Enclosed Twinstarr

[barnstorm2]

Anyone have any other pictures?

I was hopeing I could read the numbers and find this machine.

These pictures are from Mentone 1997.

[Rick Whittridge]

Sure looks like a Mini 18A!

[Rick Whittridge]

I won Grand Champion & Peoples choice at Mentone in 1997 & don`t remember seeing the enclosed Twinstarr. I do remember Don landing in the corn with a student short of the south end runway by the road. It knock the nose wheel right off!

[barnstorm2]

Yes! I thought it looked like a mini 18a too!

I don't really have much of a desire to enclose my Twinstarr execpt for winter flying.

It sure would be nice to be able to fly on 'snow-days'.

[Caribean_gyro]

It looks like slater machine. I was told that the engine cowlings and the body kit was sold to a guy in FL. ANd I think it was him.

Now Don was not happy with the performance of it. I ask Woody once about it and he said
There was only one enclosure ever put on a Twinstarr and tested. It was a bit tricky in directional control, from what I remember Don saying, and therefore I would rather wait and test one myself before recommending/selling one, as you can understand. After Don's death the owner sold his machine and the next owner crashed it on one of the first flights, and the one and only fully-enclosed Twinstarr was completely destroyed. Both occupants (non-licenced!!!!) survived, but with severe injuries. I have here the molds to make an enclosure, apart from the little roof section that goes over the front cockpit. I can have one made from the mold if you wish, but I would have to check how much that would cost.
"

Now knowing Woody he will like to test it first before selling it.

ChuckP


"

[Chris Burgess]

Do not enclose the TwinStar with out "major" additional vertical rudder surface. It is likely that the noted crash resulted from loss of yaw authority. The non-enclosed half cabin will swap ends if you aren't careful with yaw control. Don also told me it did not fly well. Trust me on this one. I've had a TwinStar almost swap ends on me. I saw the mentioned aircraft at Bensen Days, can't remember the year.

[David Meyer]

That enclosure used to sit in the hangar and Don told that Delta Echo, the gyro pictured had an enlargedtail and rudder but that it wasn't enough to compensate for drag and turbulence created by the enclosure.





David Meyer

[Rick Whittridge]

Chris, What would you suggest to keep this end swapping from happening in the Twinstarr?

[Brent_Brown]

Like I said before if we drop the twin tails and use a mangi type tail all will good. I posted a photoshop job of one. My idea was to use the Rotax 914 and a long mangi tail to help keep the CG the same without moving the rotorhead forward. I still might do it. If I was smart I would market this NEW gyro and forget the twinstarr deal that Woody is wasting in the UK.

[barnstorm2]

Like I said before if we drop the twin tails and use a mangi type tail all will good. I posted a photoshop job of one. My idea was to use the Rotax 914 and a long mangi tail to help keep the CG the same without moving the rotorhead forward. I still might do it. If I was smart I would market this NEW gyro and forget the twinstarr deal that Woody is wasting in the UK.

To keep the Twinstarr from 'swapping ends' just keep the airspeed up when landing in a crosswind or quartering tailwind. In other words no 'zero-roll' landings in a crosswind.

Some have increased the rudder length to help.

A magni-style tail would be one solution but it seems to be that we could keep the existing tail and put a small rudder in the propstream suspended between the tails and thus retain the look and do less redesign.

[Chris Burgess]

Airspeed alone will not correct the problem. You must keep the aircraft in trim. Similar to the Air & Space which has slip limits, there are limits that should be set in it's original configuration. My "near" swap end happened on final at 60 mph. We were in a significant right slip due to a right crosswind. The downwind rudder gets turbulent air, the torque is rolling the fuselage right, and the wind is hitting the cabin from the right. When the student let it yaw slightly left from a gust, it quickly yaw left until we were 90 degrees to the original flight path. The throttle needed to be quickly closed to stop torque roll, and the AOA made positive by left stick. It happened in a heartbeat. Do not slip this aircraft significantly to the right unless you add surface area to the rudders. This aircraft also had a slightly extend cabin (I think 6"). But this alone was not responsible for the "flip". So Rick, that's it. Not a low airspeed landing incident. This was at normal approach speed with a 10-12 mph 90 degree crosswind, and I might add a gust from that tree at the approach end of runway 18 at Mentone.

[barnstorm2]

You had an indicated airspeed of 60mph and the (left) downwind Rudder was in dirty air from a 12 mph crosswind? wow.

Seems like the relative wind would have kept your machine weather-veined nicely and provided clear air with the rudders out 3 feet from the body on each side.

A 12 mph crosswind from 45deg would give about an 9 mph reduction in ground track speed and a 8 mph calculated crosswind factor. The indicated airspeed 'should' have been approx the same airflow speed moving over both rudders as they are positioned out away from the body.

I am not going to claim any aircraft engineering experience at all so please don't take any of this the wrong way, I am just a curious pilot trying to wrap my pea noggin around this.

Perhaps I don't understand the setup but it seems this could be avoided by slipping with the rotordisk and don't try to pull the body out of the relative wind using the rudders.

Any gyro I have ever flown would be unhappy if you had 60mph of forward airspeed then you stomped on the rudder and gave the wind some body to grab a hold of.

I track in a crosswind lineup using the cyclic and (so far) have had to put very little rudder input into it.

I have flown in a 15-20 mph crosswind across Indiana cruising at 65mph for hours and I did not have to touch the pedals at all.

My old 2-place side by side had the rudder and empennage behind the cabin close up in dirty air. She could be a bugger with the engine RPM low and the body catching a x-wind but the twinstarr has the rudders and empennage mounted out away from the body in clean air.

I can see her lacking authority in yaw at low airspeeds but 60mph vers 12 seems very strange to me.

Again… please don't take any of this the wrong way, I am just a curious pilot trying to wrap my pea noggin around this.

I thought that a Torque Roll happens in the direction opposite of the rotation of the prop. From the back my prop rotates counter-clockwise, I think. so.... that would push you....Right?(starboard) the same direction as the on-comming crosswind and in the direction back to where you want to go?

Please help me get this clear in my head...

[Brent Drake]

Tim, I'm with you on this. I've never had a problem in the wind. But I do know that Chris trained in my machine for awhile.

[Caribean_gyro]

I have the big tails. Since originally I was planing in full enclose. I can tell you taht it controls the machine too much. in a vertical decent it manage to have plenty of autority. at 60 mph full rudder deflection I can do a 360.

In a strong croswind 15+ my tecnique is steer a bit to the wind but almost straigh down the path, Stick to the wind and solid fly it to the runway. The reduce power and land the wheel into the wind first then stright the gyro next wheel and then bring stick from the side to center . All this hapen in syncro.

CHuckP

[barnstorm2]

Yes, my experience is the same.

So far as I know how to tell my rudders have never stalled so long as I have any decient airspeed and certainly not any time over 40mph indicated airspeed.

Any torque affect has been nil or minimal.

I am no CFI and I only have a little over 50 hours in my Twinstarr so I still have much to learn and experience (such as having a tree gust me.. ;) )

One thing that did happen to me that would have seemed like the scenerio above is this:

I after doing a low flyby at high speed I began I steep climb with a turn to the left (port). The seats on my twinstarr are like the seats used to be on Brent's machine, cloth strapped across a completely open seat frame. I was wearing 'boot-like' shoes that have a long toe and a stiff ankle support.

About half way through the climbing turn It felt like Connie was pressing down on the Left rudder pedal. She said she was not. What it turned out to be is that during the climbing turn she was sinking down in her seat and it was pressing on my shoe and thus on the rudder pedal.

It felt just like someone was pressing left rudder, at the time I would not have thought it felt like her seat bottom pressing on the pedal via my shoe. She confirmed that she could feel my rudder movements through the seat during certain manouvers.

I plan to add some seat support and I no longer wear boots when flying back seat.

I think this could easily be interpreted as an 'uncontrolled' snap turn to the left. As I was not applying any pressure myself and only a small amount of travel is needed at decent airspeed (40mph+) to turn the twinstarr a slight 'butt-push' down from above on the top of a shoe would result in a seemingly mystical abrupt left turn at high speed out of nowhere.

This would occur rather randomly as the passinger in the front seat would be shifting weight from time to time and be under various G forces and angles.

Again, I would like to emphsize that I am not an expert just a pilot pondering the data and running it against my own experiences.

Considerations that seem important:

1. At normal airspeeds and definatly at 60mph indicated even a slight touch on the rudder gives me plenty of yaw. To have a rudder stall from a 12 mph x-wind is completely contrary to my experiences (so far)

2. Torque roll, especally with any decent airspeed has been unnoticable in my 160hp Twinstarr. If it did happen and if my understanding of Torque roll are correct (an they very well might not be) it would actually push Right(starboard) and be assisting the rudders against a left yaw.

3. I have myself experienced an unexpected left (port) yaw at high airspeed, the cause of which turned out to be a design flaw of the seat bottom and rudder pedal placement. I would have not believed this to be the cause of the problem unless Connie had mentioned she could feel me "kicking" the bottom of her seat through some manouvers. I never felt like I was kicking her seat nor could I tell her seat was applying pressure to my shoe until AFTER I was aware of the problem and could test it in flight.

[barnstorm2]

It is likely that the noted crash resulted from loss of yaw authority. .


Chris, I must be missing some information on this.

Are you referring to this accident (text below)?

The NTSB report on my accident is full of errors and inaccuracys so I don't put much faith in these.

I don't see any indication of a yaw problem. Can you let us Twinstarr pilots know what information you have on yaw being part of this accident as our lives may depend on your accurate data.



---------------------------------------
Accident occurred Thursday, June 13, 2002 in Bastrop, LA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/6/2002
Aircraft: Frennance Twinstar, registration: N711FS
Injuries: 2 Serious.
While returning to the airport, the gyroplane started losing altitude and impacted trees approximately 1/2 mile from the airport's only runway. The pilot reported that due to a concussion, he does not recall the events surrounding the accident. The passenger reported that he recalled that they flew over town, were en route back to the airport, and could see the airport when the gyroplane started to lose altitude. As the gyroplane neared the trees, he heard the engine noise increase. Subsequently, the gyroplane impacted trees and came to rest upright. The passenger added that as he exited the gyroplane, fuel was leaking on him. A witness heard the engine at full throttle, heard the rotor blades impact trees, and then the engine noise stopped; however, the witness did not make visual contact with the gyroplane. The pilot held an airline transport certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, and a flight instructor certificate with various airplane ratings; however, he did not hold a rotorcraft-gyroplane category and class rating. The pilot was unaware that he was required to obtain this category and class rating. At the time of the accident, the pilot had accumulated a total of 3.0 hours in gyroplanes.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's failure to maintain altitude for an undetermined reason, which resulted in an in-flight collision with trees.

[Chris Burgess]

Chris, I must be missing some information on this.

Are you referring to this accident (text below)?

The NTSB report on my accident is full of errors and inaccuracys so I don't put much faith in these.

I don't see any indication of a yaw problem. Can you let us Twinstarr pilots know what information you have on yaw being part of this accident as our lives may depend on your accurate data.



---------------------------------------
Accident occurred Thursday, June 13, 2002 in Bastrop, LA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/6/2002
Aircraft: Frennance Twinstar, registration: N711FS
Injuries: 2 Serious.
While returning to the airport, the gyroplane started losing altitude and impacted trees approximately 1/2 mile from the airport's only runway. The pilot reported that due to a concussion, he does not recall the events surrounding the accident. The passenger reported that he recalled that they flew over town, were en route back to the airport, and could see the airport when the gyroplane started to lose altitude. As the gyroplane neared the trees, he heard the engine noise increase. Subsequently, the gyroplane impacted trees and came to rest upright. The passenger added that as he exited the gyroplane, fuel was leaking on him. A witness heard the engine at full throttle, heard the rotor blades impact trees, and then the engine noise stopped; however, the witness did not make visual contact with the gyroplane. The pilot held an airline transport certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, and a flight instructor certificate with various airplane ratings; however, he did not hold a rotorcraft-gyroplane category and class rating. The pilot was unaware that he was required to obtain this category and class rating. At the time of the accident, the pilot had accumulated a total of 3.0 hours in gyroplanes.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

the pilot's failure to maintain altitude for an undetermined reason, which resulted in an in-flight collision with trees.

I most certianly am not. The Twinstar is a fine aircraft. Like others (many of them) it has it's faults. I would buy one today if it had local manufacture support and I had the money. All I ask is that you guys repect the "faults" if you fly this aircraft. I like to keep students alive. I make no other suggestions. Closely maintain your slips (moderate) to landing and don't add a full cabin, which is where this thread started. If you have a strong crosswind, land across the runway, directly into that wind to be safe.

Just on your comment of torque roll there barnstorm2. After the aircraft has turned 90 degrees to the flight path, the cabin is now being hit with something like a 50mph right crosswind. If you do not close the throttle, it adds to the right roll which is now in progress. Full left stick alone may not be enough to stop the roll to the right. Close the throttle along with left stick to load the rotor. Now I was there, so you can take my word or you can go your own way. I am only trying to help you stay alive. I guess I'm done on this subject.

[barnstorm2]

Thank you for explaining the torque roll. I can see how that makes sense now.

I am a little slow and i'm afraid I still don't understand how the rudder would stall under the situations described if I can a correct understanding of the problem (which I may very well not have), I would like to know if pressure from the student's seat could have contributed to your near turn around and I am completely confused about your reference to yaw causing an accident.

I am just trying to understand for all of our benifit.


Originally Posted by Chris Burgess
It is likely that the noted crash resulted from loss of yaw authority. . .

Chris, I must be missing some information on this.

Are you referring to this accident (text below)? I most certianly am not. .


Chris, which accident are you referring to then?

It seems to fit the discription in the post:
.......the next owner crashed it on one of the first flights, and the one and only fully-enclosed Twinstarr was completely destroyed. Both occupants (non-licenced!!!!) survived, but with severe injuries....."

I checked with NTSB and there are only 2 other reports for Twinstarrs one a blade flap and the other a missing control bolt.

Are you perhaps referring to Don's corn landing? Was that in a twinstarr?

Once again, please don't get upset with me for asking these questions. We have a number of observations I think are worthy of discussion.

[Rick Whittridge]

Tim, Don was flying the twinstarr at Mentone when he made a emergency landing short of the runway knocking the nose wheel off. There was no report filed.

[barnstorm2]

Tim, Don was flying the twinstarr at Mentone when he made a emergency landing short of the runway knocking the nose wheel off. There was no report filed.

Did he say what the emergency was?

[Rick Whittridge]

Yeh, The engine quit ! I don`t know why?

[PW_Plack]

Hey, wait a minute...

The pilot held an airline transport certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, and a flight instructor certificate with various airplane ratings; however, he did not hold a rotorcraft-gyroplane category and class rating. The pilot was unaware that he was required to obtain this category and class rating...

If this was a homebult experimental, in 2002, he was not required to obtain a rating for gyros unless it was specified in his operating limitations. What's the deal here, and why is this in an NTSB report?

[barnstorm2]

Hey, wait a minute...

The pilot held an airline transport certificate, a commercial pilot certificate, and a flight instructor certificate with various airplane ratings; however, he did not hold a rotorcraft-gyroplane category and class rating. The pilot was unaware that he was required to obtain this category and class rating...

If this was a homebult experimental, in 2002, he was not required to obtain a rating for gyros unless it was specified in his operating limitations. What's the deal here, and why is this in an NTSB report?


We could make a bloopers thread for NTSB reports.

You are correct, he did not need to obtain a rating.

My NTSB report had like 4 or 5 errors some of which directly conflicted in the same report. I have not checked to see if they have corrected it yet or not.

Someone here posted about an NTSB report on a gyro that listed something about a missing tail rotor!

A contributing cause to the accident could have been an unexpect yaw action and we would never know it from the NTSB report.

That is why I thought Chris might have some more info on why he thought this or some other crash had loss of yaw stabilty a likely factor.

[Brent Drake]

Tim , thought that Gary said Don did not have a pin holding the front wheel on. When he too off the wheel stayd on the ground.

[barnstorm2]

Tim , thought that Gary said Don did not have a pin holding the front wheel on. When he too off the wheel stayd on the ground.


What the?:twitch:

What a flight!

No nosewheel and an engine out! What a :censored: thing to happen at a fly-in.

[gyrowoody]

Dear all ;
with interest I have read the items discussed here.
A couple of things you all need to know.

The Twinstarr was designed by Don Farrington and Tom Davey. Both knew very well what they were doing, both by experience and by trade/training.
The decision for the twin tail configuration was well chosen and it offfers many advantages as compared to other conventional tail configurations. It is light, makes the aircraft more compact, lets you adopt a higher nose attitude in the flare (which in turn shortens the landing roll-if there is any!!! Observe a Twinstarr flown properly and compare it to other machines and you may see a shorter landing roll in similar wind conditions). This is in particular useful should you be so unlucky as to have to make an engine-out landing on an unprepared field.
The tail configuration also lends itself to a more directionally stable aircraft, since in fact the tails operate in arflow which is not disturbed by the propblast. In case of engine failure in a conventional design, you not only have lost the engine, but also a large proportion of your yaw control by absence of propwash over the rudder. This does NOT happen in the Twinstarr - another advantage.
BTW : Fitting it with a Magni tail is not a clever solution in our view since it foregoes a lot of the many design advantages of the Twinstarr which only reveal themselves when one actually sets up production and makes a very detailed aerodynamics study of it. If you want to crossbreed, you'll end up with a bastard.
You don't have to take my opinion for it, just ask any of the owners and competent pilots out there what kind of machine and class their Twinstarr is compared to others. If you won't take their word for it, perhaps asking Ken Wallis may give you an idea. What he doesn't know about gyroplanes does not deserve knowing, and he has already forgotten more than what we will probably ever know about gyroplanes.
The crashed fully enclosed Twinstarr in question was owned by Mr Slater of Florida, who later sold it to someone else (name withheld- we have the data), who later crashed it with a passenger on board. The cause of the crash was never established, although I spoke to one of the persons on board who was still recovering from the injuries sustained in the crash. I do not know if the machine was in its fully-enclosed configuration at the time of the crash. I have not seen any pictures of the wreckage.
It was still in the testing phase and Don was not really satisfied enough with it to market it as an option. I remember discussing this with him many years ago. That is the reason, like Chuck says, that I will not release this option until I have satisfied myself that it has proven itself to handle adequately when flown by the average pilot. Unlike some other kit-manufacturers I do believe in safety and satisfied customers, and hence try to shy away from the “Quick-Buck” –policy. This does certainly NOT work in our favour at the time, but I believe more in long-term policy. I feel it is a better survival strategy. The proof is in the pudding : Interest in the Twinstarr is higher now than several years back when the project was sold, and rightfully so.

Thirdly ; I have stated in other postings on this forum that we will resume kit manufacture for both the Twinstarr and the Twinstarrlite when we have a number of solid orders (with a downpayment).
The building of new premises to do just that : restarting the manufacture, is just about completed. We have all the jigs, drawings, moulds (yes, even for the fully-enclosed version), fixtures, drawing files, etc, not to forget the know-how and experience with the design from day one.
If you guys want to manufacture it in the USA (locally as someone put it), I can see the benefit of this in a way, and this is open to discussion and we will accept honest offers from interested parties when one steps forward.
I have to say I take offense at anyone accusing me of "wasting the project over here". They just haven't woken up to better technology over here yet. Add to that a new Twinstarrlite on the drawing board, two more engine options, even more payload and better performance, better fuel economy, lower build time for the tails and virtually no stickshake and you will realise the project is far from dead and has bags of potential. We are doing this all by ourselves at our own cost, which is a lot more difficult over here than in the USA, where you can enjoy a hell of a lot more freedom/experimentation in amateur aircraft construction.

I hope this helps,
Sincerely,
Woody

[Brent_Brown]

Woody did you ever see about that motor mount I asked about or do you need five to be ordered for that.
As you put they just haven't woken up. So it is being wasted.

[barnstorm2]

Woody did you ever see about that motor mount I asked about or do you need five to be ordered for that.
As you put they just haven't woken up. So it is being wasted.

Woody,

I have to agree with Brent and I think I will play some devil's advocate here.

Please don't take this as a put down but what I hope will be helpful market insight and criticism that is meant to be entirely constructive.

If I (and I can only speak for myself) wanted a Twinstarr ( and I know from the many offers I have had for mine, there is a demand) I would not want a Twinstarr Lite.

I would want the proven sturdy (heavy) frame and the peace of mind from the certified Lycoming or de-certified Lycoming aircraft engine. I would want a Twinstarr just like the ones flying in the US made by Farrington Aircraft not a modified version.

Since you have purchased the rights and materials from Farrington Aircraft to my knowledge ( and PLEASE correct me if I am wrong in any way) you have written an article for the PRA magazine some years ago on the Twinstarr Lite and have flown an impressive mission in Europe with a Lycoming powered Farrington Twinstarr.

Yet in all this time we have not seen any production Twinstarrs. Or “Genuine” Twinstarr parts.

I have not seen any adds (at least in the past few years) for Lycoming Twinstarrs or Twinstarr Lites in the PRA magazine or Homebuilt Rotorcraft.

If I were to send you money on a kit and you said that you would not produce until you had 5 orders and you were (apparently) not aggressively seeking orders by placing ads or showing up at (US fly-ins) Bensen Days or Mentone I would be pretty reluctant to give you my money and I would rather be seeking another gyro or a used Twinstarr.

I would be worried that you were lacking something such as the funding, time or commitment to bring the Twinstarr back to the market.

So very many people have been burnt and lost money and dreams by putting money down on an aircraft kit that has never emerged that you must make a visible, active effort to convince the market of your viability, intent and commitment to bring this machine to the market SOON before you will get paid pre-orders for machines. IMHO.

Woody, please please take out ads in the PRA Magazine, produce Twinstarrs for those that have already placed orders, Advertise parts for sale, put up a website with pictures, dates, show the new facility, Twinstarr accomplhiments and list why you are a real vendor and why giving you a downpayment will result in getting a Twinstarr in a quick painless fashion... and bring and fly a Woody-produced Lycoming powered Twinstarr to the US or sell / donate the rights and jigs to someone who will.

If being in the EU is keeping you from produceing than produce in the US! Perhaps the Twinstarr should not have been taken out of the US and should be produced here and brought to the EU over time as the permissions are aquired. Just what good are having US rights in the EU? How long are those rights going to last?

Make a deal with a US investor get things rolling an then work through the EU red tape...

Woody, if you are shy on funds.. Why not publish the Twinstarr plans and then sell parts sort of like the Star-BEE model (http://www.starbeegyros.com/) this will get the scratch builders online and parts for current owners and this will:

1. establish credibility
2. establish funds and business processes
3. provide proof of workmanship

Then I think people will be FAR more receptive to downpaying for a full Twinstarr kit and provide needed industry excitement, news and communictions about Twinstarrs and your products. Then you could send out flyers and info to ALL CURRENT Twinstarr owners so when they get asked about their machines they can referr them to you! It is in every Twinstarr owners best intrest to help make you a sucess!! That is why I am so concerned!

It is a “waste” as Brent said (IMHO also) to let the jigs, plans and rights rot all this time if you are to busy, under-funded or under inspired to do what is required.

If you can in the next 12 months get a website, production of parts, a few kits delivered and run advertisements and have a presense at BDays or Mentone I will be your biggest fan and promoter. If not.... then one of Don Farringtons' and the industrys best 2-place training and xcountry gyroplanes will fade or fall into the hands of scratch builders.

[Brent Drake]

Thirdly ; I have stated in other postings on this forum that we will resume kit manufacture for both the Twinstarr and the Twinstarrlite when we have a number of solid orders (with a downpayment).
The building of new premises to do just that : restarting the manufacture, is just about completed. We have all the jigs, drawings, moulds (yes, even for the fully-enclosed version), fixtures, drawing files, etc, not to forget the know-how and experience with the design from day one.
If you guys want to manufacture it in the USA (locally as someone put it), I can see the benefit of this in a way, and this is open to discussion and we will accept honest offers from interested parties when one steps forward.
I have to say I take offense at anyone accusing me of "wasting the project over here". They just haven't woken up to better technology over here yet. Add to that a new Twinstarrlite on the drawing board, two more engine options, even more payload and better performance, better fuel economy, lower build time for the tails and virtually no stickshake and you will realise the project is far from dead and has bags of potential. We are doing this all by ourselves at our own cost, which is a lot more difficult over here than in the USA, where you can enjoy a hell of a lot more freedom/experimentation in amateur aircraft construction.

Woody are you saying you are willing to sell the molds and jigs? if so pvtmsg me and let me know how much

[barnstorm2]

I have to say I take offense at anyone accusing me of "wasting the project over here". They just haven't woken up to better technology over here yet. Add to that a new Twinstarrlite on the drawing board, two more engine options, even more payload and better performance, better fuel economy, lower build time for the tails and virtually no stickshake and you will realise the project is far from dead and has bags of potential. We are doing this all by ourselves at our own cost, which is a lot more difficult over here than in the USA, where you can enjoy a hell of a lot more freedom/experimentation in amateur aircraft construction.

Woody please understand myself and others may very much wonder if indeed time is being wasted. You must understand this from a USA perspective!

As you say yourself above..."a lot more difficult over here than in the USA, where you can enjoy a hell of a lot more freedom/experimentation in amateur aircraft construction"

The Twinstarr was allready being produced over here!! We could be going right NOW if we had the info, rights and the jigs!!

I assume, as you appear to be saying it yourself, your delays and costs are do to EU concerns and paperwork.

That has all been done by Don and we had a working flying tested ready-to-go aircraft. We don't have to wait here for a lighter, new untested, EU approved design.

We should have had Twinstarrs going right after the rights and equipment were sold.

We have been waiting over SIX YEARS and don't even have a website for Twinstarrs whereas if the rights and jigs were here in the US we would have six years worth of PRODUCTION.

So please understand that from a US perspective we have been waiting a long time for you to do something we don't want or need and that can rightly IMHO be considered "wasted time" from the perspective of OUR time not yours or those that must wait for your work in the EU.

Woody are you saying you are willing to sell the molds and jigs? if so pvtmsg me and let me know how much

WOW!! I hope that works out!!

[Caribean_gyro]

Woody
If the concern with serious buyers is they droping the order half way of the investement. You can use Transferable LOI (letter of intent) With this I deposit is made under your Name and only when the goods are presented for shipment the money is wired.

This this LOI and a signed agreement you can get supplier to give you a line of credit.
You can also create a company with stcok options and this can bring in some cash.

I am still willling to take a look in quoting the frame welding in PR. Been a US possecion give us some comercial advantages and shipment reduce cost to the US.

AS Tim and Brent said we are here to help the reborn of a greta machine
ChuckP

[barnstorm2]

Here in the US we have:

Trainers training in Twinstarrs. One CFI has been training in his Twinstarr for YEARS.

You often like to fly/buy what you learn in. If you are buying a kit or even a complete gyro wouldn't you want to take training or at least get some time in your own model craft from a CFI and even better a CFI with years of experience training in your machine?

The original welders and assemblers are still here in business able to be hired to help builders build Twinstarr kits!

These people are valuable resources both to hire and for services.

Twinstarrs are flying and being seen here in the US.

What better advertisement than seeing these gyros in action with hundreds of hours on them?

I know there are Twinstarrs in Europe but as many? As active? As visable?

Twinstarr production could start legally here right now and be LSA complient

As stated in my post above we don't have to wait. We could have twinstarrs in production right now or even over the past 6 years.

Some parts suppliers and Twinstarr athorities have been lost do to this (un-needed in the US) wait.

Some of Farrington's co-workers and the soft-start supplier are no longer with us or doing business. We loose more of these resources as we wait for ?

Please Woody, Send us your jigs, plans and materials.

I hope you work out something with ChuckP or Brent!

Success of the Twinstarr in the USA can only be good for EU Twinstarrs!!

[Red Bird]

'I would be worried that you were lacking something such as the funding, time or commitment to bring the Twinstarr back to the market' Quote.

Having met Mr. DeSaar on several occasions, one cannot help but wonder why someone with such an obvious disdain for the UK and its people, bothers to grace us with his presence at all. But in retrospect, he was equally disdainful of our French colleagues (who, like yourselves enjoy a far more enlightened regime) and yes indeed, 'the Americans do not know what they are talking about' he informed me. Is there perhaps anywhere on this Earth that would meet his superior criteria? While I do not doubt his technical abilities, I sincerely hope that the Twinstarr is indeed transferred back to its mother country, putting an end to this useless hibernation of an excellent gyroplane.

The above quote is very perceptive, and scores highly on all three counts.

[karlbamforth]

Come on,
The owner of the twinstarr rights has "the right" do as he wants, where he wants, when he wants.

Woody is trying, give him a chance, its his project to do as pleases with.

I think you would stand a much better chance of Woody helping you in the USA if you talked nicely to him and probably off forum.

Knocking him and his project in public is unlikely to get you what you want.

If it was my project, someone approaching me with a good business plan to produce aircraft and parts in the USA under licence would get a much better response than telling me in public that I am a waster, wasting aircraft and time. Knocking the UK airworthiness authorities will not fix the problem either. It is law, we have to work with it, like it or not.

Chill out guys and talk nicely to Woody, then he may help you.

[barnstorm2]

Ranger and Woody,

I apologize for coming off as an ass in my posts.

That is not my intent.

My intent is criticism of a constructive nature not simply to put anyone down nor ‘knock’ them. I am sorry for coming off in such a way.

Ranger,

I assume you were posting to both Red Bird and myself as you mentioned Woody helping us in the US.

My points as matter-of-fact as I can make them on my first cup of coffee…

Yes, Woody has the “rights” to the Twinstarr and thus can do what he wants.

That does not mean Twinstarr owners and fans have to be happy with that nor have opinions and suggestions on their good use.

I am no expert but rights and patents do expire and there will be a time if not already when the Twinstarr will start to fall into the public domain in the US.

As I attempted to convey in one of the above posts.. Woody is likely to have some difficulty getting down-payments for aircraft unless he can provide a strong sense of trust and reason to believe he will be in production of a trusted design soon. He owns the domain name Twinstarr.com but there is no web page, no produced Lycoming machines, nothing substantial to warrant putting money down and waiting perhaps more YEARS for a kit that might end up a highly modified version of the Twinstarr.

Woody was apparently upset that there are comments from many sources saying that he has ‘wasted’ the Twinstarr rights and materials. His reply was that he as been working on changes and improvements (presumably all or mostly to comply with EU standards).

My intent was to:

1. Attempt to get Woody to understand that from a US viewpoint we don’t need nor want such changes the craft is tested, ready to go and was already in production well before the bought the rights. He could have been producing six years ago if he had kept the materials and a partner in the US.

2. There are a great deal of advantages to producing the Twinstarr in the US as outlined in the posts above and six years is a very long time to see such little done and the local resources (US) are dwindling over time. Six years and no ads, webpage, production of parts? I don’t think it is unreasonable for people to feel from a US perspective that this time could have been used productively in parallel with modifying the Twinstarr to meet EU standards.

I sincerely hope this post is more to the point and does not knock anyone but rather voices what many feel are legitimate topics on the future of the rights and production of the Twinstarr Autogyro.

[Brent Drake]

Karl, I've told Woody that I would be glad to help him make his gyro locally. I'm not rying to upset him. Just maybe give him a little push. I have the manpower, and facilities. Also living well within driving distance is 3 very knowledgable people, not including myself who has alot of experience with this type of gyro. I've been offering help for 2 years and all we here is he is working on it. At that time the Twinstarrlite was in the PRA magazine saying it will be in production soon. But for the last couple of years, there is no mention or ads looking for customers or inquires. I understand that Woody works alot and is gone a week or so at a time. I also know from my business adventures that customers wants replys very quick not a week or so inbetween contacts. Omce in a while we needs parts. We have people that would probably buy one if it were available. I've also been told by insurance companies that the Twinstar has a good track record, if it were still in production we could probably get insurance. But cannot get even considered till its in production. I'm sure a deal can be worked out with Woody and I'm not mad or upset with him.
Brent

[msmfi]

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=Twinstarr%20Gyroplane&distinct_entry=true
Enjoy!