A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gyrocopter Speed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 24th 05, 01:55 AM
Darrel Toepfer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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...
  #22  
Old April 24th 05, 04:23 AM
Steve R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #23  
Old April 25th 05, 04:51 PM
Kevin O'Brien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #24  
Old April 25th 05, 04:59 PM
Stuart & Kathryn Fields
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 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.




  #25  
Old April 25th 05, 08:37 PM
Peter Wendell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #26  
Old April 26th 05, 02:44 AM
Kevin O'Brien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #27  
Old April 26th 05, 04:33 PM
Stuart & Kathryn Fields
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #28  
Old June 5th 05, 06:07 PM
Kevin O'Brien
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #29  
Old June 7th 05, 06:43 PM
Dennis Fetters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #30  
Old June 12th 05, 04:48 PM
Stuart Fields
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Landing and T/O distances (Was Cold War ALternate Basing) Guy Alcala Military Aviation 3 August 13th 04 12:18 PM
Va and turbulent air penetration speed. Doug Instrument Flight Rules 70 January 11th 04 09:35 PM
Va and turbulent air penetration speed. Doug Owning 69 January 11th 04 09:35 PM
Speed Astir Guy Acheson Soaring 0 December 11th 03 03:24 AM
New Film: The Need For Speed - Going to war on drugs Phil Carpenter Military Aviation 0 July 23rd 03 07:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.