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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:35 PM |
Va and turbulent air penetration speed. | Doug | Owning | 69 | January 11th 04 08:35 PM |
Speed Astir | Guy Acheson | Soaring | 0 | December 11th 03 02:24 AM |
New Film: The Need For Speed - Going to war on drugs | Phil Carpenter | Military Aviation | 0 | July 23rd 03 07:43 AM |