Must....fly...a.....gyro *gasp*

[Mylo42]

Hello all,

First things first. I'm a newbie and don't know squat about gyros. There, that's out of the way.

Like all of us that hang around a forum like this, I have an interest.....no....I am fascinated by flight, but until recently, was not in a financial position to pursue it. Since my personal/professional life is now settled, I am now in a real position to invest some time/money into this venture.

I find myself "teetering" between fixed wing ultralights, and gyros. I am leaning towards gyros for their slow speed and STOL capabilities. I own an acreage with a 350' x 100' piece of lawn that I plan on using as an airstrip. Since I am in the Rotary Wing Forum, I suspect that everyone here is PRO gyro but I would be interested in hearing from pilots that perhaps switched from fixed wing to rotary and why.

Like I always do with any major purchase, I research it as much as possible. (perhaps even too much sometimes, delaying other project I have undertaken) I started my research into gyros with the RAF 2000. Why ? , because when I was at an airshow in Moose Jaw Saskatchewan a few years ago, RAF was there with their wares. I still have the brochure and so started there. I had never known gyros to exist before this. (other than from watching Mad Max).

I found myself instantly interested in this unique little flying machine. I am still interested in the RAF 2000 in spite of concerns over stability and here is why:

- First and foremost, I believe the stability concerns with the RAF 2000 can be countered by the inclusion of the H Stab as well as flying/maintaining the thing properly with knowledge of it's limitations, as one should do with anything. (This appears to be quite the discussion / debate amoung gyro guys). I am not an aeronautical engineer or any kind of flight tech guy whatsoever, but the instant I saw the RAF 2000 at that air show, I couldn't help but think to myself, "I wonder how stable this thing is given the centre of gravity appears to be lower than the thrust from the engine (I had no idea terminology such as "thrust line" or CG, or anything even existed. I was just simply making an observation and using common sense on how the thing must fly). I felt quite "smart" after I discovered that this very topic was talked about with......"emotion" even though I didn't know (and still don't) know a darn thing. Reading the numerous testimonials out there, pilots seem quite pleased to full out extatic with their RAF 2000, particularly with the addition of the H Stab. I am looking forward to eventually meeting an RAF 2000 pilot and going for a ride in one.

- The RAF 2000 is manufactured in Canada, 3 hours away from where I live. I suspect this would be a benefit when it comes to service / support / parts, etc. A tour of the manufacturing facility is in the works.

- There is a CFI two hours from where I live.

- I want a 4 stroke engine.

- Like the appearance / cabin of the RAF 2000 as I plan on many cross country flights.


With all this being said, I have not dismissed the comments/concerns over the RAF. It appears that pilot/owners of gyros get very emotionally attached to their respective flying machines which has created some heavily voiced opinions. I am interested in fact. I would like to hear from pilots who have flown the RAF 2000, what they thought of it, did they choose a different manufacturer after having a 'scare' in an RAF ? Please, RAF pilots present and past, enlighten me with your experience with the RAF 2000, good, bad, or otherwise. If you have never flown the RAF 2000, I would appreciate you not commenting.

Thanks for any replies. I am looking forward to educating myself as much as I can about the world of gyros.


Myles Hall
Milestone Saskatchewan, Canada.

 

[ben]

myles
welcome to gyros!!!!!

but buddy get ready and duck !!!!!!!

 

[skyking]

Myles,

Welcome! I am a fixed wing pilot and like you, took many years to decide what I wanted to build and own. My first flight in an RAF 2000 with Larry Boyer out of Morgantown, PA helped me make up my mind that the type of flying I most enjoy is low and slow but with cross country capability. I sold my share of a C172, and in 2004 flew with Terry Eiland at Sun & Fun and purchased a SparrowHawk kit. I have been working on my project for about a year part-time and even took the summer off to travel and ride my Roadking. As soon as I put the bike away I jumped back on my project and I am learning a lot. Today I was working on my seat assembly and by tomorrow I should have those parts built and ready to be fit together for the first time. The RAF is a nice machine but too small for 2 big boys if you plan to fly with the doors on. The SH has adjustable bucket seats and is wider than a C172. Before you decide, fly as many makes and models as you can. You can do this at any of the BIG flyins; I went to Mentone last year for the first time and learned so much about flying and building. A great experience. Check it out and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

 

[Mylo42]

Thanks for the responses.

Ben, I'm hoping to not have to duck. I simply want to be educated.

Skyking. I have been looking at the Sparrowhawk. It looks like that's what the RAF 2000 "should" have been. I certainly see the better design, and this from a layman. $40,000 U.S. is creeping out of my price range, probably $50,000 by the time a guy gets trained.

I might have to wait even longer to pursue my dream of flight. I was hoping to get in around that $30,000 U.S. mark. I would rather wait (save) and get something I want, then buy now and simply settle for what I can afford.

That Sparrowhawk looks like a good gyro. Any comments from pilots/owners of that bird ?

Myles.

 

[MattPearson]

There are a lot of people here that enjoy both fixed and rotary wing. Each for it's own unique flight experience. I am sure that most all would agree on one thing...Forget about a runway that is 350 feet long!!!...that is unless you are planning on helicopter flight only.

 

[GyroRon]

One thing you must understand about asking for advise from owners and pilots of RAF 2000 gyros is alot of them have never flown in what is considered a stable gyro. If a person has never flown in a stable gyro, how can they say a gyro that is known to be unstable is stable? Why would they say that... because they can take their hands off the controls for a minute? Because the thing hasn't killed them yet?? Because it doesn't seem hard to fly? You see if you were taught to ride a unicycle and that is all you ever rode, and everyone knows a bicycle is more stable, how can a unicycle rider really know if his unicycle is stable?

I guess my point is if all you ever have flown in is a RAF. Or prior to flying your RAF your last one or two gyros were also the type that would be labeled as unstable machines... how can you advise people on the stabilty of your gyro when you have not experienced first hand what it really feels like to fly a stable gyro?


The other problem is pride of ownership. This is not just RAF owners that have this problem... it is the mass majority of people on this planet. For example, how many people do you think if asked what they think of their car or truck would tell you they think it is a piece of junk and they wish they had never bought it? How many people do you think will say the same thing about the airplane or gyro they own and fly... or especially built???? Heck I admit I have pride of ownership in my Dominator that is mighty high....

My advise if you want to gather info, is to talk to experienced pilots that don't own a RAF but have time flying them. Pilots that have flown stable and unstable gyros.... See what they say.

 

[ben]

Myles only kidding ,there are some really nice people here and are very willing to help!!!!! so ask away

 

[Vance]

I have flown RAFs configured in several different ways and an AAI modified RAF as well as a SparrowHawk. The were all a lot of fun to fly.

I always found it hard to imagine unloading the rotor, which seems to be the begining of trouble for high thrust line autogiros. In my first hour of ground school learning to fly a Robinson 44 helicopter I was told to avoid negitive Gs. I am Vietnam era and I know that a lot of people had unintended landings from unloading the rotor in a UH1 by flying over the tops of trees and dropping down on the other side. Since no one was shooting at me, I imagined I would never unload the rotor. I trained in Agusta, Kansas and encounted some strong winds.

I trained at Buckeye, Arizona in an autogiro and also encounterd some enviromental roughness. One day we, I was with a CFI named Steve, encountered a thermal that took us up 1,800 feet like we were in an elevator. On the otherside of that thermal the rotor speed droped nearly as fast as we did. Steve cut the power and it was kind of a non event, but it let me know that sometimes the rotor will unload. How something feels before this happens has little to do with how it will respond when it does.

I used to roadrace motorcycles and I developed the feeling that if I handled something several times there was nothing to be concerned about. As you can imagine at some point I found that there was something to be concerned about. For some, in an aircraft there is not a chance to recall this, as flying is less forgiving than even high speed motorcycles.

It is my opinion, as a non expert, that you will get more pleasure from a SparrowHawk. It seems to be Stan's opinion also. I know that funding can be daunting, but lust has always overcome my inability to pay. Getting what you realy want is a way of knowing that your life is lived well.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Mylo42]

Ron,

I appreciate and understand fully what you are saying. I should have made my initial post more clear. I am, in fact, looking for opinions from pilots that have flown "stable" and "unstable" gyros. What I meant by my "please don't respond if you have never flown an RAF" comment is simply that I didn't wan't someone telling me how "technically", the thing is unstable (I figured that out years ago with one look). I wanted honest opinions from guys that have actually flown one. I agree with you completely. Those that have experience in multiple design types (both "stable" and "unstable" if you will) are those whos opinions I would be most interested in hearing.

Matt....I was wondering about the 350' runway too. I mean, I see claims boasting under 100' for STOL type aircraft (both rotary and fixed) and I think to myself...."ya....with a 30kt headwind...MAYBE". I'm scepticle by nature. I hardly believe anything I hear and believe less and less of what I see (with digital tech). ...and I NEVER buy anything that someone is TRYING to sell me. I am hoping that this forum will at the very least give me ideas to ponder and research further and at most, be a valueable / trustworthy resource. My neighbour (if 2 mi. away is a "neighbour" has a table top 1/4 section of land that I think I can talk him out of me using a 50' wide piece which would be a 1/2 mi long.......that should do it. All the same, it's little pieces of info like that that I find useful. Thanks again Matt.

Ron....by the way.....my Chevy P/U is a piece of junk that I wouldn't sell to my worst enemy. I rebuilt the motor a year ago and screwed it up, resulting in me pulling it again and having a real mechanic fix it. Lessons Learned: 1) I have had problems with Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. To me, they are all the same. I am not biased nor do I favour any particular make. 2) When you blow a main bearing which damages a connecting rod in a 1995 Chevy 350 cu in., motor, just buy a whole new engine block, crank, mains....you'll save yourself a ton of money and grief. Or better yet, go to a scrap yard and get a decent 350 for a couple hundred bucks. My point. Live and Learn. I don't give a rats about telling people about it. The same will be for my gyro...when I get it. Maybe I'm an exception to the rule but If I had a tip / info that would save a guy a lot of money, or perhaps his life....I could put my pride on hold. (maybe I just helped a guy that blew up his chevy 350).

Myles.

 

[Mylo42]

Vance, ....that's the kind of input I'm looking for. Thank you very much.


Myles.

Vietnam era UH-1 Pilot.....would I love to hear your stories.

 

[Vance]

Your welcome Miles,

I am not and never have been a UH-1 pilot. I feel that they are bigger than life and operate well beyond anything I have encountered in my lifetime. I used this example to help you understand that not all unloading of the rotor in intentional. I imagined that since no one was shooting at me, I would not be motivated to unload the rotor. In my ignorance I imagined that unloading a teeter rotor was only done because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I believed that having the knoledge that it is always a bad idea to unload the rotor would keep me from doing it.

I am an NTSB accident report enthusist and study helicopter and autogiro accident reports regularly. I believe that sometimes unexpected things happen in the air very quickly and having an aircraft that is more tolerant of the pilots inability to respond in a timeley way has value.

There are many RAF pilots with a lot of time that haven't had a problem. This is why I made it clear that I am not an expert.

Thank you, Vance

 

[PW_Plack]

Myles,

I'm pretty new to gyros, but have read reports from many people who've flown both gyros and fixed-wing ULs. From what I can gather, there are a number of fixed-wing ULs which could easily use a 350-foot strip, but are very limited by winds, becoming a dawn-or-dusk-only proposition. A light, single-place gyro with a ferocious prerotator might get off consistently in 350 feet, but with no margin for winds or a worn clutch. It would, however, be the better choice on a windy day.

As for the RAF, I can only go by the NTSB's accident report database. The disturbing part of the pattern in the reports is the number of fatalities among pilots with thousands of hours in other aircraft, who crashed within a few hours of being signed off to solo. There are two interpretations: RAF's official line is that the pilots lacked adequate training, experience and/or judgement. Many experienced observers of the sport conclude that the machine's level of stability is a major factor.

Welcome to the forum, and I applaud your decision to check this issue out thoroughly.

 

[Mylo42]

My attention is quickly turning to the Sparrowhawk....which.....looks like a "stable" RAF 2000. Here's what I don't like about the SH:

1) Price.....not that I don't think it's worth it, it's just more than I wanted to spend.

2) Availability of finding a CFI in southern Saskatchewan Canada.

3) I don't know....it looks "wobbly" on the ground to me. (the low profile of the RAF is one thing I liked about it) I can see it tipping over during taxi / landing. Has anyone ever thought of modifying the landing gear to make the wheels farther apart ? Is this an idea to think about ? What about having some sort of suspension in the landing gear that can absorb a little impact (coil over shocks) much like the design of an off road racer, or perhaps it spring loaded like a piper cub ? Maybe some camber (then it might track like **** I suppose)......man, I hope I'm not sounding too stupid. I was just thinking that if there was a little more room for pilot error in landing the SH, it would lessen the risk of tipping it over....and ruining your day.

My research will continue.....

I do like that SH bird though. I looks like a good cross country gyro.

......now where did I put that $40,000 I had kicking around ???

Myles.

 

[GyroRon]

If I am not mistaken, Stan Foster really downplayed the tall center line thrust machines back about two years ago when he and I first started chatting. He was convinced that the tallness of the machine and the long landing gear is a big weak point, and to me it seemed like he had made up his mind that it would be better to fly a low machine like a RAF and take the chances with the thrustline issues over the risk of a flip over on the ground due to the landing gear.

Ask him now what he thinks.


I can not vouch for the Sparrowhawk, but on my Dominator which has much weaker strength gear, but just as tall, I have driven over ditches, had my share of hard landings, let others fly it who REALLY had some seriously hard landings, and even tried taking off out a landing strip that was too short and ended up dragging the landing gear for about 500-600 feet through waist high soybean plants - this should have caused a crash and I still don't know how I was able to fly out of that mess. I have never had a problem with my gear.

My machine needs 500-550 feet to take off everytime, slightly less with some wind blowing down the runway.

I have flown in ALOT of other peoples machines - I have even been paid to fly out to another state and test fly a mans gyro. I have flown in a RAF, but not a Sparrowhawk, at least not yet. I have flown in 3 RAFs to be exact, and all three had stabilizers on the tail. All three flew OK, but also at the same time none of the three ever felt solid in pitch, even with stabs on them. There was a constant and slight hunting motion in pitch that bothered me a little.

If your comfortable with the RAF for what it really is and want to save a few bucks then go for it. I would own and fly one myself with some special modifications.

A few things to consider about the RAF compared to the Sparrowhawk as far as price goes.....

RAF doesn't seem to know how to make a good set of rotorblades. They have recalled all the earlier blades, they have had hubbar problems, most owners experience cracking in the gel coat and some even go into the fiberglass itself. You may buy a brand new RAF2000 and a year or two from now have to buy new blades because the ones that came with the kit cracked too much or end up recalled...

The Sparrowhawk comes with a set of Sportcopter blades that are the top of the line of all gyro rotorblades. This is a major upgrade over RAF blades even for a RAF gyro. With the RAF you are getting 2500$ RAF blades, with sparrowhawk your getting close to 6000$ Sportcopter blades.

To get a apples to apples comparison between the two you have to compare the top of the line RAF with the 2.5 engine to the Sparrowhawk, and when you do that, there is little price difference.

 

[Udi]

1) Price.....not that I don't think it's worth it, it's just more than I wanted to spend.

Some people buy a used RAF 2000 for ~US$20K and modify it with the AAI stability augmentation kit for ~ US$7.5K. An even more economical modification is the Paul Bruty/Larry Boyer drop keel modification that could be done I hear for less than $1K. The latter mod is for sure not as good as the AAI mod, in terms of stability, but it may be good enough for you, and the lower cabin location would address your #3 concern.

2) Availability of finding a CFI in southern Saskatchewan Canada.

You may train with the RAF CFI until you are ready to solo, and then meet with a SH CFI for a short transition to your SH. A stable gyro is much easier to fly than an unstable one, so the transition should be very easy for you.

Udi

 

[Vance]

You sound smart to me Miles. All rotorcraft like to tip over. All tricycles like to tip over. There have been tip over accidents in both the RAF and the SparrowHawk. Better suspension is good. Wider track in my opinion is good, but probably wouldn't help much. If the rotor is not going around, there is very little tendency to tip. During take off I would get close to 60 miles per hour on the ground without being aware of any tip over tendency. Most of the tip overs are in landing, and there is no need to land with much foward speed. You will quickly learn this.

I am blind in one eye and I have trouble telling where the ground is. I have over 200 landings in an AAI modified RAF, which is just as tall as a SparrowHawk, and is spite of my handycap, my instructors were able to keep the rotor side up.

Training is a challenge, I went 500 mile to Buckeye and 1800 miles to Agusta. Training doesn't take that long and there are SparrowHawk dealers with training available in several locations. Commecial airlines make the world a small place, although, in the spirit of full disclosure, I drive everywhere.

Come to Bensen days and get an introductory training in several different makes, or Mentone. You will find threads about both events on the forum.

It is my opinion that Autogiros are more fun flying low and slow than any other aircraft. In the world of Aviation, they are not that expensive and compared to a helicopter, they are cheap.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Timchick]

AAI has changed the landing gear a little on the newer kits. I haven't seen any photos of the newer setup yet but it's suppose to be an improvement over the original.

 

[GyroChuck]

AAI has changed the landing gear a little on the newer kits. I haven't seen any photos of the newer setup yet but it's suppose to be an improvement over the original.

Actually they changed it a lot. The 3 attach points to the wheel assembly are beefed up and welded. The landing gear struts are thicker and beefier.

 

[Mylo42]

Reply

Reply

Gentlemen, your candid responses are most welcome. I have already gained valuable insight to the world of gyros.

Vance, I suppose "smart" is relative......but I'll take any compliment I can get. I don't think I'm smart....just.....a stubborn researcher. I will not think of buying a gyro that I haven't ridden in first hand and perhaps taken the stick for a little (even if it means renting one) in order that I can form my own opinions. My brother just purchased a......ah shoot, I can't remember the brand name of the thing, ....but it's a 2 man helicopter (Not a Robinson) that is "experimental". It cost him $85,000 Canadian (used). I've been for a rip in that thing and loved it (It really sparked my interest in gyros as I simply can not afford a helicopter of any kind and figured a gyro was the next best thing. The ride in my brother's heli swayed me to gyro over fixed wing). But in all honesty, other than hovering, it looks as though a gyro will perform just as well, burn less fuel and be all around cheaper to run ....but, I suppose hovering is certainly an asset to have in certain circumstances. My 350' runway would do the job then.

Ron....interesting. The high profile gyros concern me a little with ground stability but, I'm basing that simply on how the things look to me. Perhaps actually piloting them is, as you say, no biggie. This is why I mention such things as suspension in the gear, to help with stability in landing in particular..........just had a thought......has anyone ever mounted skis on one or......gulp......floats ? (I'll let someone else test that one). One thing I will say, the big wheels on the taller gear gyros look like a good idea for "off runway" landings / take offs.

Now, how about this......

What would happen to the geometry of the SH if an external fuel cell was mounted underneath the keel between the wheels ? Is this going to duplicate an unstable situation of a lower CG to THL....or, will it have little effect on stability due to being mounted very close to directly under the mast and thus lessening the lower CG effect that it is creating because the leverage is less (than say for eg. the leverage that a pilot in an RAF is creating by being situated far from the mast and below the THL)...particularly if the fuel cell was aerodynamically efficient ? As I was looking at photos of the SH, I was wondering if an external fuel cell mounted in this area would be feasible. If so, it would add benefit (to me anyway) to the high profile in taking advantage of that space under the cabin while increasing fuel capacity by...say....5 or 6 gal, perhaps more. It sounds as though that 2.5L plant would be able to handle the extra weight / air resistance created by it. Range would be a very important factor for me in a gyro.

I'm kind of getting off my original topic here, but I'm enjoying the discussion on these things. More than anything, I think it takes an odd person to go up in one much less buy one......that's why I think I'm made for them. I'm a wierd / odd guy......that wants to being a wierd / odd guy that flies. What scares me is I had a fleeting thought of selling my rental property in order to "up my budget" for a gyro. This would be a very stupid thing to do..........I just might put that "smart" comment to test there Vance.

"Don't do it Myles.............don't do it......be a good boy and save up......."

Sheesh.


Myles.

 

[GyroRon]

Skis can be mounted on a gyro without problems. Floats can be mounted but the aerodynamics of them, and the weight they add and where that weight is added vertically on the gyro can make for unfavorable flight characteristics. I myself would never try to mess with floats on a gyro. I tell everyone who really wants to fly off the water that if they want to do that bad enough, they need to look at a Ultralight or light sport airplane on floats and they will be much happier in the end.

Adding the fuel cell underneith any gyro will be doable, but at the same time it has the effect of lowering the vertical center of gravity making the thrustline effectively higher. Could make a dangerous machine like the RAF much more dangerous, or a safe machine like a Sparrowhawk less safe... The tanks that are built in hold a few hours worth of gas and take it from me, after a hour or two in the seat of any gyro you will want to land somewhere and take a break, just land somewhere with gas and you don't need belly tanks and so on.

The idea that the tall machines are too easy to flip over comes up alot. The fact of the matter is, if we try to drive our gyros around like Go karts, then yes a gyro like my Dominator will tip over much easier than a gyrobee. But in the real world of flying a gyro there is no reason to taxi it around like a Go Kart. You taxi no faster than the speed of a person jogging and you try to land with little to no forward speed after touch down and you should not have any problems. During takeoff when the rolling on the ground speed will have to be fast, the rotor as it spools up to speed has the effect of stabilizing the airframe and as long as you are holding the stick where it needs to be held takeoffs should be the most stable phase of gyro ground handling.

Have you sat in a RAF? Have you sat in a Sparrowhawk? Unless you are a really small person, I can not see how anyone who has sat in both would pick the RAF over it. I am big person but not really big.... 5'11 200-210 lbs..... and I find the RAF uncomfortable in every way. The rudder pedals are not centered in front of me, the angle of the seat and seatback is too upright for my taste, the cabin is too narrow especially in the area around my head. To me if feels like flying in a sardine can... The Sparrowhawk is so much roomier it is night and day difference from the RAF. You sit on comfortable and adjustable bucket seats, the cabin sides are not right in your face, the pedals are centered in front of you, the thing just feels big inside. Kind of like getting out of a Cessna 150 with two big guys and getting into a Piper Tomahawk, much roomier and much more comfortable.

I am a cheapass, I have a hard time finding the desire to spend 40 grand on a gyro period. I would like a two place enclosed machine though. I have considered buying a RAF and would buy one. Not new though, but if I found a good used one for 15-20 grand I might would get one. I would get the Stabilator and a Aircommand horizontal stab on a extended keel and would also consider doing Larry Boyers drop keel mod. And I would fly it with care and feel I would be okay. I would be cramped and uncomfortable but would have a enclosed gyro for 10-15 grand less than a new one like it and 20 grand mess than the Sparrowhawk. If I ever get the desire to buy and build a new two place enclosed I would buy the Sparrowhawk.