RAF Flight Behaviour

[FO Gyro]

Guys, this is a sensitive subject for the RAF guys clearly. In order to have a balanced view, I think we need to be careful of making statements about the RAF, without substantiating them. There is no doubt that the RAF, possibly more so than other gyro's, in the hands of an inexperienced, pilot who has little or no instruction (like in the US), is going to kill himself, hence the reference to Rotaryform.

Our training in this country is far more regulated, and it's been said already that a heart attack was involved here. The fact that we haven't had a RAF fatality for a very long time in this country means the RAF camp must be doing something right.

[Vertical Tango]

I'll come here in support of the RAF. Most gyro pilots are doing a fundamental error in comparing the RAF to any other gyro. I have been trained for a short while on the RAF and it is a safe machine if flown as a RAF is supposed to be flown. A RAF is very different to other gyrocopters, and maybe the misconception is to call it a gyrocopter. Maybe the RAF marketting has done an error here. We should call it something different and the arguments would stop immediately. If I have a licence on a Magni and I go and fly a R22, I will definitely crash and people might say that the R22 is dangerous and should be removed off the market. All the tests that are explained on the Rotary Forum are biased and apply to gyrocopters with a tailplane. The mast concept is also different. The trim is different.
The only common things are that it is a pusher and has free rotating blades on top. Please leave it alone in its own category.
Regarding the speed, the RAF can handle safely quite high speeds, and some RAF owners that I speak with on a regular basis fly on cross-country flights much faster than the average gyro, i.e. 90 to 100 mph constantly. To appreciate a RAF, we have to be properly trained on it and not come with any other gyro's licence and pretend that we have the knowledge to handle it. It is simply a different beast.

[PieterKotze]

Thanks JP,

Now we are back onto the knowledge and skills transfer stage. Please tell us more. And can Eben and team join in and explain the differences so we (I in particular) can understand and respect the differences in the RAF.

Pieter

[M I Claase]

Vertical Tango could not have said it better when comparing the RAF against any other Gyro.
What I can tell is that I have trained in a Magni, flown a Ela, bought a RAF and it took another 10 hours off training to convert to the RAF.
A RAF pilot will take to any other Gyro like a duck to water but the other way round - not even nearly. Even if you have many hours. Eben snr, jnr and myself, as far as I know is current on RAF and Magni but I am not aware of non RAF owners that is current on RAF.
I know of a case where a high hour (800+) pilot attemted to test fly a RAF without experience, managed to take off and lucky to land it, with great difficulty, and never again attemted it.

The point is that If you have not flown the specific type as p.i.c for a period of time, please refrain from statements and comments. More so if you are a high tree.

As far as I am concerned the reason for the accident was established and can not be laid against the RAFs safety record in SA. (In which the RAF team in Upington plays a major role since the manufacturing is done in SA)

In my opinion, with 340 hrs in the RAF, there is no concern regarding the RAFs flight behaviour as long as it is flown within its AND the pilots envelope.

[Learjet]

I value the comments from experienced RAF pilots that its a "different" and by inference, a "trickier" gyroplane to fly.
The same can be said of many high performance cars. I used to own a Porsche which had some very bad manners when cornering too aggressively. I did advanced and high-performance drivers courses which gave me a better understanding of its handling characteristics and I learned to be a safer / better driver. But it didn't solve the Porsche's inherent over-steer problem and it was always ready to catch the unwary driver with its propensity to slide the back out and spin!

But I was a Porsche fan and naturally wanted to defend it...

I could have argued that it was all about driver training...
Or that it was not like most other road cars and shouldn't be compared to them...
Or that the car should have been driven within its (and the driver's limits)
Or that there was nothing wrong with it at all and people who haven't driven one shouldn't comment

But none of this changed the fact that the average driver could potentially see their arse in that model Porsche more quickly than many other cars because of its inherent over-steer characteristic. Nor was it a reason to ban Porsches from the road...

The solution was knowledge!

What would be interesting is for the experienced RAF owners to explain what it actually is that makes it trickier to fly, or that much more additional training is required. I have only minimal time in a RAF, and to be honest for the few minutes that I poled it around (with Eben Jr next to me) I found it be a very polite and well mannered gyro. But then, my wife felt the same way about my Porsche. For her it cornered very nicely at 60km/h.

So I applaud Hub-Bar for sharing his experience of the handling aspects of his RAF. He is not gyro-bashing or running down RAF. He is the equivalent of a Porsche driver saying " you know guys, my Porsche tends to want to slide out if I corner at higher speeds?" Gentlemen, this is how we learn. And how we better understand the nuances of our aircraft (or Porsches!) performance envelopes. I would have found more value had the experienced RAF owners offered useful comment and insight into the handling characteristics and oscillations that Hub-Bar experienced rather than obfuscating the issue with the usual blustery rhetoric. I'm sure Hub-Bar and other RAF pilots looking for answers would have appreciated insightful feedback instead, which alas, was conspicuous in its absence from those better informed.

If there is an airspeed : dynamic-pitch stability concern with the RAF (as suggested by the UK CAA AIB reports) then by all means lets understand it for what it is (rather than maintain a state of denial or blissful ignorance) and address the potential issue through the power of enhanced knowledge. Knowing that my Porsche was prone to over-steer (like most rear wheel driven cars) or that my wife's Audi is more likely to under-steer due to it being front wheel drive does not make the one necessarily any better or worse than the other. But at least I knew what to potentially expect from each car if I happened to enter a corner too fast - and I was able to adjust my driving style accordingly for each. Simply settling for "they are different" and leaving it at that does not make either driver more knowledgable or a safer driver. Let us better understand the differences and flight performance nuances for all our aircraft. This clarity will clear a lot of the misconceptions, rumors, speculation and other nonsense that keeps getting spouted - and understanding the facts will make us all safer pilots in the sky we all share.

[PTKay]

....
What would be interesting is for the experienced RAF owners to explain what it actually is that makes it trickier to fly, or that much more additional training is required. ...

It is very simple, RAF is inherently unstable, this is what makes it "trickier to fly".
The problem is, that RAF manufacturers and owners do not wish to accept and admit this fact.

They keep claiming, this is not the case.

Staying in denial helps nobody.

[mak]

PTKay

How many hours do you have on the RAF and what/which flight characteristic of the RAF in those hours did you experience that you thought made it unstable?

[frik]

PTKAY vra ek ook dieselfde vraag as MAK. Hoekom kritiseer ons nie mekaar se motor, sport, geweer of vliegtuig smaak nie. Ek koop waarvan ek hou en wat vir my die beste is, as jy nie daarvan like nie bly stil en hou jou kritiek vir jouself. As ek wil sterf in die gyro of motor of vliegtuig van my keuse so let it be dit het niks met jou te doen nie.
So by the way van van ander gyro ongelukke en insidente wat ek van lees, hoekom lok hulle nie so baie kritiek uit nie? Vra maar net. Vorige skrywer het gesê ons moet saamstaan. AMEN. Kom manne lewer opbouende kritiek soos baie doen en vat liewer hande in onderskraging

[THI]

PTKAY vra ek ook dieselfde vraag as MAK. Hoekom kritiseer ons nie mekaar se motor, sport, geweer of vliegtuig smaak nie. Ek koop waarvan ek hou en wat vir my die beste is, as jy nie daarvan like nie bly stil en hou jou kritiek vir jouself. As ek wil sterf in die gyro of motor of vliegtuig van my keuse so let it be dit het niks met jou te doen nie.
So by the way van van ander gyro ongelukke en insidente wat ek van lees, hoekom lok hulle nie so baie kritiek uit nie? Vra maar net. Vorige skrywer het gesê ons moet saamstaan. AMEN. Kom manne lewer opbouende kritiek soos baie doen en vat liewer hande in onderskraging

PTKAY is english. Frik can you maybe translate?

[frik]

Engels is nie my moeder taal nie en ek weet nie of dit gaan reg uitkom nie.
I also want to know how much expierience he has on a gyro for such a comment
Die res was was nie op hom gemik nie maar op almal wat op iemand se keuse afbrekende kommentaar lewer
Ek praat net engels uit selfverdediging

[THI]

Engels is nie my moeder taal nie en ek weet nie of dit gaan reg uitkom nie.
I also want to know how much expierience he has on a gyro for such a comment
Die res was was nie op hom gemik nie maar op almal wat op iemand se keuse afbrekende kommentaar lewer
Ek praat net engels uit selfverdediging

Weet hoe jy voel

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Learjet]

PTKay

How many hours do you have on the RAF and what/which flight characteristic of the RAF in those hours did you experience that you thought made it unstable?

Mak, If PTKay feels that the RAF is unstable I too would be very interested to hear how he or anyone else qualifies this opinion? Not that it is always necessary to have to substantiate it with personal hours (though this would add weight to their opinion). I have only a handful of hours on the Magni 24 for example, but I think my concerns about the gull-wing doors, hinge and latch mechanisms which led to a number of M24 accidents and fatalities are no less valid due to my limited experience on the M24 (which for the record I believe Magni has subsequently modified).

Let's play the facts and not the man.

Perhaps this thread topic should be changed to "gyro plane flight behaviour"? I'm sure there is a lot to be learned about all the various gyro flying characteristics - not just the RAF (which if you look at the SA CAA accident stats over the past 10 years+ actually enjoys a very good safety record!)

[Learjet]

....
What would be interesting is for the experienced RAF owners to explain what it actually is that makes it trickier to fly, or that much more additional training is required. ...

It is very simple, RAF is inherently unstable, this is what makes it "trickier to fly".
The problem is, that RAF manufacturers and owners do not wish to accept and admit this fact.

They keep claiming, this is not the case.

Staying in denial helps nobody.

PTKay - my own (admittedly very limited) flying experience of the RAF was that it felt perfectly stable. In fact, after hearing so much talk about it being so unstable I was very surprised at just how well mannered it was. I'd almost expected it to turn into a bucking bronco when I took the stick. Instead it behaved perfectly.

Which is why it's important that we try to qualify our opinions or experiences. Did I fly the gyro through its full flight envelope? No. Based upon my few minutes of well behaved flight can I categorically conclude that its a docile gyro that isn't any trickier to fly? Of course not.
If we can try to qualify and provide insight behind our viewpoints it will help to clarify the facts without adding to the already muddy waters of perception.

[PTKay]

Dear Sirs,

I have no hours on RAF.

I have just few hours on ZEN1.

I am scientist, computer programmer and mathematician, with PhD in genetics.
I have worked a lot with computer simulations of complicated phenomena.

Aerodynamics is science, not religion.

I base my opinion on scientific evidence.
I base my opinion on the results of scientific experiments and computer simulations.

But you are right. It's none of my business, if SARAF will put
a HS on their machines or not.
This is their business decision.

I was not planning to comment any more on this topic,
but being directly asked some questions, I felt obliged to answer.

Sorry for that.

Fly safe.

Paul

[PTKay]

Google translator your friend.

I hope it did it well.

Geagte Menere,

Ek het geen ure op RAF.

Ek het net 'n paar uur op ZEN1.

Ek is wetenskaplike, rekenaarprogrammeerder en wiskundige, met PhD in genetika.
Ek het gewerk met 'n baie rekenaar simulasies van ingewikkelde verskynsels.

Lugdinamika is wetenskap, nie godsdiens nie.

Ek baseer my mening op wetenskaplike bewyse.
Ek baseer my mening op die resultate van wetenskaplike eksperimente en rekenaarsimulasies.

Maar jy is reg. Dit is een van my besigheid, as Saraf sal
'n HS oor hul masjiene of nie.
Dit is hul besigheid besluit.

Ek is nie van plan om enige meer om kommentaar te lewer oor die onderwerp,
maar word direk paar vrae gevra, voel ek verplig om te beantwoord.

Jammer vir daardie.

Vlieg veilig.

Paul