There is a large amount of stored kinetic energy in a rotor system at flight rpm Kevin.Kevin_Richey;n1142799 said:I am wondering how the upper mast, rotorhead, and rotorblades became unattached from the lower mast structure (as seen in photo #1) in the accident without any apparent damage to that lower mast section.
One would think there would be torn sheet metal from the skin (or fiberglass) and the visible lower mast would have some deformed attachment.
While I'm relieved that nobody was struck by the detached mast/rotor, let's be honest: such non-injury cannot be assured, and is mostly a fluke.Contact with the ground at near flight rotor rpm releases that energy suddenly and the weak link either bends or breaks.
Looking at the absence of injuries and the minimal damage to the rest of the aircraft after a rotor strike; having the mast break away clean like that may be a safety feature
JAL, while that seems compelling on its face, I suspect that many gyro owners are flying on much less margin of strength than they know.if this was a problem it would have shown itself by now. These models have been flying for a decade or more now.
"Mostly a fluke" it typical of your hyperbole and fear mongering.Kolibri;n1142853 said:While I'm relieved that nobody was struck by the detached mast/rotor, let's be honest: such non-injury cannot be assured, and is mostly a fluke.
If the rotor separates after impact it has already used up a lot of the stored kinetic energy.Kolibri;n1142864 said:I'm sorry you feel that way, Vance.
When a broken blade or broken mast departs, the pilot cannot control where it goes or what it impacts.
It is thus a matter of luck -- not pilot skill -- that nobody is hurt.
This is not what I would describe as a "safety feature".
I don't know why you need to apologize for gyros of questionable structural strength, especially as they acquire 300+ hours on them.
Not as much as you imagine:If the rotor separates after impact it has already used up a lot of the stored kinetic energy.
Again, this relies upon luck, something bystanders may not have:The pilot and the passenger are the ones most likely to be in the vicinity of the energy that is left.
I feel it may be safer to have the rotor depart the aircraft after impact.
As far back as I read the NTSB reports no bystanders have been killed by a detached gyroplane rotor assembly.
An easily buckling mast and spaghetti-like blades could indeed jeopardize cabin occupants.Several pilots and one passenger that I recall have been killed by being struck by a rotor that stayed attached to the mast after impact with the ground.
But, though it may hurt me instead of somebody else, I think the blades ought to stay attached in a strike.
Personally, I would be uncomfortable flying any gyro which broke like that from merely a take-off tip-over.
I hope that owners will often and carefully inspect that area.
Since you fly Sport Rotors, your spectators are safe. :smile:When I fly and air show I am required to be 500 feet from the crowd. I don’t recall ever landing close to people.
Actually, as well as Sport Rotors, it has the Sport Copter mast plates (bolted, not riveted), but I'll inform prospective buyers of my RAF that you said so, thanks.In my opinion there is nothing wrong the mast on an RAF despite it not being 4130 or particularly robust.
Are you just being snotty, or have you evidence that I don't fly an RAF? You can apologize, or accuse, your choice.The gyroplane Kolibri claims to fly . . .
And I'll stick with my "Not much material there".In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the mast on a Tercel.
AutoGyro's "Rotor System 1" saw blade cracking at the outboard bolt hole underneath the blade straps.The 6 bolts on the failed blade side of the rotor are all still in place.
Once again Kolibri makes ridiculous statements about Autogyro and states "I do not believe a blade should break off from a tail strike in flight".
Why do you then quote the POH regarding checking the rotor blade bolt area when it has absolutely no bearing on the crash you reference? Fear mongering? Yep.
Before landing on the grass Runway 28, he looked at the windsock and assessed that the wind had not changed since his departure, when it was from 230 at 12 kt. Just before touchdown the gyroplane veered left, and the pilot believes that he then moved the control stick too much and either there was not enough airflow over the rudder to maintain directional control or his input to the rudder was insufficient. Consequently the rotor blades struck the ground and the rotor mast broke and collapsed, but the gyroplane remained upright and came to rest near the edge of the runway (Figure 1).
As the rotor blades slowed to a halt, one of them dropped gently into the pilot’s lap, without injuring him, and he was able to lift it, unstrap and step out (Figure 2).
All three propeller blades were damaged and the pilot assumes they made contact with the rotor during the accident.
OK, back to the OP's purpose of this thread.SpyderMike;n1142575 said:I am a survivor of the self taught generation - building and flying a Bensen back in the late 1980s at El Mirage. My little craft was first VW powered and then MAC 72 powered. I had a blast. I have been flying fixed wing before that and ever since. Now I am retiring and looking to change my flying experience (lower and slower). I am looking at 2 place enclosed machines of the major brands and intend to travel to experience the final 3 or so contenders before making a decision and starting formal training and the purchase. I came across the www.airgyro.com website and the AG-915 Model and it looks very interesting. The other models I am looking into are tandems. I understand that this is a variation on the Xenon/Tercel model, but I don't see much feedback on this forum regarding it.
I am looking for any direct knowledge on this model (or earlier generation versions) and the company behind it.
Thanks in advance.