1st time in a gyrocopter

[Jude098]

At this year’s combined Shobdon Foodand Flying Festival weekend, at Shobdon Airfield, I was lucky enough to be invitedto have a flight in, and “have control”, of one of the visiting aircraft, a RotorsportCavalon Gyrocopter.

Have I ever honestly wanted tofly a gyrocopter. No, as the only ones Ihad come across required the pilot/passenger to be kitted out in virtually aski-suit and waterproofs, helmet, goggles and thick gloves just to keep warm inthe open cockpit. I usually fly aprivately hired 1975 C150, a prettybasic non-IR instrument configured 2 seater Cessna, but adequately does the jobeven if not all that luxurious. But this Cavalon was a very different kettle offish or should I say aircraft. Beautifulsleek lines, roomy and more importantly an enclosed cockpit with twoside-by-side adjustable seats (position and rake) and extending rudder pedalswhich meant, as being only 5’3”, I didn’t have to bring my trusty cushion, orbooster seat as some of my fellow pilot so called friends call it.Interestingly in a gyrocopter the Pilot in Command sits on the RH seat.

Andy Wall started her up andcalled for taxi and off we headed for runway 27. The main rotor is an aluminiumextrusion and can be flown in any weather which was useful as Sunday was arather breezy day. The pre-rotator is pneumatically engaged giving up to 80 to90% of rotor flight speed before commencing take off. Breezy it might have beenwith the wind varying from down the runway to gusts 90 degrees off but as werolled down the runway and climbed away you actually wouldn’t have known it. At200 ft Andy said “you have control”. Was I expecting that, again no but shehandled just like a fixed wing light aircraft but much nippier and tighter inthe turns. A very responsive stick and with a trim tab meant I could even flyit hands-off once she was nicely set up! Though not for long as needed to avoidvarious farm houses and other buildings to keep within Shobdon’s noiseabatement. Andy took back control afterI’d turned onto final on the first circuit as he wanted to demonstrate thehovering manoeuvrability of the aircraft to the crowd as we coasted just abovethe runway. Climbing away I was again “in control”.

Instruments on board includedCHT, rpm gauges for both rotors, a mounted ipad sized GPS and the rest of theusual instruments one would expect to find, expect for a turn co-ordinator. Insteadof “the ball in the middle” turn-co-ordinator there was a “what do you thinkthat is then” bright yellow piece of chord dangling down from the cockpitwindscreen. The only non-high tech looking piece of equipment on board! Thegull-wing doors have 2 air events (one swivel directional) and, if you reallywant to, you can fly with no doors on at all! The whole cockpit was veryluxurious, very comfortable and well equipped, a bit far from what I amcurrently used to, well unless you count the RH seat trip I did in a PA46TBMeridian last weekend from Oxford to Girona and back.

On the second circuit, turningonto base leg Andy asked that I climb to 1000ft and then turn on to final.Interesting thinks I doing what I am told. And so it was as, with a grin on hisface, Andy says “OK PFL” and pulls the power off! We float down, well we diduntil he then says “lower the nose” and the ground is coming up at a hell of a rate.At about 100ft he thankfully says he “has control”, adds some power arrestingthe descent and levels out, gently puts her down and taxis very “expeditely”down the runway and off onto the grass. I can quite believe that he was able torecently put the Cavalon down safely within the length of a tennis court even ifyou might not be able to fly out again.

After shut down, Andy wascomplimentary about my handling of the gyro, always something every pilot likesto hear and especially a pilot who has only had her PPL(A) for 1 year, 1monthand 5 days (ok so I am counting J) and then offered a training flight from my home-base at GloucestershireAirport next time he is in the area. I am thoroughly impressed with everythingabout the Cavalon from its obvious luxury; its handling; instrumentation and 100litre tank giving a range of 6 hours at 80mph. Am I converted and would I fly agyrocopter again? Yes. But truthfully only at this end of the market or notexposed to the elements.

[cockney steve]

Interesting report. Ihave been fascinated by Autogiros for many a year.
Jude, please get your space-bar fixed, or refrain from typing when you're overly-excited.:p

[Jude098]

Wilco, lol

[The_Pink_Panther]

Despite Ken Wallis' enthusiasm for them, (and he has a pretty infectious personality) I have the same reservations as you. The idea of the Cavalon appealed to me, but I've never had the opportunity to try it. I rent C150s too, so we're coming from similar places.

Did it cruise at 70kts as advertised?
How did it climb?
Is it only a fair weather alternative to the C150?

Thanks

TPP

[Pace]

They always look more fragile than Helicopters and do not look like they should fly although I am sure they do very well :ok:
It just the Jesus Bolt look of that flimsy looking rotor which would worry me :{

Pace

[Jude098]

Not a fairweather alternative at all. In fact some of the fixed wings a/c were wobbling all over on take-off and landing but the Cavalon was as smooth as anything. Wouldn't have known it was gusty at all. And an enclosed cockpit with cabin heating (not that it was needed) an can have heated seats too!

Climbed really well and easily hit the 80mph in the circuit.

[No larger than 800 x 600]

[No larger than 800 x 600]

[Pittsextra]

I had a flight in one recently and was prepared to be under-whelmed however was completely surprised.

Superb machines, cruise at 80knts at 3 to 4 imp gals an hour, super smooth and great options for STOL. Aside from the whole single seat, have a go versions of the past I can't see why these machines haven't had greater traction.

For private aviation they are a no brainer

[Genghis the Engineer]

Safety record aside, which is slowly improving for gyros (microlights being in a similar place to "group A" in recent years - it's an interesting question why somebody would fly a gyro compared to a flexwing, which has a similar performance and cockpit environment, but a much lower purchase and running cost as well as a much larger community of operators.

G

[ShyTorque]

I'd reverse the question, to ask why someone would fly a flexwing at all! ;)

I'd like one of these, preferably with the radial engine, of course:

Little Wing Autogyros, Inc.. (http://www.littlewingautogyro.com/index.html)

[Pittsextra]

Flexwing not the same?

http://www.dynamicspirit.de/files/dynamicspirit_content/03_tragschrauber-gyrocopter/04_modelle/02_autogyro_cavalon/autogyro_cavalon_01.jpg

[Genghis the Engineer]

http://www.flyer.co.uk/images/PulsR1.jpg

Same ballpark.

(Actually maybe we should just celebrate that we can post photographs of two new, state of the art, BRITISH flying machines.)

G

[ShyTorque]

If I had to dress up like that I'd rather go by motorbike...... ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I had to dress up like that I'd rather go by motorbike...... ;)

Eliminating open cockpit flying from your repertoire, whether that's a microlight, gyro, or a tiger moth, is limiting your flying pleasure in my opinion.

Plus compared to motorcycling on British roads, even flying gyroplanes is relatively safe.

G

[ShyTorque]

Eliminating open cockpit flying from your repertoire, whether that's a microlight, gyro, or a tiger moth, is limiting your flying pleasure in my opinion.

Maybe so if your pleasure is an open cockpit, but these days I fly with the intention of going somewhere, not getting cold and wet in the process. I fly GA for a living and tbh, I find the motorbike (or the little open topped car as an alternative) more enjoyable.

A gyrocopter with a lid would suit me better than something that resembles a tricycle hanging under a tablecloth and has flying controls that work in the wrong sense. :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pah, youth of today, no sense of adventure.

G

[abgd]

Plus compared to motorcycling on British roads, even flying gyroplanes is relatively safe.

125 deaths per billion miles, which if you assume 50 miles per hour is 125 deaths per 20,000,000 hours which is 1 death per 160,000 hours.

By contrast gyroplanes are very approximately about 1 fatal accident per 2,000 hours.

[Genghis the Engineer]

On the other hand, gyroplanes tend to either kill you or leave you alone, whilst most bikers of my acquaintance seem to spend a substantial amount of time with various bits of their anatomy plastered up.

But you have made a good case for not flying gyroplanes, given that the fatal accident rate for flexwings is in the order of 1 per 50,000 hours I believe.

G

[Pittsextra]

The problem with gyro accident stats are that they reflect the old style single seat home built stuff. The new factory built types are great in my experience.

I can't believe the 1 fatal in 2000hrs statistic as there have only ever been 242 known gyro licences issued by the CAA ever. It would therefore mean potentially everyone will be dead within 500000 hours!

[Genghis the Engineer]

The stats were published for quite a few years in the 3 yearly safety reviews that CAA used to publish before they abolished their tiny but very useful statistics section to save money.

CAP 780 published in 2008 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP780.pdf)

In the period 1998-2007, there were 25 reportable accidents involving UK-registered
gyroplanes, of which eight were fatal, resulting
in nine fatalities. During the same period, there
were 320 reportable accidents involving UK-regis
tered microlights, 23 of which were fatal,
resulting in 31 fatalities. However, the fatal ac
cident rate per million hours for gyroplanes in the
period 1998-2007 was some 18 times greater
than the combined average for airships,
balloons, gliders and microlights.

The number of reportable accidents involvi
ng gyroplanes has decreased from 31 between
1995 and 2004, to 25 between 1998 and 2007. The number of fatal accidents in the two
periods is the same (eight). The three-year moving average reportable accident rate in the
period ending 2004 was 1,785.2 per million hours, however this had reduced to 645.8 per
million hours by the period ending 2007. The thr
ee-year moving average fatal accident rate has
also reduced, from 595.1 per million hours in the period ending 2004, to 161.5 in the period
ending 2007.
There were 251 reportable accidents involv
ing microlights between 1995 and 2004, compared
to 320 between 1998 and 2007. The number of fata
l accidents involving microlights in the two
time periods was the same (23). The three-year
moving average reportable accident rate in the
period ending 2004 was 285.5 per million hours, compared to 368.1 per million hours in the
period ending 2007. The corresponding three-year
moving average fatal accidents rates were
20.2 per million hours and 25.3 per million hours respectively.

So at last count, microlights were running at 1 fatal per 40,000hrs, gyros at 1 per 6,000.

G

[abgd]

CAP800 gives 400 fatal accidents per million flying hours, which is 1/2,500 hours. Unfortunately the pdf seems to be corrupt so I can only access the text in a roundabout fashion.

Either way, that's too much for me. I hope the newer gyros prove to be safer, but I'm going to let other people do the testing.

[Pittsextra]

You can't relate the accidents in these:-

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/bensen_superbug.jpg

The new types are way safer - plus I believe the CAA have changed things such that new pilots must train on a 2 seat machine rather than rolling their single seater into a ball of snot.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for flagging up CAP800, which is a bit more recent.

Because of the small numbers of gyroplanes, you'll always get large variation in average accident rates. But realistically, a fluctuation between 6,000 and 2,000hrs is between bad and shockingly bad.

So CAP 800 gives us:-

Gyroplanes: 400 per million / 1 per 2,500 hrs
Microlights: 17.9 per million / 1 per 56,000 hrs
Gliders: 23.2 per million / 1 per 43,000 hrs
Small helicopters: 15.9 per million / 1 per 63,000 hrs
Small conventional aeroplanes: 10.6 per million / 1 per 94,000 hrs
Balloons and Airships: no fatalities in 10 years.

Does rather make a strong case for flying anything but a gyroplane!

The list of gyroplane fatals there from 2000 to 2009 is 4 Bensens, 3 RAF-2000s, a Cricket, and a one-off called a KB-2. The RAF 2000 was the first of the current generation of enclosed gyroplanes, and the Bensen is very much old school, and there are a lot around. That doesn't suggest strongly that the new generation aircraft are massively safer than the old ones, *yet*.

In reality they should be getting safer - the newer and better understanding of Section T, the industry-wide adoption of the design criteria developed following the CAA sponsored research at the University of Glasgow, and a growing critical mass in the gyroplane community should all be making things safer. But, that is really not yet proven.

But, there is nothing in wrapping a bubble of fibreglass and perspex around a pilot that makes him safer than being exposed to the elements - that's just prettier and more comfortable. Showing a picture of an old and basic looking gyro compared to a newer shiner and enclosed gyro tells you nothing about their relative safety. More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).

G

[ShyTorque]

More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).

Which is the reason I'd want a front engined gyrocopter with a tractor prop such as the "Littlewing" (much safer, being more stable in pitch with power changes).

As for being "The youth of today"....thankyou, it's about forty years since I was last called that. :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

(much safer, being more stable in pitch with power changes).

Is that proven by reference to the most recent stability research from Glasgow? I can't quite see why the pusher/tractor prop arrangement would make any difference - the issue as I understand it is where the vertical CG is relative to the engine thrustline, which could be above/below/co-incident in either configuration.

G

[Pittsextra]

But, there is nothing in wrapping a bubble of fibreglass and perspex around a pilot that makes him safer than being exposed to the elements - that's just prettier and more comfortable. Showing a picture of an old and basic looking gyro compared to a newer shiner and enclosed gyro tells you nothing about their relative safety. More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).


Hang on a minute (and I am sure there are far better gyro qualified people than me to make the case) but the new types from Auto-Gyro and Arrowcopter are a millions miles away from the home built. Even the RAF type is of a different generation to the new types recognised by the CAA in the form of the introduction of now being able to self fly hire a gyro.

Beyond the actual machine there has been a huge refresh of the training for gyro, which you can read here:-

http://www.gyroflight.co.uk/2013BRAAGMChairmansReportandminutes.pdf

The typical accident in a gyro is low time, single seat. But I think in time gyros will gain traction.

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

Is that proven by reference to the most recent stability research from Glasgow? I can't quite see why the pusher/tractor prop arrangement would make any difference - the issue as I understand it is where the vertical CG is relative to the engine thrustline, which could be above/below/co-incident in either configuration.

With the engine/prop up front you can put a proper set of tail feathers at the rear end, which is where the pitch stability comes from. Cierva already had this when he took the wings off a conventional aeroplane and bolted on a rotor system instead. In later years things went a little pear shaped from a design point of view (literally and otherwise). The designs with no effective horizontal stabiliser were a disaster and I think many of the accident statistics occurred with that type of machine.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hang on a minute (and I am sure there are far better gyro qualified people than me to make the case) but the new types from Auto-Gyro and Arrowcopter are a millions miles away from the home built. Even the RAF type is of a different generation to the new types recognised by the CAA in the form of the introduction of now being able to self fly hire a gyro.

Beyond the actual machine there has been a huge refresh of the training for gyro, which you can read here:-

http://www.gyroflight.co.uk/2013BRAAGMChairmansReportandminutes.pdf

The typical accident in a gyro is low time, single seat. But I think in time gyros will gain traction.


Looking at the basic structure, rotor dynamics, thrust, powerplant, control mechanisation, I can't see much change. Newer undercarriages are nice to have, but don't add much.

The new generation with cranked tailplanes that run underneath the prop have used new science very appropriately.

So far as I can see, most of the other developments have only been refinement and comfort - which are worth having, but aren't particularly major advances.

2-seaters have been around for a while, but the move to being able to "type approve" aeroplanes through factory approvals is a definite industry advance, but doesn't necessarily indicate better aircraft - rather better production and quality assurance standards. Again, worth having, and things are definitely moving in the right direction. Probably the biggest advance there is that it's become much harder to approve something that doesn't properly comply with Section T which historically was, frankly, fudged.

But open cockpit, pusher, scary, flexwings remain 10-20 times less likely to kill you per flying hour. A bit of plastic around you really does not make it safer, nor do nice seats, electronic instruments, or LED landing lights - not that I'd turn those things down myself, but I'd not delude myself that they increase safety in any way: that's rather deeper.

Good training and supervision however. Those will save a lot of lives.

G

[Pittsextra]

Its an interesting subject. To deal with our points I think we might be at cross purposes.

I'm not sure why the picture of a Bensen singe seat against a newer type leads you to think I was focused upon enclosed cockpit, LED landing lights etc?

Without any doubt its the consistent production methods, the testing, the materials, design and more importantly training that will set the newer generation machines apart.

The story around horizontal stabilisers is what 40 years old? and actually in the end you can't really do much if people fly beyond the limitations of the machine.

However look at the data of the crashes and the vast majority are low time pilots (often in the early days low hour gyro but high time fixed wing crashing due to low 'g) with home built single seaters, and some of the AAIB report make for shocking reading.

I mean read this :-

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Benson%20Gyroplane%20B80%20G-BLEU%2008-86.pdf

7 hours in.

Or this where clearly there was some issue with material strength:-

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Bensen%20B8-V%20gyrocopter,%20G-BIOT%20%2002-87.pdf

You could go on all night!

I agree that the training element will be a big step.

Its not to try and put down any other type of aviation just saying that the stats around gyro is not a real picture of the newer types/methods.

[this is my username]

Genghis

You may know a lot about a lot of things, but gyros aren't one of them. You have already demonstrated that quite clearly by referring to the RAF 2000 as "the first of the modern generation gyroplanes" when it was anything but that. You have compounded it by suggesting that modern gyroplanes built to BCAR Section S are just manufactured to higher standards - which is far from the truth.

If my past exchanges with you are anything to go by you will try and shut me up by telling me about your academic qualifications, your CPL and your experience in the aeronautical industry. All those things may be very relevant to discussions about aeroplanes and microlights but you really know very, very little about gyros and you would do us all a favour if you didn't post as if you do.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Section T not Section S.

Section T is about adherence to a design code, developed over 20ish years originally from Section S but built upon developing experience, and especially about a third of a million worth of stability and control research at the University of Glasgow.

Type approval is about built quality, manufacturing quality assurance and CAA oversight, butthat oversight has also ensured much closer adherence to Section T during the design approval stage. This has included stability and control analysis, and requirements for the relationship between propeller thrustline and vertical CG. However the use of horizontal srabilisers has also provided pitch damping, thus reducing the potential for potentially lethal excursions into low normal acceleration. Those are at the root of many fatals, sometimes exaccerbated by pump action sticks causing Pilot Induced Oscillations - caused primarily by handling qualities but often unfairly blamed upon relatively inexperienced pilots.

There's also been a substantial tightening up of gyro flight testing, in part falling out from the very bloody nose LAA got in court following the fatal accident to G-BIGU. That is a very Good Thing.

But an enclosed cockpit does not in itself make them any safer.

The RAF2000 was reported widely as the new future of gyros at the time, but arguably did not embed many of the safety lessons it should have. Have the subsequent aircraft? Hopefully, but whilst they do with regard to tailplane, there is too much "lip service" still being paid to vertical CG.

The newer aircraft hopefully are a lot safer, but they've not been flying enough hours to prove this. Also, since there has also been a massive tightening of training standards, we'll probably never really know if it was the pilots or aeroplanes that made the greatest steps towards better safety. Fraudulent activities like logging PiC with the instructor in the bsck and hours of wheel balancing logged as flight time have one hopes been eliminated, but given one or two instructors well known to have practiced these are now teaching again - arguably a Bad Thing.

But, published statistics still show gyros roughly twenty times as likely to have a fatal as anything else.

Anything I missed apart from the personal insults?

No I've not flown a gyro - at some point I'll rectify that. I have spent a year or so of my life studying them for several professional reasons, which I think does give me the right to comnent, although there are certainly a people who know a lot more than me.

G

[mary meagher]

Genghis, as the ancient Romans used to say, Illegitimatus Non Carborundum!

As the person entitling himself as "this is my user name" didn't care to post under his real name, nor could he come up with a more entertaining cognomen, I don't think his attitude is helpful to this website.

The statistics you quote as to relative safety of the various forms of GA gave me pause. Are gliders really more dangerous than light aircraft or those flying tablecloths called microlites? Is it possibly skewed because a lot of glider flights tend to be of very short duration, especially during training?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect that if gliders pilots didn't keep trying to fly around in small circles under the same cloud, they'd come out far safer than my favourite flying tablecloths :)

G

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The RAF 2000 has a very high thrust line and no horizontal stabilizer, it is very prone to power pushover and has killed a lot of people.

I do have some knowledge of this subject having built one and flown several.

I also have a FAA Commercial Gyroplane Pilot License.

The little Wing tractor type gyro is very stable.

Oh, and I use my real name here. :ok:

[Pittsextra]

I think if you read the AAIB report on G-BIGU you get much of the problems with gyros in prior years

[this is my username]

My apologies, the Section "S" vs "T" was a typo - when I wrote it I was thinking about making comparisons between Section "S" aircraft and Section "T" aircraft and it slipped out on to the keyboard.

If you knew about gyroplanes you would know that the RAF 2000 was approved pre-Section T - so it wasn't approved to any design code, nor was it subject to any formal flight testing by the CAA or any other competent body. To make any sort of comparison between the RAF 2000 and the modern Section T machines is wide of the mark.

Please don't take my comments as personal insults. If someone who had never flown a flexwing and knew little about them came on the forum pontificating about them you would, quite rightly, rip them to shreds on the basis of your superior knowledge. I would just like you to apply the same standards to yourself when it comes to gyroplanes.

The stats are hard to argue, and you are as well qualified as anyone to comment on them.

[Exascot]

I have just been looking at: XENON PRO - profesional Gyrocopter for Police, Military... (http://gyroplanes.pl/XENONPRO.html)

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of operating these aircraft on water?

BTW I quite fancy the armed version at the end of the page :cool:

[mary meagher]

Wow, what a website!

Those enterprising Poles have done it again, constructed a rather exceptional aircraft. We know them well for gliders; I flew a Jantar III in the Soviet Union. (1989, Women's European Championships). The Junior single seat glider is sturdy, designed for landing on horrible fields. The Puchaz, with that enormous tail, does exactly what it says on the tin, flies right side up or upside down as required. And will spin in a heartbeat if mishandled.

[Jude098]

Golly, think I wish I never posted about my flight, lol !!

[cockney steve]

Golly, think I wish I never posted about my flight, lol !!
Au contraire, ma cherie;)
You should be pleased to have started a thread that arouses such passion and interest.
Indeed, the statistics are quite intrigueing and it will be of great interest to see how this new generation of enclosed, stable machines affect the safety-stats.
As with Hang-Gliding, I fancied a go ,but didn't have the required surfeit of gonads.:\

[ShyTorque]

I agree, I always enjoy any discussion about gyrocopters. :ok:

I had the category on my ATPLH/G until very recently as it used to be automatically included. The CAA removed it when I had to renew it as a JAR licence.

Gyrocopter design went wrong somewhere a few years ago and the resulting accidents gave the type an unnecessarily bad reputation. The fundamental problems are now understood and more modern aircraft have them designed out again. As a long term helicopter pilot I can appreciate that a properly designed, modern gyrocopter is very well suited to some roles (such as aerial observation) and could do it at much lower cost than helicopters.

[Pittsextra]

Does anyone have a view as to why autogyros haven't been more popular?? I know Wallis tried to sell some to the AAC some years ago but then the project stalled. I was also surprised they were competing with things like the Edgely optica that was trialled by the police a few decades ago.

They just seem a perfect tool for observation, power / pipeline inspection in fact anywhere where STOL is enough rather than VTOL and of course they are very capable in windy conditions.

[this is my username]

In my view the issue has been the lack of a suitably capable design. The Wallis machines are very good at what they are good at, but times have changed and the days when it might have been acceptable to send service personnel aloft in such minimal aircraft are probably long gone.

The current sport aircraft are pretty good, but in the UK they operate on permits so aerial work (other than flying instruction) isn't allowed. I understand that they are being used in other countries for observation etc - but how serious that use is or whether it is trials inflated by a bit of marketing hype I don't know. There are, for example, a few of the current European machines on trial in the US with Police departments.

There is at least one project running to produce a viable commercial gyroplane - if that succeeds then we may see gyros replacing helicopters in some roles.

[Jumbodave]

I flew in this aircraft for the first time also at the fantastic Shobdon Food and Flying festival. I've had a PPL for nearly 30 yeras and flown all sorts of aircraft and have to say this was great. Well worth a look in terms of both flying and operating costs.

[Ptkay]

They just seem a perfect tool for observation, power / pipeline inspection in fact anywhere where STOL is enough rather than VTOL and of course they are very capable in windy conditions.

Another application worth mentioning is the crop protection.
Not only chemical, but also biological, where you need much less weight to carry.

Recently, the Polish company Aviation Artur Trendak is testing such application
in cooperation with Polish and Czech universities.

Aviation Artur Trendak | Testy Trichogramma (http://www.autogyro.eu/news/trichogramma_tests)

Aviation Artur Trendak | Testy Trichogramma 2 (http://www.autogyro.eu/news/trichogramma_tests_2)

Also traditional chemical spraying is possible.

Aviation Artur Trendak | Próby opryskiwaczy (http://www.autogyro.eu/news/agro_tests_baranow)


The tank under the cabin can carry up to 150 l.

http://www.autogyro.eu/media/default/images/agrotests02.JPG

I flew in this aircraft for the first time also at the fantastic Shobdon Food and Flying festival. I've had a PPL for nearly 30 yeras and flown all sorts of aircraft and have to say this was great. Well worth a look in terms of both flying and operating costs.

This is real fun to fly, you are right.

Recently the ZEN1 by Aviation Artur Trendak was presented at the UK Aero Expo in Sywell.

Aviation Artur Trendak | UK Aero Expo - Sywell (http://www.autogyro.eu/news/uk_aeroexpo_2013)

http://www.autogyro.eu/media/default/images/aeroexpo02.jpg

The fundamental problems are now understood and more modern aircraft have them designed out again. As a long term helicopter pilot I can appreciate that a properly designed, modern gyrocopter is very well suited to some roles (such as aerial observation) and could do it at much lower cost than helicopters.

The professional helicopter market is slowly approached by the gyroplane
manufacturers.
The new Europen regulations allow for MTOW of 560kg, which makes the class
much more interesting for professional use.
At the European Helicopter Show in Hradec Kralove (Czech Republic) the new
560 kg ZEN1 was presented for the first time.

Aviation Artur Trendak | Europejskie targi wirop?atów (http://www.autogyro.eu/news/new_zen1_in_hradec_kralove)

http://www.autogyro.eu/media/default/images/nowy%20zen1%2002.jpg

I think, all the new models of the major gyroplane manufacturers, with
side by side, helicopter or car like cabins, higher useful load will
gradually take over the market from other ultralight aircraft.

Year 2012 was the first year in the history where gyroplane outsold the
fixed wing ultralight aircraft in Germany. I thing, this is a tendency to continue.

[Pittsextra]

Will these machines be UK approved?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Will these machines be UK approved?

In most cases, not automatically - they are generally sub-ICAO aircraft, which means that they need to be approved separately in each country. However, it's generally accepted that the UK has the highest design standards globally for sub-ICAO aircraft, whether those are microlights, gyroplanes, or something more exotic. So, I'd anticipate that most of the new generation gyros are being designed with at-least one eye on BCAR Section T and thus should be relatively easy to obtain UK approval for.

G

[Pittsextra]

Is the LAA course that has recently started to validate types for the UK or is the course content for post approval work??

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is the LAA course that has recently started to validate types for the UK or is the course content for post approval work??

It's for experienced gyroplane pilots hoping to take on a test pilot role.

G

[Ptkay]

Will these machines be UK approved?

In case of ZEN1 I think, the UK dealer is working on it at the moment.

[Pittsextra]

A lot of test work at the moment in this field then!

[dubbleyew eight]

ghengis
in the statistics how many were saved from death by wearing helmets, fireproof numptie suits and nomex gloves?
serious question actually.

W8 who flies in ordinary clothes with the smell of avgas on the hands.

[Genghis the Engineer]

ghengis
in the statistics how many were saved from death by wearing helmets, fireproof numptie suits and nomex gloves?
serious question actually.

W8 who flies in ordinary clothes with the smell of avgas on the hands.

The statistics don't say, and you'd have to do a lot of burrowing into individual accident reports to start to answer that. Even then you'd not get a complete answer, as everybody in the little aeroplane world knows there are a significant number of accidents unreported - the only number you can really trust is the number of dead bodies.

G

[Maoraigh1]

Gyros at Wick | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/98844120@N02/9317579564/)

Nine French gyros at Wick - they had flown from Plockton. 13 July 2013.
I can't get the pic to display. One of the open cockpit guys said he was frozen, despite a suit, while I'd been warm in short sleeves, no jacket, for 1 hour at 2-3000' in the Jodel cockpit.
(There are 8 in the pic - the other one was refueling)

[Ptkay]

There is a very good information page on all the gyrocopter manufacturers
by a UK enthusiast:

http://gyro-gyros.********.co.uk/

Also on the Xenon and ZEN1 gyrocopters:

http://xenongyroblog.********.com/

and gyrocopter accidents:

http://gyroaccidents.********.com/2012/10/gyrocopter-accidents-2012.html

For some reason the forum editor replaces the word "b l o g s p o t" with ********.

Try to edit it back in your browser address window,
when you wish to open these pages.

[Fergus Kavanagh]

Re helmets, suits etc;

Gyroplane accidents broadly speaking fall into two categories;

1. Not survivable no matter what you are wearing.( loss of control at height).

2. Little or no injuries, again more or less regardless of protective gear. (Landing and takeoff accidents, rollovers, etc, which, while very spectacular,
wreck the machine but not the pilot.)

There is a third category emerging recently, of accidents in the initial climb,
due to inadequate climb speed, (poor training or poor understanding of the
power-required curve) where moderate injuries are likely.
In these accidents, protective gear is probably helpful, particularly helmets.

The first category is declining with the advent of pitch-stable machines.

The second seems fairly static.

The third has been to some degree recognised by the CAA, and hopefully
by the training organisations.

Being by nature a cautious person, I wear an inner layer of cotton clothing,
a four-point seat-belt, and a helmet.
I am sitting on the fuel-tank, after all.

Gyros are more complex than they look, but great fun.

[Ptkay]

There is growing tendency to enclosed, tandem or side-by-side gyroplanes.

The newest constructions like ZEN1 by Aviation Artur Trendak,
or Cavalon by Auto-Gyro GmbH have monocoque, safety cage like cabins.

The helmet is not of much use in this case, but 4 point seat belts are a must.

There have been several accidents of the kind described above, where
the machine cartwheeled, but the pilot within the cabin remained uninjured.

On top of that, in ZEN1 the fuel tank is within the safety cage,
away from the engine and it's parts, so never heard of fire after
any incident with this type of machine.

Open frame gyroplanes are another story, helmet is a must,
also with a good visor rather than goggles.

When you fly a gyrocopter, you grin all the time,
and visor protects not only your eyes, but also your teeth. ;)

[msmfi]

Aviomania G1sa "Genesis solo" at Thiva aero club GREECE demo flight 1 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McVxsUrPUI4

Low and Slow redefined ....
:)

Regards,
Mirek