Assistance needed on Gyroplane build

[Frans Larkins]

Hi. My name is Frans Larkins from Nelspruit. I recently acquired a single seat gyroplane. This was an old 1961 SA rotorcraft design. The previous owner had the complete frame rebuild with all new pipes and new wheels and aircraft bolts. I am currently searching for any information on this craft. It is a pipe frame construction. The rotor head is unlike any other so far that I have seen on the web. It has two taper bearings in the main block with a pre-rotator disk. The rudder, stabilizer and tail wheel is missing and I need to rebuild these parts. Is there any one that can help me with some information, please. I will e-mail photos to any one who might be able to assist me.

[coen]

If you are one of those guys that want to do things by the book and legaly , use it as a chicken perch. Because even if it fly's beautifuly when it is finished, getting the paperwork done and the gyro certified will take the rest of your natural life.
Will be cheaper to buy a used gyro.

Good luck Coen

[Vertical Tango]

Frans, Coen is right.
Before you put fire to the thing, a last straw is to contact the CAA (André Swanepoel) and ask all the various steps in writing and HUMAN LANGUAGE (not the law jargon that noone understands) on how to get your additions/ mods approved.

Good luck.

[Frans Larkins]

Thank you for replying. Yes I already ran into the CAA wall. The Gyro was previously registered as ZS-UCA. Some Mr C.Clift registered this gyro in 1964. He then sold it to F.Smith about 14 years ago when he emmigrated. Mr Smith, does not have any paperwork for the Gyro and I got it from him. He already restored most of the Gyro, but like you said, the CAA wants the original change of ownership before they will allow me to re-register this Craft. I also spoke to Eric and Johan von Ludwig, and they are also very willing to help me, but the red tape issue keep on worrying me. Braam Hechter from the CAA warned me, that I must rather not spend any money on it, as he believes it is a lost cause, if I can not get all the Paperwork and original plans in place. I need to build a new one then, but their prices are sky high...
This is where the old saying comes in.." If God wanted men to fly, would have given us more money"...

[Learjet]

Hi Frans, there's another old saying about, "not throwing good money after bad..." and I would heed Braam's (and others) good advice. And with respect to the CAA, it would probably be no different were you about to embark upon a vintage car restoration project without any registration and ownership documentation in the hope of being able to roadworthy & drive it one day. Unfortunately I suspect Mr.Smith came to the same conclusion.
Rather than wasting your time and money trying to resuscitate this dead duck, rather save it and put it towards finding a more viable gyro project which has a better chance of taking to the skies. Good luck

ZS-UCA Rotorcraft Minicopter RM1-0030 ZS-UCA Clift JE 12/31/1975

[Vertical Tango]

I understand that there is here an ownership issue. That is something that could be tolerated by the authorities seeing the "flying" history of the machine, and the whole project considered to be started from scratch again.
On the flying aspect of the project, the very sad thing is that in SA contrary to the States, when you design / build / modify anything that flies, you are seen as a bad boy, as someone out of the norm, who is there to "rock the boat", basically someone who is forcing the authorities to ponder over new designs and are forced to make decisions for which they might be responsible for, because after all, they accepted your ideas. Therefore, the simplest is to turn down your application unless you put up a big fight and stand firm for your convictions. You will have to come up with all the NASA calcs.
In my mind, what is missing in our system, is a kind of approval that would work the otherway around.
Here is someone who is taking may be a badly designed machine, or maybe a good one with parts missing. There is no proof that it is a "dead duck" . He does not want to kill himself. And even if he is not mature enough, let him kill himself instead of wanting to control constantly someone's life. But if he is mature enough, he will seek for advice on any part that he will slap on, or he will go into books etc... Let him prove to the authorities that his contraption will fly, in an area where he won't do much damage to others, until he has done X hours. At the moment the system is preventing any new designer to rise. All designs come from abroad, and this is why gyro flying is expensive and it does not have to be.
If you notice the weakness and propose to modify it, BAD BOY AGAIN , instead of inviting you to clarify the issue and do something about it in a controlled manner.
These are my thoughts.
VT

[Condor]

I am not to sure if my post is serious on “toung-in-cheek”, but ..........

1. Scrap this gyro from the register.

2. Make your intension known to CAA to build a new one and obtain the rules and get a BUILD NUMBER.

3. Find this frame in your backyard that looks exactly like your project and use what you can.

4. Complete the thing, register and fly.

Or does this all sound to easy.

I do agree with an earlier post. We do not encourage any new designs or ideas and I think we should.

[gyrosa]

I think Condor is thinking along the correct path.
This particular gyro is a Minicopter, designed orginaly by Lew Strydom in Worcestor, South Africa. I was designed along the Bensen lines and in certain areas actually improved upon. (Frans has already sent photos of the parts which I recognised).
After gyros were banned in the early 70's late 60's, Strydom vanished off the scene, although he popped up again running a pleasure boat out of Cape Town harbour (but that is another story).
I am pretty sure we can get this one going if we go about it the correct way. I will do some digging for Frans.We cannot let these oldies simply die along the way simply because we are flying bigger etc.
Eric

[Learjet]

Scrap this gyro from the register.

How can Frans even do this if he's not the registered owner?

VT makes a good point about current regulations stifling amateur / home build development, but be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that as things currently stand with it's ownership documentation (or lack of) , the prospects of this particular gyro getting airworthy again are doubtful and Frans would do well to consider this before expending more time and money on it.

"Oldie" sentiments and romantic restoration notions aside, Frans it seems you are looking for a feasible gyro build project which you can reasonably expect and hope to fly one day. I don't believe that this is that dream project. It is NOT a spitfire. The red-tape and registration issues place a huge question mark as to the feasibility and likelihood of this gyro ever getting an ATF. You have heard this directly from the (CAA) horse's mouth so to speak. Next thing maybe they'll tell you it needs to be BCAR Section T compliant!!!

To talk straight: Frans, you've paid "school fees" for buying an old aircraft with incomplete paperwork. Accept it as a lesson learned. Now don't go and pay "university fees" rebuilding something that due to current regulations (rightly or wrongly) has very little chance of graduating to flight! Rather find a properly registered Bensen or similar (Ken Brock etc) which you can take proper ownership of, restore or clean up and still have a realistic expectation of taking to the air with it one day.