Say Again Over
With you
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Posts
- 1,162
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Gyrocopters?
- Thread starter Gorilla
- Start date
- Watchers 7
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Post 7 contained a report by an inexperienced gyro pilot...in fact, someone who wasn't a gyro pilot, attempting to fly a gyro that should be flown by an experienced gyro pilot.
The air and space has what amounted to a limited collective...something most gyros do not have. Further, the 18A has the capability of a jump takeoff, something most gyros do not. The 18A is an old design, and does not reflect modern gyros. Further, jump takeoffs are not standard proceedure in gyros, including the 18A...attempting to perform them without adequate normal gyro takeoff experience and ample 18A experience is a ridiculous notion. Of course the poster had a bad experience.
The GBA Hawk Defender was used throughout the Salt Lake City olympics, with good effect. The sparrowhawk has been looked at closely by the military and various agencies; some of it's principle benifits include that a soldier in the field can be taught to fly it with minimal effort; it can be flown from nearly anywhere, it's cheap, has useful and advantageous performance, etc. The aircraft has no bad habits. The Defender is a turbine aircraft that does have jump capability, and is also being looked at closely by a number of federal agencies and the DoD.
Gyro UAV contracts have just been let for military applications. The concept is far from dead. American Gyrocopter, from Groen Brothers is marketing a very successful gyro, as is air command, magni, and a host of others.
The air and space has what amounted to a limited collective...something most gyros do not have. Further, the 18A has the capability of a jump takeoff, something most gyros do not. The 18A is an old design, and does not reflect modern gyros. Further, jump takeoffs are not standard proceedure in gyros, including the 18A...attempting to perform them without adequate normal gyro takeoff experience and ample 18A experience is a ridiculous notion. Of course the poster had a bad experience.
The GBA Hawk Defender was used throughout the Salt Lake City olympics, with good effect. The sparrowhawk has been looked at closely by the military and various agencies; some of it's principle benifits include that a soldier in the field can be taught to fly it with minimal effort; it can be flown from nearly anywhere, it's cheap, has useful and advantageous performance, etc. The aircraft has no bad habits. The Defender is a turbine aircraft that does have jump capability, and is also being looked at closely by a number of federal agencies and the DoD.
Gyro UAV contracts have just been let for military applications. The concept is far from dead. American Gyrocopter, from Groen Brothers is marketing a very successful gyro, as is air command, magni, and a host of others.
Gorilla
King of Belize
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Posts
- 1,132
The helicycle - how cool is this:
http://www.helicycle.com/Flying%20Ships/Flying%20Helicycles/Allan%20HJU-0725.jpg
Helicycle home page: http://www.helicycle.com/
Awesome!!!! I want one, and I'm not even helo rated.
http://www.helicycle.com/Flying%20Ships/Flying%20Helicycles/Allan%20HJU-0725.jpg
Helicycle home page: http://www.helicycle.com/
Awesome!!!! I want one, and I'm not even helo rated.
skiddriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 405
avbug said:
Actually post 7 was by a school trained military test pilot (me) who conducted an evaluation flight in a U-18 with the representative of the gyrocopter company as part of the USNTPS syllabus. The person I flew with killed himself in one of his clap-trap devices a couple years later. I think that at the time of his death he had plenty of experience.
The reference to the fatal loss of turns incident (probably during an unloading event) refers to the death of a family acquaintance who saw a gyrocopter ad in the back of a magazine and believed all the tripe about how incredibly safe they are, much to the eventual dismay of his wife and daughter.
Gyros are quite safe. Fact is that military school or not, you weren't a gyro pilot, and aren't a gyro pilot, and weren't in an entry level gyro. Inexperienced untrained pilot in advanced aircraft for it's type has bad experience during initial evaluation means low credibility. It's an issue of context.
The circumstances under which your instructor died are not given, and therefore cannot be issued comment.
Numerous people have died in aircraft; this does not mean the aircraft are unsafe, or "clap trap." It merely means people have died. The Osprey program has been troubled from the outset, yet has gained approval and is operational. You may have flown it yourself...never the less, test personnel and others have died in the program. Go figure.
And this is a credible statement on the safety of the gyro concept? A concept receiving serious consideration by the DoD, DARPA, numerous federal agencies, and for which the FAA issues pilot ratings and instructor ratings? A "tripe" concept? A man who read about the gyro in the back of a magazine subsequently died as a result of gaining his information from ad? This is the determining factor that tells us the gyro is unsafe?
Numerous pilots have died or been injured because they elected to read such ads, build a gyro themselves, teach themselves to fly it, and subsequently crashed it when unloading the disc and entering PIO or buntover situations. Pilots who had no experience, training, or ability...you find this unusual? This is the assertion and basis of lack of safety?
Let a pilot build an airplane, ultralight, helicopter, hang glider, whatever, and teach himself to fly it...especially a pilot with no experience, and chances are that he may encounter trouble.
Conversely, if your assertion that the gyro is unsafe is based on the idea that experienced pilots have died in them, then you must by fiat determine that all certified aircraft piloted by experienced pilots that have resulted in fatalities are also unsafe. This will include all military tactical aircraft, all commercial passenger carrying aircraft, all private aircraft, of all types...it's all unsafe...experienced pilots have died in each.
Or do you have a better criteria for making such assertions, in the face of FAA type design approvals, manufacturing and industry standards, many decades of safe operation, ever-expanding and improving industrywie training, and serious consideration by various federal agencies and the department of defense as a viable instrument of flight?
The circumstances under which your instructor died are not given, and therefore cannot be issued comment.
Numerous people have died in aircraft; this does not mean the aircraft are unsafe, or "clap trap." It merely means people have died. The Osprey program has been troubled from the outset, yet has gained approval and is operational. You may have flown it yourself...never the less, test personnel and others have died in the program. Go figure.
And this is a credible statement on the safety of the gyro concept? A concept receiving serious consideration by the DoD, DARPA, numerous federal agencies, and for which the FAA issues pilot ratings and instructor ratings? A "tripe" concept? A man who read about the gyro in the back of a magazine subsequently died as a result of gaining his information from ad? This is the determining factor that tells us the gyro is unsafe?
Numerous pilots have died or been injured because they elected to read such ads, build a gyro themselves, teach themselves to fly it, and subsequently crashed it when unloading the disc and entering PIO or buntover situations. Pilots who had no experience, training, or ability...you find this unusual? This is the assertion and basis of lack of safety?
Let a pilot build an airplane, ultralight, helicopter, hang glider, whatever, and teach himself to fly it...especially a pilot with no experience, and chances are that he may encounter trouble.
Conversely, if your assertion that the gyro is unsafe is based on the idea that experienced pilots have died in them, then you must by fiat determine that all certified aircraft piloted by experienced pilots that have resulted in fatalities are also unsafe. This will include all military tactical aircraft, all commercial passenger carrying aircraft, all private aircraft, of all types...it's all unsafe...experienced pilots have died in each.
Or do you have a better criteria for making such assertions, in the face of FAA type design approvals, manufacturing and industry standards, many decades of safe operation, ever-expanding and improving industrywie training, and serious consideration by various federal agencies and the department of defense as a viable instrument of flight?
skiddriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 405
Safe design of aircraft dictates that the handling qualities, performance, and supporting systems are well designed, harmonized and reliable.
There are many aircraft that I would consider "unsafe" that the average pilot would feel comfortable strapping on at any time.
Aircraft that require extensive training to overcome design deficiencies that can lead to a fatal accident are unsafe. I put the existing crop of gyrocopters in that category. They are unforgiving in a way that no aircraft intended for the GA market should be.
The fact that simple pitch PIO can lead directly to a fatal accident, that unloading the rotor system will reduce control authority and can lead to a fatal accident, and that adding power during an unloaded situation can lead to a fatal accident means to me that this isn't an aircraft for the casual pilot.
And no, I don’t believe in the mythical aircraft that anyone can fly safely without training. But the argument that it’s not the aircraft that’s unsafe, it’s just those pesky pilots, just doesn’t hold water for me. The gyrocopter’s flying qualities and current engineering design are the problem. Further, I don’t have to agree that because experienced pilots have died in other certified aircraft types that they are in the same boat as the gyrocopter, though I would agree that there are some certificated designs that shouldn't be flying.
The government spends a lot of money on ill-advised projects; the military’s exploration of the gyrocopter is just another example. They will never use it in a major way until the design flaws are overcome. The training burden will never be overcome and the unique characteristics don't bring enough benefit.
Finally, since you mentioned it, I never flew the V-22, I flew chase on it and sat in at various levels in test plan review. But both I and a close friend of mine who is still near the top of the flight hour list for the V-22 were approached to apply for a position as a test pilot for one of the modern gyrocopter companies that have been mentioned. We both politely declined, for all of the issues mentioned.
There are many aircraft that I would consider "unsafe" that the average pilot would feel comfortable strapping on at any time.
Aircraft that require extensive training to overcome design deficiencies that can lead to a fatal accident are unsafe. I put the existing crop of gyrocopters in that category. They are unforgiving in a way that no aircraft intended for the GA market should be.
The fact that simple pitch PIO can lead directly to a fatal accident, that unloading the rotor system will reduce control authority and can lead to a fatal accident, and that adding power during an unloaded situation can lead to a fatal accident means to me that this isn't an aircraft for the casual pilot.
And no, I don’t believe in the mythical aircraft that anyone can fly safely without training. But the argument that it’s not the aircraft that’s unsafe, it’s just those pesky pilots, just doesn’t hold water for me. The gyrocopter’s flying qualities and current engineering design are the problem. Further, I don’t have to agree that because experienced pilots have died in other certified aircraft types that they are in the same boat as the gyrocopter, though I would agree that there are some certificated designs that shouldn't be flying.
The government spends a lot of money on ill-advised projects; the military’s exploration of the gyrocopter is just another example. They will never use it in a major way until the design flaws are overcome. The training burden will never be overcome and the unique characteristics don't bring enough benefit.
Finally, since you mentioned it, I never flew the V-22, I flew chase on it and sat in at various levels in test plan review. But both I and a close friend of mine who is still near the top of the flight hour list for the V-22 were approached to apply for a position as a test pilot for one of the modern gyrocopter companies that have been mentioned. We both politely declined, for all of the issues mentioned.
I find it unfortunate that you've elected to form an opinion of the entire gyro configuration based on your interaction with a single type. I suspect you'd feel quite differently if you were to fly a current sport type gyro, such as the Sparrowhawk. Conversely, if you were to try a Parsons, you'd outright condemn the design and gyros without hesitation; it's extremely maneuverable in the hands of an expert, and will kill you in a heartbeat if you're not. This doesn't make it a bad aircraft. It makes it a good aircraft that performs within it's design parameters that's intended for and should only be flown by an expert.
Modern gyro design criteria, and the recent standards established through the Popular Rotorcraft Association, might please you in your concern regarding stability, control harmony, performance, systems, etc.
I'm presently flying an aircraft that's not exactly stable. It's a fixed wing with operating areas that quickly become unrecoverable, particularly in the flight arena where the aircraft is operated. Performance is low, especially when operating with a load. Systems require attention and can bite one fatally if not properly managed...this is a good aircraft that is well suited to it's intended purpose. It's something that will likely kill someone who isn't experienced enough and prepared enough to fly...it's not a bad aircraft. It's an extremely well suited aircraft for it's intended application.
An aircraft need not be designed for anyone to jump in and go fly without proper training. A variety of gyros are available that are designed to be flown safely with minimal training. Other designs, particularly older designs, have been eroneously marketed to the inexperienced that lack many of the safer features that exist in better newer gyros today. Efforts to place horizontal stabilizers on all designs, to raise the payload/seats to the thrust line instead of beneath it, to further stabilize the designs, increase powerplant reliability, improve airframe design and safety, etc are all part of modern gyro construction. Such topics dominate discussions among gyro groups, manufacturers, instructors, etc.
Gyros are safe. One doesn't buy a F-86 and teach one's self to fly it, nor do a few hours in a cherokee and then go fly it. But one can fly a cherokee with minimal training. Match the aircraft to the experience level. You had the assignment to evaluate an aircraft that was not commensurate with your experience level. Your instructor died in the same type, with which he had a high experience level from your description, but experienced people do die in aircraft. Nothing in your observations would lead me to conclude that the aircraft, or the gyro concept in general, is dangerous.
Based on experience in gyros, I can tell you otherwise. Perhaps on some occasion when the opportunity to fly a new modern design arises, we'll have the opportunity to meet and change your mind. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised.
Modern gyro design criteria, and the recent standards established through the Popular Rotorcraft Association, might please you in your concern regarding stability, control harmony, performance, systems, etc.
I'm presently flying an aircraft that's not exactly stable. It's a fixed wing with operating areas that quickly become unrecoverable, particularly in the flight arena where the aircraft is operated. Performance is low, especially when operating with a load. Systems require attention and can bite one fatally if not properly managed...this is a good aircraft that is well suited to it's intended purpose. It's something that will likely kill someone who isn't experienced enough and prepared enough to fly...it's not a bad aircraft. It's an extremely well suited aircraft for it's intended application.
An aircraft need not be designed for anyone to jump in and go fly without proper training. A variety of gyros are available that are designed to be flown safely with minimal training. Other designs, particularly older designs, have been eroneously marketed to the inexperienced that lack many of the safer features that exist in better newer gyros today. Efforts to place horizontal stabilizers on all designs, to raise the payload/seats to the thrust line instead of beneath it, to further stabilize the designs, increase powerplant reliability, improve airframe design and safety, etc are all part of modern gyro construction. Such topics dominate discussions among gyro groups, manufacturers, instructors, etc.
Gyros are safe. One doesn't buy a F-86 and teach one's self to fly it, nor do a few hours in a cherokee and then go fly it. But one can fly a cherokee with minimal training. Match the aircraft to the experience level. You had the assignment to evaluate an aircraft that was not commensurate with your experience level. Your instructor died in the same type, with which he had a high experience level from your description, but experienced people do die in aircraft. Nothing in your observations would lead me to conclude that the aircraft, or the gyro concept in general, is dangerous.
Based on experience in gyros, I can tell you otherwise. Perhaps on some occasion when the opportunity to fly a new modern design arises, we'll have the opportunity to meet and change your mind. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised.
skiddriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 405
Say Again Over
With you
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Posts
- 1,162
MauleSkinner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Posts
- 638
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
