PRA - relevance in todays reality!

[BrianInVa]

I would recommend 14 CFR Parts, 61,91,43,103 to start. Also download and read sections of the Airman's information manual, the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical knowledge (PHAK) and the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook.

Thanks Jim. I’m working through a lot of this now as I complete ground school study for my sport pilot certificate. I’ve downloaded the PHAK to my desktop and I’m going through the online Kings Cessna 172 ground school that came with signing up for our local flight school. There’s also a module I need to work through specifically regarding operations near DC airspace and its special regulations since I’m within a certain radius of there.

I also purchased access to the PRA gyro ground school videos and materials (which may include the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook?) which I’ll be working through in November and December.

Tomorrow we’re working on stalls and stall recovery. Should be fun. The CFI is young but she said I was advancing faster than any student she has instructed so far, so I’m hoping I can complete the sport pilot certificate fairly quickly then get gyro instruction.

(The King online ground school is a bit corny and dry at times but I have to admit it’s worth the time and effort for a n00b.)

 

[GyroChuck]

Here's the link

Rotorcraft Flying Handbook

 

[Abid]

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.

40's airplanes were designed properly. By the 40's all basic airplane, propeller engineering was figured out and it has not moved too far forward since then when it comes to smallish single piston engine aircraft. in the 40's you already had marvels of engineering like the P-51 Mustang. You had the venerable Piper Cub basic airplane that to this day has a harmony in control seldom improved upon by recent models.

The gyroplanes were not engineered. At least not very impressively. Not even in their simplicity were they elegant in either their aviation construction, nor aesthetic design nor stability.

 

[Abid]

I don't think it is a stability issue, it is an under powered issue.

Only because of McDonalds.

 

[Doug Riley]

Abid, I must disagree, in part, with a blanket statement that the original Bensens were minimally or poorly engineered. No comment on eyeball copies of Bensens of that era -- or of the 80's and 90's.

Aesthetics? Tastes vary. No doubt the Bell 47 looked like a "contraption" to people accustomed to P-51's and the like.

If you run numbers on any component of a Bensen B-8M, you'll find that there are generous margins of safety. Bensen used very light rotorblades, but ran them at high RRPM (and to hell with mu ratio), a defensible compromise IMHO. His blades had underslung teeter hinges, reflex, and chordwise balance. Bensen seemed to have an almost supernatural sense of what design shortcuts (simple flexible mast, no coning angle in his short, high-RRPM rotors) he could take in a machine as small and light as his.

We've since found that scaling up Bensen's simplified design doesn't always work.

Where Bensen fell tragically short was in areas of temperament and integrity. As a test pilot, he knew how to fly aircraft that had very little damping. His B-8 flight manual specifically directs gyro pilots to use "jabbing" control movements -- a standard test-pilot technique to deal with lag and inadequate damping. But too many of his amateur-pilot customers didn't master those test-pilot level skills. They instead porpoised their way into oblivion.

Bensen certainly could figure out why. Still, he would not revise his design (slow the rotor and add a big HS) because of said personality traits. Worse, he told a lot of half-truths as a smokescreen. Many oldtime gyro pilots still cling to bits of Bensen's half-truths.

As for Part 103, the reg came about in the pre-9/11 world. It would never pass (even with its low weights and speeds) today. Word from the FAA is that, even if they were willing to entertain increased weight limits and such, by drawing public attention to this very liberal rule, they'd bring down such public criticism that the whole rule would go away.

Sport Pilot was pitched to us as, in fact, a way to allow people to fly simple, ultralight-ish planes with less regulation. IOW, expanding 103 was politically unrealistic, and Sport was a realistic alternative.

 

[Aerofoam]

Abid, I must disagree, in part, with a blanket statement that the original Bensens were minimally or poorly engineered. No comment on eyeball copies of Bensens of that era -- or of the 80's and 90's.

Aesthetics? Tastes vary. No doubt the Bell 47 looked like a "contraption" to people accustomed to P-51's and the like.

If you run numbers on any component of a Bensen B-8M, you'll find that there are generous margins of safety. Bensen used very light rotorblades, but ran them at high RRPM (and to hell with mu ratio), a defensible compromise IMHO. His blades had underslung teeter hinges, reflex, and chordwise balance. Bensen seemed to have an almost supernatural sense of what design shortcuts (simple flexible mast, no coning angle in his short, high-RRPM rotors) he could take in a machine as small and light as his.

We've since found that scaling up Bensen's simplified design doesn't always work.

Where Bensen fell tragically short was in areas of temperament and integrity. As a test pilot, he knew how to fly aircraft that had very little damping. His B-8 flight manual specifically directs gyro pilots to use "jabbing" control movements -- a standard test-pilot technique to deal with lag and inadequate damping. But too many of his amateur-pilot customers didn't master those test-pilot level skills. They instead porpoised their way into oblivion.

Bensen certainly could figure out why. Still, he would not revise his design (slow the rotor and add a big HS) because of said personality traits. Worse, he told a lot of half-truths as a smokescreen. Many oldtime gyro pilots still cling to bits of Bensen's half-truths.

As for Part 103, the reg came about in the pre-9/11 world. It would never pass (even with its low weights and speeds) today. Word from the FAA is that, even if they were willing to entertain increased weight limits and such, by drawing public attention to this very liberal rule, they'd bring down such public criticism that the whole rule would go away.

Sport Pilot was pitched to us as, in fact, a way to allow people to fly simple, ultralight-ish planes with less regulation. IOW, expanding 103 was politically unrealistic, and Sport was a realistic alternative.

So what is the story behind the sudden change in sport pilot requirements right after it went into effect?
One of the guys I worked projects with at a gov't. lab got his sport pilot over the weekend, class on Sat. test on Sunday, but about 4 months later they upped the requirements so much that it seems more worthwhile to just get the full rating uness you have medical issues.....
Can anyone clarify what happened to the original release and why it changed?

 

[Sv.grainne]

What changed? When?

 

[Mayfield]

The only significant change in requirements I remember was when the time in ultralights was no longer permitted to count. When Light Sport first came out, certain ultralight time could count toward a Sport Pilot certificate. That program ended.

Jim

 

[WaspAir]

The Sport Pilot rules (Subpart J of Part 61) were issued in July of 2004 and not amended until August of 2009. No immediate sudden changes.

 

[Sv.grainne]

The Sport Pilot rules (Subpart J of Part 61) were issued in July of 2004 and not amended until August of 2009. No immediate sudden changes.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Aerofoam]

The Sport Pilot rules (Subpart J of Part 61) were issued in July of 2004 and not amended until August of 2009. No immediate sudden changes.

Something happened because my friend was caught up in it, he had to go back and do more to get the rating.
I will have to call him and ask.
What changed in 2009?

 

[WaspAir]

As I recall, it allowed broader logging of PIC time and clarified that a Sport Pilot certificate was a valid basis for applying for a higher level certificate (e.g., old rules said you needed to hold a Student certificate to apply for Recreational or Private; Sport Pilots can also apply after this change). I think it also cleaned up details in the SP CFI section and said SP Examiners didn't need medicals. I don't recall any big changes.

 

[WaspAir]

The only significant change in requirements I remember was when the time in ultralights was no longer permitted to count. When Light Sport first came out, certain ultralight time could count toward a Sport Pilot certificate. That program ended.

Jim

I vaguely recall a 2008 sunset that was set up in the original 2004 rules.

 

[Vance]

Something happened because my friend was caught up in it, he had to go back and do more to get the rating.
I will have to call him and ask.
What changed in 2009?

When CFIs who are helping the applicants fill out the forms misunderstand the regulations it sometimes takes a while for the FAA to address errors.

I suspect your friends experience was an example rather than a change in the regulations.

I usually have a second CFI check out my paperwork before submitting it because I don’t want it kicked back.

There were some changes about who could do what, what counted and an attempt to clean up the language in 2009.

 

[Abid]

Abid, I must disagree, in part, with a blanket statement that the original Bensens were minimally or poorly engineered. No comment on eyeball copies of Bensens of that era -- or of the 80's and 90's.

Aesthetics? Tastes vary. No doubt the Bell 47 looked like a "contraption" to people accustomed to P-51's and the like.

If you run numbers on any component of a Bensen B-8M, you'll find that there are generous margins of safety. Bensen used very light rotorblades, but ran them at high RRPM (and to hell with mu ratio), a defensible compromise IMHO. His blades had underslung teeter hinges, reflex, and chordwise balance. Bensen seemed to have an almost supernatural sense of what design shortcuts (simple flexible mast, no coning angle in his short, high-RRPM rotors) he could take in a machine as small and light as his.

We've since found that scaling up Bensen's simplified design doesn't always work.

Where Bensen fell tragically short was in areas of temperament and integrity. As a test pilot, he knew how to fly aircraft that had very little damping. His B-8 flight manual specifically directs gyro pilots to use "jabbing" control movements -- a standard test-pilot technique to deal with lag and inadequate damping. But too many of his amateur-pilot customers didn't master those test-pilot level skills. They instead porpoised their way into oblivion.

Bensen certainly could figure out why. Still, he would not revise his design (slow the rotor and add a big HS) because of said personality traits. Worse, he told a lot of half-truths as a smokescreen. Many oldtime gyro pilots still cling to bits of Bensen's half-truths.

As for Part 103, the reg came about in the pre-9/11 world. It would never pass (even with its low weights and speeds) today. Word from the FAA is that, even if they were willing to entertain increased weight limits and such, by drawing public attention to this very liberal rule, they'd bring down such public criticism that the whole rule would go away.

Sport Pilot was pitched to us as, in fact, a way to allow people to fly simple, ultralight-ish planes with less regulation. IOW, expanding 103 was politically unrealistic, and Sport was a realistic alternative.

I am sure about structural integrity of Bensen's basic design being fairly good. That was not my point though. You made my point later in your post for me.

"a standard test-pilot technique to deal with lag and inadequate damping. But too many of his amateur-pilot customers didn't master those test-pilot level skills. They instead porpoised their way into oblivion. "

QED.

 

[Doug Riley]

Right. My point was that Bensen imitators, in most cases, had no engineering knowledge at all, in contrast to Igor.

We had "designers" who figured that the rotor disk had so much inertia that stick movements didn't really tilt the rotor, they instead produced weight shift (er, can you say "flap hinge"?).

We had "designers" who mounted their engines with the prop end LOW (supposedly to blow air onto the H-stab). We had "designers" who thought it was a great safety feature for the mast to break off at the seat back in a blade strike. We had "designers" who strenuously argued that gyro rotors create no downwash (Newton's Second Law, anyone?). We had "designers" who arranged their airframes with the pilot sitting on the keel, go-kart style. We had "designers" who made their masts out of welded steel-tube trusses, losing the flexibility needed with a 2-blade rotor.

History aside (though I think it's interesting), the takeaway for today is this IMHO:

The Bensen/Brock is not a pile of countless bad design elements. Rather, it has ONE, thanks to Igor's refusal to realize how little really could be expected of beginner pilots: it has inadequate pitch damping for an inexperienced operator. If you fix that with a proper H-stab plus a slower, heavier rotor, you're good to go.

Oh, and if you use an engine with a 5-foot prop (Bensen didn't; his were 4-footers), that change will seriously misalign the prop thrust line and CG. You'll need to raise the seat.

 

[BrianInVa]

The Bensen/Brock is not a pile of countless bad design elements. Rather, it has ONE, thanks to Igor's refusal to realize how little really could be expected of beginner pilots: it has inadequate pitch damping for an inexperienced operator. If you fix that with a proper H-stab plus a slower, heavier rotor, you're good to go.

Oh, and if you use an engine with a 5-foot prop (Bensen didn't; his were 4-footers), that change will seriously misalign the prop thrust line and CG. You'll need to raise the seat.

Very helpful summary, thank you. Please see my PM.