Broken ej-22 crank pics

[Aussie_Paul]

For sure Vance, that is one of the problems when configuring a pusher. 'Really need to do what Ken R has done and have twin tail booms, but then you have the prop in the dirt!!!!!

Everything is a compromise with safety first followed by juggling the use friendliness and efficiency, to have a machine that people want to fall in love with and buy!!!! I am sure most Rafs have been sold due to looks. It is certainly not anything to do with safety. That is my challenge, to do what Raf have done but with a stable and safe machine. I don't want to be the "hot" topic on the forum in a few years time!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.

Aussie Paul

 

[Vance]

Thank you Paul, If I understand you corectly, for each extra inch of prop diameter you have to raise the pilot a little over one half inch and raise the rotorhead one inch. Does this extra height of the pilot make it ugly? Is it the extra rotor height of the mast that is ugly? It clearly won't fit in most car garages. I know that you have put a lot of thought into what is marketable, so I am not disigreeing with you. I am trying to understand the path to your conclusions. I have flown the SparrowHawk and it didn't seem ugly to me. It has a high cabin and a 9foot 9 inch foot tall mast. That is 19 inches taller than the hybrid, yet I know that they don't have a 19 inch bigger prop. What am I missing? Thank you for your patience, Vance

 

[Doug Riley]

Paul: In response to #35: I know that you know the answer. The rotor thrust creates the counter-balancing torque. The rotor thrust is offset forward of the CG. The rotor thrust doesn't have to be any BIGGER, however; it's simply located farther forward than it would be in a CLT machine.

For some reason this basic fact of physics is hard to grasp: The same amount of rotor thrust can result in either (1) simply 1 "G" of lift and NO torque, or (2) an identical 1 "G" of lift PLUS as much torque as you want. The difference is merely a matter of positioning the thrust line. It doesn't take any more thrust or power to create the torque. You just slide the rotor thrust line forward.

It sounds like something for nothing, but it is not. Think about the seesaw and the torque wrench examples. In both of those cases, the same one or two forces produce more or less torque, depending solely on where the forces are applied to the object in question.

(I'm not advocating a HTL arrangement; it is, in fact, stupid. But we're all seekers of the unvarnished truth, eh?)

P.S: Here's another way to go at it. It seems that the rotor MUST make more force in order to "keep the nose up," right? But, while a high engine thrust line DOES try to push the nose "down" fom the pilot's point of view, this reaction is actually a rotational one. At the same time the nose is trying to go down, the tail is trying to go up and other parts of the gyro are trying to go backward or forward. There's no extra straight-line force in the up-down direction caused by the prop thrust; the prop thrust is pushing horizontally. Therefore, the rotor thrust doesn't have to be larger.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Doug, would that mean that the rotor disc is now flying at an increased AoA to place the thrust vector further forward, and therefore requiring more prop thrust to push it along?

Aussie Paul.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Vance if you put a Raf and a Sparrow Hawk side by side at the same money and had non gyro people looking at buying, they would chose the Raf almost every time.

Fortunately now more and more people are finding the correct information re safety. People with that info I would expect to take the Sparrow Hawk.

Then comes the Firebird/Sparrow Hawk appeal to the ignorent potential customers, and the informed potential customers!!!!!!!!!!!! That is of course based oln both aircraft as being as safe as one another. I am just trying to put the picture as to what turns potential buyers, with a heap of desposable income, and a mid life crisis!!!!!

I might as well aim for as much of that "mid life crisis" money as I can!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.

 

[Doug Riley]

No, Paul. The rotor has to fly at whatever AOA allows it to make the amount of thrust needed to hold the gyro up in level flight. (If you increased the AOA it would climb.) It's the frame, not the rotor, that adjusts its flight angle in response to prop thrustline offset relative to CG. The adjustment comes about in the "angle of the dangle."

If the prop thrustline is very high, the frame hangs nose-low to get the CG aft of the rotor thrust line. (Old Air Commands, especially, are infamous for flying much more nose-low that the designer likely intended. You feel like you're standing on the nosewheel if you get one going fast enough. This is the frame sagging nose-low in order to get the CG back far enough for everything to balance out.) As Chuck B. has pointed out, this phenomenon is the same thing as loading your FW plane to a tailheavy condition.

 

[Vance]

Thank you Paul, so you are saying that the SparrowHawk is less attractive than the Raf, or your Firebird, but not ugly? Is it the tall mast ot the cabin height? I know a fellow who bought a SparrowHawk because it didn't look like an RAF and he could see it was safer. Taste is a subjective thing and mine tends to be a little off the mark.

When I sold Harleys, I liked Sporsters best, but people thought of Sporster as "a Girls bike" Next I liked FXRs and Harley discontinued them. I am always trying to understand and I appreciate your help. Thank you, Vance

 

[GyroRon]

For no reason I can understand, it seems some people like the look of a machine sitting as low to the ground as possible. The RAF is low to the ground - the cabin that is -

The Sparrowhawk sits up high on long gear legs. It also has a big tail and is just all together more stuff sitting out there to look at. To some people it is ugly.

You find the same stuff with fixed wings. Some people think high wings are ugly or just not desirable. Others like high wings and not low wings. Some people think if a plane is not a taildragger it is ugly and not manly to fly.... And there again others think a taildragger is too un-practical to be useful unless your a bush pilot flying out of the backwoods.

I think Paul is trying to keep his machine as low to the ground as possible to appeal to those who want a safer machine than a RAF but want that low rider look.

The tall machines only advantage is better handling and safety in flight. On the ground the low rider machines have far more advantages than a tall machine.... easier to put the blades on, easier to reach parts for service or inspection, may fit in a garage where others might not, possible better ground handling since it has a lower center of gravity, etc.....

I myself find beauty in the tall machines. The function over form that most tall machines have is what attracts me to them.

 

[Vance]

Thank you Ron, That is nicely put. Thank you, Vance

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Ron, you are right.....

Ron, you are right.....

.....about peoples likes and dislikes, but I disagree with your comment. The tall machines only advantage is better handling and safety in flight..

My Firebird is/will be CLT with an effective stab, and meets/will meet the stick fixed stability tests as per Greg Grimmingers comments. That combination is as safe as any other gyroplane for flight safety. Hybrid has proved that for me.

Aussie Paul.

 

[mceagle]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here with some trying to compare apples to oranges and bringing in too many variables. It would be more advantageous to stick to one of the variables and get the correct answer before introducing another into the equation.
For example there seems to be a pre conceived notion in this discussion that CLT means you must have a higher Gyro. This is incorrect and only confuses the issue for those trying to understand. In fact the whole gyro should remain the same external dimentions, it is only the C of G that is raised.
The only reasons I am aware of for having a taller Gyro is so that you can swing a longer prop or have more rotor to ground clearance - and this in itself is another variable that should be discussed separately on its own merits or disadvantages.

 

[GyroRon]

Pic # 1 is what I consider a low machine

Pic # 2 is what I consider a tall machine

Both are the same machine but one is IMHO much safer to fly than the other just by the design of the machine. Sure there is many other aspects you could debate over tall verses short, but I am saying I personally prefer the taller machine for it's safety, and at the same time agree with paul that the short machine is what most people would find much sexy or attractive or pretty or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Vance]

Thank you Ron, I feel that the tall machine looks graceful, like a tall woman with long legs, I feel like the short one looks like a clumsy brute. Sort of like the hunchback of Note dame. Like I said, my taste is a little off. Thank you, Vance

 

[GyroRon]

Vance I am with you.... I mean these things aren't go karts or meant for high speeds on the ground. Who cares if you got to step up into it? You got to step up into most all other aircraft. Think about what other airplanes, helicopters, hotair ballons etc.... that you don't have to step up into.... Beside older design gyroplanes and some ultralight airplanes, everything else is a step up to get in. Function over form!!!!

 

[Jerseywing]

If something is unruly or a handful to operate it doesn't matter how beautiful the lines are, it'll become ugly on you.. Look at the long raked hard tail choppers beautiful lines, look great, try riding one 4-500 miles in a day it'll be ugly real quick. Form over function is nice for some furniture, but when it comes to things mechanical ugly can be better. Besides as they say "Beauty Is In The Eyes Of The Beholder"

 

[Gordon Gibson]

Or better still, I like that one in the background of pic#1...the one wid' duh prop on the front!
The world needs more tractor gyro's.

By the way Ron, thanks for your excellent pics of your trip to Florida. Appreciate your time and efforts.

Thanks, Gordon Gibson NZ.

 

[WindRyder06]

Ron I wilth you on this... Shoot the Huey you had to step up to get into it and it was ugly to some but I loved the way she flew and looked.....LOL

 

[GyroRon]

Well Chris.... you know you had the worlds best looking gyro ever. But it wasn't a safe design. It had looks that could kill! why not post a pic of it...

Gordon, your welcome. don't know if you knew it but the one in the background in that picture got crashed and is no more. Pilot landed it sideways and tipped it over.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

My idea is to have both Safety and a marketable Form...

My idea is to have both Safety and a marketable Form...

...In real terms, the lower you can keep the CoM for ground handling the better, and for safest flight have thrust line within 2" or 3" of the CoM with an effective stab.

A gyro can be designed to those specs quite easily.

Aussie Paul.

 

[skyflea73]

Picture #1 background Pit-bull gyro

Picture #1 background Pit-bull gyro

Hi GyroRon,

Just giving you an update on the pit-bull gyro in the background. If this is the same pit-bull gyro (looks exactly the same) that my friend Ken Bricker purchased, it will be flying again by spring time. This will be his second gyro he has restored from the grave.

Darren Twellman