PRA - relevance in todays reality!

[BrianInVa]

I'm not talking about threads, I'm talking about your PRA membership! You joined today and you aren't going to renew!

I just printed your membership card. I can cancel the membership and refund your fee if that would be appropriate.

Let me know. Will hold off mailing your card.

Then again, my sincere apologies. I thought this thread and sub forum was about the PRA in particular, not the Rotary Wing Forum in general.

The forum itself and its members have been very helpful and kind and offered much of the kind of input I was searching for. If the PRA and the Rotary Wing Forum comprise the same entity then I’ve been completely wrongheaded in my expressed opinions and again, my apologies.

 

[Doug Riley]

Brian, welcome to the weird world of amateur-built aircraft. Legally and practically, you are the manufacturer of an amateur-built aircraft. Design integrity, construction quality, maintenance -- they all are on you.

I had an interesting colloquy with the FAA inspector who signed off my first Bensen in the 1970's. He griped about the (perfectly OK) scribed reference marks on the pitch-adjusting blocks at the roots of my Bensen metal blades. I said that the factory puts them there. He said "Factory. There is no factory. YOU are the factory." It was like chatting with Yoda.

This lonely responsibility is not for everyone. And not everyone realizes it, because the "factories" market their kit aircraft as if they were drive-away automobiles. They are NOT that.

You need to self-educate to a surprising extent in this activity -- because you need to evaluate the work of the "designers" at the "factory." Some are qualified (very few are real engineers, as Bensen was). Others are strictly eyeball engineers who may not even know how to calculate centrifugal force or do a simple section-modulus analysis of a cantilever beam. One "designer" argued strenuously on this Forum that a gyro doesn't create a downwash in the process of making lift -- a notion that violates the most basic laws of physics.

You can find the technical info you need. It won't be well-curated, though. Some of the best technical data about gyros is in the 1930's NACA reports. Old articles and posts by the late great Chuck Beaty (physics PhD) are almost always insightful.

 

[BrianInVa]

Legally and practically, you are the manufacturer of an amateur-built aircraft. Design integrity, construction quality, maintenance -- they all are on you.

Thank you for this reply. Which brings up a pertinent question - if it’s “all on you” why the concern about liability just for offering prudent suggestions on how to modernize a dino gyro to make it safer?

I have yet to find a single resource for this type of update here or elsewhere.

When I’m done I could post one in the Bensen sub forum if it’s permitted; I’m in a position in life that I’m judgement proof so I’m not too concerned about getting sued and I don’t think the forum can get sued over an obviously newbie gyronaut and his eccentric opinions?

 

[Aerofoam]

Thank you for this reply. Which brings up a pertinent question - if it’s “all on you” why the concern about liability just for offering prudent suggestions on how to modernize a dino gyro to make it safer?

I have yet to find a single resource for this type of update here or elsewhere.

When I’m done I could post one in the Bensen sub forum if it’s permitted; I’m in a position in life that I’m judgement proof so I’m not too concerned about getting sued and I don’t think the forum can get sued over an obviously newbie gyronaut and his eccentric opinions?

I think having a repository for gyro mods that work (And those that don't work) is a good idea, it could be a thread, it maybe should be something PRA has in it's library too. There will always be tinkerers and those who don't want to buy the new whiz bang 5000. I can understand the PRA wanting to separate itself from the renegade faction of flying image that gyros have, but it IS a large part of the history and most significant innovation actually comes from the backyard experimenters. So PRA should probably embrace this unless they only want relevance among the retail customers who buy production gyros.....

 

[WaspAir]

Part of what you are seeing is a natural lack of interest from the world having moved on. You won't find all that much about how to put airbags, anti-lock disc brakes, energy-absorbing steering columns, seat belts with shoulder harnesses, and LED side marker lights on a '47 DeSoto because practicality limits many and originality is valued by some.

Personally, every time a bunt-o-matic from the old days gets deregistered or made into lawn art, I breathe a little easier. If I had specific details on improvements for safety, I would share them, with legal liability being awfully remote for such well-intentioned advice. There is an odd inconsistency in this community, with plenty of folks bending, breaking, or fully ignoring FAA rules and wisdom, but suffering abject terror of a suit from a widow.

 

[BrianInVa]

Personally, every time a bunt-o-matic from the old days gets deregistered or made into lawn art, I breathe a little easier.

Yet I’m being told - repeatedly, by diverse gyro gurus - that modifying a bunt-o-matic dino gyro to simply fly more safely really isn’t that difficult. An 80s Brock like mine doesn’t need all the stuff necessary to upgrade a 40s auto. It primarily needs upgraded to prevent bunting. And that CAN be done - improved hs, center line thrust, better training, etc. - but the common guy trying to get in the air with a used Bensen or Brock doesn’t necessarily know that - or that such an upgrade is even necessary.

Plus the obvious - 40s airplanes are treasured and restored when possible, not relegated solely to lawn art. Surely more can be done with and recommendations made for older gyroplanes, to give the common guy a chance to enjoy the sport too, not just the elite.

 

[BrianInVa]

Flying under the radar as in illegally? Well I don’t know what to say about that.

It should be fairly obvious. Some Bensen/ Brock owners are flying under part 103. My vin states my KB2 weighs 250lbs empty.


Modifying a Bensen/ Brock to solve the bunting issue and/ or mount a more modern two stroke may just make them a bit “fat” for part 103, so in that regard they may want to fly under the FAA’s radar.

Nothing nefarious here. It’s an unspoken secret in the ultralight aircraft community that many, probably the majority, of aircraft being flown under part 103 are indeed a bit “fat.” If it’s only 1 seat and 5 gallons or less, and especially if there’s no tail number, the FAA has bigger fish to fry.

I think they realize the 254lb weight limit is unreasonable as it may make some aircraft unsafe so they don’t usually weigh part 103 aircraft, except when the pilot makes a nuisance of themself at an airport or someone complains about them.

 

[WaspAir]

Plus the obvious - 40s airplanes are treasured and restored when possible, not relegated solely to lawn art. Surely more can be done with and recommendations made for older gyroplanes, to give the common guy a chance to enjoy the sport too, not just the elite.

There are many, many classic airplanes of the 1940s that were engineered and built by trained professionals, earned Standard Airworthiness Certificates, and fully met the safety expectations of the public. I even owned a 1952 Sikorsky helicopter. Those vintage aircraft are rightly treasured by those who own them. But that is a world away from the amateur "designed" (not engineered) bunt-o-matic gyroplanes that left far too many windows and orphans. I'm delighted to fly a J-3 Cub, a Stinson Voyager, or a Luscombe Silvaire, but I don't even want to be on the ground beneath some of the 70s-90s gyros.

Many aviators are far from "elite" but set priorities that permit flight within their means. Aviation is not cheap because life is so dear.

 

[WaspAir]

I think they realize the 254lb weight limit is unreasonable as it may make some aircraft unsafe

Safety is always available. If you need 255 or more pounds for safety, Experimental and Light Sport Rules are there, so there is NEVER a need to go "fat". It only matters if you have an aversion to scrutiny by the safety regulators.

As to "unreasonable", it didn't appear that way when public comments were solicited in the rule-making process. Check out the history.

 

[BrianInVa]

bunt-o-matic gyroplanes

Bunt-o-Matics can be modified to eliminate the bunting tendency. It ain’t rocket surgery.

The PRA claims to want to attract the youth. Youth don’t start driving on the equiavalent of a new Corvette. They live in the real world and drive hand me down family cars and cheap used vehicles. They learn to fly in decades old Cessnas they can rent for $150-$200 an hour. That’s reality. No one is going to capture the youth with hundred thousand dollar EuroTubs.

 

[BrianInVa]

there is NEVER a need to go "fat". It only matters if you have an aversion to scrutiny by the safety regulators.

You obviously don’t spend time around the part 103 crowd lol!

 

[WaspAir]

Here's a sanple from the legislative history of Part 103, circa 1982. You get what you ask for, even if you later regret it.

The FAA agrees that the weight limitation for powered ultralight vehicles should be raised from the proposed 155 pounds. The 254pound limitation was established because it closely corresponds to commenters' recommendations that the weight limitation be raised to at least 115 kilos, and because the vast majority of current vehicles on the market weigh less than 254 pounds. This weight does not include floats or safety devices intended for deployment in an emergency situation, e.g., parachutes and the harnesses and ballistic package necessary for deployment.
A large number of commenters recognize that, if the weight were raised, some restriction would have to be imposed to ensure that the characteristics associated with ultralights would be preserved. Those commenters include organizations such as the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Professional Ultralight Manufacturers Association (PUMA).

Anybody want to go fat? Quit complaining and get a license. They're easy to get.

 

[BrianInVa]

Want to go fat? Shut up and get a license. They're easy to get.

I’m working on it as we speak so I’m not too worried about it myself, thanks. (Two more hours tomorrow then again Wednesday in our local flight school’s 1978 Cessna 172. Which only costs $175 a hour to rent. Their Sting s4 is only $150 a hour to rent and I’ll be finishing my sport pilot certificate in it.)

But a lot of guys are concerned about the 254lb weight limit, so I’m only trying to explain how some dino gyro operators might try to fly under the FAA’s radar.

 

[WaspAir]

I’m working on it as we speak so I’m not too worried about it myself, thanks. (Two more hours tomorrow then again Wednesday in our local flight school’s 1978 Cessna 172. Which only costs $175 a hour to rent. Their Sting s4 is only $150 a hour to rent and I’ll be finishing my sport pilot certificate in it.)

But a lot of guys are concerned about the 254lb weight limit, so I was simply trying to explain how some dino gyro operators might try to fly under the FAA’s radar.

While you were replying I edited my language to be less harsh. Sorry that was late for you.

 

[BrianInVa]

While you were replying I edited my language to be less harsh. Sorry that was late for you.

No problem. I have to police my own posts to try to keep them dispassionate.

I do appreciate the frank discussion though. I’m learning a lot.

 

[WaspAir]

Bunt-o-Matics can be modified to eliminate the bunting tendency. It ain’t rocket surgery.

The PRA claims to want to attract the youth. Youth don’t start driving on the equiavalent of a new Corvette. They live in the real world and drive hand me down family cars and cheap used vehicles. They learn to fly in decades old Cessnas they can rent for $150-$200 an hour. That’s reality. No one is going to capture the youth with hundred thousand dollar EuroTubs.

Careful about "not rocket surgery" - - that easy-peasy design attitude is what made them bunt-o-matic in the first place. It actually is aero engineering.

We'll have a cheaper Eurotub market in due course.

 

[Mayfield]

Brian,

There is never an acceptable reason to go "Fat."

14 CFR Part 103 is unbelievably liberal.

The FAA allows a person with zero training or credentialing to operate an uninspected, uncertified flying machine in the national airspace system with almost no oversight.

The FAA requires the aerial vehicle to weigh less than 254 pounds empty, plus float or emergency equipment weight, carry no more than 5 gallons of gas, be operated during the day, or twilight if properly equipped, be no faster than 55 knots in level flight, stall no faster than 24 knots and be single seat.

These rules are to minimize hazard to folks on the ground and in the NAS from unregulated pilots and vehicles.

If you want to be heavier, faster, etc. then you need an aircraft and not an ultralight vehicle.

Jim

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[BrianInVa]

Here's a sanple from the legislative history of Part 103, circa 1982.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but in 1982 Bensens and Brock’s did qualify as part 103. But only because they were lacking in some important things that lead to bunting, like an effective had, and Mac attacks (though those preceded part 103). So like I said, at least as far as gyros go, the part 103 weight limit was - and is admittedly - unreasonable.

 

[BrianInVa]

that easy-peasy design attitude is what made them bunt-o-matic in the first place.

I thought what made them bunt-o-manic was a lack of proper hs, high thrust line, more powerful motors that increased the speed too much for the amount of control available and poor training?

Those things CAN be corrected and it’s not difficult.

 

[WaspAir]

Those things were not even recognized by amateur designers because gyro design was thought easy by them and the physics had not been studied by them. Hubris has been killing people since the Greeks coined the word.