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 a

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.