Mel
Elio Addict
I'm not sure that was the quote. I seem to remember that it was more like, "You can't trust everything you read on the internet."
-
Welcome to Elio Owners! Join today, registration is easy!
You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.
And Now For Something Completely Different But Very Cool And $$$
- Thread starter John-b-gone
- Start date
- Status
Sethodine
Elio Addict
Well let me know when somebody starts posting statistics.
xtspode
Elio Addict
Sorry to ElioOwners for the wasted time on opinions, statistics and safety. None of which is beneficial or applicable to the edification of potential Elio Drivers. I let myself get caught up in an insignificant argument which was a waste of time for me and most anyone who spent the time reading the sides. Few opinions were likely swayed and there was no substantive information given. This was as useful as discussing politics and just as polarizing.
I hope to have my posts in the future concentrate on the things we can do to forward the cause of Elio.
Looking forward to my personal Rocket Silver Elio.
Go Elio
I hope to have my posts in the future concentrate on the things we can do to forward the cause of Elio.
Looking forward to my personal Rocket Silver Elio.
Go Elio
Ty
Elio Addict
I didn't mind the posts. Having said that, well said though I hope you don't give up on speaking your mind. We all need to remember facts are facts. Everything Isn't rosy in Elio's garden though as a fan site, we should lean towards being positive.
Keep Calm and Elio On... or something "kitchy" like that.
CrimsonEclipse
Elio Addict
- Joined
- May 24, 2014
- Messages
- 959
- Reaction score
- 2,182
It's really difficult to find proper stats about this but:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5474110/ar2014084_final.pdf
Page 77 shows Gyrocopter crash rates.
"On the other hand, gyrocopter operations had the highest fatal accident rate of all types of flying in most years where fatal accidents occurred (47 per million hours flown, double that of both VH-registered private/business and sport/gliding operations and recreational weight shift operations, and 1.7 times higher than recreational aeroplanes)." Note: 1.7x is the lowest rate of any report that I could find
2004-2013 time frame.
I'll continue to search for an American and Euro report.
England considers them dangerous enough to have the following gyrocopter laws:
Open-frame aircraft are restricted to a minimum speed of 30 mph (26 knots), except in the flare.
All aircraft are restricted to a Vne (maximum airspeed) of 70 mph (61 knots)
Flight is not permitted when surface winds exceed 17 mph (15 knots) or if the gust spread exceeds 12 mph (10 knots)
Edit:
Additional Stats:
"The safety record of gyroplanes is very poor compared to other types of aircraft. There have been 15 fatal gyroplane accidents in the United Kingdom since 1989. There were only between 200 and 265 gyroplanes on the UK register in that period. This gives a fatal gyroplane accident rate of 27.1 per 100,000 hours flown. This compares unfavourably with just 2 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown by microlights and 1.1 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours for light fixed wing general aviation aircraft. The fact that the fatal gyroplane accident rate is more than 13 times greater than that for similar weight microlight aircraft raises serious concern about the design of gyroplanes and the training of gyroplane pilots."
I suppose I should explain my strong feelings about safety.
Rotorcraft are dangerous. Period. Why? Your life depends on moving parts (the rotor) to keep you flying. These moving parts have bushings, bearings that ware out, sometimes in unpredictable ways and intervals. The stresses on the rotor heads and moving parts is incredible along with massive amount of vibration (which beats the crap out of the components and the entire assembly is maintenance intensive. It is said that rotorcraft are a symphony of expensive parts trying their best to throw themselves apart. If the rotor fails, you die. Not maybe, not please, you're a rock, bye bye.
Fixed wing airplanes depend on ... well, fixed wings. the main structure has no moving parts. The control surfaces (ailerons, elevator rudder) have minimal amount of stress compared to a rotor system. Yes wings fail, and if they do you're going to die. But to get a wing to fail takes a LOT more error and negligence for that to happen. Also, fewer moving parts means few chances for failure. Airplanes also default to gliders. Yes I know that rotorcraft can auto rotate but the margins for error are massively reduced. Also auto rotation has 1.5 to 3 times the decent rate as a similarly sized fixed wing decent rate without power so time becomes a factor.
Helicopters in particular SHOULD crash more often, a LOT more often. It's the effort of helicopter mechanics and engineers (whom I greatly admire), and extensive training of the pilots that this doesn't happen more often. Maintenance per flight hour is 3-10 times that of a fixed wing aircraft (minimum). Even with all of the extra effort, helicopters have to replace about 10% of their fleet over 10 years due to accidents (NTSB, I'll try to find the article). If you put the same training and maintenance into both fixed and rotorcraft, the accident rate would be at least 10 times higher in rotorcraft.
Gyrocopters are thought to be safe and stable at slow speed however are very susceptible to wind gusts and turbulence (thus the English speed limitations stated above)
Other factors come into play quickly. The performance envelope is much less forgiving in rotorcraft so abrupt and/or careless recovery techniques will cause an extremely dangerous situation very quickly. Weight and balance is also much tighter. If your W&B is outside the envelope, your performance degrades rapidly.
I will concede this:
In some reports, the general aviation crash rate (gyro) is in the same ball park as fixed wing (rotor slightly higher). The Gyro fatality rate is much higher meaning, when something goes wrong, it goes really wrong. (other reports had the crash rate as 20x higher but I won't post it until I get better confirmation)
I compare gyrocopters with motor cycles. Yes, they can be safe if everything goes right, but that's not how the world works. Even if the vehicle is perfect everyday, sooner or later, the operator is not at the top of his/her game. As most car accidents you can walk away from, most motor cycle accidents can't say the same. Same goes for fixed wing vs rotor.
If you think a motor cycle is a safe vehicle, you're living in a fantasy world.
If you think a gyro copter is a safe vehicle, you're living in a fantasy world.
Don't like the way I present it to you? Too bad.
Death doesn't care about your misguided feelings.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5474110/ar2014084_final.pdf
Page 77 shows Gyrocopter crash rates.
"On the other hand, gyrocopter operations had the highest fatal accident rate of all types of flying in most years where fatal accidents occurred (47 per million hours flown, double that of both VH-registered private/business and sport/gliding operations and recreational weight shift operations, and 1.7 times higher than recreational aeroplanes)." Note: 1.7x is the lowest rate of any report that I could find
2004-2013 time frame.
I'll continue to search for an American and Euro report.
England considers them dangerous enough to have the following gyrocopter laws:
Open-frame aircraft are restricted to a minimum speed of 30 mph (26 knots), except in the flare.
All aircraft are restricted to a Vne (maximum airspeed) of 70 mph (61 knots)
Flight is not permitted when surface winds exceed 17 mph (15 knots) or if the gust spread exceeds 12 mph (10 knots)
Edit:
Additional Stats:
"The safety record of gyroplanes is very poor compared to other types of aircraft. There have been 15 fatal gyroplane accidents in the United Kingdom since 1989. There were only between 200 and 265 gyroplanes on the UK register in that period. This gives a fatal gyroplane accident rate of 27.1 per 100,000 hours flown. This compares unfavourably with just 2 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown by microlights and 1.1 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours for light fixed wing general aviation aircraft. The fact that the fatal gyroplane accident rate is more than 13 times greater than that for similar weight microlight aircraft raises serious concern about the design of gyroplanes and the training of gyroplane pilots."
I suppose I should explain my strong feelings about safety.
Rotorcraft are dangerous. Period. Why? Your life depends on moving parts (the rotor) to keep you flying. These moving parts have bushings, bearings that ware out, sometimes in unpredictable ways and intervals. The stresses on the rotor heads and moving parts is incredible along with massive amount of vibration (which beats the crap out of the components and the entire assembly is maintenance intensive. It is said that rotorcraft are a symphony of expensive parts trying their best to throw themselves apart. If the rotor fails, you die. Not maybe, not please, you're a rock, bye bye.
Fixed wing airplanes depend on ... well, fixed wings. the main structure has no moving parts. The control surfaces (ailerons, elevator rudder) have minimal amount of stress compared to a rotor system. Yes wings fail, and if they do you're going to die. But to get a wing to fail takes a LOT more error and negligence for that to happen. Also, fewer moving parts means few chances for failure. Airplanes also default to gliders. Yes I know that rotorcraft can auto rotate but the margins for error are massively reduced. Also auto rotation has 1.5 to 3 times the decent rate as a similarly sized fixed wing decent rate without power so time becomes a factor.
Helicopters in particular SHOULD crash more often, a LOT more often. It's the effort of helicopter mechanics and engineers (whom I greatly admire), and extensive training of the pilots that this doesn't happen more often. Maintenance per flight hour is 3-10 times that of a fixed wing aircraft (minimum). Even with all of the extra effort, helicopters have to replace about 10% of their fleet over 10 years due to accidents (NTSB, I'll try to find the article). If you put the same training and maintenance into both fixed and rotorcraft, the accident rate would be at least 10 times higher in rotorcraft.
Gyrocopters are thought to be safe and stable at slow speed however are very susceptible to wind gusts and turbulence (thus the English speed limitations stated above)
Other factors come into play quickly. The performance envelope is much less forgiving in rotorcraft so abrupt and/or careless recovery techniques will cause an extremely dangerous situation very quickly. Weight and balance is also much tighter. If your W&B is outside the envelope, your performance degrades rapidly.
I will concede this:
In some reports, the general aviation crash rate (gyro) is in the same ball park as fixed wing (rotor slightly higher). The Gyro fatality rate is much higher meaning, when something goes wrong, it goes really wrong. (other reports had the crash rate as 20x higher but I won't post it until I get better confirmation)
I compare gyrocopters with motor cycles. Yes, they can be safe if everything goes right, but that's not how the world works. Even if the vehicle is perfect everyday, sooner or later, the operator is not at the top of his/her game. As most car accidents you can walk away from, most motor cycle accidents can't say the same. Same goes for fixed wing vs rotor.
If you think a motor cycle is a safe vehicle, you're living in a fantasy world.
If you think a gyro copter is a safe vehicle, you're living in a fantasy world.
Don't like the way I present it to you? Too bad.
Death doesn't care about your misguided feelings.
Last edited:
Mel
Elio Addict
One more word and then I'll let this go. The word "gyrocopter" was trademarked by Igor Benson back in the day, so technically, a gyrocopter is a "Benson". Even though "gyrocopter" has been used so much it is pretty much accepted by almost everyone, the FAA uses the word "gyroplane" as the official category.
I know that gyroplanes are not helicopters, but this seems to be a good place to put this.
It is generally accepted that helicopters don't actually fly. There are 2 theories:
One is that they simply beat the air into submission.
The other is that they are so damn ugly that the Earth repels them.
I know that gyroplanes are not helicopters, but this seems to be a good place to put this.
It is generally accepted that helicopters don't actually fly. There are 2 theories:
One is that they simply beat the air into submission.
The other is that they are so damn ugly that the Earth repels them.
Last edited:
WilliamH
Elio Addict
t
Thank you for trying to protect me from myself.
Now go mind your own business.
I also happen to know what a "sucker hole" is from experience.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given him wings.
Incidentally, my mother and father are both dead and I don't need you or the government to try and take over that role.
If you are afraid of gyroplanes, by all means, don't fly in one.
Your posts on this subject remind me of the anti gun crowd who would soil themselves at the sight of a gun.
Sethodine
Elio Addict
Well if that is where your definition of "safe" floats, then that is fine by me. With the exception of some poorly designed models, I would consider most motorcycles to be "safe" vehicles.
On a side note, I would be interested to know what percentage of gyroplane failures are due to Power Push-Over or Pilot-Induced Oscillation. From my research these are the most common causes of failure, but both can be mitigated through smart design and pilot training. I'd be willing to speculate that rotors fall off of home-built gyros about as often as wings fall off of home-built planes.
WilliamH
Elio Addict
Power Push-Over or typically caused by applying fixed wing recovery techniques to rotocraft.
Good article on gyroplane issues here ( http://www.gyrosaway.com/ppo_and_pio.htm )
Pilot-Induced Oscillation is usually a function of instrumentation lagging control operation.
(See Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation )
A lot of the problems are remedied by proper training and experience, not only for pilots, but for engineers who design the rotocraft.
Sethodine
Elio Addict
That's exactly what I've been finding. A Benson-style gyroplane can reduce PPO by putting the thrust line of the craft at or below the center of gravity. PPO seems less of an issue with tractor configurations. And PIO can be mitigated by putting a large horizontal stabilizer in the prop wash. Both problems also, as you pointed out, can be reduced with proper training.
The other main cause of failure I've read about was related; where wind or weather conditions caused the rotor to lose g-loading (strong downdrafts, etc). No flying machine is going to be perfectly safe, but good design principles, sound contstruction techniques, proper training and regular inspection/maintainence will get you a long way. Lots of not-dead gyro pilots can attest to this, I'm sure.
I'm sorry about pushing people's buttons on this subject. I just don't think we should be ruled by fear so much that we cease to enjoy life.
- Status