I adore this design, and I understand why they made the design choices they did (homage to Juan de la Cierva), but I really wish they'd used a typical stick and pushrod control, instead of the overhead, with reversers. I bet it could have been made lighter, that way, and it definitely would have had better "straight ahead" visibility, without the stick in your way. Still want one, regardless
Actually look again he has a mixer up top (just like Cierva) the stick pulls back on landing - not forward like the first Bensen sticks. You would still have two control rods coming down. The cost you pay for a tractor gyro is reduced visibility, even just sun reflection off the prop on a tractor aircraft can obscure view. I'd suggest that its more than compensated for by the otherwise excellent downward visibility which is reduced in a low wing and excellent visibility in a turn which is enhanced in every one of those tight turns. I remember just how often in turns in my Bensen style gyro I was looking through the rotors and how often in my ultralight days I was blind as soon as I turned (high wing). Actually there is a lot to be said for the old Bensen stick. Yes it is reversed controls but so is a powered hang glider and hang glider and yet people learn to fly these from fixed wing and visa versa. You have only two solid bolts to attach to the torque tube vs in my case 8 control rods (I have mid links to get around engine and undercarriage). Any one of those 8 bolts and 8 control rods could go wrong (and I have seen this happen and know a guy who lost on in flight and had to grab the control rods backwards with his hand to do a vertical descent). What's more there is no fussy calculating of the different linkages to get appropriate balance of pitch and bank, not too sensitive etc. Bensen's design is elegant and safer mechanically but people used to years of fixed wing flying could easily get confused so like almost everyone else I fly under the seat traditional aircraft stick but nothing wrong with over head stick as such just have to have a training machine with same.
pros: thrust line is much closer to CG pitch stability is greatly improved, due to longer "lever arm" of the empennage being so far behind the CG ease of maintenance prop clearance prerotation rotor thrust counters prop thrust better 3-point landing is nearly zero roll cons: size (much longer than most pusher gyros, but that doesn't have to be the case) prop wash in your face (I personally don't mind, but I can understand the desire to not feel that turbulence) forward visibility (engine in the way, of course) especially during takeoff and landing, this is very unsettling for pilots used to tricycle gear I don't know if a "ground loop" is possible, in a taildragger gyro, but I'm sure that's a fear.
The tractors are a better design imo. Autogiros were pretty much perfected in the 40s. Back then they were very heavy because one they usually had a radial engine and articulated rotor systems not a teetering system. But the reason they went away was due to the invention of helicopters. (Which btw incorporated gyro designs elements like the rotor system) Helicopters are more complex but can do everything a gyro can do and more. Gyros are also not a efficient or as fast as a plane of similar size and hp. The main reason for the pusher style is Igor Benson. He created the pusher style because it was easy to build in your garage. He also simplifed the rotor system. He started a craze at the time and revived the Autogiro. You also get more thrust, maneuverability and visibility with a pusher. Its basically easier to build, lighter weight and cheaper to build because of the design. Not saying you can't build a lightweight tractor style with a teetering type rotorhead its just harder. Plus there are not many tractor style gyros out there. out there. So getting plans or kits are harder for a tractor style.
@@JohnDoe-fk6id Depends on the size of the head. The Ciervas had massive weight up high because they had a fully articulated head up there and 3-4 rotors with massive tip weights this is why they all had 5 - 8 degrees downthrust. Downthrust is often ignored, people think the only way to achieve thrustline vs CG is to push the pilot up. The Bensen was within these limits because it was very short, and it had 3 degrees downthrust. It was a centred cg thrustline machine. Many modern derivitives of the Bensen however when re-drive engines became popular just added bigger and bigger diameter props and then to compensate added higher and higher masts, often removing the downthrust when doing so. Look at most dominators. They removed the downthrust entirely then shift the pilot weight up high to compensate. Fine if you want to do it that way but not necessary. Secondly most put 3 degrees or so on the HS tilted nose down on the HS in an attempt to push the nose higher at higher speeds. If this works and I've seen them do high passes so to whatever degree it works it doesn't work sufficent in many machines to stop a nose down attitude at high speed. If so unloading the disk is still just as easy as pushing the stick far enough forwards. Now lets say you did lift the nose at high speeds. Where is the thrust line of the engine now in relation to the disk. Likewise in my country most of us fly off grass strips many of which are rough so most dominator type machines have big tyres - what happens to the drag down there is those situations? This is a drag vs thrustline and CG issue right? IMO I think people are all too much worried about what is happening to the airframe and ignoring what's happening to the rotor. If I build a machine that on unloading the disk pitches the nose down and tail up and goes through the rotor vs unloading my rotor and the airframe staying level what exactly is going to be the difference in the outcome. It's like driving a segway off a sheer cliff and the gyros keep it vertically the whole way down so you impact the ground vertically vs tumbling. Don't get me wrong CG vs thrustline is important, its important because not having it means addition or reduction in power will result in the pilot needing to make a pitch adjustment. No downthrust and the machine will pitch with power addition or reduction. This increases cognitive load and increases the chance of over control. The main objective should be to never get into a situation when you are close to unloading the disk if you do then you're stuffed High CG vs thrustline or not. Pleanty of high cg thrustline machines have bunted it over. Its not a cure all, training and pilot discipline is the only 100% reliable method. That would appear is still a work in progress.
Fantastic machine, lovely country, great flying so glad to see a few people exploring tractor gyros.
Coś niesamowitego, brakuje tylko jeszcze miejsca dla pasażera jak w małych dwupłatowcach i maszyna wręcz idealna!
❤❤❤❤😊
I adore this design, and I understand why they made the design choices they did (homage to Juan de la Cierva), but I really wish they'd used a typical stick and pushrod control, instead of the overhead, with reversers. I bet it could have been made lighter, that way, and it definitely would have had better "straight ahead" visibility, without the stick in your way.
Still want one, regardless
Actually look again he has a mixer up top (just like Cierva) the stick pulls back on landing - not forward like the first Bensen sticks. You would still have two control rods coming down. The cost you pay for a tractor gyro is reduced visibility, even just sun reflection off the prop on a tractor aircraft can obscure view. I'd suggest that its more than compensated for by the otherwise excellent downward visibility which is reduced in a low wing and excellent visibility in a turn which is enhanced in every one of those tight turns. I remember just how often in turns in my Bensen style gyro I was looking through the rotors and how often in my ultralight days I was blind as soon as I turned (high wing). Actually there is a lot to be said for the old Bensen stick. Yes it is reversed controls but so is a powered hang glider and hang glider and yet people learn to fly these from fixed wing and visa versa. You have only two solid bolts to attach to the torque tube vs in my case 8 control rods (I have mid links to get around engine and undercarriage). Any one of those 8 bolts and 8 control rods could go wrong (and I have seen this happen and know a guy who lost on in flight and had to grab the control rods backwards with his hand to do a vertical descent). What's more there is no fussy calculating of the different linkages to get appropriate balance of pitch and bank, not too sensitive etc. Bensen's design is elegant and safer mechanically but people used to years of fixed wing flying could easily get confused so like almost everyone else I fly under the seat traditional aircraft stick but nothing wrong with over head stick as such just have to have a training machine with same.
I really love front engine tracktor gyroplane .I curious why this configutation not popular for gyroplane pro and cons.
pros:
thrust line is much closer to CG
pitch stability is greatly improved, due to longer "lever arm" of the empennage being so far behind the CG
ease of maintenance
prop clearance
prerotation rotor thrust counters prop thrust better
3-point landing is nearly zero roll
cons:
size (much longer than most pusher gyros, but that doesn't have to be the case)
prop wash in your face (I personally don't mind, but I can understand the desire to not feel that turbulence)
forward visibility (engine in the way, of course) especially during takeoff and landing, this is very unsettling for pilots used to tricycle gear
I don't know if a "ground loop" is possible, in a taildragger gyro, but I'm sure that's a fear.
The tractors are a better design imo. Autogiros were pretty much perfected in the 40s. Back then they were very heavy because one they usually had a radial engine and articulated rotor systems not a teetering system. But the reason they went away was due to the invention of helicopters. (Which btw incorporated gyro designs elements like the rotor system) Helicopters are more complex but can do everything a gyro can do and more. Gyros are also not a efficient or as fast as a plane of similar size and hp.
The main reason for the pusher style is Igor Benson. He created the pusher style because it was easy to build in your garage. He also simplifed the rotor system. He started a craze at the time and revived the Autogiro. You also get more thrust, maneuverability and visibility with a pusher. Its basically easier to build, lighter weight and cheaper to build because of the design. Not saying you can't build a lightweight tractor style with a teetering type rotorhead its just harder.
Plus there are not many tractor style gyros out there. out there. So getting plans or kits are harder for a tractor style.
@@JohnDoe-fk6id Depends on the size of the head. The Ciervas had massive weight up high because they had a fully articulated head up there and 3-4 rotors with massive tip weights this is why they all had 5 - 8 degrees downthrust. Downthrust is often ignored, people think the only way to achieve thrustline vs CG is to push the pilot up. The Bensen was within these limits because it was very short, and it had 3 degrees downthrust. It was a centred cg thrustline machine. Many modern derivitives of the Bensen however when re-drive engines became popular just added bigger and bigger diameter props and then to compensate added higher and higher masts, often removing the downthrust when doing so. Look at most dominators. They removed the downthrust entirely then shift the pilot weight up high to compensate. Fine if you want to do it that way but not necessary. Secondly most put 3 degrees or so on the HS tilted nose down on the HS in an attempt to push the nose higher at higher speeds. If this works and I've seen them do high passes so to whatever degree it works it doesn't work sufficent in many machines to stop a nose down attitude at high speed. If so unloading the disk is still just as easy as pushing the stick far enough forwards. Now lets say you did lift the nose at high speeds. Where is the thrust line of the engine now in relation to the disk. Likewise in my country most of us fly off grass strips many of which are rough so most dominator type machines have big tyres - what happens to the drag down there is those situations? This is a drag vs thrustline and CG issue right?
IMO I think people are all too much worried about what is happening to the airframe and ignoring what's happening to the rotor. If I build a machine that on unloading the disk pitches the nose down and tail up and goes through the rotor vs unloading my rotor and the airframe staying level what exactly is going to be the difference in the outcome. It's like driving a segway off a sheer cliff and the gyros keep it vertically the whole way down so you impact the ground vertically vs tumbling.
Don't get me wrong CG vs thrustline is important, its important because not having it means addition or reduction in power will result in the pilot needing to make a pitch adjustment. No downthrust and the machine will pitch with power addition or reduction. This increases cognitive load and increases the chance of over control.
The main objective should be to never get into a situation when you are close to unloading the disk if you do then you're stuffed High CG vs thrustline or not. Pleanty of high cg thrustline machines have bunted it over. Its not a cure all, training and pilot discipline is the only 100% reliable method. That would appear is still a work in progress.
Put a Verner 3V on it and make it stick and rudder and you’ve got a winner in my book. But it’s still very very cool just like it is.
....Woow👍👍👍!!!!
Would've been nice to see what the machine looks like!!!
A wide range variable pitch prop and perhaps it can fly backwards? Even for a few seconds can impress spectators 😅
How is the gyrocopter coming along? Any news on when I will be available for sale?
Err.... Plans ???
What engine? How much hp?
Hirth F23, 50hp, part103 gyroplane.
Déjalo sin música queremos ruido a motor
Dźwięk silnika w nagraniu jest dość monotonny.
0:21 0:22 0:30 0:31 0:33