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.