I thought this was a webinar on landings. You never discuss what an ideal properly prepared landing should look like from various elevations. rotor speeds, power, flight speeds, angle of approach, rate of decent etc. etc. You go straight on to yet discussing crashes and continues discussing crashes and a very technical presentation on drag. Then you go on to discuss mistakes made on landings - and then cross winds. Why not start off with the obvious basics of a proper safe landing technique, and then address the anomalies and variations later ... for me this is a crappy presentation. Then some of your slides have WAY too much wording that are difficult to read because they are not in focus and there is too much info on a slide. Sorry for being so blunt. I would redo this presentation starting with basics of a properly executed landing. Focus, be concise, don't waffle show what is right instead of what is wrong, and if it is wrong, show how it needs to be corrected. As for the sound. way too much echo. Get some soft coverings for the wall behind you like a book shelf, a carpet and get a better mic and speak closer into it. What's with the blank titled slides? What was the point of those? It would have been great to have had a film on a proper approach and landing and discuss what you are talking about after 2 hours with an illustrated segment.
My friend happy with the critique but actually if you attend the events live you can ask about all the things you don't get / know / understand.. Like I suggested in another of your moan ups - if you look at the 100x films I've made then you likely find the answer otherwise you are just throwing peanuts from the gallery after the fact.
Re: your traffic pattern comments at ua-cam.com/video/mSpYVFDnGtk/v-deo.html you might find US FAA Advisory circular 90-66B of interest: www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B_CHG_1.pdf It says "In the case of a gyroplane approaching to land, the gyroplane pilot operating in the traffic pattern when landing on the runway may fly a pattern similar to the fixed-wing aircraft traffic pattern but at a lower altitude (500 feet AGL) and closer to the runway..."
Thanks for that detail Steve but I get a broken link. I guess what I'm saying in the context of the webinar is that at some point {and it has happened more than a few times in the UK} the fixed wing traffic is through 500ft and with the poor glide capabilities of a gyo if he is doing a glide approach he can't close the throttle until almost with the airfield boundary.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 Apparently UA-cam tried to include the trailing paren in the link. Fixed, now. I was only mentioning it as a potential difference of interest in US vs. UK procedures. I also got a chuckle about the UK elevation comments. You don't need to be in Colorado for elevation. AirGyro flies out of Spanish Fork, UT which is over 4,500 feet. Even where I fly in the San Francisco area we have plenty of airports with two-digit elevations within a 15-30 minute flight of peaks ranging from 2,500-4,300+ feet. Back before Skysailing got turned from a glider port (elevation a few feet) to an auto mall we would frequently do a lot of ridge flying at Mission Peak which was only 5-miles away.
I need to add some details on the amount of hours needed for training to receive a Private Pilot Gyroplane in the US. As a private pilot single engine land Instrument with 1000 hours total time, to get a private pilot gyroplane, I still need 40 additional hours of training. Having said that, I can get a Light Sport Aircraft Gyroplane add on, with no specific hours of training required. Most CFIs requires 10 hours with a sign off by another CFI. SO apples and oranges. I understand your point about training.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 other than the weight and performance limits which most Gyroplanes fall under, the limits are limited to daylight flight only. Light Sport with no other licenses held requires a minimum of 20 hours of training. I agree that although this is the minimum requirements it is not an indication of the average time a student will be allowed to earn a certificate under the watchful eye of his or her instructor. I was dismayed to find that as a holder of a private pilot single engine land instrument that in order to obtain a private pilot Gyroplane that an additional 40 hours of training was required. I assumed it would be viewed as another type rating as in a twin or tail dragger endorsements. Furthermore I understand the LSA Gyroplane is additionally divided into open frame, open cockpit and closed cockpit. This is not spoken too much of although I understand why as an open frame has very different flight characteristics than a closed cockpit design. I believe the restrictions flow only one way meaning an open frame may fly a closed cockpit but the closed or open cockpit pilot is required further training in an open frame. As I said this is not spoken of very much. It is certainly a gray area. This is all from memory and if debated I will respond with the FAR/ AIM references.
With the rotor rpm being broad and rarely deviating no more than 10%, how does the profile drag increase with speed? I would think the rotor rpm is regulated by the overall drag from what ever reason irregardless of aircraft speed. It would seem the advancing profile drag is offset by the retreating blade profile. Help me out here.
Hi as a caveat the graph is not actual gyroplane data but a representation and likely came from a helicopter where more data exists and so specifically to gyroplane and that actual graph there is more than likely inconsistency at the margin BUT I'm struggling to understand your confusion. Profile drag is nothing more than the effects of the form drag and skin friction of the rotor blades passing through the air as such it increases moderately with increases in speed. You seem to be only focused upon the rotational velocity however of course the rotors themselves are passing through the medium of air at an airspeed as indicated on the ASI.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 I am referring to the wetted area of the rotor itself. Perhaps my definition of profile drag is different than your meaning. You spoke of three types of drag. Parasitic which increases with speed. Induced drag which is created by lift and decreases with speed and the decreased angle of attack. And finally profile drag which I took to mean the wetted area of the blade itself. Carter Copter was able to reduce the drag of the rotor to that of the wetted area of the rotor which is defined as the part of the airfoil or object which its face strikes the wind. This might be viewed as the edge of a razor. No matter the angle of attack or the efficiency of an aerodynamic shape as it slices through the air, there is a potion of that shape which will strike the air bluntly. This drag can only be reduced but never eliminated. This type of drag is different from parasitic drag because it belongs to a shape that is designed to reduce turbulence as it moves through the air. Carter Copter was able to reduce the drag of it rotor by transferring the lift of the rotor to wings. He then rotated the mast forward until the angle of attach of the rotor was such that all the lift from the rotor was zero. He then could slow the rotor down to about 70 rpm allowing the aircraft then to accelerate with out the fear and complications of retreating blade stall. He was the first do do so and was awarded an aviation prize although the name of the award does not come to mind. So the total drag of the rotor is the limiting factor on the speed of the rotor at a given weight or load of the aircraft at a given atmospheric condition. This stabilized rotor speed tends not to vary unless the loading of the rotor disc varies. One of the drag forces on that rotor is profile drag and does increase drag with speed but should not be placed in the same class and effect as parasitic drag.
@@crawford323 I hear you and thats interesting colour but I think we are in furious agreement? ua-cam.com/video/mSpYVFDnGtk/v-deo.html I don't think I do lump profile drag in with parasitic drag? Although I do think that there does become a danger that we make a pilot course an aerodynamics course. My own general view [and not related to your comment] is that in pilot training the students need to be given the real reasons for why things happen OR what things are influential to the flight and we should be able to explain them but we can leave aside every single nuance or caveat otherwise it does become [or can become confusing].
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 I apologize. I do not want enter a furious disagreement nor be insulting in any form or fashion. My discussion was not meant to add confusion only to seek clarity. I agree following a rabbit hole deep discussion of the finer points of aerodynamics is not conducive to beginning pilot training. It does puzzle me as how any pilots who have earned their wings can’t tell you if the bird they are flying has a turbulent flow or a laminar flow wing. That boggles my mind. Obviously I am a bit obsessed with aerodynamics on a very amateur scale.
Thank you sir !
Most welcome! Thanks for the kind comment.
I thought this was a webinar on landings. You never discuss what an ideal properly prepared landing should look like from various elevations. rotor speeds, power, flight speeds, angle of approach, rate of decent etc. etc. You go straight on to yet discussing crashes and continues discussing crashes and a very technical presentation on drag. Then you go on to discuss mistakes made on landings - and then cross winds. Why not start off with the obvious basics of a proper safe landing technique, and then address the anomalies and variations later ... for me this is a crappy presentation. Then some of your slides have WAY too much wording that are difficult to read because they are not in focus and there is too much info on a slide. Sorry for being so blunt. I would redo this presentation starting with basics of a properly executed landing. Focus, be concise, don't waffle show what is right instead of what is wrong, and if it is wrong, show how it needs to be corrected. As for the sound. way too much echo. Get some soft coverings for the wall behind you like a book shelf, a carpet and get a better mic and speak closer into it. What's with the blank titled slides? What was the point of those? It would have been great to have had a film on a proper approach and landing and discuss what you are talking about after 2 hours with an illustrated segment.
My friend happy with the critique but actually if you attend the events live you can ask about all the things you don't get / know / understand.. Like I suggested in another of your moan ups - if you look at the 100x films I've made then you likely find the answer otherwise you are just throwing peanuts from the gallery after the fact.
this episode almost put me off for life,makes it sound so dangerous",
To be fair all flying is dangerous done in the wrong way....
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 correct".
Re: your traffic pattern comments at ua-cam.com/video/mSpYVFDnGtk/v-deo.html you might find US FAA Advisory circular 90-66B of interest:
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B_CHG_1.pdf
It says "In the case of a gyroplane approaching to land, the gyroplane pilot operating in the traffic pattern when landing on the runway may fly a pattern similar to the fixed-wing aircraft traffic pattern but at a lower altitude (500 feet AGL) and closer to the runway..."
Thanks for that detail Steve but I get a broken link. I guess what I'm saying in the context of the webinar is that at some point {and it has happened more than a few times in the UK} the fixed wing traffic is through 500ft and with the poor glide capabilities of a gyo if he is doing a glide approach he can't close the throttle until almost with the airfield boundary.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 Apparently UA-cam tried to include the trailing paren in the link. Fixed, now. I was only mentioning it as a potential difference of interest in US vs. UK procedures.
I also got a chuckle about the UK elevation comments. You don't need to be in Colorado for elevation. AirGyro flies out of Spanish Fork, UT which is over 4,500 feet. Even where I fly in the San Francisco area we have plenty of airports with two-digit elevations within a 15-30 minute flight of peaks ranging from 2,500-4,300+ feet.
Back before Skysailing got turned from a glider port (elevation a few feet) to an auto mall we would frequently do a lot of ridge flying at Mission Peak which was only 5-miles away.
I need to add some details on the amount of hours needed for training to receive a Private Pilot Gyroplane in the US. As a private pilot single engine land Instrument with 1000 hours total time, to get a private pilot gyroplane, I still need 40 additional hours of training. Having said that, I can get a Light Sport Aircraft Gyroplane add on, with no specific hours of training required. Most CFIs requires 10 hours with a sign off by another CFI. SO apples and oranges. I understand your point about training.
For the viewers can you give some colour on the different privileges of the PPG v LSAG add on. Thanks.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 other than the weight and performance limits which most Gyroplanes fall under, the limits are limited to daylight flight only. Light Sport with no other licenses held requires a minimum of 20 hours of training. I agree that although this is the minimum requirements it is not an indication of the average time a student will be allowed to earn a certificate under the watchful eye of his or her instructor. I was dismayed to find that as a holder of a private pilot single engine land instrument that in order to obtain a private pilot Gyroplane that an additional 40 hours of training was required. I assumed it would be viewed as another type rating as in a twin or tail dragger endorsements. Furthermore I understand the LSA Gyroplane is additionally divided into open frame, open cockpit and closed cockpit. This is not spoken too much of although I understand why as an open frame has very different flight characteristics than a closed cockpit design. I believe the restrictions flow only one way meaning an open frame may fly a closed cockpit but the closed or open cockpit pilot is required further training in an open frame. As I said this is not spoken of very much. It is certainly a gray area. This is all from memory and if debated I will respond with the FAR/ AIM references.
Great stuff, thank you. Just letting you know audio was left channel only. Do you have a link to the Safe Flying graphic? Couldn’t find it on Google
Hi Bill - this one? members.gliding.co.uk/library/safety-briefings/currency-barometer-pdf/
With the rotor rpm being broad and rarely deviating no more than 10%, how does the profile drag increase with speed? I would think the rotor rpm is regulated by the overall drag from what ever reason irregardless of aircraft speed. It would seem the advancing profile drag is offset by the retreating blade profile. Help me out here.
Hi as a caveat the graph is not actual gyroplane data but a representation and likely came from a helicopter where more data exists and so specifically to gyroplane and that actual graph there is more than likely inconsistency at the margin BUT I'm struggling to understand your confusion. Profile drag is nothing more than the effects of the form drag and skin friction of the rotor blades passing through the air as such it increases moderately with increases in speed. You seem to be only focused upon the rotational velocity however of course the rotors themselves are passing through the medium of air at an airspeed as indicated on the ASI.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 I am referring to the wetted area of the rotor itself. Perhaps my definition of profile drag is different than your meaning. You spoke of three types of drag. Parasitic which increases with speed. Induced drag which is created by lift and decreases with speed and the decreased angle of attack. And finally profile drag which I took to mean the wetted area of the blade itself. Carter Copter was able to reduce the drag of the rotor to that of the wetted area of the rotor which is defined as the part of the airfoil or object which its face strikes the wind. This might be viewed as the edge of a razor. No matter the angle of attack or the efficiency of an aerodynamic shape as it slices through the air, there is a potion of that shape which will strike the air bluntly. This drag can only be reduced but never eliminated. This type of drag is different from parasitic drag because it belongs to a shape that is designed to reduce turbulence as it moves through the air. Carter Copter was able to reduce the drag of it rotor by transferring the lift of the rotor to wings. He then rotated the mast forward until the angle of attach of the rotor was such that all the lift from the rotor was zero. He then could slow the rotor down to about 70 rpm allowing the aircraft then to accelerate with out the fear and complications of retreating blade stall. He was the first do do so and was awarded an aviation prize although the name of the award does not come to mind. So the total drag of the rotor is the limiting factor on the speed of the rotor at a given weight or load of the aircraft at a given atmospheric condition. This stabilized rotor speed tends not to vary unless the loading of the rotor disc varies. One of the drag forces on that rotor is profile drag and does increase drag with speed but should not be placed in the same class and effect as parasitic drag.
@@crawford323 I hear you and thats interesting colour but I think we are in furious agreement? ua-cam.com/video/mSpYVFDnGtk/v-deo.html I don't think I do lump profile drag in with parasitic drag? Although I do think that there does become a danger that we make a pilot course an aerodynamics course. My own general view [and not related to your comment] is that in pilot training the students need to be given the real reasons for why things happen OR what things are influential to the flight and we should be able to explain them but we can leave aside every single nuance or caveat otherwise it does become [or can become confusing].
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 I apologize. I do not want enter a furious disagreement nor be insulting in any form or fashion. My discussion was not meant to add confusion only to seek clarity. I agree following a rabbit hole deep discussion of the finer points of aerodynamics is not conducive to beginning pilot training. It does puzzle me as how any pilots who have earned their wings can’t tell you if the bird they are flying has a turbulent flow or a laminar flow wing. That boggles my mind. Obviously I am a bit obsessed with aerodynamics on a very amateur scale.