Latest Hybrid Gyrocopter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norfolk U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Hybrid Gyrocopter
Knowing how the Daily Mail is regarded by the members of this forum I thought you might like this. Interesting that it only needs 10 - 20 hrs to get your licence, and flies below the 4000ft "ceiling" of commercial air traffic.
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the article:
Not quite. The pilot would be limited to 5nm with other met limitations until up to about 40hrs experience.
What! Well I suppose in the same way my Panda looks like a Bently Continental 
Looks fab. I'd buy one!
To fly the PAL-V you need a recreational pilot's licence, which takes between 10 and 20 hours training to obtain, while a normal driver's licence covers you for use on the road.
Flying Machine: The flying car looks suspiciously like Del Boy's old faithful Robin Reliant
Looks fab. I'd buy one!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
OOh, can't wait. 
What's a Robin Reliant, btw?
Its comical appearance betrays its rapid acceleration from 0 to 60 in just 5 seconds - a far cry from Del Boy Trotter's yellow Robin Reliant in Only Fools and Horses.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norfolk U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's 40 hours minimum for a PPL(G)!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vehicle needs 165ft to take off in and just 16ft to land,
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I thought. I was half expecting some comments on the "4000ft ceiling for commercial aircraft". Where did they get that from?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPPL(G)
The PPL(G) is already a UK national licence, if it is reborn as an NPPL(G) then in all lijelihood it will be a re-badge rather than any significant change. I'm not aware of any pressure at the moment from Insructors or students to reduce the hours requirement.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A properly designed gyroplane is easy to fly...if you can fly a fixed wing airplane you can fly a gyroplane with a little instruction. Someone without flight experience will find the gyroplane is easy to fly. There are few bad habits. They don't stall. They land in very short distances. They fly in a constant state of autorotation; there are no issues with engine failure because the gyro is already in autorotation as it's basic function of flight.
If you haven't tried a gyro flight, you owe it to yourself. They're a lot of fun, and addicitive. Don't say you weren't warned.
If you haven't tried a gyro flight, you owe it to yourself. They're a lot of fun, and addicitive. Don't say you weren't warned.
Formerly HWD
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indochina
Age: 57
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a little experience of these things & initially seriously considered going for it.
They are the airbourne equivalent of a trials motor cycle. The Ausies use them to muster cattle & sheep as most would use a quarter horse. However comparing them to a helicopter is utter rubbish, how many chopper pilots have been in autorotation going up? Or always land with forward airspeed, or always do a rolling takeoff?
They have a speed range from ~15kn to ~100Kn airspeed.
The big bad downside is the capability of doing a bunt over or "power pushover" which is non recoverable & usually fatal.
Good training, respect, & a low thrust line / CG design would solve a lot of that.
Compared to a fixed wing, if the rotor "unloads" & starts to pitch forward like a stall the recovery is completely opposite, you must pull & reduce power allowing the hull/pilot/engine weight to swing forward.
As such they are a completely different animal, but with a bit of developement could be made as idiot proof as required, & they are extremely good fun. I would love one to play with.
Next, try finding an airfield that will accept them, try finding a training school, try finding an instructor who will actually talk about them seriously.
As for that "fly / drive" thing, bacon rolls spring to mind.
They are the airbourne equivalent of a trials motor cycle. The Ausies use them to muster cattle & sheep as most would use a quarter horse. However comparing them to a helicopter is utter rubbish, how many chopper pilots have been in autorotation going up? Or always land with forward airspeed, or always do a rolling takeoff?
They have a speed range from ~15kn to ~100Kn airspeed.
The big bad downside is the capability of doing a bunt over or "power pushover" which is non recoverable & usually fatal.
Good training, respect, & a low thrust line / CG design would solve a lot of that.
Compared to a fixed wing, if the rotor "unloads" & starts to pitch forward like a stall the recovery is completely opposite, you must pull & reduce power allowing the hull/pilot/engine weight to swing forward.
As such they are a completely different animal, but with a bit of developement could be made as idiot proof as required, & they are extremely good fun. I would love one to play with.
Next, try finding an airfield that will accept them, try finding a training school, try finding an instructor who will actually talk about them seriously.
As for that "fly / drive" thing, bacon rolls spring to mind.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gyros
Crash One
Some of your comments might have been correct a few years ago, but the world has moved on. We now have modern, safe, stable gyroplanes (like the MT-03) available. The design flaws which left gyros susceptible to power-pushover are now understood and have been addressed on the modern "new generation" designs.
I've flown gyros for a number of years and I can assure you that there are very few airfields where they are not welcome, and where that is the case it's usually due to the same sort of misconceptions which result in some airfields saying "no microlights".
If you want to find an Instructor take a look at the British Rotorcraft Association website (www.gyroplanes.org) and speak to one of the Instructors listed there who operates a new generation gyroplane - you will find someone who will "talk about them seriously" if you make a few calls.
Some of your comments might have been correct a few years ago, but the world has moved on. We now have modern, safe, stable gyroplanes (like the MT-03) available. The design flaws which left gyros susceptible to power-pushover are now understood and have been addressed on the modern "new generation" designs.
I've flown gyros for a number of years and I can assure you that there are very few airfields where they are not welcome, and where that is the case it's usually due to the same sort of misconceptions which result in some airfields saying "no microlights".
If you want to find an Instructor take a look at the British Rotorcraft Association website (www.gyroplanes.org) and speak to one of the Instructors listed there who operates a new generation gyroplane - you will find someone who will "talk about them seriously" if you make a few calls.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The design flaws which left gyros susceptible to power-pushover are now understood and have been addressed on the modern "new generation" designs
As a rotary and fixed wing pilot, gyrocopters have always been a little lunatic fringe for me. You dont have a helicopter and u have rather a poor aircraft. For less money your into a Super Cub. Know which I would rather have.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a gyro you have an aircraft that doesn't stall. It doesn't suffer from many of the problems facing a helicopter, including torque issues, and it's always in autorotation.
Buntover is primarily a design problem. It's also a pilot problem, just as mast bumping is both in a helicopter. Preventing a buntover in a gyro is easy to do in a properly designed gyro. Older gyros, particularly those with high thrust lines, it's a different matter, and these are more susceptible to buntover.
The biggest problem that gyros faced for years was no training available. Many of the experienced proponents of gyros today grew up in a time when there was little choice but to teach yourself, and back then crashing multiple times wasn't uncommon. Even today, there are only about 30 individuals in the US who hold a gyro instructor rating. However, with modern designs and good instructions, it's safe to learn and safe to fly.
In the buntover, the blades don't slow down as you might with a rotor blade stall; rather an airflow reversal occurs through the rotor disc with a pitching moment; it's a pilot problem in a failure to keep the rotor disc loaded and to prevent zero or negative G flight, but it's a design problem in the construction of the gyro with a thrust line higher than the center of gravity, among other things.
Buntover is primarily a design problem. It's also a pilot problem, just as mast bumping is both in a helicopter. Preventing a buntover in a gyro is easy to do in a properly designed gyro. Older gyros, particularly those with high thrust lines, it's a different matter, and these are more susceptible to buntover.
The biggest problem that gyros faced for years was no training available. Many of the experienced proponents of gyros today grew up in a time when there was little choice but to teach yourself, and back then crashing multiple times wasn't uncommon. Even today, there are only about 30 individuals in the US who hold a gyro instructor rating. However, with modern designs and good instructions, it's safe to learn and safe to fly.
In the buntover, the blades don't slow down as you might with a rotor blade stall; rather an airflow reversal occurs through the rotor disc with a pitching moment; it's a pilot problem in a failure to keep the rotor disc loaded and to prevent zero or negative G flight, but it's a design problem in the construction of the gyro with a thrust line higher than the center of gravity, among other things.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's a pilot problem in a failure to keep the rotor disc loaded and to prevent zero or negative G flight
Zero/neg G flight in any teetering/fully articulated rotor system is a HUGE NO-NO. This a problem only recently understood properly. Not to be confused with mast bumping, thats a seperate issue.
In the buntover, the blades don't slow down as you might with a rotor blade stall; rather an airflow reversal occurs through the rotor disc
Also not sure I get where your heading with the CG/Thrust line couple? The two normally have nothing to do with each other.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A big issue with gyros and gyro design, and a big shift in design in recent years has been lowering of the thrust line for the propeller to the center of gravity. Remember, the CG isn't just fore-aft. With a pusher gyro, the thrust line is parallel to the engine crankshaft. Where the mass is below this, the natural tendency is nose-down tendency with the application of power. The trend has been to lower the engine thrust line (not generally possible by much, due to the propeller diameter), or in most cases, to raise the pilot and cabin higher.
The other big push has been for the inclusion of a horizontal stabilizer in the gyro...which many designs (eg, brock, etc) haven't had.
The buntover isn't a true airflow reversal with a stop to autorotation so much as it is a flattening of the disc. While yes, with a significant airflow reversal one does lose the autorotative driving force, buntover mishaps have been a function of loss of control rather than loss of rotor RPM. Generally the gyro is very good at maintaining RPM without much pilot in put. You can pull back the stick and load the disc and increase the thrust somewhat, but you'll climb and it becomes self regulating. Climb until you can't climb any more, rotor RPM stays about the same. Chop the power and descend vertically or with forward motion, the vertical speed changes, but the rotor RPM stays surprisingly consistant.
Think of the gyro as having the collective lowered all the time. Most don't have one, of course (a few do, must those are primarily a crude two position of limited travel collective for jump takeoffs). Properly designed the gyro is fairly hard to screw up.
The other big push has been for the inclusion of a horizontal stabilizer in the gyro...which many designs (eg, brock, etc) haven't had.
The buntover isn't a true airflow reversal with a stop to autorotation so much as it is a flattening of the disc. While yes, with a significant airflow reversal one does lose the autorotative driving force, buntover mishaps have been a function of loss of control rather than loss of rotor RPM. Generally the gyro is very good at maintaining RPM without much pilot in put. You can pull back the stick and load the disc and increase the thrust somewhat, but you'll climb and it becomes self regulating. Climb until you can't climb any more, rotor RPM stays about the same. Chop the power and descend vertically or with forward motion, the vertical speed changes, but the rotor RPM stays surprisingly consistant.
Think of the gyro as having the collective lowered all the time. Most don't have one, of course (a few do, must those are primarily a crude two position of limited travel collective for jump takeoffs). Properly designed the gyro is fairly hard to screw up.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also not sure I get where your heading with the CG/Thrust line couple? The two normally have nothing to do with each other.
High thrust line = Power Push Over when the rotor is unloaded.
The RAF 2000 is an excellent example of this as shown by its history of PPO accidents, all of which were fatal for the occupants.
