GT Gyroplanes "KRUZA"

[SamL]

G'day all.
Just thought you may be interested in seeing the new Australian designed and made GTG KRUZA Gyroplane.
It is made here by 2 bothers who have been making gyro's now for the past 3 years. Their company is called GT Gyroplanes, and is based in Echuca Victoria.
Below are some of the pictures I took of the new "Rotor Craft Aust." 2 seat trainer. (My new toy)

Regards Sam......

Rotor Craft Aust.
Gyroplane Sales & Flight Training.
Official Distributor of the Australian made
GT Gyroplanes "KRUZA"

[SamL]

Some more pic's.

Regards Sam....
Rotor Craft Aust.
Gyroplane Sales & Flight Training.
Official Distributer of the Australian made
GT Gyroplanes "KRUZA"

[Resasi]

That is a very pretty gyro. Look forward to more info on her.

[Chuck Roberg]

Looks like a Xenon on steroids. Hopefully the price is better.

[Harry_S.]

Is this a descendant of the Firebird?!


Cheers :)

[skier]

Below is a website about the craft.
http://www.gtgyroplanes.com/

Nice looking gyro.

[troed@aon.at]

Great looking ship ! Congrats !

How´s the pricing ?

[SamL]

Hi all
This is the first of the production models.
Yes the GTG boys were involved with the final stages of Paul's Firebird. But eventually decided to go out on there own.
Number 3 KRUZA is already about 40-50% complete.
The machine, like mine boasts a 165hp 2.5lt EJ25 Fuel injected Subaru and NZ 200hp Autoflight gearbox.
Below are some of the features, & 2 pic's of the hang test at MAUW 10 deg. Min weight came in at 6 deg which show's how the 120lt fuel tank is well positioned.

1/ 100% Carbon fibre pod.
2/ Light weight glass undercarriage suspension arm.
3/ Differential braking on mains.
4/ Light weight integral seating.
5/ Each seat has storage compartments below it.
6/ Refined rudder pedal assembly.
7/ Improved font suspension.
8/ 120lt glass fuel tank.
9/ Large 74 inch 3 blade Patrony wide cord prop.
10/ 29 ft Patrony twisted tapered blades.
11/ Belt drive hydraulic Prerotator.
12/ Focus on quieter operations via improved exhaust design.
13/ Rotor brake and lock.
14/ Internal dash mounted glove box (ideal for ERSA storage)
15/ Upgraded Rosco roller bearing head.
16/ Fuel filler hidden behind lockable engine cowling door.
17/ Full steel safety fire wall which separate cabin from fuel tank, electrics, & engine compartment.
18/ Fuel tank situated below aircraft Centre of gravity, which minimizes trim requirements during operation.
19/ Electric dash mounted trim and position indicator.
20/ Differential steering and braking via main undercarriage.
21/ Fully carpet and lined cabin interior.
22/ Navigation and strobe lights.
23/ Font mounted landing light.
24/ Panel mounted circuit breakers for all electrics.
25/ Removable passenger cyclic control arm.
26/ Cyclic control lock.
27/ Throttle friction screw.
28/ R44 Style cyclic control (fully adjustable for easy entry and pilot/passenger size)
29/ Full compliment of analogue instruments.
30/ Xcom panel mount VHF radio.
31/ True CLT (centre line thrust) design.
32/ Easy cross wind landings via front self castoring wheel design.
33/ Fuel burn is 18-25 LPH
34/ Cruise is 65-75 knots.
35/ Rate of climb at MAUW 900fpm.
36/ Extra large doors make entry and exit easy.


Cost is $75,000.00 Aust. plus GST which is $82,500.00 fly away!!!!

Regards
SamL.........................

[Sapientino]

very nice !
which blades does it use?
cruise and max speed?
thanks

[Chuck Roberg]

Their web site lists it as 600kg which I believe puts it in the LSA category for a U.S. S/P certificate.

But I could not find the empty weight of the Gyro. Any one know what the empty weight is?

$75,000 AUD is around $68,000-$69,000 U.S. That's really not a bad price for that type of gyro. Of course the shipping to get it to the U.S. would be a little pricey.

I believe the GST is not charged or it's refunded for items leaving the country.

[Harry_S.]

A really nice machine. ;)


Cheers :)

[GyroDoug]

The Web Site shows a whole different Tail Design, than the pictures in this thread. I am assuming that the Web site is simply not updated and this is the more accurate information?

[jehicks87]

Beautiful machine! :O

[karlbamforth]

Hi all
This is the first of the production models.

31/ True CLT (centre line thrust) design.

Regards
SamL.........................

Hi Sam,

Do you have better pics showing the hang tests ?

The ones in the picture look strange, it may be an optical thing but the lines drawn on the photo do not seem to line up.

In the first pic, the gyro appears to be hanging from its axles, in which case the verticle line should line up with the ropes.

In the second pic the verticle line should run straight down from the centre of the hook, but appears to angle to follow the mast.

As I say it may be an optical thing but the pictures make it look HTL, this is not good if it is indeed CLT.

[PW_Plack]

Karl, in the first picture, the machine is being balanced on the mains. There is an angle at which you can balance the machine which results in zero weight on nose and tail, at which point you know the CG is directly above the main gear axle along a plumb line.

Paul Bruty documented this method back in April of '04 in this thread (http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=982).

I'm guessing the straps on the nosewheel strut which appear slack in the photo were used only to raise the nose to the point the machine would balance.

I'm more curious about the vertical line in the other picture, which does not appear to be plumb ("true down") to the ground. Could be an illusion. The placement of the sandbags to simulate the pilot's weight are also puzzling...a real person would have a slightly higher CG than the bags appear to have. If true, that would move the machine's CG slightly higher, making the thrustline offset even less.

All in all, looks like they pretty much nailed it on CLT.

[PW_Plack]

Their web site lists it as 600kg which I believe puts it in the LSA category for a U.S. S/P certificate...But I could not find the empty weight of the Gyro. Any one know what the empty weight is?

Chuck, the second page (http://www.gtgyroplanes.com/) of the FAQ lists empty weight as 360 kg, or 792 pounds. The max weight of 600 kg is where the FAA got the LSA limit...that's 1320 pounds.

[karlbamforth]

Thanks for that Paul,

I understand how it is done, but it appeared thet the gyro was hanging.
Looking closer with zoom I can see what appears to be a metal plate it is balanced on.

I agree with you about placement of the sandbags.

As I said better pics would be an advantage as these leave a few things open to question.

[PW_Plack]

Hey...at least there are pictures. I admire a company that's not afraid of data.

Ehh...I also just noticed that the line through the main gear axle is being done with a carpenter's level, standing on its end on the trailer. Could have been more precise if done with a plumb line, but I guess you use what you got when you're outdoors.

[ckurz7000]

Wow, 360 kg empty for a closed two seater is a lot of weight to lug around. I'm comparing this with 260 kg empty for both the Calidus and Arrowcopter. And the Calidus cruises at 160 km/h (86 kts).

-- Chris.

[perbgyro]

Wow, 360 kg empty for a closed two seater is a lot of weight to lug around. I'm comparing this with 260 kg empty for both the Calidus and Arrowcopter. And the Calidus cruises at 160 km/h (86 kts).

-- Chris.

One basic difference is subaru engine vs Rotax 912. That should be at least 50kg. Another is drag... side-by-side vs tandem.
Even though the Calidus has a Rotax, I'd still take one, but can't get them in the US :Cry:.

[ckurz7000]

You really need to pay attention to the weight because it starts to get out of hand easily and then keeps spiraling upwards: more weight needs a stronger engine, which is heavier and requires a beefier support structure, then you'll need longer blades which weigh more, a heavier mast and rotorhead, etc., etc.

But both Xenon and Magni M24 are side-by-side and manage to squeek by the German 450 kg MTOW limit, coming in empty a bit below 300 kg. 360 kg empty for a two seater gyro just seems a bit overboard.

-- Chris.

[SamL]

very nice !
which blades does it use?
cruise and max speed?
thanks

Sapientino
The machine is fitted with the Australian made 29 ft Patrony Revolution rotor blades. (full fibre glass construction) These are considered to be one of the best and most popular blades flying in OZ.
The machine will comfortably cruise between 65-75 knots and has a factory VNE of 90knots. I have personally flown it to 110 knots many times without any problems what so ever. Trully a very stable machine.

Regards Sam...

[SamL]

Their web site lists it as 600kg which I believe puts it in the LSA category for a U.S. S/P certificate.

But I could not find the empty weight of the Gyro. Any one know what the empty weight is?

$75,000 AUD is around $68,000-$69,000 U.S. That's really not a bad price for that type of gyro. Of course the shipping to get it to the U.S. would be a little pricey.

I believe the GST is not charged or it's refunded for items leaving the country.

Chuck the machines empty weight is (Includes oil, water and un-useable fuel) 380 Kgs

Sam....

[SamL]

The Web Site shows a whole different Tail Design, than the pictures in this thread. I am assuming that the Web site is simply not updated and this is the more accurate information?

Hi Doug
Yes you are correct, the GTG website is not up to date and does show the origional prototype with I flew and used as my trainer for almost 12 months. I have since dropped it back, and swapped it for my new G-762 Kruza 2 gyroplane.

SamL.......

[SamL]

Hi Sam,

Do you have better pics showing the hang tests ?

The ones in the picture look strange, it may be an optical thing but the lines drawn on the photo do not seem to line up.

In the first pic, the gyro appears to be hanging from its axles, in which case the vertical line should line up with the ropes.

In the second pic the vertical line should run straight down from the centre of the hook, but appears to angle to follow the mast.

As I say it may be an optical thing but the pictures make it look HTL, this is not good if it is indeed CLT.

Hi Karl and Paul
The machine had both the hang test and balance tested at MAUW and MIN AUW. The pictures I provided above are at MAUW. You will see a blue horizontal line in one of the pictures. This is a horizontal reference line only. I have used this to ensure my thrust line is parallel to this known reference. What you will also see in the same picture is Alistair holding a spirit level along side a 2 meter length of rod. The rod is hard to see as it is masked by my vertical yellow line. In the same pic you will also notice that both wheel axles are in line with one another. In the second pic the axles are not in line and so I have use a second blue line which links the 2 axles and the vertical line drawn from its centre. This is to counter the parallax error in this picture.
Yes we used 20kg concrete bags as ballast and yes it will make a difference to the machines CofG, but we felt that any error would be of little consequence, and concern. For as you say Paul the machine is truly CLT.

SamL...........

[SamL]

HI All
Thanks for all your great comments. I would like to point out something which realy annoys me. I read all sorts of performance figures which manufacturers attach to aircraft to attract buyers and make sales. I have flown many of the rotory aircraft mensioned on this forum. I must say, regardless of the engine, weight, size, and design, this little machine is a real performer.
All figures are at MAUW, in nil wind, and a cool day. Many of my students are blown away at its performance and handling.
This is what I have personelly acheived.
1) Climb 2 up 600+ KG's 700-800fpm.
2) Climb 1 up 1400-1500fpm.
3) Max speed 110 knots.
4) Range, 4 hours.

Below are a few utube video's of the GTG Kruza K1 G-800, and new K2 G-762.
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG67CuouvBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG9cQElladM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDhcBgMBeNo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFJhRdZUUPQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1XQ8sb7WyI

Regards SamL....

[troed@aon.at]

Hi Sam !

Don't get bothered by the "wise-guys" ................ :cool:

In reality all gyros of the (more or less) same weight class just fly in the same envelope.

Once again congrats to this excellent LSA-ship, seems to be a more grown-up ship than German experimental gyros merely out of prototyping. And as I learned with the Magni: the more weight the smoother the flight in summer thermals ..............

Hope to have a congress next year in OZ, then I'll take some days off to fly Your KRUZA.

[SamL]

Hi Sam !

Don't get bothered by the "wise-guys" ................ :cool:

In reality all gyros of the (more or less) same weight class just fly in the same envelope.

Once again congrats to this excellent LSA-ship, seems to be a more grown-up ship than German experimental gyros merely out of prototyping. And as I learned with the Magni: the more weight the smoother the flight in summer thermals ..............

Hope to have a congress next year in OZ, then I'll take some days off to fly Your KRUZA.
Good onya Angelo, its a deal !!!!!!!
Look forward to it.

Regards SamL............

[ckurz7000]

...Don't get bothered by the "wise-guys" ...In reality all gyros of the (more or less) same weight class just fly in the same envelope....

You can download Jukka's Gyrocalc (http://www.saunalahti.fi/jtki1/gyrocomp.html) program and play with it a bit (and I definitely consider him a very "wise guy"). This will quickly open your eyes to what kind of difference 100 kg in empty weight makes.

Also, the higher weight increases forces and energy required to be absorbed in crashes or balked landings.I think it is prudent to keep the weight down as much as possible (without sacrificing other important things, of course).

-- Chris.

P.S.: I don't want to talk the KRUZA down at all. Just pointing out some general observations.

[jehicks87]

but as the weight increases doesn't the airframes ability to absorb the forces and energy produced in a crash? I don't have any evidence or numbers to support this, just anecdotal observations from car crashes... i.e. a full-sized truck is normally safer to be inside during a wreck than a sub-compact car (barring all safety devices other than seatbelts.)

[ckurz7000]

It might or it might not. It all depends on how the frame is constructed. But I fear this thread is veering away from the KRUZA gyro which I am in no position to judge.

-- Chris.

[Passin' Thru]

It might or it might not. It all depends on how the frame is constructed. But I fear this thread is veering away from the KRUZA gyro which I am in no position to judge.

-- Chris.

Chris is correct ... on both counts! ;):D

[Phenix5]

In any case and taking into consideration certain european countries regulations, the aitrcraft must be able to withstand it´s own weight plus a 3,5 safety factor. That would be it´s all up weight multiplied by this figure.

If this gyro is roughly 600 kgs MAUW, we are talking about 2.100 kgs. The aircraft should be loaded up to that weight (using sand sacks) adding it´s safety factor to each puntual weight positions (engine, seats, tanks, etc.). The aircraft should then be inspected and there must be no signs of deformation or failure in any part. After this, the gyro should be lifted by a crane or similar and the same inspection is taken.

For certification purpose it would be necessary to add a 1,5 extra margin to that (3.100 kgs.) but here certain deformations would be accepted.

I don´t think it would be wise to fly anything that has not been tested in this way. Although engineering numbers should be enough, practical tests will at least confirm they are right and give confidence to the test pilot and the manufacturing team.

[SamL]

Here in Australia we have very stringent compliance requirements, and yes all 2 seaters are required to pass such requirements. This machine certainly exceeds all these requirements. Most of G-762's testing was with here pre-assessor G-800 which has now been successfully flying for 3 years and copped a real pounding as a trainer over the last 12 months.

Australian Construction Requirements for complaint Gyroplanes.
http://www.asra.org.au/documents/ConstructionRequirementsCompliantGyroplanes.pdf

Regards SamL................

[Phenix5]

It´s good to have strict design rules because at the end if your intention is to put them into production and sell them, everybody will benefit from a properly designed aircraft.

If you have gone thru your regulations and passed them positively, then congratulations for your aircraft and it's design. That's the highest guarantee you can offer.

I think that flying, flying and flying is the best way to test a machine and if it's a trainer much better!

Good luck with your project!

[SamL]

Thank's Carlos.....................

[troed@aon.at]

Also, the higher weight increases forces and energy required to be absorbed in crashes or balked landings.I think it is prudent to keep the weight down as much as possible (without sacrificing other important things, of course).

Che stupido ! What a bullsh.. ! :eek::der:

MT03: EW 250 kg, 450kg MTOW, 27" rotor, 100 hp: the gyro with the highest fatality rate, because at a "balked" landing or even just at a flip over on ground it is always a total crash minus motor. Too many pilots and PAXES died in MT03s all over the world because to spare weight to meet European weight limits it is constructed not sturdy enough with non aviation certified mats. Flight envelope is the same a s KRUZA

Magni/ELA/XENON: EW 260-280 kg, 550 kg MTOW, 28" rotor, 100 hp:
much less fatalities compared to MT03 (partly negligible), when having a balked landing less damages to repair, greater chance for pilots and PAXES to survive a crash because of sturdy construction with high safety margins. Flight envelope the same as KRUZA.

Calidus: EW 260kg, MTOW 450kg, 27" rotor, 100 hp: nobody knows what happens after a balked landing or after a crash landing. No gyro of this type was delivered to a low time pilot so nobody can tell if pilots and PAXES will die en masse as in the MT03. (actually, and this is why I would never climb in a Calidus: once You crashed with it and flipped over You will never be able to get out of the machine since the cabin hood is arrested and cannot be opened by any means and there is no "emergency-exit". A classical potential death-trap. :mad:)

Arrowcopter (acc. to manufs hp ! serial production expected for 2010): EW 260 kg (with extras up to 280kg), MTOW 450 kg (UL-type), 600 kg (LSA-type), 28" rotor, 100 hp. First gyro made fully in carbon-composite ("monocoque-design"). No everyday real-life experience until now from average gyro-pilots since it will be available only in 2010 but since it is a complete new construction and was constructed by CAD-calcs it contains very high passive safety. To compare a Calidus with the Arrowcopter is a shame for the Arrowcopter. :rant::lol:

KRUZA: EW 360kg, MTOW 600kg, 29" rotor (!!!), 160 hp (!!!!!): same weight-class as LSA-Arrowcopter !

Conclusions:

1. not the empty weight counts but the MTOW at which stress tests are performed !

40-50 % of the MTO3s fly overweighed with PAXes at 500kg MTOW with the result of unbearable fatalities (see this forum and the German gyro-forum).

With the KRUZA the EW is higher because of the more heavy EJ engine compared to Rotax, the rest of weight distributes between frame construction and 29" comp-rotors. As with the Magnis (and XENONS) this weight is hopefully invested in sturdy construction to save lives in case of crashes.

We have now a long discussion in the German forum that we want to and pledge for having higher weight limits in Europe to allow more sturdy and safe gyro-constructions that do not hurt people in minor and bigger crashes as the MT03.

2. not the MTOW counts for the glide ratio but the aerodynamic profile of the ship and the "wing-span" (i.e. rotor-diameter). The KRUZA might have a very good glide ratio with the 29" rotor = better ground effect that compensates the weight.

In case of descent behind power curve or accidentally vertical descent Newton comes in: they all fall the same speed compensated (neglibily) only by the aerodynamic profile and mostly by the rotor-diameter and rotor-design.

At crash contact with mother earth at same speeds weight is an advantage: more weight around the pilot sitting in the gyro = more mass = more energy absorbed by higher mass.

3. MTOW in the US is 550kg thus the serial gyros (Magni, XENON) are constructed for this (wise and more realistic) weight limit. In practical gyro flying life the difference to 600kg is nil (taking into account the 160hp EJ-engine and the 29" rotor).

4. To spare in EW means to spare in passive safety.

5. The cited argumentation is mere nonsense: just ask Yourself: who will more probably survive a crash in a car at same speeds: the driver of a small and light car (F1 and Indy-race-cars excluded !!!!!) or the driver in heavy car ?

[SamL]

Thanks Angelo
Let me see if I can shed some more light on the Kruza's construction. :wave:

The total airframe is 6061T6 alloy and both mast and keel are 2x3 inch tubing which is of riveted and bolted construction.
The twin booms are made of 4130 Chrome molly for strength and light weight.
The pilot and passenger are totally isolated by a stainless steel fire wall which separate's them from the fuel tank, engine, and battery/electrics. The main undercarriage is constructed of a 1 piece rapped fibreglass construction, tested to a 6 ton loading. The mains are set back to allow max spin up before rotation during takeoff. The mast is laid back at 9 degree to aid with rotor vibration absorption. Blades are full glass construction, twisted and tapered (Patroney Revolution rotor blades) 9 inches at root, and 8 at tips with positive washout. Thrusting prop is also a Patrony carbon fibre 74 inch wide cord. Machine is fitted with a 140 litre fuel tank, (new K3) hydraulic prerotator, rotor break, differential steering, and pod is full carbon fibre construction. Each seat has its own baggage compartment below it (large briefcase size) The machine has also been designed with quiet operation in mind hentz the stainless steel exhaust, real/full size muffler system, and tip exhaust exit below propeller tips.
The machine is constructed with its thrust line and fuel tank both aligned with the machine's CofG. Coupled with twin fully immersed fins, rudders, and large horizontal stabilizer give the machine a true feeling of stability and minimal torque reaction during power on or off.
So as you can see, this little baby realy uses all the latest gyro trick to its full advantage :party::party::party:

Regards SamL.....

[ckurz7000]

Angelo, your arguments are mostly refuted by your emotions.

I rest my case.

-- Chris.

P.S.: SamL, best wishes to you and the Kruza. It may be a great ship and I would like to test fly it if I ever get the opportunity.

[SamL]

Hi Chris
If your ever visiting our great country, and the city of Melbourne, then please look me up.
We would prefer to get one out to the states to allow people like yourself first hand experience at flying an Ozzy KRUZA.

P.S I should point out the GTG boys are a manufacturer, and will build it anyway you like, with or without any extras, and yes with a Rotax 912S/914 if thats your preferred engine.

Regards SamL....

[Gyro_Kai]

but as the weight increases doesn't the airframes ability to absorb the forces and energy produced in a crash? I don't have any evidence or numbers to support this, just anecdotal observations from car crashes... i.e. a full-sized truck is normally safer to be inside during a wreck than a sub-compact car (barring all safety devices other than seatbelts.)

Sorry, I cannot leave this undisputed. Higher weight by itself is advantageous, if it makes the the obstacle, which you crash in, perish. Hence the truck vs. compact car example. In a collision with terrain, or a tree trunk, the additional weight is not by itself helpful. However, if you "use" the weight for armour and, crumble zone, airbags etc., then additional weight saves lives.

Kai.

[SamL]

Here is one of our latest ads.

Regards Sam......

[troed@aon.at]

Great ! Congrats !

But what the heck is a 200hp autoflight gearbox ?

And: can´t You make the doors transparent down to the bottom line for better view ?

Will there be a KRUZA in NZ in December 2009 ? It terribly itches me to fly it :D

[troed@aon.at]

PS: 51.000.- € is a VERY competitive prize ! (actual exchange rate AU$ vs. € of today)

[SamL]

Great ! Congrats !

But what the heck is a 200hp autoflight gearbox ?

And: can´t You make the doors transparent down to the bottom line for better view ?

Will there be a KRUZA in NZ in December 2009 ? It terribly itches me to fly it :D

The 200HP Autoflight gearbox http://www.autoflight.co.nz/reduction/index.php is just that, it is the new 200hp (old was rated at 160HP) fitted with flywheel not flexplate.
The Kruza is currently only flying in Australia, but NZ could be a real possibility, as GT Gyroplanes is owned by 2 NZ born brothers, Alistair, & Geoff.
Drop by Melbourne and I will be able to sort out that itch.

Yes for a fully enclosed 2 seater this is quite competitive.

Regards SamL................

[SamL]

PS: 51.000.- € is a VERY competitive prize ! (actual exchange rate AU$ vs. € of today)

Yes thats right Angelo, the KRUZA works out to be

$51,000 EURO's or $76,500 USD's. No kit to build, just ready to fly. Very competative......

Regards SamL..............

[autogyro]

[QUOTE=At crash contact with mother earth at same speeds weight is an advantage: more weight around the pilot sitting in the gyro = more mass = more energy absorbed by higher mass.
[/QUOTE]

? Really? more mass = more energy absorbed by higher mass. ??

[ckurz7000]

? Really? more mass = more energy absorbed by higher mass. ??

Mass per se is a drawback because it increases the energy that needs to be absorbed.

It's only when you distribute mass cleverly that it can be a protection to you. But even then there is a point of diminishing returns in a flying machine because you have to have the power to lift the mass. And the more power you need the heavier in itself the engine weighs in.

There are some theoretical tools that will let you calculate and simulate to some accuracy whether you have achieved that goal (such as Finite Element Analysis).

-- Chris.

[Gyro_Kai]

I'm surprised, that this discussion is still going on
5. The cited argumentation is mere nonsense: just ask Yourself: who will more probably survive a crash in a car at same speeds: the driver of a small and light car (F1 and Indy-race-cars excluded !!!!!) or the driver in heavy car ?

The above question is irrelevant if you collide with terrain. Mother earth or a tree trunk is always the winner, whether you fly a paper kite or a heavy gyro. Having a lot of weight behind the pilots back as an engine in order to lift all the weight is also not helping survivability.

Weight per se is not helpful to survive an aircraft crash.
Strengthening the structure, keeping the motor out of the cockpit and maybe airbags and parachutes improve chances, even if they include a weight penalty.

I believe that a Magni M24, Kruza or Xenon increases survivability over an open frame gyro, but not because of the weight. Rather despite of the weight.

Kai.

[troed@aon.at]

Strengthening the structure, keeping the motor out of the cockpit and maybe airbags and parachutes improve chances, even if they include a weight penalty.


This is exactly what I meant !

Stiffer frames and fiberglass cabins add structural strength but add also weight. The European 450kg UL-weight limit is a virtual one, the same ULs fly in the USA with 550 kg (Magni, ELA, XENON etc.). And Subaru engines are heavier than Rotaxes ...............

´The MT03 fulfills the European legal limits and is the lightest serial gyro but at what prize ? The prize are the numerous fatalities that can be read in newsmags all over the world. In case I crash I want to survive and for this I gladly take some more weight if spent for structural strenght.

[Gyro_Kai]

Yes, Angelo, but the discussion went another way. Weight does not add safety, but if you add safety, most likely you also add weight.
Here in Germany with no speed limit you often see small vans (i.E. Ford Transit or VW Sprinter) filled to the brim with heavy plumbing equipment at 120 mph on the autobahn. They surely will make a big impression on whatever they hit, but that impression will be coloured red.

I doubt that the MTs have intrinsic problems. Even though you had a very poor specimen, the MT is not safer or un-safer than its cousins. Surviving a crash in a (half)-open frame is always a challenge and so far I see no evidence that an ELA or Magni does not kill when crashing. Something to do with Newton's laws.

Kai.

[C. Beaty]

Overwhelmingly, gyro fatalities are the result of tumbling out of the sky, resulting from the combination of unstable machines and more often than not, inexperienced pilots. Such events are not survivable whatever the structure.

Someone is occasionally injured in a rollover accident as a result of poor ground handling and inadequate rollover protection.

[Gyro_Kai]

Chuck, that is exactly what I mean. An accident falling out of the sky is not survivable. We had many of those, but usually the witnesses, if any, reported strange flight attitudes, like backflipping. If you come to the not-always-fatal region of falling 30ft or caught nose-wheel during landing, wrong rotor managment on the ground etc, a stiff mast and or a solid cabin definitely make a difference.

The fatalities Angelo is referring to belong to the second category: The pilot escaped injured, while the passenger died in the blaze. Keeping the fuel out of the (half or full)-cabin would make a big difference here. The passenger being locked in by the bent mast as also reported, is not necessarily a design fault. It depends on how strong the forces on the mast were and whether other masts of similar geometry would withstand the same load better than the MT masts. I personally doubt that and I doubt that anyone has any reliable information on that.

Kai

[troed@aon.at]

Hi Kai !

I principally agree with Your statements.

For the bent mast fixing the PAX in the gyro there would be a solution, quite simple though. A 45 degree Delta-bar to the mast would raise the spot of bending high enough not to fix the PAX anymore. And this is once again the weight story: this might add another 3-5 kgs to the gyro which - according to German UL-rules - might this little bit too much.

So to summarize: every ounce that adds to passive safety is "good" weight.

I was asking Luca Magni the question why he can´t reduce the weight of the Orion to 250 kgs. He answered me: " of course I could very easily, but it is for the sake of passive safety, and THIS I don´t take. There are certain limits to build a gyroplane at a reasonable prize and it is always a compromise. If You pay 4 times more for a gyro I can build the same one with 220 kgs and even more passive safety."

[SamL]

:focus: :censored: :rip:

[birdy]

Just before you go BTT, iv got one thing to add.
Id much rather bingle me open single than a cabed twin.
Ina open single, theres only one thing to hit you, the ground.
Ina cab, theres plenty of things to hit n cut n slice you up ina bingle, and just as many things to trap you in.
Bend a single as much as you like, and all you gota do to get out is hit the belt release thingo and your out.

[ kinda speakn from experiances here, several of um]

But, if your guna nose dive it from a hight, nuthn is go'n to save your sorry ass, no matter wot your flyn. :(

[ckurz7000]

Birdy, couldn't have said it better meself ;)

-- Chris.

[Resasi]

Sam how have things been going for the Kruza since the downturn which has effected us all?

A great looking machine with obviously a lot of though gone into it, what are the order books looking like?

[SamL]

Hi Leigh
Thanks for your comments. The KRUZA is going really well. Ive been very busy training and in what spare time I have, have made a few exhaust and induction system modifications.
My RCA KRUZA now has a set of tuned exhaust runners (about 2 ft long) which flow into an additional resonator on each side, then back into the main muffler below which is unchanged.
This has quietened the machine both internally and externally. You can now take your headsets off and communicate inside.
The other mod was the installation of a cold air, fully sealed ram air intake system. The old system took air from behind the radiator, and on a hot day the performance would drop quite noticeably. We measured the intake temp and found it to be as high as 50-60 degrees on a warm day. With the new ram air system it now feeds from direct airflow above in the cowling. this becomes pressurized due to the sealed system and has added additional power on those hot days. I should ad that the pressurized system works due to the fact the engine is fuel injected via a self regulating Motec ecu.

I have posted a 8 min video on u-tube, check it out and enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3rqBkxiO4

Regards SamL..................