RAF2000 - anyone flown one ?
Fergus said
Except possibly an Air Command, whose body count at-least in the UK is rather higher that the RAF's. It should be sorted now, but why take the risk?
G
Or anything else that is legal in the U.K.
G
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to clear up one thing about the lack of a H.S. and the very high thrust line defect on the RAF 2000.
This problem is not because of the CAA section T requirements.
The problem is because RAF will not admit that their design has some fatal flaws and have for many years refused to modify their product...
If RAF changed the design, or even put a H.S. on it that would solve your problem in the UK with regard to section T.
And everyone could retrofit the lethal killers that they are now forced to either fly as is, or park in the UK.
Chuck E.
This problem is not because of the CAA section T requirements.
The problem is because RAF will not admit that their design has some fatal flaws and have for many years refused to modify their product...
If RAF changed the design, or even put a H.S. on it that would solve your problem in the UK with regard to section T.
And everyone could retrofit the lethal killers that they are now forced to either fly as is, or park in the UK.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a doom monger but... A few years back I bought a gyroplane and built it from a kit with a friend. I enjoyed the building process and we both trained in the Midlands. During training he was killed in front of my eyes due to Pilot induced oscillation. It happened in seconds and the gyro flew apart in the air when the rotor chopped the tail off. I convinced myself later that he died due to inexperience and I bought another one. Within a very short time seven people died in accidents in the same type of gyroplane. I knew every one of them personally. That model of gyroplane was then grounded and I got rid of mine.
I had a gyroplane licence but never flew one again. I became a commerical pilot aeroplanes and later helicopters. I now make a living flying both.
Gyroplanes have a terrible accident record compared with other types of aviation. There are reasons, many gyro pilots are inexperienced, the engines are not the most reliable and PIO is a known hazard. Flight in turbulence and high winds is not a pleasant experience.
I suspect that our enthusiatic poster will go his own way, as I did, but I'm older and wiser now and still feel the loss of those friends and acqaintances. Take care whatever decision you make.
Regards,
Chopperpilot 47
I had a gyroplane licence but never flew one again. I became a commerical pilot aeroplanes and later helicopters. I now make a living flying both.
Gyroplanes have a terrible accident record compared with other types of aviation. There are reasons, many gyro pilots are inexperienced, the engines are not the most reliable and PIO is a known hazard. Flight in turbulence and high winds is not a pleasant experience.
I suspect that our enthusiatic poster will go his own way, as I did, but I'm older and wiser now and still feel the loss of those friends and acqaintances. Take care whatever decision you make.
Regards,
Chopperpilot 47
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to Chopperpilot please allow me to comment on this comment he made.
Quote:
"and PIO is a known hazard. Flight in turbulence and high winds is not a pleasant experience. "
This only holds true in gyroplanes that are configured wrong, any gyroplane that has been designed properly and does " N O T " have a large vertical thrust line off set and has an effective H.S. is just as stable as any other flying machine, and being a rotorcraft it will fly in turbulence better than a fixed wing of the same weight.
The problem in the gyroplane group is there are just to many dangerous designs such as the subject of this thread still out there killing their owners.
Chuck
Quote:
"and PIO is a known hazard. Flight in turbulence and high winds is not a pleasant experience. "
This only holds true in gyroplanes that are configured wrong, any gyroplane that has been designed properly and does " N O T " have a large vertical thrust line off set and has an effective H.S. is just as stable as any other flying machine, and being a rotorcraft it will fly in turbulence better than a fixed wing of the same weight.
The problem in the gyroplane group is there are just to many dangerous designs such as the subject of this thread still out there killing their owners.
Chuck
Firstly to support Chuck in what he says, although I'm not a gyroplane expert by any means, I have seen PIO problems (usually in pitch) in both fixed wing aeroplanes and airships, and I believe that they aren't unknown in helicopters. It's basically a design problem, not necessarily an easy one to predict, but one which should be designed out of any aircraft before it's certified.
In my opinion, having read a fair bit of design information on Gyros, including BCAR Section T, and much of the published work on Gyroplane stability and control, Gyroplanes are not inherently dangerous. Equally clearly however, there are at-least a few types out there with highly unsatisfactory safety records- the RAF2000 and the Air Command being the most obvious.
I'd venture that there are two basic reasons for the, frankly awful, gyroplane safety record - in the UK in particular, but generally worldwide.
(1) They don't make any money, therefore there's no funding for serious safety research, and
(2) They aren't all that popular, so there isn't really a big community of people comparing notes and learning from each other.
If you can solve those two problems, then gyroplanes won't yet be as safe as fixed wing or helicopters - but will start to get there. It should also start to become possible to see any real safety issues with gyroplane design and tackle them far more effectively than is possible at the moment.
I must admit, I'd love a chance to be asked to try and tackle some of these problems - but it would take a lot of time and money, neither of which I have at my disposal. In the meantime, such work has got to come from either some "cash rich" university looking to generate some interesting and orginal work (such as has happened to an extent at Glasgow University) , or by some talented individuals within gyroplane community banging a lot of heads together and forcing a degree of change.
I hope it does happen sooner or later, because I suspect strongly that the gyroplane concept has a lot to offer yet, which is being lost because of the poor safety record over the last couple of decades.
G
In my opinion, having read a fair bit of design information on Gyros, including BCAR Section T, and much of the published work on Gyroplane stability and control, Gyroplanes are not inherently dangerous. Equally clearly however, there are at-least a few types out there with highly unsatisfactory safety records- the RAF2000 and the Air Command being the most obvious.
I'd venture that there are two basic reasons for the, frankly awful, gyroplane safety record - in the UK in particular, but generally worldwide.
(1) They don't make any money, therefore there's no funding for serious safety research, and
(2) They aren't all that popular, so there isn't really a big community of people comparing notes and learning from each other.
If you can solve those two problems, then gyroplanes won't yet be as safe as fixed wing or helicopters - but will start to get there. It should also start to become possible to see any real safety issues with gyroplane design and tackle them far more effectively than is possible at the moment.
I must admit, I'd love a chance to be asked to try and tackle some of these problems - but it would take a lot of time and money, neither of which I have at my disposal. In the meantime, such work has got to come from either some "cash rich" university looking to generate some interesting and orginal work (such as has happened to an extent at Glasgow University) , or by some talented individuals within gyroplane community banging a lot of heads together and forcing a degree of change.
I hope it does happen sooner or later, because I suspect strongly that the gyroplane concept has a lot to offer yet, which is being lost because of the poor safety record over the last couple of decades.
G
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the best way to determine the split within the gyroplane community would be to read the gyro forum in the USA.
www.rotaryforum.com/index.php
It will not take long to understand that even though there are many gyroplane kit manufacturers there is more bitterness and outright venom created in the RAF discussions than all other machines combined, in fact there is no other real problem except the arguments between the pro RAF and anti RAF factions.
One of the most interesting methods that the pro RAF group use to discredit the anti RAF group is to lable them as "Bashers" which is the American PC method to silence anyone who disagrees with group think with no other method to argue the point. "Basher" is the gyroplane equivilant of "Racist", "Homophopic" , "Bigot" etc. You just have to wonder if the gyroplane community will ever evolve and join the rest of aviation and accept physics and aerodynamics the same as the rest of aviation.
If you are into the soap opera kind of entertainment with an aviation flavour read the ongoing circus on that forum and it will not take long to identify the actors in the play...enjoy..
Chuck E.
www.rotaryforum.com/index.php
It will not take long to understand that even though there are many gyroplane kit manufacturers there is more bitterness and outright venom created in the RAF discussions than all other machines combined, in fact there is no other real problem except the arguments between the pro RAF and anti RAF factions.
One of the most interesting methods that the pro RAF group use to discredit the anti RAF group is to lable them as "Bashers" which is the American PC method to silence anyone who disagrees with group think with no other method to argue the point. "Basher" is the gyroplane equivilant of "Racist", "Homophopic" , "Bigot" etc. You just have to wonder if the gyroplane community will ever evolve and join the rest of aviation and accept physics and aerodynamics the same as the rest of aviation.
If you are into the soap opera kind of entertainment with an aviation flavour read the ongoing circus on that forum and it will not take long to identify the actors in the play...enjoy..
Chuck E.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My post comes with a health warning- I'm not a gyro pilot, but I've been involved in gyroplane research in the UK since '93. I am a private pilot though, and I've a fair bit of helicopter experimental flying as a flight test observer behind me. So here goes (there's going to be another health warning at the end - read on!)
The RAF 2000 looks like a fine piece of mechanical engineering. The general finish of the kit, and the completed aircraft, is of a very high standard. The one I flew (G-BXDD) was very nice, comfortable and pretty smooth as well - not always easy with an underslung-type two-bladed teetering rotor. BCAR Section T (the UK design standard) allows up to 600kg aircraft, and the RAF 2000 weighs in with 2 big blokes certainly above 500kg, so it's probably one of the beefiest gyros in the UK. Performance I thought however was pretty good, with excellent rate of climb (by typical SEP fixed-wing standards) performance, and a good turn of speed as well. Comfort is excellent (it is enclosed, after all). It's some time since I've had any correspondence with the UK importer, but I remember him as a real enthusiast and I've heard that he provides excellent support as well.
However, the c.g. is VERY low, and if you buy into the research I've been involved with, this is not good for stability and hence handling qualities. For example, research has recommended that the c.g. is a normal distance no more than 2 inches above or below the propeller thrust line, with the lower limit more critical for dynamic stability - the RAF 2000 G-BXDD, depending on loading, had a c.g. anything between 5 and 11 inches below the propeller thrust line. I've been given the controls of a Lynx, Puma, Gazelle, Wessex (all stabs out) and the R22 - with the exception of the Lynx the RAF 2000 was by far the most difficult to fly of all these rotorcraft. Yet its safety record in the UK is I would suggest, excellent - they've been around for a while (early '90's); there are, by gyro standards, a fair number on the UK register (38); and there have been 2 fatalities in a single accident. I know one could argue that this is statistically insignificant but by UK gyro standards this is very good.
One could say therefore that they're very safe, but with poor handling qualities. This paradox was explained to me by a CAA acquaintance as 'equivalent safety' ie safety obtained by means other than design - in this case training. You learn on your own machine, and you stick with it once you qualify. That's testament to the training quality as well - surely very good to excellent.
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.....
Apologies for a rather long post. Hope you find it useful.
The RAF 2000 looks like a fine piece of mechanical engineering. The general finish of the kit, and the completed aircraft, is of a very high standard. The one I flew (G-BXDD) was very nice, comfortable and pretty smooth as well - not always easy with an underslung-type two-bladed teetering rotor. BCAR Section T (the UK design standard) allows up to 600kg aircraft, and the RAF 2000 weighs in with 2 big blokes certainly above 500kg, so it's probably one of the beefiest gyros in the UK. Performance I thought however was pretty good, with excellent rate of climb (by typical SEP fixed-wing standards) performance, and a good turn of speed as well. Comfort is excellent (it is enclosed, after all). It's some time since I've had any correspondence with the UK importer, but I remember him as a real enthusiast and I've heard that he provides excellent support as well.
However, the c.g. is VERY low, and if you buy into the research I've been involved with, this is not good for stability and hence handling qualities. For example, research has recommended that the c.g. is a normal distance no more than 2 inches above or below the propeller thrust line, with the lower limit more critical for dynamic stability - the RAF 2000 G-BXDD, depending on loading, had a c.g. anything between 5 and 11 inches below the propeller thrust line. I've been given the controls of a Lynx, Puma, Gazelle, Wessex (all stabs out) and the R22 - with the exception of the Lynx the RAF 2000 was by far the most difficult to fly of all these rotorcraft. Yet its safety record in the UK is I would suggest, excellent - they've been around for a while (early '90's); there are, by gyro standards, a fair number on the UK register (38); and there have been 2 fatalities in a single accident. I know one could argue that this is statistically insignificant but by UK gyro standards this is very good.
One could say therefore that they're very safe, but with poor handling qualities. This paradox was explained to me by a CAA acquaintance as 'equivalent safety' ie safety obtained by means other than design - in this case training. You learn on your own machine, and you stick with it once you qualify. That's testament to the training quality as well - surely very good to excellent.
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.....
Apologies for a rather long post. Hope you find it useful.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
India MIke :
You said :
"" 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.....
............................................
Because I do not wish to cause any grief for Danny and Pprune I will not post as much as I would like to about the business practices of RAF and their propensity to threaten legal action against anyone who they see as a threat to their marketing practices.
Suffice to say I also have been the lawsuit threat route with RAF and fortunately for me and unfortunately for RAF the truth will usually prevail in any court action concerning such issues....
But you are correct unless you can really back up any allegations or statements be very, very careful with these weasels.
One more suggestion, any aircraft that is unstable to the extent that an RAF 2000 is and has the ability to kill you in a heartbeat is in my opinion not safe no matter how many hours you get trained in it....period.
And yes, I did refeer to them as "weasels" it is not a tying error, because that is my personal opinion of them having worked with them and being involved in trying to set up a training program for RAF in 1991 / 92.
Chuck E.
You said :
"" 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.....
............................................
Because I do not wish to cause any grief for Danny and Pprune I will not post as much as I would like to about the business practices of RAF and their propensity to threaten legal action against anyone who they see as a threat to their marketing practices.
Suffice to say I also have been the lawsuit threat route with RAF and fortunately for me and unfortunately for RAF the truth will usually prevail in any court action concerning such issues....
But you are correct unless you can really back up any allegations or statements be very, very careful with these weasels.
One more suggestion, any aircraft that is unstable to the extent that an RAF 2000 is and has the ability to kill you in a heartbeat is in my opinion not safe no matter how many hours you get trained in it....period.
And yes, I did refeer to them as "weasels" it is not a tying error, because that is my personal opinion of them having worked with them and being involved in trying to set up a training program for RAF in 1991 / 92.
Chuck E.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raf 2000s
G'day Chuck E.
How is the battle? Mine is a little tough at the moment as you probably know, BUT my new project is now on the go at 100%.
The best thing that could have happened!!!! I just miss the folding stuff. I told my wife to get a second job and nearly wore the rolling pin!!!!!
Posters, I have almost 3000 hours in Rafs and my Raf derivitives. I had around 2000 hours before I got my Raf in 1997, and was the Oz agent. That 2000 previous gyro hours probably saved my life. The Raf sales pitch and brouchure is a bunch of lies. The machine is downright dangerous for a beginner. Luckily on the UK you have a large number of dual hours required for a pvt licence and I believe that this is the only reason that the fatality rate in the UK is behind the rest of the world.
There was one US Raf agent who had his gyroplane rating withdrawn by the FAA because he had something like 4 fatalities of people that he trained without a h/stab. He told them not to fly in winds above about 5 kts, but they did and died. Geez in a correctly set up gyroplane a newly licenced pilot can fly in winds of up to 20 kts during their first few hours.
A Raf is not a correctly set up gyroplane, and relies entirely on pilot skill to stay alive. Anyone interested in the modifications that I have tested to make a Raf stable can email me privately. I conducted 2 years of stability testing which I reported to the US sport gyroplane stability committee. Stewart Houston is aware of my involement with the Raf stability issues. It was great fun to take a dog of a machine and turn it into something that is very user friendly. It is just as easy to buiold a gyroplane correctly as it is to build one incorrectly. The challenge is to know the difference!!!!!
Anyway enough for the first post. I feel so sorry for you people in the UK. Not to be able to improve a defective aiecraft is rediculous, but you all know that.
Paul.
How is the battle? Mine is a little tough at the moment as you probably know, BUT my new project is now on the go at 100%.
The best thing that could have happened!!!! I just miss the folding stuff. I told my wife to get a second job and nearly wore the rolling pin!!!!!
Posters, I have almost 3000 hours in Rafs and my Raf derivitives. I had around 2000 hours before I got my Raf in 1997, and was the Oz agent. That 2000 previous gyro hours probably saved my life. The Raf sales pitch and brouchure is a bunch of lies. The machine is downright dangerous for a beginner. Luckily on the UK you have a large number of dual hours required for a pvt licence and I believe that this is the only reason that the fatality rate in the UK is behind the rest of the world.
There was one US Raf agent who had his gyroplane rating withdrawn by the FAA because he had something like 4 fatalities of people that he trained without a h/stab. He told them not to fly in winds above about 5 kts, but they did and died. Geez in a correctly set up gyroplane a newly licenced pilot can fly in winds of up to 20 kts during their first few hours.
A Raf is not a correctly set up gyroplane, and relies entirely on pilot skill to stay alive. Anyone interested in the modifications that I have tested to make a Raf stable can email me privately. I conducted 2 years of stability testing which I reported to the US sport gyroplane stability committee. Stewart Houston is aware of my involement with the Raf stability issues. It was great fun to take a dog of a machine and turn it into something that is very user friendly. It is just as easy to buiold a gyroplane correctly as it is to build one incorrectly. The challenge is to know the difference!!!!!
Anyway enough for the first post. I feel so sorry for you people in the UK. Not to be able to improve a defective aiecraft is rediculous, but you all know that.
Paul.
Anyway enough for the first post. I feel so sorry for you people in the UK. Not to be able to improve a defective aiecraft is rediculous, but you all know that.
G
