Gyros burning after impact?

[t-bird]

Hi Johan/Leo/Len

Thanks for all the effort.

I definitely want to change my fuel tank in my ELA.

I would prefer a carbon fibre tank with foam. If you spend all the time and effort to take the tank out you can just as well put in a proper carbon tank

Can we get all the ELA owners together and share the cost of a mould ?

I will contact some of the composite guys to get a quote to make a carbon tank.

[M I Claase]

Gaan na hierdie web adres en ek dink ons het n uitstekende punt om vanaf te begin vir ons brand probleem. Die inligting is werklik insiggewend en mens wonder of die ontwerpers van ons verskillende gyros dit in gedagte gehad het met die onwerp van ons tenks? Sonder om gyros af te skryf is hierdie n uitstekende koste effektiewe manier om tenks van verskillende materiale en vorms te toets.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/F ... 7-952.html

[Learjet]

I fly a Magni gyro so I gave Butch Brown the SA Magni agent a call to find out first hand what Magni's position is on all of this. We had a very interesting discussion, the most relevant points being:

1. Magni research and development is ongoing, but in order to protect their competitve position, they generally don't make their R&D projects public knowledge until they're ready for market. As far as fuel tanks are concerned Magni has in fact previously explored various fuel tank liner options over the years, however the available technology at the time didn't allow for a workable solution to the problem of additional weight and reduced tank volume.

2. Recent technological advancements has finally allowed this to become a reality, and working in partnership with the company that currently supplies internal-lined fuel tanks for the motor racing industry, Magni already has already constructed a prototype fuel tank which is presently undergoing evaluation and testing of the internal lining.

3. Although at this stage the prototype tank is for the M16 model, once evaluation testing and B-Car Section T compliance and approval has been established, they will roll-this out to their other models as well.

So the response seems to be positive in respect that Magni is some way down the road in recognising and addressing this concern. Let's see what feedback we can get from the other manufacturers as well.

[Magnifan]

Thanks for the information Dave, do you know if the tanks will be able to be retro fitted to an existing M16? I imagine it will be quite a major undertaking, but well worth it in my opinion.

In the meantime I will be investing in a Nomex flight suit and will always wear it when I fly. I don't know if Llewelyn or Christa were wearing Nomex, but it seems that Gareth Creedy survived a longer exposure to fire than they did in this tragic accident.

[Splinter]

Hi Johan/Leo/Len

Thanks for all the effort.

I definitely want to change my fuel tank in my ELA.

I would prefer a carbon fibre tank with foam. If you spend all the time and effort to take the tank out you can just as well put in a proper carbon tank

Can we get all the ELA owners together and share the cost of a mould ?

I will contact some of the composite guys to get a quote to make a carbon tank.

T-Bird I am sure there are Ela owners that will be interested. Would you be willing to get some price estimates on having a mould and tank made? Do you want to do the tank in Carbon fiber or Kevlar?

a Question for the smart people out there, will the current fiberglass tank with foam and a "fireblanket" around the tank be affective or not?

[t-bird]

Hi Splinter

The first step is to get a quote from the composite guys to see if they are prepared to do it and then the cost.
We can them make a decision on Carbon or Kevlar.

I have made contact with guys in the USA who specialise in fuel tanks for racing cars, unmanned aerial vehicles, light aircraft etc.
They use soft moulds –you email them a CAD design and the machines manufacture from this design. Again cost would be the determining factor.

I will keep you guys posted on the progress.

[Wagtail]

Good morning,

A few more comments:

Thanks for that link to the FAR 27 standards. Now to put it in perspective. That is what you can expect from the Full Type Certified side of Aviation. If a machine is Type Certified it WILL comply with these requirement OR it may apply for exemption from any particular part of the standard after giving very good reasons.

Now, for the Non Type Certificated designs we fly the requirements under the BCAR section T looks like this :

T 963 Fuel tanks: General
a) Each fuel tank must be able to withstand without failure, inertia, fluid and structural
loads to which it may be subjected in normal operation.
29 March 1995
CAP 643 BCAR Section T
Part 1 Sub-Section E Page 3
b) Where surging of fuel within the tank could cause significant changes in the centre
of gravity of the gyroplane, means must be provided to reduce the surging to
within acceptable limits.
T 965 Fuel tank test
Each fuel tank must be able to withstand a pressure of 0.1 bar (1½ psi) without failure
or leakage.
T 967 Fuel tank installation
a) Each fuel tank must be supported so that the loads resulting from the weight of
the fuel are not concentrated. In addition:
1) There must be pads, if necessary, to prevent chafing between each tank and its
supports; and
2) Materials employed for supporting the tank or padding the supporting members
must be non-absorbent or treated to prevent the absorption of fuel.
b) Each compartment containing a fuel tank must be ventilated and drained to
prevent accumulation of flammable fluids and vapours. Each compartment
adjacent to a tank must be treated in a similar manner.
c) No fuel tank may be located where an engine fire could impinge on it. (See AMC
T 967 c).)
d) Structural damage which may result from a heavy landing in excess of the ultimate
capability of the landing gear, but within the emergency landing conditions of
T 561, must not result in rupture of the fuel tank or fuel lines.
T 971 Fuel tank sump
a) Each fuel tank, if permanently installed, must have a drainable sump which is
effective in all normal ground and flight attitudes and with a capacity of 0.10% of
the tank capacity, or 120 ml, whichever is the greater. Alternatively:
1) A fuel system sediment bowl or chamber that is accessible for drainage and has
a capacity of 25 ml must be fitted, and [see also] T 951 [];
2) Each fuel tank outlet must be located so that, in the normal ground attitude,
water will drain from all parts of the tank to the sediment bowl or chamber; and
3) [Each fuel tank outlet must be designed and located so that no part of the
contents of the sump can enter the fuel feed line to the engine.]
b) The drainage system must be readily accessible and easy to drain.
c) Each fuel system drain must have manual or automatic means for positive locking
in the closed position.
T 973 Fuel tank filler c

What I am trying to illustrate is that we must always understand where we are coming from. The NTCA standards were put in place to allow EXPERIMENTATION by private individuals. Over the years we have chopped and changed the Industry to the point where we stand today where the only Experimentation the current owner of a R 800 000 machine wants to take part in is the ways and means to pay for the machine.

This is no excuse for poor safety or poor design, what I just want to say is that we as owners must be open minded and carefull in what we assume to be a "good standard".
By the very nature of this industry ( NTCA ) evolution will take place and it is unrealistic to expect that any design is "perfect". There are no requirement for any expensive crash testing anywhere in the NTCA standards and that will unfortunately mean that as accidenst happen the manufacturesr will get the info they need to improve a design.

Back to the current discussion.

I agree that it will be the correct thing to wait for Magni's release of the tank. On the other hand I believe we must not stop the current discussion and I strongly suggest we continue to explore. Whatever we learn will still be of value and it might see incorporation into other gyro's in the future.

I suggest we take a structured approach and we "design " a test standard against which we can test all the plans.

We must first come up with an accurate description of the test conditions we want to use. Example, if we feel G-load is the cause then a tank must be positioned inside a frame and dropped from a certain hight. If we feel forward speed with roll is the reason, then we can simulate that scenario.
If we feel penetration is the most likely cause then we must simulate that.

These sort of tests all boils down to money....we can even remotely fly a gyro into a high speed roll-over crash ( The Americans did that with a Passenger jet ),
or we can run simulations, or we can debate the different scenarios and possible improvemenst and then perform "low cost" tests to check sertain specific characteristics of the plans.
Ex. If we want to see how effective a blanket will be against a G-burst, we can have a small square fibregalss "cube" made up. Drop one next to a gas flame and video the fire ball. Next put the blanket around the next cube and drop again. Easy to see if there is a MAJOR difference or not. Now ad a sharp piece of steel to the drop point and redo. This will give idea of penetration resistance.

Now build same cube out of Carbon or any other wild combinations and repeat tests.

Regards
Johan

[Wagtail]

Under T 561 the gyro only need to withstand the following during an emergency landing :

T 561 General
a) The gyroplane, although it may be damaged in emergency landing conditions,
must be designed as prescribed in this paragraph to protect each occupant under
those conditions.
Revised 12 August 2005
CAP 643 BCAR Section T
Part 1 Sub-Section C Page 7
b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of
escaping serious injury in a crash landing when proper use is made of belts and
harnesses provided for in the design, in the following conditions:
1) Each occupant experiences ultimate inertial forces corresponding to the
following load factors:
2) These forces are independent of each other and are relative to the surrounding
structure.
c) The supporting structure must be designed to restrain, under loads up to those
specified in sub-paragraph b) of this paragraph, each item of mass that could injure
an occupant if it came loose in a minor crash landing.
d) [Where failure of all or part of the engine-mounting structure could result in an
engine following a trajectory that could pass through any part of the normal crew
accommodation or fuel tanks, the attachment structure must be designed to
withstand an ultimate inertia force corresponding to an acceleration of 15 g in that
direction. (See AMC T 561 d).)]
e) Fuel tanks, fuel lines, oil tanks and oil lines must be capable of retaining their
contents under the inertial forces of b) without rupture.

Direction Load Factor
Upward 4.5
Forward 9.0
Sideward 3.0
Downward 4.5

Keep in mind that G-load is a very "difficult" thing to relate to when it comes to evaluating a design. Example, for the landing gear there is a condition described stating that it must withstand something like 4 G BUT there is a DROP test which can be demonstrated where you basically drop the complete gyro from 300 mm.....a well designed undercarraige will decelerate the structure over a long time and the result is that the actual G-load during such a drop test can be kept below 2 G...
If you now demonstarated the gyro with full fuel ( water at 80% of tank volume ) you an in effect pass BCAR section T...it all depends on EXACTLY how the compliance was shown.

[t-bird]

Hi Johan

I understand that it would be impossible to prevent all fires in accidents especially high “g” situations.

My issue is with low “g” accidents which were survivable and then the pilot and passenger are injured due to fire.

Fire prevention in F1 and Motor GP exist for years and is not something new.

Why are we prepared to pay up to a million for a gyro with fatal flaws in the design?

DO WE AS PILOTS ENYOU FLYING SO MUCH THAT WE TEND TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY ?

[Gyronaut]

DO WE AS PILOTS ENYOU FLYING SO MUCH THAT WE TEND TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY ?

Who is looking the other way t-bird??

We are all very concerned about this and have already made constructive inputs to our respective manufacturers, awaiting their approved modifications. This is something that affects ANY fuel tank in any aircraft, not only Gyro's and also not only a specific type of gyro. I suggest you approach the manufacturer of your type and ask them to work together with the other manufacturers in finding the optimum solution.

[t-bird]

Basie passed away in 2008 in a survivable crash due to do fire.

New gyro models were designed and only a few of them made an effort to improve the fire hazard. Not a new science the USA company that I have contacted have been building fuel cells for 40 YEARS.

We were all too keen to get the latest model without putting pressure on the suppliers for improved safety standards.

I am looking for a solution on my own and per your own words from Rotary forum “(and without the "it's not our fault - blame the pilot" excuses about "exceeding the flight envelope" we are hearing all too frequently from manufacturers these days)” I think you should support us.

[abezzi]

I'm the last one arrived in this wonderful Gyro World and I must say that I'm really enjoying every minute of flying, maybe thanks to my fantastic instructor, Len, but this is true! Now, I really believe that we must do something to change this huge problem; in Italy, thanks to mr. Biancorosso, Chief Editor of Volo Sportivo, the leading italian LSA magazine, many steps forward have been made. Some of the bigger italian LSA company have adopted fire-resistant or fire-proof fuel tanks all made by the same italian company, Merin, and many italian pilots decided to retrofit their original tanks. At this moment the only fuel tanks available are for fixed wings only, but after the last incident I call my friend Biancorosso and I found out that the above mentioned company is working on a fuel tank for gyro. I'm flying to Italy this sunday and I will be there for a couple of weeks, I have already scheduled an appointment to go to speak with these people, let's see if I can bring you same interesting news, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that even if the cost of a special tank will be 8000/10000/12000 rand, there is no price for an human life!!!
I'm going also to ask Biancorosso to write an article about this issue that maybe we can print in one of the SA magazine, what do you think?
Meanwhile this is the official web site of Merin, I link the page concerning the fuel tanks, don't worry is in English, sorry not Afrikaans page available!
http://www.merin.it/en/serbatoi_aerei_ultraleggeri.php

[Hub-Bar]

We as a gyronaught community, find ourselves in a very dark hour. What happened at Alldays is constantly on my, and I believe a lot of your minds. We are extremely sad together with the loved ones and friends of our departed fellow gyronaughts and we pray for God’s comfort.

I have spoken my mind about the issue of ensuing fires in a previous thread (“Burning Gyros’) and I am not going to repeat myself. The manufacturers and agents are not commenting first hand and I don’t expect them to. What I do expect from them however, is to come up with improvements to the system – and quick. The answers are hopefully and probably closer and simpler than what we might anticipate. For the sake of interest I attach photos of the RAF pe fuel tank – surely it cannot be as resilient as the Merlin fuel cells, but they are at least 50 times more resilient than fiberglass tanks and the technology is simple and locally available. Sure, this tank weighs in at a whopping 11,82 kg, but the RAF designers have long ago thrown out the fiberglass tanks and added the pe one to an already very heavy aircraft – must have been a hard decision, but so far it has paid dividends.

Please guys, do not let this thing fade away – we owe it to our injured and departed fellow gyronaughts and their and our loved ones – just take a close look at their eyes next time you go off flying – I do not like what I see at the moment – it is not doing my soul any good and I cannot blame them. Surely we cannot eliminate all risk, and that we accept, but we can go a long way to improving the odds.

Fly Safe

[Gyronaut]

Looks like a strong tank Hub-bar, great.
My first choice is still a bladder fuel cell and I am convinced one can be manufactured to fit inside the existing tank for added protection. Cut it open, glue it in, repair it and voila. Yes, it will add weight but its not negotiable as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully the manufacturers will come up with the best and approved system. If we can eliminate the risk of people burning (as too many have) then the price is insignificant. Medical bills exceed this cost in the first minute after the accident.

Thanks for the kind words Abezzi and especially for being our own Italian Ambassador for the sport! il nostro rispetto e la ringrazio molto

I look forward to positive developments coming from this.

Len

PS t-bird, of course you are free to pursue your own route and I do support you however I feel it may be easier to gain CAA approval as a collective rather than in groups. Up to you mate, double the paperwork. Fly safe.

[Splinter]

Morning Gents

I see this thread is also dieing a slow death as the guys start flying again and forget about the accident at Alldays.

I have a suggestion.
I think Johan has a great idea about testing the "methods" mentioned above, the fire blanket, foam, Kevlar etc . If Johan could give us an indication on what he thinks it would cost to run these test we as a gyro community can try to raise the money between ourselves to pay for it. Maybe someone could ask SAGPA for a small donation to help us with these tests. I am willing to open a separate account for the matter and donate money myself after we have an idea what this will cost. How about it? Are there any other pilots willing to donate towards these "tests" once we know the cost involved?

Johan can you give us a price on running the tests mentioned by yourself previously, obviously this will include labour and products used?