RAF Stabalator

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

I just received my " Dear Valued customer " product notices from RAF. Can anyone maybe enlighten me on a couple of questions on this new developement? ( The RAF 2000 Rotor Stabilator )

First : Has anyone actually flight tested this newest invention from RAF?

Second: What in hell is an "Electromechanical linear actuator?

Third: It would appear that this device reduces adverse pitch movements during landing and take off.

My question is does it also reduce adverse pitch movements in the higher cruise speed regions where the RAF is subject to pitch over bunts?

Can anyone besides an RAF 2000 CFI program this device?

And speaking of an RAF 2000 CFI, is this some new breed of CFI with special talents and knowledge not availiable in the plain vanilla CFI?

Now to another puzzling requirement suggested by RAF in their product notice # 38. The warning about needing further training if you install the 160 HP Saburu engine in their gyro. They suggest that if you have less than four hundred hours in an RAF 2000 you should receive transitional training from one of their elite RAF 2000 CFI's.

The RAF product notices are becoming more and more difficult for me to understand, are they suggesting that a RAF with 160 HP is so difficult to control that you must have four hundred hours in RAF's before attempting to fly the thing without further training?

I wonder if their concern is that you stand a better chance of killing yourself with all that extra pushover power?

Maybe Duane or Jim could enlighten me further?

Chuck E.

 

[ventana7]

Re:RAF Stabalator

You can probably learn to do night carrier landings in a Tomahawk in less than 400 hours.

Of course this bulletin allows them to blame all accidents on pilot error and insufficient training.

Rob

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Yeh, Rob :

That is what I was driving at, if any flying machine becomes that difficult to fly why in Gods name would anyone even suggest trying to fly it?

I mean why would RAF not just straight out state that they will not approve of anyone going to that H.P.?

Instead their position is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

WARNING! 160 HP EJ2.5 SUBARU ENGINE use in the RAF 2000 Gyroplane

160 HP EJ2.5 SUBARU ENGINE. This engine is NOT recommended for use in the RAF 2000 Gyroplane for normal operation.

The 160 HP EJ2.5 SUBARU ENGINE should only be installed on the RAF 2000 Gyroplane because of special applications. Special applications are as follows: heavy load. ( crop dusting, pilot weight, special projects ) high-density altitude etc.

RAF 2000 Gyroplane owners, using the 160 HP EJ2.5 SUBARU ENGINE, in order to become competent to handle the additional power and thrust, MUST obtain additional flight and ground handling training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like Don is still writing their product notices.

( Hey Don if you are reading this "Crop Dusting" disappeared about fory years ago, are you guys now making a dry chemical applicator to attach to the RAF 2000? )

Hell I was comfortable with the Sikorsky S61 after about two hours and had the Airbus A320 figured out as far as handling characteristic's are concerned in about the five hours, it was getting used to the EFIS display that took some getting used to.

In short what I am stating is even sophisticated aircraft such as heavy lift turbine helicopters and state of the art jet airliners are straight forard stable flying platforms.

For any manufacturer of a flying machine such as a simple gyro to suggest that converting their machine to higher H.P. makes it so difficult to master that you need four hundred hours on their product or further training to fly it is a stunning piece of advice.

Chuck E.

 

[Hognose]

Re:RAF Stabalator

[quote author=Chuck_Ellsworth link=board=20;threadid=276;start=0#msg2563 date=1072466144]

First : Has anyone actually flight tested this newest invention from RAF?

[/quote]

Do you mean any of us, or RAF insiders? During OSH this year, Duane had it on his machine at Fond du Lac; it was on another incomplete RAF2K in the booth. Duane was flying potential kit buyers in his (which by the way, has the dreaded 2.5 litre Soob). I'm sure he put forty hours on it there, and I doubt he would have flown pax in it without some time before hand (technically, a major change like that, even on an ambuilt exp, needs reported to FAA -- look at your op lims -- might be different in Canada, which is a whole different country.

Second: What in hell is an "Electromechanical linear actuator?

It's a device that, when electric current is applied to it, produces motion in a straight line. It's common as dirt in mechanical engineering and machine tool design. Some have proportional motion, some logarithmic, some have damping built in, etc. etc. -- there are about a million varieties. When you see the bed of a machine going one way till it hits a limit switch, then going back, one of these is often at work.

Right now a Google search on "electromechanical linear actuator" is not very useful because a German maker of low-quality junk actuators has spammed Google with thousands of garbage pages on the net that all point to this Nazi junk-building spammer.

You could go here instead: http://www.linear-actuators.net/ which will take you to links to major manufacturers -- which are scattered across the industrial globe.

Third: It would appear that this device reduces adverse pitch movements during landing and take off.....does it also reduce adverse pitch movements in the higher cruise speed regions where the RAF is subject to pitch over bunts?

Unfortunately Duane was flat out, flying, the day I went to Fond du Lac and while I waited for about two hours (and my photog got demoralised and bailed) I never was able to talk to him about the device. I have posted about it before. The people in the RAF booth tried explaining it, got all tongue-tied, and admitted that they didn't know how it worked and advised me to talk to Duane. Dofin (he was at Fondy) had a pretty good idea but he also wanted me to talk to Duane. They claimed that it did increase stability and that it increases trim/centering forces at speed so it is more difficult to PPO when this is present.

I believe that this is their shot at the sport pilot stab requirement. I also do not think that it will meet the requirement.

Your other questions: Can anyone besides an RAF 2000 CFI program this device?... is this some new breed of CFI?

...I simply can't answer. It looked like something that you would set up, rather than program. I wish I had been able to talk to Duane.

(RAF suggests...) if you have less than four hundred hours in an RAF 2000 you should receive transitional training

Heh. What about, if you have less than 400 hours, check out the competition?

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Hognose :

Hi again, some of my questions were either tounge in cheek or retorical.

RAF is always spinning some high sounding fancy words to make their product "seem" to be a well designed flying machine....this actuator that was designed by a Mississippi River Boat Captain in 1883 for towing multiple barges sounds real professional when you read "electromechanical linear actuator" however maybe they could let us know just what engineering went into the decision to add that device, and also show verifiable flight reports done by someone that is not only independent from RAF but also qualified to conduct proper flight testing.

Don LaFleur is a spin Doctor that doesent have a clue about aviation or flying. And the last time I checked there was no one in their employ that was qualified to do test flying...have they hired a pilot lately at the factory?

Anyhow they sure are good at dodging the real problem, the RAF 2000 is unstable and has a fatal accident rate that should concern everyone in aviation.

Well I guess we will just have to wait for Duane or Jim to give their slant on this latest developement.

Chuck E..

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Well Chuck, you can be sure that Jim won't say that the descent rate doubled with the addition of the stabalator. I wonder if Duane will say that the "elastermeric bush" was not affected.

Jims statement re the h/stab testing he did was, at 110 mph (10mph past the VNE) when he chopped the throttle there was no "pitch up".

Now, I have not bothered to go back and check the quotes exactly, BUT when I read Jims report of the throttle chop, I thought to myself that is exactly what a h/stab helps prevent in a Raf!!!!!!!!!! To me that proved that Jim does know about stability, but seeing as Raf probably supplies most of his income through sales.,Jim was not going to tell Don what Don does not want to hear. I know what it is like to be well and truly berated by Don when I told him he was wrong about h/stabs.

And I really had a great laugh at Duanes "elastermeric bush" bushh being affected by the h/stab. Not that I can gloat too much as I was nearly as dumb as those two a few years ago. In my defense I can say that I was willing to listen and change my views when proven incorrect, REMEMBER, I am never wrong only incorrect.

As I said to my kids growing up " My being wrong is possible BUT not bloody probable!!!!! LOL) I don't think they took me seriously!!!!!

Aussie Paul.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Re:RAF Stabalator

" Jim does not want to tell Don what Don does not want to hear. "

Meanwhile the death toll mounts.

Your comment about being berated by Don is only scratching the surface of what a truly immoral greedy stupid individual Don is.

I have never met such a collection of dishonest crooked people as Dan, Don, Pete and Linda. Nor have I ever seen any flying device that just keeps on killing their owners at the rate the RAF does and it is still being marketed and sold in several countries.

Dan of course fulfilled my prediction that he was so dangerous and ignorant of aerodynamics and how to fly that he would eventually kill himself. I put it in writing to Transport Canada and at least they cancelled his temporary license to instruct....

Unfortunately two others also died with him.

Looks like I have been way wrong on my other prediction that someone would sue them out of business.......

Oh well maybe soon.....

Chuck E.

 

[PW_Plack]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Kevin,

Did he really say...

"...it increases trim/centering forces at speed so it is more difficult to PPO when this is present. "

Perhaps he meant PIO? Or, are these guys confusing the two terms? I believe it was Duane who posted on Norm's forum that the "P" in "PPO" stands for "pilot."

If there's some way increased trim forces can prevent PPO, I'd sure like to study that diagram.

 

[davreich]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Hi,
Perhaps a picture will help. The linear actuator is above the wing.

 

[Mike Hook]

Re:RAF Stabalator

I had the opportunity to poke around the raf's at mentone. the stabulator is no more that a satalitte dish controller. They were just using a toggle switch to run it up and down for trim. There were no monitors as to the position of the stab. Alllllllll feel. I do not know if on the newer models they have installled some means of gauging the location of the stab.


All the raf peeps were in the dark on it too other than the builder.

Mike Hook

 

[Hognose]

Re:RAF Stabalator

[quote author=PW_Plack link=board=20;threadid=276;start=0#msg2609 date=1072553267]
Did he really say..."...it is more difficult to PPO .... "
[/quote]

Yep.

If there's some way increased trim forces can prevent PPO, I'd sure like to study that diagram.

Well, first you gotta repeal the laws of physics...

Given (1) a thrustline above the vertical centre of mass, and
(2) an unloaded rotor

You have an overturning moment which increases with throttle applied and the distance between the thrust axis and a parallel line running through the Vertical C of M.

The RAF party line appears to be that "what flies is the rotor, and what the fuselage does relative to the rotor is immaterial." I have heard variants of that from several people associated with the organisation.

Unfortunately one of the things the fuselage does is give expression to that thrust axis.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[rfi]

Re:RAF Stabalator

Duane's Stabalator design is basically a rotor trim device. At high speeds the RAF usually runs out of trim pressure because the springs have very little if no tension on them. Some RAF owners have added a second pitch trim system to eliminate having to hold forward stick at high speeds. The Stabalator trims the rotor in either direction.

Another way to put it, the Stabalator is a trim tab for the rotor. It probably improves hands-off stability but I doubt that it does anything for the high thrust line.

I'll have to admit that it is a neat way to trim the rotor system at cruise and higher speeds. It simply trims out stick forces and provides some hands off stability.

That's just my two cents worth (for what it's worth).

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Re:RAF Stabalator

There is no mention of high speed effectiveness in the RAF product notice.

Quote: From their notice.

" The location of the RAF 2000 Stabilator reduces adverse pitch moments during landing and take off. In fact your RAF 2000 will have much lighter control forces in landing than before. "

Hmmmm.... Are they claiming that the lower your airspeed becomes in the landing process the more effective this device becomes, thus lowering the control forces???

I am also puzzeled by their statement that an RAF 200 CFI will, Quote: " program initial flight regime settings and offer transitional flight and ground handling training"

Why would you need ground handling training? Does this new device of RAF's produce some unknown destabalizing forces on a machine that is on the ground?

Thus changing the ground handling proceedure?

However judging by the price the next of kin will have $1500 USD less in the deceased's estate should their RAF 2000 kill him / her..

Chuck E.