That game of darts...

[nicow]

Now,...lets go fly

[FLYNOTE]

Speak for yourself Nicow!!! I am gyroless i have nothing to fly with... No Xenon, no M16, no M22, no RAF ... But the Calidus is rocking in a container somewhere between here and Deutchland uber alles! if the Theunis man manages to get all his ducks in a row, myself, Condor and Jabbanaught will be strutting our feathers in a months time...and counting.
I will be visiting you guys in Potties soon to swank and show off!!!
Viva gyros. Spin a rotor for me in the mean time!

[nicow]

Speak for yourself Nicow!!! I am gyroless i have nothing to fly with... No Xenon, no M16, no M22, no RAF ... But the Calidus is rocking in a container somewhere between here and Deutchland uber alles! if the Theunis man manages to get all his ducks in a row, myself, Condor and Jabbanaught will be strutting our feathers in a months time...and counting.
I will be visiting you guys in Potties soon to swank and show off!!!
Viva gyros. Spin a rotor for me in the mean time!

You're welcome here in the bush Ons KAN vleisbraai ...

[John Boucher]

Don't forget the throwing darts or crossbows....

[saraf]

Dear Len and to those who would like to be informed......

With respect to Shakespeare: “The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.” You appear to be determined to discredit the RAF in general and me and my family in particular? You have, over an extended period, cast aspersions on the RAF by raising what we consider to be red herrings – bits of information taken out of context and with no real or relevant evidence.

Although you are no longer on the SAGPA committee (despite the website still indicating otherwise), the fact is that for some time, you were the safety and training committee member. Most of your attacks against the RAF and the Mocke family happened while you were wearing that particular hat. It is my belief, and I would think the belief of many of the rational readers of this forum, that as an office bearer, you are expected to portray yourself and the office you hold in the most professional manner possible. This would not include using the office and forums such as this one as a means of carrying out what can only be considered a personal vendetta. By virtue of having held that office in the recent past still means that all communication from you carries the weight of that office. It is then reasonable, I believe, to expect you (and all other similar office bearers) to portray yourself in a manner becoming such position, past or present.

In addition, you are listed as a moderator of this forum. Is it not the role of the moderator to moderate discussion and be seen to be a neutral “voice of reason”?

While you are correct that I have not made myself available for a position on the SAGPA committee, this should not mean that I, or any others who have not made themselves available, should be open to prolonged attacks of this nature. I would like to think, however, that should my circumstances allow me to make myself available at some time in the future, that I would treat such office with the respect it deserves and not use it as a platform for personal attacks.

Now, I will give you and the readers of this forum, some facts and the truth of the matter to balance your red herrings.

To start: Do you fly the rotor disk or do you fly the cabin? Considering that the rotor disk is your wing and you manipulate this wing by shifting the weight on a pendulum arm, where do you propose to put the “feathers” you speak of?

You raise comments about the AIB in the UK. Let’s consider the name “AIB” or Accident Investigation Board. - Their sole function is to investigate accidents.

Now let’s consider some of these tests:

Glasgow university NEVER did any test on the RAF 2000. Dr Stewart Houston made a 15 minute flight in winds over 30 knots, and found he couldn't control the aircraft. Perhaps he is not a pilot or perhaps he had no or inadequate or NO training? Glasgow did do test on another type of gyro but not the RAF 2000.

As regards the Horizontal Stabilizer - Dr Igor Bensen never used a Horizontal Stabilizer. Wing Commander Wallis designer, builder and pilot of Wallis Autogyro never used a Horizontal Stabilizer.

And I quote:
“THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF HORIZONTAL STABILIZER'S DISCUSSED BY ONE OF THE MOST EXPERIENCED GYROPLANE PILOTS IN BRITAIN AND POSSIBLY THE WORLD.

My little WA-116 machine met light fixed wing standard of stability in a formal flight test program to CCAS in 1961 and 1962. A C of A was granted in 1962 but it was a special category because of the use of the uncertified McCulloch target drone engine.

No horizontal stabilizer was fitted to these machines though, initially , there was a small 'stone guard' beneath the propeller. This was soon discarded since , as you all know , such an item worsens the stone problem by catching them for the propeller to ingest.

"Little Nellie" has NO horizontal stabilizer and she has certainly been thrown around a plenty at over 6000ft for the 007 film and at 800 air displays since.

The prototype WA-116 , G-ARRT, rode out a storm off the east coast of Brazil in 1966, where amongst other things , a water spout joined the sea and sky beside her and large chucks of palm tree were blown off the land and whet flying past her. The gusts was horrendously enormous.

At Santos Dumos Airport , at Rio de Janeiro, I was later told that no aircraft could survive the "Ventana" that had occurred while I was airborne!

I AM CERTAIN THAT, HAD THERE BEEN A HORIZONTAL STABILIZER FITTED , IN FREE AIR THE PITCHING WHICH IT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED FROM THE EFFECTS OF THOSE GUSTS , WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN FATAL..........

THE BLADE LOADING OF THE ROTOR SYSTEM IS FAR HIGHER AND LESS GUST AFFECTED THAN FREE AIR STABILIZERS.

I have tried a number of horizontal stabilizers, some electrically adjustable for trim in flight, in addition to v tails etc. But many of my machines remain without any stabilizers, with no perceived loss of stability.

I certainly think that a light autogyro can be perfectly stable over an established flight envelope without the reliance upon a horizontal stabilizer. However I can only speak with authority on the designs of which I have some flight experience.

The Cricket also seemed to manage well without a HS. Like my WA-116s. They have been around for many years and a flown by a wide range and a large number of pilots.”

I wonder who would say that they know so much that they can declare that a gyro without a HS is virtually 'an aircraft waiting to crash'?

Anyway, we know that a suitable design of gyro plane does NOT need any form of HS to be safely flown.

Sadly in these day it it not fashionable to take not of the lessons of the past. We had no computers so it must have been all rubbish? That is apparent from the studies funded at considerable expense in recent years by the CAA.”

Incidentally, Ken Wallis flew in the RAF 2000 and found it to be a very safe and nice gyro to fly.

Quote end:


Chris Chadwick , European Test pilot was in Canada and conducted a very short test flight program with Instructor Larry Ellermann. Chris reported that if there were to be any changes to the RAF , it should be followed with training.

This was done after........and i quote from the accident report you put on the forum.

Mandatory Permit Directive (MPD)

Following a series of fatal accidents involving gyroplanes, including two RAF 2000s, G-CBAG (see AAIB Bulletin 9/2003) and G-REBA, the UK CAA conducted flight tests on the RAF 2000.

Only 2 RAF's...??? where in my opinion there could not be proven that so called pitch instability was the cause for the accident.

I quote again from the report:

1. (The flight proceeded without incident and, after passing the A303 (a trunk road orientated east-west) and approximately five nm north of Henstridge, G‐CBCJ commenced a descent which Pilot B followed. It was about 1750 hrs and getting dark, with unlit ground features becoming indistinct.

During the descent G-CBCJ accelerated to about 65 mph and Pilot B matched the descent and speed increase. Pilot B then slowed his aircraft slightly to take up a position astern of G‐CBCJ to allow it to land at Henstridge Airfield first. using G‐CBCJ’s tail light as a reference,

Pilot B then accelerated to maintain his distance. In order to do so, Pilot B had to increase his IAS to 95mph.

2. He considered that it was too dark to conduct a safe field landing and continued on to Henstridge Airfield where he landed safely and contacted the emergency services.

A witness in the village of Buckhorn Weston, about 1 nm north of the accident site, reported seeing a pair of gyroplanes fly overhead. The witness was concerned that one was “swaying” from side to side. However, based on the witness’s description, it appears this was not the accident gyroplane but the one flown by Pilot B. This witness described the accident gyroplane as flying straight and not giving cause for any concern.

3. Of the pilot’s total gyroplane flying experience, 60 hours were conducted outside the training environment and he had completed fewer than ten hours of solo flying in the previous seven years.

4. The UK CAA publishes a series of General Aviation Safety Sense Leaflets. Safety Sense Leaflet 1, entitled Good Airmanship Guide, states:
‘Plan to reach your destination at least one hour before sunset unless qualified and prepared for night flight...’

5. Analysis
The evidence suggests that the pilot had planned the flight with an airspeed of 60 mph, a groundspeed of 50 mph and an airborne time of 87 minutes for the return flight to Henstridge. Leaving Little Rissington at 1607 hrs meant an ETA at Henstridge of 1734 hrs. This would have been four minutes after sunset and 26 minutes before official night flying, which begins 30 minutes after sunset.

The forecast wind conditions, which were confirmed by the aftercast, indicated that the aircraft’s groundspeed would have been less, at 40 mph, with a flight time to Henstridge of 112 minutes. Thus a more realistic ETA at Henstridge was 1759 hrs.


During the flight the pilot would have had sufficient information to show that the aircraft would reach Henstridge near to the time that the airfield was due to close, 1800 hrs, which coincided with the start of official night flying. The weather was suitable for the aircraft to divert en route and land at a nearby airfield or return to Little Rissington. However, the air temperature and the exposed position of the pilot may have caused a certain amount of discomfort and been something of a distraction.

6. The long, cold flight and impending darkness might also have been a factor.


The UK CAA then decided in its infinite wisdom to eliminate any change and said you couldn't put your doors on and restricted the aircraft to 60kt. A speed which was more acceptable to the other gyroplanes flying in the UK like the Air Command.

It should be noted that at the time, the CAA was being sued by a person whose wife was killed in an Air Command. He alleged that the CAA did not do the proper certification. This is why the proceeding happened and it is also part of the reason the RAF 2000 had to go through the certification process in the UK under BCAR T where it was the FIRST LEGAL 2 place trainer in the UK.

Read some of the these articles from the UK ALONG WITH THE TEST REPORT.

If you cannot find it I will gladly post it here for you to take a look at.

I quote from one of your posts:

I feel that, in the light of the above report, it is immoral, if not bordering on illegal, for RAF SA to continue marketing the machine in SA with a Recommended VNE of 100 mph and a Maximum speed of 120/140 mph.

The Raf was approved and accepted by the SACAA based on the BCar T as well as Canadian approvals presented to them at there office by myself and Eben Mocke Snr.

I quote you again;

innocent people may die........

Also noted.....


So, back to the dart and feathers analogy..How does this apply to a pendular or weight shift aircraft? Where would you place the Horizontal Stabilizer? How different is a gyro to a weight shift microlight???????

When you attach feathers (or flights) to a dart ,arrow or fixed wing, it is to keep it on the same flight path. Mainly that the feathers are solidly attached to the shaft, fuselage of the flying body to keep it on track to the wing attitude. How do you do this in pendular aircraft????????? As anything hanging below the rotor is not a wing............and can not fly.

I would be interested to see the results of your tests on stability? How and by whom were they performed?


The bottom line is that rotor craft are inherently unstable and it is exactly this that they use for more controllability.

You have about .09 hours’ flying time in the RAF, right Len? So, then, here is an open and genuine invitation to you to come to Upington for further flight time in the RAF. Spend time at our facility, learn about the craft so that you can also be informed of how we do stuff, and in fact, you can bring along your expert team and we will conduct some stability tests with the RAF as well as your own rotor craft.

I thank you....
Klein Eben Mocke.........

[M I Claase]

What more can be said? Eben ek is trots op jou oor twee redes 1) You made your point clear without showing a finger to any other specific make of Gyro ( in fact you made us aware from where the gyro originated to what they are today) and 2) for inviting Len on a geniune base to come and fly a RAF in Upington. I sincerly hope he will except and perhaps change his mind about our machine and the Mocke family whom i believe will make his stay a enjoyable one and he will leave as a friend.

" Ek vlieg ook n RAF gyrotjie, en vlieg hy nou vir jou leekkwar!"

[John Boucher]

In addition, you are listed as a moderator of this forum. Is it not the role of the moderator to moderate discussion and be seen to be a neutral “voice of reason”?

If a moderator participates on the thread and voices opinion, he cannot then moderate on that thread. It is a misconception as has been indicated on another thread that a moderator has to remain UN-biased or neutral. It would then merely mean a moderator is a puppet. This does not mean that a moderator cannot be moderated by his peers... on the contrary! If this then means I cannot object to others or promote my own opinion, then I'll relinquish that status right now! JB

Definition of a moderator

A forum moderator oversees the communication activity of an Internet forum. He monitors the interchange of contributors and makes decisions regarding content and the direction of threads. Moving discussions from one section to another to keep topics organized is also a common job for a forum moderator.

If the tone of a forum becomes hostile or starts to move in the direction of personal attacks, the forum moderator usually has the discretion to lock the discussion to prevent heated, interchanges. He may also be able to hide discussions he deems unworthy of further discussion. Conversely, topics he feels deserve further examination can be posted indefinitely by the moderator even if they garner no comments.

Moderator duties are as diverse as the forum topics themselves. Some moderators are virtually invisible; they surface only when situations arise that do not seem likely to resolve themselves. Other forum moderators are always there, ready to intercede at the smallest hint of discourse. Public forum moderators often have to enforce many rules of conduct and decorum, as public contributors tend to communicate without abandon, which can sometimes upset other commenters.

[Rocket]

Well as a newbie wannabe gyro pilot I was convinced after Gyronaught had rubbished the RAF I would need to consider more than the 475K one that is being advertised elsewhere on the forum.

I will now hang on to hear the final outcome from this interesting and rather personal thread, I have recently learnt that Gyronaught is a seasoned instructor, although he does not have the Hours the RAF instructor has under his belt he obviously knows his stuff? and is a very popular guy
In Krugersdorp the comment was passed at the hanger this afternoon they are not sure that Gyronaught will make it back from Uppington without a blue eye suggesting despite saraf's invitation Uppington could be a dangerous place for Gyronaught

In any event I will look forward to the comments after some flying and less finger pointing, from both sides, because I cannot afford to buy a product that has a design flaw or some uncontrolability issues that are referd to by the people in the know?

let the two big dogs who are both well respected sort out their personal issues and lets get to the nuts and bolts of the RAF, and hear it from the horses mouth when he has more than 1 hour at the helm, if Gyronaught then continues to advise against the RAF then so be it and i will remove it from my list despite the fact that I like its many mechanical components.

[Steve_SP]

Hi Rocket


A brief summary of the RAF 2000 - a type with some considerable history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_2000

As ever Wikipedia may not be definitive but it gives some insight.



Steve

[Steve_SP]

Hi Rocket,


A good resource to check when consider things aviatino is the US NTSB


If you use there search facility, see below


http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx


and just enter the words you want into "MODEL" - a search for "RAF 2000" in this MODEL field ( ie just this one search criteria ) will turn up over 40 incidents / accidents going back over the past 18 years or so.

All worth a read if you have time.



Steve

[Steve_SP]

Hi Rocket



Several incident / accident reports from Canada, original home of the RAF 2000



http://search-recherche.tc.gc.ca/search ... mit=Search



Again all worth a read if time permits.


Regards


Steve

[Rocket]

Wow lots of reading to do, thanks Steve, in a simple comparison are the accident figures not distorted because in the USA a Gyro copter can be assembled and flown with no training required considering the amount of home built projects simply by numbers, the accident figures could be 'padding' the accident file simply for this reason?? I don't know I read with interest the MT range also seem to suffer many accidents? yet in its country of origin and in places where it musters support, training is mandatory? as seen with our local authority the CAA? and other countries making it illegal to fly an aircraft home built or other without training?
If we compare accident statistics is a scary topic, but its what accident statistics are not telling us that interests me?
If we look at simple construction techniques employed in the RAF design (not taking sides here) it seems that as a person who likes to fiddle the RAF seems to have infinite adjustments? the others have factory set pitch and camber and washout with factory paired rotors? so if you end up with a unit that has a vibration you have to live with it? whereas in my humble opinion the RAF will afford a suitable engineer the opportunity to dial out any vibrations, unless I'm mistaken.

Coming from and practicing as a professional engineer the RAF seems to be the builders choice with kits coming complete or one advertised here with no hours for R475K.

I had a quick look at other accidents if we use statistics then every aviation authority should ban the Robinson R22? it has the highest incident rate, worldwide.... but the statistics hide the fact that it the most used a-b initio training machine on a global scale, therefore that in my opinion distorts the numbers.
The Bell 47 suffered similar fate when it was used to train war pilots back when i was kid? does that make the Bell 47 a accident ridden machine.

I have looked at the materials of the calidus and while I am no aeronautical engineer I will say that stainless steel should be used on marine applications and that stainless is in fact not a torsion stressed metal? being more at home on up market buildings in balustrade applications? only time will tell how the German machine will add up against the likes of units constructed from T6 and Chrome Molly alloy.
In any case I don't want to overstay my welcome on this forum because I have no clue what I'm talking about or thinking, I was really keen on the RAF but considering a instructor has gone on a public forum and declared its a dangerous machine is now giving me doubts, I have read gyronaughts comments not only on the RAF but other topics and this man makes a solid case based on facts so as it stands Im going to hang in the shadows until its sorted its either ego between two suppliers or its fact, the RAF is not suitable for its speed application.

But in my opinion it is the nicest looking machine and having the manufacturer in SA is a real bonus from a support perspective, just my comments also the engine is not a Rotax so in my thinking its servicing should be cheaper and anyone who says Subaru is bad engine is in fact silly those flat 4's are bullet proof Im just not sure how they do the altitude compensation thing?

[Steve_SP]

Hi


Two photos - same machine - G-IRAF


a) without rear HS

http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules ... mgtype=jpg


b) with rear HS

http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules ... mgtype=jpg


Modify, fly and enjoy - over 570 hours by end of 2011.


Steve

[John Boucher]

I assume that RAF-SA does not provide an optional extra of a HS!

Why not provide that option for existing or potential owners?

Almost like the ventral fin mod on the Cheetah that can be added for stability.

Must say the RAF with the HS does look more of a "complete package" to me.

Maybe Eben can enlighten owners/potential owners of the process they could/would follow to bring about this modification... just a thought

[saraf]

Hi John,

You will see that the RAF has a Rotor Stabilator fitted half way up the mast system. This was incorporated to reduce pilot workload and stabilize the flying surface (rotor)......this is also standard on all RAF's. You will also notice that non of the UK RAF's has this fitted.

The RAF also incorporates a totally different mast system than all the other gyro planes on the market. Please send me your email address and i will forward this information to you, makes for some interesting and informative reading.

Regards
Eben Mocke Jnr