Tweet
As most of you know, I'm a scrooge and was too tight to fly/ carry me gyro to Cooma but it didn't matter coz Greg Mitchell and Allan Wardell were gracious and generous[ and brave] enough to allow me to fly their butterfly and monarch machines.[
]Since I'v been home I'v had numerous enquires bout my thoughts on how they flew, and to save a bit o pain in my typ'n finger, I'll post my [ dim] thoughts on this forum.Firstly, I only flew each machine for round 2 hours each, in smooth conditions and continualy switching from one to the other made it a bit harder to compare fairly.Also, I'm typ'n as a SCG from the simpson desert, not a gyro specialist, so my oppinions bout the machines are from that perspective.[the only perspective I can talk from.]Mitch's butterfly.For someone who has never built a gyro and is a self confessed non mechanic, you'v done a spoton job at your first attempt Mitch.[
]Workmanship and obvious pride in finish was the first thing I noticed,your birds a credit to you mate.[]Unfortunatly, I never got to fly it with a decent set of blades, and the old Bensons that where onit didn't do the machine justice at all. They are very light, almost impossable to loadup and I didn't want to stress them, been old and of less structual integraty of modern blades.That said though, they were every responsive to inputs from the stick with not as much lag time, almost akin to a wing.Responsive, but as a wing, impossable to load.[If Mitch can master these blades and not bend um for 50 hours, he can fly anything.][
]Starting at the front.The nose gear,in a word, scary.[:0]Theres alot o flexing going on when taxing over even modestly rough ground, both longatudionaly and lateraly, and it wasn't cum'n from the spring. Flexing causes fatigue, causing cracks........ .Something as simple as forks with a bracing strut wouldn't add any noticable weight but will be much stronger.Even a slightly larger tyre would help.I didn't like the digital readouts on the dash, pretty but not easy to read at a glance, especialy if you'v got dry eyes after 6/8 hours in the seat.The foot works were a treat, comfortable and well placed, but the turning circle is lousy and without power up a little, the rudder didn't assist the nose wheel at all.It took a while to get used to the seating position, it leans back much more than I'm used to and it felt like I was going to slip out.The little 2 banger performed better than I expected, and could be due to the efficiant 2 blade prop, but the vibes from the prop would have you with pins n neadles after a few hours.For this light machine and an under nurished desert rat like me,there was plenty of power for slow speeds.[0 knots indicated].The main's suspension, tho good for taxing/ tak'n off from rough ground, is too soft.The rudder I thought was very authorative but maby too touchy, coz under TO power, the peddals need a very light touch.After adjusting to the opposite torque of the two banger, the 0 inerta but quick responce of the blades, the cold and the enforced min altitude it was a good fun, light machine to fly.[^][Don't tell mitch, but I was help'n a cocky to get rid of some 2 legged critters off his cow food in the designated low fly'n area, and solong as I kept the AS up, I had no trouble annoy'n the critter. Manuverability and responce at speed is impressive.Allan's Monarch.Much the same as the butterfly, but with the better [Patrony] blades on this machine it was easier for me to play with, and the extra power of the bigger 2 banger was sucurity when low n slow.Tak'n into account the blades and power difference, they are basicaly big and little brothers.The big difference on the monarch was the G force main gear..I don't like it at all.[V]I agree that sumthn like this COULD save some rebuilding if you drop it in from 20 odd feet, but after TRY'n to land on this gear, I conclude it unnesasary, and even dangerous. Maybe its just a SCG thing, but I almost rolled it twice, and alota people were watch'n[B)].Your better off learning to land properly.Sorry Allan.[ Im not say'n you can't land properly,I'm say'n you can have the G force thingy.[}]]Now, the reasons why I wouldn't trade in the ferel for one o these machines.[remember, I'm a SCG.]It starts with endurance.Any machine isn't practical if you can't do at least 2 1/2 to 3 hours without need'n to take on fuel.The little butterfly has only bout 1 1/2 tops.Carry'n extra fuel = more weight=bigger blades and more power needed,which puts me bout where I am now.And most places where airial mustwering takes place is inland,where the altitude, temps and DA mite leave these machines wanting, especialy if your carrying 3 hours of fuel.With 3 hours fly'n time, rotax 4 bangers,heavy extruded blades and a substantialy beefed up nose gear,greatly reduced turn circle, more ridgid main gear[like the butterfly's] and it'll make a slippery little steed. [^]Sorry if I'v upset or dissapointed anyone but I'm try'n to be honest.[][afterall, I'm only a SCG.]Thanx again Mitch and Allan, your help and generousity is very much appreciated.[]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.Ingratitude stinks.......be generous carefully.
]Since I'v been home I'v had numerous enquires bout my thoughts on how they flew, and to save a bit o pain in my typ'n finger, I'll post my [ dim] thoughts on this forum.Firstly, I only flew each machine for round 2 hours each, in smooth conditions and continualy switching from one to the other made it a bit harder to compare fairly.Also, I'm typ'n as a SCG from the simpson desert, not a gyro specialist, so my oppinions bout the machines are from that perspective.[the only perspective I can talk from.]Mitch's butterfly.For someone who has never built a gyro and is a self confessed non mechanic, you'v done a spoton job at your first attempt Mitch.[]Workmanship and obvious pride in finish was the first thing I noticed,your birds a credit to you mate.[]Unfortunatly, I never got to fly it with a decent set of blades, and the old Bensons that where onit didn't do the machine justice at all. They are very light, almost impossable to loadup and I didn't want to stress them, been old and of less structual integraty of modern blades.That said though, they were every responsive to inputs from the stick with not as much lag time, almost akin to a wing.Responsive, but as a wing, impossable to load.[If Mitch can master these blades and not bend um for 50 hours, he can fly anything.][]Starting at the front.The nose gear,in a word, scary.[:0]Theres alot o flexing going on when taxing over even modestly rough ground, both longatudionaly and lateraly, and it wasn't cum'n from the spring. Flexing causes fatigue, causing cracks........ .Something as simple as forks with a bracing strut wouldn't add any noticable weight but will be much stronger.Even a slightly larger tyre would help.I didn't like the digital readouts on the dash, pretty but not easy to read at a glance, especialy if you'v got dry eyes after 6/8 hours in the seat.The foot works were a treat, comfortable and well placed, but the turning circle is lousy and without power up a little, the rudder didn't assist the nose wheel at all.It took a while to get used to the seating position, it leans back much more than I'm used to and it felt like I was going to slip out.The little 2 banger performed better than I expected, and could be due to the efficiant 2 blade prop, but the vibes from the prop would have you with pins n neadles after a few hours.For this light machine and an under nurished desert rat like me,there was plenty of power for slow speeds.[0 knots indicated].The main's suspension, tho good for taxing/ tak'n off from rough ground, is too soft.The rudder I thought was very authorative but maby too touchy, coz under TO power, the peddals need a very light touch.After adjusting to the opposite torque of the two banger, the 0 inerta but quick responce of the blades, the cold and the enforced min altitude it was a good fun, light machine to fly.[^][Don't tell mitch, but I was help'n a cocky to get rid of some 2 legged critters off his cow food in the designated low fly'n area, and solong as I kept the AS up, I had no trouble annoy'n the critter. Manuverability and responce at speed is impressive.Allan's Monarch.Much the same as the butterfly, but with the better [Patrony] blades on this machine it was easier for me to play with, and the extra power of the bigger 2 banger was sucurity when low n slow.Tak'n into account the blades and power difference, they are basicaly big and little brothers.The big difference on the monarch was the G force main gear..I don't like it at all.[V]I agree that sumthn like this COULD save some rebuilding if you drop it in from 20 odd feet, but after TRY'n to land on this gear, I conclude it unnesasary, and even dangerous. Maybe its just a SCG thing, but I almost rolled it twice, and alota people were watch'n[B)].Your better off learning to land properly.Sorry Allan.[ Im not say'n you can't land properly,I'm say'n you can have the G force thingy.[}]]Now, the reasons why I wouldn't trade in the ferel for one o these machines.[remember, I'm a SCG.]It starts with endurance.Any machine isn't practical if you can't do at least 2 1/2 to 3 hours without need'n to take on fuel.The little butterfly has only bout 1 1/2 tops.Carry'n extra fuel = more weight=bigger blades and more power needed,which puts me bout where I am now.And most places where airial mustwering takes place is inland,where the altitude, temps and DA mite leave these machines wanting, especialy if your carrying 3 hours of fuel.With 3 hours fly'n time, rotax 4 bangers,heavy extruded blades and a substantialy beefed up nose gear,greatly reduced turn circle, more ridgid main gear[like the butterfly's] and it'll make a slippery little steed. [^]Sorry if I'v upset or dissapointed anyone but I'm try'n to be honest.[][afterall, I'm only a SCG.]Thanx again Mitch and Allan, your help and generousity is very much appreciated.[]Ignorance is bliss............but only till you realise you were.Ingratitude stinks.......be generous carefully.
Comment