Latest news regarding Dargon Wings.

All_In

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
16,105
Location
San Diego, CA. USA
Aircraft
Airgyro AG915 Centurian, Aviomania G1sb
Total Flight Time
Gyroplane 70Hrs, not sure over 10,000+ logged FW, 260+ ultralights, sailplane, hang-gliders
I've contacted both Ernie and Luminita.
They are not currently making Dragon Wings and according to Ernie the owner has a habit of getting excited about new business; buys them and then gets board and sell them for penny's on the dollar.
Removed (Personal information about Luminita... I did not realize it was told to me in confidence and should not have been public)
The point was we are not going to have Dragon Wings for some time and perhaps never based on past history.

Luminita is getting back to me with more information and maybe press release explaining where they are going from here.
PRA will continue to ask questions as we receive the email from them and share it with all of you.

It does not look good as of today for Dragon Wings in our immediate future. But they are saying they will manufacture them but will sell for more is the expectation. How much more they will let PRA know.
 
Last edited:
Dick DeGraw is in Taiwan helping with the design of a jump gyro. Since there is no other rotorblade suitable for a jumper; IE, proper balance about the aerodynamic center, zero pitching moment and light weight so that necessary stored energy can be had via tip weights, perhaps the Taiwanese will come out with a copy of DWs.
 
Reverse engineering them shouldn't be that hard. I reckon the aluminum bonding and production efficiency would be the hardest to achieve at Ernie's price which, now the he's out of the market, we will sorely miss.
 
C. Beaty;n1130909 said:
Dick DeGraw is in Taiwan helping with the design of a jump gyro. Since there is no other rotorblade suitable for a jumper; IE, proper balance about the aerodynamic center, zero pitching moment and light weight so that necessary stored energy can be had via tip weights, perhaps the Taiwanese will come out with a copy of DWs.
Man that sounds interesting. And this is not the secret project previously hinted at?
 
The reverse of that idea would be exciting also. Being able to fly along within 2-5 meters of the ground, throttle back to idle, and gently land vertically like a helicopter, within the rotor's diameter (without the torque of engine-powered rotorblades) would really be something!

No landing strip required. And, without the long landing gear legs such as the Butterfly line of gyros had. No airports/airstrips would be required anymore with both jump-takeoff and helicopter-like landings, just a patch of clear space, be it dirt, grass, or paved.

Chuck has remarked many times over the years about how a hard, banking turn (close to the ground) in a gyro resulted in a helicopter-like gentle vertical landing.

Might have been aided by using run-out military Hughes helicopter rotorblades turned upside down and run reversed of normal gyro-application rotation, done because of the twist of the blade's design.

The youtube video of Ron Awad doing a high-speed run, chop to idle, and then executing a 180* turn has whetted many rotary-wing pilots' appetite. Ron did get an excessive amount of float time, maybe due to high speed entry into the manuever really winding up the blade's rpms in the hard turn.
 
Last edited:
With a helicopter, rotorblade inertia can be a matter of crashing or not crashing in case of engine failure. A high inertia rotor with its stored energy gives the pilot more time to go into autorotation and to cushion the landing.

But in an autogyro without collective pitch control, a high inertia rotor can be a mixed bag. During the landing flare, the extra load accelerates the rotor, developing increased lift to cushion the landing. A high inertia rotor accelerates more slowly, allowing the gyro to thump in unless the landing technique is adapted to provide a longer time to accelerate the rotor.

Tail heavy rotors have a form of built in collective so that during the landing flare, the rotorblades twist noseup and cushion the landing. The downside is that a tail heavy rotorblade is unstable vs angle of attack, no different from a tail heavy FW airplane.

As Kevin mentions above, Hughes 269 and OH-6 rotorblades have 5 lb. tip weights that increase moment of inertia and require a different landing technique from that of the typical gyro rotorblade. Tip weights increase MOI in the ratio of 3:1 as compared to a blade with uniform weight distribution.
 
My Gyro-Tech blades are tip weighted,I don't know if its intentional,there could be something in the construction of the blades that make them tip heavy.

I do know that it really pays off in landings,the little bit of weight really helps with rotor inertia.The down side is that getting the rotor RPM up takes slightly

more takeoff run,not much but its noticeable.
 
C.Beaty;n1130933 said:
... Hughes 269 and OH-6 rotorblades have 5 lb. tip weights that increase moment of inertia and require a different landing technique from that of the typical gyro rotorblade. Tip weights increase MOI in the ratio of 3:1 as compared to a blade with uniform weight distribution.

Chuck: What is the different landing technique needed?
Is is something different than executing a hard, banking turn prior to the landing flare?
 
In a gyro that doesn’t have collective pitch, the only way to get extra lift and cushion the landing is to increase the rpm of the rotor; high inertia by itself does nothing. In fact, it’s a detriment unless rotor rpm can be increased by rolling out of a tight turn or by using a longer period of flare.

Once the rpm has been increased, high inertia comes into its own.

Back when a good many people in Florida were flying Hughes rotor blades, many pilots sawed off the outer 6” or so of the blade tip and resealed it. That gor rid of the 5 lb. brass tip weights.

Here’s what Pete Johnson said about tip weights:

Back in the day when I flew Hughes blades, I had one pair with the stock tip weights, and a second pair with the weights removed.

The weighted blades were great for Xcountry flying, but they were dramaticly different manouvering characteristics. The heavier blades were sluggish as compared to the light ones. They responded to control inputs entirely different, giving them an entirely different "feel", making difficult adjusting from one to the other. Most notably landing!

After flying the light blades for a time and switching to the weighted blades, my first few landings were always ..."less than elegant"! The heavy blades required rounding out and loading consideably earlier, or you could just mush thru and smack pretty hard! The "feel" for the heavy blades came pretty quick, but then when switching back to the light blades, I would invariably flair too high a couple of times before my reflexes readjusted.

I have not flown the heavy Dragon wings, but I suspect switching back and forth would yield simular results. Maybe not a good idea.
 
C. Beaty;n1130950 said:
In a gyro that doesn’t have collective pitch, the only way to get extra lift and cushion the landing is to increase the rpm of the rotor; high inertia by itself does nothing. In fact, it’s a detriment unless rotor rpm can be increased by rolling out of a tight turn or by using a longer period of flare.

Once the rpm has been increased, high inertia comes into its own.

Back when a good many people in Florida were flying Hughes rotor blades, many pilots sawed off the outer 6” or so of the blade tip and resealed it. That gor rid of the 5 lb. brass tip weights.

Here’s what Pete Johnson said about tip weights:

Our experience with Averso Stella being high inertia couldn't be more different than what you describe about high inertia blade landing. Easiest to compare Dragon wings to Averso Stella for instance and very clearly able to see the difference
 
Last edited:
In a gyro with fixed collective, the only way that lift can be increased during the landing sequence is via an increase of rotor rpm.

Collective pitch control while landing can be mimicked by a tail heavy rotor.

Hughes helicopter rotor blades were designed by real engineers rather than by make believe engineers and therefore are properly balanced about the aerodynamic center and have a zero pitching moment airfoil. They afford an excellent demonstration of behavior in high and low inertia states simply by removing the tip weights..
 
C. Beaty;n1130989 said:
In a gyro with fixed collective, the only way that lift can be increased during the landing sequence is via an increase of rotor rpm.

Collective pitch control while landing can be mimicked by a tail heavy rotor.

Hughes helicopter rotor blades were designed by real engineers rather than by make believe engineers and therefore are properly balanced about the aerodynamic center and have a zero pitching moment airfoil. They afford an excellent demonstration of behavior in high and low inertia states simply by removing the tip weights..

I am not talking about increasing lift Chuck. Lift will increase as you load the rotors of course which does happen and should happen slightly when starting to flare. I am talking about holding the rotational velocity longer due to inertia and not dropping out quick.
Any experienced pilot of any category can tell the difference between dragon wings falling out like a rock if you misjudge the flare slightly in height and Averso Stella doing quite differently. Its easily seen and experienced.
Averso Stella unlike your mistaken belief are nicely balanced at 25% chord.
If you'd like to actually see this come to the factory so we can show you and come and fly a Dominator with Dragon wings and an AR-1 with Averso Stella at same disc loading side by side on the same day and see for yourself. You are even welcome to bring the Dominator Cruiser blades with you and we can put them against the Averso Stella side by side in the same machine on the same day and you can see what the differences are for yourself. We already have a teeter tower for Cruiser blades sitting on the unused shelf. You definitely do not mush through and hit hard with Averso blades versus light low inertia Dominator blades. The guy is right that if he flares light blades like a Dominator a little high, you better add power because you are about to smack down harder. That is not what will happen with say blades like Averso. They retain their energy longer.
 
Last edited:
From a heli article with comments:

High inertia
  • Positives
    • Smooth changes in rotor RPM as speed changes are resisted
    • More kinetic energy stored in the rotor system, which helps in making flight maneuvers that require a lot of energy, for example the execution of a flare while in auto-rotation.
  • Negatives
    • It requires more power to accelerate to the desired rotor RPM. This is also an important reason why high inertia systems are not found in light helicopters with their less powerful combustion engines (does not apply to gyroplanes directly though)
    • Due to the higher forces involved, the rotorhead must be stronger and heavier.
Low inertia
  • Positives
    • Easier to recover from low rotor RPM by applying engine power (does not apply to gyroplanes directly but to helicopters)
    • Tilting the rotordisc is easier (less resistance by inertia), which makes the helicopter more maneuverable.
    • Rotorhead construction doesn't have to be as strong as in the high inertia counterpart, which makes a lighter build possible.
  • Negatives
    • Less margin of error when it comes to maintaining rotor RPM.
    • Less stored kinetic energy which is needed in critical maneuvers, for example, when executing a flare during auto-rotation.
Obviously with less energy stored, the light low inertia rotor system is the one that will mush through and fall out not the other way around.

This is why Dragon wings are good choice for Mosquito helicopter or even Degraw half and half Gyrodyne thingy. They have relatively small and less powerful engines for powered rotor system. Both are providing power to the rotor to maintain rotor RPM fully or partially and neither is truly a gyroplane.
 
Last edited:
This is silly. Rotor rpm (tip speed, fps) depends on load; being roughly equal to square root of blade load, lb/sq-ft x 66. A fixed pitch rotor speeds up during the landing flare due to the increased load. A low inertia rotor speeds up more quickly; a high inertia more slowly, mushing through unless a longer time is allowed for acceleration.

I suppose this is a difficult concept for people without some physics training to grasp.
 
Tail heavy rotors have a form of built-in collective pitch. With an increase of load the aerodynamic force, acting on the aerodynamic center, nominally at the ¼ chord point, twists the blade nose up if the CG is behind the ¼ chord point. Anything 12’ long will twist.

What are the indications of tail heaviness? A high inertia rotor has a heavy stick unless tail heavy. If tail heavy, such a rotor has what amounts to power steering and a light stick.

And of course there’s the landing behavior. A tail heavy rotor with its built in collective pitch provides quicker development of additional lift during landing.
 
C. Beaty;n1130995 said:
And of course there’s the landing behavior. A tail heavy rotor with its built in collective pitch provides quicker development of additional lift during landing.
I agree, Chuck, but I still not know what is better. Because at the same time the heaviness of the rotor and its collective pitch has hindered the increase of rpm during the flare. Thus, less energy is stored just before landing. What do you think ?
 
JC, Skywheels rotorblades were quite heavy with CG at 35% of chord and had very good landing characteristics, misleading many pilots into believing this was the result of high inertia.

Skywheels had an aluminum spar with thick fiberglass skins bonded on.

*********
Here’s how a skilled helicopter pilot can use a high inertia rotor in autorotation; in this case Dragon Wings with extra tip weights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_5lo_trDI

And of course a rotorcraft with feathering cyclic control does not suffer from the stick heaviness of high inertia blades as does a gyro with tilt head cyclic.
 
Last edited:
C. Beaty;n1130994 said:
This is silly. Rotor rpm (tip speed, fps) depends on load; being roughly equal to square root of blade load, lb/sq-ft x 66. A fixed pitch rotor speeds up during the landing flare due to the increased load. A low inertia rotor speeds up more quickly; a high inertia more slowly, mushing through unless a longer time is allowed for acceleration.

I suppose this is a difficult concept for people without some physics training to grasp.

Perhaps all those helicopter books are "silly" thinking high inertia rotors help more than low inertia rotors in auto-rotation flare and landing. No wonder FAA thinks we gyro guys are a bunch of special breed.
 
Last edited:
C. Beaty;n1131005 said:
JC, Skywheels rotorblades were quite heavy with CG at 35% of chord and had very good landing characteristics, misleading many pilots into believing this was the result of high inertia.

Skywheels had an aluminum spar with thick fiberglass skins bonded on.

*********
Here’s how a skilled helicopter pilot can use a high inertia rotor in autorotation; in this case Dragon Wings with extra tip weights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_5lo_trDI

And of course a rotorcraft with feathering cyclic control does not suffer from the stick heaviness of high inertia blades as does a gyro with tilt head cyclic.

Skywheels are a death trap and divergent at high speeds. They are the ones that are tail heavy not Averso. We flew them also testing them on AR-1 prototype. No thanks.
 
Top