On the subject of safety, it’s worth mentioning that tractor auto gyros have an almost perfect safety record over almost a century of their existence. Whereas pushers are quite the opposite, in large part due to the popularity of the Benson, which did not have the thrust line of the prop aligned with the center of gravity, leading to the risk of powered push over (or “bunting” as you call it). Pushers have an additional issue in that the prop must be shorter, and less efficient, and the prop ends up closer to the rotor, increasing chances of a rotor strike in an unloaded rotor situation. And in the event of an accident the pilot being where he is may be the first thing to hit the ground, followed by the heavy engine in his back. I honestly think that a large part of the popularity of pushers is strongly reinforced by the rather childish desire to look like a helicopter, whereas tractors look more like aircraft without wings.
This is incorrect technically. There are not many gyroplanes doing the powered pushover (PPO) bunt any longer. That was when some older gyroplane models that were very high thrust line but also did not have a horizontal stabilizer. That is not the case any longer. There are no production gyroplanes with tractor configuration so you comment of a century of existence is not correct. They did not exist for a century. Tractor gyroplanes are less maneuverable and you cannot do maneuvers in them like you can in the typical pusher configuration. PPO is hardly the cause of fatal accidents today. You are 15 years behind the times on this.
@@abidfarooqui4899 beg to differ, there's not many tractors, but for example the little wings have been around for decades, so the statement IS correct... and I did mention that the problem with PPO was most acute with Bensons... In any case, tractors are safer... and hold altitude and distance records...
@@PRH123 Show me Little Wings flying. 6 years manufacturing gyroplanes and I have yet to see "one" flying anywhere. In other words if very few fly very rarely, it is easy to have less accidents
@@abidfarooqui4899 Actually you're wrong too. The Bensen has proper CG vs thrustline line. It was a machine with a very short mast and most importantly it had 3 degrees of downthrust. Most dominator style machines have zero degrees downthrust. Thrustline vs CG is a factor of the vector of thrust in relation to the CG. The trouble is most people thought what's the point of pointing the prop at the ground some and ignored it. Look at the early gyros they all had around 5 degree + downthrust that was for a reason. Now lots of Bensen's did end up unloading the rotor disk inspite of this. So is it the stabilisers? No it won't stop it either. All you need to do to unload your rotor is push the blades past the point where the disk is level they will at this point stop in about 2 seconds and you will fly straight through the rotor. Yes having downthrust is important and yes you can achieve the same thing by raising the seat to shift the cg. but it will not stop you unloading your rotor. Neither will stabilisers. In Australia stabilisers were mandated, you cant get one registered without one. Did it stop people unloading the rotor? NUP. It just means ever fatal accident now happens with a machine fitted with a stabiliser. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Death rate is just as high as it ever was. Same with high cg vs thrustline machines. At my club a few of us one weekend were trying to convince a boastful student not to try to take his new high cg tall tail, massive HS machine up over 100knots. He had 5 solo and was boasting he was going to crack 100knots the next weekend. Several of us explained he was at significant risk of fatally unloading his disk. He assured us this would not happen because of the high CG vs thrustline and Stabiliser. We argued it would not stop it but he ignored us. The next weekend he unloaded that machine at 1500ft at 95knots (his GPS was recovered) it was windy conditions and he was flying around some hills and ridges and likely overcontrolled in response to an updraft. He stopped chopped his HS off the rudder with his own rotors and apparently his body was found minus one leg about 50ft from the fuselage with wreckage spread over some distance before that. There is a real easy test you can do to prove idiot proof devices you could take any given machine up to 100knots or more and punch the stick forward real hard. If it doesn't unload and kill you you have an idiot proof machine. Funnily enough I've never met a CFI or Instructor willing to try that out. Wonder why? So until someone selling you on this device or that I'd scale my confidence in its success or safety not based on nebulous claims of safety but look for proof. In the meantime the real issue which is lack or appropriate training and pilot discipline is the opportunity cost that has killed hundreds and the real reason that the sport is dying.
@@cameronlapworth2284 The way I love sporty a d futuristic looking gyros I was looking forward to owning one in about a year or two, but this answer dampened my spirits.
FWIW: A *very few* autogyros can do what is called a *_"jump takeoff,"_* but they must immediately translate into forward flight. They cannot hover. They must also be designed and built with rotor blades that have adjustable pitch, which standard autogyros do not have. Having such a capability makes them more complex, similar to a helicopter. ALSO FWIW: I first saw *YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE* on TV {probably} in the 1970s, and as soon as I saw _"Little Nellie"_ I was _fascinated_ with autogyros. I still am today.
The Air and Space 18A is a Jump takeoff gyroplane. It and the McCulloch J2 were the only FAA certified gyroplanes for a very long time. Most others were experimental category aircraft. There is an A&S 18 A at the air museum at Cape May NJ. Along with it is A McCulloch J2 N4326G which was mine that I donated after my health caused me to stop flying. These are very capable safe rotorcraft. The notorious RAF2000 was a dangerous gyro due to high thrust line and no Horizontal stabilizer. They will porpoise and if not controlled will bunt. I have over 30hrs in the RAF which was my training until I purchased the J2. Clear Skies!
I flew my Magni 16 for more than 700 hours in 8 years, not a single problem. As with any aircraft training is important as well as practicing emergencies.
Hu Mike a couple more corrections. 1 bunt over is simply what happens if you push the rotor disk forward far enough that the airflow is reversed this will stop the blades in about 2 seconds it happens if flying too fast. As the rotor is tilting behind the gyro the induced drag slows the aircraft. To increase speed you pitch forward too far and your dead. What happens to the airframe afterwards is in my opinion not relevant because once that rotor has stopped producing lift you have no recovery. Second it doesn't happen at low speeds the accident you showed was behind the power curve simply too much back stick with too little power to overcome the drag. These are rarely fatal but expensive and are always the result of poor training and or discipline. The rotor wind up procedure is also tricky until trained and this has been attempted to be mitigated by powerful prerotation of the blades but this too leads to blade flap or hinging when airspeed is too high for the retreating blade that hasn't been given sufficient time to wind up. The Australian Rotorcraft accident stat's were not helped by a couple of faulty rotors which lost their tip weights. But yes Almost no accidents get reported as they tend to be blade handelling accidents which usually cause no harm but they all indicate some issues with training and a lot of people trying to teach themselves to fly. Especially farmers who buy them as a cheaper alternative to choppers. You can built gyros much cheaper too. An open frame single seater will cost you $10-14 000 dollars with a small two stroke to build. I built my VW powered gyro 25 years ago for $2500. But you need time and help if you are not knowledgeable about building aircraft
I would expect that the high accident rate is probably due to their low cost which tends to mean there are not many professional pilots using them and training for those pilots that do use them is more limited (i.e. if you don't have a lot of money then you cannot afford a lot of training). Other aircraft that are cheap to buy and run tend also to have higher fatality rates than their more expensive counterparts.
The high accident rate is complicated but it mainly has to do with poor pilot training (often little or no pilot training). I was lucky in the days I learned to fly it was the wild wild west and there was very little in the way of good training. At the time my instructor was one of two who had access to a dual powered machine but more importantly we had access to a gyroglider (gyro with no engine towed behind a car). Training before dual powered machines was largely self taught or someone standing on the side of the strip watching you then giving you tips when you came back in. The gyroglider made this infinitely safer and combining this with dual and supervised ground running in your own gyro was crucial. Many gyros were poorly built (for example not putting down thrust on, getting the balance wrong etc). Our instructor test flew all our machines and had us make the machines safe before we progressed. One of the biggest issues was power to weight ratio. Most of us were flying direct drive VW's (the two stroke Mac) was too expensive and unreliable in Australia (unreliable everywhere but expensive to get here). So machines were generally under powered. The advent of the 532 rotax meant big props efficient props with redrives so a direct drive VW would have say a 52 inch prop and now with redrive you were turning a slower 60inch + prop and an engine that weighed literally 1/2 that of a VW and less than 1/2 a subraru. When the 582 came along you now had 62 hp in a 40kg engine which made two seat powered machines possible. Efficient wide chord rotors too. But the machines dual do not fly like the same machine solo. It goes from an under powered slug to a rocket ship. This is where the glider was helpful not only did you learn all the basics in a very cheap machine towed behind a car but solo in the glider is even lighter than a single seater and a solo gyroglider feels like a single seat machine when flying unlike a dual powered machine. That combined with hours doing ground runs getting used to balancing on the mains in your own machine small hops, bigger hops etc. Was the key. Others thought they could give all that away and actively campaigned against the glider. For one dual instructors were not going to make as much money if a student only did 3-5 hours dual powered which was typical when you combined glider and ground training. So people were spending 20-30 hours paying $120/hr (back then much more now) dual then jumping out of that machine into often a single seat machine which was essentially identical but only one seat so 1/3 less weight which mean going from say a climb rate of 300-500ft/min to 1000-1500ft/min on the same engine. It was murder there was a sudden spike in fatalities. The baby was thrown out with the bath water. Gone were the clubs and the gyrogliders and suddenly in comes the dual powered machines and more people where dying not less. At club I learned to fly at I never saw a single student over 15 years even destroy a set of rotor blades in training. Yes we had idiots go and do stupid things like fly through powerlines or do other dodgy stuff but in training I never saw a machine crashed. Other instructors meanwhile had multiple students die within 5 hours of finishing 20-30 hours dual training. I fear the advent of the more powerful 915 will see this sort of thing happen again because the average eurotub has lots of power but is increadibly heavy and the power to weight of the old machines with a Rotax or Mac is very high. If you don't believe me then look at the data on the Wallis machines flown off 20 ft blades, 116kg empty weight, and compare it to the modern eurotub powered by say a 912s or even 914. Now imagine it with two people and the performance is not really that much better than the old days. Shove 140hp and send a bloke solo and watch out. Need to have some careful training.
The dominator gyro fixed most of the bad side of gyros. To bad it's not made any more. Though the sparrowhawk 3 is similar and would be what I would get if I was buying a gyro.
I developed an interest in gyros a few years ago, I even have a friend who bought one. Today, I understand why these aircraft are quite uncommon and not commercially exploited. They are slow, noisy, expensive, consume a lot and their only advantage is to land short. But many planes land just as short while having none of the disadvantages of gyros... and they take off much shorter !
Low and slow flight, great for observation platforms, they don’t consume as much as you think. Extremely short take off and if you want a STOL plane, you’ll spend far more than you would on a gyro. They are always in auto rotation, that’s a huge advantage in an emergency, they can land with zero roll and with a 15kt headwind (depending on pre rotation) take off very close to zero roll. I hold a PPL/IFR/VFR and own my second gyro, as far as I’m concerned gyros are safer and far less expensive to maintain. Most mistakes seem to be made by high time fixed or rotor pilots, gyros are a different animal.
@@XRakkgruntX Gyros are not safer, it's the opposite (accident statistics prove it), they are very sensitive to negative load factors. And I can't see why they are "far less" expensive to maintain ! They have the same engine as light plane, have a propeller just like light planes and have a rotor that light planes don't have...
Your wrong about yaw stability. Pusher gyros are not unstable in yaw. You can fly hands and feet off for extended periods of time. The good thing about pusher gyros is the prop blast over the rudder gives excellent rudder authority even Al low speeds
on the helicopter, the "blades" are know as rotary wings, not blades at the top, on a helicopter, the rotary wings cause a lower air pressure over them which causes the helicopter to rise and move in any direction... Not trying to bust your chops, just friendly correction...lol
One issue about autogyro safety {at least in the USA} was until the 1980s or 1990s -- I am NOT sure of the date -- there was no _'official'_ training system approved by the F.A.A. {Federal Aviation Administration}. That meant there were no CFIs {Certified Flight Instructors} available for training, unlike fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.
The coolest looking gyro, imo, is the xenon autogyro, i would def want to fly a xenon if i could afford to ... It is also supposedly more maneuverable than many competitors. Another one i really like because of its quirky aesthetic and solid stability is the sparrowhawk gryo, really cool gyro i would also fly if i could afford to ... Anyway, cheers.
Ummm, no, helicopter blades are airfoils that rotate to generate lift. They don’t “pull air down.” They create the same positive pressure on the underneath and the much higher airspeed over the top of the blade which reduces the air pressure as in a regular fixed wing aircraft moving forward in the atmosphere.
Interesting idea, but not necessary; an autograph I'd capable of landing exactly the same as a parachute very little area on the ground needed. Helicopters that lose engine power in flight use the same technique in what is called an autorotation.
Hi there Mike i love all your videos. The skycycle gyroplane, part motorcycle part Gyro has folding rotor blades. Why dont other gyroplanes adopt this method for easy transport on trailer.
I enjoyed your video. HOWEVER..me being quite unfamiliar w/gyrocopter types + companies; it would have be REALLY helpful to have added AND shown the manufacturer + name/model of each one you showed. I could not write down all their respect names. Thanks. Marc
Ken Wallis who broke all those records you see here, former RAF, all 7 foot of him, invented the new type of mini gyros of today as demonstrated here also as he was addicted to flying. He was in 007 with his fave one in Japan and almost froze from t-shirt flying over many takes for the film :-y Cierva invented the plane type earlier, much larger and quite as successful as the Wallis concept nowadays favoured
They’ve come a long way since the days of Ken Wallis. I’m a fixed wing pilot. Stalling and spinning is not a problem for fixed wing aircraft, neither is it a major killer. The one thing student pilots have drummed into their heads is to never let the airspeed get low especially in a low descending turn such as when turning from base leg onto final approach. Stalling, spinning and recovery is part of the basic flight training that ever student pilot does. After gaining my licence I flew for twelve years and the only time I experienced a stall or spin was when I did them deliberately. This was always practiced at an altitude of 4000ft over open country. In 1970 there was a pilot killed in a autogyro at the farnborough air show. It was televised live and I saw it happen. This was because the pilot was used to fixed wing aircraft. He let the nose get too high in the climb and pushed the stick forward sharply to get the nose down. This caused the rotor blades to bend downwards striking the propellor and tail causing it to crash. I have always been interested in autogyros but that accident put me off flying one.
The aircraft has a ''pre-rotator'', essentially a drive to the rotor shaft that can be engaged to start the rotor spinning, to sufficient RPM to allow you to initiate take-off once the aircraft starts moving forward the rotor get spun by the air passing through it, like the sails on a windmill. The pre-rotator drive is disconnected with a clutch prior to take-off.
После обзора проблем этой схемы логично выглядит конвертовертолётоавтожир где рулевой винт в режиме классического вертолета поворачивался на 90 градусов и становился бы толкающим а сцепление размыкало несущий винт. Вертожир, конвертовертожир
I don’t think there’s any safe way of deploying a parachute as long as the rotors are still intact. I think they’d foil your lines with even a slight movement. Possibly with a tractor configuration where you could deploy a chute from the rear in a catastrophic failure and then land hard nose down. I’m curious if anyone else sees it differently. I know chutes have been available for some light fixed wings for a long time.
@@tjscott395 I have an idea but not sure if I should disclose it here then someone makes something out of it but I think my design overcomes the issue with ropes getting in the way of the rotors.
I saw Ken Wallace crash one of these in his 70's and walk away with some rather funny commentary. He flew out of it when it hit, but was fine. The Xeon's can land in 20 feet and has floats available as well. Not mentioned here there is a short shot of it @ 2:45 After I remembered that crash, i found it right here. ua-cam.com/video/pF4PvK4ylxs/v-deo.html As for the Xeon, an old one for side by side... no stall speed is what I like! ua-cam.com/video/IXjI81SuSKY/v-deo.html
They are the worst of both worlds. A slow plane and a helicopter that can’t hover. It is like three wheel motorcycle, can’t zip through traffic while sitting in the rain… Totally lame
On the contrary, it could be said its faster than a helicopter and requires much less runway than an airplane, it can also fly a lot lower for better scenic views. Its like a car, a lot more practical than a monster truck for daily use, and less dangerous than a motorcycle
Another "big microphone" that sounds horrible. A big microphone is also a give away to a poor quality video. This one is full of copied content and its obvious that he knows very little about gyroplanes or basic principle of flight. I'll give this clown a Thumbs down.
"they have a reputation of being unsafe". Who the fuck said that? All I've ever heard for years is that they are the safest of all flight machines. LMAO
On the subject of safety, it’s worth mentioning that tractor auto gyros have an almost perfect safety record over almost a century of their existence. Whereas pushers are quite the opposite, in large part due to the popularity of the Benson, which did not have the thrust line of the prop aligned with the center of gravity, leading to the risk of powered push over (or “bunting” as you call it). Pushers have an additional issue in that the prop must be shorter, and less efficient, and the prop ends up closer to the rotor, increasing chances of a rotor strike in an unloaded rotor situation. And in the event of an accident the pilot being where he is may be the first thing to hit the ground, followed by the heavy engine in his back. I honestly think that a large part of the popularity of pushers is strongly reinforced by the rather childish desire to look like a helicopter, whereas tractors look more like aircraft without wings.
This is incorrect technically. There are not many gyroplanes doing the powered pushover (PPO) bunt any longer. That was when some older gyroplane models that were very high thrust line but also did not have a horizontal stabilizer. That is not the case any longer. There are no production gyroplanes with tractor configuration so you comment of a century of existence is not correct. They did not exist for a century. Tractor gyroplanes are less maneuverable and you cannot do maneuvers in them like you can in the typical pusher configuration. PPO is hardly the cause of fatal accidents today. You are 15 years behind the times on this.
@@abidfarooqui4899 beg to differ, there's not many tractors, but for example the little wings have been around for decades, so the statement IS correct... and I did mention that the problem with PPO was most acute with Bensons... In any case, tractors are safer... and hold altitude and distance records...
@@PRH123 Show me Little Wings flying. 6 years manufacturing gyroplanes and I have yet to see "one" flying anywhere. In other words if very few fly very rarely, it is easy to have less accidents
@@abidfarooqui4899 Actually you're wrong too. The Bensen has proper CG vs thrustline line. It was a machine with a very short mast and most importantly it had 3 degrees of downthrust. Most dominator style machines have zero degrees downthrust. Thrustline vs CG is a factor of the vector of thrust in relation to the CG. The trouble is most people thought what's the point of pointing the prop at the ground some and ignored it.
Look at the early gyros they all had around 5 degree + downthrust that was for a reason.
Now lots of Bensen's did end up unloading the rotor disk inspite of this. So is it the stabilisers? No it won't stop it either. All you need to do to unload your rotor is push the blades past the point where the disk is level they will at this point stop in about 2 seconds and you will fly straight through the rotor.
Yes having downthrust is important and yes you can achieve the same thing by raising the seat to shift the cg. but it will not stop you unloading your rotor. Neither will stabilisers.
In Australia stabilisers were mandated, you cant get one registered without one. Did it stop people unloading the rotor? NUP. It just means ever fatal accident now happens with a machine fitted with a stabiliser. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Death rate is just as high as it ever was. Same with high cg vs thrustline machines. At my club a few of us one weekend were trying to convince a boastful student not to try to take his new high cg tall tail, massive HS machine up over 100knots. He had 5 solo and was boasting he was going to crack 100knots the next weekend. Several of us explained he was at significant risk of fatally unloading his disk. He assured us this would not happen because of the high CG vs thrustline and Stabiliser. We argued it would not stop it but he ignored us. The next weekend he unloaded that machine at 1500ft at 95knots (his GPS was recovered) it was windy conditions and he was flying around some hills and ridges and likely overcontrolled in response to an updraft. He stopped chopped his HS off the rudder with his own rotors and apparently his body was found minus one leg about 50ft from the fuselage with wreckage spread over some distance before that.
There is a real easy test you can do to prove idiot proof devices you could take any given machine up to 100knots or more and punch the stick forward real hard. If it doesn't unload and kill you you have an idiot proof machine. Funnily enough I've never met a CFI or Instructor willing to try that out. Wonder why? So until someone selling you on this device or that I'd scale my confidence in its success or safety not based on nebulous claims of safety but look for proof. In the meantime the real issue which is lack or appropriate training and pilot discipline is the opportunity cost that has killed hundreds and the real reason that the sport is dying.
@@cameronlapworth2284 The way I love sporty a d futuristic looking gyros I was looking forward to owning one in about a year or two, but this answer dampened my spirits.
FWIW: A *very few* autogyros can do what is called a *_"jump takeoff,"_* but they must immediately translate into forward flight. They cannot hover. They must also be designed and built with rotor blades that have adjustable pitch, which standard autogyros do not have. Having such a capability makes them more complex, similar to a helicopter.
ALSO FWIW: I first saw *YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE* on TV {probably} in the 1970s, and as soon as I saw _"Little Nellie"_ I was _fascinated_ with autogyros. I still am today.
That's also how I first fell in love with autogyros.
The Air and Space 18A is a Jump takeoff gyroplane. It and the McCulloch J2 were the only FAA certified gyroplanes for a very long time. Most others were experimental category aircraft. There is an A&S 18 A at the air museum at Cape May NJ. Along with it is A McCulloch J2 N4326G which was mine that I donated after my health caused me to stop flying. These are very capable safe rotorcraft. The notorious RAF2000 was a dangerous gyro due to high thrust line and no Horizontal stabilizer. They will porpoise and if not controlled will bunt. I have over 30hrs in the RAF which was my training until I purchased the J2.
Clear Skies!
I flew my Magni 16 for more than 700 hours in 8 years, not a single problem. As with any aircraft training is important as well as practicing emergencies.
Well then its because you arent JFK jr. 😂
One of my favorites not mentioned is the airliner-sized Fairey Rotodyne from the UK. Unfortunately, no models remain. But, it is quite a story.
Hu Mike a couple more corrections. 1 bunt over is simply what happens if you push the rotor disk forward far enough that the airflow is reversed this will stop the blades in about 2 seconds it happens if flying too fast. As the rotor is tilting behind the gyro the induced drag slows the aircraft. To increase speed you pitch forward too far and your dead. What happens to the airframe afterwards is in my opinion not relevant because once that rotor has stopped producing lift you have no recovery. Second it doesn't happen at low speeds the accident you showed was behind the power curve simply too much back stick with too little power to overcome the drag. These are rarely fatal but expensive and are always the result of poor training and or discipline.
The rotor wind up procedure is also tricky until trained and this has been attempted to be mitigated by powerful prerotation of the blades but this too leads to blade flap or hinging when airspeed is too high for the retreating blade that hasn't been given sufficient time to wind up.
The Australian Rotorcraft accident stat's were not helped by a couple of faulty rotors which lost their tip weights. But yes Almost no accidents get reported as they tend to be blade handelling accidents which usually cause no harm but they all indicate some issues with training and a lot of people trying to teach themselves to fly. Especially farmers who buy them as a cheaper alternative to choppers. You can built gyros much cheaper too. An open frame single seater will cost you $10-14 000 dollars with a small two stroke to build. I built my VW powered gyro 25 years ago for $2500. But you need time and help if you are not knowledgeable about building aircraft
I'm interested in building my own gyro sometime, but how safe is a self built gyro?
I would expect that the high accident rate is probably due to their low cost which tends to mean there are not many professional pilots using them and training for those pilots that do use them is more limited (i.e. if you don't have a lot of money then you cannot afford a lot of training). Other aircraft that are cheap to buy and run tend also to have higher fatality rates than their more expensive counterparts.
The high accident rate is complicated but it mainly has to do with poor pilot training (often little or no pilot training). I was lucky in the days I learned to fly it was the wild wild west and there was very little in the way of good training. At the time my instructor was one of two who had access to a dual powered machine but more importantly we had access to a gyroglider (gyro with no engine towed behind a car). Training before dual powered machines was largely self taught or someone standing on the side of the strip watching you then giving you tips when you came back in. The gyroglider made this infinitely safer and combining this with dual and supervised ground running in your own gyro was crucial.
Many gyros were poorly built (for example not putting down thrust on, getting the balance wrong etc). Our instructor test flew all our machines and had us make the machines safe before we progressed. One of the biggest issues was power to weight ratio. Most of us were flying direct drive VW's (the two stroke Mac) was too expensive and unreliable in Australia (unreliable everywhere but expensive to get here). So machines were generally under powered. The advent of the 532 rotax meant big props efficient props with redrives so a direct drive VW would have say a 52 inch prop and now with redrive you were turning a slower 60inch + prop and an engine that weighed literally 1/2 that of a VW and less than 1/2 a subraru. When the 582 came along you now had 62 hp in a 40kg engine which made two seat powered machines possible. Efficient wide chord rotors too. But the machines dual do not fly like the same machine solo. It goes from an under powered slug to a rocket ship. This is where the glider was helpful not only did you learn all the basics in a very cheap machine towed behind a car but solo in the glider is even lighter than a single seater and a solo gyroglider feels like a single seat machine when flying unlike a dual powered machine. That combined with hours doing ground runs getting used to balancing on the mains in your own machine small hops, bigger hops etc. Was the key.
Others thought they could give all that away and actively campaigned against the glider. For one dual instructors were not going to make as much money if a student only did 3-5 hours dual powered which was typical when you combined glider and ground training. So people were spending 20-30 hours paying $120/hr (back then much more now) dual then jumping out of that machine into often a single seat machine which was essentially identical but only one seat so 1/3 less weight which mean going from say a climb rate of 300-500ft/min to 1000-1500ft/min on the same engine. It was murder there was a sudden spike in fatalities. The baby was thrown out with the bath water. Gone were the clubs and the gyrogliders and suddenly in comes the dual powered machines and more people where dying not less.
At club I learned to fly at I never saw a single student over 15 years even destroy a set of rotor blades in training. Yes we had idiots go and do stupid things like fly through powerlines or do other dodgy stuff but in training I never saw a machine crashed. Other instructors meanwhile had multiple students die within 5 hours of finishing 20-30 hours dual training.
I fear the advent of the more powerful 915 will see this sort of thing happen again because the average eurotub has lots of power but is increadibly heavy and the power to weight of the old machines with a Rotax or Mac is very high. If you don't believe me then look at the data on the Wallis machines flown off 20 ft blades, 116kg empty weight, and compare it to the modern eurotub powered by say a 912s or even 914. Now imagine it with two people and the performance is not really that much better than the old days. Shove 140hp and send a bloke solo and watch out. Need to have some careful training.
learned a lot about autogyros with this video. Saludos desde Panamá
The dominator gyro fixed most of the bad side of gyros. To bad it's not made any more. Though the sparrowhawk 3 is similar and would be what I would get if I was buying a gyro.
I developed an interest in gyros a few years ago, I even have a friend who bought one. Today, I understand why these aircraft are quite uncommon and not commercially exploited. They are slow, noisy, expensive, consume a lot and their only advantage is to land short. But many planes land just as short while having none of the disadvantages of gyros... and they take off much shorter !
Low and slow flight, great for observation platforms, they don’t consume as much as you think. Extremely short take off and if you want a STOL plane, you’ll spend far more than you would on a gyro. They are always in auto rotation, that’s a huge advantage in an emergency, they can land with zero roll and with a 15kt headwind (depending on pre rotation) take off very close to zero roll. I hold a PPL/IFR/VFR and own my second gyro, as far as I’m concerned gyros are safer and far less expensive to maintain. Most mistakes seem to be made by high time fixed or rotor pilots, gyros are a different animal.
@@XRakkgruntX
Gyros are not safer, it's the opposite (accident statistics prove it), they are very sensitive to negative load factors. And I can't see why they are "far less" expensive to maintain ! They have the same engine as light plane, have a propeller just like light planes and have a rotor that light planes don't have...
Your wrong about yaw stability. Pusher gyros are not unstable in yaw. You can fly hands and feet off for extended periods of time.
The good thing about pusher gyros is the prop blast over the rudder gives excellent rudder authority even Al low speeds
on the helicopter, the "blades" are know as rotary wings, not blades at the top, on a helicopter, the rotary wings cause a lower air pressure over them which causes the helicopter to rise and move in any direction... Not trying to bust your chops, just friendly correction...lol
One issue about autogyro safety {at least in the USA} was until the 1980s or 1990s -- I am NOT sure of the date -- there was no _'official'_ training system approved by the F.A.A. {Federal Aviation Administration}. That meant there were no CFIs {Certified Flight Instructors} available for training, unlike fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.
*certificated
@@louskunt9798 >>> Are referring to _"CFI"?_
I’d like to have your take on the ARGON GTL 915iS. Enclosed cabin with sufficient stowage, useful load, and so so cruise speed.
Great gyro, quality you’ll pay for
The coolest looking gyro, imo, is the xenon autogyro, i would def want to fly a xenon if i could afford to ... It is also supposedly more maneuverable than many competitors. Another one i really like because of its quirky aesthetic and solid stability is the sparrowhawk gryo, really cool gyro i would also fly if i could afford to ... Anyway, cheers.
Ummm, no, helicopter blades are airfoils that rotate to generate lift. They don’t “pull air down.” They create the same positive pressure on the underneath and the much higher airspeed over the top of the blade which reduces the air pressure as in a regular fixed wing aircraft moving forward in the atmosphere.
Great informative video. Thank you for the info. I'll tell you, I'd love to own/fly a Cavalon.
Excellent summary !. Rotor unloading , must read more about this . Thanks. Dave
Love to hear about the Calidus gyro copter (plane).
How about an explosive bolt to release the rotor, then deployment of a ballistic parachute system?
Interesting idea, but not necessary; an autograph I'd capable of landing exactly the same as a parachute very little area on the ground needed. Helicopters that lose engine power in flight use the same technique in what is called an autorotation.
@@gregbuckley7596 Fair comment and a good point.
This was really great information - thanks!
Juan de la Cierva was the inventor in 1923
Hi there Mike i love all your videos. The skycycle gyroplane, part motorcycle part Gyro has folding rotor blades. Why dont other gyroplanes adopt this method for easy transport on trailer.
Thanks Mike that was a great vid.
I think they're cool because aircraft need to move and move fast while with gyros you can slowly check out a cool site.
Prices aren’t too bad considering what they can do…essentially a STOL aircraft…I wonder if there are four seater versions…
I enjoyed your video. HOWEVER..me being quite unfamiliar w/gyrocopter types + companies; it would have be REALLY helpful to have added AND shown the manufacturer + name/model of each one you showed. I could not write down all their respect names. Thanks.
Marc
Thanks for the info
Not shown in the video is the Magni M-16, possibly the safest and easiest to fly gyro on the market.
Ken Wallis who broke all those records you see here, former RAF, all 7 foot of him, invented the new type of mini gyros of today as demonstrated here also as he was addicted to flying. He was in 007 with his fave one in Japan and almost froze from t-shirt flying over many takes for the film :-y Cierva invented the plane type earlier, much larger and quite as successful as the Wallis concept nowadays favoured
Very good vlog 👍🏼 would love to have one of those someday.
They’ve come a long way since the days of Ken Wallis. I’m a fixed wing pilot. Stalling and spinning is not a problem for fixed wing aircraft, neither is it a major killer. The one thing student pilots have drummed into their heads is to never let the airspeed get low especially in a low descending turn such as when turning from base leg onto final approach. Stalling, spinning and recovery is part of the basic flight training that ever student pilot does. After gaining my licence I flew for twelve years and the only time I experienced a stall or spin was when I did them deliberately. This was always practiced at an altitude of 4000ft over open country.
In 1970 there was a pilot killed in a autogyro at the farnborough air show. It was televised live and I saw it happen. This was because the pilot was used to fixed wing aircraft. He let the nose get too high in the climb and pushed the stick forward sharply to get the nose down. This caused the rotor blades to bend downwards striking the propellor and tail causing it to crash. I have always been interested in autogyros but that accident put me off flying one.
Great information. What are the USA licensing requirements?
So what turns the rotor, what starts it and what keeps it turning?
The aircraft has a ''pre-rotator'', essentially a drive to the rotor shaft that can be engaged to start the rotor spinning, to sufficient RPM to allow you to initiate take-off once the aircraft starts moving forward the rotor get spun by the air passing through it, like the sails on a windmill. The pre-rotator drive is disconnected with a clutch prior to take-off.
Carter Coptwrs bounce start
Interesting, but you make no mention of Norman Surplus, the first person to fly around the world in an autogyro.
no sabia ,que un autogiro si cruza una rafaga de viento fuerte , para el rotor???
Thought another altitude record set in Namibia of 33,000 feet
Pretty informative, but what the heck is SAFTEY like in your thumbnail?
После обзора проблем этой схемы логично выглядит конвертовертолётоавтожир где рулевой винт в режиме классического вертолета поворачивался на 90 градусов и становился бы толкающим а сцепление размыкало несущий винт.
Вертожир, конвертовертожир
Hello Pilot i ask You that girocopter use pt6 Engine.W8th Hamilton propeller
Beats an Autoguyno!
No Trendak? Why?
i flew my gyro from new york to england and no one believes me
Couldn't a ballistic parachute be deployed in a rotor unloading situation?
I don’t think there’s any safe way of deploying a parachute as long as the rotors are still intact. I think they’d foil your lines with even a slight movement. Possibly with a tractor configuration where you could deploy a chute from the rear in a catastrophic failure and then land hard nose down. I’m curious if anyone else sees it differently. I know chutes have been available for some light fixed wings for a long time.
@@tjscott395 I have an idea but not sure if I should disclose it here then someone makes something out of it but I think my design overcomes the issue with ropes getting in the way of the rotors.
How The hell did he Come up with that idea 100 years ago.
Safety i will listen when you learn how to psell.
I saw Ken Wallace crash one of these in his 70's and walk away with some rather funny commentary. He flew out of it when it hit, but was fine. The Xeon's can land in 20 feet and has floats available as well. Not mentioned here there is a short shot of it @ 2:45
After I remembered that crash, i found it right here.
ua-cam.com/video/pF4PvK4ylxs/v-deo.html
As for the Xeon, an old one for side by side... no stall speed is what I like!
ua-cam.com/video/IXjI81SuSKY/v-deo.html
Saftey?? Safety, please.
They are nothing more than a Rich Man's Toy.$130,00.00 keep them
I'll buy a real used helicopter on ebay for 5k 😂
Quro um pr mim como fa,zzz
Waaayy too many inaccuracies in this video. Disregard.
Dude what’s up with your eyes?
11 months and still can't spell safety?
They are the worst of both worlds. A slow plane and a helicopter that can’t hover. It is like three wheel motorcycle, can’t zip through traffic while sitting in the rain… Totally lame
On the contrary, it could be said its faster than a helicopter and requires much less runway than an airplane, it can also fly a lot lower for better scenic views. Its like a car, a lot more practical than a monster truck for daily use, and less dangerous than a motorcycle
Another "big microphone" that sounds horrible. A big microphone is also a give away to a poor quality video. This one is full of copied content and its obvious that he knows very little about gyroplanes or basic principle of flight. I'll give this clown a Thumbs down.
He n gyro were in Road Warrior with Mel Gibson
"they have a reputation of being unsafe". Who the fuck said that? All I've ever heard for years is that they are the safest of all flight machines. LMAO
Yuan* lol
Can’t beat a good saftey record 🙄