Talk:Rotary Air Force RAF 2000

speedy delete
Ah, you ugly deletionist. Just one minute passes and you've tagged it for a speedy. You're nothing but a book burner. Hang on a bit! Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These days an article really needs to be able to stand on its own legs from the very beginning. Perhaps you could consider developing them in userspace for a bit, then once they're a bit more fleshed out move them into article space? (Ps, it's not all that nice to call other editors names) henrik  • talk  12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that has long since been the recommendation but I did reckon on getting more than one minute, but I will return to this point in the next para. As for calling names, guilty as charged, I suppose.  The truthfulness or otherwise of the epithet I know also is no defence on WP.  But I'm getting truly sick'n'tired of the meta-editors here.  Those who interfere with the work of writing the encyclopedia.  As though we're going to have a better one by having less of one!  Book burning is what is happening.  I have now spent much more time faffing about trying to get the stub kept than I have on writing the article.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Writing the encyclopedia is a collaborative project. If the nasty book burners are going to insist that an article is fully formed before it appears in article-space then I do not get the advantage of that collaboration.  And neither does the encyclopedia.  Ah, fuck it.  This is starting not to be fun any more.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's part of the changing landscape and continued evolution of Wikipedia. As the site has gotten bigger it has attracted more spammers and people just interested in promoting their own stuff. Considering the amount of crap that gets created daily these, 'bookburners' as you say, actually do something valuable by trying to filter it out. We can make it easier for them to develop the articles a bit further before posting than what was previously needed. (but yeah, it was a bit more fun with less rules and regulations in the years past)


 * Axmann8 is a relatively new editor, still learning the ropes, I hope you can choose see past any hastiness on his part. henrik  • talk  12:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Um yeah sorry I was too quick with the CSD tag" would have done wonders! Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment
As a past contributor to the Autogyro page, and an autogyro enthusiast, I can confirm that the RAF 200 is an important and notable aircraft within that community - one of the best sellers in recent years. I am surprised that a simple ghit exercise was not conducted before the CSD tag was attached. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am less surprised than you. It becomes more and more difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia.  Perhaps you would join me in editing this article?  Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff to discuss?
I deleted this stuff from the article added by user 69.170.217.142 and copied it over here. There might be some stuff worth adding back to the article.

This information would be helpful in justifying the statements about this design having a controversy over the many fatal accidents. I am not experienced enough to properly edit it. If some senior member wants to give it a go, I would be grateful.

Here is an initial AAIB (preliminary) report. Note the line about "directional instability." This was later investigated in depth by CAA using an instrumented RAF2000 and a professional test pilot experienced in type.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_023917.pdf

Here is a CAA report on some of the recommendations, before they were all final. These recommendations would get new impetus after the second fatal.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor342003.pdf

Now, this is the paper that Drs Stewart Houston and Doug Thomson of the University of Glasgow presented to the American Helicopter Society, on lessons learnt in gyroplane stability -- including those lessons learnt from the dogged investigation into G-CBAG, and the second prang G-REBA, the most professionally investigated of the many RAF bunts.

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4962/1/Adva...t_Dynamics.pdf

I do not think most of you have seen this paper. Do not be put off by the math, because even if you can't tell an eigenvalue from the North Face of the Eiger, Thomson and Houston make the meaning of their mathematics clear, for example:

Quote: It can be seen that the phugoid oscillation is the most sensitive to the variation in vertical position of the centre- of-gravity relative to the propeller thrust line. In fact if the propeller thrust line is sufficiently far above the centre of gravity then the phugoid motion becomes unstable.

And more:

Quote: A number of fatal autogyro accidents have taken place where the work described in this Paper has had a direct influence on the conduct of the investigations, their conclusions and recommendations. The pertinent issue without exception has been the relationship between the propeller thrust line and the vertical location of the c.g., and the influence this has on the dynamic stability of the aircraft.

And:

Quote: In May of [2002], RAF 2000 G-CBAG crashed killing the pilot and passenger. This accident made significant use of this research, in particular to make a recommendation to the Civil Aviation Authority that all types on the UK register should be retrospectively assessed with regards their pitch stability characteristics [19]

footnote 19 cites the investigation report into G-CBAG.

G-CBAG woke the CAA and AAIB up and got them working with Glasgow again. It took another fatal RAF prang, G-REBA, for them to conduct new tests (not just the computer tests described in the academic paper, but real-world test flights).

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...BA%2009-07.pdf

Quote: Test flying was conducted by the UK CAA identified undesirable handling characteristics of the RAF 2000. As a result the CAA has published Mandatory Permit Directive MPD 2006-0i3, restricting operation of the type.

On the doors-on doors-off testing (from pp. 73-74 of the G-REBA report):

Quote: A series of test flights were carried out in the UK using an RAF 2000, registration G-ONON, which was of similar specification to G-REBA. 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. The gyroplane was an RAF 2000, C-FLDE. This differed from G-REBA in that it was equipped with a more powerful 2.5 litre Suburu engine fitted with fuel injection driving a four-bladed propeller. It was also fitted with a ‘Stabilator’ designed to improve the longitudinal handling qualities of the gyroplane and an electric pitch and roll trim system.

So, did they push the envelope and fly unsafely, according to RAF?

Quote: Throughout all the tests flown, the gyroplane operation remained entirely within the manufacturer’s (Rotary Air Force) published envelope.

So how'd they do?

[quote]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 and Canadian flight tests was:

Quote: ‘The gyroplane had unacceptable longitudinal dynamic stability above 70 mph and unacceptable directional stability with the doors fitted.’

This is not a description of a safe and stable aircraft (p. 74) although it does only refer to pitch instability:

Quote: At 70 mph natural turbulence excited a divergent phugoid which had a period of approximately five seconds and a time to double amplitude of approximately 10 seconds. Testing was curtailed after eight seconds to prevent excessive pitch attitudes being reached. Maintaining pitch attitude ± 4º at 70 mph was very difficult requiring continual small (2 mm) inputs to the cyclic. Flying at speeds between 70 mph and i100 mph required increasing attention and required good visual cues, that is to say, a clearly defined horizon.

And directional stability?

Quote: It was also noted during flight testing that with the doors fitted, the gyroplane had no inherent directional stability and would not naturally yaw into the prevailing sideslip. Additionally, if feet were taken off the rudder pedals, the rudder would not centre but would pay off into the prevailing sideslip, reducing directional stability further.

That's where the door ban and 70 mph VNe came from -- flight tests flown in instrumented aircraft, with, in the case of the Canadian tests at Medicine Hat, Alta., a factory pilot on board. SQGibbon (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This badly written and composed content is already summarized in the article. In the past week or so there seems to be a determined effort to turn this article into a very biased and unbalanced attack against this aircraft type. While the type has its critics and their point of view, where it can be properly referenced, should be included, Wikipedia articles are required to be balanced and neutral. An awful lot of what has been attempted to be inserted is completely unjustified WP:SYNTHESIS, like this set of edits which, based on one accident report concluded "RAF 2000 construction is inherently unstable, which resulted in numerous fatal accidents." and "The Ken Becker estate lawsuit was just one and probably first of many following due to the high number of RAS 2000 fatal accidents in United States, United Kingdom and elsewhere in the world." Statements completely unsupported by the ref cited.


 * Total disclosure note: I have no connection to this aircraft type and have never owned or flown one or even known anyone who did. My interest in this article is strictly as a member of WikiProject Aircraft, working to improve the quality of aircraft type articles on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I came across all this via Recent Changes and without reading it closely (know nothing of the subject) assumed Good Faith and moved it here since it obviously doesn't belong in the article as written.  SQGibbon (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Article protected
Due to recent activity I have protected the article from editing can users please come to some consensus on content on this talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rotary Air Force RAF 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006092425/http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Lawsuit+gyroplane+crash+kills+Kindersley+business/2385156/story.html to http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Lawsuit+gyroplane+crash+kills+Kindersley+business/2385156/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted as all archive pages are "404" - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rotary Air Force RAF 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006092425/http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Lawsuit+gyroplane+crash+kills+Kindersley+business/2385156/story.html to http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Lawsuit+gyroplane+crash+kills+Kindersley+business/2385156/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)