Autogyros

Used to be you could build one cheap from a kit, and the kits came together pretty quickly. Not that much to build. Don't know about now.
 
steingar said:
Used to be you could build one cheap from a kit, and the kits came together pretty quickly. Not that much to build. Don't know about now.
Click to expand...
Start somewhere around $80K and go up! And they're very common at my airport now. Probably 6 or 7 based there, not to mention other people flying in. They commonly use Rotax 912 or 914 engines, which account for a big chunk of the price.
 
I really want to get checked out in a modern gyro, but I can't find anything in the Northeast.
 
How about an autogyro with a radial engine..??

th
 
I wonder if the old Benson designs could be updated to make them safer. Those struck me as being an inexpensive build.
 
Would like to get a ride in one,than maybe a checkout.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Start somewhere around $80K and go up! And they're very common at my airport now. Probably 6 or 7 based there, not to mention other people flying in. They commonly use Rotax 912 or 914 engines, which account for a big chunk of the price.
Click to expand...

Lone Star gyro is based there, right? I've been checking out their website. I'm gonna have to come take a test flight someday - looks like fun!
 
I got to fly one about six months ago for an hour or so. A guy I know at Perryville, Mo is a dealer and instructor. They are a lot of fun. Not practical, but fun.
 
About 15 years ago, I was ready to buy a RAF 2000 kit...had the money put aside, an instructor lined up, a 1400' grass strip in my back yard, and a heated pole barn to build it. Looking back, I'm really glad I didn't.
 
As with any aircraft most mishaps are pilot error.

Gyroplanes are not all the same.

A gyroplane add on rating is simply flying to practical test standards and learning something about gyroplane aerodynamics.

For most experienced pilots it can be done between four and 15 hours of dual.

Landing or taking off like a fixed wing may have unhappy consequences.

Forgetting that the rotor needs to be managed on takeoff and landing may have unhappy consequences.

Even though a gyroplane won’t stall or spin it will descend if you fly too slowly and using the cyclic as the up control won’t work to stop the ground from rushing up to meet you.

In my opinion flying a gyroplane is very different than any other type of aircraft and the fun is found in a different way and for different reasons.

The poor safety record of gyroplanes is in a large part due to people imagining they can teach themselves to fly. Igor Bensen wrote a very detailed syllabus for self-training. It appears to have worked for about half the people who tried it.
 

Attachments

  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    187.9 KB · Views: 30
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 30
  • 11.jpg
    11.jpg
    117.7 KB · Views: 30
  • 14.jpg
    14.jpg
    60.6 KB · Views: 30
  • 15.jpg
    15.jpg
    143.7 KB · Views: 31
  • 18.jpg
    18.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 32
The problems with Bensen's wasn't the frame, it was the engine they used. My father had one with the old Mcculloch 2 stroke 4 cylinder. He wouldn't leave the pattern because it would cut off about every other flight.
 
Grum.Man said:
The problems with Bensen's wasn't the frame, it was the engine they used. My father had one with the old Mcculloch 2 stroke 4 cylinder. He wouldn't leave the pattern because it would cut off about every other flight.
Click to expand...
That's a fair statement and we have better engines today.
FormerHangie said:
Like @steingar said, they went together quickly, but had an annoying tendency to come from together rather too often.
Click to expand...
KitPlanes had an interesting analysis about them. I'd have to look up the details, but I remember reading the tail on the new deigns (and the very old designs such as those made by Juan de la Cierva and Pitcairn) helped a lot to improve the flying characteristics.

Autogyros definitely fly differently from fixed-wing and the comic posted by the OP covered a lot of the differences.
 
ETres said:
Lone Star gyro is based there, right? I've been checking out their website. I'm gonna have to come take a test flight someday - looks like fun!
Click to expand...
Yep. He's in the hangar right across from mine. Dayton is a good guy to learn with and his Magni Gyros have a great safety record.

Grum.Man said:
The problems with Bensen's wasn't the frame, it was the engine they used. My father had one with the old Mcculloch 2 stroke 4 cylinder. He wouldn't leave the pattern because it would cut off about every other flight.
Click to expand...
A bad engine doesn't hurt a gyro unless it's on takeoff. I've seen videos of guys shutting off the engines in the modern gyros and landing them easily. With the rotor not being powered, it makes no difference to the machine. The Bensen had the engine mounted too high, as well as it needed a bigger tail. This causes a situation where there is a big danger of power push-over. The newer designs are very safe.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep. He's in the hangar right across from mine. Dayton is a good guy to learn with and his Magni Gyros have a great safety record.


A bad engine doesn't hurt a gyro unless it's on takeoff. I've seen videos of guys shutting off the engines in the modern gyros and landing them easily. With the rotor not being powered, it makes no difference to the machine. The Bensen had the engine mounted too high, as well as it needed a bigger tail. This causes a situation where there is a big danger of power push-over. The newer designs are very safe.
Click to expand...
Or over trees, houses, water, I mean the goal was to fly something, not constantly glide it in for a landing.
 
Grum.Man said:
Or over trees, houses, water, I mean the goal was to fly something, not constantly glide it in for a landing.
Click to expand...
I agree it's not ideal to have a bad engine. I was really saying that wasn't the main problem with the Bensens. I think they had much bigger issues or we'd see them flying again today with modern engines.

Gyros are fun. I always tell people to think of them as the motorcycles of the sky. They're fun, but you're out in the open on most of them. They fly about 90 mph, which isn't bad for recreational flying. Just too expensive for me.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep. He's in the hangar right across from mine. Dayton is a good guy to learn with and his Magni Gyros have a great safety record.
Click to expand...

Magni is the same brand that Greg sells and that I flew. I know absolutely nothing about them but it seemed well built and was very easy to fly. Well, except that I kept trying to land 5' too high because of the sight picture difference. You definitely sit with your butt tight to the runway in that thing!
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep. He's in the hangar right across from mine. Dayton is a good guy to learn with and his Magni Gyros have a great safety record.


A bad engine doesn't hurt a gyro unless it's on takeoff. I've seen videos of guys shutting off the engines in the modern gyros and landing them easily. With the rotor not being powered, it makes no difference to the machine. The Bensen had the engine mounted too high, as well as it needed a bigger tail. This causes a situation where there is a big danger of power push-over. The newer designs are very safe.
Click to expand...
It needed a tail IMO. It had no horizontal stabilizer, which is what I've been driving at in my earlier posts. I'm not sure they could mount the engine lower on a Benson, but would making the mast taller accomplish the same thing?
 
I just saw one come up for sale locally last week, 80 grand or so I think.
 
The XKCD thing says that they're extremely safe, unless you do the one thing you are trained to do in a stall in a normal plane, then it will immediately crash. The point may by moot since autogyros don't really stall, BUT, is it true that if you push the nose hard down autogyros will crash? Or was that just a weird XKCD thing?
 
Tantalum said:
The XKCD thing says that they're extremely safe, unless you do the one thing you are trained to do in a stall in a normal plane, then it will immediately crash. The point may by moot since autogyros don't really stall, BUT, is it true that if you push the nose hard down autogyros will crash? Or was that just a weird XKCD thing?
Click to expand...
No, the problem with pushing the nose down IIRC, is that there is no longer air going through the rotors, so they stop spinning.
KitPlanes had a nice write-up about these, hang glider type aircraft "Trikes", and the "Flying Flea".
Here is a link (need subscription): http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/34_9/designers_notebook/Wind-Tunnel-Gyroplanes-pt4_21912-1.html
I'll post the paragraph with the information explaining this later unless @weirdjim beats me to it (he writes for them- good articles), or someone else does.

XKCD seemed to get it right.
 
Tantalum said:
The XKCD thing says that they're extremely safe, unless you do the one thing you are trained to do in a stall in a normal plane, then it will immediately crash. The point may by moot since autogyros don't really stall, BUT, is it true that if you push the nose hard down autogyros will crash? Or was that just a weird XKCD thing?
Click to expand...

A high thrust line gyroplane may respond badly to shoving the cyclic forward if you have the power in because the thrust is trying to push the nose down.

Most modern gyroplanes have enough horizontal stabilizer volume to prevent an un-commanded power push over.

If you keep the cyclic full forward the gyroplane will do as commanded and it becomes a non recoverable event. A gyroplane can do loops and rolls but cannot sustain inverted flight. I don't do loops and rolls because I am afraid.

The older high thrust line gyroplanes could have an un-commanded power push over because they did not have enough horizontal stabilizer volume and some had no horizontal stabilizer.
 
I recall one mfr offered a classic auto gyro design that had a tractor engine. Looked like something Jameson Thomas flew in It Happened One Night.

They touted superior safety because of the design.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Thanks, now that I've visualized it it totally makes sense
Click to expand...
Here we go...
From here (note, different link, part 2 from July 2107): http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/34_7/designers_notebook/Wind-Tunnel-Gyroplanes-pt2_21869-1.html
This situation is even more critical for a gyroplane. To maintain stability and provide lift, the rotor must always be spinning above a certain critical rpm. If rotor speed decays too much, the rotor will become unstable, and the blade flapping will become very large. When this happens, the blades are likely to fail or hit other parts of the gyroplane like the vertical fin. To keep the rotor in stable autorotation, it is essential to keep the plane of rotation at positive angle of attack, so the oncoming air flows upwards through the rotor disc.

If the rotor is unloaded, it cannot put any controlling force through the mast to trim or control the aircraft. Its rotation speed decays rapidly and will quickly drop below the critical speed at which the rotor becomes unstable. At this point the situation is unrecoverable.

This creates a problem for fixed-wing pilots transitioning into gyroplanes. Accident histories show that many gyro accidents start with a pull-up that leaves the aircraft nose up with rapidly decaying airspeed. The high drag of a gyroplane makes the loss of airspeed after a too-exuberant zoom more rapid than for a fixed-wing airplane.

A fixed-wing pilot is trained to unload the wing and reduce angle of attack to prevent a stall when in this kind of situation. This is exactly the wrong thing to do in a gyroplane. The right way to recover from this nose-high/low-airspeed condition in a gyro is to keep the stick back to keep the rotor loaded, allow the nose to settle as the airspeed decays, and then gently push forward to accelerate again. The gyro may develop a high descent rate during the recovery, but the rotor will maintain its rpm and continue to lift.

A fixed-wing pilot will react by pushing forward hard on the stick to arrest the loss of airspeed. This will unload the rotor and lead to a high probability of decaying rotor rpm and excessive blade flapping, which will likely cause either loss of control, or a blade strike on the aft portion of the fuselage. Either of these events will prove catastrophic.
Click to expand...
As you can see, it pretty much says the same as the comic.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Here we go...
From here (note, different link, part 2 from July 2107): http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/34_7/designers_notebook/Wind-Tunnel-Gyroplanes-pt2_21869-1.html

As you can see, it pretty much says the same as the comic.
Click to expand...

I have a divergent opinion.

One of the FAA required exercises is recognition and recovery from low airspeed and a high rate of descent. This is because as some air speed the gyroplane will descend even under full power. Inexperienced pilots may imagine the cyclic is the up lever and continue to slow down requiring more and more power to maintain level flight. I have flown gyroplanes where the minimum level speed is anywhere from 17kts to 40kts indicated air speed.

If the gyroplane is trimmed normally it takes a lot of back pressure on the cyclic to maintain the nose high attitude required for slow flight. The correct procedure is to lower the nose by releasing back pressure until a normal indicated airspeed is reached and then raise the nose and add power to regain the lost altitude.

On a near centerline thrust line gyroplane power can be added at any time. Because some of my clients will be flying high thrust line gyroplanes I teach not to add power with the nose down at low indicated air speeds.

The rotor does not slow significantly even in a vertical descent at zero indicate air speed.

The rotor does not dig in like a water ski if it is tipped forward too far.

I am not able to “unload” my rotor below .6 Gs in anything like normal maneuvering. The rotor RPM takes care of its self.

I don’t know of a gyroplane that has a reasonable horizontal stabilizer volume that has had an accident because the pilot moved the cyclic forward at low indicated air speed.

This writer would fail the gyroplane aerodynamics part of the oral if he were getting a proficiency check ride from me.

I had a Bonanza pilot on their first gyroplane flight in a Cavalon by AutoGyro push the cyclic forward to the stop recovering from low airspeed and high rate of descent. I had time to say “I have the aircraft controls”; wait for the response and repeat “I have the aircraft controls” before I took the controls. We went from 35kts to 82kts in the process. The aircraft was completely controllable. Yes, I had described the correct procedure before the maneuver. I only took the controls because I didn’t know how fast they would respond to “center the cyclic”.
 

Attachments

  • 11.jpg
    11.jpg
    117.7 KB · Views: 7
Vance Breese said:
I have a divergent opinion.

One of the FAA required exercises is recognition and recovery from low airspeed and a high rate of descent. This is because as some air speed the gyroplane will descend even under full power. Inexperienced pilots may imagine the cyclic is the up lever and continue to slow down requiring more and more power to maintain level flight. I have flown gyroplanes where the minimum level speed is anywhere from 17kts to 40kts indicated air speed.

If the gyroplane is trimmed normally it takes a lot of back pressure on the cyclic to maintain the nose high attitude required for slow flight. The correct procedure is to lower the nose by releasing back pressure until a normal indicated airspeed is reached and then raise the nose and add power to regain the lost altitude.

On a near centerline thrust line gyroplane power can be added at any time. Because some of my clients will be flying high thrust line gyroplanes I teach not to add power with the nose down at low indicated air speeds.

The rotor does not slow significantly even in a vertical descent at zero indicate air speed.

The rotor does not dig in like a water ski if it is tipped forward too far.

I am not able to “unload” my rotor below .6 Gs in anything like normal maneuvering. The rotor RPM takes care of its self.

I don’t know of a gyroplane that has a reasonable horizontal stabilizer volume that has had an accident because the pilot moved the cyclic forward at low indicated air speed.

This writer would fail the gyroplane aerodynamics part of the oral if he were getting a proficiency check ride from me.

I had a Bonanza pilot on their first gyroplane flight in a Cavalon by AutoGyro push the cyclic forward to the stop recovering from low airspeed and high rate of descent. I had time to say “I have the aircraft controls”; wait for the response and repeat “I have the aircraft controls” before I took the controls. We went from 35kts to 82kts in the process. The aircraft was completely controllable. Yes, I had described the correct procedure before the maneuver. I only took the controls because I didn’t know how fast they would respond to “center the cyclic”.
Click to expand...
Please note I'm not going to argue with you....you actually fly these things and I don't. But would it make a difference in your reply if the part I quoted assumed a tailess gyroplane, such as a Benson? I'm pretty sure I left that assumption out.
 
In my opinion most of what you posted is simply completely wrong.

I understand they were not your thoughts and appreciate you not trying to argue with me.

A gyroplane without a horizontal stabilizer and a high thrust line may have a power push over because the thrust line is trying to push nose down when thrust is applied and the only thing that balances it is rotor thrust.

It is possible to get into pilot induced oscillation (PIO) when the pilot gets out of phase with the control inputs and on about the third oscillation the rotor may slow enough as it goes over the tope resulting in an upset when the pilot pushes the stick forward at the top.

The rotor blades may become divergent and hit the vertical stabilizer/rudder.

In my opinion it is hard to find another way to unload the rotor enough to lose enough rotor rpm to become a problem.

When flying very aggressively in an airshow routine I may see 2.1Gs in a steep turn or a high speed pull up and .6Gs at the top of a zoom climb. This may cause the rotor to speed up to 450 rotor rpm and slow down as low as 270 rotor rpm; well inside of design limits.

If I am flying a high thrust line gyroplane I reduce power at the top of the zoom climb because the horizontal stabilizer is not very effective at low indicated air speeds.

I feel the writer took some basic information and ran it through his fixed wing filter and came up with some erroneous conclusions.

I have never been able to get below .6Gs or sustain it for any length of time. If I could sustain it my rotor which typically flies around 330 rotor rpm would slow to 250 rpm and if I was going fast the rotor blades might become divergent. I cannot sustain a low G event because the resulting descent reloads the rotor before it has a chance to slow.

A vertical descent in my aircraft might show 300 rotor rpm and I would be descending at about 1,400 feet per minute under complete control. Unless there was a fire I would probably survive a vertical descent all the way to the ground but would not be able to fly home.

The two things that fixed wing pilots do in gyroplanes that cause mishaps is try to rotate on takeoff before they have achieved sufficient rotor rpm causing a blade divergence or flair too high on landing and run out of airspeed and ideas before they run out of altitude.

There is a lot of stored kinetic energy in the rotor and if it contacts something solid like the ground there is a lot of damage as the energy is released.

I can usually transition an average fixed wing pilot in less than ten hours of dual and a good fixed wing pilot in as little as three hours of dual.

Gyroplanes fly a lot like fixed wing aircraft. I feel trying to fly one without instruction is poor aviation decision making.

I did have one retired Marine fixed wing flight instructor/civilian flight instructor do everything for his proficiency check ride with very little input from me. I feel he is the exception.

In my experience Helicopter pilots are harder to transition into a gyroplane than fixe wing pilots.
 

Attachments

  • 18.jpg
    18.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 4
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    187.9 KB · Views: 4
wanttaja said:
About 25 years ago, a guy in my EAA chapter had designed, flown, and marketed the Pit Bull Gyrocopter. IIRC, it had a Rotax 503, but in a radial-like cowling....
pitbull.jpg

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Hey that's the one I was referring to. Apparently they went under a few years ago.
 
Vance Breese said:
In my opinion most of what you posted is simply completely wrong.

I understand they were not your thoughts and appreciate you not trying to argue with me.

A gyroplane without a horizontal stabilizer and a high thrust line may have a power push over because the thrust line is trying to push nose down when thrust is applied and the only thing that balances it is rotor thrust.

It is possible to get into pilot induced oscillation (PIO) when the pilot gets out of phase with the control inputs and on about the third oscillation the rotor may slow enough as it goes over the tope resulting in an upset when the pilot pushes the stick forward at the top.

The rotor blades may become divergent and hit the vertical stabilizer/rudder.

In my opinion it is hard to find another way to unload the rotor enough to lose enough rotor rpm to become a problem.

When flying very aggressively in an airshow routine I may see 2.1Gs in a steep turn or a high speed pull up and .6Gs at the top of a zoom climb. This may cause the rotor to speed up to 450 rotor rpm and slow down as low as 270 rotor rpm; well inside of design limits.

If I am flying a high thrust line gyroplane I reduce power at the top of the zoom climb because the horizontal stabilizer is not very effective at low indicated air speeds.

I feel the writer took some basic information and ran it through his fixed wing filter and came up with some erroneous conclusions.

I have never been able to get below .6Gs or sustain it for any length of time. If I could sustain it my rotor which typically flies around 330 rotor rpm would slow to 250 rpm and if I was going fast the rotor blades might become divergent. I cannot sustain a low G event because the resulting descent reloads the rotor before it has a chance to slow.

A vertical descent in my aircraft might show 300 rotor rpm and I would be descending at about 1,400 feet per minute under complete control. Unless there was a fire I would probably survive a vertical descent all the way to the ground but would not be able to fly home.

The two things that fixed wing pilots do in gyroplanes that cause mishaps is try to rotate on takeoff before they have achieved sufficient rotor rpm causing a blade divergence or flair too high on landing and run out of airspeed and ideas before they run out of altitude.

There is a lot of stored kinetic energy in the rotor and if it contacts something solid like the ground there is a lot of damage as the energy is released.

I can usually transition an average fixed wing pilot in less than ten hours of dual and a good fixed wing pilot in as little as three hours of dual.

Gyroplanes fly a lot like fixed wing aircraft. I feel trying to fly one without instruction is poor aviation decision making.

I did have one retired Marine fixed wing flight instructor/civilian flight instructor do everything for his proficiency check ride with very little input from me. I feel he is the exception.

In my experience Helicopter pilots are harder to transition into a gyroplane than fixe wing pilots.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top