Autogyros
 

Having watched ‘Salvage Squad’ on TV this week where the team re-built an autogyro, and having read Wing Commander Wallis’s letter in this month’s ‘Pilot’ on how efficient they are, I have few questions:

· Why are they not more popular, especially in the weight-shift microlight market, where they appear to have many advantages including better performance and easier hangarage with no de-rigging needed?

· Are they safe? A few years ago there were a number of fatal accidents. Why?

· I understand that they MUST be subject to positive ‘G’ at all times. Negative ‘G’ will slow the rotor to unrecoverable levels and may bend the blades down so that they hit the structure. Either of these conditions results in fatal accident. I’ve been in turbulence in light aircraft which has resulted in quite sharp negative ‘G’ excursions (helmet hitting canopy top despite tight straps etc). How would a gyro handle this?

Can anyone answer the above, and /or supply further info on gyros?

Cheers

SSD

I've always fancied an autogyro too. Little Nellie come back, all is forgiven :)

Met W/C & Mrs. Wallis once. Charming couple. He still has all the autogyros he's built!!

Anyway, back to topic. They do seem to be getting more popular. The RAF 2000 looks like a nice machine. There was an article in Popular Flying a while back about autogyros. Seems that a lot of the earlier ones flew with McCollouch drone engines which were less than reliable and some machines had a problem with the thrust line not being in the optimum place(?).

Regarding negative g in turbulence, wouldn't the blades take the reduced lift into account by changing pitch (help here please Whirly) thus maintaining the load the hub "sees"? Something must happen or the place would be littered with folded up autogyros on a bumpy day <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Still, they do look like loads of fun. Must investigate further.

I think you have answered your Question 1 with part of Question 2. I suspect the lack of popularity has something to do with the spate of accidents a few years back. But I've long been interestd in autogyros and they do seem to have many advantages and few disadvantages.

Thye are generally much quicker and cheaper to build than a light aircraft, so they are very much in the Microlight cost bracket. They can operate from smaller fields than light aircraft. As you say, they are much easier to store. They tend to be very simple machines, which keeps the costs down and makes them more reliable.

Downsides are:

Speed - they are generally quite slow. It's difficult to find a homebuilt gyro with cruising speed much above 70kts.. . . .Comfort - enclosed Gyros with cabin heaters are relative few and far between. And the RAF 2000 (which does have such luxuries) has a particular problem in that it is too noisy.

Lack of Training Facilities - finding an instructor and a two seat Gyro is not so easy as to encourage lots of people to have a go to see if it is something they like.

But having seen them in action, I would definitely like to add Gyroplane rating to my PPL.

[ 17 February 2002: Message edited by: tacpot ]</p>

Just take a trip to Henstridge in Somerset sometime -it seems to have developed into the home of autogyros.

Love the concept, but not sure if u would get me up in one!!

DOC

I had a couple of trial gyro lessons a while back, when I was looking for a cheap rotary alternative. They are great fun, and theoretically very safe; auto-rotations are unbelievably tame; you just sort of float slowly down to earth. The main drawback in my opinion is that they only come as kits, and I wouldn't trust either my own or someone else's self-build skills in something with that many moving parts. I haven't studied the accident causes in detail, but I do seem to remember that quite a few were caused by rotors falling apart or bits falling off. I think negative g is something you have to be careful of, but not a major problem if you're sensible, like in R22s. And I think it's because of the likelihood of mast bumping, again like in helis, but I'm not certain of that LowNSlow. The RAF 2000 is lovely to look at, but very cramped inside, relatively expensive, only cruises at 70kts, and is even twitchier to fly than an R22. Though I did only try to fly one for about ten minutes in a gusty crosswind, so that last bit may be an exaggeration. But if someone would sort out the problems with noise and produce a factory built version, I'd love one all the same!

There was an article in Todays Pilot a while back about Autogyros - can't remember quite when, but it had an Extra 300 on the cover. Looked like fun, but I'm not brave enough for that...

IIRC, many of the accidents were associated with people buying, homebuilding and then flying them from their back garden (so to speak) with little or no training or quality control. I think it may have been a single - cheap? - type (which remains banned) but I'm not how reliable my memory is. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

<img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Just did a bit of searching, and found the following statistic:

[quote]

Well 1999 was a good year - there were no gyroplane fatalities. . .&lt;snip&gt; . .From 1989 to 1999 (11 full years) there were 12 fatalities ... that makes one fatality per 687.5 flying hours

<hr></blockquote>

Full text is <a href="http://www.ultralightaccidents.org/ULA_Gyros.htm#_Toc506199662" target="_blank">here</a>, to see where these figures came from. Sobering stuff if they are accurate...

[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Evo7 ]</p>

The CAA figures are 1 fatal Gyro accident per 8000 flying hours vs 1 fatal SEP accident per 71000 hours. (Good job I went to that CAA Safety Evening last night - cheers David, very timely)

But as it was pointed out, the sample size is so small for gyros, that one or two accidents skew the statistics totally.

Whirly, . . Where did you do your trial lesson? I have this strange desire...........to fly in as many different types of flying machines as possible and autogiro is definitely a new type.

By 'types' I mean a glider, a balloon, a helicopter, a prop, a jet etc, etc. but to make it more interesting, I'm trying for single, twin and multi prop & jet, supersonic etc.

Who has control,

Roger Savage, who operates out of Carlisle, is one of only 7 gyro instructors in the country. He has a very good reputation, and I found him a good instructor (a bit sexist, but that's another story). He also flies both f/w aircraft and helicopters; has around 3000 hours TT. I'm supposed to be working, but if you nag me enough I might be able to find his phone number. Otherwise find the British Rotorcraft Association's website - do a search - and details of all gyro instructors are there.

Yes I fancy having a go at flying everything too. So far I've managed f/w light aircraft, helicopters, microlights (3-axis), gliders, gyroplanes, balloons (tethered flight only though, doesn't really count), and hang-gliders. Got to try weightshift microlights, paragliding, and probably one or two I've forgotten. What have you flown and how were they?

[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: Whirlybird ]</p>

Roger Savage is at

<a href="http://www.rogersavage.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.rogersavage.co.uk/</a>

Thanks Whirly, I'll store that for future reference.

I have to confess that 'fly' in this case means 'fly IN' not PIC.

I've not formalised a serious list, but I supose it would be, (in no fixed order):- parachute, paramotor, hang-glider, microlight, balloon, glider, prop (single to 4-engine), ditto biplanes, jet (single to 4-eng), hovercraft, helicopter, autogiro, floatplane, flying boat and supersonic.

Its the scary bits of cloth at the beginning of the list that I need to try, as well as well as 3 & 4 engined monoplane and biplane, single jet, anything that floats and autogiro.

Hi All:

Whirly is correct, they are fabulous machines if correctly designed and built and you are properly trained and use good flying judgement.

The Gyroplane is very different from a helicopter and the physics of gyro flight has some very real limits the most important of which is vertical thrust line and proper stabalizing devices such as an effective verticle fin and rudder. Also there "must" be an effective horizontal stabalizer.

The RAF 2000 in its stock configuration has a vertical thrust offset of approx. 10 inches above the vertical center of gravity. It also has no horizontal stabalizer. Therefore it is very unstable in pitch and moderately unstable in yaw.

A properly designed Gyroplane is much more able to contend with rough air than a light airplane due to the rotor vs. wing flight characteristics

For anyone wishing to learn more about Gyroplanes go to <a href="http://www.rotorcraft.com" target="_blank">www.rotorcraft.com</a> there you can find everything you need to learn about Gyroplanes.

Roger Savage is another excellent contact and he may have hit on Whirly but he didn't hit on me so there. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ( maybe she has something I don't ) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

By the way I own a RAF 2000 and am redesigning it for safety reasons. I also hold a U.S.A. Commercial Gyroplane License among other trivia.. .................. . :) The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :)