Comments Made - Defending the RAF Gyro

[Morph]

You see,

positive re-enforcement. Tell people about the great technology and design aspects of the plane, how issues are addressed and resolved.

[saraf]

this is what I have been trying to do all along, but some guy's just keep on listening to what they have heard from those who does not know the facts.

You have a great day.

Regards

SARAF

[t-bird]

Hi Saraf

Please tell us more about these maneuvers “the RAF can do manouvers that the other gyros can not do”

[saraf]

- I am not hear to brag about what can or can not be done by different gyro's I am only informing of what I have experienced.

All gyros are the same; they work the same way and can do the main stuff the same. I am rated on the Magni and the Ela and the RAF so I think that i would know what gyro are more maneuverable than he other.

Remember that I said maneuverable and not maneuvers. There is a big difference in maneuverable and maneuvers.

T - at the end of the day we all fly gyros for the fun of flying and not the type of aircraft. You like a your gyro I like mine, other guy likes his , but we all fly gyros for the love of flying gyros. Is this not the main point at the end of the day...?


I would think so...
:D

[t-bird]

It is not about my gyro is better that yours.

I am interested in any maneuvers that you think the other gyro’s can’t do.

Maybe we can learn from you and find a way to do more maneuver’s .

My favorite at the moment is bringing the Gyro into a hover, apply a bit of power and then full rudder deflection.

The gyro then spins like a sycamore leaf.

Maybe start a new topic. “Advance Gyro flying”

[saraf]

maybe we should, or beter.... i take you in the RAF and you me in the magni and show me.....and you show me.

you can spin the RAF on he 360 by playing with the power for as long as you would like to. will send you a video clip.

Like I said , main maneuvers in gyros are the same, I just found it more difficult to perform the maneuvers in the Magni or Ela than I found it in the RAF. This is what I mean by maneuverability.

The one I like the most in the RAF is flying her down the runway at 35 - 40mph like airtaxing a chopper to the place you want to land and land her there. O yes the other one is landing her in the width of the runway.

Fun stuff these gyros!!!!!

T- are you planning to come to the BUNDU BASH in June?? would love to have you there.

[t-bird]

June is a busy time of the year.

My dad will maybe go; he is busy with his license at the moment. I think you guys have met at the AGM last year.

Post that video clip

[saraf]

Who is your dad?

Will post link as soon as my Interet connection works with me on this one... will be soon......

[Willie]

I would like to know how many pilots died in a Raf in South Africa and how many are flying.

[DieselFan]

How easy is it to fly the RAF / Magni in reverse or sideways? Have a russian clip that makes it look puds - and thats in a um homebuild

[Learjet]

I was busy with my fixed wing PPL when I had the opportunity to go for a flip in a gyro. WOW!!! Inside of 20 minutes I was hooked. The flying sensation was awesome - and it was FUN!

But... (and there's always a "but"!) I had severe doubts about gyro safety. So I started reading as much as I could about gyros. I trawled every related web-site, forum, article and accident report I could find, spoke to everyone I knew who had ever flown anything and quite soon I came to the realisation that:

1. There's very little "scientific" info about gyros available (compared to other a/c types).

2. There is a HUGE amount of ignorance about gyros, and that much of this is attributable to point 1, as well as the fact that there are relatively few around so most people just don't know much about them.

3. That there are some very diametrically opposed points of view pertaining to gyro safety in general - and within the gyro community some very specific (and highly controversial) gyro design arguments in particular.

I'm a flying newby, but having worked as a part-time scuba diving instructor and volunteer Police diver for more than 15 years I'd come across very similar scenarios in the diving world. Heated and on-going arguments as to which equipment was supposedly better than others. Claims and allegations that some designs were "death traps" whilst others swore by them etc etc. I've dived with more different types of scuba gear than I'll ever fly planes, and hopefully one day I'll match my underwater hours with flying ones. So I give this background only to underline the fact that I'm used to these type of debates and it served only to reitterate my approach to the whole question of gyro design and safety with an open mind. Once upon a time I was also a dick and drove a Porsche - but more about that later.

In the meantime, lets get back to the topic of gyro safety.

On the various gyro and rotorwing forums I read arguments and counter-arguments galore. These usually revolved around common threads relating to: i. Pilot training and ii. gyro pitch stability. The latter usually focussing on issues such as centre versus high thrust lines (i.e positioning of the powerplant relative to the centre of gravity) and the effectiveness or necessity of a horizontal stabiliser on a gyro.

My first concern with the basis of many of these arguments was that (with apologies to Dalton's Law) any gyro's performance is surely the total result of the sum of the parts (yes, and the pilot, Virginia), and one must be very cautious when attempting to study any particular component or factor in total isolation to the rest.

Suffice to say on most of the forum "discussions" the two opposing camps slugged it out with each other with all manner of arguments substantiations, claims and counter-claims. Some of which was at a very advanced technical level way beyond the scope and understanding of this newby gyro wannabe pilot. Unfortunately these discussions would quickly degenerate into emotionally charged personal mud-slinging, with little in the way of a constructive outcome.

And that seemed to be much of the problem in itself. Each camp appeared to be willing settle for nothing less than an ultimate victorious outcome of their prevailing view.

I don't believe that the RAF is a perfect gyro. Not by a long shot. But I also don't believe that it's a death-trap waiting to pitch-pole out of the sky in the blink of an eye for no reason whatsoever. My own conclusion (never having flown in one I hasten to add!) is that it is something of a "racehorse". By their own admission, RAF instructors are the first to acknowledge that learning to ride this beast takes a bit longer than jumping into the saddle on a more sedate riding school pony. One can debate forever the pro's and cons and relative risks of learning to ride a race-horse from the word go, or settling instead for a more demure (more forgiving) pony until you've got a better feel for the saddle.

Of course theres a catch to this attempt at an analogy, and this is that the consequences of falling off a bucking horse is nowhere near as severe as coming unstack in a gyro. The pro-RAF guys will tell you that its all about training. That with the right training and the proper instruction you'll be able to handle the skittish racehorse quite competently. The anti-RAF brigade say that prospective riding students should be warned that learning to ride on a racehorse is a significantly risky affair and that students should learn to ride a pony first and then if they do decide to ride the race-horse it should be hobbled first by adding a horizontal stabilizer. Thay claim this will make it safer to ride and reduce the chances of it bucking the rider. The RAF jockeys simply respond by saying that it rides perfectly well thank you very much. That they don't fall off any more than any other rider on any other horse (provided you dont try to teach yourself to ride), and that hobbling their horse just reduces its agility. And that agility has nothing to do with any horses propensity for bucking!

My personal opinion is that you can, with the proper (excellent) instruction, be taught to ride a racehorse from the word go - and that by the time you master it, you will in all likelyhood be a very good horse-rider. I also firmly believe however, that there is considerably less risk of falling off a sedate pony as opposed to a frisky racehorse when learning to ride. Oh, and it would be nice to be told upfront the difference between a racehorse and a pony!

Which takes me back to my Porsche. It was fast. Very fast. And it had the rather alarming potential to oversteer, especially in the wet. So I went and did an advanced driving course at a local race-track. With an experienced instructor at my side, by the end of the course I felt a great deal more competent (and confident) driving it. Later on I even raced it. And during one race I spun off the track. Was driver error solely to blame? Training had gone a long way to help me avoid that eventuality. But it never completely neutralised that Porsche's inherent tendency to oversteer.

Unlike horses and ponies, car and aircraft manufacturers do have the option to review and revise their designs over time, either to overcome nuances or to incorporate features and technology which may enhance safety and performance. Airbags, ABS braking, inertia-seabelts, traction control and crumple-zones to name but a few. It would seem incredulous to any motor car owner that a car-manufacturer would, in this day and age, claim that a particular model is 100% perfect and needs no updating whatsoever, despite have been on the market, unchanged for many years! And then go on to state that provided the driver is properly trained - for example to be able execute cadence braking, then there is absolutely no need for ABS to be fitted! Getting back to the the RAF debate, many US web forum postings imply that this is the stance that RAF has adopted, opting to deny rather than acknowledge (and address) any alleged shortcomings out of fear of subsequent litigation. I don't understand the logic behind this allegation. Nobody seems to be suing the car manufacturers for evolving car safety technology? But whatever the truth, and whether any such shortcomings or stability issues actually do in fact exist, it would nevertheless be refreshing to see some independent and scientifically substantiated findings rather than the endlessly regurgitated, highly subjective and largely anecdotal (and thus inconclusive) evidence trotted out by both sides. These respective arguments characteristically take the form of "Mr XYZ has or had ten thousand (pick a number) of hours / experience and he is (a) still flying happily or (b) died in his CTL or HTL / horizontal stabilizor configured or non-configured / RAF or whatever gyro."

So for better or for worse I ended up selling the Porsche and buying a Land Cruiser. And in just the same way that it would make little sense to compare the features and driving performance of the two, so too would be most gyroplane comparisons. Each will have their relative pros and cons and performance characteristics. Naturally the manufacturers and salesmen will pitch all the reasons in the world to convince you that their car is better, and so too will current owners should you ask them. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful motivator - and probably the greatest factor influencing and contributing to the ongoing pitch-stability / RAF debate. And in the absence of any satisfactory independent, scientific fact or finding don't hold your breath for any cease-fire!

So at the end of the day - any product or aircraft will have its particluar advantages or shortcomings. Don't for a minute expect the salesman or manufacturer to volunteer to you just what they are. Gather all the facts you can from all the sources available to you, and do your best to come to your own, informed opinion.

And in this new milleneum of unabated technological advancement, it may do us well to consider a timeless and wise old idiom or three. "A good wine needs no bush", "where there's smoke there's fire" and finally, "caveat emptor!"

[saraf]

No one has died in a RAF in South Africa.

There are approx. 35 RAF pilots flying in South Africa and a couple busy with training as we speak.

DieselFan - with the right amount of wind you can fly both gyros backwards, sideways is very easy to do with both gyros.

Learjet - good post, RAF is a little race horse you dead right there. But like you said with the proper training anybody can ride a race horse.

Only other problem is , that buying a pony first and then the race horse can be a very expensive episode in South Africa. Most of the people would have to make the choise before hand. I can tell you that there is a couple of bucks differance at this moment in time between the two.

Regards

[saraf]

http://rafpilots.com/Acrobat/RAFRotorSt ... 304_6p.pdf

enjoy

Regards

[Cali]

I was busy with my fixed wing PPL when I had the opportunity to go for a flip in a gyro. WOW!!! Inside of 20 minutes I was hooked. The flying sensation was awesome - and it was FUN!

But... (and there's always a "but"!) I had severe doubts about gyro safety. So I started reading as much as I could about gyros. I trawled every related web-site, forum, article and accident report I could find, spoke to everyone I knew who had ever flown anything and quite soon I came to the realisation that:

1. There's very little "scientific" info about gyros available (compared to other a/c types).

2. There is a HUGE amount of ignorance about gyros, and that much of this is attributable to point 1, as well as the fact that there are relatively few around so most people just don't know much about them.

3. That there are some very diametrically opposed points of view pertaining to gyro safety in general - and within the gyro community some very specific (and highly controversial) gyro design arguments in particular.

I'm a flying newby, but having worked as a part-time scuba diving instructor and volunteer Police diver for more than 15 years I'd come across very similar scenarios in the diving world. Heated and on-going arguments as to which equipment was supposedly better than others. Claims and allegations that some designs were "death traps" whilst others swore by them etc etc. I've dived with more different types of scuba gear than I'll ever fly planes, and hopefully one day I'll match my underwater hours with flying ones. So I give this background only to underline the fact that I'm used to these type of debates and it served only to reitterate my approach to the whole question of gyro design and safety with an open mind. Once upon a time I was also a dick and drove a Porsche - but more about that later.

In the meantime, lets get back to the topic of gyro safety.

On the various gyro and rotorwing forums I read arguments and counter-arguments galore. These usually revolved around common threads relating to: i. Pilot training and ii. gyro pitch stability. The latter usually focussing on issues such as centre versus high thrust lines (i.e positioning of the powerplant relative to the centre of gravity) and the effectiveness or necessity of a horizontal stabiliser on a gyro.

My first concern with the basis of many of these arguments was that (with apologies to Dalton's Law) any gyro's performance is surely the total result of the sum of the parts (yes, and the pilot, Virginia), and one must be very cautious when attempting to study any particular component or factor in total isolation to the rest.

Suffice to say on most of the forum "discussions" the two opposing camps slugged it out with each other with all manner of arguments substantiations, claims and counter-claims. Some of which was at a very advanced technical level way beyond the scope and understanding of this newby gyro wannabe pilot. Unfortunately these discussions would quickly degenerate into emotionally charged personal mud-slinging, with little in the way of a constructive outcome.

And that seemed to be much of the problem in itself. Each camp appeared to be willing settle for nothing less than an ultimate victorious outcome of their prevailing view.

I don't believe that the RAF is a perfect gyro. Not by a long shot. But I also don't believe that it's a death-trap waiting to pitch-pole out of the sky in the blink of an eye for no reason whatsoever. My own conclusion (never having flown in one I hasten to add!) is that it is something of a "racehorse". By their own admission, RAF instructors are the first to acknowledge that learning to ride this beast takes a bit longer than jumping into the saddle on a more sedate riding school pony. One can debate forever the pro's and cons and relative risks of learning to ride a race-horse from the word go, or settling instead for a more demure (more forgiving) pony until you've got a better feel for the saddle.

Of course theres a catch to this attempt at an analogy, and this is that the consequences of falling off a bucking horse is nowhere near as severe as coming unstack in a gyro. The pro-RAF guys will tell you that its all about training. That with the right training and the proper instruction you'll be able to handle the skittish racehorse quite competently. The anti-RAF brigade say that prospective riding students should be warned that learning to ride on a racehorse is a significantly risky affair and that students should learn to ride a pony first and then if they do decide to ride the race-horse it should be hobbled first by adding a horizontal stabilizer. Thay claim this will make it safer to ride and reduce the chances of it bucking the rider. The RAF jockeys simply respond by saying that it rides perfectly well thank you very much. That they don't fall off any more than any other rider on any other horse (provided you dont try to teach yourself to ride), and that hobbling their horse just reduces its agility. And that agility has nothing to do with any horses propensity for bucking!

My personal opinion is that you can, with the proper (excellent) instruction, be taught to ride a racehorse from the word go - and that by the time you master it, you will in all likelyhood be a very good horse-rider. I also firmly believe however, that there is considerably less risk of falling off a sedate pony as opposed to a frisky racehorse when learning to ride. Oh, and it would be nice to be told upfront the difference between a racehorse and a pony!

Which takes me back to my Porsche. It was fast. Very fast. And it had the rather alarming potential to oversteer, especially in the wet. So I went and did an advanced driving course at a local race-track. With an experienced instructor at my side, by the end of the course I felt a great deal more competent (and confident) driving it. Later on I even raced it. And during one race I spun off the track. Was driver error solely to blame? Training had gone a long way to help me avoid that eventuality. But it never completely neutralised that Porsche's inherent tendency to oversteer.

Unlike horses and ponies, car and aircraft manufacturers do have the option to review and revise their designs over time, either to overcome nuances or to incorporate features and technology which may enhance safety and performance. Airbags, ABS braking, inertia-seabelts, traction control and crumple-zones to name but a few. It would seem incredulous to any motor car owner that a car-manufacturer would, in this day and age, claim that a particular model is 100% perfect and needs no updating whatsoever, despite have been on the market, unchanged for many years! And then go on to state that provided the driver is properly trained - for example to be able execute cadence braking, then there is absolutely no need for ABS to be fitted! Getting back to the the RAF debate, many US web forum postings imply that this is the stance that RAF has adopted, opting to deny rather than acknowledge (and address) any alleged shortcomings out of fear of subsequent litigation. I don't understand the logic behind this allegation. Nobody seems to be suing the car manufacturers for evolving car safety technology? But whatever the truth, and whether any such shortcomings or stability issues actually do in fact exist, it would nevertheless be refreshing to see some independent and scientifically substantiated findings rather than the endlessly regurgitated, highly subjective and largely anecdotal (and thus inconclusive) evidence trotted out by both sides. These respective arguments characteristically take the form of "Mr XYZ has or had ten thousand (pick a number) of hours / experience and he is (a) still flying happily or (b) died in his CTL or HTL / horizontal stabilizor configured or non-configured / RAF or whatever gyro."

So for better or for worse I ended up selling the Porsche and buying a Land Cruiser. And in just the same way that it would make little sense to compare the features and driving performance of the two, so too would be most gyroplane comparisons. Each will have their relative pros and cons and performance characteristics. Naturally the manufacturers and salesmen will pitch all the reasons in the world to convince you that their car is better, and so too will current owners should you ask them. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful motivator - and probably the greatest factor influencing and contributing to the ongoing pitch-stability / RAF debate. And in the absence of any satisfactory independent, scientific fact or finding don't hold your breath for any cease-fire!

So at the end of the day - any product or aircraft will have its particluar advantages or shortcomings. Don't for a minute expect the salesman or manufacturer to volunteer to you just what they are. Gather all the facts you can from all the sources available to you, and do your best to come to your own, informed opinion.

And in this new milleneum of unabated technological advancement, it may do us well to consider a timeless and wise old idiom or three. "A good wine needs no bush", "where there's smoke there's fire" and finally, "caveat emptor!"

Yea... what he said.











I think

[Willie]

No one has died in a RAF in South Africa.

There are approx. 35 RAF pilots flying in South Africa and a couple busy with training as we speak.

Regards

Now you are the one talking BS.
My best friend George Demos died in a RAF 2000 (here at Phalaborwa) and so did a very senior pilot (his passanger). I did the investigation with CAA. . He burned beyond recognition and as the crash took place in the Kruger National Park scavengers was eating on his remains. I am so upset as I am writing this that tears spring to my eyes. Think for yourself. Petrol tank between you and the engine It is like sitting on a bomb. In the event of a crash the engine hit the fuel tank and then it hits you. If RAF can only admit that they have a problem it may save somebody’s life in the future. Maybe even yours. I am an experienced pilot myself and started flying in 1982.

I did some hours in the RAF and other Giro’s. I will not put my foot in a RAF without a horizontal stabilizer fin again. Then I am also not talking about the small piece fitted to the mast. I also dont want petrol between me and the engin when I am in front. I can give a detailed accident report but that may harm your business. There is no RAF in my future.