Interesting that you found distinct advantages in the tractor configuration, given the modern prevelence of pusher gyroplanes.
It seems logical to be a safer way of flying a gyrocopter as the tractor configuration is more stable and less probable to get the gyro into negative g's.
How did it affect the comfort in the cockpit - similar, or were the noise and wind effects substantially greater?
I couldn't notice any difference on the noise in the cockpit, but I have never flown in a closed gyrocopter before. The closed cockpit itself gives a lot of comfort as you are not exposed to wind and weather. Again, the size itself is impressive and I would say it is bigger than the cockpit of my Diamond DA40.
On your video, the take-off roll seemed rather long - presumably there's no pre-rotator? Any idea why not?, or is that a temporary issue.
You are right and I have asked the builder the same. His answers are:
1. we had a t/o weight of 550 kgs. (fully tanked, I weigh 100 kgs myself, the rotor is too heavy as it was taken from a South-African 3- or 4-seater gyroplane and will be replaced soon)
2. The prerotator was rotated only to 230 rpms because it is too small for the heavier and longer rotor blades. The production prerotator should give 280-300 rpm, so say the guys from Phenix, and thus reduce take-off roll
3. The video was taken with a wide angle lens of my Nikon D90 and appears a bit longer than it actually was, an estimated 180 metres
4. The runway itself was quite a bumpy field with patches of grass and earth. Not really ideal to show short take off capacities.
Ballistic 'chutes do make sense, particularly given the (at-least here in the UK) shockingly poor safety record of gyroplanes - I'd have thought that the main concern is negative-g induced loss of rotor speed.
Gyrocopters are so easy to fly for plane pilots that people don't focus enough on a solid training. As you mentioned correctly, these pilots are not enough prepared to avoid negative g at all times and that's when the chutes can give you a second chance.
At first, I said "Hey, these people need to learn to fly" as I usually say about pilots who think that planes with parachutes are the solution to any other headache of practicing and learning to fly your plane. But on the other hand, on a plane you can learn to get out of a stall and have more options than with a gyrocopter which has had a mid air collision or when negative-g leads to a loss of control. Here a parachute will save the pilot's life. No need to be arrogant about it and keep nagging on better education at this point. (I am saying this to myself)
But, even then you've got the non-trivial problem of dealing with the risk of the BRS loom snarling in the main rotor blades and hub. Do you think they've adequately dealt with that?
Have you seen where the parachute is installed? In the very rear of the tail and I would think that is the only point where I would trust that the risk of catching a rotor blade is near zero. Nevertheless, the builders had assistance from the manufacturer engineers and their own engineer who re-calculated the entire structure, including engine mounts, panel, seat belts, etc. to be able to deal with the event of chute deployment and the landing impact afterwards.
As always, they haven't found anyone who wants to test it..
