R/C gyroplane info help

[barnstorm2]

http://prachapter34.com/toppage10.htm


If anyone is experienced with R/C gyros please visit the link above and help me get some info filled out.

Many of the pictures came from links I found on rotorcraft.com (norms) and now those are gone.

Please help if you can.

The email address given is not the best to use. Please send comments to gyro@oldmotorcycle.com (or post them here)

I posted the other email address on the web site because I am trying to avoid spam issues.

Thanks!


http://prachapter34.com/toppage10.htm

[ToddP]

Tim,

I've never seen an RC autogyro fly. I have one about half built, but have never finished it. Jim Baxter who lives here in Spokane is apparently quite the authority. Some of the pictures you have are of his machines. The website autogyro.com is maintained by Jim. I've talked to him a few times at local RC fly-ins, he's really a good guy.

They are kind of an interesting machine. Apparently they'll loop and roll pretty easy, I should finish mine up one of these days.

[Harry_S.]

It's a shame Craig Wall isn't on here, for many reasons and many subjects.

Believe me, we all miss him....whether you agree with me, or not.

[jucie]

Look at this photo. I don't see a single pusher gyro. Is there a FLYING pusher gyro model anywhere in the world? It appears to me that every flying gyro model is a tractor. Does this mean anything?

[joeheli]

I have alote of experience(13 years) with Rc Model (rc heli, plane,rc jets with turbines etc.etc.) but not with rc gyro.

[birdy]

Jucie.
It means they don't know to put it on the back.[if they was sitt'n in it they would realise why we put them on the back.]
BTW,I reckon your signature is the best.

[mcbirdman]

Actually I have read posts on R/c autogyros as I was looking for info on my r/c helicopters. Yes, there is a reason why they are doing tractors. I have read their comments about what works and appropriate design. I saw that some tried making the RAF and something about it not working well. Something about instable - go figure ! Seriously - r/c is harder than real flying because of the out of cockpit control. Additional orientation and perspective corrections must be taken into account in addition to just flying. Apparently the additional workload is too much and you can see that designers and builders have actually working towards stable flyers. Look where they ended up. They obviously weren't building scale models (models that look like something bigger), they were building based on function. Even if it looked funky, they would build it whatever way it flew well. Here are examples that could have been built any way they wanted - but ended up looking like something very familiar to us.

Remember how Craig used to say that everyone should build and fly r/c to learn about what works and doesn't? R/c is hard enough to fly, especially when there are no wings to see from a distance for orientation so it is important to minimize workload.

I enjoy checking in on R/C'ers once in a while. It is very interesting to see where their interest is.

Something interesting though, you know how materials don't always scale down equally in strength or weight etc? I think this might be the one time I think it is easier to fashion a tractor frame than a pusher model using little sticks. IOW, I think this is strange but easier to build, and quicker to get to fly a tractor? I think that is an unexpected observation.

I do however like seeing scale models that actually fly and the detail more, but obviously these people are looking for enjoyment flying them more than having them just look pretty, although they still look fine to me. Yes everyone knows I like tractors. Yes, it is good to wonder as you asked if the photo meant anything. To me it does, to others it won't. Thanks for posting that group shot - very nice. jtm

[barnstorm2]

Thanks for the help guys!!

I have seen a pusher R/C model. I dont know if it was scratch built or kit/plans. It was on ebay about a year ago, very nice Bensen. Ebay ad claimed it flew well.

[mcbirdman]

the one near the middle, slightly left that is R, W and blue is considered a park flyer, something you can fly in a close area. I think it is called a Lazy Bee or something. Anyway, I think it is a sillouette frame which means it looks good from the side but straight on it may not be a full square box frame. Easy to build, repair and quick to get together to go have some fun. I just went to another place I was going to mention and now they have it...

http://www.autogyro-rc.com/

Interesting thing is that you can buy that with wings, as originally sold and then they took wings off and simply put a rotor system on it. You can buy just the rotor pylon and blades and modify it yourself. Funny how little work it takes to go from an airplane to a gyro !

That same place has the scale autogyros that not only look great but fly. I haven't looked at the site for a while but I am really surprised they are pushing the litte lazy bee so much. It looks fun and ARF (almost ready to fly- mostly pre-built)

[mcbirdman]

BTW, doesn't the claim "flys real well or works just great" get written with just about anything that someone wants to sell? Why would that be? I guess that is better than saying it flys better than it did after I rebuilt it or saying that you are trying to sell it before you crash the model.... maybe it did - maybe it didnt..... Were the bensens easy to fly ? If flying remote is twice as hard would that be a beginner model or maybe advanced..... jtm