"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...
Steve: I know what you are talking about. We got into a controversy when
we produced the PRA magazine for publishing a letter from Cdr. Wallis
outlining his opinions on the CLT and HS. I was kind of taken aback with
all of the sudden inflammatory kinds of statements putting down the non
CLT/HS ships as I had never encountered any problem flying my Benson and I
flew it in the desert turbulence and winds strong enough to allow hovering
takeoffs. My wife flew the ship and she had only soloed a Piper Colt. So
we had no experience to support the damning criticisms of the Non CLT/HS
ships. A conversation with Ken Brock trying to see if I had just lucked
out
and never experienced the close call in my Benson and he seemed to agree
more with Cdr. Wallis than the current PRA position. I tended to use Ken
as
my expert on gyro things.
BTW, as I recall, we had to set my Super Mac up even higher than the stock
Benson because I was driving a larger diameter prop. I also had the
outboard motor fuel tank that set below the seat. I'm sure that my thrust
line was above the vertical c.g. with full fuel. The little rock guard on
the Benson sure didn't qualify as a HS either.
I guess I was either luckier than the others, or a good gyro pilot, or my
ship was somehow more stable than the others. I know for sure there has
been oodles of opinions and calculations floating about supporting the
need
for CLT and HS. Now that I'm flying adefinitely unstable aircraft (helo)
my
dog is not in the CLT/HS fight.
--
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



I understand what you're saying about the inflammatory attitudes of some
folks. As a very raw newbe in the PRA, some of them had me seriously
wondering if I really wanted to be involved in this group? It was very
difficult to figure out who to believe and who not too. I think it's better
these days because there seems to be more of a consensus as to what's
appropriate in a pusher design and what's not. Back then, it seemed like
everyone had their own pet designs and very few folks ever agreed with each
other! ;-)

On the subject of the Bensen you learned to fly! One thing I remember
reading about the original design that Mr. Bensen developed and flew was
that it was relatively underpowered and/or used a smaller diameter prop than
most of the modern (the original Air Command comes to mind) gyros do. As a
result, the early generation Bensen's were much closer to centerline thrust
than the larger, stretched out versions that have come afterwards. Is this
something you'd agree with? Also, you mention putting a "super mac" on your
Bensen and having to raise the engine to accomodate a larger prop which
also, naturally enough, raised the engine's thrust line relative to the
aircrafts CG. Do you remember how far you had to raise the engine? Makes
me wonder if you were still under whatever magic number in thrust offset
that kept you in a safe zone. I know that machines like Jim Vanek's
SportCopter are not true centerline thrust designs but they seem to have
(from what I've read anyway) very favorable flight characteristics. It
makes me wonder if you simply didn't get far enough out of line for the bad
characteristics to be a significant issue. Either way, I'm glad it worked
out for you. I'd appreciate any comments you care to make on that.

Thanks,
Steve R.