Tractor Training

[Desert Flyer]

Does anyone here have any thoughts regarding the best way to receive training that would be useful and applicable to flying a tractor gyro? Am I correct in the conclusion that there is currently no 2-place tractor trainer available?

Based on the inquiries I have made so far, the initial conclusion I am reaching is that for for general ground-handling skills, learning in a fixed wing tail-dragger would be the best option. Is it reasonable to assume the landing techniques might best be practiced in a fixed wing tail-dragger as well, but with the emphasis on landing tail-wheel first?

I am a little concerned about spending a lot of time and money learning control inputs for a fixed wing aircraft, only to have to un-learn these skills later in order to pilot a gyro safely.

In regards to in-flight handling characteristics, are there differences between a Sparrowhawk and the Pitbull I am building? And (most importantly) are these differences significant enough that training in the Sparrowhawk would actually offer no benefits in terms of transitioning to the Pitbull?

If I reach the final conclusion that training in a Sparrowhawk is not a realistic option, then it would appear I have exhausted every avenue for obtaining training to fly the model of gyroplane I have chosen to construct. As always, I am just seeking opinions on this matter and any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[karlbamforth]

Little Wing gyros are tractor tail draggers.
Not sure if anyone is using them for training.

 

[chuter]

Hi Dan,

As far as I know there is no instruction available in a tractor gyro.

I took my training with Ron Menzie in his AAI modified RAF, and his Parsons trainer (open frame tandem). He test flew my tractor for me, and gave me some tips on how best to transition.

My tractor had some squirrelly taxi problems I had to work out, mostly mechanical problems. Once I got that straightened out it was a breeze.

Take off is different in that you can't rock back to balance on the mains, you just move the stick forward to increase airspeed, and it makes a 3 point take off. At least mine does, not sure about a Pitbull.

Mine takes off about 35-40mph, I think if it was much faster the tail would start to lift, which shouldn't really be a problem.

Landing is really no different that the pushers I trained in.

 

[Vance]

Hello Dan, A lot of the training I have recieved in pusher autogyros has been about rotor control and managing energy. I would think this would apply to all unpowered rotors.

I have heard many stories of improperly managed rotors costing money. I believe that training in any autogyro is a good way to avoid this expense.

I would think that Ron Heron would be a good one to ask. He has been very good about getting back to me with answers to my emails.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Desert Flyer]

Michael,

It is heartening to know you were able to transition without significant difficulty. I have watched the film of your gyro in flight and my hat is off to you (figuratively of course) for having the tenacity and ability to design and fly your own machine, especially a tractor gyro.

When I have conversations with fixed wing pilots, they always dismiss gyroplanes as unsafe aircraft and anyone who would fly them as irrational; almost as if gyros and their pilots were outcasts in the world of aviation.

And the more I study about this area, the more it appears that tractor gyros are regarded as the "outcasts of the outcasts" since there appears to be no training available and no manufacturers left, aside from the Littlewing company. While I admire the Littlewing, the cost and construction time involved put that model out of my reach from day one.

Given all the benefits of having the engine in front, combined with the simplicity of a keel and mast design, I was a little surprised to see the Pitbull model dismissed as a "scary pile of junk" by so many here on the forum. Hopefully, I will someday be able to post my experiences with this model here on this forum and have some positive things to say. If not, at least I will have learned from the experience, I suppose.

Thanks again for your thoughts...


Vance,

Others have suggested I contact Ron regarding his thoughts on training. I'll send him a message...

 

[chuter]

Dan,

There's a person on the forum; username "pbool", that flies a Pitbull, perhaps he'll chime in her with some more info, or you can look up some of his past posts.

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

If no one is currently giving flight training in a tractor gyro then is it possible to get a sport pilot license for tractors? I thought SP training had to be given in the specific gyro set.

 

[GyroRon]

The pitbull is nothing more than the same stuff a Bensen is made out of.... 2x2 aluminum tubing.

The main landing gear, the frame itself, the engine mount and the bodywork on the pitbull is as good as any other gyro.

The parts that aren't as good are the control system - entire system, the way the seat is attached, the tailwheel assembly, the rudder pedal assembly. I also am not a fan of the PitBull rotorhead.

Otherwise it is a good gyro, just different.

Flying it in the air will not be much different from a pusher, just less of a view. It is the takeoff that is mostly different and I ditto everything Chuter said in his post as he is spot on.

As for training I would suggest trying to find someone with a open tandem machine to give you at least the last 2 or 3 hours of training just to get you used to flying out in the wind and not in a cabin.

 

[chuter]

If no one is currently giving flight training in a tractor gyro then is it possible to get a sport pilot license for tractors? I thought SP training had to be given in the specific gyro set.

I think the way it works is; you have to be signed off to solo by an instructor who has 5 hours in that set. It doesn't say you have to be trained in a gyro of that set.

 

[pbool]

I am not currently flying the pitbull because, in an effort to improve it, I really did the opposite. I now endeavor to put it back like it was. Takeoff is not the same. I finally found that it will take off with the stick fully back but must be nosed down as soon as it does. This shortens the run and helps eliminate the squirrely part that you get when you're really steaming down the runway and push the stick forward. All that seemed to do was to really accelerate it and get light on the wheels. I suggest taxiimg a time or 2 with the gear as is. If you have problems, as I did, I added some toe-in to the wheels and pretty much cured it. I also converted the tailwheel to steerable but it still takes practice.
As far as air handling, it is different. I have flown a bensen since 1984 and the big difference I ran into is rudder use. With the bensen, I really don't use the rudder except when landing or take-off. The pitbull, though, does'nt turn well without some rudder input and making sure you don't raise the nose in the process.
Concerning the view, the mast does'nt present much of a problem. I guess it's so close that you don't even focus on it. I managed to get 130 hours in it before I "improved" it but the takeoffs had gotten pretty routine by then. I still have some photos of various parts and will post them if desired. John M

 

[John Stahl]

There is a Bull for sale because it tried to do a ground loop. It happened twice to him. What would cause it to ground loop? Is there a fix? Or is it pilot error?

 

[Ga6riel]

Im thinking there is something wrong with the geometry of the mains on this machine. The thing about taildraggers is the CG needs to be forward of the CL for stability ~ as in any aircraft, but the maingear needs to lead the CG, the amount is fairly critical. From the number of comments I read about this type, it seems to me it ought be examined in detail. And given that there are other taildraggers that do not seem to attract such discussion.

I have seen Luftwaffe training films with Ju88s taking off as 3 point take off, I guess with a load of high explosive these guys didnt mess around. However fighters of the day commonly lifted the tail on take-off, I have never understood why that was so. At the time, there were very few surfaced runways in europe, on the introduction of trike gear heavy bombers that situation had dramaticly changed.

That said, my understanding of taildraggers is, groundloops are managed via a combination of good geometry and training. If no gyro was available for this purpose then I suspect some time on a fixed wing would offer worthwhile instruction.

 

[karlbamforth]

3 Pointers

3 Pointers

Most second world war bombers had engines mounted on the wings and therefore had a reasonable view over the nose. Fighters such as the spitfire or mustang had something like 12 feet of engine etc in front of the windscreen, raising the tail gives a better view and reduces drag.

 

[Chris Burgess]

ground loop

ground loop

If you hit the wheel brakes in a tractor rather than using the rotor for aerodynamic braking, you can flip it up on the nose. Not exactly a ground loop but just as "ugly". I know this has happened to one fellow.

 

[Doug Riley]

The Little Wing certainly isn't an outcast in the sense of being in any way suspect. Just the opposite -- it's a deluxe machine that even the fixed-wingers probably will admire. Ron Herron's marketing is low key, and there just aren't than many of them out there yet.

I've only seen a Pitbull fly once -- maybe five years ago at Mentone. My impression from just watching was that it was not all that pitch-stable. I wonder if the tail surfaces are big enough or properly set up.

 

[Chris Burgess]

LittleWing World Record Setter

LittleWing World Record Setter

Recent article on Andy Keech, world record setter in the LittleWing LW5 two-place.

https://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/060309_keech.html

 

[Desert Flyer]

The Little Wing certainly isn't an outcast in the sense of being in any way suspect. Just the opposite -- it's a deluxe machine that even the fixed-wingers probably will admire. Ron Herron's marketing is low key, and there just aren't than many of them out there yet.

Just to clarify, I was in no way disparaging the Littlewing; I was only making the observation that the vast majority of gyros being manufactured today are of the pusher configuration.

And in retrospect, regarding my comment about fixed wing pilots, I should clarify that I have had actual person-to-person conversations with only five pilots about gyros - certainly a small population when compared the number of licensed general aviation pilots in the USA. That is likely too small a sample to draw the conclusion that ALL fixed wing pilots regard gyros as unsafe.

However, I can say all five pilots I spoke to were vehemently opposed to the thought of flying a gyro. The CFI I spoke to last week about tail-dragger lessons even refused to give me training when I told him I was planning to transition to a gyro - he said he wanted no part of that. He is the brother of a good friend of mine, and he counseled me to avoid gyros at all costs.

I also have a co-worker who is a fixed wing pilot, and his comments are no more reassuring. All the negative reinforcement gets a bit old after awhile...

 

[Doug Riley]

Dan: Your experience is typical. The Bensen approach to gyroplanes took a wonderful type of aircraft and utterly trashed its (formerly) good reputation. We have yet to dig out from under that.

The lingering bad press is partly because pilots are conservative and have long memories, and partly because flawed designs are still flying (and crashing).

Things are getting better, we think.

 

[mcbirdman]

Dan, go to the www.littlewingwonder.com website. Maybe print out some of the very interesting information there. You might want to ask your friends if their own planes flying right now are likely to end up on permanent display at Smithsonian.

Maybe they could understand that this old technology being revived with exciting results - even in this age of jets - is opening new possibilities for the future. It is hard to imagine building an aircraft in your backyard of a design that has broken 19 world records. The fact that the MU1 barrier was broken last year by another company and the fact that there are now a few promising kits out there that employ current technology along with the availability of instructors being improved. One company used a gyro to guard the winter olympics one year.

Yes there has been the bad for far too long. I think more attention should be focused on the new designs out there that are starting to change the negative perception that has been earned. All the tinkering and stuff you have to know besides what you are told by the company is too complicated for the average pilot to accomplish as it was promoted. New companies are coming in are now addressing all these areas of shortcomings.

There is a lot to be learned that is often misunderstood about gyros. But if you start seeing what some of them are doing you / they just might be surprised....... jtm

 

[PW_Plack]

Dan,

Most of the complaints about the Pitbull deal with landing gear geometry, and failure of main gear support cables. There are also a number of people who've tried to build them as legal ultralights, which requires using a Rotax 447, and wound up with machines with dangerously low performance. Some have not been able to climb out of ground effect.

As Vance noted, rotor management skills are critical to learn when transitioning to gyros, and can be learned in any gyro.

As for tailwheel ground handling issues, they're going to be very similar for airplanes and gyros. With the CG behind the main gear, there will always be a tendency to "swap ends," requiring superior rudder skills. I believe you could transfer much of what you'd learn in a tailwheel airplane to a tailwheel gyro.

Getting tailwheel time in airplanes will be MUCH less costly than the rates likely to be charged when two-seat tractor gyro training becomes available. I was paying $35/hour including fuel for Aeronca Champs two years ago, and that aircraft is about to go back into production as a LSA.