A part 103 tractor Autogyro?

[BrianInVa]

Not sure what triangulation you are referring to. I just think there is too much unnecessary frame design in that frame and you would be throwing good work at a bad design.
You could even just built the entire keel section from a single 4" diameter .125" wall AL tube and the rest of the structure could be smaller diameter materials. You would eliminate all the truss structure and weight.

One thing I considered is completely removing the top half and cross braces of the tail boom section so only the one piece of 2”x2” aluminum tube remains as the entire keel.

That’s how I first drew it:



If necessary that 2x2 could be mated / reinforced with another 1”x2” below it. Would that accomplish the same as a 4” tube?

 

[Aerofoam]

One thing I considered is completely removing the top half and cross braces of the tail boom section so only the one piece of 2”x2” aluminum tube remains as the entire keel.
View attachment 1161915
That’s how I first drew it:

View attachment 1161916

If necessary that 2x2 could be mated / reinforced with another 1”x2” below it. Would that accomplish the same as a 4” tube?

Quick non proportional concept sketch, might need a slider type rotor head.
Probably need to make the mast like an inverted wishbone tied in to the upper landing gear mounts,,,
Or have upper landing gear struts tied in to a single mast spar....

 

[BrianInVa]

So I’m not crazy after all. This has already been done successfully with an A-plane frame. I captured these images from a YouTube video.

This is exactly what I was planning.

 

[ultracruiser41]

So I’m not crazy after all. This has already been done successfully with an A-plane frame. I captured these images from a YouTube video.

This is exactly what I was planning.

View attachment 1161919View attachment 1161921View attachment 1161922

That’s our buddy Fred when he came to our fly in. (His own design)
That machine only crow hopped once, and it was not an ultralight by any means.
We miss Fred

 

[BrianInVa]

That’s our buddy Fred when he came to our fly in. (His own design)
That machine only crow hopped once, and it was not an ultralight by any means.
We miss Fred

Sorry to hear.

So it was too heavy? Underpowered?

 

[Aerofoam]

Is Fred still around?
I don't see an advantage to building the klugy truss assembly. Just increase the diameter of the main keel tube
and build everything off of it's strength and rigidity.
I have an 8ft. section of 8" diameter x 1/8" wall tubing that I used in a project making a pneumatic ram for a UAV launching system.
It only weighs about 24lbs. The large diameter thin wall aspect has had me thinking about keel tubes and tail spars...
CF is lighter, but this is SO EASY!!!
A 6" diameter 12ft. Keel would only weigh about 32lbs.
A 4" diameter x 12ft. tube is about 21 lbs.
This gives an ample back bone to build the rest of the frame off of and more surface area for the attachments.
If you like trusses, check out stage light trusses. You can get pre-built sections in many sizes and they can be very light...
I use a company that will do custom builds on the trusses and they are not expensive.

 

[BrianInVa]

Saner heads have prevailed!

Ultracruiser41 was kind enough to spend some time on the phone with me and convinced me that modifying the current Brock with a dropped keel for the 582 and a tall tail would be a much better plan than trying to create an unproven tractor gyro design.

He invited me down to the Carolina Barnstormers hanger to modify it there with some folks who know how to do it right. I’ll be heading down in the next several weeks.

 

[BrianInVa]

Is Fred still around?
I don't see an advantage to building the klugy truss assembly. Just increase the diameter of the main keel tube
and build everything off of it's strength and rigidity.
I have an 8ft. section of 8" diameter x 1/8" wall tubing that I used in a project making a pneumatic ram for a UAV launching system.
It only weighs about 24lbs. The large diameter thin wall aspect has had me thinking about keel tubes and tail spars...
CF is lighter, but this is SO EASY!!!
A 6" diameter 12ft. Keel would only weigh about 32lbs.
A 4" diameter x 12ft. tube is about 21 lbs.
This gives an ample back bone to build the rest of the frame off of and more surface area for the attachments.
If you like trusses, check out stage light trusses. You can get pre-built sections in many sizes and they can be very light...
I use a company that will do custom builds on the trusses and they are not expensive.

Great advice. I’m not completely giving up on a tractor gyro build so it will come in handy.

But for now it’s on the back burner while I get this Brock airworthy in its original but modified form - and learn how to fly it!

 

[MikeBoyette]

I think there is a lot of extra weight in keeping any of the affordaplane frame and it would be easier to just start from scratch with the concept.
The mast may be a problem if it is so rigidly supported. The 2 blade rotor causes a 2rev. pulse as each blade comes around into the advancing position and some flex in the mast absorbs some of this, so the stick shake is not so violent.
Also, the landing gear should probably be significantly wider to give some stability to all the over head weight.
If you started from scratch, the frame could be a more graceful angled design with the upper tube angling down from the mast attachment to the tail and forward to the motor mount leaving a very large open area for the seat and controls. The mast to frame attachment could allow movement at the top to absorb the vibration. One gyro design had the mast in a big urethane tube bushing that allowed it to move 360.
A similar type soft mount could be built into the top of the frame....

Or find a RFD slider head and that can be tuned to remove the shake.

 

[Aerofoam]

Or find a RFD slider head and that can be tuned to remove the shake.

I brought that up in a prior post, good solution...

 

[Doug Riley]

Good idea to start with a more modest project, and one that doesn't stray from prior designs -- concepts that we already know will work.

Once you've flown a conventional design, you'll be better calibrated to determine what's "broke" and needs improvement, and what "ain't broke." Newbies often "fix" design elements that don't need fixing.

There's a lot to be said for a middle-of-the-road aircraft that you can just go fly and enjoy yourself! Constantly test-piloting can get old....