I posted most of this in reply to a thread by Cammie on the other site, she was asking if people land normally with or without power (in euro tubs)

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showth ... post597452

The first paragraph was an answer to Neutrax as he was suggesting euro tubs are 'underpowered plastic things' (and I stood up for the euro tub )

All gyros are under powered... no matter how much power they have..... they might have 500 Hp, but you cant use it......Even a gyro with 500Hp could still get behind the power curve.

Flown properly, the euro clones are fabulous machines..... if they are flown like gyros.... my fear is that it seems to me, too many people are flying them like FW's..... it must be how the pilots are being taught? I have to have a look at a couple of 'manuals' for them, to see what the factory is telling pilots to do? If anyone has links to manuals for the factory machines, I would be grateful if you could post them.

When I built my first machine (EA81 direct drive), people knowing I was coming from FW would be saying "oh no, a fixed winger, you will kill yourself.... not long for this earth... temporary Australian" and all that, and I kept asking why? Why do fixed wingers tend to roll up gyros?? No one could answer the question, jut that they do? Anyway, I completed my gyro, it was 1992, there were no instructors anywhere near me so I took the machine to a grass airstrip near by started the thing up and started taxying.... I began ground running, the rotors spun up easily (Gerry goodwins) I knew to keep the stick back to wind up the rotors, which I did...... the nose wheel would lift off and I would just let it back on the ground.... anyway, half a day of doing this, I decided to give it beans and see what happens.... so I did.... all of a sudden it went silent... the rumbling stopped, I was airborn.... at full power, the machine got to about 10' off the ground, then it would slowly land... I had full throttle but it kept landing by itself, so I would taxy back turn around and did it over and over again.... 10' then fly for maybe 300 yards and she settled on.... it was so annoying! That night I rang a guy I knew, I told him what the machine was doing and he simply said "well push the F@#$ing stick forward"

The next day, I got to that stage where the nosewheel was just lifting, gave it full power, then I eased the stick forward and it felt like I just let off the handbrake.... the airspeed even started reading numbers anyway, faster and faster I went then it lifted off and I did the length of the strip at about 20' After about a dozen flights down the strip, I did my first circuit

After that, I rang a few different people in other parts of the country that I knew, and I worked out exactly why fixed wingers normally roll the gyros.... I was just lucky that my gyro was underpowered and easy to get behind the power curve.... What I learned, was something I haven't seen mentioned on any forum lately..... that even tho a gyro and a joystick FW both have rudder pedals, throttle and a joystick and look the same, the joystick only does half the same as a FW and the other half is different.... that is the catch.... that is the FW trap

A FW, the throttle is speed, the joystick is attitude (up and down) and the joystick is left and right bank, the rudder pedals for balance in a banked turn... A gyro, the throttle is up and down, the joystick forward and back is the speed and left and right is almost the same as a FW in the result, but by different means.... What I had been doing is having the stick back til the nose came up then just lowering it onto the ground and flying off like that... then as it started to sink, I tried holding the machine off with the stick, which just got me further behind the power curve and it settled..... once I understood the different thing the stick does forward and back, I was off

What worries me with these euro clones and how people are taught to fly them, is do the pilots know that the joystick isn't climb and descend? It is speed.... fast or slow? The throttle makes you go up and down, not the joystick.... and then to confuse everything... an experienced pilot can make the machine change attitude with the stick,,,, which almost looks like it does control up and down But, at critical times, it doesn't... if the pilot gets off the ground and is running out of strip.... don't try to climb with the stick.... you will fly straight into the trees at the end of the strip .... you wont go over them..... to go over them, you have to do the unthinkable and get the stick forward and aim at them..... get speed up and fly over them, but not try to climb with the stick

My question to you pilots and instructors of the euro and cabin colossuss's, is do students get taught the differences between a gyro joystick function and the function of a joystick in a FW? I have not seen any mention of the stick being speed and the throttle being climb or descend? Why I am asking, is whether pilots just do what they are shown to do, or do they understand that the stick is speed? Which is opposite to a FW?

To tell the truth, It worries me a bit that a gyro instructor is asking whether people land power on or power off Hopefully you are asking what other people do, not meaning that you always approach with power?

I actually saw a video the other day, the couple in the calidus (the girl that normally doesn't wear clothes) and she was approaching with power, solo, at about 85-90 kmh, and touched down at about 40kmh exactly like a FW

My question to all.... is this the type of landing that euro machines are taught?? If a euro machine is cruising at 75 knots and they want to descend.... how are they taught to descend? How would you teach a student to go from cruise to a descent (like an approach descent)?

Sorry for the long post

Muz,

When I first started to learn to fly it was in a Cessna 172 & 182 and they had yokes instead of a joystick.

When I started to learn a gyro I did not know any better and did not suffer the transition error a FW
pilot learning gyros makes as a mistake in difference as you described but your post clarifies how this
knowledge may not be shared and articulated by CFI's or just talked about among gyro/FW pilots and in
conversations regarding gyro flight characteristics verses FW techniques.

Thankx for pointing this subject matter out.

Yea, I learned in Grumman AA1, AA5 and AA5B (tiger) and when I came to I went to Cessna, 150 aerobat, 152 and 172... but I had also flown joystick ultralights, thruster, drifter and Eipper oh, and a scout once I discovered guros, I gave all that other shit up too expensive

What I am interested in finding out, is if instructors actually teach students why they do what they do, or just tell them how to fly it? Do students know why when you are cruising at 75 knots and you want to descend, that you reduce power and wait for it to descend, rather than push the stick forward (which we sometimes to.... but we shouldn't) and whether instructors teach people to land a gyro by approaching at 60kts and touching down at 25kts? that is all

Phil Harwood has written two great books. Flying a New Generation Gyrocopter - a guide for converting pilots, and The Gyrocopter Pilot's Handbook which is essentially the flight training syllabus in the UK for gyro certification. Both are excellent in my opinion and go into a lot of detail on the effects of stick vs throttle, pedals, sequence of changing each for climbing, descending, increasing and decreasing speed etc. good chapters on basic gyro theory as well. Pretty much written for the MTO, but applicable to any of the two place tandems with minor changes.
There is definitely more emphasis on pattern flying etc in these books, than the traditional more seat of the pants flying taught with single place home builds etc, so probably faster, less steep approaches than you like Muz. I don't think the speed and angle of approach is as important as what one does in the last few seconds before landing, flaring and breaking with the rotor just before touchdown or as one touches down.
The books are pretty comprehensive, and it's hard to find fault with them in my opinion. May not be the way everyone would fly, but if one follows and practices the exercises in the books, I think one is going to fly a Eurotub pretty well within safe parameters.
When I was learning last year and the year before, I had long breaks between lessons because Desmon lives in Houston and it was hard to hook up on a regular basis. I found the books invaluable to keep reviewing what I had learned, and I read them over and over, which I really think helped me from getting too rusty between lessons. I actually think all the Eurotub CFI's should either use these books as their training syllabus or create their own version for students if they think something different. I can't see any harm either using them and just pointing out where they like to do things differently.

That's excellent Lofty, I think it is important for all gyrocopter drivers to explore all information available and then they can work out which pieces of info work best for the machine size and type they fly. My main reason for this thread and a lot of my posts, is to get people to think a bit outside the square and just think in general..... they might find something their machine can do that isn't covered by a manual.... I always find that discovering something new and adapting it to my flying style is very rewarding and makes each flight more fun..... the steep approach method that I have mentioned can help a lot in real engine outs, where there isn't the ability to have a 'normal' long powered approach and long float before touch down...... hopefully if people explore steeper landing descents, it may one day save them some grief

I have only opinion about this so take it for what its worth.
Steep approach in a dominator lands itself to be the right landing procedure.
The surface on the bottom of the tubgyros do land themselves for the shallow landings.
This is just an opinion of course. Having the bottom created in a fashion of gliding surface wants you to glide in for landing and not drop in.
Sure you can do it but having a rigid landing gear opposed to an actual coil over shock landing gear as the stick gyros and such isn't a real drop in landing preference.

Agree with you to a degree Gabs, however, a lot of my flying, especially in the junky stick frame subaru I made up out of 'left overs' after year 2000, had a braced 5' beam axle with absolutely no suspension what so ever..... the tires were the entire suspension. Yes the machine was alot lighter than a tub, but zero roll landings were both my specialty and my favourite..... I haven't yet flown/passengered in a eurotub, but I have flown heavy parsons style machines, also with beam axles and still done steep approaches and very little roll on landing.... just from looking at tubs fly, land and takeoff in person as well as on videos, I can see no reason why euro machines cant be landed in a similar style to a Parsons style machine? One thing that may make it harder in a euro tub, is the fact you cant see much as compared to seeing the ground below you ankles, because of the pod..... Actually, I think Lofty mentioned that and I can see that that would completely change the view and even perception the pilot gets on landing very interesting.... I will be going for a fly (BFR) in an ELA soon, so I will soon find out the differences


Just a thought as well, the bottom of the pod isn't really capable of creating much lift/drag because of its round profile, so if you look at Loftys horizontal stabilizer area, it must have more area/drag producing area in a true vertical descent, otherwise in a VD the machine would want to descend in a nose up attitude (if more drag/resistance from pod than HS)

Rigid axles on Bensens and Parsons have a very different feel than the Eurogyros arched rigid landing gears. The arching has a way larger bending properties to is as it serves two purposes and one is a built in natural shock absorber.
Unfortunately there is no dampening so you have to feel out the natural rhythm of the movement.
The real rigid landing gear will not do that and the triangle patter with the tail wheel produces a perfect combo for drop in.
Eurogyros don't have those tail wheel....well.....only a few fancy ones

Some awesome orange euro tubs have exceptionally good tail wheels

I don't care if its a Bensen or my pig of a SparrowHawk I flew....you can make both say "whoa".....and come in with a steep approach ,dead stick and land in a very tight place.

I watched Greg Gremminger do it all the time in his Magni....and others land at 30 mph all the time.

It's nice to at least be proficient at getting into a tight place....such as in reality when the engine goes silent.

I didn't think this was about being able but rather should you. The answer from me would be hell no!!!! With no cushioning imagine the beating that bearing in the head is taking. Again without a tailwheel l feel it is an unnecessary risk. Just wach the videos of spot landing contest and you will see almoet all of the seasoned pilots hit with tail wheel first. Oh and no Eurogyros compete either!

If you watch a guy like Greg Spicola, who can pretty much fly anything, he can land the Apollo or the MTO (he flew mine) with a flat approach or a steep approach, he could probably land the thing backwards. Having said that, every machine will have it's own characteristics, especially one seat to two seat differences. Just like a one seat Dominator is a different animal from a two seat Dom. I have not flown a one seat but it's seems quite clear to me that the one seaters are much more maneuverable crank-and-bank machines as one would expect. If one were to choose a machine for mustering it would be an open one seater, longer cross countries etc then a two seat machine with a tub body and maybe some storage place is the choice. I fly places, carry bags in the back, spend the night etc. Not so easy on a one seat mustering machine.
I think a lot of the way folks are trained has to do with this cross-over from 'mustering' type gyros and gyro flying, to more hybrid type cruising gyros. I personally did not buy a gyro just to fly around the patch all day cranking and banking like the guys do at Wauchula. I bought a gyro mostly to go places like on a Harley for a Sunday afternoon drive with a couple of hours average flying time. I think the tubs can drop pretty steeply, but like Gabor says, there is probably some glide effect which increases say from the MTO to the Apollo and then definitely to the Arrowcopter, so they probably will not just drop quite as freely as the open machines. The addition of a body also creates differences flying cross stick where one can get into a whole lot more trouble with a machine with a body, than one without, especially with steep maneuvers. I would also create a lot of enemies at my airport if I flew routinely the way guys fly at Wauchula. If I want to keep everyone happy I had better fly a little more in the pattern the way the fixed wings do, even if I do fly a slightly tighter pattern. As I said to Muz, I learned to pretty much land routinely at idle, that means about a 55 kt glide speed on approach, that's a fairly steep, yet still comfortable and safe approach and for the most part keeps other guys in the pattern happy. I may add a bit of throttle depending on wind conditions.
However my glide speed on approach has really nothing to do with my actual touch down speed - my actual touch down speed depends completely on how I handle my round out and my flare. If I flare to late or low my ground speed and roll will be excessive, if I flare too high I will drop in too hard. As I get better at it, and I flare just right more often, I touch down with very little speed or roll. Having the tailwheel also gives me the extra margin of flaring more acutely on touch down to brake more aggressively.

Gabs, the landing from a steep power off or low power descent doesn't mean a heavier than normal landing? In fact the energy the rotors pick up from the steep glide in makes for a very soft landing (unless you flare to early).... that is why it is good to practice it regularly or better, make it your standard landing.... that way if you have a real engine failure, you are used to the steep glide and correct flare height

A flare from a steep approach is usually a softer landing if anything rather than harder

My training in the MTO consisted of a bunch of engine outs. Never dropped in once. Always landed normally shallow approach just like when I had power on. But that was my CFI.

I know what you mean Gabs, because most of your simulated engine outs would have been over airstrips, what I am talking about is preparing for a real engine out when you haven't got any sort of strip to land on, just a space between trees or a muddy or ploughed field...... where you don't have the opportunity to glide in at the usual slope, with a long hold off from the original landing flare/rotation and the subsequent 200 yards skimming along before final flare and touch down......

What my point I am trying to get over to you, is that many landings I have seen in person and on videos is a perfect landing.... for a 152 Cessna..... where I believe it is in pilots of euro machines best interest, to be able to learn and use the gyrocopter steep swoop and flare into a small space.... I know what Jeff means about conforming at a busy GA airport, if he were to start doing 'funny' (to fixed whingers) gyro landings, spam can drivers will get the shits..... so what he is doing there is fine

It is just my opinion, that it might be good to get Greg to show Jeff (and other euro tub flyers as well) that if you have an engine out, they are aware of what the machine can do to get into a small ELZ if it ever becomes necessary..... I am not saying anyone is a terrible pilot or don't know what they are doing, simply that to me, it appears that ET pilots are being shown and taught how to land like a FW, and not all the fabulous things that gyros can do I personally believe that ET pilots would benefit from knowing some of this stuff.... someone said Greg often does that style of approach, so just for fun, if nothing more, get him to show you.... I bet you will enjoy it.... If Greg reads this, I would love his view on the subject

Just remember please, I am NOT knocking anyone, their machine or their flying..... just trying to help

Well yeah. No CFI will jeopardize their machine. It's almost like teaching full down autos.
Pulling teeth. Not too many out there wanting the risk. For what? Schools after money and staying in business.
Mangled machines don't make money

Yes, mangled machinery aint great

You can still practice by marking an area with lines of flower and try to land in the area you mark out, so if you overshoot, there is no damage done

I used to paint a fluorescent orange circle in the closed runway where we practiced full downs.
Seldom they or even I hit the damn thing

Talking of this. You guys who teach. If you don't let the guy do it they will never learn. I was a hands off guy. Did not like to be on the controls. That can do more harm than good in my opinion.
But it does come with a price to pay in a case of ooopsss.
At the bottom once they decide to go for it there is nothing you can do.
If it looks good than all is fine. But when last split second they decide to pull a fast one one you you have no way of saving it.
Too much kinetic energy and not enough power to save.
I hated the last 3 seconds LOL

I learned with two CFI's and their styles were different. I learned first with Des and then with Craig MacPherson. I found Des much more structured, more gliding type of approaches at asphalt airfields etc. I think I got a very good grounding with him, and safer for it.
Craig is much more crank and bank, he flies off a grass strip at his farm in Texas etc.
I felt that with Des I learned how to be safe in a gyro, flying higher, sticking to patterns, mostly asphalt etc - a little more FW approach to gyro flying. with Craig I learned a little more what a gyro is capable of with very steep descents and 360's to land with engine outs etc, flying much lower, crank and bank and so on.
I'm glad I learned with both of them, but I am also glad I learned with Des first. If I had more time with Des, probably would have done more advanced stuff. When I was flying with Craig I would often say to him, boy I can't believe you trust me to do some of this shit with your gyro.