Scroll down to find all of them listed here.
As most of you know, GBA has developed and is marketing a turbine powered gyroplane for use as an observation and patrol platform. In order to develop this aircraft, GBA recruited and currently employs an impressive array of engineering talent. We have structural engineers, designers, stress analyst, aerodynamic and rotordynamic engineers, manufacturing engineers, tooling engineers, and even a metallurgist. In addition, we employ aircraft technicians, machinists, tool setters, pilots, flight instructors, an examiner, and of course, the people necessary to maintain our corporate infrastructure.
Through it all, we have kept a close eye on the smaller gyroplane community. David Groen, Terry Brandt, myself, and indeed, the entire company, are intensely interested in autorotative flight in all it's forms.
We have become increasingly distressed about the carnage that occurs with sickening regularity in certain segments of our community. It is also our community because we are part of the greater gyroplane community.
The board of directors of GBA began discussing this abysmal safety record. Like many other posters on this forum we continue to be astounded and dismayed at the apparent disregard of the "laws of nature" evidenced by the many fatal accidents.
The event which precipitated The end of our silence, in this matter, was the fatal crash which occurred in Ogden, Utah. The CFI involved was the fixed wing CFI for our corporate counsel. Our counsel asked us "why did this happen?" "Gyroplanes are supposed to be the safest form of flight!"
We could only offer our condolences. The truth is that we at GBA believe that sustained autorotative flight is the "safest form of flight." But, only if the physical laws of the universe are observed.
The board of directors, David Groen, Jay Groen, Robin Wilson, and I unanimously voted that
GBA must do something about this problem. The first value in our corporate value statement
is:
"As a corporation and as individuals, we will always do what is right. Doing the right thing isn't
always easy. It is easy, however, to know whether a course of action is right. If we have to
ask ourselves, "is this right?" We already know the answer."
We asked ourselves if it was right to stand back and watch events occurring which we had the power to help preclude. We already knew the answer.
Effective immediately, GBA will begin offering a professionally designed and manufactured Stability Augmentation Retrofit Kit for the RAF 2000. Kits ordered now will be delivered or installed during late January, 2003.
The kit will consist of:
1. A composite tall tail assembly with an integral nonsymmetrical horizontal stabilizer.
2. A drop keel cluster plate assembly with hardware.
3. A welded steel tube landing gear with suspension.
4. A PSRU mounting plate to allow inverting the PSRU.
The cost of the kit will be $4935.00. We will install the kit at our Buckeye, Arizona facility for
an additional $2000.00.
In addition, the following products and services will be offered:
1. A composite airfoil, similar to the airfoil on the Hughes 300, to be mounted at the top of
the cabin to help eliminate cabin pitching moment with speed increase. This device with
hardware will be $450.00
2. Double bearing rotorhead retrofit service. The customer will send his rotorhead to us
and we will disassemble, clean and inspect the rotorhead, install a double bearing block,
new bearings, and new teeter towers and ship the unit back. This service will be $400.00.
This service will be offered for all brands of offset gimbal rotorheads.
3. Flight training in customer aircraft at $45.00 per hour. We will not conduct training in
non-centerline thrust, yaw unstable, non-horizontally stabilised machines.
4. Flight training in our modified RAF at $120.00. This service will begin during mid January,
2003.
5. Gyroplane rating practical tests at $250.00 plus aircraft rental if applicable.
Other products and services, including the development of stability augmentation kits for
other aircraft, offset gimbal rotorheads, a collective pitch rotor head, and possibly, a kit
and/or a Sport category aircraft, are being considered.
The decision to offer these products and services was difficult. Allocating the engineering resources necessary to professionally design and manufacture this kit was painful. The risk of diverting us from our primary task was carefully considered before choosing this course of action. We simply felt we had no choice.
To order the retrofit kit, or other products or services listed, contact Terry Brandt at Brandt@gbagyros.com.
The bottom line was for me, to bring the yaw stability of my RAF 2000 to an acceptable level with the least amount of:
1. Cost
2. Weight
3. Hassle (designing and testing all sorts of vert stab
arrangements, painting them to match the aircraft, etc. etc.)
4. Detriment to the aesthetic appeal of the aircraft. (personal opinion)
The anti-servo tab turned out to be the answer to all of these requirements. When I say "bring the yaw stability to an acceptable level", I mean, I wanted to be able to remove my feet from the rudder pedals without having the gyro try to swap ends. I also wanted to be able to make a controlled landing in the event of a rudder cable failure. The anti-servo tab does these things and much more as those who have them installed have reported. It really makes the RAF much easier to fly.
These benefits can be obtained with a minimum amount of each of the four listed points above as follows:
1. Cost -------$275.00 Can't get much for an aircraft for that these days.
2. Weight---- The net weight increase of putting on my anti-servo tab is less
than one pound. Our RAFs are heavy enough as it is, why add weight if you don't
have to?
3. Hassle------No need to try to match that paint you used on your gyro and all the
hassles that go with painting new stabs.
4. I realize that this is a personal
preference, but I have always thought that the RAF2000 is a very nice looking gyro,
if there is such a thing. :>) Not only did I not want the added weight of multiple
vertical stabilizers, but I also did not want my gyro to begin to look highly modified
by adding fins to the tail. I personally do not like the looks of those types of tails.
Sort of reminds me of what Beech did to the beautiful King Air 200 by stretching it
out to make the 1900 and having to add all sorts of fins to the tail making it one of
the ugliest airplanes flying. Again, personal opinion of course. ;>)
..STUFF DELETED... Happy Flying,
John Snider