Gyrocopters/Autogyros
I have about 35 hrs in Gyrocopters and my father in law has about 100 hrs in them.
We had Air Command gyro´s www.aircommand.com which we used actually for seismic work! Now we have a JetRanger and RAF gyro.
Gyro´s are not dangerous aircraft in any way, its just the people that fly them that cause accidents mostly due to inexperience and lack of training.
We had Air Command gyro´s www.aircommand.com which we used actually for seismic work! Now we have a JetRanger and RAF gyro.
Gyro´s are not dangerous aircraft in any way, its just the people that fly them that cause accidents mostly due to inexperience and lack of training.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aesir,
thanks a lot, that's the kind of comment i appreciate. very valuable.
Can you tell more about your use of gyro please ?
Thanks
Martin : Aesir proved i can be optimistic...
thanks a lot, that's the kind of comment i appreciate. very valuable.
Can you tell more about your use of gyro please ?
Thanks
Martin : Aesir proved i can be optimistic...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
thanks, I know this forum, and you maybe know I know.
The goal of my question is to find out why gyros have such a problem to be known to the air-public and overall to have the opinion of air-people themselves.
Thanks
thanks, I know this forum, and you maybe know I know.
The goal of my question is to find out why gyros have such a problem to be known to the air-public and overall to have the opinion of air-people themselves.
Thanks
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretically they appear to be very safe...but the accident rates are pretty horrendous. So why? And why lack of training - they get a PPL like everyone else.
I did a couple of hours in one, way back, and they're lots of fun.
I did a couple of hours in one, way back, and they're lots of fun.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Gyros?
They are loverly.
As on this link here:
http://www.netcooks.com/recipes/Sandwiches/Gyros.html
They are loverly.
As on this link here:
http://www.netcooks.com/recipes/Sandwiches/Gyros.html
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pleasure to ses that the safety feature (or supposed to be) comes in mind quite quickly.
some spoted the main problem : the training and secondly, the building.
get on gents !
I just need to know whether your opinion is good or bad and why..
The reason for that is that gyros are under-developped in the recreationnal and sport piloting but, strangely, at the same, time, this aircraft is the one closer to the Ultralight or VLA spirit : low landing speeds, low weight, tolerance to "amateur" building".
why don't we see more gyros (i ask this to the choppers and Fidex wings people). and Why are they banned or avoided by airports..
Whirlybird : what is your impression about those supposed high rates of accidents. thanks
thanks for your help
some spoted the main problem : the training and secondly, the building.
get on gents !
I just need to know whether your opinion is good or bad and why..
The reason for that is that gyros are under-developped in the recreationnal and sport piloting but, strangely, at the same, time, this aircraft is the one closer to the Ultralight or VLA spirit : low landing speeds, low weight, tolerance to "amateur" building".
why don't we see more gyros (i ask this to the choppers and Fidex wings people). and Why are they banned or avoided by airports..
Whirlybird : what is your impression about those supposed high rates of accidents. thanks
thanks for your help
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gyro data
Hi there,can i direct you to our company web site-www.magnigyro.com-you will find details there of our comprehensive range of Autogyros and will only be too glad to answer any questions that you have. Training is an area where much criticsm has been leveled but with the imenent certification of our M16-2000 two seat tandem trainer there will be scope to make improvements in this area.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeeoo,
IMHO the reason why autogiros are under-developed in the commercial/recreational sector is because they are neither one thing nor another.
They cannot hover or take off vertically, so they cannot fly point-to-point as a helicopter can. However, they are not particularly good aeroplanes either - poor forward flight performance and relatively poor handling qualities. They can of-course fly very slowly and have excellent STOL capability without being overly sensitive to gusts, but is that really important for a recreational vehicle? Where could you go (realistically) that a STOL aeroplane couldn't?
I think the fact of the matter is the autogiro, is a bit of a mongrel that doesn't do enough of anything specific to have a clear market to go after. If a nice cheap one was available, why would you buy it rather than a micro-light aeroplane, which is arguably safer and easier to fly - and will definitely be less expensive to operate.
Autogiros are interesting from a high speed flight point of view, there is much work, past and present that suggests that autogiros, or hybrid helicopter/autogiros may hold some potential for increasing the forward flight speed capability of rotary wing aircraft without the cost and complexity of the tilt-rotor configuration. However, this does not have much relevance tp a kit/recreational craft.
In short, I think the question the 'customers' would have difficulty reconciling with themselves is simply:
'What's the point of having a rotor if it can't hover or take of vertically?'
The autogiro has some characteristics that are desirable, but unfortunately the mix of characteristics does not really satisfy the need of any particular market completely. In addition, both helicopters and aeroplanes can do pretty much everything an autogiro can; so what’s its unique selling point?
This is why I believe that machine hasn't found widespread application and probably won't in the future. Though, the relatively low cost and complexity in rotary wing terms will ensure it continues to be a cult favourite amongst rotary homebuilders.
Hope this helps
CRAN
IMHO the reason why autogiros are under-developed in the commercial/recreational sector is because they are neither one thing nor another.
They cannot hover or take off vertically, so they cannot fly point-to-point as a helicopter can. However, they are not particularly good aeroplanes either - poor forward flight performance and relatively poor handling qualities. They can of-course fly very slowly and have excellent STOL capability without being overly sensitive to gusts, but is that really important for a recreational vehicle? Where could you go (realistically) that a STOL aeroplane couldn't?
I think the fact of the matter is the autogiro, is a bit of a mongrel that doesn't do enough of anything specific to have a clear market to go after. If a nice cheap one was available, why would you buy it rather than a micro-light aeroplane, which is arguably safer and easier to fly - and will definitely be less expensive to operate.
Autogiros are interesting from a high speed flight point of view, there is much work, past and present that suggests that autogiros, or hybrid helicopter/autogiros may hold some potential for increasing the forward flight speed capability of rotary wing aircraft without the cost and complexity of the tilt-rotor configuration. However, this does not have much relevance tp a kit/recreational craft.
In short, I think the question the 'customers' would have difficulty reconciling with themselves is simply:
'What's the point of having a rotor if it can't hover or take of vertically?'
The autogiro has some characteristics that are desirable, but unfortunately the mix of characteristics does not really satisfy the need of any particular market completely. In addition, both helicopters and aeroplanes can do pretty much everything an autogiro can; so what’s its unique selling point?
This is why I believe that machine hasn't found widespread application and probably won't in the future. Though, the relatively low cost and complexity in rotary wing terms will ensure it continues to be a cult favourite amongst rotary homebuilders.
Hope this helps
CRAN
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, Cran, valuable opinions are always apreciated.
many points among those you rise are true, like the fact that a gyro (actually) doesnt do something particular a FW or HELI does.
But you told about STOL capabilities... the simple ability to land with a vertical rate under 2 and flare on a little spot IS a big safety feature..
About hovering.. as you may know, i am around something with a rotor for somes years.. and i finally found the cost between a gyro and an helicopter ( for an amateur recreationnal purpose) is not worth the few minutes you spend hovering at take off or landing with an helicopter..
Hovering is the great HELI myth but in the real usage, exepted for a pure hovering usage, hovering is not that used and not that recommendable.. am i wrong ? most helicopters spend 99 % time performing a flight that a FW could perform far better.
Btw after some investigations, i have the belief that the gyro manoeuvrability is the same or better than a small chopper (i have a particular exemple for cattle mustering in OZ).
Saying that a gyro can't perform cross country travels is not, IMO, that true, but you can say that there are so few models able to do that... not because of the gyro character but because of the availability of an appropriate model.
You said the choice of an ultralight is the good choice, i agree in the fact that it is less problematic (better training facilities etc).
But the gyros have the same potential for this use, UL not being specially designed for cross country.
I think the gyros miss an adequate information, training facilities... they also need some "rumours and impressions" to be killed. and overall a flyable, sellable model.
thanks for your post Cran.
Victor
many points among those you rise are true, like the fact that a gyro (actually) doesnt do something particular a FW or HELI does.
But you told about STOL capabilities... the simple ability to land with a vertical rate under 2 and flare on a little spot IS a big safety feature..
About hovering.. as you may know, i am around something with a rotor for somes years.. and i finally found the cost between a gyro and an helicopter ( for an amateur recreationnal purpose) is not worth the few minutes you spend hovering at take off or landing with an helicopter..
Hovering is the great HELI myth but in the real usage, exepted for a pure hovering usage, hovering is not that used and not that recommendable.. am i wrong ? most helicopters spend 99 % time performing a flight that a FW could perform far better.
Btw after some investigations, i have the belief that the gyro manoeuvrability is the same or better than a small chopper (i have a particular exemple for cattle mustering in OZ).
Saying that a gyro can't perform cross country travels is not, IMO, that true, but you can say that there are so few models able to do that... not because of the gyro character but because of the availability of an appropriate model.
You said the choice of an ultralight is the good choice, i agree in the fact that it is less problematic (better training facilities etc).
But the gyros have the same potential for this use, UL not being specially designed for cross country.
I think the gyros miss an adequate information, training facilities... they also need some "rumours and impressions" to be killed. and overall a flyable, sellable model.
thanks for your post Cran.
Victor
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Auto gyros can probably do 80% of what a helicopter can do for about a third of the cost. It's a matter of whether the other 20% is worth the extra 2/3rds.....
Try typing "Groen Brothers" into Google. Some interesting stuff going on.
Try typing "Groen Brothers" into Google. Some interesting stuff going on.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks shytorque,
don't foget I am a gyro fan, is just try to point out what are the "myths" and "impressions" commonly spread in the whole air-people.
I finally came to the same conclusion as you... 2/3 extra cost for 1/3 extra capabilities are not justified in most of the cases , except for some SAR ops, mil ops, sling works or so.
I think also that the most of the light gyros suffer an obsolete design (i dont talk about groen, or carter), reviewing the gyros design ina modern way should be of interest, that's what i try to do at my humble level.
Thanks
don't foget I am a gyro fan, is just try to point out what are the "myths" and "impressions" commonly spread in the whole air-people.
I finally came to the same conclusion as you... 2/3 extra cost for 1/3 extra capabilities are not justified in most of the cases , except for some SAR ops, mil ops, sling works or so.
I think also that the most of the light gyros suffer an obsolete design (i dont talk about groen, or carter), reviewing the gyros design ina modern way should be of interest, that's what i try to do at my humble level.
Thanks
I'm not going to comment on the airworthiness of Gyros per ce, since there are others far better equipped to do so than I am.
But it is clear that in the UK, the gyroplane safety record is quite horrendous - sat around 1 fatal per 8,000 hours. I'd like to venture an opinion of why that is.
If you look at the UK gyroplane community it is small - around 250 aircraft, of which maybe half are in flying condition. This is spread around maybe half a dozen clubs, so there are perhaps 20 flyers in a typical club - and this is right across the country, so they aren't in very regular communication with each other.
Also you've got initial approvals being done by the CAA, in-service airworthiness by the PFA, pilot training oversight by another bit of the CAA; in other words various components of the "system" again not in routine communication with each other.
So the result, in my opinion, is that safety lessons - be they operational, design or maintenance are not being circulated and learned from. The gyroplane community in Britain almost certainly need to be far closer together than they are at the moment, with mechanisms for establishing and ensuring best practice set up and stuck to.
Once you've done that, any deeper issues with gyro safety can probably then start to be dealt with, but at the moment the real problems (in my opinion) aren't really with the basic design of the gyroplane.
G
But it is clear that in the UK, the gyroplane safety record is quite horrendous - sat around 1 fatal per 8,000 hours. I'd like to venture an opinion of why that is.
If you look at the UK gyroplane community it is small - around 250 aircraft, of which maybe half are in flying condition. This is spread around maybe half a dozen clubs, so there are perhaps 20 flyers in a typical club - and this is right across the country, so they aren't in very regular communication with each other.
Also you've got initial approvals being done by the CAA, in-service airworthiness by the PFA, pilot training oversight by another bit of the CAA; in other words various components of the "system" again not in routine communication with each other.
So the result, in my opinion, is that safety lessons - be they operational, design or maintenance are not being circulated and learned from. The gyroplane community in Britain almost certainly need to be far closer together than they are at the moment, with mechanisms for establishing and ensuring best practice set up and stuck to.
Once you've done that, any deeper issues with gyro safety can probably then start to be dealt with, but at the moment the real problems (in my opinion) aren't really with the basic design of the gyroplane.
G
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gengis,
I think you pointed the good (bad) points.
confidentiality is also a problem.. A healthy and communicating community is also a key for success. I would add that Europ misses a good reprentative organization to promote and educate air people, but also to provide the gyro people appropriate communication, safety, building and training issues. Alas, every valuable person, most of the time, tries to get in gyro-business and retains the infos and doesn't participate without commercial intentions ( see tha MAGNI ad left on this thread , thanks mr Magni, we know who is magni and where the magni comes from..).
Thank you
I think you pointed the good (bad) points.
confidentiality is also a problem.. A healthy and communicating community is also a key for success. I would add that Europ misses a good reprentative organization to promote and educate air people, but also to provide the gyro people appropriate communication, safety, building and training issues. Alas, every valuable person, most of the time, tries to get in gyro-business and retains the infos and doesn't participate without commercial intentions ( see tha MAGNI ad left on this thread , thanks mr Magni, we know who is magni and where the magni comes from..).
Thank you
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with CRAN 99.9%
Compare the specifications of the STOL CH 701 to a similar gyrocopter.
Perhaps unlike CRAN, I am more skeptical about the CarterCopter, IMHO, no rotorcraft, gyrocopter or helicopter, with 'loosy-goose' blades is going to be able to provide significantly faster forward speeds.
Dave J.
Compare the specifications of the STOL CH 701 to a similar gyrocopter.
Perhaps unlike CRAN, I am more skeptical about the CarterCopter, IMHO, no rotorcraft, gyrocopter or helicopter, with 'loosy-goose' blades is going to be able to provide significantly faster forward speeds.
Dave J.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: south of France
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
you are comparing apples with oranges. Witch gyro could you compare to a CH701?
I flew the CH701 for a try, it has good low speed capabilities, but, while a gyro stills manoeuvrable at min speed, every FW is dangerous (try a 180 at low speed or try to tickle the rudders a little much).
each aircraft as its boundaries and limitations.
The gyros has no been designed for high forward speeds, the FW keeping an adantage but not that much if you compare them to the most of UL.
Building a CH701 kit is not the same as building a gyro kit (faster, easier).
The main advantage of UL FW is their range and efficiency not really much.
I am more and more convinced that one of the major disadvantages of a gyro is, actually, it's reputation and a favorable factor you underestimate is : passion... or how could you explain the private r22 fleet ? utility ? no.
to compare the 3 types of aircraft, maybe we should compare them on various missions and uses:
recreationnal, cross country etc etc etc
Thanks
you are comparing apples with oranges. Witch gyro could you compare to a CH701?
I flew the CH701 for a try, it has good low speed capabilities, but, while a gyro stills manoeuvrable at min speed, every FW is dangerous (try a 180 at low speed or try to tickle the rudders a little much).
each aircraft as its boundaries and limitations.
The gyros has no been designed for high forward speeds, the FW keeping an adantage but not that much if you compare them to the most of UL.
Building a CH701 kit is not the same as building a gyro kit (faster, easier).
The main advantage of UL FW is their range and efficiency not really much.
I am more and more convinced that one of the major disadvantages of a gyro is, actually, it's reputation and a favorable factor you underestimate is : passion... or how could you explain the private r22 fleet ? utility ? no.
to compare the 3 types of aircraft, maybe we should compare them on various missions and uses:
recreationnal, cross country etc etc etc
Thanks
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cross country
If you have any reason to doubt the cross country capability of our machines then you might be intrested to note that basicaly a stock VPM M16 Autogyro was flown non stop from Lands End to Wick in just under seven and one half hours and has crossed over water approx 600 miles. This is surley worth a mention. A check of the history books will show that a much lamented Autogyro, the Westlands/Fairey Rotordyne was in the fifties giving lifting proformance in excess of the modern Chinook. It was a victim of ecconomics at the time and not technology limitations. Speaking of limitations, you will find that an Autogyro can be safely flown in conditions that would proclude the use of a weight shift or three axis microlight. Readingthe rather good "The lives of Ken Wallis" will open your eyes when you read about some of the weather he has flown through.