Crashes?

[Aussie_Paul]

Chuck, may I add a little something?

Chuck, may I add a little something?

Chuck you said, "The gyro, once the pilot is properly trained, is a very safe machine to fly."

May I offer a slight variation to your statement?

A correctly designed gyro, once the pilot is properly trained, is a very safe machine to fly.

The two "design & training" go hand in hand to make flying a gyroplane safer than any other aircraft, in an average of all types of conditions.

Aussie Paul.

 

[Chuck Irby]

Aussie Paul, I totally agree with you. It's just that I am so accustomed to flying a properly designed machine, that part slipped my mind.

 

[Thomas]

OK, I am begining to understand. What I have here is a failure to communicate.

When I say Crash, what I mean is landing the aircraft at a point not originally intended due to something failing or otherwise gettng broken in or on the aircraft; this is what you all refer to as a forced landing.

Forced landing, what I mean is a landing due to external forces impeding progress such as Wx, unforseen restriction to flight such as a TFR, low fuel condition; this is refered to as: a power out condition (a broken engine).

A bit confusing but I will work on it.

Crash (NO) Forced Landing (better) Power Out (Prefered) Got it.

Birdie, you might have to help me on some of this. I might have to learn to speak Australian to understand what is going on.

Oh yes, almost forgot... These are NOT ULTRALIGHTS.

 

[Chopper Reid]

Thomas, the media use the term "crash " to sensationalize anything other than a normal landing .
Watching the news one night, the lead story was " airliner plunges 20,000feet" !! No aircraft "plunges" and when the story came out, it was a 747 jumbo that flew into volcanic dust and suffered the loss of three engines. Due to the fact that oxygen is a scarce commodity at 38,000 feet, an emergency descent was initiated by the well trained crew till by about 12,000 feet and by then, at least two engines were able to be restarted and everyone could breathe without oxygen masks. I must admit, it would have been a intersting ride but at no time was the 747 not in complete controll.
Its just a matter of how you use words.
If your aircraft has power, then any landing due to low fuel etc, is merely a "precautionary" landing .
Dont worry, you arent the only one posting here that has got into trouble for their use of the english language.

 

[StanFoster]

Birdy: Cant wait to see more cow mustering....

 

[birdy]

Stan,mate,coz of all the "kill joys" in the world,there won't be much to see,only high altitude[200'] S&L shots.

 

[Doug Riley]

Thomas, some gyros are legal ultralights and some aren't. Gyros can be built either way. So far, it appears that only 2-stroke powered gyros can comply with the Part 103 weight limit for ultralights. I've attached a picture of my Gyrobee, a Part 103 ultralight.

Self-training has at least as much to do with the ultralight accident rate (in both fixed-wing and rotary-wing craft) as any other single factor. In giving gyro instruction to both G.A. pilots and total aviation novices, I've found that

(1) In a gyro designed to be stable, a G.A. pilot can handle one almost immediately AT ALTITUDE, after a short pre-flight briefing (the total beginners can, too, but it takes them a couple hours to get smooth and coordinated), but...

(2) A G.A. pilot canNOT, without a few hours' practice, safely land or take off a gyro. Many try anyway, with no instruction, and that leads to a great many of the gyro prangs you read about.

Landing a gyro isn't difficult, but it's quite different than landing a Cessna. Unlearning Cessna reflexes is what takes the time.

Takeoff is the single most difficult basic flight task. Unlike the hammer-it-and-go technique for Cessnas, in a gyro you must coordinate ground, air and rotor speeds. Part throttle is often called for, and large amounts of rudder and side-stick are necessary to counteract torque in some (but not all!) models. It takes practice and is best learned with an instructor along to save your bacon when things go bad.

 

[PW_Plack]

Ron A said,

"...the fact that these are homebuilt and not using Certified powerplants is the main reason most of the people here have had engine outs."

It's not the lack of FAA certification that makes most gyro engines more likely to fail, it's cheapskate or haphazard design, installation and/or maintenance of fuel, cooling and ignition systems, including contaminated fuel. How many threads do we read here about guys taking a guess on how to hook up fuel pumps? You have to do your homework, pay attention to manufacturer recommendations, and get this stuff right if you want reliability.

Most of the engine-outs I've seen described here would have happened just as certainly to a Continental A-75 in a comparable installation.

The engineers of the 1930s did a terrific job developing today's certificated aircraft engines with the materials and machining techniques of their time, but a skillfully converted EFI Soob with a similar maintenance regimen should be at least as reliable. I especially like EFI and redundant electronic ignitions. I know a veteran gyro pilot with over 1,000 hours on mostly 582s, who's never had one fail in flight.

I lost a cylinder in flight on two Continentals in two different planes in my first 120 hours as a fixed-wing pilot. I no longer put much stock in the government's very expensive seal of approval on an engine.

 

[Udi]

...but a skillfully converted EFI Soob with a similar maintenance regimen should be at least as reliable...

Not a chance. The secret for the reliability of the Continentals and Lycomings is in their solid construction and simplicity of operation. No way a soob conversion can get even close in terms of reliability. Your own bad experience is not a good gauge of their history. Engine failures in properly maintained aircraft engines are very very rare. Most dead stick landings/crashes are a result of fuel starvation or other kinds of neglect.

Udi

 

[birdy]

I gota agree Udi,the rotax 4 bangers are very basic,push rod engines.
I never did like the "rubber band" driving the cam in the EJ22.
For most people it's not a concern,but here rubber perishes much quicker and I didn't like the idea of fly'n over these ranges with it.
It wasn't the forced landing I was worried about,it was how to git the machine out if I did go down.Most cases would mean using Bell 47 or similar to lift it out coz theres no ground access for 100 miles.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Preventative maintenance with the belt Birdy. Why would you let it perish?

Aussie Paul.

 

[PW_Plack]

Udi, I think the EFI Soobs are also pretty solid if slightly more complicated, and they'll never have pistons melt from pilot carelessness with manual mixture controls, or scuff and seize due to shock cooling on a careless rapid descent.

I'm with Aussie Paul on this one...If you're going to do 25-hour oil change and maintenance intervals anyway, put inspection of the cam belt on the checklist. Subaru probably calls for them to be replaced at 60,000 miles in the car, equivalent to about 1200 hours. At the higher RPM at which we run them, surely they should be reliable for 200 hours?

 

[birdy]

I installed a new belt with bearings in the first 150 hours [12 months]coz it was showing signes of perishing already.Not to mention the other belts and bearings exposed to the eliments.Alot more maintinance than the donk thats there now.
But the belt was only one reason I changed it Paul.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Fair enough. Only joking Birdy!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.

 

[Thomas]

..............
If your aircraft has power, then any landing due to low fuel etc, is merely a "precautionary" landing . Dont worry, you arent the only one posting here that has got into trouble for their use of the english language.

Well, see this is another rewording for me, precautionary landing to me means any landing at an unintended site due to unforseen conditions that require the pilot to decide possible safety issues by continuing the flight into the existing conditions: such as, something falling off the aircraft, a loud unexplainable noise emitted from the aircraft, unexpected vibrations, FOD damage, bird strike etc. (low fuel meaning "engine out" is a forced landing; however, low fuel requiring refueling at an unintended location is precautionary).

I don't mean to be difficult and I am learning much about the gyro environment and the people who fly them, but someone mentioned earlier with much brovado, that these craft have N numbers which puts them into General Aviation (I think). And GA is specific in the nomenclature used.

You guys use alot of words I have never heard before and I want to get some of these meanings accurate before I get into a situation where I need clarity only to find I didn't understand the full context. Don't flame me for being ignorant, I learn something new everyday.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Thomas :

Don't worry about being ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics when discussing flying with a lot of the gyroplane group, a lot of them have not availed themselves of formal aviation schooling and are themselves ignorant of the subject.

However if you read this forum long enough the true facts will become evident as we have many knowledgable people here..........

P.S.

You are correct regarding the precautionary landing thing...even the dictonary will explain what the word means.

Chuck E.

 

[KDOG]

Don't worry about being ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics when discussing flying with a lot of the gyroplane group, a lot of them have not availed themselves of formal aviation schooling and are themselves ignorant of the subject.

Now thats a pretty, concieted, arrogant comment. What makes you think "alot" of gyro pilots are stupid and have now education when it comes to aerodynamics?

 

[KenSandyEggo]

He didn't say they were "stupid." It's important that you quote correctly if you're going to quote someone. He said they are ignorant of aerodynamics. For instance, the remaining RAF instructors are ignorant of aerodynamics, a self-evident fact. They advocate flying a very high thrust-offset machine without a horizontal stabilizer. By now, you should know that this is ignorant.

One of them even advocated pushing the stick forward at the top of a climb with power and attempted to justify his position through plagiarism, selective editing and basically lies. That is supremely ignorant. He may have gotten "A"s in history and English, but as to aerodynamics, he gets an "F," and is therefore ignorant......maybe a little stupid too for attempting to bullshit the people here with lies. He was quickly exposed.

P.S. You should be aware by now that a requirement for posting here is your first and LAST name in your profile. Please don't plead "ignorance."

 

[Chaff]

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, Kevin.

Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity can't.

Some of the most intelligent people on the forum don't have much formal schooling. It's obvious, however, that they're gifted. The word ignorant is perhaps pejorative but may be accurate in some circumstances. We need to be mindful of the power of words such as these, Mr. Ellsworth. The impact can be painful.

NB: "i before e except after c", Kev.

 

[Doug Riley]

What we see in some of our more wrong-thinking peers is something a little scarier than either ignorance OR stupidity.

Ignorance is the simple absence of information. It's not much harder to fix than pouring water into an empty bucket -- just add info. People who mean well -- and aren't stupid -- but simply lack info are usually eager to get the data and happy to put it to use ASAP. Our voodoo aerodynamics pals aren't in this category; they're drowning in information and still won't drink a drop.

Stupidity? Maybe, but it takes some brains to build, maintain and fly a gyro (not to mention run a training business, complete with income tax, corporate documents, FAA hoops and all the rest of the legal hooey). CFIs have to show some mental aptitude just to get through all those tests.

What we've got, IMHO, is intentional refusal to learn, motivated by a toxic brew of self-interest and redneck machismo. IOW, an attitude.

The self-interest takes the form of concern about getting one's "factory approval" yanked by the likes of RAF. The machismo turns up in the "us real men don't need us no stinkin' horizontal stabilizers" credo.

Maybe it's resentment of nerds, left over from high school. A dangerous and irrational attitude to have in any technical field, in any case.