- Sep 29, 2014
- RU-X8 Rotor Ute
- Total Flight Time
This looks like a pretty different design from those typical two-piece (non-"folding") masts that you mentioned. As Jean Claude said, it looks like there would be a lot of stress just about at the spot where it broke.twistair;n1141925 said:Hundreds of RAF-2000 and Calidus, dozens of SparrowHawks etc flew and fly with 2-piece masts without single problem in this joint. "It's broken because it had a 2-piece mast" sounds at least unwise. We need more data about this particular broken joint to make assumptions/conlusions.
I probably missed something but I didn't see any direct evidence/testimony that this broken place was the cause of the crash and not post-crash break. Ten years ago I had a crash (costly lessons!) in an MTOsport loosing an airspeed at low altitude and flopping it vertically from few meters. Its mast has broken on impact and completely separated.Tyger;n1141933 said:This looks like a pretty different design from those typical two-piece (non-"folding") masts that you mentioned. As Jean Claude said, it looks like there would be a lot of stress just about at the spot where it broke.
If you watch the video the rotor appears undamaged indicating it separated before the impact.twistair;n1141935 said:I probably missed something but I didn't see any direct evidence/testimony that this broken place was the cause of the crash and not post-crash break.
twistair, had I actually written that, it would have been unwise."It's broken because it had a 2-piece mast" sounds at least unwise.
I'm not blaming 2-piece masts in general.Hundreds of RAF-2000 and Calidus, dozens of SparrowHawks etc flew and fly with 2-piece masts without single problem in this joint.
Well, watch the news video and catch the part about rotor separation.If only I had no witnesses anybody could tell that the broken mast could be the reason for this crash.
I'd rather like to find if the mast broke and this caused the crash or something else went wrong and caused mast break and separation.loftus;n1141975 said:I am trying to understand; did the rotor separate with the top half of the mast, or did it separate first and then the mast break on impact.
Of course. We need to wait for 100 crashes in AR-1 before saying that it may have some considered engineered crashworthiness points .Kolibri;n1142002 said:I'm glad that both AR-1 pilots were able to walk away from their crashes, although in my opinion a mere two incidents are not enough to conclude anything,
positive or negative, about the AR-1 mast design. The damage to both seems rather fluky, probably due to the random nature of impacts.
Gyro incidents, regardless of manufacturer, sadden me. We must all do what we can to make them rare.
Probably time to revisit that thread. Please post a link to it, thanks.Some years ago there was a very informative thread about aluminum vs steel vs titanium.
The takeaway from that thread for me was that while titanium is lighter and stronger than steel or aluminum for the same weight, it is also more brittle comparatively.
Kolibri. You are not an engineer but you feel very qualified to make technical assessments and your assessments and opinions based on those assessments tend to favor one gyroplane manufacturer and even an idiot with half an eye can see through that and of course you know everything already and are always right. What's there to discuss.Kolibri;n1142007 said:fara, I doubt that any gyro mfg. would need 98 additional similar mechanical failures to draw some conclusions.
I am not an engineer. You are not a rated gyro pilot.
I didn't bring up the AR-1, but responded very neutrally to those who did.
This thread is about the TAG gyro crashes, not the AR-1 or even 2-piece gyro masts in general.
Shall we stay on subject?