I Wanna Build an Aeroplane

(Ken Sandyeggo) wrote in message . com...
Kevin O'Brien wrote in message ...
In article , Ken Sandyeggo
says...

Yes Bernie it does. With centerline thrust, there is no force above
the vertical center of gravity to push it over. You need thrust above
the vertical center of gravity in order to experience
(once-in-a-lifetime only) a buntover. Once you do it, at least you
don't ever have to worry about doing it again.

Actually, Ken, you could still manually bunt the thing over with the stick.
Can't think of why anyone
would. The AAI redesign does seem to eliminate power pushover (the most common
cause of
bunting), and reduces the divergent pitch-recovery mode that leads to PIO (the
next most common
cause). It also takes out that long slow oscillation that RAF's have.

I have been following the AAI thing for a while... spent a couple hours with Jim
Mayfield at
Mentone... spent more time at Fondy during OSH... flew it slightly (not much).
The demonstrators
they have been using are not their new gyro but modified RAF's like yours.
Theirs is going to have
a slightly larger cabin as well.

I have a big story I'm working up on the whole AAI vs RAF thing... RAF is
demoralised, and many of
their dealers have bailed. But others are standing by out of loyalty. It's kind
of a mess.

RAF's answer is a sort of a trim vane mounted to the rotor mast, behind the
cabin. They call it the
Rotor Stabilator. Seen it?

cheers


Kevin,

I'm not a real technical bug, but you're right, I should have said
"power-pushover." I've seen photos of it. Minds that are more
scientific and knowledgeable than mine analyzed the RAF "stabilator"
and pronounced it basically worthless on the gyro forum. RAF says
that it "stabilizes the rotor." The gyro forum is down right now.
When it comes back up, I'll copy and paste the analysis of the RAF
stabilator. As far as I know, they only have 3 dealers left in the
U.S. There were four left, but the one in Florida got all his tickets
suspended for a year. (They had around a dozen just a few years ago.
They lost their New Zealand and Australian dealers also.) It was for
instructing in an illegal gyro, but he's the one that had about 4
students and a passenger die in unstabbed RAFs after taking lessons
from him in less than a year. I think you have to read between the
lines on the FAA's findings. I think that they needed to get him on
the ground for awhile someway.

My converted gyro flies like a dream now. It was a great investment
on the conversion. No more pitching and yawing all over the place.

Ken J. - Sandy A. Ghowe




-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.


Here are some comments by Doug Riley, a pretty knowledgeable person
regarding gyro aerodynamics, and his comments on RAF's "Rotor
Stabilator."

"It's hard to tell from the pictures just what this thing is. I'm
assuming that it's a small airfoil linked to the torque bar, with
in-flight variable incidence.

If this assumption is accurate, then it's a pleasant gadget that will
act as a semi-intelligent flight adjustable trim spring. Like the
gimbal head, such a device can produce control pressures that tend to
return the craft to a selected trimmed airspeed after a small
disturbance. Nothing that "stabilizes" the aircraft using rotor
forces can solve the problem caused by a high thrustline, however.

That's because the rotor takes a vacation during zero G events.
Aerodynamically, the rotor "disappears" when it's no longer lifting
the gyro. In such conditions, it doesn't matter in the least where
the rotor points. As a result, it sure doesn't matter whether a
highly trained pilot, or the gimbal head, or the rubber mast or the
magic trim vane is manipulating the rotor; REGARDLESS, THE ROTOR CAN
APPLY NO THRUST TO THE FRAME IN ZERO G.

If, without the rotor's restraining force, the airframe wants to flip
end over end, it's going to. The only way to prevent this is to
arrange the airframe so that it tracks straight and level in a zero G
situation WITHOUT help from the rotor. A no-HS gyro with 500 ft-lb. of
nose down force at full throttle will not track straight and level for
even an instant, once rotor thrust is lost.

A stable airframe is the key to ending the PPO."

I'll see if there are any more pertinent comments and post them later.

Ken J. - SDCAUSA

What about FNG ????

Put that on my R/C trainer when I started R/C.

Big John


On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:44:13 +0000 (UTC), nafod40
wrote:

Dave Hyde wrote:

pac plyer wrote:

I mangled the dirt bike WFO to get someone to react and spell it out
for me.

Here's another one for you: MOTO

Mewing Of The Orphans? :-)

Dave 'AMF, YOYO' Hyde

I always heard it as KMAGYOYO

"Big John" wrote in message
...
What about FNG ????

Put that on my R/C trainer when I started R/C.

Big John

The word FIGMO was painted on my Bro's F-84 after a year at Pusan.

Rich S.

In article , Ken Sandyeggo
says...
I snipped the earlier replies for brevity - KO

I'm not a real technical bug, but you're right, I should have said
"power-pushover." I've seen photos of it.

I haven't (seen photos) but I've read enough NTSB gyro accidents, and
"aftermath" photos from the
British AAIB, that my mind's eye fills in. Ya know what I mean.

RAF says
that it "stabilizes the rotor."

It's still pretty experimental, I think. They had it on a gyro in the tent at
OSH and I could not get a
coherent explanation. Everyone said talk to Duane. However, at Fond du Lac Duane
was busy as
hell doing demo flights. I spent one half day there -- all I could -- and never
got the chance to
talk to him. His gyro had the rotor stabilator on it. As Dofin explained it, it
serves to both return
the rotor to its position/trimmed speed, and also -- and this, in my opinion, is
the more important
use -- to provide asymptotically increasing stick force with stick displacement.
In other words, the
more you move it, the more it resists being moved. This might be very
beneficial for a novice RAF
driver -- as you well know, and as I am slowly learning, it's a fingertip
airplane, not something
where you throw the stick around with wild abandon.

But even Dofin said, "talk to Duane," so until I do, I can't say with 100%
certainty what his goals
with the stabbed machine are. He clearly is pretty confident with it because he
flies pax in it on
demo flights, but then again he's got a bunch of gyro hours.


The gyro forum is down right now.

Where can I find that? Might be an educational place to lurk.


As far as I know, they only have 3 dealers left in the
U.S.

I heard only two, and Jim Mayfield is going hard after them. I have seen this
with my own eyes!
Mayfield has a different concept of dealers, or maybe it's fairer to say he is
going further along in
the direction RAF was trying to go with full-service dealers (sales, service,
builder assistance, and
especially training).

There were four left, but the one in Florida got all his tickets
suspended for a year.

I have flown with that guy and while he enjoys the capabilities of the RAF, I
didn't think we were
ever within hailing distance of "unsafe." I have been plenty scared in fixed and
rotary wing aircraft,
and with him and the RAF, I wasn't. FWIW.

He is still a dealer and provides all the services he can while suspended. I
personally doubt that his
DE will be returned to him, but the other licences should be after a year on the
bench. He is not by
nature a super patient man, and I think this is a very frustrating year for him.

AAI has a dealer in the greater Tampa area. Nice fellow.

(They had around a dozen just a few years ago.
They lost their New Zealand and Australian dealers also.)

There were a couple of South Africans looking for the franchise for their
homeland. Had a good
time talking politics, etc., with them ("We can live with it... it's the least
****ed up country in all
Africa!" was the sentiment). They flew both machines, back to back. I have no
idea which way they
went, if any.

FWIW to get to the RAF tent you had to walk past the AAI tent. However, both
groups were bending
over backwards to make sure that someone who came to Fondy specifically to fly
one gyro or the
other got to the right guys.

The RAF people believe that AAIs stress on safety and stability & control is a
direct attack on them,
and they are defensive about the safety of their machine. I think that the basis
for this is largely
emotional: who wants to believe that his design has contributed to the early
demise of people who
trusted him?

Unfortunately the aerodynamic research is in AAI's favour. Dofin told me, which
is apparently the
RAF party line, that there has been no new gyro stability & control stuff
published since NACA in
the thirties... unfortunately, that's not true; the University of Glasgow did
(and is still doing)
extensive S&C work, now with a Magni that has been modified to have an
adjustable thrustline,
Center of Mass, and control surfaces... and they concluded that the most
important things were (1)
centerline thrust, and (2) a stab. The centerline thrust is of overriding
importance.


instructing in an illegal gyro,

As I understand it, he didn't wait for a registration on a customer machine.
Foolish, but like I say,
he ain't a poster boy for vulture-like patience.

but he's the one that had about 4
students and a passenger die in unstabbed RAFs after taking lessons

Now, when I flew with him we discussed this, and he said that he would recommend
the stab for
students... he thought it was unnecessary once a pilot got experience.

I think that they needed to get him on
the ground for awhile someway.

I think if they really believed he was unsafe, they wouldn't pussyfoot around
with a suspension.
FAA are not shy about seeking revocation, and an excuse can be as good as a
reason with them.

My converted gyro flies like a dream now. It was a great investment
on the conversion. No more pitching and yawing all over the place.


A couple questions:

1) did it cost you anything in cruise speed? Or rate of climb?

2) How bout crosswind capability? RAF says the conversion hurts this, But it
sure seemed to my
inexperienced feet to have more rudder authority, not less.


Here are some comments by Doug Riley, a

Thanks, Ken... these were interesting. Like I said, where is that rotor forum
at?

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Hey Bill,

In my opinion this is a motocross term; WTFO: Wide Throttle, Full
Open. It is not used in aviation. By the way 4,000 hours in GA is
probably equiv to 10,000 hours in airline hours since most of that is
on autopilot reading magazines.

I agree. Down low, dirty and slow, riding in the wx and the bumps is
where I spent that 4000 hours. I have 2000 more in the front seat of
Huey's on floats flying in **** wx. It was all real time.

10,000 in the Boeings on autopilot above 10 thousand msl talking about
pussy and real estate deals is not the same.

But, there are some good guys out there with a lot of experience who
did that too. I have a buddy I just had lunch with who just retired
from Continental with 35,000 hours. He flew P-3's and the
Constellation before that in the Air Farce. He's got some
stories...like flying through typhoons. But, he also built a Pitts
S-1 and competes with it too, so he really can fly.

BWB




pacplyer

5 WORDS.....

Horizontal Stabilizers ARE ABSOLUTELY necessary....

No amount of pilot skill will prevent a push/roll/bunt over event if the
gyrocopter experiences a zero g event.......and it only have to experience it
for a second or 2 to roll over all the way....

How many hours of flying do you think you could get away with before a nice
downdraft was gracious enough to give you said zero g event?

In line thrust helps alot and it probably doesnt hurt to get anal retentive
about it being as "inline" as possible...

But ya STILL NEED that stabilizer.....

Without that stabilizer.....you might as well just pop in an untested
autoconversion and fly over the rockies for testing....probably about as
risky....


go to the fly gyro forum....look at all the great stuff written by craig
wall....its a REAL eye opener...


sad thing is I get the impression that gyro's COULD be some of the safetest
things around to fly if they werent being flown (and built) by absolute morons
without stabilizers....


do an FAA database search and read all the gyro accidents....doesnt take too
long actually.....virtually all the accidents are rollovers and its darn hard
to rollover when you HAVE a stabilizer....without one..well....thats a
different story...


take care

Bll

Kevin, I'll move this to the top. The conversion improved everything.
My original RAF cruised around 60 m.p.h. Anything above felt
squirrely with a lot of pitch oscillation. I then added a horizontal
stab and it moved into the high 60s. After the AAI conversion, I
cruise close to 80. These are m.p.h. and at minimum engine rpm to
maintain altitude. Same exact engine and prop. The cross wind
capability is vastly improved. With the new tall tail, the rudder
pedals are probably used about 15% of the time compared to the stock
RAF, and I no longer get cramps in my toes and calves from having to
tap-dance constantly on the rudder pedals to fight the yawing
tendency. My stick is now solid as a rock and has absolutely no
twitchiness, which is the norm for a stock RAF. I know that RAF will
not let a prospective customer take the stick on an orientation
(introductory flight lesson) flight. AAI will hand it over almost
immediately. There's that much difference.

There's a link in the Groen Bros. threads named "The Blubber-butt
Challenge" on the rotorcraft forum. (Link below). It's about my
taking a 290 pound friend for a ride on a 100 degree day at 1400' MSL.
I could never have done that in the original RAF. It was too
inefficiently designed. I hardly have anything original left on mine,
other than the cabin and basic engine block. I have different rotors,
ignition systems, FI system, landing gear, tail and most components.

The "stabilator" does absolutely nothing to counteract a
power-pushover and is useless for stick-fixed stability which is the
true measurement for stability in a gyro. Dofin was able to fly his
stock RAF with no hands and throttle control, but if he ever locked
the stick, he'd have crashed within a minute. You don't stabilize a
rotor. It's always stable in a flight regimen. It's the stuff
hanging below it that needs to be stabilized. The 500+ pounds of
thrust that is dangerously placed almost a foot above the vertical C
of G is what kills you by waiting for that opportune moment to send
your ass flying over your shoulders in a forward power-pushover. The
only cure is center-line thrust, not a tool shelf mounted on the upper
mast. A horizontal stabilizer is a great Band-Aid, but all the force
exerted by the stab to keep the tail down is just so much wasted
energy.

They can't give you a coherent explanation. It's smoke and mirrors
and they don't have a clue to even the most basic of gyro
aerodynamics. Duanne Hunn designed it. He has absolutely no
credentials except he's a decent "stick." He can't talk about it. He
has no clue as to what he stuck up there or what it really
does....basically nothing. Who in their right mind would promote
flying a gyro with a 10"+ offset thrustline without at least a
horizontal stabilizer? That right there confirms RAF as idiots of the
first class. They call a horizontal stab a "contraption."

Another point is that their new "stabilator" will make the RAF stable.
They have argued vehemently for all the years I've known them that
their gyro is safe and stable. They have to this day, never admitted
that that the RAF was unstable. How the hell can you come out with a
stabilizing device when you never admitted that your gyro was ever
unstable? They're stuck between a rock and a hard place and talking
out of both sides of their mouths, with a ton of egg on their faces.

Go to www.rotorcraft.com and click on the upper left instrument on the
panel to get to the gyro forum. It's privately owned and there are
some rules. Profanity and name-calling are reasonably controlled and
everyone must I.D. themselves. Nameless trolls are simply erased.
Once logged on, click on the RAF threads and then one about "Duane's
contraption" or something for a very in depth disussion on it. There
are some RAF apologists there and you'll see the stupidity of their
arguments immediately. Most of them are semi-literate and can't spell
or structure a sentence. It's a great place for anyone interested in
gyros. There are some extremely talented engineers, designers,
mathematicians and knowledgeable people......none of whom can grasp
any critical use for the stabilator. Other components already handle
the mild dampening it's capable of. As far as making an unstabbed RAF
stable....pure bull****. RAF doesn't even have a pilot on staff let
alone credentialed engineers or designers and never have. Their name
says it all...."Rotary Air Force Marketing."

Search out the threads on RAF and you'll get a good insight on their
sliminess, dishonesty, lying, and tractor-grade components in critical
flight components. There's enough reading that exposes them for the
immoral and dishonest people they are to last a lifetime.....if you're
not too young. I have first-hand knowledge. I bought and built one.
Thank God I realized the necessity of a horizontal stab and the
necessity to upgrade their shoddy and cheap components before I killed
myself and maybe another. And now, thanks to Jim Mayfield and AAI for
coming up with a safe and stable center-line conversion and soon to be
kit.

I'm not going to post here to argue with any RAF flacks and flunkies
who may appear. They're too stupid to reason with, even when smacked
directly in the face with irrefutable proof and basic physics and
aerodynamics. Go to the link for really good info. If you like
gyros, you'll love the place. Again, it's www.rotorcraft.com and
click the link to the forum....the ROC instrument.

Ken J. - Sandy Aigo




Kevin O'Brien wrote in message ...
In article , Ken Sandyeggo
says...
I snipped the earlier replies for brevity - KO

I'm not a real technical bug, but you're right, I should have said
"power-pushover." I've seen photos of it.

I haven't (seen photos) but I've read enough NTSB gyro accidents, and
"aftermath" photos from the
British AAIB, that my mind's eye fills in. Ya know what I mean.

RAF says
that it "stabilizes the rotor."

It's still pretty experimental, I think. They had it on a gyro in the tent at
OSH and I could not get a
coherent explanation. Everyone said talk to Duane. However, at Fond du Lac Duane
was busy as
hell doing demo flights. I spent one half day there -- all I could -- and never
got the chance to
talk to him. His gyro had the rotor stabilator on it. As Dofin explained it, it
serves to both return
the rotor to its position/trimmed speed, and also -- and this, in my opinion, is
the more important
use -- to provide asymptotically increasing stick force with stick displacement.
In other words, the
more you move it, the more it resists being moved. This might be very
beneficial for a novice RAF
driver -- as you well know, and as I am slowly learning, it's a fingertip
airplane, not something
where you throw the stick around with wild abandon.

But even Dofin said, "talk to Duane," so until I do, I can't say with 100%
certainty what his goals
with the stabbed machine are. He clearly is pretty confident with it because he
flies pax in it on
demo flights, but then again he's got a bunch of gyro hours.


The gyro forum is down right now.

Where can I find that? Might be an educational place to lurk.


As far as I know, they only have 3 dealers left in the
U.S.

I heard only two, and Jim Mayfield is going hard after them. I have seen this
with my own eyes!
Mayfield has a different concept of dealers, or maybe it's fairer to say he is
going further along in
the direction RAF was trying to go with full-service dealers (sales, service,
builder assistance, and
especially training).

There were four left, but the one in Florida got all his tickets
suspended for a year.

I have flown with that guy and while he enjoys the capabilities of the RAF, I
didn't think we were
ever within hailing distance of "unsafe." I have been plenty scared in fixed and
rotary wing aircraft,
and with him and the RAF, I wasn't. FWIW.

He is still a dealer and provides all the services he can while suspended. I
personally doubt that his
DE will be returned to him, but the other licences should be after a year on the
bench. He is not by
nature a super patient man, and I think this is a very frustrating year for him.

AAI has a dealer in the greater Tampa area. Nice fellow.

(They had around a dozen just a few years ago.
They lost their New Zealand and Australian dealers also.)

There were a couple of South Africans looking for the franchise for their
homeland. Had a good
time talking politics, etc., with them ("We can live with it... it's the least
****ed up country in all
Africa!" was the sentiment). They flew both machines, back to back. I have no
idea which way they
went, if any.

FWIW to get to the RAF tent you had to walk past the AAI tent. However, both
groups were bending
over backwards to make sure that someone who came to Fondy specifically to fly
one gyro or the
other got to the right guys.

The RAF people believe that AAIs stress on safety and stability & control is a
direct attack on them,
and they are defensive about the safety of their machine. I think that the basis
for this is largely
emotional: who wants to believe that his design has contributed to the early
demise of people who
trusted him?

Unfortunately the aerodynamic research is in AAI's favour. Dofin told me, which
is apparently the
RAF party line, that there has been no new gyro stability & control stuff
published since NACA in
the thirties... unfortunately, that's not true; the University of Glasgow did
(and is still doing)
extensive S&C work, now with a Magni that has been modified to have an
adjustable thrustline,
Center of Mass, and control surfaces... and they concluded that the most
important things were (1)
centerline thrust, and (2) a stab. The centerline thrust is of overriding
importance.


instructing in an illegal gyro,

As I understand it, he didn't wait for a registration on a customer machine.
Foolish, but like I say,
he ain't a poster boy for vulture-like patience.

but he's the one that had about 4
students and a passenger die in unstabbed RAFs after taking lessons

Now, when I flew with him we discussed this, and he said that he would recommend
the stab for
students... he thought it was unnecessary once a pilot got experience.

I think that they needed to get him on
the ground for awhile someway.

I think if they really believed he was unsafe, they wouldn't pussyfoot around
with a suspension.
FAA are not shy about seeking revocation, and an excuse can be as good as a
reason with them.

My converted gyro flies like a dream now. It was a great investment
on the conversion. No more pitching and yawing all over the place.


A couple questions:

1) did it cost you anything in cruise speed? Or rate of climb?

2) How bout crosswind capability? RAF says the conversion hurts this, But it
sure seemed to my
inexperienced feet to have more rudder authority, not less.


Here are some comments by Doug Riley, a

Thanks, Ken... these were interesting. Like I said, where is that rotor forum
at?

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Here are 2 pertinent posts regarding RAF's "stabilator."

"Attaching a little wing to the pushrods creates a kind of
semi-intelligent mother-in-law who's always got her hands on the stick
along with you. She likes to keep the rotor spindle at a fixed angle
to the relative wind (WHAT angle depends on the incidence of the
wing). If you try to move the rotor spindle away from this fixed
angle, she resists this and makes your work a little bit harder.
That's not a bad thing, although it tends to duplicate the work that
the offset gimbal head already does.

It can't overcome the effects of a fuselage that wants to tumble,
though. The stabilizing wing has to be attached to the unstable thing
in order to stabilize it. In gyro low-G tumbles, the unstable thing is
not the rotor. The rotor is just the victim, dragged over by an
out-of-control fuselage. The stabilizer has to be bolted to the real
troublemaker, the fuselage.

Doug Riley"




"That's not to say an aerodynamic vane linked to the rotorhead won't
improve stick free rotor stability but it is no solution whatever for
the basic problem of offset propeller thrust line and unstable
fuselage.

This is not a personal attack on Duane Hunn. Duane is a very nice
person who is genuinely interested in promoting gyro safety as best he
can but he's up to his ass in alligators.



C.A. Beaty"


















Kevin O'Brien wrote in message ...
In article , Ken Sandyeggo
says...
I snipped the earlier replies for brevity - KO

I'm not a real technical bug, but you're right, I should have said
"power-pushover." I've seen photos of it.

I haven't (seen photos) but I've read enough NTSB gyro accidents, and
"aftermath" photos from the
British AAIB, that my mind's eye fills in. Ya know what I mean.

RAF says
that it "stabilizes the rotor."

It's still pretty experimental, I think. They had it on a gyro in the tent at
OSH and I could not get a
coherent explanation. Everyone said talk to Duane. However, at Fond du Lac Duane
was busy as
hell doing demo flights. I spent one half day there -- all I could -- and never
got the chance to
talk to him. His gyro had the rotor stabilator on it. As Dofin explained it, it
serves to both return
the rotor to its position/trimmed speed, and also -- and this, in my opinion, is
the more important
use -- to provide asymptotically increasing stick force with stick displacement.
In other words, the
more you move it, the more it resists being moved. This might be very
beneficial for a novice RAF
driver -- as you well know, and as I am slowly learning, it's a fingertip
airplane, not something
where you throw the stick around with wild abandon.

But even Dofin said, "talk to Duane," so until I do, I can't say with 100%
certainty what his goals
with the stabbed machine are. He clearly is pretty confident with it because he
flies pax in it on
demo flights, but then again he's got a bunch of gyro hours.


The gyro forum is down right now.

Where can I find that? Might be an educational place to lurk.


As far as I know, they only have 3 dealers left in the
U.S.

I heard only two, and Jim Mayfield is going hard after them. I have seen this
with my own eyes!
Mayfield has a different concept of dealers, or maybe it's fairer to say he is
going further along in
the direction RAF was trying to go with full-service dealers (sales, service,
builder assistance, and
especially training).

There were four left, but the one in Florida got all his tickets
suspended for a year.

I have flown with that guy and while he enjoys the capabilities of the RAF, I
didn't think we were
ever within hailing distance of "unsafe." I have been plenty scared in fixed and
rotary wing aircraft,
and with him and the RAF, I wasn't. FWIW.

He is still a dealer and provides all the services he can while suspended. I
personally doubt that his
DE will be returned to him, but the other licences should be after a year on the
bench. He is not by
nature a super patient man, and I think this is a very frustrating year for him.

AAI has a dealer in the greater Tampa area. Nice fellow.

(They had around a dozen just a few years ago.
They lost their New Zealand and Australian dealers also.)

There were a couple of South Africans looking for the franchise for their
homeland. Had a good
time talking politics, etc., with them ("We can live with it... it's the least
****ed up country in all
Africa!" was the sentiment). They flew both machines, back to back. I have no
idea which way they
went, if any.

FWIW to get to the RAF tent you had to walk past the AAI tent. However, both
groups were bending
over backwards to make sure that someone who came to Fondy specifically to fly
one gyro or the
other got to the right guys.

The RAF people believe that AAIs stress on safety and stability & control is a
direct attack on them,
and they are defensive about the safety of their machine. I think that the basis
for this is largely
emotional: who wants to believe that his design has contributed to the early
demise of people who
trusted him?

Unfortunately the aerodynamic research is in AAI's favour. Dofin told me, which
is apparently the
RAF party line, that there has been no new gyro stability & control stuff
published since NACA in
the thirties... unfortunately, that's not true; the University of Glasgow did
(and is still doing)
extensive S&C work, now with a Magni that has been modified to have an
adjustable thrustline,
Center of Mass, and control surfaces... and they concluded that the most
important things were (1)
centerline thrust, and (2) a stab. The centerline thrust is of overriding
importance.


instructing in an illegal gyro,

As I understand it, he didn't wait for a registration on a customer machine.
Foolish, but like I say,
he ain't a poster boy for vulture-like patience.

but he's the one that had about 4
students and a passenger die in unstabbed RAFs after taking lessons

Now, when I flew with him we discussed this, and he said that he would recommend
the stab for
students... he thought it was unnecessary once a pilot got experience.

I think that they needed to get him on
the ground for awhile someway.

I think if they really believed he was unsafe, they wouldn't pussyfoot around
with a suspension.
FAA are not shy about seeking revocation, and an excuse can be as good as a
reason with them.

My converted gyro flies like a dream now. It was a great investment
on the conversion. No more pitching and yawing all over the place.


A couple questions:

1) did it cost you anything in cruise speed? Or rate of climb?

2) How bout crosswind capability? RAF says the conversion hurts this, But it
sure seemed to my
inexperienced feet to have more rudder authority, not less.


Here are some comments by Doug Riley, a

Thanks, Ken... these were interesting. Like I said, where is that rotor forum
at?

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

(BllFs6) wrote in message ...
5 WORDS.....

Horizontal Stabilizers ARE ABSOLUTELY necessary....

No amount of pilot skill will prevent a push/roll/bunt over event if the
gyrocopter experiences a zero g event.......and it only have to experience it
for a second or 2 to roll over all the way....

How many hours of flying do you think you could get away with before a nice
downdraft was gracious enough to give you said zero g event?

In line thrust helps alot and it probably doesnt hurt to get anal retentive
about it being as "inline" as possible...

But ya STILL NEED that stabilizer.....

Without that stabilizer.....you might as well just pop in an untested
autoconversion and fly over the rockies for testing....probably about as
risky....


go to the fly gyro forum....look at all the great stuff written by craig
wall....its a REAL eye opener...


sad thing is I get the impression that gyro's COULD be some of the safetest
things around to fly if they werent being flown (and built) by absolute morons
without stabilizers....


do an FAA database search and read all the gyro accidents....doesnt take too
long actually.....virtually all the accidents are rollovers and its darn hard
to rollover when you HAVE a stabilizer....without one..well....thats a
different story...


take care

Bll

Bll, in case you misread me, I agree, you have to have a horizontal
stabilizer at a minimum. The AAI conversion and soon to be delivered
kits have a horizontal stab built into the tall, vertical rudder.
It's located mid-propstream. I wasn't advocating CLT without a stab.
You need both for maximum stability and safety.

Ken J. - SDCAUSA

Big John wrote in message . ..
For you non VN types, FNG meant F*****g New Guy.

Big John



See Big John, we all can cuss and get along. :=) This group is
seeing real progress. Now, on your above post John, as Pappy once
said: "If you'll just remove those damn stars General, we could have a
good time at the party tonight with the nurses." ;-)

Baa Baa Cargo Dog

pacplyer
self-anointed netshrink of RAH