I think I need to correct the record here.
Kolibiri, there is no so called "certification" in Australia. There is a criteria that ASRA wants gyroplanes to meet. To be honest some of it is sensible and some seems pulled out of thin air because of someone's opinion. It is however overall more appropriate in loading of structures etc. than BCAR-Sec T but its really not that different from it either. To be honest any reasonably made gyroplane will pass the structural load tests. So I am not sure what medal that gives any gyroplane.
Second, aircraft like trikes and gyroplanes are not appropriate tools for aerobatics. This has nothing to do with their strength. It has to do with recovery if you blew a maneuver and went to low G. In essence, there is no repeatable proven recovery. I'll do loops etc. in a utility category airplane all day but if you tell me you want to do loops in any gyroplane with me, I'll kindly ask you drop me off on the ground. That is not saying anything about the gyroplane's strength. That is saying I question your judgment and you do this stuff alone not with me in it.
Your fascination with gyroplanes doing loops and rolls etc. is interesting btw.
Component time limits are determined conservatively by manufacturers. Nothing lasts forever. If you have Aluminum structure like SC Vortex, it definitely has fatigue properties worst than any steel. It starts to fatigue if you push on it with your hand technically.
Besides making gyroplanes for Australian ranchers for mustering cattle, which at least we so far have no interest in doing, the real life applications of gyroplanes are the market for pilots in the US, Canada and Europe.
I can make you a gyroplane stronger than Sportcopter from ABS plastic. It would just have to be designed with ABS plastic properties in mind to get the strength and life limit needed. Dimensions would be different, it may become heavier but it can be done.
The claim that no other aircraft have ever used stainless steel is not true either. DTA who make J-Ro previously used welded stainless steel welded frames for DTA Voyageur trike, that has gone around the world and multi-continent journeys for 5000 hours (one trike) and still flying.
Even today one of my own students is flying around the world in the same model trike.
https://vimeopro.com/tuberainmedia/trike-globetrotter
https://www.trike-globetrotter.com/t.../the-aircraft/
Air Creation used stainless steel lettuce work frame in their Tanarg.
http://www.aircreation.fr/en-us/prod...les/tanarg-912
The negative is they had to accept 10 to 12% weight penalty on the frames compared to 4130. 4130 is much easier to work with but it is not readily available in all sizes and requires maintenance to prevent corrosion in coastal areas. For a purest aircraft should be engineered to be as light as possible while meeting the structural requirements. Piper Super Cub is a great bush plane not because its heavy and over-engineered and beefy. Its a great bush plane because it is engineered just right to be as light as it can be while meeting the structural requirements of its category with just a few touches of over-engineering in just the right spots. It is not 2 pounds heavier than it needs to be.
I think you need to cut out this nonsense and trying to pass it on as fact. If Jim wants to come in and write down technically the points where he thinks his Aluminum frame in Vortex is engineering wise superior to a stainless welded frame (I can only opine on ours), I am happy to go point by point with him.