canada.

Something is wrong in the gyro flying group in Canada.

But back to my question, does anyone know if the Quebec machine had a stabilator on it?
 
**** Beaty, your a stirring basted.
I think you should be given a hounoree(?) life citizenship here in Australia, you would fit right in.
Sitting around a barby drinking real beer dribbling BS, mate you would be right at home.
 
Chuck E., try the second link; it’s the complete one.

***********************
Graeme, you’re too kind.
 
Quote C.Beaty
No amount of training can make an unstable gyro safe. Anyone that thinks so is an idiot.
/Quote
It has been stated that No ones knows of anyone here on the forum who has insulted anyone else on the forum. This particular statement was leveled at RAF pilots.

Chuck E
The quebec machine didnot have a stabilator on it. It was a stock RAF.

I was reading about ground resonance in the early Gyros and Heli development. I was wondering if perhaps the rotor could lose its CG and go out of round to cause this sudden Flip or Bunt or PPO?

Udi that is a very good site.
I have it in my book marks and will continue to use and learn thru it.
 
Thanks, Chuck.....

....I spent a long time reading all those posts.

If the machine Jim Logan and the pilot were working on was the accident machine then it appears to have had a stabilator.

Also a clue to what may have happened was the eye witness who said the machine was not flying fast.....slow flight....what would that do to the effectiveness of an aerodynamic trimming device?

Reading that long thread makes me wonder why I post here, in the eyes of the RAF supporters I am more evil than Osama Bin Laden and all I do is " bash RAF "

Interesting they feel such strong dislike for my questions, I wonder if I just quit posting and asking questions about these accidents would the accidents end?

Chuck E.
 
Chuck E

As I have said before. No one here wants you to cease posting. You have much to contribute. Just chill on the bashing guy. We all know exactly how you feel about RAFs.
It seems when you see those three little letters you go off faster than a bull at the red cape. Other than the RAF thing I still would like to meet ya.
 
It would appear that the Quebec machine had a stabilator Thom.

Unless the machine in the picture of Jim L. and the pilot was someone elses.

Have you read that thread on the Quebec accident?
 
What’s so sickening, Chuck E., is that these kinds of accidents will continue because no one at RAF or a single one of their associates has the slightest understanding of their cause.

If anyone with knowledge of aeronautical engineering has ever worked for RAF, I’m unaware of it.

They did have, for a short time, an individual that used the title “technologist” with his signature.

I don’t know what the title, “technologist” means in Canada; in the US, a dental technologist cleans teeth and a medical technologist analyzes urine specimens. It typically designates a junior college graduate with a 2-year “associates” degree.

That said, their technologist did seem to have a fair understanding of the science of flight, which could have been his downfall. Ultimately, anyone with a bit of understanding of basic physics will come to understand the flaws of an RAF-2000.

But I’m only speculating; he could simply have quit in disgust.

I guess I shouldn’t reread old smoking hole threads; I just get steamed up at the futility of it all.
 
The guy was a mechanical engineer if I recall correctly Chuck, he e-mailed several times about his work on the stabilator.

Yeh, reading that thread fills me with a sense of futility because nothing ever changes.

Everytime an RAF Kills its occupants and we try and get to the cause of the accident the discussion gets rail roaded into word mayhem with the defenders claiming the machine is great and the pilot was at fault.

What really makes me feel frustrated is the mantra ...the pilot didn't get sufficient training from a RAF instructor......or if they had been turned loose as trained , why they just went out and flew beyond the envelope they were trained for. And ain't that the truth.

Anyhow it would appear that it had a stabilator, but no one from the RAF group seemed to know if it in fact had one.

How about this scenario, Stabilator....low airspeed....high power....pitch excursions caused by what ever.....shall we keep going??

Chuck E.
 
Quote C.Beaty
No amount of training can make an unstable gyro safe. Anyone that thinks so is an idiot.
/Quote
It has been stated that No ones knows of anyone here on the forum who has insulted anyone else on the forum. This particular statement was leveled at RAF pilots.

Thom,
He never said RAF pilots. He was talking about anyone who thinks training can make an unstable gyro safe. There are more people besides RAF pilots that think like that.
 
" Michel Vallière only had a total of 8 hours dual in RAFs from Jim Logan, he was NOT signed off for solo flight, he was NOT a CFI for RAF. "

This is very interesting Dave.

What you are telling us is the RAF 2000 is so difficult to learn to fly that even a gyroplane flight instructor who has been flying for some years in other gyros needs more than eight hours dual to go solo.....

...so if the RAF 2000 is that difficult for an experienced gyro pilot to fly solo, how many hours dual would he need in one to reach a level of skill sufficient for RAF to accept him as one of their approved instructors?

By the way didn't it have the stabilator on it?

Acording to the rest of the RAF supporters and even Duane the stabilator makes it easy to fly.

So what is the real truth Dave?

Chuck E.
 
Ground Resonance

Ground Resonance

Udi

The observation of ground resonance in a pitcarne gyro was very interesting. Is it the development of the teetering rotor head that eliminated this phenomonon?

Thom,

Ground Resonance does not occur in teetering rotor systems just because the blades are always 180º from each other. Ground resonance occurs when a fully-articulated rotor, which is one that has lead and lag hinges, gets out of phase.

For instance, in a three-bladed rotor, the blades are in balance (aerodynamic and physical) if they are 120º apart from each other, right? Well, suppose you nudge the ground with your a/c, and your three blades are 110º, 120º, and 130º as a result of that shock?

If you lift back into the air, the blades will be returned to perfect phase by centrifugal and aerodynamic forces. But if you try to stay on the ground, the out-of-phase rotors can and do shake the aircraft apart.

If this doesn't make it clear, please look at the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook. There is a complete explanation in the helicopter section, with graphics which help explain it. You can get the Handbook in .pdf from the FAA or in the training section of this forum.

cheers

-=K=-
 
That is clear Kevin, but I was thinking about these really violent flips and the description some times sounded the same. Query what if the grips on the hubbar became loose while climb out or a turn or something like that could they get out of CG of the rotor. If so what would happen Can this happen if there was a disturbance of the rotor. Would it shake the gyro to pieces?
 
Ben

Seems we have alot of amateure aeronautical engineers on here. Me I'm just one person with a lot questions. I play with Remote Control things and build from scratch combat planes and helis.
 
Top