Gyrocopter Speed

[Mark]

I have some basic questions about speeds of gyrocopters.

(Please forgive me if my questions are kind of basic. I'm currently working
on my private pilot for airplanes, with long term goal of getting into
gyros. I have a few hours time in gyros, but not enough yet to know what
I'm talking about.)

Why is there such a wide range of max/cruise speeds for gyros? I notice a
Barnett BRC540 2 place cruises at 110 with a top speed of 138.
An RAF Cruises at 70 with a max of 100.
Most single places seem to cruise between 45 and 80.

Why aren't there more fast single place gyros?

Other than a bigger engine, why can a Barnett go 138 compared to RAF's 100?
What characteristics give it the stability to safely go faster? And why
wouldn't they design those characteristics into other gyros?

If I have a design of a stable gyro that cruises at 50, what would prevent
me from safely adding a bigger engine, re-doing my hang test, and flying at
80 (for example).

If I build a gyro from a kit or plans, when I fly it how can I tell when I'm
going faster than I safely should? (Other than reading designer's specs.)
Do all gyros have a characteristic "feel" when getting to the edge?

[SHIVER ME TIMBERS]

> Mark wrote:

> I have some basic questions about speeds of gyrocopters.

Welcome to the group.

With any luck the group's resident expert on gyrocopters will show up
and give you good solid advice on this subject.

Oh Mr. Sandy - Eggo - where are you.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Mark: Way back in the 60's I had a Benson gyro with a 90hp Mac engine with
a Dwyer wind speed gauge that used a small ball floating in a vertical tube
with the ram air entering the bottom and would push the ball up. The
readings stopped at 85mph but had another few inches of tube above the 85.
I can remember one high speed pass, and I'm not sure that I was really at
full throttle, that stuck the ball all the way at the top of the tube and I
had to take a pipe cleaner to push it back down. Looking at the scale we
estimated at least 105 -115. Maybe more with the ball being stuck. I now
think that I was seriously "Kicking the Bull Dog" and am lucky I didn't
discover a stalling blade or some other aerodynamic entertainment.

--
Stu Fields

"Mark" <mark> wrote in message ...
> I have some basic questions about speeds of gyrocopters.
>
> (Please forgive me if my questions are kind of basic. I'm currently
working
> on my private pilot for airplanes, with long term goal of getting into
> gyros. I have a few hours time in gyros, but not enough yet to know what
> I'm talking about.)
>
> Why is there such a wide range of max/cruise speeds for gyros? I notice a
> Barnett BRC540 2 place cruises at 110 with a top speed of 138.
> An RAF Cruises at 70 with a max of 100.
> Most single places seem to cruise between 45 and 80.
>
> Why aren't there more fast single place gyros?
>
> Other than a bigger engine, why can a Barnett go 138 compared to RAF's
100?
> What characteristics give it the stability to safely go faster? And why
> wouldn't they design those characteristics into other gyros?
>
> If I have a design of a stable gyro that cruises at 50, what would prevent
> me from safely adding a bigger engine, re-doing my hang test, and flying
at
> 80 (for example).
>
> If I build a gyro from a kit or plans, when I fly it how can I tell when
I'm
> going faster than I safely should? (Other than reading designer's specs.)
> Do all gyros have a characteristic "feel" when getting to the edge?
>
>

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-03-24 01:25:19 -0500, "Mark" <mark> said:

> Why is there such a wide range of max/cruise speeds for gyros? I
> notice a Barnett BRC540 2 place cruises at 110 with a top speed of 138.
> An RAF Cruises at 70 with a max of 100.

You mean, these are the advertised speeds. ;) Not many Barnett 540s are
flying. There are a number of gyro speed records; I recommend you go to
fai.org and look them up.

Gyro speed is limited by drag. A rotor in autorotation is a draggy
thing. Most gyro fuselages are either designed without any
considerations but function, or are styled without a thought for
aerodynamics. Aero costs money and most gyro firms are in a
hand-to-mouth mode.

> Most single places seem to cruise between 45 and 80.
>
> Why aren't there more fast single place gyros?

Take a look at the tractor Little Wing. That holds a number of speed
and distance records. It is plansbuilt, although you can purchase the
frame tack- or finish-welded.

> Other than a bigger engine, why can a Barnett go 138 compared to RAF's 100?

Well, with who-knows-how-many Barnetts flying, I would like to see
proof it does go that fast before accepting the number.

IMHO an RAF at high speed -- which is around 100 -- is in a hazardous
flight regime.

> What characteristics give it the stability to safely go faster?

Gyro stability is a very large can of worms, largely because one large
maker believes it's all voodoo or myth, and not a matter of science. So
forgive me if I don't go there.

> And why wouldn't they design those characteristics into other gyros?

If you want speed, you don't want a gyro. It's just that simple.

> If I have a design of a stable gyro that cruises at 50, what would
> prevent me from safely adding a bigger engine, re-doing my hang test,
> and flying at 80 (for example).

Engine is only part of your powerplant. There's the propeller. A lot of
guys got killed because Rotaxes replaced Macs as powerplants. And they
could drive a longer prop, but the prop wouldn't clear the runway. So
the whole engine was moved up. or the gearbox flipped. Raising the
thrustline relative to the vCG, and resulting in PPO (bunt over). This
is normally an unsurvivable mode.

Everything you change in a gyro affects all the other components in a
system as well as the system as a whole, and often (unless you have a
bunch of knowledge and experience, and sometimes still even then!) in
unexpected ways.

For more on gyros read:

(1) FAA's Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, including all the helicopter
stuff at the beginning (the gyro stuff assumed you understood the helo
stuff). Available for free on the FAA website as a .pdf, or for money
from the GPO and booksellers in the dead-trees edition. (google
"Rotorcraft Flying Handbook" site:faa.gov to find the .pdf).

(2) www.rotaryforum.com, which is a web based rotorcraft forum with a
strong gyro bias. There is a little bit of good information on the PRA
website www.pra.org and will soon be more (the site is being redone).

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Steve R.]

"Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name> wrote in message
news:2005033111575992791%kevin@orgheaderismydomain name...
> On 2005-03-24 01:25:19 -0500, "Mark" <mark> said:
>
>
> If you want speed, you don't want a gyro. It's just that simple.
>

Or any rotorcraft for that matter. Sure, some helicopters are much faster
but none (or at least, very few) of them are really close to even the
average general aviation fixed wing and certainly no contest for "many" of
the experiemental fixed wing kits around.

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Steve R.]

"The OTHER Kevin in San Diego" <skiddz "AT" adelphia "DOT" net> wrote in
message ...
>
> You mean I can't screw holes in the sky as fast as a Lancair??
>

Well, maybe once! :-D

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Kensandyeggo]

Mark wrote:
> I have some basic questions about speeds of gyrocopters.
>
> (Please forgive me if my questions are kind of basic. I'm currently
working
> on my private pilot for airplanes, with long term goal of getting
into
> gyros. I have a few hours time in gyros, but not enough yet to know
what
> I'm talking about.)
>
> Why is there such a wide range of max/cruise speeds for gyros? I
notice a
> Barnett BRC540 2 place cruises at 110 with a top speed of 138.
> An RAF Cruises at 70 with a max of 100.
> Most single places seem to cruise between 45 and 80.
>
> Why aren't there more fast single place gyros?
>
> Other than a bigger engine, why can a Barnett go 138 compared to
RAF's 100?
> What characteristics give it the stability to safely go faster? And
why
> wouldn't they design those characteristics into other gyros?
>
> If I have a design of a stable gyro that cruises at 50, what would
prevent
> me from safely adding a bigger engine, re-doing my hang test, and
flying at
> 80 (for example).
>
> If I build a gyro from a kit or plans, when I fly it how can I tell
when I'm
> going faster than I safely should? (Other than reading designer's
specs.)
> Do all gyros have a characteristic "feel" when getting to the edge?

[Kensandyeggo]

Mark wrote:
> I have some basic questions about speeds of gyrocopters.
>
> (Please forgive me if my questions are kind of basic. I'm currently
working
> on my private pilot for airplanes, with long term goal of getting
into
> gyros. I have a few hours time in gyros, but not enough yet to know
what
> I'm talking about.)
>
> Why is there such a wide range of max/cruise speeds for gyros? I
notice a
> Barnett BRC540 2 place cruises at 110 with a top speed of 138.
> An RAF Cruises at 70 with a max of 100.
> Most single places seem to cruise between 45 and 80.
>
> Why aren't there more fast single place gyros?
>
> Other than a bigger engine, why can a Barnett go 138 compared to
RAF's 100?
> What characteristics give it the stability to safely go faster? And
why
> wouldn't they design those characteristics into other gyros?

Kevin O. answered everything perfectly. 138 in a gyro? I'd have to
see that. A McCulloch J-2 with a 180 horse Lyc only cruises at around
80, despire the old brochure claims of 95.
>
> If I have a design of a stable gyro that cruises at 50, what would
prevent
> me from safely adding a bigger engine, re-doing my hang test, and
flying at
> 80 (for example).
>
> If I build a gyro from a kit or plans, when I fly it how can I tell
when I'm
> going faster than I safely should? (Other than reading designer's
specs.)
> Do all gyros have a characteristic "feel" when getting to the edge?

[SHIVER ME TIMBERS]

> Kensandyeggo > wrote:

Nothing that I could see.

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

Long time no hear from Mr. Eggo.

Was kinda wondering what you were up to these past few months.

I kinda dropped out of the newsgroup scene for a while but I'm back,
just kinda lurking and enjoying Kevins stories about the day in the
life of a helicopter pilot trainee.

So are you and the bottomless pit still doing your burger runs to the
outlying areas.... or what.?????

Curious minds always want to know.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-05 03:20:13 -0400, "Kensandyeggo" > said:

> Kevin O. answered everything perfectly. 138 in a gyro? I'd have to
> see that. A McCulloch J-2 with a 180 horse Lyc only cruises at around
> 80, despire the old brochure claims of 95.

And not to pile on, but Carter Aviation Technologies claimed that their
CCTD would be good for 400 kt (I believe) on a six-cylinder auto motor.
The 3.8 six has been replaced by a 5.7 eight making ~380 HP and they
are flying at about 160 mph -- not knots.

They will go faster, I am sure. But I don't see 400. And they get speed
by unloading and slowing the rotor, and flying on lift from the wings.
The concept of the CCTD is to use the rotor not as the principal
lifting surface but as the mother of all low-speed lift-enhancing
devices on what's functionally a fixed-wing in cruise.

An experienced gyro entrepreneur is claiming 150 for a new design of
his, to be introduced next week. I believe that RAF claims 100 for the
RAF 2000 GTX SE. That's as credible as the fourteen year olds who write
into Road and Track about their imaginary Ferraris.

Gyro designers and marketing operations used to be mostly on the
up-and-up. Then came Dennis Fetters and the first Air Command (I have
to stress that the current Air Command is a whole different operation,
that makes a safe gyro and as far as I know sells it honestly).
Dennis's gyro had the best specs in the industry, thanks to Dennis's
skills.

Skills at typing press relases and performance charts....

Unfortunately, when his numbers got loose in the wild, people believed
them. "Gee, why would I buy a gyro that cruises at 65 when this Air
Command goes 110?" That set off an arms race of spiraling, bogus
performance claims. For other gyro makers, none of whom ever got rich
at this thing, it was "lie or die." I think many of them don't even
KNOW what the true performance numbers of their sheenry is.
(I can only think of one gyro manufacturer that has actually
instrumented a test aircraft the way, well, professionals do). Not
meaning to dampen anyone's ardour for gyros, they're great fun and safe
as houses with a little training and judgment (some are safer than
others to be sure). Just trying to get things onto a factual basis. I
would not trust the Barnett 138 nor the RAF 100 (RAF's can go that
fast, but it is not IMHO in a safe flight regime at that point).

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Steve R.]

"Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name> wrote in message
news:2005040512392116807%kevin@orgheaderismydomain name...
> (I can only think of one gyro manufacturer that has actually instrumented
> a test aircraft the way, well, professionals do).
> cheers
>
> -=K=-
>

If you don't want to answer this, that's Ok, but would you mind stating
which gyro manufacturer that is? I'll take it as opinion only but I'm
curious.

> Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.
>

Personally, I'd just as soon NOT hit anything at all! :-)

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Steve R.]

"SHIVER ME TIMBERS" > wrote in message
...
>> Kensandyeggo > wrote:
>
> Nothing that I could see.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Long time no hear from Mr. Eggo.
>
> Was kinda wondering what you were up to these past few months.
>
> I kinda dropped out of the newsgroup scene for a while but I'm back,
> just kinda lurking and enjoying Kevins stories about the day in the
> life of a helicopter pilot trainee.
>
> So are you and the bottomless pit still doing your burger runs to the
> outlying areas.... or what.?????
>
> Curious minds always want to know.

Here, here! :-)

[Dennis Fetters]

Kevin, your input is interesting, but please let me take a moment and
correct a few remarks you made....


Kevin O'Brien wrote:

> Gyro designers and marketing operations used to be mostly on the
> up-and-up. Then came Dennis Fetters and the first Air Command (I have to
> stress that the current Air Command is a whole different operation, that
> makes a safe gyro and as far as I know sells it honestly). Dennis's gyro
> had the best specs in the industry, thanks to Dennis's skills.
>
> Skills at typing press relases and performance charts....
>
> Unfortunately, when his numbers got loose in the wild, people believed
> them.


The Air Command Gyros that I manufactured all lived up to their
performance specifications, all 1,200 of them. The fact is that we
traveled world wide and demonstrated the aircraft, and out performed
everyone, every place and every time, hands down. That is why we sold
98% of all gyros being built in the worlds market when I owned the company.


> "Gee, why would I buy a gyro that cruises at 65 when this Air
> Command goes 110?"


By reading your own statement above explains your misconception. You are
comparing a competitors "cruse" speed with the "top" speed of the
fastest, most powerful and streamlined Commander we ever built, and we
never sold that one to the public. And yes, we demonstrated it many
times at the air shows that it could sustain 110 mph+, using a 4
cylinder Italian made 120 hp Arrow engine. Our fastest production
machine would sustain a top speed of 95 mph in level flight, faster in a
slight decent. Cruse was 65 mph+, same as you tried to compare above.


> That set off an arms race of spiraling, bogus
> performance claims. For other gyro makers, none of whom ever got rich at
> this thing, it was "lie or die."


Actually, since we stormed the market and took 98% of all world gyro
sells within two years, our competitors had to lie about their
performance or bite the big one. The fact was that they could not
compete with the price or performance of Air Command aircraft, except to
lie or copy it, as you can see what happened. Even Bensen Aircraft
closed it's doors less than two years after we started selling, they
just couldn't compete.


> I think many of them don't even KNOW
> what the true performance numbers of their sheenry is.


I agree with you. Most do lie about their performance, and most do not
know what the true performance numbers are. In fact, most don't
understand why they fly. As one so called manufacturer told me once,
"it's the dully-whoppers on top what make it fly".

Hope this information helps.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Shipley]

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> Kevin, your input is interesting, but please let me take a moment and

Shut up.

[Shipley]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> On 2005-04-05 03:20:13 -0400, "Kensandyeggo" > said:
....
> Gyro designers and marketing operations used to be mostly on the
> up-and-up. Then came Dennis Fetters and the first Air Command (I have
> to stress that the current Air Command is a whole different operation,
> that makes a safe gyro and as far as I know sells it honestly).
> Dennis's gyro had the best specs in the industry, thanks to Dennis's
> skills.
>
> Skills at typing press relases and performance charts....

Kensandyeggo knows the Fetters legend well.

http://tinyurl.com/5xlps

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-05 16:16:25 -0400, "Steve R."
> said:

> If you don't want to answer this, that's Ok, but would you mind stating
> which gyro manufacturer that is? I'll take it as opinion only but I'm
> curious.

Groen Brothers has flown a fully instrumented sport gyoplane. It was a
side effect of their Hawk 4 program -- they had all the telemetry gear
from the Hawk and used it in the development of, first, a
stability-enhancement kit for the RAF 2000, and secondly, for the AAI
Sparrowhawk which shares many of the components of the stability
enhancement kit.

You can see the Sparrowhawk at www.americanautogyro.com and they show
at major airshows. For example, they're at Sun-n-Fun in the main area
(not out in the Choppertown wilderness) right now, and they are flying
demos from Plant City (a nearby airport).
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-05 19:06:32 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> said:

> The Air Command Gyros that I manufactured all lived up to their
> performance specifications, all 1,200 of them.

You had 1,200 specifications?

Oh, 1,200 gyros. Yep. Most of which had dangerously high thrustlines. I
will say that this hazard was not at all widely understood in the sport
at the time, and that by the time that it was clear, Air Command was in
new hands.

> The fact is that we traveled world wide and demonstrated the aircraft,
> and out performed everyone, every place and every time, hands down.
> That is why we sold 98% of all gyros being built in the worlds market
> when I owned the company.

I think that you are giving far too much credit to your gyro and not
nearly enough to your own ability and skill as a salesman.


> ly, since we stormed the market and took 98% of all world gyro sells
> within two years, our competitors had to lie about their performance or
> bite the big one. The fact was that they could not compete with the
> price or performance of Air Command aircraft, except to lie or copy it,
> as you can see what happened.

The Rotax engine was a natural addition to gyroplanes (it was already
storming the ultralight world), but you do deserve credit for being the
first to see that and take action. Of course, it led inevitably to a
higher thrustline, because the geared Rotax needed a longer prop than
the direct-drive Mac.

The unintended consequences of high thrustline gyroplanes are now well known.


> Even Bensen Aircraft closed it's doors less than two years after we
> started selling, they just couldn't compete.

Dr Bensen was dead. I think that he had a similar gift of sales
ability, although I never knew the guy. But it is pretty hard to run an
aircraft company, I would suppose, when the fellow with the ideas is
gone and has not been replaced.

But I do believe, Dennis, that your marketing of both the Air Command
and later, the Mini-500, was textbook quality. With the Air Command,
buyers were made to feel part of a community.

Also -- credit where credit is due -- it is my understanding that if
you bought an AC during the Dennis Fetters area, Dennis reciprocated by
buying you membership in the Popular Rotorcraft Association for a year.
It would be in the PRA and in informally associated online fora that
the battle over centerline thrust would be fought.

> gree with you. Most do lie about their performance, and most do not
> know what the true performance numbers are. In fact, most don't
> understand why they fly. As one so called manufacturer told me once,
> "it's the dully-whoppers on top what make it fly".

Jesus H. Christ. I think that the current state of the market is not
that dreadful; there are certainly people who understand RW
aerodynamics and other aeronautical "facts that is facts" and can
explain autorotative flight without recourse to "dully-whoppers".

Some of those manufacturers include Ernie Boyette (dominator), Ron
Herron (little wing), and Groen Brothers (AAI/Sparrowhawk).

As I see the basic problem, it is one of resources. There are few
barriers to entry as a kit manufacturer, so there are many
manufacturers operating on a shoestring, desperately undercapitalized.
None of them can afford to instrument a gyro and collect the data, even
if they knew what to do with it once they had it. I tend to be leery of
kit aircraft specifications in general. Manufacturers have strong
incentives to, at minimum, select the most optimistic numbers available.

Even magazine tests are usually meaningless because (1) the numbers
records depend on the aircraft's own instrumentation, and (2) the data
is not corrected for a international standard atmosphere. Ergo, the
data can't be reasonably compared to other data gathered at other
places and times.

The influential makers of gyroplanes today all design safe, centerline
thrust machines. Air Command still makes an upgrade kit for those of
the Fetters era that remain unconverted. I consider an unconverted AC
an unstable, hazardous machine, best converted, grounded, or only flown
by expert pilots in favorable weather.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Dennis Fetters]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>> The Air Command Gyros that I manufactured all lived up to their
>> performance specifications, all 1,200 of them.
>
>
> You had 1,200 specifications?


Kevin, I'm sure you understood what was being said, if not then the
problem here is with you. Why do you feel the need to do something like
that?


> Oh, 1,200 gyros. Yep. Most of which had dangerously high thrustlines.


Kevin, you must be new to gyroplanes, or you would know that there is
nothing wrong with the way a classic gyroplane flies. Have you ever
flown a gyroplane of classic design? If so, then you would not be saying
such things.


> I
> will say that this hazard was not at all widely understood in the sport
> at the time, and that by the time that it was clear, Air Command was in
> new hands.


It was very understood, and known not to be a problem. In fact the
classic Commander was, and is a stable hands off flying aircraft.


>> The fact is that we traveled world wide and demonstrated the
>> aircraft, and out performed everyone, every place and every time,
>> hands down. That is why we sold 98% of all gyros being built in the
>> worlds market when I owned the company.
>
>
> I think that you are giving far too much credit to your gyro and not
> nearly enough to your own ability and skill as a salesman.


I think you are taking far to much intelligence away from people and how
they make decisions. Sure, I'm a salesman, and a designer and tool and
die maker. I have much experience manufacturing aircraft, in fact over
1700, but the aircraft I sold all were seen at the air shows, where you
can't fool anybody when they are seeing it with their own eyes.


>> ly, since we stormed the market and took 98% of all world gyro sells
>> within two years, our competitors had to lie about their performance
>> or bite the big one. The fact was that they could not compete with the
>> price or performance of Air Command aircraft, except to lie or copy
>> it, as you can see what happened.
>
>
> The Rotax engine was a natural addition to gyroplanes (it was already
> storming the ultralight world), but you do deserve credit for being the
> first to see that and take action. Of course, it led inevitably to a
> higher thrustline, because the geared Rotax needed a longer prop than
> the direct-drive Mac.
> The unintended consequences of high thrustline gyroplanes are now well
> known.


Again, this leads me to believe you have a lack of experience in the
gyro field. I would suggest that you learn more about a wider verity of
gyros and their characteristics before trying to compare the evils of
one over the other.


>> Even Bensen Aircraft closed it's doors less than two years after we
>> started selling, they just couldn't compete.
>
>
> Dr Bensen was dead. I think that he had a similar gift of sales ability,
> although I never knew the guy. But it is pretty hard to run an aircraft
> company, I would suppose, when the fellow with the ideas is gone and has
> not been replaced.


This pretty much explains it, you must be new to the gyro field. I did
know the guy, and was over to his house many times for dinner, where we
had many intriguing conversations. If he was dead, then he sure fooled
me. His company was open and being ran by him for 3 years after I
started Air Command, and he lived for many years after he closed his
doors. Sorry dude, but when you're wrong, your wrong.


> But I do believe, Dennis, that your marketing of both the Air Command
> and later, the Mini-500, was textbook quality. With the Air Command,
> buyers were made to feel part of a community.


Yes they were. We had many get-togethers for our customers, and offered
free help and mechanical training to all.


> Also -- credit where credit is due -- it is my understanding that if you
> bought an AC during the Dennis Fetters area, Dennis reciprocated by
> buying you membership in the Popular Rotorcraft Association for a year.


Yes we did, and to my knowledge, no other manufacturer did the same.


> It would be in the PRA and in informally associated online fora that the
> battle over centerline thrust would be fought.


The blind leading the blind.


>> gree with you. Most do lie about their performance, and most do not
>> know what the true performance numbers are. In fact, most don't
>> understand why they fly. As one so called manufacturer told me once,
>> "it's the dully-whoppers on top what make it fly".
>
>
> Jesus H. Christ. I think that the current state of the market is not
> that dreadful; there are certainly people who understand RW aerodynamics
> and other aeronautical "facts that is facts" and can explain
> autorotative flight without recourse to "dully-whoppers".


Well, then make up your mind. You said: "I think many of them don't even
KNOW what the true performance numbers of their sheenry is."

Why must you talk like that? It serves no purpose and only makes people
question if you are emotionally able to discuss a topic.


> The influential makers of gyroplanes today all design safe, centerline
> thrust machines. Air Command still makes an upgrade kit for those of the
> Fetters era that remain unconverted.


Yes they do, and what an opportunity to sell a bunch of upgrade kits
during the hysteria! I have to admit, it would have been tempting to me
too, if I would have just acquired the company and wanted a good
infusion of cash.


> I consider an unconverted AC an
> unstable, hazardous machine, best converted, grounded, or only flown by
> expert pilots in favorable weather.


You do not know what you are talking about. Someone has brainwashed you
to the point of tunnel vision, and that's dangerous. The classic
machines have been flying for many, many years. The problem is training,
the lack of it. Plain and simple. The gyroplane is plagued with people
thinking they can teach themselves to fly it, in fact, 9 out of 10
people that want to learn to fly a gyro, think they can teach
themselves. There is the problem, and the only problem. Sure, there were
some gyro's built that were unstable, but not the Bensens, or the
Brocks, or the Commanders. They fly just fine. Saying that they were
unstable is just not true.

[Steve R.]

Just my 2 cents worth:

By way of introductions, and I'm sure this will disqualify me from having
anything valid to say by some folks out there but........

I'm not a gyro pilot. I've been interested in them for over 10 years now.
One of the reasons I'm not a gyro pilot is because of all the arguing and
"tit for tat" bantering that I've seen go on, "forever," on that makes a
safe gyro and what doesn't. As a lay person, interested in the aircraft,
it's hard to know who to believe and who not to and after a while, you get
to the point where it's not worth worrying about any more but the past few
years have seen a "coming together" of people from both sides of the
argument and, unlike 5 to 10 years ago, there's a pretty solid consensus of
what design parameters a pusher style gyro should have in order to be safe.
I don't have a degree in aerodynamics but I'm not a total dunce in the
common sense department either. The basics of this are not hard to
understand.

The two biggest design parameters for the pusher style gyro are:

1. Center line thrust - that is, the thrust line from the engine should be
running through the vertical CG of the aircraft.
2. Some form of effective horizontal stabilizer.


"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
m...
>
> It was very understood, and known not to be a problem. In fact the classic
> Commander was, and is a stable hands off flying aircraft.
>

High thrust line gyros are capable of one "VERY" bad thing, it's called a
power push over (PPO). Yes, many were being flown successfully by
experienced pilots. There were also a lot of people getting themselves
killed in these very same designs. Whenever this happened, it was always
the pilots fault. He didn't have enough experience and/or not enough
training. This is a very easy claim to make, especially for the
manufacturer, as it points the finger of fault to someone else. The problem
is, the "operator error" claim starts wearing thin when the same kind of
accident keeps happening over and over and over again and not all the
victims were green, low time pilots! I'm not saying the pilot wasn't a
factor, most certainly, they were but there was obviously something else
very wrong here too!

Just because high thrust line gyros can be flown hands off under certain
circumstances doesn't mean they are safe aircraft. The fact is, whether
it's pilot induced or the result of atmospheric effects, the aircraft should

>
> The blind leading the blind.
>

Based on some of the arguments I've witnessed in person at PRA fly-in's in
Mentone and on the Internet, especially in the mid to late '90's, I can't
argue with that one too much but I don't think it's a valid, or at least not
"as" valid a statement these days as it was back then.

> Yes they do, and what an opportunity to sell a bunch of upgrade kits
> during the hysteria! I have to admit, it would have been tempting to me
> too, if I would have just acquired the company and wanted a good infusion
> of cash.
>

Hysteria?? I don't think so. Yes, the argments were long and heated but
Red Smith didn't just rush out an "upgrade" kit to take advantage of
everyone elses fears and pad his own pocket. He bought the company from, I
assume, the guys that bought it from you. They (the Florida group) left a
number of customers sitting out in the cold after they had put money down
for a new kit. Red Smith filled those orders after buying Air Command even
though he wasn't technically obligated to do that. I'm sure it was a
financial hardship at the time but he showed his true colors by taking care
of those people. He had also been running the company for a number of years
before the centerline conversion came out. Your statement that he "just
acquired the company and wanted a good infusion of cash" paints an
inaccurate picture.

> You do not know what you are talking about. Someone has brainwashed you to
> the point of tunnel vision, and that's dangerous. The classic machines
> have been flying for many, many years. The problem is training, the lack
> of it. Plain and simple. The gyroplane is plagued with people thinking
> they can teach themselves to fly it, in fact, 9 out of 10 people that want
> to learn to fly a gyro, think they can teach themselves. There is the
> problem, and the only problem. Sure, there were some gyro's built that
> were unstable, but not the Bensens, or the Brocks, or the Commanders. They
> fly just fine. Saying that they were unstable is just not true.
>

Brainwashed?? Tunnel vision?? Not hardly. Sure the "classic" machines
were flying for many years. A lot of those folks were self taught because
there simply weren't any gyro instructors around. As the sport took off, a
lot of folks killed themselves trying to self instruct. Thankfully, that's
not the situation these days. While gyro instructors aren't exactly a
dime-a-dozen, they are out there and there's no real excuse not to get
proper training.

The simple fact of the matter is, due to their high thrust line designs,
these machine are capable of PPO. This is something that NO gyro should
EVER be prone to under ANY circumstances!!! Centerline thrust versions are
not capable of PPO. There is NO excuse to fly a high thrust line gyro,
given what is known about their flight characteristics these days.

I don't blame you for continuing to defend the original design of the Air
Command. To admit that there "might" be an issue with it would be to open
yourself up for all kind of liability problems.

Again, I'm not a gyro pilot but I am a fixed wing pilot. I've seen a LOT of
high time, supposedly professional pilots, do some pretty stupid things.
Just because an aircraft with an inherent design issue is flown for 500 hrs
without mishap, doesn't mean it's a safe design. Red Smith showed a great
deal of integrity when he brought out the centerline conversion for the Air
Command. If I do get into this (I haven't given up on the dream entirely),
his machine will be high on my list of those to consider.

FWIW!
Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Peter Wendell]

Steve,

You're just wasting your time with Mr. Fetters. He is well known in the
gyro and experimental helicopter world and all that you will ever hear
from him is self-serving nonsense. Truth, or god forbid physics, will
never enter into it.

There really is consensus within the gyro community about what makes a
stable gyroplane. Only one manufacturer, RAF, does not acknowledge the
importance of an adequate horizontal stabilizer and near center line
thrust. RAF continue to ignore the physics and the accident statistics
for reasons known only to them. Many, if not most, RAFs currently flying
have been fitted with horizontal stabilizers by the owners againt the
factory's advise. This dramatically reduces, but does not eliminate, the
tendancy to PPO, and has certainly saved lives.

The fact is, the early Bensens with their direct drive engines and small
props were very close to center line thrust. Although they lacked a stab
and had considerable dynamic instability, they did not have a large
tendancy to PPO. It was when people began to use more powerful engines
and larger props that they had to raise the engine on the mast and
created very dangerous machines with very high thrustlines. The early
Air Commands and the KB3 are good examples of these later generation
machines. To be fair, early on it seems that many manufacturers didn't
really understand the dangers of a high thrust line, but the ones like
RAF and the early Air Command who refused, and in RAF's case, continue
to refuse, to modify their designs once the physics was well understood
and documented, are simply criminal. For Mr. Fetters to imply that the
new Air Command's CLT upgrade kits, which are quite reasonably priced,
were simply a money making scam, would be laughable if it weren't for
the blood that has been shed.

I am a gyro pilot with a PP certificate and a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating.

Steve R. wrote:
> Just my 2 cents worth:
>
> By way of introductions, and I'm sure this will disqualify me from having
> anything valid to say by some folks out there but........
>
> I'm not a gyro pilot. I've been interested in them for over 10 years now.
> One of the reasons I'm not a gyro pilot is because of all the arguing and
> "tit for tat" bantering that I've seen go on, "forever," on that makes a
> safe gyro and what doesn't. As a lay person, interested in the aircraft,
> it's hard to know who to believe and who not to and after a while, you get
> to the point where it's not worth worrying about any more but the past few
> years have seen a "coming together" of people from both sides of the
> argument and, unlike 5 to 10 years ago, there's a pretty solid consensus of
> what design parameters a pusher style gyro should have in order to be safe.
> I don't have a degree in aerodynamics but I'm not a total dunce in the
> common sense department either. The basics of this are not hard to
> understand.
>
> The two biggest design parameters for the pusher style gyro are:
>
> 1. Center line thrust - that is, the thrust line from the engine should be
> running through the vertical CG of the aircraft.
> 2. Some form of effective horizontal stabilizer.
>
>
> "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>It was very understood, and known not to be a problem. In fact the classic
>>Commander was, and is a stable hands off flying aircraft.
>>
>
>
> High thrust line gyros are capable of one "VERY" bad thing, it's called a
> power push over (PPO). Yes, many were being flown successfully by
> experienced pilots. There were also a lot of people getting themselves
> killed in these very same designs. Whenever this happened, it was always
> the pilots fault. He didn't have enough experience and/or not enough
> training. This is a very easy claim to make, especially for the
> manufacturer, as it points the finger of fault to someone else. The problem
> is, the "operator error" claim starts wearing thin when the same kind of
> accident keeps happening over and over and over again and not all the
> victims were green, low time pilots! I'm not saying the pilot wasn't a
> factor, most certainly, they were but there was obviously something else
> very wrong here too!
>
> Just because high thrust line gyros can be flown hands off under certain
> circumstances doesn't mean they are safe aircraft. The fact is, whether
> it's pilot induced or the result of atmospheric effects, the aircraft should
>
>
>>The blind leading the blind.
>>
>
>
> Based on some of the arguments I've witnessed in person at PRA fly-in's in
> Mentone and on the Internet, especially in the mid to late '90's, I can't
> argue with that one too much but I don't think it's a valid, or at least not
> "as" valid a statement these days as it was back then.
>
>
>>Yes they do, and what an opportunity to sell a bunch of upgrade kits
>>during the hysteria! I have to admit, it would have been tempting to me
>>too, if I would have just acquired the company and wanted a good infusion
>>of cash.
>>
>
>
> Hysteria?? I don't think so. Yes, the argments were long and heated but
> Red Smith didn't just rush out an "upgrade" kit to take advantage of
> everyone elses fears and pad his own pocket. He bought the company from, I
> assume, the guys that bought it from you. They (the Florida group) left a
> number of customers sitting out in the cold after they had put money down
> for a new kit. Red Smith filled those orders after buying Air Command even
> though he wasn't technically obligated to do that. I'm sure it was a
> financial hardship at the time but he showed his true colors by taking care
> of those people. He had also been running the company for a number of years
> before the centerline conversion came out. Your statement that he "just
> acquired the company and wanted a good infusion of cash" paints an
> inaccurate picture.
>
>
>>You do not know what you are talking about. Someone has brainwashed you to
>>the point of tunnel vision, and that's dangerous. The classic machines
>>have been flying for many, many years. The problem is training, the lack
>>of it. Plain and simple. The gyroplane is plagued with people thinking
>>they can teach themselves to fly it, in fact, 9 out of 10 people that want
>>to learn to fly a gyro, think they can teach themselves. There is the
>>problem, and the only problem. Sure, there were some gyro's built that
>>were unstable, but not the Bensens, or the Brocks, or the Commanders. They
>>fly just fine. Saying that they were unstable is just not true.
>>
>
>
> Brainwashed?? Tunnel vision?? Not hardly. Sure the "classic" machines
> were flying for many years. A lot of those folks were self taught because
> there simply weren't any gyro instructors around. As the sport took off, a
> lot of folks killed themselves trying to self instruct. Thankfully, that's
> not the situation these days. While gyro instructors aren't exactly a
> dime-a-dozen, they are out there and there's no real excuse not to get
> proper training.
>
> The simple fact of the matter is, due to their high thrust line designs,
> these machine are capable of PPO. This is something that NO gyro should
> EVER be prone to under ANY circumstances!!! Centerline thrust versions are
> not capable of PPO. There is NO excuse to fly a high thrust line gyro,
> given what is known about their flight characteristics these days.
>
> I don't blame you for continuing to defend the original design of the Air
> Command. To admit that there "might" be an issue with it would be to open
> yourself up for all kind of liability problems.
>
> Again, I'm not a gyro pilot but I am a fixed wing pilot. I've seen a LOT of
> high time, supposedly professional pilots, do some pretty stupid things.
> Just because an aircraft with an inherent design issue is flown for 500 hrs
> without mishap, doesn't mean it's a safe design. Red Smith showed a great
> deal of integrity when he brought out the centerline conversion for the Air
> Command. If I do get into this (I haven't given up on the dream entirely),
> his machine will be high on my list of those to consider.
>
> FWIW!
> Fly Safe,
> Steve R.
>
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Wendell wrote:
> For Mr. Fetters to imply that the new Air Command's CLT upgrade
> kits, which are quite reasonably priced, were simply a money
> making scam, would be laughable if it weren't for the blood that
> has been shed.

As I recall, all of his gyro's were grounded in England due to safety
concerns...

[Steve R.]

"Peter Wendell" > wrote in message
news:EEzae.1911$pk5.1122@fed1read02...
> Steve,
>
> You're just wasting your time with Mr. Fetters. He is well known in the
> gyro and experimental helicopter world and all that you will ever hear
> from him is self-serving nonsense. Truth, or god forbid physics, will
> never enter into it.
>

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the reply!

I don't expect any positive acknowledgment from Mr. Fetters. He's made his
position abundantly clear on too many occations. I don't usually bother but
this was one time that I felt like speaking up, even though I'm not a gyro
pilot.

I'm still interested in gyros though. Maybe some day! :-)

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-22 18:56:24 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> said:

> Kevin, you must be new to gyroplanes, or you would know that there is
> nothing wrong with the way a classic gyroplane flies. Have you ever
> flown a gyroplane of classic design? If so, then you would not be
> saying such things.

Dennis, compared to you I am a newbie at gyros, and I'm a novice at
serial killing, too.

I have flown both HTL and CLT gyros, although I admit I haven't flown
one of your-era Air Commands. I won't, either. I'm not rated in gyros
at this time. I only fly with a CFI or BFI/AFI until I am.


> It [the high thrustline/PPO hazard] was very understood, and known not
> to be a problem. In fact the classic Commander was, and is a stable
> hands off flying aircraft.


That's a classic case of not understanding it.

> I think you are taking far to much intelligence away from people and
> how they make decisions. Sure, I'm a salesman, and a designer and tool
> and die maker.

Maybe it's not a case of "fooling" people but one of not revealing (or
perhaps, as you indicate above) not understanding a fundamental safety
problem, and therefore, how are novices to know?

> I have much experience manufacturing aircraft, in fact over 1700, but
> the aircraft I sold all were seen at the air shows, where you can't
> fool anybody when they are seeing it with their own eyes.

1200+ hazardous HTL Air Commands.
500+ stone killer Mini-500 helicopters.
1 Voyager-500 helicopter which never killed anybody, but never
saw translational lift either (the two may be connected), and for which
you took $48,500 deposits when you knew you were going out of business.


> Again, this [my comments on the Rotax replacing a Mac, leading to a
> higher thrustline] leads me to believe you have a lack of experience in
> the gyro field. I would suggest that you learn more about a wider
> verity of gyros and their characteristics before trying to compare the
> evils of one over the other.

Look up "verity," please. I think you mean "variety." No problem, a
typo. I don't quite understand your point. Is it that:

1. I am wrong about the geared Rotax requiring a longer prop for
efficience than the d/d Mac?
2. I am wrong about Air Command (and others) addressing that by
reversing the gearbox or raising the engine relative to the keel,
raising the thrustline?
3. I am wrong about the laws of physics that say that thrust applied to
an object on an axis remote from the center of mass will produce a
rotational moment about the center of mass? And that rotational moment
will be proportional to the both the thrust and the distance of the
thrustline from the CG?

Heck, I thought all those were statements of easily demonstrated fact.
Which of these facts will experience in the gyro field overturn? Or
will trying to get experience on your old gyro overturn not the facts,
but the gyro?

> This pretty much explains it, you must be new to the gyro field. I did
> know the guy, and was over to his house many times for dinner, where we
> had many intriguing conversations. If he was dead, then he sure fooled
> me. His company was open and being ran by him for 3 years after I
> started Air Command, and he lived for many years after he closed his
> doors. Sorry dude, but when you're wrong, your wrong.

Yep, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I thought he went out of business
before you started Air Command, and I guess I was wrong. Thank you for
the correction.

<some agreement about DF-era Air Command's communitarian and marketing
savvy snipped. You all aren't reading this thread to see where Dennis
and I agree, are ya?>


> The blind leading the blind.

Hmmm. Jim Mayfield's blind? Greg Gremminger? Ernie Boyette? The only
people still defending high thrustlines are you and the dwindling rank
of Rotary Air Force Marketing true believers. (And yes, I have flown
their gyro, and it flies fine in most regimes, and is fun to fly. I
just don't think it's safe, and I don't fly an unmodified one any more).

Now, I said;

>> Jesus H. Christ. I think that the current state of the market is not
>> that dreadful; there are certainly people who understand RW
>> aerodynamics and other aeronautical "facts that is facts" and can
>> explain autorotative flight without recourse to "dully-whoppers".

And Dennis said:

>> Well, then make up your mind. You said: "I think many of them don't
>> even KNOW what the true performance numbers of their sheenry is."

Dennis, Dennis. Two different things here. 1. Understanding
aerodynamics and why your machine flies. And 2. having a complete set
of performance numbers that were scientifically established, preferally
by flight testing to confirm calculated numbers. I think everybody
selling gyros today, with the possible exception of RAF, has a keen
grasp of 1. Indeed some of them, like Mayfield, Boyette, and Larry
Neal, are (or recently have been) involved in cutting-edge gyro
research. As far as 2., the only company that I know that has
instrumented a test vehicle and gotten truly valid numbers is AAI. The
new RAF website claims that they are doing similar data collection,
although that's not independently confirmed at this time.


>> Why must you talk like that? It serves no purpose and only makes people
>> question if you are emotionally able to discuss a topic.

Talk like what...? I honestly have no clue what you're referring to. As
far as my emotional ability to discuss the topic, let the readers
judge. Maybe it's just a delusion, but I think I'm holding my own here.

> Yes they [Air Command] do [sell a CLT safety kit for DF-era AC's], and
> what an opportunity to sell a bunch of upgrade kits during the
> hysteria! I have to admit, it would have been tempting to me too, if I
> would have just acquired the company and wanted a good infusion of cash.

This is projecting your own business cynicism onto the current owners
of Air Command, who have raised the firm up from the bad reputation
that previous owners left on the business, and in your personal case,
on the safety of the machine. You built 1200 gyros -- take a look at
what they sell the CLT kit for and tell us what their profit is.
(Factor in inflation on goods and labour). My numbers say they sell it
at cost.

Now let's play "I said and Dennis said" again:

I said:

> I consider an unconverted AC an unstable, hazardous machine, best
> converted, grounded, or only flown by expert pilots in favorable
> weather.

Dennis said:

> You do not know what you are talking about.

I admit I haven't flown an unconverted Air Command, and I'm not going to.

> Someone has brainwashed you to the point of tunnel vision, and that's
> dangerous.

I don't see where the danger lies. Help me out. If I am right and your
machine is less safe than a modified one, I am safer by not flying the
unmodified Air Command. If you are right and the "classic" Air Command
is just as safe, then I am just as safe by not flying the unmodified
Air Command. So how is my "brainwashed tunnel vision" dangerous?

> The classic machines have been flying for many, many years.

Yep. When they were still selling in bulk, there used to be a big "in
memoriam" section in the PRA magazine, too.

> The problem is training, the lack of it. Plain and simple. The
> gyroplane is plagued with people thinking they can teach themselves to
> fly it, in fact, 9 out of 10 people that want to learn to fly a gyro,
> think they can teach themselves.

Holy mackerel, Dennis and I agree again, at least with the above
paragraph. People are still trying to teach themselves to fly, and
still killing themselves in what should be one of the safest aircraft
imaginable, the gyroplane. Listen up, kids: when something comes up
that two guys with as many differences as Dennis Fetters and I can
wholeheartedly agree on, you can take that to the bank.

If you are going to fly a gyroplane, get training from an experienced,
competent, certified instructor, and best is if he or she is intimately
familiar with the gyro you plan to fly.

Of all the guys who tried to teach themselves to fly, all the ones the
lived really loved it. But find an instructor and learn from HIS or HER
experience, not from your own. An accident reflects badly on all of us
in the sport, which is why so many of us will urge you to seek gyro
training.


> There is the problem, and the only problem.

Now, we part company again. It's not the only problem, although I grant
that it's a huge problem, and the largest one. All credible gyro
vendors have pushed training hard -- including AC and RAF.

> Sure, there were some gyro's built that were unstable,

Marchetti...

> but not the Bensens, or the Brocks, or the Commanders.

Bensen was designed to be centerline thrust. Pull out those old B-8M
plans and take a look.

Not familiar with the Brock, which is basically an improved Mac Bensen,
or a Bensen with a Rotax, depending on the model.

> They fly just fine. Saying that they were unstable is just not true.

You're telling me that you don't have an overturning moment on the
Commanders when the rotor is momentarily unloaded (as by a gust?) And
the only reason that Air Command sells a CLT kit for the existing fleet
is "marketing"?

Here, we're going to disagree.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Peter: There is another Gyro mfr. that has designed in the HS but not the
CLT: The Magni certainly has not integrated the CLT. Pictures of Greg
flying the ship seem to have the thrust line just about lined up somewhere
thru his head. Greg, who is a gyro instructor, and a Magni dealer, has
written reams in support of the HS, but not so about the CLT.
I'm one of the "Survivors" of the teach yourself to fly your Benson. Back
in the mid 60's I had a very warm 90hp Mac driving a relatively large
diameter prop and both my wife and I self taught in the machine and never
damaged any part. I flew in winds exceeding 25mph and was able to hover the
little bird. I did one formal airshow and numerous demos and did the
"Brock" spiral and flew the thing to speeds exceeding 100mph. Like Cdr.
Wallis, who flew his "Little Nellie" with rockets mounted low, I had a metal
6gal outboard fuel tank mounted below the seat, so I know that my vertical
c.g was significantly below the thrust line. The "Rock Guard" didn't qualify
as a HS due to it's size and short moment arm. I found the bird at least
neutrally stable and very controllable. The cardinal rule was: Don't get
light in the seat without a throttle reduction and no I didn't have to
continually have to jotstle the throttle when flying in the thermals here in
the desert. I got out of the gyros because they needed too much runway. I
now own and fly a Safari helo.
--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Peter Wendell" > wrote in message
news:EEzae.1911$pk5.1122@fed1read02...
> Steve,
>
> You're just wasting your time with Mr. Fetters. He is well known in the
> gyro and experimental helicopter world and all that you will ever hear
> from him is self-serving nonsense. Truth, or god forbid physics, will
> never enter into it.
>
> There really is consensus within the gyro community about what makes a
> stable gyroplane. Only one manufacturer, RAF, does not acknowledge the
> importance of an adequate horizontal stabilizer and near center line
> thrust. RAF continue to ignore the physics and the accident statistics
> for reasons known only to them. Many, if not most, RAFs currently flying
> have been fitted with horizontal stabilizers by the owners againt the
> factory's advise. This dramatically reduces, but does not eliminate, the
> tendancy to PPO, and has certainly saved lives.
>
> The fact is, the early Bensens with their direct drive engines and small
> props were very close to center line thrust. Although they lacked a stab
> and had considerable dynamic instability, they did not have a large
> tendancy to PPO. It was when people began to use more powerful engines
> and larger props that they had to raise the engine on the mast and
> created very dangerous machines with very high thrustlines. The early
> Air Commands and the KB3 are good examples of these later generation
> machines. To be fair, early on it seems that many manufacturers didn't
> really understand the dangers of a high thrust line, but the ones like
> RAF and the early Air Command who refused, and in RAF's case, continue
> to refuse, to modify their designs once the physics was well understood
> and documented, are simply criminal. For Mr. Fetters to imply that the
> new Air Command's CLT upgrade kits, which are quite reasonably priced,
> were simply a money making scam, would be laughable if it weren't for
> the blood that has been shed.
>
> I am a gyro pilot with a PP certificate and a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating.
>
> Steve R. wrote:
> > Just my 2 cents worth:
> >
> > By way of introductions, and I'm sure this will disqualify me from
having
> > anything valid to say by some folks out there but........
> >
> > I'm not a gyro pilot. I've been interested in them for over 10 years
now.
> > One of the reasons I'm not a gyro pilot is because of all the arguing
and
> > "tit for tat" bantering that I've seen go on, "forever," on that makes a
> > safe gyro and what doesn't. As a lay person, interested in the
aircraft,
> > it's hard to know who to believe and who not to and after a while, you
get
> > to the point where it's not worth worrying about any more but the past
few
> > years have seen a "coming together" of people from both sides of the
> > argument and, unlike 5 to 10 years ago, there's a pretty solid consensus
of
> > what design parameters a pusher style gyro should have in order to be
safe.
> > I don't have a degree in aerodynamics but I'm not a total dunce in the
> > common sense department either. The basics of this are not hard to
> > understand.
> >
> > The two biggest design parameters for the pusher style gyro are:
> >
> > 1. Center line thrust - that is, the thrust line from the engine should
be
> > running through the vertical CG of the aircraft.
> > 2. Some form of effective horizontal stabilizer.
> >
> >
> > "Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>It was very understood, and known not to be a problem. In fact the
classic
> >>Commander was, and is a stable hands off flying aircraft.
> >>
> >
> >
> > High thrust line gyros are capable of one "VERY" bad thing, it's called
a
> > power push over (PPO). Yes, many were being flown successfully by
> > experienced pilots. There were also a lot of people getting themselves
> > killed in these very same designs. Whenever this happened, it was
always
> > the pilots fault. He didn't have enough experience and/or not enough
> > training. This is a very easy claim to make, especially for the
> > manufacturer, as it points the finger of fault to someone else. The
problem
> > is, the "operator error" claim starts wearing thin when the same kind of
> > accident keeps happening over and over and over again and not all the
> > victims were green, low time pilots! I'm not saying the pilot wasn't a
> > factor, most certainly, they were but there was obviously something else
> > very wrong here too!
> >
> > Just because high thrust line gyros can be flown hands off under certain
> > circumstances doesn't mean they are safe aircraft. The fact is, whether
> > it's pilot induced or the result of atmospheric effects, the aircraft
should
> >
> >
> >>The blind leading the blind.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Based on some of the arguments I've witnessed in person at PRA fly-in's
in
> > Mentone and on the Internet, especially in the mid to late '90's, I
can't
> > argue with that one too much but I don't think it's a valid, or at least
not
> > "as" valid a statement these days as it was back then.
> >
> >
> >>Yes they do, and what an opportunity to sell a bunch of upgrade kits
> >>during the hysteria! I have to admit, it would have been tempting to me
> >>too, if I would have just acquired the company and wanted a good
infusion
> >>of cash.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hysteria?? I don't think so. Yes, the argments were long and heated
but
> > Red Smith didn't just rush out an "upgrade" kit to take advantage of
> > everyone elses fears and pad his own pocket. He bought the company
from, I
> > assume, the guys that bought it from you. They (the Florida group) left
a
> > number of customers sitting out in the cold after they had put money
down
> > for a new kit. Red Smith filled those orders after buying Air Command
even
> > though he wasn't technically obligated to do that. I'm sure it was a
> > financial hardship at the time but he showed his true colors by taking
care
> > of those people. He had also been running the company for a number of
years
> > before the centerline conversion came out. Your statement that he "just
> > acquired the company and wanted a good infusion of cash" paints an
> > inaccurate picture.
> >
> >
> >>You do not know what you are talking about. Someone has brainwashed you
to
> >>the point of tunnel vision, and that's dangerous. The classic machines
> >>have been flying for many, many years. The problem is training, the lack
> >>of it. Plain and simple. The gyroplane is plagued with people thinking
> >>they can teach themselves to fly it, in fact, 9 out of 10 people that
want
> >>to learn to fly a gyro, think they can teach themselves. There is the
> >>problem, and the only problem. Sure, there were some gyro's built that
> >>were unstable, but not the Bensens, or the Brocks, or the Commanders.
They
> >>fly just fine. Saying that they were unstable is just not true.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Brainwashed?? Tunnel vision?? Not hardly. Sure the "classic" machines
> > were flying for many years. A lot of those folks were self taught
because
> > there simply weren't any gyro instructors around. As the sport took
off, a
> > lot of folks killed themselves trying to self instruct. Thankfully,
that's
> > not the situation these days. While gyro instructors aren't exactly a
> > dime-a-dozen, they are out there and there's no real excuse not to get
> > proper training.
> >
> > The simple fact of the matter is, due to their high thrust line designs,
> > these machine are capable of PPO. This is something that NO gyro should
> > EVER be prone to under ANY circumstances!!! Centerline thrust versions
are
> > not capable of PPO. There is NO excuse to fly a high thrust line gyro,
> > given what is known about their flight characteristics these days.
> >
> > I don't blame you for continuing to defend the original design of the
Air
> > Command. To admit that there "might" be an issue with it would be to
open
> > yourself up for all kind of liability problems.
> >
> > Again, I'm not a gyro pilot but I am a fixed wing pilot. I've seen a
LOT of
> > high time, supposedly professional pilots, do some pretty stupid things.
> > Just because an aircraft with an inherent design issue is flown for 500
hrs
> > without mishap, doesn't mean it's a safe design. Red Smith showed a
great
> > deal of integrity when he brought out the centerline conversion for the
Air
> > Command. If I do get into this (I haven't given up on the dream
entirely),
> > his machine will be high on my list of those to consider.
> >
> > FWIW!
> > Fly Safe,
> > Steve R.
> >
> >

[Peter Wendell]

Stuart,

I'm definitely familiar with the Magnis and with Greg. Both are class
acts. The magni is deceptive. It's thrust line is only 2"-3" above the
CG and is more than compensated for by the stab. I like to talk about
stable gyros being Near CLT. A couple of inches high or low won't make
any significant difference as long as there is an adequate stab. Even a
true CLT machine will only be precisely CLT at one specific load.

There are lots of folks that have flown many hours in unstable gyros.
There are also too many that didn't make it. The fact is that we now
know how to build much safer gyros that are also much easier to fly. And
we don't have to give up any speed or manuverability in the process. So,
there is absolutely no reason not to do it. Combine this with the
availability of high quality dual instruction, and there's no reason
that gyros can't acheive a safety record equal to, or better than,
airplanes.

I have only ever flown Near CLT gyros, but have learned much from those
who learned on machines like yours and who find the current generation
of stable gyros to be superior in every way. I'm glad you and your wife
were some of the fortunate, talented, and/or disciplined ones that made
it and who still love to fly.

I'd love try my hand at a Helicopter....one day!

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> Peter: There is another Gyro mfr. that has designed in the HS but not the
> CLT: The Magni certainly has not integrated the CLT. Pictures of Greg
> flying the ship seem to have the thrust line just about lined up somewhere
> thru his head. Greg, who is a gyro instructor, and a Magni dealer, has
> written reams in support of the HS, but not so about the CLT.
> I'm one of the "Survivors" of the teach yourself to fly your Benson. Back
> in the mid 60's I had a very warm 90hp Mac driving a relatively large
> diameter prop and both my wife and I self taught in the machine and never
> damaged any part. I flew in winds exceeding 25mph and was able to hover the
> little bird. I did one formal airshow and numerous demos and did the
> "Brock" spiral and flew the thing to speeds exceeding 100mph. Like Cdr.
> Wallis, who flew his "Little Nellie" with rockets mounted low, I had a metal
> 6gal outboard fuel tank mounted below the seat, so I know that my vertical
> c.g was significantly below the thrust line. The "Rock Guard" didn't qualify
> as a HS due to it's size and short moment arm. I found the bird at least
> neutrally stable and very controllable. The cardinal rule was: Don't get
> light in the seat without a throttle reduction and no I didn't have to
> continually have to jotstle the throttle when flying in the thermals here in
> the desert. I got out of the gyros because they needed too much runway. I
> now own and fly a Safari helo.

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-25 15:37:56 -0400, Peter Wendell > said:

> Even a true CLT machine will only be precisely CLT at one specific load.

Quite true, and as you write it is the size of the moment arm that
makes the difference. The arm on an RAF is over a foot! I would guess
on Dennis-era Air Commands ("classic" to use his term!) it's about six
inches.

In re your discussion with Stu about Magnis, I'd like to state that you
just flat can't eyeball vertical centre of mass. It needs to be
measured.

It *is* possible to design an aircraft with a high thrustline that has
little or no pitch change with application of power (I am told the
SeaStar Amphibian kitplane is one such). Just like it is possible to
design a fixed-wing aiircraft that requires little or no trim change
when adding or subtracting power (the B-17 is one such). In both cases
it is extremely difficult to do, and so it is rare. Most airplanes with
a high thrustline (mostly amphibians and ultralights with high-mounted
engines) exhibit significant pitch change with power. But then, pitch
change can't unload their wings and cause them to flap -- not so a
teetering rotor.

> There are lots of folks that have flown many hours in unstable gyros.

Yep. Some instruct in them: basically all the RAF factory guys, plus
guys in their orbit like Dofin Fritts and Jim Logan to name two good
instructors (yes, Dofin got his pee pee whacked and spent a year on the
beach for breaking a rule. I bet he isn't going to break that rule any
more).

> There are also too many that didn't make it.

Bingo, Peter.

> The fact is that we now know how to build much safer gyros that are
> also much easier to fly. And we don't have to give up any speed or
> manuverability in the process. So, there is absolutely no reason not to
> do it.

Bingo again. See, Peter, Stu, even Dennis: if you GAINED anything from
a high thrust line, you could make a credible argument that the risk
was worth the benefit, that it was a worthwhile compromise. But the
claims made for un-stabbed and non-CLT gyros vice stabbed, CLT ones are
unconvincing.

> Combine this with the availability of high quality dual instruction,
> and there's no reason that gyros can't acheive a safety record equal
> to, or better than, airplanes.

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. We
are still having guys teach themselves to fly, or almost teach
themselves. Crunch. More troubling, we have had some relatively
low-time, but licenced and well-taught, guys prang, some fatally.
That's part of what worries me -- there's always going to be the guy
who will just go fly, and he is the bane of every CFI/BFI/AFI and
manufacturer's existence.

That syndrome, I think, is why Dennis withheld tail rotor gearboxes (I
believe that was the part) from his helicopter customers until they
could demonstrate training. Both helicopters and gyros can kill you
dead without specific class and category training. (Type-specific is
better if you can).

There are many old timers who followed the Bensen method. The problem
with that is that while the graduated self-instruction method in his
manual seems to work if painstakingly followed, most pilot-wannabees
haven't the patience and self-discipline to follow it. A Bensen B8M of
course had far less energy than the gyros of today -- with its wooden
blades and optimistically-rated 72 HP Mac (more like 40 HP!) it could
just barely kill you (although NTSB records from the period of peak
Bensen popularity shows that it did, frequently).

> I have only ever flown Near CLT gyros, but have learned much from those
> who learned on machines like yours and who find the current generation
> of stable gyros to be superior in every wa

In the end the ASTM subcommittee working on gyro consensus standards
did not require any particular way of meeting the stability standard,
but did set a stability standard and required it to be demonstrated in
flight test. I do not believe an unmodified HTL gyro can pass that test.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Kevin: As a retired engineer, I agree that you can't eyeball the vertical
c.g. But when you see a picture of a Magni with Greg on board who darn sure
weighs more than 200# and you can roughly eyball a thrust line from an
extended line perpindicular to the prop and that line comes thru Greg higher
than his chest, I'm not going to give you vertical c.g. to the 1 or 2 " but
I would have a hard time believing that the vertical c.g is not going to be
more than a couple of inches below the thrust line. I do agree that CLT
will make a safer ship. I don't agree with all of the emotional shouting
that the non CLT ships were unstable and dangerous. Too many people are
still successfully flying them.
BTW have you ever looked at the accident rate for CFI(G)? I've personally
seen some of the dumbest flying comitted by CFIs. Maybe this is a case if
you can't do teach? I totally agree that if you can find a Good CFI, it is
a whole lot safer and more expedient than self teaching. That said, I
recently flew a 300# single seat helicopter owned by a man who self taught
in the same helo. He could have gotten dual in a R-22, Bell 47, Schweitzer
300, or even a Brantly. Very little of the muscle memory derived from any
of these ships would translate to his tiny ship. A personal friend got his
ticket in a Bell 47 and had he tried to then solo his Safari, his checkout
pilot said he would have crashed. Similar problems were encountered in
training in an RAF then solo your ultralite gyro. I don't have much time in
a two seat gyro, but I did get the controls on the Sparrowhawk prototype and
it didn't fly anything like my Benson. Had I gotten dual in that ship and
then tried to fly my Benson I would have been unlearning a bunch of learned
Sparrowhawk responses.
--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name> wrote in message
news:2005042521441716807%kevin@orgheaderismydomain name...
> On 2005-04-25 15:37:56 -0400, Peter Wendell >
said:
>
> > Even a true CLT machine will only be precisely CLT at one specific
load.
>
> Quite true, and as you write it is the size of the moment arm that
> makes the difference. The arm on an RAF is over a foot! I would guess
> on Dennis-era Air Commands ("classic" to use his term!) it's about six
> inches.
>
> In re your discussion with Stu about Magnis, I'd like to state that you
> just flat can't eyeball vertical centre of mass. It needs to be
> measured.
>
> It *is* possible to design an aircraft with a high thrustline that has
> little or no pitch change with application of power (I am told the
> SeaStar Amphibian kitplane is one such). Just like it is possible to
> design a fixed-wing aiircraft that requires little or no trim change
> when adding or subtracting power (the B-17 is one such). In both cases
> it is extremely difficult to do, and so it is rare. Most airplanes with
> a high thrustline (mostly amphibians and ultralights with high-mounted
> engines) exhibit significant pitch change with power. But then, pitch
> change can't unload their wings and cause them to flap -- not so a
> teetering rotor.
>
> > There are lots of folks that have flown many hours in unstable gyros.
>
> Yep. Some instruct in them: basically all the RAF factory guys, plus
> guys in their orbit like Dofin Fritts and Jim Logan to name two good
> instructors (yes, Dofin got his pee pee whacked and spent a year on the
> beach for breaking a rule. I bet he isn't going to break that rule any
> more).
>
> > There are also too many that didn't make it.
>
> Bingo, Peter.
>
> > The fact is that we now know how to build much safer gyros that are
> > also much easier to fly. And we don't have to give up any speed or
> > manuverability in the process. So, there is absolutely no reason not to
> > do it.
>
> Bingo again. See, Peter, Stu, even Dennis: if you GAINED anything from
> a high thrust line, you could make a credible argument that the risk
> was worth the benefit, that it was a worthwhile compromise. But the
> claims made for un-stabbed and non-CLT gyros vice stabbed, CLT ones are
> unconvincing.
>
> > Combine this with the availability of high quality dual instruction,
> > and there's no reason that gyros can't acheive a safety record equal
> > to, or better than, airplanes.
>
> Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. We
> are still having guys teach themselves to fly, or almost teach
> themselves. Crunch. More troubling, we have had some relatively
> low-time, but licenced and well-taught, guys prang, some fatally.
> That's part of what worries me -- there's always going to be the guy
> who will just go fly, and he is the bane of every CFI/BFI/AFI and
> manufacturer's existence.
>
> That syndrome, I think, is why Dennis withheld tail rotor gearboxes (I
> believe that was the part) from his helicopter customers until they
> could demonstrate training. Both helicopters and gyros can kill you
> dead without specific class and category training. (Type-specific is
> better if you can).
>
> There are many old timers who followed the Bensen method. The problem
> with that is that while the graduated self-instruction method in his
> manual seems to work if painstakingly followed, most pilot-wannabees
> haven't the patience and self-discipline to follow it. A Bensen B8M of
> course had far less energy than the gyros of today -- with its wooden
> blades and optimistically-rated 72 HP Mac (more like 40 HP!) it could
> just barely kill you (although NTSB records from the period of peak
> Bensen popularity shows that it did, frequently).
>
> > I have only ever flown Near CLT gyros, but have learned much from those
> > who learned on machines like yours and who find the current generation
> > of stable gyros to be superior in every wa
>
> In the end the ASTM subcommittee working on gyro consensus standards
> did not require any particular way of meeting the stability standard,
> but did set a stability standard and required it to be demonstrated in
> flight test. I do not believe an unmodified HTL gyro can pass that test.
>
> --
> cheers
>
> -=K=-
>
> Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.
>

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-04-26 11:33:46 -0400, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > said:

> extended line perpindicular to the prop and that line comes thru Greg higher
> than his chest, I'm not going to give you vertical c.g. to the 1 or 2 "

That was Peter's number, but I think Greg has never claimed that it is
CLT, but that it's reasonable close to CLT, and moreover, it is stable.
It had a very good record worldwide, although I don't know what the
results of the investigation of the fatal in Italy in, I think, 2003(?)
have been.


> I do agree that CLT
> will make a safer ship. I don't agree with all of the emotional shouting
> that the non CLT ships were unstable and dangerous. Too many people are
> still successfully flying them.

Reminds me of the famous quote about the BD-5 kitplane: "everyone who
lived loved it!"

> BTW have you ever looked at the accident rate for CFI(G)? I've personally
> seen some of the dumbest flying comitted by CFIs.

True. And ATPs. Two CFIs in one plane can be a hazardous condition,
too. The thing is that there are three parts of learning, the motor
skills stuff, the book/regulations stuff, and ... judgment. Judgment is
very very hard to teach.

A very good charter outfit just had a jet mishap in Texas with two
19,000 hour pilots on board. There is an excellent analysis of the
accident in Business and Commercial Aviation this month. Something was
bugging them about the way they had the modes set up on the display on
the airplane, but they couldn't put their finger on it. A good
procedure for that might be, go missed, go to hold, sort out the
switchology and come back. But these guys had 19,000 hours of always
coming through OK and it didn't seem like that big of a problem.

I see the same thing in skydiving. Look at the accidents in Parachutist
and you will see not so many novices as 5,000 jump D-licence pros who
blew a judgment call once.

> I
> recently flew a 300# single seat helicopter owned by a man who self taught
> in the same helo. He could have gotten dual in a R-22, Bell 47, Schweitzer
> 300, or even a Brantly. Very little of the muscle memory derived from any
> of these ships would translate to his tiny ship.

The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying Bells
was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as the
exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.

> A personal friend got his
> ticket in a Bell 47 and had he tried to then solo his Safari, his checkout
> pilot said he would have crashed.

My point is that you need to have a different experience baseline to be
a test pilot in whatever than you do to fly a machine. The insurers
have grabbed a hold of type-specific training and are worrying it like
a dog with a bone. If I have a new guy come in with 1,000 twin hours,
the insurers will not cover him as PIC in a Duchess (a simple twin
trainer) until he has 10 hours dual in type.

With an airplane, it's more learning the systems than getting a feel
for the handling -- IMHO, that comes very quickly and an average twin
pilot can master the handling of the Duchess in all flight regimes in
an hour and spend the rest of the time on switchology. With a
rotorcraft, you have both to deal with. You can't neglect the systems,
but there is a much wider variation in what is considered normal
handling and control feel. This is especially true in experimental
aircraft, which are not required to meet any particular certification
standard. .


> Similar problems were encountered in
> training in an RAF then solo your ultralite gyro.

Well, yeah, that would be like doing an airplane PPL in a Cessna 206
with 1000 pounds of freight and then expecting a single-seat
experimental to handle similarly.

> I don't have much time in
> a two seat gyro, but I did get the controls on the Sparrowhawk prototype and
> it didn't fly anything like my Benson. Had I gotten dual in that ship and
> then tried to fly my Benson I would have been unlearning a bunch of learned
> Sparrowhawk responses.

What about some of the other twin trainers, like the Parsons and the
old SnoBird? Or the Air Command? I haven't flown any of the two seat
rails, just the sleds (SH and RAF).
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[Dennis Fetters]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
> helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying Bells
> was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as the
> exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.


I don't care about the rest of your discussion here, so no comment. But,
you got it wrong about Allen Barklage an his accident in his Mini-500.
The Mini-500 has excellent engine-out characteristics, as demonstrated
at almost every major air show. If properly set up by the builder, it
could autorotate and land safely as low as 40 mph. Allen had great
experience in his Mini-500 and was an expert at demonstrating autorotations.

Where would lack of transition time from one helicopter to another have
anything to do about Allan's accident, in the way you just tried to
convey here? None whatsoever. Allen took off in his Mini-500 after it
had an engine seizure due to improper jetting a flight before. He didn't
bother to inspect the engine for seizure damage, and just flew it away
as if nothing wrong had happened. Worse yet, he hugs the ground during
his flight, and flies over a power line complex without gaining
altitude. The engine finally failed over the lines, and he tried to milk
the rotor rpm for more than any helicopter could have offered, and nosed
into the ground after stalling the blades. Simple as that. It had
nothing to do with transition time from one helicopter to another. It
had already been determined that there is probably no single engine
helicopter built that could have lost it's engine at that time and
auturotated that distance at such a low altitude and landed safely.

[Stuart Fields]

Kevin: I think the heavy really makes a difference. Before I had any helo
training, I got the opportunity to fly a UH-1N. I was able to actually
hover the beast with full controls and make pedal turns the first try. I
figured that I must be one of those "naturals" and charged off to an R-22.
In about 4 seconds I had my tail between my legs wondering what had
happened. I've had a ride in a tandem gyro trainer, but it also felt much
heavier and ponderous than my Benson. I agree that a lot of experience in
different ships will really help the test pilot. But the beginner doesn't
have that luxury...I certainly agree that instruction pays off even if you
have to just have ground instruction with an instructor watching your
taxiing and first lift offs. With radio communication it is possible to
gently enter the flight mode if done dang carefully.
"Kevin O'Brien" <kevin@org-header-is-my-domain-name> wrote in message
news:2005060513075116807%kevin@orgheaderismydomain name...
> On 2005-04-26 11:33:46 -0400, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" >
said:
>
> > extended line perpindicular to the prop and that line comes thru Greg
higher
> > than his chest, I'm not going to give you vertical c.g. to the 1 or 2 "
>
> That was Peter's number, but I think Greg has never claimed that it is
> CLT, but that it's reasonable close to CLT, and moreover, it is stable.
> It had a very good record worldwide, although I don't know what the
> results of the investigation of the fatal in Italy in, I think, 2003(?)
> have been.
>
>
> > I do agree that CLT
> > will make a safer ship. I don't agree with all of the emotional
shouting
> > that the non CLT ships were unstable and dangerous. Too many people are
> > still successfully flying them.
>
> Reminds me of the famous quote about the BD-5 kitplane: "everyone who
> lived loved it!"
>
> > BTW have you ever looked at the accident rate for CFI(G)? I've
personally
> > seen some of the dumbest flying comitted by CFIs.
>
> True. And ATPs. Two CFIs in one plane can be a hazardous condition,
> too. The thing is that there are three parts of learning, the motor
> skills stuff, the book/regulations stuff, and ... judgment. Judgment is
> very very hard to teach.
>
> A very good charter outfit just had a jet mishap in Texas with two
> 19,000 hour pilots on board. There is an excellent analysis of the
> accident in Business and Commercial Aviation this month. Something was
> bugging them about the way they had the modes set up on the display on
> the airplane, but they couldn't put their finger on it. A good
> procedure for that might be, go missed, go to hold, sort out the
> switchology and come back. But these guys had 19,000 hours of always
> coming through OK and it didn't seem like that big of a problem.
>
> I see the same thing in skydiving. Look at the accidents in Parachutist
> and you will see not so many novices as 5,000 jump D-licence pros who
> blew a judgment call once.
>
> > I
> > recently flew a 300# single seat helicopter owned by a man who self
taught
> > in the same helo. He could have gotten dual in a R-22, Bell 47,
Schweitzer
> > 300, or even a Brantly. Very little of the muscle memory derived from
any
> > of these ships would translate to his tiny ship.
>
> The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
> helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying Bells
> was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as the
> exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.
>
> > A personal friend got his
> > ticket in a Bell 47 and had he tried to then solo his Safari, his
checkout
> > pilot said he would have crashed.
>
> My point is that you need to have a different experience baseline to be
> a test pilot in whatever than you do to fly a machine. The insurers
> have grabbed a hold of type-specific training and are worrying it like
> a dog with a bone. If I have a new guy come in with 1,000 twin hours,
> the insurers will not cover him as PIC in a Duchess (a simple twin
> trainer) until he has 10 hours dual in type.
>
> With an airplane, it's more learning the systems than getting a feel
> for the handling -- IMHO, that comes very quickly and an average twin
> pilot can master the handling of the Duchess in all flight regimes in
> an hour and spend the rest of the time on switchology. With a
> rotorcraft, you have both to deal with. You can't neglect the systems,
> but there is a much wider variation in what is considered normal
> handling and control feel. This is especially true in experimental
> aircraft, which are not required to meet any particular certification
> standard. .
>
>
> > Similar problems were encountered in
> > training in an RAF then solo your ultralite gyro.
>
> Well, yeah, that would be like doing an airplane PPL in a Cessna 206
> with 1000 pounds of freight and then expecting a single-seat
> experimental to handle similarly.
>
> > I don't have much time in
> > a two seat gyro, but I did get the controls on the Sparrowhawk prototype
and
> > it didn't fly anything like my Benson. Had I gotten dual in that ship
and
> > then tried to fly my Benson I would have been unlearning a bunch of
learned
> > Sparrowhawk responses.
>
> What about some of the other twin trainers, like the Parsons and the
> old SnoBird? Or the Air Command? I haven't flown any of the two seat
> rails, just the sleds (SH and RAF).
> --
> cheers
>
> -=K=-
>
> Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.
>

[Kevin O'Brien]

On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> said:

> Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>> The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
>> helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying Bells
>> was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as the
>> exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.
>
>
> I don't care about the rest of your discussion here, so no comment.
> But, you got it wrong about Allen Barklage an his accident in his
> Mini-500. The Mini-500 has excellent engine-out characteristics, as
> demonstrated at almost every major air show.

I recall one of them pranging at Sun n Fun, I think it was. A yellow
one? Indeed, it might have been your demonstrator? Engine seize led to
a hard landing and rolloever, IIRC, but I will look it up and get my
facts straight if you want to argue about it.

> If properly set up by the builder, it could autorotate and land safely
> as low as 40 mph.

What about the nose tuck? I have Rick Stitt's answer to that, and I
wonder what yours is.

> Allen had great experience in his Mini-500 and was an expert at
> demonstrating autorotations.

I'm aware of Allen's Mini-500 experience. He was probably the second or
third highest time pilot in type at the time of his death, wasn't he?
There was another fellow who had some 800 hours at the time, IIRC.

> Where would lack of transition time from one helicopter to another have
> anything to do about Allan's accident, in the way you just tried to
> convey here? None whatsoever.

I'm not suggesting that it was transition "time" but negative transfer
of skill, of experience, and of "muscle memory" under pressure, to use
the latest fad term. Allen had done at least five for-real autos in the
helicopters he was most familiar with, Bells.

The Bell teetering rotor system has, as you well know, some
similarities with the Mini and some rather pronounced differences. The
biggest difference being (IMHO) rotor inertia. A standard drill at Army
flight school is (or was in Allen's day, at least) to set the machine
down, pick it up, pedal turn it 180 degrees, and set it down again.

You wouldn't pull that off with a low-inertia design like the Mini --
or the R-22 for that matter. But you can do it with a Bell 47, UH-1, or
206/OH-58. Having had for-real autos in these machines, a pilot has a
"feel" for what he can do. Like stretch a "glide" over some wires.
Except you're not in the Bell, you definitely can't.

I think negative transfer also contributed to some of the Robbie
mishaps that led to the SFAR on training in the R-22.

(FWIW, F.R. now says that if he knew his helicopter would have become
the most popular trainer, he'd have designed it completely differently.
He intended it to be a light, responsive machine for the experienced
pilot seeking a sport or transport helicopter. He built the machine he
wanted to fly himself).

In a related matter, of fitness for purpose, I note that RHCI's very
effective ads stressed all the cool things you could do and places you
could go in a Mini-500. They imply it was easy as a bicycle and safe as
mother's milk -- neither of which is true, you'll admit, of any
helicopter.

> Allen took off in his Mini-500 after it had an engine seizure due to
> improper jetting a flight before. He didn't bother to inspect the
> engine for seizure damage, and just flew it away as if nothing wrong
> had happened.

NTSB does not mention any prior seizure, or anything to do with
carburettor jets. They do say: "A loss of engine power due to cold
seizure of the power-takeoff cylinder." They retained the engine for
examination after releasing most of the wreckage.

https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11011&key=1


> Worse yet, he hugs the ground during his flight, and flies over a power
> line complex without gaining altitude.

Witness: "It was approximately 200 feet above the ground."
Source:
https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X11011&ntsbno=CHI98FA353&akey=1

The


> The engine finally failed over the lines, and he tried to milk the
> rotor rpm for more than any helicopter could have offered, and nosed
> into the ground after stalling the blades.

The witness also noted that "The helicopter did not do a nose tuck,"
which indicates some familiarity with the type, if he was expecting
that.

> Simple as that. It had nothing to do with transition time from one
> helicopter to another. It had already been determined that there is
> probably no single engine helicopter built that could have lost it's
> engine at that time and auturotated that distance at such a low
> altitude and landed safely.

"It had already been determined" -- the passive voice is a bit evasive
sounding here? Who determined that no single engine could lose its
engine at 200 ft. and climbing (Witness: ""He was level and climbing,
going away from me when all of a sudden, the sound (engine sound) went
quiet, followed by a pop." - same NTSB narrative) and autorotated
safely?

I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.
Buit I don't believe RHCI folded until one or two big shows after
Allen's demise.

Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
newsgroups very often these days.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

[10ft. of Decorative Chain]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > said:

> I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
> NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.

RHCI don't need outside help to investigate accidents!
Dennis "planeman" Fetters plays many roles, see the link below.

> Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
> newsgroups very often these days.

You might have missed this gem:
http://tinyurl.com/9m52c

[Dennis Fetters]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
> > said:
>
>> Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>>
>>> The experience of flying a lot of different helos probably would have
>>> helped. I think that negative transfer from a lifetime of flying
>>> Bells was as big a contribution to the demise of Allen Barklage as
>>> the exhaustively-discussed engine-out characteristics of the Mini-500.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't care about the rest of your discussion here, so no comment.
>> But, you got it wrong about Allen Barklage an his accident in his
>> Mini-500. The Mini-500 has excellent engine-out characteristics, as
>> demonstrated at almost every major air show.
>
>
> I recall one of them pranging at Sun n Fun, I think it was. A yellow
> one? Indeed, it might have been your demonstrator? Engine seize led to a
> hard landing and rolloever, IIRC, but I will look it up and get my facts
> straight if you want to argue about it.


Dear Mr. O'Brien,

I'm at a loss as to your counter-answer to my answering the statement
you made about Allen's accident or it's relevance, and although I have
published this here before, here is the correct information again. It
was not Sun n Fun, it was Oshkosh. It was not a yellow one, but a red
factory demonstrator. As for the cause of the accident, here is what the
RHCI chief pilot published:

""As published in the September 1995 “Reaching the Customer” newsletter,
the following report was written by Brian Thomas (RHCI’s Test Pilot):
Many of you have been asking questions about the autorotation
capabilities and crashworthiness of the Mini-500. Well, I will answer
some of those questions, but this time with an actual experience...
Oshkosh was less than a week away, the composite department was still in
the learning stage and needed much supervision, and the assembly manual
was a priority. Our minds were divided onto these other projects while
we were working on preparing the aircraft for the show. As a result of
this, we made three mistakes which caused this whole incident.
First, we installed a new rotor/engine tachometer in the aircraft just
before the fly-in. We thought the gauge was calibrated correctly.
Also, we were using a new EGT gauge that was supposed to be
self-compensating for temperature. The week before Oshkosh, the
temperature at the factory was 95 to 100 degrees F. with 95% humidity.
After making these changes, the aircraft experienced a loss in
performance. Our EGT temperatures were only running about 900 to 1000
degrees F. We attributed this loss of performance to the high
temperature and humidity. Using the EGT gauge as a guide, we leaned the
mixture by installing much smaller main jets and lowering the needles.
This brought the temperature up to 1100 and 1200 degrees F., but with no
significant increase in performance. Through testing, we then learned
that the rotor/engine tachometer was calibrated too low. After
re-calibration, our performance returned. EGT’s were still reading
normally and were left as changed. I immediately conducted a short test
flight and everything seemed to be working well.
Second, we installed wear shoes on the bottom of the skids to prevent
excessive wear on concrete and rocky surfaces. Our intentions were to
make this an option later. These shoes consisted of eight pieces of
steel, four per skid, approximately five inches long, riveted with six
rivets each, evenly spaced along the skids.
Third, we did not test the skid shoes on grass or dirt to see if they
would change the run-on landing performance.
Now for what happened at Oshkosh. It was the first flight on the first
day of the show. I started the aircraft and hovered around the grass
runway for a few minutes and the aircraft was operating normally. I
then departed and entered the traffic pattern. On my first trip around
the pattern, the aircraft was performing perfectly. I was keeping an
eye on the EGT gauge to make sure that the temperatures were still good,
since it was cooler at Oshkosh than at the factory. The temperature was
still 1100 and 1200 degrees F. On my second trip around the pattern,
the engine suddenly stopped. The EGT gauge that we installed was not as
accurate as we thought and the engine hot seized. At the time the
engine quit, I was at 300 feet AGL with an airspeed of 70 MPH. I
entered autorotation and steered for a nearby clover field. The
autorotation was uneventful, as was the flair and touchdown.
As I have previously said, the Mini-500 is one of the best autorotating
helicopters I have ever flown. The problems began during the ground
slide. Immediately upon touchdown, the skid shoes caught in the clover
and soft dirt so hard that one shoe was pulled off the skid! The left
skid caught and jerked so hard that the legs buckled. The legs did not
buckle because they are not strong enough. They buckled from the
enormous force of trying to stop 730 lbs. of aircraft so quickly. The
skid shoes were the cause, not the legs. When the left skid buckled,
the aircraft started to go onto its left side. As a result, one rotor
blade contacted the tail boom. Part of the reason that the skid shoes
caught so hard is that the normal procedure for the Mini-500 is to lower
the collective all the way down after touchdown from an auto. On most
helicopters with skid shoes, the procedure is to hold the collective up
until the helicopter comes to a stop to prevent the shoes from digging
in too badly. I am very familiar with this procedure, but failed to
relate it to the Mini-500.""


Completely our fault.


>> If properly set up by the builder, it could autorotate and land
>> safely as low as 40 mph.
>
>
> What about the nose tuck? I have Rick Stitt's answer to that, and I
> wonder what yours is.


Rich Stitt is a back stabbing thieving parasitic traitor that bits the
hands that and feed him. The is a convicted child beating criminal that
takes advantage of old single ladies emotions and then drains their bank
accounts before he moves on to the next one. If you want to believe
anything he says, go for it.

As you can read what I said above: "If properly set up by the builder,
it could autorotate and land safely as low as 40 mph." I have already
answered this here before, but, there were a few customers that listened
to the advice of another famous customer and set their blade tips at
negative 1.5 degrees instead of the 0.5 negative the factory stated.
This would lead to a nose tuck when dumping the collective, and in one
case caused the main blades to droop so low as to cut a grove out of the
customers tail boom. If following instructions, as you should, by
setting the blades to factory specifications and leading with cyclic
before collective, just like in an R-22, there was no significant nose
drop. After further development, RHCI came up with a trim tab and a
stall strip that took away all nose drop when you dumped the collective.
Just read the KitPlanes pilot evaluation report they published.


>> Allen had great experience in his Mini-500 and was an expert at
>> demonstrating autorotations.
>
>
> I'm aware of Allen's Mini-500 experience. He was probably the second or
> third highest time pilot in type at the time of his death, wasn't he?


Good for you for being aware, then what's your point because I'm missing it?


> There was another fellow who had some 800 hours at the time, IIRC.


He didn't have nearly 800 hours, but here is what you are eluding too:

"The pilot had installed his Mini-500 “Power Enhancement Package” (PEP),
and against RHCI’s severe warnings, chose not to use the provided jet
package containing a 2.76 needle jet. Instead he installed a 2.78
needle jet which meant that he needed a 155 main jet to achieve the
proper EGT in hover. RHCI informed the pilot that the engine would
seize with this small main jet, when at high-power settings it could not
supply sufficient fuel to the engine, causing it to heat and seize. The
main jet should have been a 165 or 170. Also, he had erroneously set
the needle in the third position on the cylinder that seized; the other
was correct in the fourth position. He was flying over a forest when
the engine seized, and autorotated into a 50-foot tall tree. The impact
broke the mast and the aircraft fell and landed upside down on the ground."

Pilot error.


>> Where would lack of transition time from one helicopter to another
>> have anything to do about Allan's accident, in the way you just tried
>> to convey here? None whatsoever.
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that it was transition "time" but negative transfer
> of skill, of experience, and of "muscle memory" under pressure, to use
> the latest fad term. Allen had done at least five for-real autos in the
> helicopters he was most familiar with, Bells.


OK, let's do it again: Where would lack of "muscle memory" from one
helicopter to another have anything to do about Allan's accident, in the
way you just tried to convey here? None whatsoever.



> The Bell teetering rotor system has, as you well know, some similarities
> with the Mini and some rather pronounced differences. The biggest
> difference being (IMHO) rotor inertia. A standard drill at Army flight
> school is (or was in Allen's day, at least) to set the machine down,
> pick it up, pedal turn it 180 degrees, and set it down again.
>
> You wouldn't pull that off with a low-inertia design like the Mini -- or
> the R-22 for that matter. But you can do it with a Bell 47, UH-1, or
> 206/OH-58. Having had for-real autos in these machines, a pilot has a
> "feel" for what he can do. Like stretch a "glide" over some wires.
> Except you're not in the Bell, you definitely can't.


I didn't write the above statement. But you are correct.


> I think negative transfer also contributed to some of the Robbie mishaps
> that led to the SFAR on training in the R-22.


No comment, let Frank answer that. I love to fly the R-22 and R-44. In
my opinion they are fine designs.


> (FWIW, F.R. now says that if he knew his helicopter would have become
> the most popular trainer, he'd have designed it completely differently.
> He intended it to be a light, responsive machine for the experienced
> pilot seeking a sport or transport helicopter. He built the machine he
> wanted to fly himself).


Let Frank answer that, I don't claim to know anything that was in his
mind at the time. What ever it was, was correct, because I think he is
the most successful helicopter producer in the world.


> In a related matter, of fitness for purpose, I note that RHCI's very
> effective ads stressed all the cool things you could do and places you
> could go in a Mini-500. They imply it was easy as a bicycle and safe as
> mother's milk -- neither of which is true, you'll admit, of any helicopter.


You are wrong. We did say all the cool things you could do, because you
can. And we did them, and some still do. But, you will never see in
anything published by RHCI where we said flying a helicopter is safe,
because flying helicopters is not safe, and in fact full of risks. Our
warnings alone made some people not buy. At the air shows we always had
an assembly manual on the table, and the first few pages were dedicated
to the risks involved in helicopter flight, with a skull and cross bones
and 8 different warnings, so on.

The Mini-500 is easy to fly, and many stated it was the easiest and most
stable helicopter they had ever flown. But, we never implied anyone
could fly it without training. As a matter of fact, we forced our
customers to prove they had training before we would ship them the
complete kit. No other manufacturer I know of did that when we were in
business.

Your comment above was false, out of place and even malicious.


>> Allen took off in his Mini-500 after it had an engine seizure due to
>> improper jetting a flight before. He didn't bother to inspect the
>> engine for seizure damage, and just flew it away as if nothing wrong
>> had happened.
>
>
> NTSB does not mention any prior seizure, or anything to do with
> carburettor jets. They do say: "A loss of engine power due to cold
> seizure of the power-takeoff cylinder." They retained the engine for
> examination after releasing most of the wreckage.
>
> https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11011&key=1


That's right, nor do they probably know anything about Rotax engines in
helicopters and the differences involved, as they demonstrated to me on
more than one occasion. Nor did they bother to say just a short time
before he crashed his Mini-500 by climbing out of it with the blades
still turning at full RPM, so he could point to some people where to
land, and his Mini-500 took off!! And he didn't report it, and even
though his FAA buddies found out they never did anything about it. No
wonder it was not mentioned in the accident report later.

Let's look at this for a moment:

The witness was on the airport, and the Mini-500 was 150 or less above
him, and still over the airport. The power lines are about 1000 feet
away from the witness. Already 150 feet high over the witness, Allen
only climbed 50 more feet over a 1000 foot distance to clear a power
line complex. It shows that he had no concern about climbing high
enough, as we are all trained to do to clear an obstacle in case of
engine failure. Pilot error.

It was 83 degrees F. The witness, standing on the opposite side on a
large hanger, heard the Mini-500 running behind the hanger complex, then
he watched it fly from around the hanger making a wide and level turn
towards him climbing to 150 feet or so, then flying away almost 900 feet
before the engine failed. The point is, between the mandatory warm-up
time, hover time, flying from around the hanger time, wide level turn
time, flying toward the witness while climbing to 150 feet time, and
flying 900 feet away while climbing an additional 50 feet time, the
Mini-500 had plenty of warm up time not to have cold seizure.

Cold seizures in a Mini-500 have only happened when the pilot starts the
engine cold, and immediately lifts into a climbing departure, and then
the engine will seize within 100 feet or so and not turn until later
after the piston cooled enough to allow it to do so. It's Pilot error.

Look at the report:
"The top of the piston showed foreign material impact strikes in the
squish-band area. Small particles of foreign metallic material were
found embedded in the piston head. Impact marks were found in the top
dome of the power-takeoff cylinder. The two power-takeoff cylinder spark
plugs' electrodes showed no gap. The bottom of both electrodes showed
impact marks." "the sound (engine sound) went quiet, followed by a pop".

Again, dose that sound like an engine that just cold seized, when the
engine can still turn to allow a "pop" from a misfire. The engine quit
because the spark plug gaps were closed from the previous contamination
pounding them shut.

Dose that sound like something was COLD? Not at all. That was an engine
failure due to disintegration of parts. Just like if you seize an
engine, and then run it again without fixing it by removing the damaged
parts and metal, and just like what I said when Allen himself called me
to tell me he seized his engine and he didn't bother to fix it right
before the crash. The engine got hot, and darn hot at that. Nothing cold
about it. In fact, a cold seizure shows only scuffing from sudden
expansion of the piston squeezing in the cylinder, because the cylinder
was not given time to expand. You will not find the metal as what was
found in Allen's engine that was large enough to de-gap the plugs.


>> Worse yet, he hugs the ground during his flight, and flies over a
>> power line complex without gaining altitude.
>
>
> Witness: "It was approximately 200 feet above the ground."
> Source:
> https://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001211X11011&ntsbno=CHI98FA353&akey=1


Just like I said. 200 feet high and 1000 feet away from the airport
property boundries, and only climed 50 more feet in that distance from
the airport. Pilot error.



>> The engine finally failed over the lines, and he tried to milk the
>> rotor rpm for more than any helicopter could have offered, and nosed
>> into the ground after stalling the blades.
>
>
> The witness also noted that "The helicopter did not do a nose tuck,"
> which indicates some familiarity with the type, if he was expecting that.


I didn't say it did a "nose tuck". I said it nosed into ground after
stalling the blades, meaning the nose pointing the direction of travel.
As the report indicated, he still had some forward speed, just no lift
and little RPM, as the blade damage described in the report would indicate.


>> Simple as that. It had nothing to do with transition time from one
>> helicopter to another. It had already been determined that there is
>> probably no single engine helicopter built that could have lost it's
>> engine at that time and auturotated that distance at such a low
>> altitude and landed safely.
>
>
> "It had already been determined" -- the passive voice is a bit evasive
> sounding here? Who determined that no single engine could lose its
> engine at 200 ft. and climbing (Witness: ""He was level and climbing,
> going away from me when all of a sudden, the sound (engine sound) went
> quiet, followed by a pop." - same NTSB narrative) and autorotated safely?


My conversation with the FAA and other expirianced helicopter people in
the area. They said it.


> I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
> NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.
> Buit I don't believe RHCI folded until one or two big shows after
> Allen's demise.


My above answers should also answer this question. The only thing I'm
disagreeing with in the FAA report is the cold seizure. They are in
error to report that, because that was not the cause of the engine
failure, as I comprehensively explained above.


> Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
> newsgroups very often these days.


Welcome back.

Sincerely,

Dennis Fetters

[Dennis Fetters]

10ft. of Decorative Chain wrote:

> Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
>> On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
>> > said:
>
>
>> I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
>> NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.
>
>
> RHCI don't need outside help to investigate accidents!
> Dennis "planeman" Fetters plays many roles, see the link below.
>
>> Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
>> newsgroups very often these days.
>
>
> You might have missed this gem:
> http://tinyurl.com/9m52c


Yes, I wrote everything in every post that has my name on it in the link
you give above. However, I did not write anything that has someone
else's name to it. I write for myself, and hide behind no false names,
as you do.

Dennis Fetters

[10ft. of Decorative Chain]

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> 10ft. of Decorative Chain wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-06-07 13:43:59 -0400, Dennis Fetters
>>> > said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm curious as to why your narrative is at such wide variance with
>>> NTSB's. They don't list RHCI as a party to the investigation, either.
>>
>>
>>
>> RHCI don't need outside help to investigate accidents!
>> Dennis "planeman" Fetters plays many roles, see the link below.
>>
>>> Sorry for the belated reply, Dennis, and all. I don't check the
>>> newsgroups very often these days.
>>
>>
>>
>> You might have missed this gem:
>> http://tinyurl.com/9m52c
>
>
>
> Yes, I wrote everything in every post that has my name on it in the link
> you give above. However, I did not write anything that has someone
> else's name to it. I write for myself, and hide behind no false names,
> as you do.
>
> Dennis Fetters

Simply impossible, and having your IP changed after you were exposed did
nothing to cover your tracks.

We saw Dennis Fetters and "planeman" posting back and forth, both using
the same IP address, for nearly a week...
An address that traces back to Anaheim/Irvine area in So. Cal

Shame on Dennis Fetters.

[Dennis Fetters]

10ft. of Decorative Chain wrote:

>> Yes, I wrote everything in every post that has my name on it in the
>> link you give above. However, I did not write anything that has
>> someone else's name to it. I write for myself, and hide behind no
>> false names, as you do.
>>
>> Dennis Fetters
>
>
> Simply impossible, and having your IP changed after you were exposed did
> nothing to cover your tracks.
>
> We saw Dennis Fetters and "planeman" posting back and forth, both using
> the same IP address, for nearly a week...
> An address that traces back to Anaheim/Irvine area in So. Cal
>
> Shame on Dennis Fetters.


Think what you want Mr. No Name. Who cares.

[10ft. of Decorative Chain]

Dennis Fetters wrote:
> 10ft. of Decorative Chain wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I wrote everything in every post that has my name on it in the
>>> link you give above. However, I did not write anything that has
>>> someone else's name to it. I write for myself, and hide behind no
>>> false names, as you do.
>>>
>>> Dennis Fetters
>>
>> Simply impossible, and having your IP changed after you were exposed
>> did nothing to cover your tracks.
>>
>> We saw Dennis Fetters and "planeman" posting back and forth, both
>> using the same IP address, for nearly a week...
>> An address that traces back to Anaheim/Irvine area in So. Cal
>>
>> Shame on Dennis Fetters.
>
> Think what you want Mr. No Name. Who cares.

It's all about trust, and everyone cares.
You shouldn't have posted your little charade without knowing what you
were doing, Mr. "Planeman" Fetters.