The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly for the New Owner of an Older 2000GTX

[Harry_S.]

Jim,

Have you posted the serial number of the kit, for the basket case you now have?

As I've mentioned before...I think...the assembly manual for my machine will probably suffice for yours, altho, it is sorely lacking in and of itself. I could send it to you for your perusal...to be returned of course.


Cheers

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Heli-davidson, can you write an executive summary of your posts...I can't read them...No time...

You have a PhD, and you can't read, André? After all the tripe I've had to read for my degrees that was written by PhDs, I have no sympathy! Just kidding, of course (but, only a little ). I don't write more than anyone else here (especially the endless arguers - sheesh), I just tend to batch more stuff into fewer posts than the average bear. Vive la difference!

Here's the executive summary: Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it. Oh, wait, wrong executive summary - that's the one from "Airplane II"

OK, here's a summary, just for you. See the RAF. RAF fell over. Bad RAF, bad. Rotors gone. Prop gone. Builder provided to me as salvage for parts only. Builder removed plate with serial number. Builder lost construction docs. Bad builder, bad. Need to borrow docs for a 1995 kit. Good loaner, good.

How should light surface corrosion be removed? Bad corrosion, bad. Should stress-bearing parts with any corrosion (e.g., pre-rotator gear) just be tossed? Can material be polished to remove pits/scratches to eliminate stress-risers?

Should fiberglass around cabin cracks be sanded back and new material be laid across the fractures, or can the fractures just be filled with epoxy? Bad cracks, bad.

Can rotor blades from a kit helicopter be used in place of factory RAF 2000 GTX blades, if they're not too heavy, and how heavy is too heavy without beefing up the hub, bearing(s), mast, etc.? What pitch angle do they need to be fixed at (symmetrical blades)? Good blades, good.

Can a fixed-wing be fitted, ala one from a "heavy" ultralight, with appropriate structural/control-surface-linkage additions? Good fuel economy and flyability for long cross-countries, good.

New question: Has anyone considered using a wider main gear axle to reduce the likelihood of a rollover, or does the design just make rollovers inevitable if the aircraft isn't piloted precisely right (even when taxiing, if the rotor is turning)? As I understand it, the Xenon's main gear are upwards of 10 feet apart, vs. the five feet for the RAF, and similar narrow track on many other autogyro kits.

BTW, for Kevin, Harry, and others who have asked, I figured out the serial number, despite the builder removing the original plate. It's from the beginning of the 1995 batch (closer to the 144 ~ 154 start than the 198 ~ 201 end). I'm suppressing the actual number out of respect for the original builder's demand that the aircraft be considered non-airworthy in perpetuity for liability purposes. Since I'm completely disassembling it, replacing parts where needed, and will be making fairly radical mods, it's going to be an essentially new aircraft, after all is said and done. I intend to reverse-engineer a set of blueprints in CAD software, while I'm at it, which I will make available in electronic form to anyone who wants them (and doesn't beyotch too much about the length of my posts :rant: ).

Thom, I will attempt to return your calls from many weekends ago, today, or whenever else you will be available. Thanks very much for calling.

Keep the whopping side up, and All the Best,
Jim

 

[groundhog]

I think you'll find the original rollover was from a high thrust line and axle too far forward both of whiuch your'e gonna fix right?

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Axle Woes (for the Guns 'n Roses Fans Out There )

Axle Woes (for the Guns 'n Roses Fans Out There )

I think you'll find the original rollover was from a high thrust line and axle too far forward both of whiuch your'e gonna fix right?

Yep, the high thrust line is going to be lowered, just like I've been telling my doctor that I'd like my sex drive lowered - from being all up here (points to head)!

This is the first mention I've seen about the axle being too far forward, though. However, that's already become extremely apparent while just trying to jockey the empty carcass around on the ground by hand. The builder of The Hulk rolled the aircraft after taxiing off the runway, when it began bucking longitudinally until it got so far forward, the rotor blades hit the taxiway. He said he received a bulletin from the factory that admitted to the problem, and recommended changes to eliminate the problem (which have not been made to The Hulk - yet). Is that the issue to which you are referring? Please expand on the axle position issue, with opinions from others also most welcome, especially if the factory recommendations didn't go far enough.

I just saw a post in another thread with photos of the radically high landing gear that at least one of the Ozzies are apparently using (more like conventional fixed-wing gear in height and angle, approaching 45 degrees - I assume this also provides a wider track). What are the pros and cons of that?

Thanks, and All the Best,
Jim

 

[groundhog]

Maybe I shouldn't have said too far forward. I'm going on the memory of something I read here.There are mod kits available. You have to decide which you like.The concept of balancing forces around the centre of mass has been around for a long time in the fixed wing world,whether you lower the thrust line or download the tail and a horizontal stabilizer or which combination will be up to you

 

[Hognose]

General comments:
I continue to work on my RAF registry now and then. I have tracked about 1/3 of RAF production and have about 1/4 pinned down to original serial number. Forum members have been very helpful. I've had less luck finding the original numbers of the RAFs in foreign nations, but I'm waiting till the data is 75% data and 25% hole (rather than vice-versa) before bugging many individual RAF owners. There are RAFs in places from Austria to Zimbabwe.

RAF mishaps
The most common mishap (that gets government or media attention, the kind where you meet interesting people you never wanted to) is a runway or taxiway rollover. NTSB frequently codes these as "substantial damage" which in a non-warbird FW usually means the boneyard, but many RAFs are rebuilt and fly again. (Some of them, to prang again. Please don't do that).

One of the interesting things I've observed is that mishap machines tend to have relatively few hours. You machine was above median for a prang, I think.

As you have observed, the cabin is not structural protection. In a gentle hit it may crack. In a hard hit it will shatter. Normal glass-repair techniques (like you'd use on a boat) should be fine. If a crack or rip is big, you will need to reinforce with cloth, otherwise epoxy should do it.


Registering your RAF rebuild
Tom Milton is probably the best guy in the forum to advise you, but you absolutely positively can register the machine as experimental amateur-built. You must document that you did 51% of the work. This permits you to get a repairman certificate for the machine. (I've seen normal certified a/c like a Cessna 150 and a Cessna 195 registered as experimental-amateur built after extensive mods and reconstruction).

You can use the original serial number (or RAF contract number) or use a fictitious number of your own devising -- either way, you're the manufacturer, not the guy that built it last time. IMHO the advantage to having the full history of the machine comes at resales time. Some owners don't care about that.

I'd say not to worry about liability. The longer you fly, the more judgment-proof you get. (Cha-Chingg!)

Some forum members have registered their machines with self-assigned numbers. Nothing wrong with it, as they're the manufacturers.

This RAF (an earlier one than yours, I think) is on eBay now. If you look at its FAA record, the rebuilder chose his own serial number.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Gyr...ryZ63679QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=202RC&cmndfind.x=0&cmndfind.y=0

I do put machines like this in the registry, just note that the SN is a fictitious one. So they are part of the 33% not the 25%. (SO are most British machins as the PFA assigns a serial number, if I've got that right. Thanks to the forum Brits who sent me their numbers -- you know who you are).

Finally, re what Groundhog said, I believe RAF extended the wheelbase of the RAF 2000 in a running production change and then recommended that for all previous machines. Would be unsurprized to learn that was the letter the last owner of your machine got only after he pranged.

Good luck with both your builds, Jim.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[Hognose]

PS -- Jim, I do know the serial number and history of your machine. Personally, I think you can reuse the RAF number without exposing the prior owner to liability. But again, if you want to use your own, you may. He quite clearly gave you unairworthy salvage, and it's on your head to return any or none of those parts to use.

On Corrosion
Get some A&P training materials and resource manuals. They deal with this (on certified a/c, but corrosion in steel and aluminum is corrosion, period) all the time. As an ME you should have a pretty good sense of what stresses are on what parts, and where corrosion may be more than a cosmetic gig. (rotables, load-bearing components, landing gear, all need serious attention).

FAA Advisory Circular 43-13 (takes you to a page where you can download, as multiple .pdfs)
AC 43-13.2A

AC 43-13.1B

(NB: these are the current manuals, many mechanics working on vintage and experimental AC prefer the old ones. They are available in hard copy from various vendors, and on the CDs that IAs get).

On Rotors
Ken Janulewicz, who seldom posts these days, changed out his RAF rotors for others (I believe Sport Rotors?) and was very happy with 'em. He also did the AAI mod. I think there are RAFs flying with Dragon Wings, too, although I'm not sure (and I don't think Ernie makes 30' DWs).

On Thrustline
Several ways to go. The AAI kit, the Larry Boyer mod, or simply freelance it as Paul Bruty did with Hybrid and Maxie Wildes did with an RAF (his completed machine had a tall tail and looked very Sparrowhawkish). Ed Newbold also did some mods, extended his tail but not sure if he lowered thrustline (there's a thread where he says what he did and I'm just too lazy to look it up).

On Registration
When you go to register, you'll have to make a decision about gross weight. If you limit GW to 1320 you can fly under sport pilot privileges. This may in time produce a two-tiered resale market like there is with Ercoupes. On the other hand, if you limit GW to 1320 you may find yourself in a serious payload crunch -- especially if you like adding bells and whistles to your rotorcraft.

Just some thoughts. Hope they were helpful.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[lanichol]

On Rotors
Ken Janulewicz, who seldom posts these days, changed out his RAF rotors for others (I believe Sport Rotors?) and was very happy with 'em. He also did the AAI mod. I think there are RAFs flying with Dragon Wings, too, although I'm not sure (and I don't think Ernie makes 30' DWs).

-=K=-

I own Ken's RAF and it fly's great.

Here is my suggestion;

1. Go with the AAI modification kit.
Solves the stability and the whole backend is rebuilt. New axles and nose wheel, better prop clearance.

2. Go with the Sportcopter Blades & Rotor Head.
Blades are smooth and the rotor head will get you away from the RAF head
that has had bolts back out.

3. Go with the IVO fixed or variable pitch prop.
Lots of push.

4. Consider a SDSE Computer for a FI conversion
https://sdsefi.com/air9.html

Or go with a 2.5 FI

The price was right...all you have to do is fix it right.

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Now, We're Gettin' Somewhere

Now, We're Gettin' Somewhere

James, Kevin, Larry, Friends, Romans, Countrymen,

As Commandant Lassard of "Police Academy" would say, "Thank you very, very, very, very, very much!"

Kevin, you're now on my Christmas list (or, whatever floats your boat ... oh, I mean, flies your gyro ... during the Happy Holidays) - what a great couple of replies - exactly what I needed. Being an EAA weenie, I've been through bits and pieces of the ACs, and your references will make the process that much easier. Interesting point about the older versions - we have members in our EAA chapter with three digits on their cards, who went to the first versions of AirVenture back in '53/'54, and I'll bet they have every version of every AC ever published ... in the glove boxes in their cars! We have our monthly chapter meeting this coming Thursday, how conveeeenient!

My corrosion experience is mostly in ocean engineering, and there aren't too many aircraft flying around with HY-120 steel airframes (much less skins! ) Then, there was the Aluminaut, Alcoa's first, and only, foray into submersible construction - it was a great study in how _not_ to build things that needed to maintain watertight integrity in deep water/kimchee (and, through the Navy and/or places like Woods Hole, we taxpayers paid for the whole thing, I guess). Too bad Harbor Freight doesn't sell A/N hardware (but, then again, I don't think I'd fly _anything_ built with stuff sold through HF :rip: ) - I'll have to see if Aircraft Spruce, etc., sell A/N fastener assortments in bulk. Like you say, corrosion is corrosion, and I can't complain about the price of The Hulk (despite regular unleaded gas being over $3.00 a gallon, even at Costco, when I went to pick up The Hulk).

Based on everything I've read and discussed with various people, including FAA FSDO folks, I don't think I'm going to have any problems getting airworthiness and repairman certificates, particularly because of the mods. It's interesting that the FAA very recently started cracking down hard on conversions of commercially-built aircraft to experimental status, and they have emphatically stated that they will not entertain reclassification of rebuilds of commercially-built certified aircraft as experimentals, where there is no significant departure from the original design, even if you drill out and re-pound every rivet, replace every square inch of sheet metal, and forge your own engine parts. 51% of the aircraft has to be MODIFIED, not just restored. There are a lot of very unhappy owners of perfectly flyable vintage aircraft who are going to have to either spend the dough to have an A&P certify their work (figure the odds on that happening for less than the cost of having the A&P do the work, anyway), or park their money pit in a museum (museums prefer originals, even if not airworthy, over rebuilds, especially for anything there was much more than one of made) or a boneyard.

In the unlikely event that I can't get a repairman's certificate, with 16 hours of training in an approved program, I can get one of the new inspection certificates that would not only allow me to perform my own annuals on my aircraft, but, would allow me to do the same for any other aircraft built to the same design. The FAA has specifically created this certificate to encourage builders of the same aircraft design to cross-inspect each others' aircraft, i.e., provide more than one set of eyeballs to catch the bad "trees" we can't see that we've planted in our own "forests". They see this being very important for the increasing number of quick-builds that are coming out. EAA now sponsors a "Two Weeks to Taxi" program, where processes are being documented for a growing number of kits that enable builders to build very nice aircraft in much shorter amounts of time than has traditionally taken - literally from crates of parts to an aircraft that can be taxied under engine-driven propeller power, in two weeks of focused, supervised work. Sooner or later, a gyro kit is going to make that list, and there are still plenty of unfinished (even uncrated) RAFs out there that, along with the correct mod kits, could be built under this program.

I don't need to remain within the 1320 pound limit of an LSA for the purposes of being a Sport Pilot, as I've already got a PP-ASEL and RC (however, for resale purposes, I can see how staying within 1320 might be a real advantage). As far as the FAA is concerned, a PP certificate in any category is all that's needed to fly _any_ category of experimental (as unbelievable as that is, considering the anality of all of the rest of the FARs, e.g., requiring CFI endorsements for every make/model for commercially-built fixed-wing aircraft). The Helicycle factory only requires builders to have an R22 solo endorsement before they'll do a factory rep checkout and let you fly. However, I may be crazy, but, I'm not stupid, and I'm going to get a gyroplane rating anyway (it shouldn't take me more than about 10 ~ 20 hours, given that I can already autorotate in an R22, and that's about as twitchy an aircraft as exists on this planet - along with the even lighter and higher performance/weight Helicycle, from what I've been told). Even with the stability improvement mods on my RAF (that's a phrase I've really come to like the sound of ), I still want to know what it's like to fly less stable versions, but, with an experienced instructor there to take over when I "lose the lucid interval". As I think I mentioned long ago, in a post far, far away, I'm en route commercial and CFI ratings in fixed-wing and rotorcraft. Since there apparently are no RAF instructors out here on the Best Coast (and only one West of the Rockies, in Arizona, part-time?), it seems like I might be able to corner the market out here training gyronauts/nuts in the ways of the RAF. So that they would have something to fly besides my (former Hulk) trainer, I would also need to collect up the hundreds of unbuilt/incomplete/broken kits sitting around back in that direction, and set up a place to help people out here build them right the first time around, with all of the appropriate mods. Hey, it never hurts to dream, even if you occasionally get a pepperoni-induced nightmare every now and then, right? :drum:

As for the serial number and registration, what real engineer in his right mind is going to pass up the opportunity to design and fabricate his very own manufacturer's plate? If there's also an opportunity to create their very own serial number, well, that sure tastes like icing to me! Something that I'm going to have to bolster my registration as the original builder is that I'm apparently going to be the only RAF 2000GTX builder who will be able to present his very own set of to-scale, as-built engineering drawings. I'm beginning to suspect that even RAF never had a complete set of _as-built_ drawings (well, as-instructed-to-be-built, may be a better description, and some builders would vehemently argue whether there were even instructions provided! From some builders' comments, I doubt RAF ever even got to the Bill Lear cocktail napkin level of detail (which is literally how the LearJet came to be), much less the proverbial back of an envelope cherished by so many real engineers.

Since I'm also a computer gizzard, I mean, wizard, here in SillyCon Valley, I have all sorts of stupid/crazy ideas for upgrades to include glass cockpits/EFISs, fuel management (after doing an FI mod, of course, but, only well after saving up for a replacement set of rotor and prop blades, first), powerplant instrumentation, navigation, communications, high-def entertainment ... oops, I guess, like Bullwinkle, I don't know mah own strength! Actually, my fixed-wing FAA examiner (a Brit electronics hardware engineer) moonlights doing those sorts of things, and we've been toying around with some testbed stuff for a while - some pretty cool toys could make their way to a cockpit near you, over the next few years. I'm already putting together the pieces needed for a glass cockpit in my Helicycle, long-term, based on off-the-shelf ruggedized laptop and embedded computer parts and open-source software.

Until I can afford a replacement set of rotor and prop blades, it might be a great gag to hang my Helicycle blades on The Hulk anyway for static displays, even if they are too heavy to fly with, take and post a bunch of photos all over the rotorcraft forums/sites, and declare a new breakthrough in rotorcraft technology, just to watch the cock-a-roaches scramble to crank up their propaganda machines. I can be soooo evil - but, it's soooo much fun!!!

I assume by variable-pitch prop, you mean ground-adjustable, not constant-speed, right? Some constant-speed props cost more than a RAF kit! I'm trying to figure out where to get some carbon-fiber cloth for free/cheap, like maybe dumpster diving in back of the plants where the F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters are being built! Some hand-carved forms, a little epoxy, some stolen time in a chip annealing oven here (oops, 3000 degrees C is a bit warmer than I need), and voila, home-built rotor and prop blades! Yeah, and maye monkeys will fly out of my butt (a much, much, much higher-probability event, especially after that pizza I just polished off - whoa! ):

After posting my latest brain-barf last night, I happened to follow Tim Chick's link in his siggy to his DVD page, and spent until the very wee hours marveling at the video samples he has there, as well as links to others on YouBoob/Tube, etc., and I was amazed at some of what I saw. I know gyros can autorotate, and I've done autorotations in helicopters, but, some of the things being done at Benson Days, etc., were just incredible. I eventually wandered through YouBoob/Tube long enough to come across a pair of Birdy's ground-based and aerial videos, and Holy $#!+ Batman! "That boy is taitched in the haid!", as they say in the high-society parts of West Virginia. After I've spent the $10,000 ~ $15,000 it's probably going to take to get my "free" RAF flying again, I can start saving up to buy Tim's complete collection, to ogle on those rainy days when it's not worth even going to work on the aircraft. Thanks for putting up that page, Tim - it's extremely inspirational!

Well, the little hand on the clock is getting ready to cross into Tomorrow, so, I'd better send this orphan out into the blizzard, and hope he reaches someone who gets at least a chuckle out of my insanity. Thanks again to all of the great replies to my tomes, and be assured that these will help keep me out working on actually getting an aircraft back where it belongs, and, more importantly, gets me off the computer and away from the forum, so someone else can get in a word edge-wise!

Truly, All the Best to All of You,
Jim

 

[davreich]

Hi,
Just an FYI -Geoff Downey is not a CFI ( a nice guy, but not a CFI) he was attached to sales.
Also, under Sport pilot-1320# or less, isn't there something special about the repairman cert. for that? Thanks

 

[Timchick]

Jim,
If you really want to go all out there's an early RAF for sale on ebay. Buy it cheap and you've got plenty of spare parts.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Gyr...014QQitemZ330153312900QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

 

[Hognose]

ELSA
Because you are registering the aircraft anew as a new-build, you have the opportunity to register it as ELSA. You'll have to meet the 1320 lb and the other LSA requirements (no problem, although if you add a lot of bells and whistles you could wind up restricted to thin pax). However, you only have until 31st January 2008 to pull this off, so it's probably not practical -- that means you need to be registered and inspected/airworthy by then.

Inspection
All type-certified aircraft must have an annual inspection or other inspection provided for in the TC documents (like the heavy-maint stage checks done on jets), and all experimental and light-sport aircraft must have an annual condition inspection.

• If you attend a Light-Sport gyro inspection course (the only one I know of is run by Marty Weaver's Fun-Air LLC) you can inspect and sign off any ELSA gyro that you own.
  
• If you construct an Experimental/Amateur-Built gyro, you may obtain on application a Repairman Certificate for that specific airframe. This certificate is nontransferable. If you sell the aircraft, you can surrender the certificate (in which case no one can ever hold a RC for that aircraft) or you can keep the certificate, and even do the condition inspections if you want. You can even get paid to do them if you want. (Most people do not do inspections after selling an aircraft).

Unlike type-certificated aircraft's Annual Inspection, the annual Condition Inspection for either LSA or E/AB can be done by any A&P mechanic. He does not need to have Inspection Authorization. (In addition, any LSA can be inspected by an authorized LSA repairman with the Maintenance rating -- see below).

Repairs and Modifications
You sound like an eager tinkerer, Jim. Be advised that you have less freedom to repair and modify an ELSA than you do an E/AB. Anyone can work on an E/AB and return it to service. To do much of anything to an LSA, beyond the PM that any PPL or above can do on TC aircraft, you need the Maintenance rating. That requires a longer course than the Inspection rating (and AFAIK no one is teaching it for gyros now, not even Marty).

Technically, when you make a major modification to any aircraft, you're supposed to contact your FSDO and arrange for a new set of test operating limitations for a limited time. For instance, they may want to restrict you to the local area, or keep you from flying over kindergartens, until you have 25 hours on that new engine. This is widely ignored by the experimental community, but not only are you at some FAA risk here, there is case law that you are at insurance risk -- in one case a guy mod'd his fuel system, ran dry and pranged, and the courts upheld his insurer stiffing him, because he wasn't operating legally which is a boilerplate clause in every aviation policy.

Pax Carrying
While it's true that any PPL can fly any experimental, there are two constraints on that. One, which just came up last year in a reg change, requires you to have appropriate class, category "and type if required" ratings to carry passengers. You can solo your heart out in a gyro on a PPL-A (or ATPL-H for that matter) but you need a rotorcraft-gyro rating to buckle in Young Eagles (or your mom, or any passenger but "Sandy" the ballast bag).

The second limitation comes when the DAR or FAA inspector issues your operating limitations. The OLs have the force of law. I am not aware of how much discretion DARs and examiners have on this, but I have seen OLs that required category and class ratings, even before last year's policy change. As always with the hundreds of feuding city-states that comprise the FAA, your mileage may (heck, will) vary.

Props
The variable-pitch prop Kenny put on what's now Larry's machine is an Ivoprop inflight adjustable. It's basically an electrical constant-speed prop -- set RPMs, then set power. Inflight adjustable props are haram on light-sport aircraft, say the imams of 800 Independence Avenue. Or, in the terms of bad guys of yore, verboten.

Free Advice
Is not worth what the bandwith costs, probably. But I believe my descriptions of the regs and their consequences to be accurate. I welcome a critical eye (especially from Tom Milton, DAR, and Marty Weaver, CFI/Maintenance Instructor and retired [reformed?] FAA Light-Sport guru).

My personal opinion is that you will probably be happiest registering the aircraft as E/AB especially if you choose the AAI conversion, which adds empty weight. You have more flexibility for modifications and maintenance. On the other hand, you must maintain at least a 3rd Class Medical.

Hope this has helped.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Jim Flies His First Gyro - OH-BOY-OH-BOY-OH-BOY!!!

Jim Flies His First Gyro - OH-BOY-OH-BOY-OH-BOY!!!

Hello My Fellow Gymericans (and GyOzzies, GyKiwis, and whatever a South African Gyronut would be called),

First, Kevin, thanks again for the extensive post. I was going to need to go look up the FARs before making any decisions, but, since I'm constrained by funds to go slow on this rebuild, some of the choices will be made for me. However, it's pretty clear I'm going to essentially have a new aircraft, by the time I'm done with all of the things I need to do, much less those I'd like to do, so, a Repairman's certificate and registration as a full-up Experimental are in the cards.

Well, today (Saturday), was a very productive day in the Valley of the Jolly (Ho-Ho-Ho) Green SillyCon Giants. I towed Otto Gyro to our local (40 minutes, each way, in Saturday shopping mall and recreational traffic - ugh - I can't wait to get something flying - NOW! PRA chapter (58 - aka, the Sierra Rotorcraft Club) meeting, and met a few of the members who are gyronuts of various flavors (no RAFters - the guy in nearby Chapter 5 moved to Texas last year - DOH!). So, I now have a bunch of new best friends, who looked Otto over and unanimously pronounced that I was one lucky sumbeyotch to have landed Otto for the price of the gas and the trailer to go pick him up, even if I will need to spend at least $7,000 in parts (new), or around $5,000 (used, but, in good shape). Depending on the engine's condition and other options, the price tag could easily top $15,000, but, it appears I have lots of choices to make that will significantly affect the final cost - choices are good - I like choices.

One of the members has a Sparrowhawk with about 85 hours on it, and he offered to take me up for a tour around the greater Livermore area, including zipping over a Calaveras Reservoir, and comparing our egg-beating with that of the thousands of electricity-generating windmills on the crest of the Altamont Pass, through which I-580 passes en route Stockton, Modesto, etc. The Sparrowhawk makes the RAF look positively tiny, and he has an EJ-25 with a 72-inch three-blade Warp Drive, which he is willing to sell me, as he intends to upgrade to an in-flight-adjustable prop system (that will cost about $2,200 - I missed the make, but, it's made for experimentals). I'd have to cut off a couple of inches of the blades, unless I do a really rad tail boom mod (and rebalance the blades, in any case). The cabin of the Sparrowhawk is immense compared to that of the RAF, but, it also costs a pretty penny in performance and fuel economy (or, lack thereof). Mike let me take the controls and I spent at least half the flight in charge of our destiny. I was surprised at how stiff the cyclic was, compared with the fussbudget that is an R-22 cyclic - you can go stop-to-stop on an R-22 cyclic about as fast as you can move your fingers - with disastrous results, of course, if you don't reverse the input very, very quickly. I was also amazed (and relieved) that the rudder is essentially unused in flight, which is certainly not the case for any helicopter with a tail rotor - the rudder pedals on an R-22 are even more sensitive than the cyclic, especially when you're standing on them with half your weight, and shifting pressure between them a gram at a time to keep the tail from going every which way but loose, especially hovering with the tail rotor pointing almost directly into a 20+ knot blowout - they don't call it weathercocking for nothing. After learning to hover and do autorotations, keeping a helicopter's tail rotor pointing just off-center into a stiff wind is the most difficult part of learning to fly a helo.

I'm going to have to raise the roof (literally) on my RAF, because my head hits the upper left corner before I can even sit up straight, and without headphones on, much less a helmet. Because of the rollover, that may not require as radical surgery as might be thought. One of the things I need to repair is the back/upper window, which pulled through the rivets along the bottom edge and left side. Along with a full-through break in the top left cabin fiberglass above the door, the back window pull-through provides an opportunity to raise the roof at least a couple of inches. I would need to fair everything in so that the cabin doesn't look like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle eggshell, but, it's quite doable, and given my experience with boat fiberglass repairs, will be relatively easy to do (I like easy).

I finally took some photos of Otto in his current state of disrepair, including close-ups of most of the systems and the cosmetic damage to the cabin. I have a manual en route, with many thanks to Harry, and will soon be in information overload mode, since I've been devouring every byte I've been able to nybble here in the forums, on various builders' web sites, PRA chapter sites, etc. (Gary, your site is wonderful - the building portion is outstanding, and I salivated while following every leg of your flights, having flown fixed-wing over that area a number of times going in and out of Pioneer Field in Vancouver, WA). I've learned a whole lotta fascinating stuff so far, including the revelation that the rotor blades just spill excess air, so that there is apparently no such thing as an overspeed on a gyro (a big problem in both reciprocating-engine and turbine-powered helicopters). I should have realized this earlier, being a sailor, since sailboats spill the excess air off their sails by heeling over in increased winds.

Having seen the Sparrowhawk up-close and personal, and then gotten to fly it, I am just totally stoked about getting Otto back into the air, although with what will amount to a sex-change operation (but, that's pretty common among a chunk of the people around here, at least I now know what to expect from a stable gyro, and I will definitely be adding a significant horizontal stabilizer as far back as possible, extending the tail boom back and up to get the feathers into the fan's breeze, lowering the fan itself to at least near-CLT (within a couple of inches, at most), raising the roof, widening the wheel track by at least a couple of feet, possibly moving the axle back 4 ~ 5 inches, and maybe even dropping the gear at least six inches, perhaps with some kind of shock-absorbing system ala the CarterGyro and Butterfly (or, maybe even the 1,000+ fpm capable CarterCopter

If the 1.8L engine runs OK, I may leave it on until I can evaluate whether it has enough power for my training and forays around town, the latter of which will always be solo, for the foreseeable future (400+ hours, depending on insurance requirements). Once I start going on serious cross-countries, I will likely graduate to the 2.2L, or even 2.5L, with fuel injection, etc. The 2.5L seems like it's an absolute requirement on the Sparrowhawk (but, its 8.1+ gph appetite is almost as bad as my 13+ gph Jet A suckin' Helicycle's is going to be), so, the 2.2L might turn out to be the best bet on Otto, from an all-around perspective. There will be many months to ponder all of this, while I'm waiting for the nickels and dimes to pile up, so I can buy the rotor blades/hub, prop, and other various and sundry absolutely-needed parts.

In the meantime, enjoy the photos, and please continue your most excellent opining from the sidelines. Due to the eight-file limit per post, more photos will be in the next three posts.

Al the Best,
Jim

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Paaaage Two! ... of More Photos

Paaaage Two! ... of More Photos

Heah dey is:

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Paaaage Three! ... of Even More Photos

Paaaage Three! ... of Even More Photos

As advertised - quantities are unlimited, so order early and often. Oh, I miscounted - this is the last of the photos in this batch. Future photos will be from the operating room, with the patient's innards splayed out in various directions. I'll warn viewers when they need to exercise their visual discretion to protect the eyes of the young and infirm from what will likely be gut-wrenching horror.

All the Best,
Jim :usa2:

 

[Heli-Davidson]

Manual Labor Day

Manual Labor Day

Friends, Romans, Countrymen,

Here's the Reader's Digest version of today's Daily Picayune Telegraph Intelligencer Register Herald Times:

I now have a borrowed copy of the mid-1990s construction manual and some videotapes (thank you, sir, and it will be returned forthwith!).

- Was there a videotape #3? I have 1, 2, 4 and 5.

- How many Product Notices (PNs) did RAF publish? I have 3 - 30. I thought I saw a number as high as 47, somewhere.

- Are there letters beyond the PNs I need to obtain that contain important info?

- A PN specifically states that the crankshaft must be replaced and rods magnafluxed in a RAF that's rolled, and that certainly seems appropos. Seems like an upgrade to an EFI EJ22 would be a better procedure, especially since I'm going to need to remove the engine for the drop mod, anyway.

- Is there a formula for determining how far back the main landing gear axle should be moved, with respect to the weight and placement of a horizontal stabilizer, and does this address the longitudinal stability issue when changing the throttle setting while taxiing (which was the root cause of my RAF to roll when the original builder was taxiing)?

- The windscreen could collapse at airspeeds over 70 mph unless a fiberglass reinforcement strip was installed. That's the first I'd heard about that!

- What did the factory do to get a RAF with a horizontal stabilizer to crash? Did they mount it in front of the aircraft?

- Happy Labor Day, everyone! We now return you to your BBQ, already in progress.


And now, for those not suffering from Attention Deficit Dis ... mmm, ribs!

I just received a borrowed copy of a RAF manual (many thanks to someone I shall not identify, for their protection), along with videotapes 1, 2, 4 and 5 (is/was there a Tape #3, or is The Count on Sesame Street not shown in Canada due to violent U.S. television content, such as Muppet vampires? ) It contained Product Notices 3 - 30, but, I thought I saw (in an e-mail from RAF?) that there are 47 Product Notices. Were PNs 1 and 2 only applicable to pre-production aircraft? Were there other forms of correspondence (e.g., letters) not labeled as PNs?

It appears that, since no modifications were made to my RAF since its construction and rollover in 1996, I will need to address all but the first half-dozen, or, so, PNs. This is just as well, since I need to disassemble most stuff for inspection and non-destructive testing, anyway. I did not see a PN specifically addressing the issue that led to the original builder of my RAF to roll it - i.e., longitudinal instability while taxiing that could cause bucking when a throttle change is applied (a quick "goose" up and down, or just any fast increase in throttle?), nor recommended changes to the landing gear (e.g., damping) to eliminate the possibility of undamped oscillations fore-and-aft. The original builder of my RAF said he received a letter in the mail later in the day in late 1996 that he rolled the RAF, discussing the above (talk about a day late and several thousand dollars short). Is there a collection of correspondence I need to seek out, beyond the PNs?

There are some hair-raising things in the PNs, alone, and I can only imagine what's in store in the construction manual itself. I had not heard that a 70 mph Vne was imposed on earlier RAFs until a factory-supplied fiberglass reinforcement strip was installed, as the windscreen could collapse inward at higher speeds! That's a sure sign of a "customer-debugged" product, much like Microsloth has happily been conducting for about 32 years, now.

There is a statement that only original owners of a RAF kit will be provided parts at no charge that are mandated to correct discovered deficiencies. This seems like a really bone-headed policy, if you want to increase the number of post-initial kit sales customers, rather than effectively reducing their numbers by contributing to them being killed - not to mention the lawyer cost factor. Research has found that people will hesitate to perform safety-relaed upgrades that will involve unexpected extra costs. That's why filing flight plans, getting weather briefs, etc., don't cost anything under the current system. However, STFB, the outgoing FAA Adminiweenie is trying to "fix" the problem of people doing things that lead to them being safer.

One of the PNs specifically states that the crankshaft of any RAF that has been in a rollover must be replaced, and the rods magnafluxed. That certainly seems like a good idea, and I'm thinking of an even better corrective action - replacing the EA82 1.8L engine with an EJ22 2.2L fuel-injected engine. By the time all of the NDT and replacements are done, it might actually wind up being cheaper. I'm going to need to remove the engine in order to do structural and corrosion inspections, and lower the engine mount, anyway, so, I might as well do the kaboodle with the kit. The EA82 would probably be better off spending the rest of its days powering a kick-ass dune buggy, air boat, hovercraft, or some similar project that doesn't involve intentionally going airborne for extended periods of time.

I think I had seen mention of it somewhere here on the forum, but, I was still surprised to read that the factory had tried flying a RAF with a horizontal stabilizer, and that the aircraft suffered stability problems to the point where it crashed. Does anyone know any of the particulars about the size, shape, placement, angle of attack, etc., used for that stabilizer, and specifically why the aircraft crashed? Other than a wildly out-of-whack angle of attack, weak attachment design, structural design/construction defect, grossly insufficient size, or placement too far forward, I can't think of how a horizontal stabilizer could cause an aircraft to crash, unless the pilot really pushed the aircraft outside the edges of the envelope in order to determine where those edges were, and it just happened to have a horizontal stabilizer.

I've seen mention of moving the main landing gear axle back 2, 4, or 5 inches, particularly to counteract the weight of a horizontal stabilizer. Can anyone provide the reasoning or a formula for determining how far back the axle should be moved? Also, is this related to the longitudinal instability problem that the original builder of my RAF encountered as he was taxiing?

Well, I'm certainly not wanting for reading material for the long weekend. Now all I need is some BBQ and refreshments, and I'll be all set. Hmmm, I suppose that if I'm enjoying said imbibements with others, I probably should put down the manual, at least for a while. It seems that other people not only aren't excited about building and flying their own aircraft, they have rather strong suspicions about the sanity of those of us who do. So, I need to invest some time in promoting the joy and wonder of self-built flight, and explaining why it's much more likely that someone will be killed driving to/from the airport (or anywhere else, for that matter) than while flying a kit-built aircraft - that has had all of the necessary mods done to ensure it's as safe to fly as possible, of course.

Happy Day of Laboriousness, and All the Best,
Jim

 

[WHY]

Hi Jim

Mosts of the EA-82 that were used on the RAF gyro's were hopped up and the EA-82 was notorious for cracked heads when used at standard application. (cracked between the valves) Most all of the RAF's that used a EA-82 have shelled them out and put in the EJ-22 or bigger EJ-25.

I know of a couple of EA-82 that are running fine but only a couple.

Tony

 

[birdy]

Giday Jim, i love your entheusiasm.

Iv been haven a coupla slack days n have been flipn through the threads to kill time. [ this broke wrist has put a real dent in my schedule]

Wen i read your first post on this thread it got me interested in readn the hole lot to find out WHY RAFs had this 'problem'.
his GTX started to buck fore-and-aft, to the point where the engine got up over the main gear. You can probably see where this was going - a rotor blade struck the tarmac in front, and immediately transferred the torque to the rotor hub, which proceeded to tip the aircraft over on its side, whereupon the prop got chewed down to the nubs instantaneously, of course.

Iv never heard of this happen'n in any machine before.
It was touched on a coupla times but not in depth.
And i cant for the life of me see how the hell any gyro could do
that?!?!?!
Wot was the pilot do'n?
Geez, he musta been realy pumpn the stick hard to get it to buck to that extent, even ina RAF.
IMHO, if his ground handleing was this bad, he's VERY lucky to be alive now.

Also, its good to hear you'v been up in a machine mate, that gyro 'bug's' got a deadly bite aint it?

 

[Resasi]

Sorry to hear your broke a 'wing' Birdy, and yes that gyro bugs got a worse bite than a redback in a dunny except it hits you smack in the right rear trouser pocket!!!

 

[birdy]

Yeh, the tweeked peg is abit of a pissa.
The fingers are workn, sorta, but the joint dont like any attention yet.
Tis a problem, specialy with the prespinner clutch leaver on the ferel be'n on the throttle hand.
No problem if i have room to hand start um, but where i parked it last, near the yard, theres not alota room, so my poor mate is sitn in the sun with a tarp over it for a few days till me hand works agin.