Tweet
From the largest pilot forum in the world I thought you guys might like to read this.Note this is only part of a post by a professional engineer from Glasgow Scotland discussing the RAF 2000 and trying to answer some questions that were asked...........................................Fr om www.Pprune.com/forums/ Private flying thread.The CAA-funded research I've been involved with has come in for a fair amount of stick from a pretty big chunk of the UK gyro community, so you can take or leave what I say. However the CAA, independently of me, recently engaged in comparative flight trials of 5 Bensen-type gyros (as a consequence of an AAIB recommendation). One met the 2 inch limit, and it was the only one that passed the Section T dynamic stability tests. As a consequence, Bensen derivatives in the UK (and I don't think I'm giving anything away here) will become the subject of an MPD (mandatory permit directive) as a consequence of this. My CAA contacts also tell me that 2 RAF 2000's will shortly be assessed in the same way, as part of the same activity - flight tests and c.g. determination. Will an MPD result? I don't know.And now the final health warning - don't cross RAF. I did, and I thought I would end up in court. My report on G-BXDD for its then-owner somehow found its way into the public domain. I was so rattled by RAF that I sought legal advice from my employer who was ready to support me, but the whole thing fizzled out. For a sensitive soul such as myself, it was most upsetting.....
-
-
They probably forget that knee capping might be a result oflittergation also, or so I have heard !Fly stable, fly safe.Cheers.Robert DunnMackay. Qld.Growing old is good while it lasts.
-
I read on a Pomme forum that 18 people been killed in factory RAF's,1 in a modified one, cause unknown for the latter. Didn't say ifthese figures were just for Brittain or world wide ? RAF would of course say that those 18 killed were due to Pilot error.I would heartely agree ! because we all know what their mistake was,dont we ?Robert DunnMackay. Qld.Growing old is good while it lasts.
Comment
-
News on the MPD (Mandatory Permit Directive)for UK single seat machines. The CAA recently invited UK gyro pilots to a meeting at their HQ where they presented the flight test results they undertook with the 5 Bensen types, open frame Rotax 503, 532 tall/short mast configurations, and 3 Montgomerie types one with a stepped keel lowered thrust line.They came to the now generally accepted conclusion that high thrust line low CG machines can develop serious pitch instability oscillations, that low hours pilots may not be able to cope with.Recommendations were that until individual machine owners could demonstrate to the CAA that their machines were within CG/Thrust line limits of within +/- 2" then the restrictions of the MPD would be imposed. MPD restrictions were in essence:VNE limitations of 70 MPH on all single seat machines.No flight if surface wind speed exceeded 15 Knots.Pilots are not allowed to fly any single seat machine with a pilot pod unless they had attained 50 hrs experience on single seat gyros after gaining their licence, (on open frame machines presumably)Acceptable methods for determining CG location were to be advised, CAA are working on this in conjunction with members of the British Rotorcraft Association.The MPD will be issued in the next month to six weeks.Kev Hughes from the politically correct nanny state of the UK.
Comment
-
Both Chuck and Kevin.This is good news, and at long last, as the gyro community has sufferd long enougth, from bad publicity, many un-nessessery deaths, and the never ending opinions of what works and what doesnt.At long last, there is serious testing going on to try and rid the bad stigma, and hopefully save many lives in the long run.I know this would be very hard to take if this applied to a machine I had been flying for many years.But this is good, and lets stay positive about it.Sam.
Comment
-
This part of the post copied from Pprune is well worth further thought regarding the methods used by RAF to intimidate anyone who attempts to expose the safety defficiencies of their machine.Quote:" And now the final health warning - don't cross RAF. I did, and I thought I would end up in court. My report on G-BXDD for its then-owner somehow found its way into the public domain. I was so rattled by RAF that I sought legal advice from my employer who was ready to support me, but the whole thing fizzled out. For a sensitive soul such as myself, it was most upsetting....."This person is giving a very serious warning to anyone who thinks that the management of RAF will not go to any lenghts to defend their product from exposure to the truth, the truth being they are selling a very flawed design that has a terrible record of fatal accidents and they refuse to redesign their machine and bring it into an area of stability that will prevent uncommanded power pushover accidents due to the high thrustline configuration of the RAF 2000.In the early ninties when I first brought the instability of the RAF 2000 problem to Norms forum I also was threatened with legal action by RAF, I can produce the letter from RAF's lawyer as I still have it on file.Anyone who thiks that RAF are nice, honest businessmen with integrity would be well advised to consider the methods they use to deflect any exposure of their ways of dealing with unsatisfied customers.Chuck E.
Comment
-
Chuck,Surely the cost of retooling the design would have to be less than the cost of two things:1. Loss of sales2. Cost of potential legal claims when it is 'letigious' knowledge that their design has issues, one successful case will open the flood gates and they will be sunk, both by reputation and then by the burden of costs.Cheers,Nick Tomlin.
Comment
-
For what its worth, I drove within 40 miles of their factory when I drove down to pick up the Sparrow Hawk that I am now building. I can consider that to be one sale RAF have lost.[
]Flying the right side up in Canada
Comment
Comment