It is my observation that if you don’t put down retractable landing gear in any aircraft the landing will cause damage. This is often categorized as pilot error.CarterCopter crash:
I think it was slowing down, which caused it to lose fixed-wing lift, but there wasn't yet sufficient rotor lift to take over and keep the aircraft aloft.
So maybe some kind of error in the pilot's procedure? Maybe a compound aircraft like this needs to be fly-by-wire, with computers acting as the intermediary between the pilot and hardware, in order to avoid problems with that vulnerable gap when transitioning from rotor to fixed-wing and vice-versa.
Maybe they just should've built taller skyscrapers & helipads, to keep the tip-jet noise away from the street..
Carter accomplished their goals of using a slowed rotor to decrease drag and fixed wings to provided lift at high speeds.
Another breakthrough was exceeding MU-1 which means the aircraft is flying faster than the rotor tip speed ... this was the most significant accomplishment because it had never been done before and many experts felt it would not be possible.
Lots of talent on that team .... maybe too much ... rather than use an existing Lycoming 540 with a variable pitch prop on an enclosed fuselage they went all out with a state of the art composite-glass pressurized cockpit ... adapted a GM high performance V-6 (heating issues) .... a unique home-grown variable prop (some issues) ... and custom made landing gear (Lots of R&D).
They did an admirable job , but all those "extras" consumed as much or more time than building and testing the unique rotor.
I find it interesting that Carter sea level cruise speed was 145 mph while the 1950's Fairey Rotodyne cruise was 185 mph with an unloaded rotor.
Should be noted the Fairey max was 190 mph while the Carter had a goal of up to 400 mph at 50,000 feet (thus the pressurized cabin)
But those tests were never completed . Instead they built the Carter Personal Air Vehicle which they say reached 200 mph ... which is not much faster than the British Rotodyne of 1957.
Out of all the high speed rotorcraft , including the V-22 Osprey , and all the other tilt wing varieties , I still think a simplified version of the Fairey Rotordyne would provide the highest speeds at the lowest costs.
The Rotodyne was a success on all counts other than tip-jet noise ... which had been reduced by the time the project was cancelled .... if modern day could reduce the noise even more we could have it all.
Landing gear was not down. As usual problem with most aircraft is the person flying it. A computer would surely solve that problem
They had a customized prop, a different engine. There was too much to chew up there. May be it had a power failure of sorts but if you did, you needed to put the landing gear down "now". That definitely did not happen. Top notch test pilots? Human factors still caused a bad resultBut I thought the landing gear wasn't down because the pilot wasn't yet ready to land, and it was that the aircraft was descending more than the pilot had intended.
But I thought the landing gear wasn't down because the pilot wasn't yet ready to land, and it was that the aircraft was descending more than the pilot had intended.
Most accidents occurring when gyro is moving down the runway (rubber on tarmac)? Where do you get that from? I cannot come up with that result. In any case, this type of accident is due to bad or a complete lack of rotor management. Meaning either blade sailing where the rotor RPM is so low and the pilot pulls stick all the way back or to the side incorrectly in strong wind such that rotor can impact either the tail or even the ground behind or to the side. Or when the rotor speed is high enough that there is rotor thrust still present and the pilot mismanages the rotor such that the rotor thrust is pointed to one side and starts to roll the gyroplane over. Or simple outrunning the rotor type of rotor flap. All these should be handled by proper training not creating a complex system to jump takeoff. A pilot who cannot manage the rotor is likely to stuff things up in a jump takeoff and landing also. There is no shortcut to taking proper and enough training in my opinion.With most accidents occurring when the gyro is moving down the runway (rubber on tarmac) while avoiding any tipping forces with the massive angular momentum just above, the ability to take off via jump take off and land with vertical descent absorbing landing gear would be game changing. Keeping all forward motion away from ground contact during take off and landing would eliminate most gyro accidents.
Many of those takeoff accidents are getting behind the power curve or mismanagement of engine torque at slow speed type and many of the landing accidents are taxiing while rotors are turning. Those would still be concerns with jump takeoff and vertical descent landing. Certainly anyone can land and just wait till rotors stop before taxiing in any gyro and even with a jump takeoff you still have to manage so that you get behind the power curve or apply or not apply correct stick and rudder input to handle engine torque as soon as you leave ground. So it seems to be that its a much smaller subset of accidents not the whole set. Do you think I am underestimating?In my opinion a casual look at gyroplane accidents shows the majority of gyroplane accidents happen during takeoff and landing.
A well-executed jump takeoff scheme and landing gear that can manage a vertical descent would in my opinion address the majority of gyroplane accidents.
I am not suggesting that people would not find new ways to wreck their gyroplanes; only that it would address a large portion of the current takeoff and landing accident causes.
It is clear from the accident statistics that the current level of training in not able to stop the accidents.
Based on my limited experience with jump takeoff gyroplanes and vertical landing gyroplanes these are not features I desire for the gyroplane flying I do.
Yes, I feel you are underestimating the problems that would be mitigated with a jump takeoff and vertical descent landing.Many of those takeoff accidents are getting behind the power curve or mismanagement of engine torque at slow speed type and many of the landing accidents are taxiing while rotors are turning. Those would still be concerns with jump takeoff and vertical descent landing. Certainly anyone can land and just wait till rotors stop before taxiing in any gyro and even with a jump takeoff you still have to manage so that you get behind the power curve or apply or not apply correct stick and rudder input to handle engine torque as soon as you leave ground. So it seems to be that its a much smaller subset of accidents not the whole set. Do you think I am underestimating? In other words when a pilot who never pulls the stick back after pre-rotation and guns the throttle fully, is not following simple process steps in sequence. He/she is overwhelmed and his brain is not processing things. He would do something out of sequence in a jump takeoff machine as well because there is possibly even more process steps. This won't then reduce number of accidents. It may in fact increase that pilot's chances of making more mistakes
That's interesting. I need to think about that then because I have held that view for a couple of years and may be incorrectlyYes, I feel you are underestimating the problems that would be mitigated with a jump takeoff and vertical descent landing.
I feel you are overestimating the complexity of a jump takeoff with a properly designed jump takeoff gyroplane.
It is still not something I desire for the missions I fly.