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


You had 1,200 specifications?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The blind leading the blind.


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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