New Spanish Tractor Autogiro

[okikuma]

Hi All,

As anyone seen the picture of the new Spanish Tractor Autogiro called "Phenix" in the June issue of EAA Sport Aviation magazine on page 44?

I searched the web and all I found is the following You Tube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pbFV9qFwy4

Wayne

[Timchick]

I'd like to see it fly.

[okikuma]

I finally found the website for the Spanish built Phenix tractor gyroplane.

www.phenix.aero

The design looks very interesting.

I wondered why the tail boom had a slight downward angle, until I saw the ballastic chute. I then realized then if there was some kind of failure to the rotor, the aircraft would plunge vertically, engine first. The ballastic chute would be pointing up skyward.

The seat belts must then be able to survive a 20 - 50G load, otherwise the pilot and passenger would be thrusted into the instrument panelif the belts fail.

I'm keeping an eye on this gyroplane.

Wayne

[PW_Plack]

I'd seen this video before, but looking at it again, I'm struck by (a) how much of the aircraft's weight is on the nosewheel, and (b) the lack of a tailwheel or other protection for a tail with very little ground clearance. If we do see it fly, I'll be interested to see how it takes off and lands.

[okikuma]

Hi Paul,

I agree. The main landing gear is a good 3 - 4 feet behind the lift vector of the rotor.

Wayne

[Phenix5]

Hi guys, I´m Carlos, from the Phenix project.

First I´d like to say that all pics on the website belong to the prototype we took to the Aero exhibition in Germany last april. Many things were missing then as we had no time to finish it for the show. We´ve been working hard since then to finalise the aircraft and get it into the air.

At present we are about a month away from first flight tests.

Answering some of your questions:

- We will have a tail protection on the central fin.
- Yes we know there is a lot of weight on the front leg and it has been properly calculated. However in the next model we are going to change the position of the main undercarriage 30 centimeters (a foot roughly) to the aft. The original idea of positioning it so far back was related to the fact that we didn´t want the mast to stand right in the middle of the cabin, obstructing passenger view. The only way to achieve that was carrying as much weight we could to the rear sections (one of the reasons for the parachute). Luckily on the latest hang test we were very happy to discover that we even had to bring the mast more to the rear (8 centimeters from original position) so now it does not interfere at all.
- According to the figures we got from the parachute manufacturer (Junkers Profly) for our particular model (Magnum 450), we calculated an impact speed to the ground of aproximately 30 kilometers per hour. All items involved with this impact speed and higher for a convenient safety factor, have been designed to be able to protect the passengers (engine mount, firewall, 4 point safety belts, etc.)

We are sure that we may have to change some things in the future, this is just the prototype and that´s what it´s meant for. We plan to fly it extensively to obtain all the information we need to produce a safe aircraft in serial in a near future.

Thank you for your interest in our project and your kind words. We will try to update our website once we get in the air and start getting feefback from the tests.

If you have any more questions I´ll be glad to clarify any doubts.

Carlos

[Master Roda]

So, if the parachute deploys, Wouldn't you end up hitting nose first into the ground?

Why do you need a parachute? Aside from ballast I mean.

[Phenix5]

Yes that is correct. You would drift down nose first. Not comfortable but it would be better than nothing if you really should need to deploy a parachute.
We need 15 kilograms weight on the tail section to keep the mast where it is now. So instead of putting a dead piece of ballast why not put something that MAY be useful to someone some day. You never now. Personally I agree that you shouldn´t need a parachute on a proper built and flown gyroplane but as I said, we need that weight right there. Pricewise it wasn´t that important to the end price of the machine anyway, so it wasn´t difficult to take the decission.
Carlos

[Master Roda]

Why don't you put a battery reserve or repair tools,etc, back there?

[Phenix5]

15 kilograms is a lot of repair tools and a heavy battery! And at the end it would be of no use. You can carry up to 30 kilograms of luggage or whatever you want in our luggage compartment right behind the seat bulkhead.

[Master Roda]

So you have a 15 Kg parachute you will never use, but a set of repair tools is out of the question?

I would rather repair my machine than have it hit nose first into the dirt.

[Master Roda]

How about a life raft?
Survival kit? (sleeping bag,rations,tent,etc)
Flares?
Battery (for jump starting or replacement in field) Right weight :)

[Phenix5]

n anyNobody can say that you will never use a safety parachute, even in a gyro.

Out of the several fatal accidents thru out the world related to gyros, I´m sure that at least one could have made the pilot/passengers survive in the case they could have correctly deployed a safety parachute. I bet that particular one would be very grateful to have it.

In your particular case and considering your concern of the importance of repair tools and spare batteries (that you can carry in our luggage compartment as mentioned before) if you ever buy one of our aircraft and you want 15 kilograms of repair tools and a spare battery at the back instead of the parachute, no problem, you can have it!

If by any remote chance (hopefully not!) you should hit the dirt nose first, the very last thing you are going to see is the benefits of carrying 15 kilograms of repair tools and a spare battery at the back... LOL

Now seriously, anything you design in life and you want to share with the rest of the world is condemned to be loved or hated. We can´t build an aircraft that will make everybody happy and that will meet everybody´s requirements. That´s why we like to listen to people to learn how to improve our project.

In the case of the parachute, up to date we have had more positive feedback on the idea of the parachute than negative so that´s green light for us. You don´t like it? We respect your point of view and thank you for your opinion.

[Phenix5]

No certification process will accept a ballast that is possible to be dismantled and not be replaced properly by the owner that will turn out in a dangerous center of gravity unstable condition for the aircraft´s handling.

Keep trying, maybe you finally find it!

[Master Roda]

Like you said before, A properly designed gyro shouldn't need a parachute. I guess it's one of those preferred safety options I wouldn't choose, no big deal.

In any case, I wish you great success!!

[Phenix5]

Unfortunately properly designed aircraft have to deal with humans and that´s when it all gets messed up!

Thank you for your words and good night to all (it´s quite late here in europe)

[Resasi]

Carlos nice to see someone's dream materialize.

It seemed funny to begin but grows on one.

As you say it is impossible to satisfy everyone. Your approach from a selling point seems very pragmatic. I wish you success with your venture.

[okikuma]

Hi Carlos,

Thank you for your replies to this thread. Most appreciated. I am for one enjoying watching the evolution of your gyroplane. Please continue to keep all of us updated!

Wayne

[Phenix5]

Thanks for the support. I promise I will keep the forum updated on our progress. Right now we are starting to get nervous as the day for the initial flight is getting near. I can´t wait!

Carlos

[Gyro_Kai]

Right now we are starting to get nervous as the day for the initial flight is getting near. I can´t wait!


Same here :-), I wish you best of luck.

Kai.

[puppetboy]

Does this mean that a properly designed aircraft will never fail in such a way that a parachute would save the day ? I want to find one of those devices for sure. In the meantime, I am willing to consider a parachute if it is demonstrated to work when it is supposed to.

Gus

[Master Roda]

I am willing to consider a parachute if it is demonstrated to work when it is supposed to.

Gus

And that's the problem. In an auto-gyro, your rotors ARE your parachute. Weight is a common problem, so adding one wouldn't benefit you. MY OPINION ONLY.

Damage caused by a parachute only complicates the problem.

[Phenix5]

Boeings, Airbuses and a lot of high tech aircraft are designed not to fail but still they crash. There´s so many factors involving an aviation accident that the design itself is not enough warranty for a fail safe operation. It happens everyday.
Regarding the gyro, yes, the rotor is your parachute IF you still have one turning properly. How many people have died in properly designed gyros who got into trouble with low G manouevers? Gyros are no exception to accidents. Yes they are safer but still they fall, like any other flying device. And the pilot in most ocassions is directly responsible. In some cases some bad luck intervenes but it´s a fatality at the end anyway. It´s just plain and cold stadistics.
Regarding weight, this is obviously a handicap but in our case, our machine weights 290 kilograms (empty) INCLUDING the parachute and this is with a Rotax 914 Turbo engine on it. I´m talking of aprox. 600 pounds. Are there many big side by side fully enclosed gyros with those figures?
Our integrated parachute system is for all of those who may get into trouble some day for whatever reason, hopefully decreasing and not increasing those nasty stadistics.

[Master Roda]

I hope it is a success for you.

Your also assuming the pilot will deploy the chute. By your own estimate, it won't happen.

[MIO]

@ masta roda: so apparently SC doesn't intend to compete to producers installing parachutes?
@ Carlos: Hi, nice to meet you here!

[Phenix5]

Hi Michael, I still have some time for visiting this forum while I finish the prototype!

[Master Roda]

@ masta roda: so apparently SC doesn't intend to compete to producers installing parachutes?
@ Carlos: Hi, nice to meet you here!

As stated on our website

"CAN I USE A BALLISTIC PARACHUTE?
We do not feel it is safe to attach a ballistic chute to a rotorcraft, because of the chance of an accidental deployment and the affect that would have on your spinning rotor system."

[Kai Kern]

Like you said before, A properly designed gyro shouldn't need a parachute. I guess it's one of those preferred safety options I wouldn't choose, no big deal.

In any case, I wish you great success!!

A proper design cannot avoid pilot's mishaps, loss of control or mid-air collisions. I would think that more gyro crashes have happened due to loss of control of the pilot, than because of design-related issues. The parachute efficiently tackles this problem.

I am confident that the tractor-configuration and the parachute will bring a new dimension of safety into gyrocopter design and in the future we might consider the pusher props as a design-inherent threat and our grandchildren will shake their heads about their granddaddies' bravery to have flown pusher prop gyrocopters .:lol:

[Master Roda]

A proper design cannot avoid pilot's mishaps, loss of control or mid-air collisions. I would think that more gyro crashes have happened due to loss of control of the pilot, than because of design-related issues. The parachute efficiently tackles this problem.

I am confident that the tractor-configuration and the parachute will bring a new dimension of safety into gyrocopter design and in the future we might consider the pusher props as a design-inherent threat and our grandchildren will shake their heads about their granddaddies' bravery to have flown pusher prop gyrocopters .:lol:

I disagree. A proper design CAN lessen the chance of incident with a "pilot's mishap". Look at castering nose wheels and long travel suspensions.

Design inherit threat???

How is a pusher gyro dangerous compared to tractor? They are all dangerous to the same degree.

[brett s]

I'm with Jon - parachutes + rotorcraft aren't a good mix.

Build a safe design & maintain it properly & the odds of needing such a system are almost nil...

You would need foolproof way to safely jettison the entire rotor system that's also incapable of being accidentally used, a tall order - and even then there's no guarantee you'll be in a safe position to use it. There's a reason even high dollar military combat helicopters don't have such systems, the drawbacks outweigh the potential benefits.

[BEN S]

exactly when WOULD you use one?, I mean for most of my flying I am around 500 to 1000ft agl, if and that's a big if the rotor was to become instantly inoperative, how much reaction time would I have to use the BRS before I reached minimum safe distance? Now, this enclosed two seat jobber is designed to fly more along the lines of a fixed wing up high and for transportation from A to B. So there I am flying along at 10,000 ft when my engine stops, I am still going to ride it down to look for a suitable landing site, which gets me back to the 1000 or so altitude and the critical time factor on deciding when to use the parachute. On top of all this I am left wondering how many times has a gyros rotor become completely unusable in flight? I have seen some video where a bunt caused the rotors to chop off the gyros tail at an airshow I think. Kinda suck if that happened as this rig has the BRS in the tail!
But I sure do like the look of the gyro. I just wouldn't opt for spending the extra money.
Ben S