LETTERS

We are always pleased to receive your letters and feedback. Please email the editor at bfjjodel@talktalk.net bfjjodel@talktalk.net

Above The Cricket and MT03 geometries are very similar.

Single-seat gyros

Hi Brian. As the owner of both a modern factory-built gyroplane and a 1980s single seat Cricket, I’m often told how dangerous single-seat gyros are. This is often followed up with an explanation of how the design and geometry of the new machines is completely different.

Out of curiosity I lined the two up on the main wheels, took this photograph and was surprised at just how similar they actually are. Looking at the rudder hinge line it is clear that the MT03 has a longer keel, so to bring my Cricket in line with the Section T approved AV18 (the Mk6 Cricket), I currently have a modifi cation in to extend the keel by fi ve inches.

While the MT03 is undeniably a more refi ned and capable two-seat touring machine, please don’t dismiss the singleseaters. In 40 years of fl ying, I have never fl own anything that makes me grin more than the Cricket. It is simple, minimalistic, incredibly agile and just pure fun.

There is a resurgence in single-seat gyros at the moment and I encourage pilots not to dismiss them. I’ve not fl own a Cricket without a horizontal stabiliser but will say that with one it does not behave much differently to the MT03.

Pat Gardner. Do we really need QFE?

Hi Brian, I agree entirely with Julian Evans (LA September 2021) that the altimeter setting procedures in the UK are far too complicated. In the latest CHIRP, a pilot owns up to infringing controlled airspace because he failed to change from QFE to QNH. It’s an easy mistake to make and I can sympathise.

What I don’t understand is why we in the UK have no less than THREE altimeter settings for fl ight below the transition level (QFE, QNH and RPS), while in the USA they manage with just ONE for everything! Their single setting is the equivalent of our quaintly named QNH, but on the radio they simply call it Altimeter.

So, what is the point of QFE? If you know the airfi eld elevation (and it’s shown on the chart), then determining the circuit height is easy. There’s no need to fi ddle with the altimeter, no cause for confusion!

And what’s the point of RPS? The military likes to use it and claims that it assists deconfl iction and reduces pilot workload. Military pilots in the US manage to use the same altimeter setting as everybody else, while MATZ controllers here in the UK expect us to change to the RPS, just another needless opportunity for confusion and potential infringement.

If the powers that be are serious about reducing infringement of controlled airspace, they could make a start by simplifying our ridiculous altimeter procedures. Best wishes, Tim Watson.

Overstating Mignet

Brian. What a nice LA October issue and I liked the short piece on G-AXPG. It would be a shame if the aircraft cannot be restored to fl ying condition. I fear, however, that you overstate the achievements of Henri Mignet.

There was a rampant homebuilding movement in the USA throughout the 1920s and 1930s. More than 3,000 sets of plans for the Alco Sportsplane alone were sold in the 1920s and Ed Heath launched the Heath Parasol available as a fl yaway, a kit sold in 11 groups or as plans in 1926. Build instructions for about 20 aircraft were published in annual fl ying manuals in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Even all these are preceded by the three hundred or so Demoiselles reputedly built after designer Alberto Santos Dumont made plans available in 1909, and build instructions were published in Popular Mechanics in 1910.

Henri Mignet was a great innovator – agreed. His Flying Flea was launched into a huge unmet need in the UK for sure. But ‘the fi rst man to encapsulate the concept of amateur homebuilding’ – I don’t think so. The homebuilding movement is older than many realise. Regards, Malcolm Rogan. ■