RAF 2000

[Vertical Tango]

I have very limited experience with the RAF to simply have a conversion on it and few more hours solo. I have 500 hrs on the Magni. Regarding the stability issue, I can definitely say that the RAF does not need a HS to fly properly. It is quite well balanced to fly without a tail. Very much like a trike does not have a tail. However, in a trike, the pilot is trained to let the seat/engine block swing in all directions in turbulence without fighting the bar. In the RAF, the same phenomenon occurs but because the pilot is in an enclosed cabin with a stick in the hand, the later will react in a way that is opposite to fixed wing aircrafts. The immediate reaction is to amplify the problem. PIO says exactly that : PILOT induced oscillation. You remove the pilot and the oscillation stops. I was demonstrated this by EBEN. You will require different training and more than a Magni. But it is not dangerous if you know what you are doing.
In fact I think that the RAF is better balanced that the Magni because if you remove the tail on the Magni, just imagine where you would go !
This is the opinion I have on the RAF on the HS issue ONLY.

[saraf]

Well Done my friend.

Regards

SARAF.

[t-bird]

Now for the FACTS

AAIB Bulletin: 9/2007 G-REBA EW/C2006/06/01

The UK CAA own 2 RAF’s and also went to Canada to perform test.

Regarding the stability:

During the flights carried out in the UK, the CAA test
pilot gained experience of flying the gyroplane and
during the tests identified a number of deficiencies when
trying to establish compliance with BCAR Section T.
Both gyroplanes tested exhibited marked longitudinal
dynamic instability when flown above 70 mph and
directional instability with cabin doors fitted. The
conclusion of the UK flight tests was:
‘The gyroplane had unacceptable longitudinal
dynamic stability above 70 mph and unacceptable
directional stability with the doors fitted

Regarding the RAF Stabilator

Following the test flight of the RAF 2000 in Canada, the
CAA test pilot concluded that:
‘The Stabilator dramatically improved the
gyroplane’s trim system however the gyroplane
tested exhibited similar static and dynamic
stability characteristics to a similar gyroplane
tested without a Stabilator

The result

Following these evaluations, the UK CAA issued
Mandatory Permit Directive MPD 2006-013 which
imposed flight limitations on the type. In particular, the
‘never exceed’ speed VNE was reduced to 70 mph, the
doors were required to be removed for flight, and flight
when the surface wind exceeds 15 kt was prohibited

Please do yourself a favour and look at the whole report.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk
Publications
AAIB Bulletin: 9/2007

Regards

Callie

[grostek]

Thank you Learjet

Kind regards,

Gunter Rostek

[Spindoctor]

Thanks for that link t-bird Does the SA CAA follow the UK CAA recommendations for the RAF 2000?

[Learjet]

Vertical Tango imagined: In fact I think that the RAF is better balanced that the Magni because if you remove the tail on the Magni, just imagine where you would go !

Not sure I'm following your logic here or what you mean by "balance"? The horizontal stabilizor on Magni (or any other gyro) is there to dampen, and in so doing, enhance logitudinal pitch stability. The tail-stab is not a "counter-weight for hang-test "balance" offset purposes - There is a difference between "in-flight longitudinal stability" and "balance" i.e a "hang-test" determines rotor thrust vector and CG ?

Looking at it from a different perspective (and in simple terms) - anything and any object can can be "balanced" - (look at any seal or circus act!) - the issue here is how easily that balance can be "upset". That's the stability factor! :D

[Vertical Tango]

LearJet on the word "Balance" - I accept your argument. I did not expressed myself correctly.
T-bird, I think that your findings have been also witnessed by some RAF owners here. Please note that I have never mentioned any speed. If the RAF is "stable" up to 70 mph, well why wanting to push it above that ?
Why should it compare to other gyros that cost today close to R700K ?
I personally think that the RAF could have a great future here with some mechanical changes and attitude changes on the part of everybody, from other gyro owners to those dealing with the RAF. If the Mockes are really the new business owners, well now is the time to put all pride aside and run with a proper business plan. It is a beautiful aircraft that is at the right price for older microlight pilots that had enough of fighting turbulence. It might be slow and so what ? Most microlights are slow.

[Louisvw]

Hi Spindoctor

(Interestingly enough, I have not had a reply from this instructor. Perhaps other members of the gyro community could enlighten me as to whether it's ok to train in an unmodified RAF despite )

The Instructor who's name you withheld was addressed to you by myself and I asure you that if he did not reply to your e-mail he have not read it and as soon as he got your e-mail he will reply

I can also asure you that the RAF is a safe Gyro to fly if you undergo the propper training ,every aircraft do have it's own nice and bad things and some will always be better or wors than the other ,only the amount of RAF's already been sold just in SA cannot give you any indecation that it is a unsafe masjine to fly

You are welcomm to visit my School for a intro flight on the Magni or one of our two RAF gyrocopters and soon on the Sycamore as well

[t-bird]

Hi Louis

Safe gyro does not equal unstable Gyro. I have quoted the UK CAA confirming that the RAF is unstable above 75 mph. Do you have anything to back up your story.

Number of RAF’s sold does not make it safe. Is cigarettes safe ??? Billions have been sold all over the world.

The RAF is a great Gyro up to 75 mph.

If you want to fly it faster I would suggest approved and tested modifications

[mak]

Here is some interesting comments made by Jerry Scott when he posted the RAF on the X-plane freeware web site. For those not familiar with X-plane, it is a flight simulator program and also used by many aircraft companies to design and provisionally test fly there planes before going into production with their prototypes and the program is suppose to be very flight and performance realistic.
I personally think it is a great looking gyro (haven't flown the RAF yet), but if there is any chance of stability improvement due to a small change, I think the manufacturers should seriously consider this. Can't think that it will have a serious cost implication.


RAF2000 by Jerry Scott
X-Plane version 8.6

Thanks for downloading this gyrocopter. My goal is to have the RAF2000 perform as close to the real thing as possible. If you have any ideas that will improve this model, let me hear from you. Also, please rate this aircraft. Thanks.


NOTE: I have added a horizontal stabilizer to my aircraft. The RAF 2000 does not come with one. There is some controversy about this feature among RAF 2000 owners. With the way my aircraft is set up, it seems to fly better with a horizontal stabilizer.

RAF2000 Specifications:
Length: 13 ft. 6 in.
Height: 8 ft. 5 in.
Rotor Diameter: 30'
Rotor Blade Cord: 8.5 in.
Gross Weight: max 1540 lbs.
Gross Weight: empty: 760 lbs.
Engine: Subaru 220cc
Horsepower: 130
Cruise Speed: 80 mph
Max Speed: 100 mph
Rate of Climb: 1200 fpm
Ceiling: 15,000 Ft

NOTE: This aircraft is protected by Copyright 2004 Jerry Scott. It is a freeware offering. It is NOT to be altered or used for commercial purposes without expressed permission from the author. If you have questions, please contact: Jerry Scott at: ghscott1@verizon.net.

[Learjet]

Being in the advertising industry I'm more than aware of the marketing smoke and mirrors that often blur the facts...

I also appreciate that there will be a strong element of brand loyalty amongst gyro pilots - myself included. What I'm battling to understand are the very polarised opinions regarding the RAF. It seems a case of "love or hate"?

I also hope that we can avoid this forum sinking into a mud-slinging situation between the two camps as has happened on the (mainly USA) Rotary Web forum.

Some friends fly RAF's - I have flown together with them and I've never personally witnessed any issues. What I do accept is that the RAF is something of a "racehorse" and you do need to be a "competent jockey" to ride it.

I have a close friend who is interested in gyros - and price-wise the RAF falls within his available budget. I would feel very responsible if I pointed him in this direction and something happened... so I've been reading through all the arguments and trying to sift through the "personal opinion" to get down to the straight facts.

I read the "UK CAA" report in detail: AAIB Bulletin: 9/2007 G-REBA EW/C2006/06/01 and also the comments of Louis van Wyk who I respect, and who said:

I can also asure you that the RAF is a safe Gyro to fly if you undergo the propper training

This makes sense - but surely we can assume that the UK CAA test pilot and RAF's own "Instructor Pilot" have undergone proper training? And yet the results of the flight test led to the imposed VNE and wind-speed flying restrictions. I would assume that RAF (and their "Instructor Pilot") would have had an apportunity to discuss (contest) the flight tests results (held at RAF in Canada) - yet the flight restrictions were imposed.
Did RAF acknowledge / agree with the test flight results and are there plans afoot to address them - SARAF?

Dave (who is trying to keep a neutral and objective stance on this topic!)

[saraf]

Comments obove by the AAIB Bulletin: 9/2007 G-REBA EW/C2006/06/01
is NOT TRUE.

The Test Pilot sent to Canada flew for +- 30 min on a very windy day. He had very little to no experience in gyro planes. However he felt the aircraft was very solid in the air during such windy conditions and felt the rudder control was markedly improved with the doors on and suggested that perhaps extra training should be given to operate the this particular gyro plane at the higher speeds they were able to attain. He experienced a more sensitive rudder in yaw control. Her certainly did not recommend the restrictions as set out by the CAA. He was also surprised at the CAA's comments and recommendations and them consequently putting mandatory "fly with out the doors on and speed restrictions to 70mph"

One of Europe top test pilots flew the RAF in very high wind conditions at speeds from cruise to max speed, and his comments were that this Aircraft was indeed aviations best kept secret.
Regards

SARAF.

[Learjet]

Thanks for the reply Eben. Always interesting to hear "the other side of the story".
I must say that it seems bizarre that the CAA would appoint a "gyro test pilot" with "little to no gyro flying experience" to conduct CAA sanctioned test flight(s) and then disregard his report????
Is there a copy of his report available? It would certainly help to put the very restrictive AAIB Bulletin in perspective.

Eben I know that you have many hours flying the RAF, what is your opinion and experience between flying the RAF with the doors on / off does it really affect it so "markedly" like the test pilot said? Also, what is the difference when flying at "higher speeds" that makes this test pilot think that extra training is needed? What (if anything) changes handling wise at these higher speeds?

Dave (trying to make sense of all of this!)

[saraf]

I will try and get hold of a copy of the report and send it to you.

The Rudder on the RAF becomes more affective with the doors on than with the doors off. I have flown many hours with the doors on , and has made long trips (2000km) with the doors on and did not experience that much of a difference flying with the doors on. "just much warmer in winter and in the mornings" he he.

Like any aircraft becomes more sensitive at high speeds the RAF is the same. But I can tell you that the RAF can be flown from cruise to max with no problem. With the correct training any student when he is sent solo will be able to fly the RAF at any speed.

Regards

SARAF.

[t-bird]

Hi Eben

The Test pilot was rated as a test pilot. He flew a RAF 2000 in the UK . I don’t see anything wrong with his experience or qualifications. The flight was documented using instruments

“A series of test flights were carried out in the UK using
an RAF 2000, registration G-ONON”

“During the flights carried out in the UK, the CAA test
pilot gained experience of flying the gyroplane “

“Following the flight
tests in the UK, a test flight was made in Medicine
Hat, Canada with the manufacturer’s recommended
instructor pilot accompanying the CAA test pilot”

“this gyroplane
was equipped with instrumentation to record specific
parameters. Throughout all the tests flown, the gyroplane
operation remained entirely within the manufacturer’s
(Rotary Air Force) published envelope.”

“The onboard instrumentation was
also used to document the relevant results”