Fatal - Cavalon G-CKYT, Scotland, UK

[Greg Vos]

Wow a glider of Everest...this is one interesting guy I have been to Everest and even at Lukla some 9986ft it’s tricky. I have not looked into his ocean crossing video but without protracted thought he must have taken loads of fuel for the flight? My gyro with rotax will burn 21/l per hour so with the compres he would have had the entire rear seat full of gas and possibly side tanks ?
Either way a fantastic achievement and one for the records..do you know if he flew it back?

 

[wolfy]

Wow a glider of Everest...this is one interesting guy I have been to Everest and even at Lukla some 9986ft it’s tricky. I have not looked into his ocean

crossing video but without protracted thought he must have taken loads of fuel for the flight? My gyro with rotax will burn 21/l per hour so with the compres he would have had the entire rear seat full of gas and possibly side tanks ?
Either way a fantastic achievement and one for the records..do you know if he flew it back?

He had an atos rigid wing with a powered harness to fly over everest.
He also used to have a trained eagle that would fly with him on his hang glider harness, he would let it off if he couldn't find a thermal then it would come back and land on his harness. Flying is his life he has achieved way more than most but not once did he do anything for admiration.
He made a carbon fibre tank the completely filled the space behind him for 200 litre's and the Kompress charlie model holds 60 litres for 260 total. The 914 in a Kompress is not working hard so they don't use a lot of fuel, me flying solo I used 16 lph and at gross they use less than 20. In saying that Mathew would have been over gross but he still had more than 12 hours endurance.
He flew around the world on the way home, he put it down in Russia somewhere for some minor repairs and Russia made it hard for him regarding airspace so it made for some delays.

wolfy
He still fly's that aircraft it has thousand's of hours on it.

wolfy

 

[Greg Vos]

He had an atos rigid wing with a powered harness to fly over everest.
He also used to have a trained eagle that would fly with him on his hang glider harness, he would let it off if he couldn't find a thermal then it would come back and land on his harness. Flying is his life he has achieved way more than most but not once did he do anything for admiration.
He made a carbon fibre tank the completely filled the space behind him for 200 litre's and the Kompress charlie model holds 60 litres for 260 total. The 914 in a Kompress is not working hard so they don't use a lot of fuel, me flying solo I used 16 lph and at gross they use less than 20. In saying that Mathew would have been over gross but he still had more than 12 hours endurance.
He flew around the world on the way home, he put it down in Russia somewhere for some minor repairs and Russia made it hard for him regarding airspace so it made for some delays.

wolfy
He still fly's that aircraft it has thousand's of hours on it.

wolfy

Big thread drift ...but I am very curious about your comment ...the 914 in the Kompress does not work hard? My exp in helicopters is that the engines (piston driven) work very hard and especially on take of and landing ...we must have to look at the rotorway as an example? What am I missing

 

[wolfy]

Big thread drift ...but I am very curious about your comment ...the 914 in the Kompress does not work hard? My exp in helicopters is that the engines (piston driven) work very hard and especially on take of and landing ...we must have to look at the rotorway as an example? What am I missing

Rotary wing as you know is not an efficient way to fly, so helicopters being the worst they need to keep the weight down.
One way is by providing just enough power to do the job and thus not adding more weight than needed via a large engine.
The 914 being turbo charged has a lot of torque per weight and so a lot of power in reserve.
I used to fly a Kompress and even as a very heavy pilot and full fuel I could hover out of ground effect at 31" MAP and cruise at 75-80 knots at 28-29". Lots of power in reserve means the engine is doing it easy.

Sorry about the thread drift.

wolfy

 

[loftus]

You read that correctly ....

You should all take the opportunity to get a ride in an Aircam. Takeoff, climb at 300 plus feet per minute, land - all on one engine. And on water as well in the amphib. If you look at some of the videos on their website aircam.com you can find one where this is demonstrated.
All depends on the degree of yaw created with loss of one engine which is related to the distance between the props. But yes single engine performance and management on one engine is critical. I've contacted the guys at Fusioncopter, hope to hear more.

 

[Doug Riley]

Leigh, sorry, I thought you were commenting specifically on the accident that is (or originally was) the subject of this thread.

The fact pattern you describe is almost a cliche with the "classic" Bensen B-8 Bunt-o-matic: no HS, somewhat high thrustline and high-RPM , light blades with little rotor damping. Such a craft is an accident waiting to happen in the hands of anyone (BA veteran or not) who has not developed test-pilot-type control habits. The necessary reflexes aren't that difficult to learn, but things happen too fast in flight for you to figure them out as you go.

Today's Euro-tub gyros, of which the accident craft was apparently one, are so different in airframe and rotor design from a Bensen that the old Bensen student-pushover template doesn't apply. It's still possible to get into trouble, of course, if you don't yet know how to fly the aircraft. Aggressive new gyro pilots are apt to find this out in a tragic manner.

 

[GyrOZprey]

Tyger, About 1500 ft, IIRC. A calculated risk.

Rotors coming off, maybe once in 5000 machines....
Prop coming off, maybe once in 5000 machines....
Engine failure over water, maybe once in 5000 machines....

In my short 10 years involved in the world of gyroplanes ...I have witnessed the fatal accident of our club president ...when his rotors departed @ 200ft AGL ... AND my good friend & stellar CFI had a prop come apart when a faulty cast hub disintegrated - on take-off ( with no good landing options ahead!) ...from about 300 ft she executed a beautiful 180 & downwind return to runway and safe evacuation of front seat student ...and engine was on fire due to torn fuel lines from carbs shook off from extreme vibrations & inability to kill aux fuel pump from rear seat!
....thats 2 of your 3 events in 10,000 machines ...in just the last 6 years! ( & many fewer than 10,000 active machines - worldwide!)
HMMMMM ....??????????

 

[JETLAG03]

I had a prop destroyed on takeoff just as I left the ground... hence my new prop .. debris on the runway

 

[Tyger]

What was it destroyed your prop, Jetlag?

 

[JETLAG03]

What was it destroyed your prop, Jetlag?

We never found out. Four of us walked up and down the runway and each side for about 20 metres just in case there was anything else. Whatever it was hit one blade denting it and the second blade exploded, I heard the band the gyro went crazy so I cut the ignition, I had just left the ground fortunately.

 

[JETLAG03]

I fancied a new prop but did not expect to get one like this.

Funny how the nerves kick in about 20 minutes later.

 

[Greg Vos]

We never found out. Four of us walked up and down the runway and each side for about 20 metres just in case there was anything else. Whatever it was hit one blade denting it and the second blade exploded, I heard the band the gyro went crazy so I cut the ignition, I had just left the ground fortunately. View attachment 1149815View attachment 1149816

Glad you did the right thing shutting it down ASAP it could have been bad ...looks like a manufacturer problem with leading edge coming apart.

 

[JETLAG03]

Glad you did the right thing shutting it down ASAP it could have been bad ...looks like a manufacturer problem with leading edge coming apart.

It was debris we think on the runway, there is a small mark in picture one just above the aero sign and the second blade hit the object on the leading edge...it made rather a big bang and shook like crazy, my kill switch is about 4cm from the throttle where my left hand was during the take off run so quickly to the switch.

 

[EI-GYRO]

Leigh, sorry, I thought you were commenting specifically on the accident that is (or originally was) the subject of this thread.

The fact pattern you describe is almost a cliche with the "classic" Bensen B-8 Bunt-o-matic: no HS, somewhat high thrustline and high-RPM , light blades with little rotor damping. Such a craft is an accident waiting to happen in the hands of anyone (BA veteran or not) who has not developed test-pilot-type control habits. The necessary reflexes aren't that difficult to learn, but things happen too fast in flight for you to figure them out as you go.

Today's Euro-tub gyros, of which the accident craft was apparently one, are so different in airframe and rotor design from a Bensen that the old Bensen student-pushover template doesn't apply. It's still possible to get into trouble, of course, if you don't yet know how to fly the aircraft. Aggressive new gyro pilots are apt to find this out in a tragic manner.

Perhaps the Cavalon is not bunt-proof. Have a look at the following report. Even if you are not fluent in Japanese, it is pretty clear.

 

[TyroGyro]

The Japanese incident was an unregistered machine, unqualified "pilot", illegal, un-commanded take-off.

 

[TyroGyro]

In my short 10 years involved in the world of gyroplanes ...I have witnessed the fatal accident of our club president ...when his rotors departed @ 200ft AGL ... AND my good friend & stellar CFI had a prop come apart when a faulty cast hub disintegrated - on take-off ( with no good landing options ahead!) ...from about 300 ft she executed a beautiful 180 & downwind return to runway and safe evacuation of front seat student ...and engine was on fire due to torn fuel lines from carbs shook off from extreme vibrations & inability to kill aux fuel pump from rear seat!
....thats 2 of your 3 events in 10,000 machines ...in just the last 6 years! ( & many fewer than 10,000 active machines - worldwide!)
HMMMMM ....??????????

When I speak, I speak only of the "Big-3" Eurotubs.
About 5000, and counting.
I have gathered and analysed every fatal accident that I can find.

 

[Greg Vos]

When I speak, I speak only of the "Big-3" Eurotubs.
About 5000, and counting.
I have gathered and analysed every fatal accident that I can find.

I will say that you do a very in depth analysis at no cost to members for gyro safety your data is a great comparison tool and informative

 

[EI-GYRO]

The Japanese incident was an unregistered machine, unqualified "pilot", illegal, un-commanded take-off.

Nonetheless, it appears to have bunted. What is an un-commanded takeoff, exactly?
Do you have a translation of this report?
Unregistered means nothing on its own.
'Unqualified ' could mean anything from clueless to lacking paperwork.
Illegal, may or may not be relevant.
Uncommanded takeoff or not, he got high enough to bunt.
PB commented in one of his videos that the stab on the Cavalon is a bit smaller(than what, I don't know).
You remarked on the apparent high speed of the Scottish event.
Fresh coffin corner?
Would love to see the full report.

 

[Doug Riley]

Fully-enclosed machines have an awful lot of area forward of, and below, the CG to try to balance with a H-stab on a short tail arm. The drawings in the Japanese video suggest a combined pitchover and rollover. The latter can result from a combination of engine torque and low center of drag when the craft enters a slip or skid. Uncommanded slip-roll is an old story in gyros, dating back to the early days of the Air & Space 18A.

A smallish H-stab, mounted low, is not going to be much help with slip-roll instability. It may even ADD drag down low when slipped sideways through the air. Short vertical fins, with their aerodynamic centers well below the aircraft's CG, are apt to add to the rolling tendency, too. Ideally, the body pod and the tail group will both have aerodynamic centers as high as the aircraft's CG (i.e. center of mass). Designers who insist on a "lowrider" look make this goal impossible to achieve without auxiliary fins/wings added just to prevent slip-roll.

Cierva & Co. took some pains to address this problem, using wide mast fairings, and even a vertical fin mounted ABOVE the rotor, to prevent divergent slip-roll coupling. The high-dihedral wings on the earlier Ciervas would have done much to prevent this type of instability as well.

It would be helpful if people designing these things would test their airframe's zero-G stability with cheap scale models, instead of exploring the coffin corners by using customers as living crash dummies. "Test their airframe's zero-G stability" is a fancy way of saying test the stability of the airframe WITH its tail group and body pod but WITHOUT its rotor.

 

[Resasi]

I fancied a new prop but did not expect to get one like this.

Nice looking machine.

Glad it worked out safely for you.