Gyrocopter Speed

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.