Gyroplane PPL

[Wibbly P]

Hello, Hello, hello

I have hunted the web for info about where and how much it would cost all in to obtain a Gyroplane Licence but so far to no avail.

Can anyone advise me of the costs and or a training provider?

And before you say it I DO realise that they are rather dangerous. (1 fatal per 1800 flying hours)

All the best

Wibbly Deathwish

[QDMQDMQDM]

Don't know much about them myself, but two centres in the UK are Carlisle (www.rogersavage.co.uk) and Henstridge on Wiltshire / Dorset border. More info here:

http://www.gyroplanes.org/

List of instructors:

http://www.gyroplanes.org/schools.htm

QDM

[The Nr Fairy]

Wibbly :

Check CAA SRG info (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_gid05.pdf) for the pukka licensing information.

As well as the two places mentioned by QDM cubed, there is a guy called Tony Unwin down near Wedmore. I'll see if I can dig out details.

Surprisingly, if you have a PPL(H) then the conversion requirements are minimal. However, we both agreed ( when I tok my wife down there for her trial lesson / birthday pressie ) that the minimums weren't really sensible if you planned on living long.

[Whirlybird]

wibbly,

There's an extremely good website belonging to a gyro pilot called Mel Morris Jones. I don't remember the address, but if you go to www.flyer.co.uk and look at their links, the gyro link should take you to his website.

I had a couple of trial lessons in Carlisle, and they are great fun. Only problems are they're very noisy so some airfields don't like you keeping them there, and I personally wouldn't trust something with that many moving parts to my own or anyone else's self build skills - show me a factory made one and I might buy it. At a CAA safety evening recently, the chap giving it said the small total number of gyro pilots meant the accident numbers probably weren't statistically significant, and I tend to agree. I don't think I'd worry too much about the safety aspects; a lot of accidents were in earlier days when they weren't well regulated. Get a good instructor and be careful and you've probably as good a chance of surviving as the rest of us - at least us R22 pilots. :D

[Flare Dammit!]

The original Whirlybird wrote:

I personally wouldn't trust something with that many moving parts to my own or anyone else's self build skills...

Huh? A *gyro* with a lot of moving parts? Hon, apart from the engine and control linkages - same as a homebuilt aeroplane - there are only, like, THREE moving bits in the rotor system (gimbal, mast bearing, and flapping hinge). And none of it rotates very fast, or with very high loads (compared to a powered helo). This explains why gyros have such a low incidence of rotor-related catastrophic mechanical failure. Engines do quit and pilots do dumb things (like neglect proper maintenance). Even so, you don't hear about even the most horribly maintained gyros coming apart in the air...unless the pilot did something to precipitate the event.

And you fly a Robbie, luv?

[Whirlybird]

Flare,

I've heard of too many gyros coming apart in the air. And it may be due to pilots doing something to precipitate the event, but the reports I've read (not that many I'll admit) haven't made it clear.

Yeah, I fly a Robbie; they're factory built. Haven't heard many reports of them coming apart in the air.

I could be wrong, it's true. I do know I'm not unique in feeling the way I do. But in any event, do you really need to be so bloody patronising? Does it make you feel good or something?

[Flare Dammit!]

Whirly wondered:

I've heard of too many gyros coming apart in the air. And it may be due to pilots doing something to precipitate the event...

Ever wonder why? They're rotorcraft, even though most helo pilots think of them as unworthy or contemptible or something. Pilots who make ignorant statements just perpetuate myths - myths that might very well be wrong. How do you like it when people point derisively at the mighty R-22 and go, "Man, I'd NEVER fly in one of those DEATHTRAPS! The rotorblades just FLY OFF those things!"

Yeah, I fly a Robbie; they're factory built. Haven't heard many reports of them coming apart in the air.

Don't read much, do you, luv? I sure have! I'm well aware of the Robbie's "safety" record. You should be too, if indeed you really fly one. I even saw a video of one here in the U.K inflight with rotor blades that looked like rabbit ears. Well...it was a very *short* flight from that point on. It had the trajectory of the Space Shuttle - in reverse.

I could be wrong, it's true. I do know I'm not unique in feeling the way I do. But in any event, do you really need to be so bloody patronising? Does it make you feel good or something?

Me? Patronising? Next, you'll be calling me pretentious. Moi?? Listen sweetie, I am NOT patronizing- that's a particularly low blow. But I'll forgive it this time and if we ever meet in person I'll accept your apology. Meantime, you just go back to flying that awesome Robbo and don't you worry one hair on your pretty little head about it.

Patronising...sheesh! These Robbie pilots really need to learn their place!

[Dave Jackson]

Whirlybird,

I believe that Mel Morris-Jones has a health concern, and it is very serious.

Gyrocopters do have a high rate of accidents, particularly in the United States.

As Flare Darnit :) says, the primary problem is not a mechanical one. It is one of overall design and pilot education. The most popular designs have pusher props and very close-coupled tail-feathers. Some of them don't even have the horizontal tail. This results in stability problems, and since it is a 'low cost' sport, little money is spent on training.

It is still unknown if the FAA will allow gyrocopters into the new US Sport Pilot / Light Sport Aircraft category.

[Whirlybird]

Flare,

If you had a point to make, which I rather doubt, it got lost in the general attacking tone of your post. I wasn't in the least surprised, having seen some of your other posts. Logic and sticking to the point just aren't your forte, are they Flare? And yes kiddo, you WERE being patronising, deliberately I should think. So don't expect an apology. Not that I care. But YOU talk about ME striking a low blow!!! The pot calling the kettle black has nothing on that!!!!!

I'll keep this brief as I don't really want to sabotage wibbly's thread. And I have far better things to do than argue with you anyway. :D

[Flare Dammit!]

Whirly wrote:

I'll keep this brief as I don't really want to sabotage wibbly's thread. And I have far better things to do than argue with you anyway.

Somehow I doubt that; you're a woman, aren't you?

But nevermind that.

Dave Jackson is quite right. Quite right. But here's the deal: Let us all acknowlege that Dr. Igor ("that's EYE-gore") Bensen "invented" what we now call the gyrocopter. In fact, he even coined the term. Even the God-like Cmdr. Ken Wallis used a modified Bensen-type when he started tinkering with gyros (his had plainly tumbled) in 1957.

Ol' Dr. Bensen initially used a horrible little donk built by some American chainsaw company which the adverts said produced 70 horsepressure, a figure most of us think was a gross overstatement.

It was a toy - a sunny-day flivver, a poodle-jumper (German Shephards: out of the question!). It was never meant as a Serious Transportation Device. He knew it; we knew it...uhh, we were supposed to know it.

Well, leave it to the yanks. What is it they grunt all the time? MORE POWER! As light engine technology advanced, people began sticking more and more powerful (although in this case, "powerful" borders on hyperbole) motors in their gyros. The Rotax 447 must have seemed like a gift from heaven!

Along with more power came more speed, and so began the quest for a "...true, cross-country gyroplane!" as one manufacturer likes to (erroneously) claim.

Trouble was, the design was flawed. With a pusher prop and a high thrustline (necessary because of the bigger and bigger props), a dangerous condition could arise if the hapless pilot "unloaded" the rotor. Easy to do at the higher speeds or rates of climb that gyros were now attaining. With no drag now from the rotor and a thrust line well above the vertical centre of gravity...Wheeeee! Over we go, faster than it takes to say it.

The solution is to put the engine way down low in the frame. This results in gangly-looking ships (e.g. Dominator). Another solution is to put the dang donk out front like God and Juan de la Cierva intended it to be.

There are other problems with gyrocopter flight characteristics. Gust response can be confusing and dangerous. Structural rigidity comes into play too; some ships flex at the keel/mast attach point, which wreaks havoc with the control geometry. Dr. Bensen recognized this and added a cable between the rotor and the nose. But look at all the "modern" designs that eliminate it while trying to attack the problem from other angles. There's a lot to gyro design; it's not simply a matter of throwing a bunch of tubing together and going flying.

Maybe the real solution is to recognize that the "gyrocopter" is still just a calm, sunny-day, low-altitude toy...a toy that can kill you quick if you let it!

[Genghis the Engineer]

(1) UK Gyroplane fatal accident rate is 1 per 6,000 hrs, compared to, about 1 per 50,000 hrs for light helicopters, microlights and gliders. By any benchmark except financial, Whirly is far better off in her Robbo - although it's not QUITE as bad as wibbly suggests.

(2) Let the rotor speed get too low on any teetering rotor system (Gyro or Robbo) and it is likely to end in a fatal accident. It simply happens that the handling errors leading to this are subtly different in each case.

(3) Homebuilts are subject to rigorous inspection during build, and like any other aircraft during use. Nothing unusual in that. In both, it's the breakdown of the inspection regime that tends to cause any mechanical related accidents.

(4) Never seen a 447 on a gyro, too low powered at 38hp. Mostly 618s, 582s, 462s, etc - 60hp+ engines.

(5) No doubt that Ken Wallis started with a modified Benson, but he came a long way from there. Equally no doubt that both post-dated Juan de la Cierva by some considerable time. Cierva deserves much of the original credit, although subsequent work by Glauert, covered most of the theoretical aspect, and practical designer like Benson and Wallis brought things forward a lot post war. The big change Benson made was to stick the prop at the back.

(6) Flare dammit, you obviously know a fair bit about the subject, but winding up whirly is hardly the way to establish your credibility. Whirly, being wound up by an obvious wind-up-merchant like FD doesn't help yours much either.

(7) There's a gent, a reasonably regular poster on Pprune, who has done a great deal of theoretical work on gyroplane safety. Perhaps he'd care to chip in?

(8) A personal gripe here, I think the problems with the safety of the Benson aircraft was down to a lack of theoretical investigations, particularly taking into account Glauert's non-dimensionalisation of gyroplane stability in the 1930s and 1940s, in the basic design. Adding in a couple of cables to reduce flexibility is not the solution. The gent I mentioned in (7) has gone a fair way towards solving this, although I've yet to understand why he doesn't non-dimensionalise his own published theories.

G

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Flare, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt after your responses to my posts (I thought your motivation may have been okay, under your gruff exterior). But sadly, you seem to continue along in your own nasty way. You probably have got significant experience, and some good advice to offer, but what is the point if you can't offer it without being a jerk?

So, quote this:

You are a sanctimonious, conceited, condescending windbag.

Perhaps visit this site http://www.house_of_mirrors.com and have a good long look at yourself.

PS: Sorry to be dragged in to highjack your thread, Wibbly - but enough is enough...

[Flare Dammit!]

Excellent post, Genghis! Of course, we recognize that the autogyro was around a long time before Mssrs. Bensen and Wallis got their mitts on it.

First, a correction! Yes, I meant to write "582" with respect to the Rotax on a gyro, not "447," and thank you for pointing it out. I sit corrected (the great Flare Dammit! is obviously not immune to errors).

You also wrote (in part):

The big change Bensen made was to stick the prop at the back.

Yes! And this change effectively encumbered a fairly useful design with what in my opinion is a fatal flaw. Putting the prop in the back was the absolute WRONG thing to do because it f*ed-up the handling qualities so. It's a clear case of something that [i]looks[i] like it should work on paper but does not in actual practice.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that all "gyrocopters" should be scrapped. I just think that the owners (and prospective owners) should recognize the very serious limitations that the Bensen-type gyro has.

There are band-aids. Low-mounting the engine (below the vertical c.g.) and the addition of a horizontal stab of sufficient area go a long way toward making the gyro "better." But it's still just a toy aircraft, akin to a powered-parachute. For my money, the best way to go is with Ron Herron's (tractor) design.


Oh, and Squiffy, old chap? I've decided against directly responding to your insulting post. I don't have to take this! I'll no longer argue with Robbo pilots. In fact, in the future I will not even speak to anyone who doesn't at least fly a 206(L, not a B) or larger. So consider your last post deleted. I do.

[Dave Jackson]

Flare Darnit,

"In fact, in the future I will not even speak to anyone who doesn't at least fly a 206(L, not a B) or larger."

Most of my flying time has been spent at the control of a 'Joint'.
Some people consider the 'Joint' an ultra light.
Too light or not to light? Can we still speak?
:)
____________________

Re the GyroCopter.

STOL ain't VTOL
:eek:

[Flare Dammit!]

Dave Jackson mumbled:

Most of my flying time has been spent at the control of a 'Joint'.
Some people consider the 'Joint' an ultra light.
Too light or not to light? Can we still speak?

Dave, Dave, Dave. Methinks you've spent too much time handling a "joint," alright. To light or not to light? Sure, light up! Hey, I won't tell the feds if you won't! Or was that a masturbatory reference? You teenagers! I'm so "out of it" when it comes to your lingo. I wanted to be cool - you know, down wit' dat. Told me wife I thought she was "phat." Smacked me right in the gob, she did! Guess I'm not da bomb.

But can we talk, Dave? Sure, as long as you don't fly a Robbie...and you probably won't remember anything I say.

Come to think of it, that may be a good thing. Sorry, I gotta go now...put the new Phish CD on, and I got the munchies big time!

Peace out.

[Whirlybird]

Oooooooo, Flare isn't going to talk to us any more!!!! Fellow Robbie pilots, shall we cry, or celebrate? Should I tell him I have 27 B206 hours? Oh, it's OK, it was the B not the L, so it makes no difference.

I'd better shut up; there goes Whirly highjacking threads and destroying her credibility again. :D :D :D

[The Nr Fairy]

Whirly :

Of course, I think you destroyed your r/w credibility by completing and WINNING Dawn to Dusk in a C152 :D

[Wibbly P]

err.... I'm gonna go now....

(startled expression and walking backwards slowly)

[nonradio]

Phew! Anyway, gyros do look like bloody good fun!

[Flare Dammit!]

Whirly bragged:
Oooooooo, Flare isn't going to talk to us any more!!!! Fellow Robbie pilots, shall we cry, or celebrate? Should I tell him I have 27 B206 hours?

Oh. Wow. Oh my. 26 whole hours?? Oh dear.

I'm sorry, Whirly, I really underestimated you. I just didn't comprehend your level of expertise. Please accept my most humble and sincere apologies. I see now that you, not I, are truly God's gift to aviation.

Oh wait...you said B-model time?

Nevermind.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[Whirlybird]

Oh me...oh my...I feel quite overcome. Oh dear, can someone pass the smelling salts....

I can hardly believe it. Fellow Robbie pilots, did you hear? The great, the absolute, the all-powerful, the invincible, the omnipotent, the supreme Flare Dammit, greatest pilot in the history of rotary aviation (no wonder he thinks he isn't paid enough) SPOKE TO ME!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: To ME, a humble little nonentity of a Robbie pilot, a nobody who should be seen and not heard, (preferably not seen either) and who certainly shouldn't post her opinions on Rotorheads.

Oh dear, oh dear... I'm not sure Whirly's delicate constitution can stand the shock; I think I'd better go and lie down and recover.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(Whirly retires, credibility now completely destroyed :D )

Oh, BTW, nonradio , gyros are lots of fun!

[RotorHorn]

Wibbly old bean. Just a note to say thanks for one of the most entertaining threads I've read for a while. Talk about light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance...!

Whirly. You've got to realise that FD likes to throw a few hooks out into the water and see what bites. And you bit. BIG time. Don't take it personally. As you'll know from reading his threads, FD seems to know a bit about flying, but he also likes to talk a lot of boll@cks to wind people up into a frenzy. Just take it as entertainment and enjoy the show - not easy when you're playing the straightman I know.

Anyway, FD, if I can just tempt you with a quote from your earlier post.
Smacked me right in the gob, she did!
I like the sound of your missus already... ;)

[Flare Dammit!]

Oh my word! A smart helo pilot with a sense of humor!! Shhh, Rotor, you'll blow my...er...cover.

Made me laugh, you did, what with that comment about me missus.

Let's not take ourselfes *too* seriously here, eh?

[Heliport]

.......... who was it who said on this forum just recently

"I'm convinced that most helicopter pilots are neurotic nutjobs."

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/spineyes.gif

[Flare Dammit!]

Heliport drones on:
.......... who was it who said on this forum just recently

"I'm convinced that most helicopter pilots are neurotic nutjobs."

Well, I should know ;)