Not saying that Magni is doing anything wrong - their safety record speaks for itself - but there are other ways to achieve safety without compromising agility. For me, flying gyros is all about agility. If I want to fly cross country, I take a Cessna.
Also my thoughts exactly.
I cant see why one would engineer the gyro out of gyros.
The thing a gyro has over a FW is its [ among other things], responce rate and control precision.
So, I guess I’m questioning that why, for agility, you would want the rotor to have a much quicker response rate than the airframe – it is the airframe that the pilot wants to see respond – and quickly too. I think I’m suggesting that “agility” is all in the rotor, how quickly it changes disk attitude with pilot cyclic input. This adjusts the “agile” flight path, not anything the airframe does aerodynamically. The rest of “agility” is up to the inertial response of the airframe. The strong dynamic damper does not hinder this or make it more sluggish, it just helps re-direct the airframe to the attitude the rotor is determining by its flight path re-direction.
You seem to be contradicting youself here Greg.
On the one hand you say;
it is the airframe that the pilot wants to see respond – and quickly too. I think I’m suggesting that “agility” is all in the rotor, how quickly it changes disk attitude with pilot cyclic input.
Then you say;
it just helps re-direct the airframe to the attitude the rotor is determining by its flight path re-direction
If the airframe cant overshoot [ damped] then how can you increase the cyclic rate of the rotor?
IOW, a highly damped machine [ and rotor] can only pitch as fast as the HS will allow.
A stable but undamped machine will have a higher pitch rate to a highly damped stable one.
And RATE is wot agility and precise control is all about.
Because the airframe pitch and roll rates seem to be about the same, this suggests to me that the strong dynamic pitch damper is not really affecting or slowing down the pitch rate, because the roll rate does not have such a large dynamic damper – but it still has the same responses as does pitch!
The strong dynamic pitch damper has no effect on roll, only on pitch.
Its the heavy stick thats slowing the roll AND primarily the roll rate.
You can engineer your cyclic control to be heavy in pitch, or roll, or both, or neither.
both roll and pitch seem to respond about the same
Thats because they both have the same 'heavieness' engineered into the stick.
If you took the HS off the magni, itd be just as heavy. The only difference would be overshoot in manouvers and no stability.
Chuck, this is what I was thinking, so you don't need to be sorry for me. I am suggesting too that this is not THE big contributor to stick forces (in the Magni), this actually would be a reducer of stick forces - as compared to higher teeter heights on heavy gyros with even more teeter height.
And if you consider the fact the my wasa still has the very high teeter head [ RAF] and as heavy, or even heavier blades than the magni, bout the same all up weight, but still has much lighter stick forces................. .
The only real difference between the 2 machines that can be atributed to the weight of the sticks, is the leaverage.
Geez Udi, i dont know wether i agree with you or not.
First you say;
with the exception of birdy and his fellow moo chasers, there is no disadvantage for a highly pitch-damped airframe
Then you said;
The one thing a large damping tail does not allow for (and is something birdy et al want to do) is to pitch the airframe faster than the flight path that the rotor is commanding allows.
Dose it make a difference or not?
One line you say,
there is no disadvantage in highly pitch dampening, then you say,
pitch the airframe faster than the flight path that the rotor is commanding allows.
Im generaly in agreeance with you mate, but your startn to confuse me now.