Any Interest In Gyro Design?

Why non rotating? If it rotates there would be only a minimal momentum transfer...
A rotating dome would also not need a shaft. weld a small base to the top of the rotorhead. attach the dome with ball bearings to the base. Attach the parachute to an articulated joint for the ability to steer the gyro independently of the chute for an always perfect angle (imagine the principle of a head lead). Voilá, you are done.

peter

Sounds simple..............

Cita
 
Ohhhh Peter :) I am sooooo far from a professional!!!! But I appreciate the praising :) I have built the Behemoth for the same reason. I didn't know what I didn't know about gyros.....but I already had a vision of what I did not want. I have had more help than I can thank for during my build. I am like you. Running crazy thoughts and cool heads and knowledgeable friends told me what was and what wasn't possible. Guess what? I did end up with a gyro that is actually pretty damn good!!!!! :) I could never repay the knowledge and experience I had gained during the construction. So I for one am for new ideas and new point of views. I had a good friend who did not think I was crazy for wanting to build a tail that looks like something out of Batman's series. Or didn't think I was crazy to use an Astro Van composite spring. He helped me to work it in!!! Soooo I am always open to see what others think even if they don't have the depth of knowledge. Invention is always 90% imagination and 10% of knowledge!!!! :) Peter I lived there as a political refugee since Austria was the first neutral neighboring country I could get to. I worked in a slaughterhouse there for a while until I got my visa to the US. :) Kirschlag has a nice old castle ruin on the top of the mountain. But nothing else is really going on there :(
 
Hi Chopper,

I have to agree with Peter, that is one good looking machine. I used a metalized Cherry paint on the frame of the plane I built. Is that a similar color you used or is my monitor's tone off again?

Regards,

KD
 
Last edited:
Looking at Statistics

Looking at Statistics

After Karl's comments about the Cirrus planes, I had to look at the data myself. Here are a couple of things I found, to wit:

Cirrus DIDhave a higher accident rate than GA overall up to about late 2007

While I did not get a breakdown on the accidents, the stats showed about 10 successful parachute deployments (they lived) and 3 non-successful. In one of the fatalities contributing to the death rate, apparently one deployment was accidental or some kind of malfunction and the parachute opening caused a fatality.

Now another thing I found interesting was that the members of the Cirrus owner's group had a significantly lower accident rate than Cirrus fliers overall and as I am trying to figure out, it looks as though those members had a slightly lower rate than that of GA.

Actually, I was surprised a bit by those data. However, in 2007 some sort of alert/AD was issued and the rate began falling after that. I don't have the patience to go digging through the various indices to find all of the info regarding that, sorry.

The data set I had did not have the pilot hours, time in type or any other pilot data. So, I cannot state anything about the pilots. I also did not have the type of accident in the data set other than fatal and non-fatal.

The parachutes appear to provide a significant safety factor if deployed relatively early during a problem. It also appears to me that there was something wrong with the planes or lack of proper transition training or (excluding Cirrus owner's club members), (per Karl's assertion) Cirrus fliers were more careless (or per my suspicion, less competent) than other fliers.

Unfortunately, the statistics surrounding the circumstances of all ballistic chute deployments, in all aircraft for all reasons and then meta-analyzed for the chute effectiveness, eluded me. Maybe I wasn't searching correctly. In any case, there is still sufficient "save" data to conclude that ballistic chutes do save lives. But how they affect the overall accident rates of their respective craft does not appear so easy to find (at least by me).

Therefore, in my interpretation, ballistic chutes are worthwhile but you have decide as to how much (I wouldn't fly anything I owned without one).

I think you guys have proposed one possible solution to a rotorcraft recovery system that would have some problems (which, in my opinion, could be overcome) but as someone pointed out (Peter or Cita...sorry) it would slow the deployment down even more. Which I agree to as well.

Much of the conversation regarding recovery systems for gyros involved Shortening the time of deployment to make the system much more useful at lower altitudes. Additionally, in my opinion again, a current technology parachute, no matter how it is deployed, will not be fast enough to work at low altitudes. So, I think a different kind of recovery system is called for (as several of you know). But I found your intelligent exchange regarding the "domed" housing interesting and useful.

Regards,
KD
 
The one factor I have not seen discussed in depth here (maybe I missed it; sorry if so; some the posts are pretty long) is the initial justification for an airframe recovery system versus a personal parachute, in the context of an open single place aircraft.

In a four-seater airplane, it might well make much more sense to equip the aircraft than attempt to equip (and train?) each passenger separately, especially given the egress difficulty for all four on board. The choice made by Cirrus makes sense for those aircraft. But why bother at all if you don't have those challenges?

Many, many gyros in the U.S. have minimal enclosure and seat only one. A backpack or seatpack chute would certainly seem sufficient. Neither a BRS nor a personal emergency chute will be of much use at low altitude, so there is little advantage either way on that factor. If higher, the technology for deployment for an airframe device without rotor interference seems lacking/unproven at the moment, while the technology for emergency chutes is well-established, relatively cheap, and easily had. My Strong Parachusion, with 26 ft low-porosity canopy, is under 14 pounds total. Avoiding rotor interference is a matter of pushing away and pulling the D-ring when clear (of course, exiting ANY aircraft because it is damaged beyond controlability and moving in odd ways will offer some issues of that sort, whether the wing is spinning or fixed, and the same is true for an airframe system that might need to work when the gyro is inverted or tumbling). Some minimal training is easily had from your local skydive club, and isn't much to ask of a pilot who wants to enhance his survivability (plenty of FW acro pilots have been down that road).

If I hit an iceberg with my jet ski, should I worry about an inflatable shroud for the sinking personal watercraft when a simple flotation vest for me will do?
 
If I hit an iceberg with my jet ski, should I worry about an inflatable shroud for the sinking personal watercraft when a simple flotation vest for me will do?

Wouldn't it be easier (and more fun) to simply play in warmer waters?:noidea:
 
An excellent point. I always try to fly my gyro away from flocks of birds, outside aerobatic box airspace, below where the fast movers hang out, and above the wires.
 
Another Interesting Proposal

Another Interesting Proposal

[/QUOTE]
....Many, many gyros in the U.S. have minimal enclosure and seat only one. A backpack or seatpack chute would certainly seem sufficient. Neither a BRS nor a personal emergency chute will be of much use at low altitude, so there is little advantage either way on that factor. If higher, the technology for deployment for an airframe device without rotor interference seems lacking/unproven at the moment, while the technology for emergency chutes is well-established, relatively cheap, and easily had. My Strong Parachusion, with 26 ft low-porosity canopy, is under 14 pounds total. Avoiding rotor interference is a matter of pushing away and pulling the D-ring when clear (of course, exiting ANY aircraft because it is damaged beyond controlability and moving in odd ways will offer some issues of that sort, whether the wing is spinning or fixed, and the same is true for an airframe system that might need to work when the gyro is inverted or tumbling). Some minimal training is easily had from your local skydive club, and isn't much to ask of a pilot who wants to enhance his survivability (plenty of FW acro pilots have been down that road)...
[/QUOTE]

Hi WaspAir,

From my experience if you are extremely cool under pressure, well-trained and relatively uninjured, your solution to a high-altitude terminal problem, a personal parachute in an open gyro, would be very reasonable.

But, having done basic jump training and having done about 9 jumps (5 static, 4 free-fall), I have to say that I don't have enough confidence in myself to depend on a personal parachute. However, it may be that I'm just too much of a wuss or not trained sufficiently or myriad other reasons that would make me hesitant to rely solely on a self-deployed, personal chute (being an old phart may have something to do with it as well). I am sure there are quite a few other, better-trained jumpers that would do fine with it.

You mentioned the FW aerobatic guys with personal parachutes and it makes me wonder how many times they have ever been used by them. Most military aerobatic guys have the luxury of an ejection seat, auto-deploy systems and those, of course, have been used successfully during aerobatic maneuvers.

Anyway, several of us have been talking about recovery systems (yes, I am the primary PIA with the long posts...sorry) that theoretically WOULD work at low altitude under digital control. At this point in time, a zillion times more expensive and complex than your solution. But, if successfully implemented (by anyone) seems to me to be the best solution all-around if eventually affordable.

That being said, if I had the choice of a personal chute or no recovery system at all, I'd take the chute. Thanks

Regards,
KD
 
Hi Chopper,

I have to agree with Peter, that is one good looking machine. I used a metalized Cherry paint on the frame of the plane I built. Is that a similar color you used or is my monitor's tone off again?

Regards,

KD
Thanks KD for the kind words, it is a Pee-wee Herman bicycle red....according to my wife..... who picked the color! :) Sooooooo now the color match of your monitor is up to you :D
 
Hi Chopper

I'm glad you told me what your color was AFTER I sold my plane. I would have been depressed for weeks with a Pee Wee Herman paint job. Plus I would have felt obligated to stay out of movie theaters when wearing a raincoat. :puke:

Regards,
KD
 
Hi Karl,

I would really appreciate your source material on the Cirrus accident rate. The last article I read on them indicated a vastly lower accident rate when the data was adjusted for age, pilot experience/hours and training. So, ANY data showing a disproportionately high accident/fatality rate with these planes would be very important news indeed!

In fact, the last data I had on ballistic chutes in general demonstrated an across the board improvement in so-equipped ultralights and their accident and fatality rates. In fact, it was these data that helped convince the FAA to allow ballistic chute approval in certified aircraft.

So, I really would greatly appreciate the data that supports your conclusion that the ballistic chute equipped planes were more dangerous or more prone to accidents. It would really be a major news story!!

Regards,
KD

Hiya KD,

The data is available from FAA, EASA etc websites.

The aviation industry standard is fatalities per thousands of flight hours.
Be very wary of anyone who starts to fudge the figures by correcting them for age experience etc, they are probably just fiddling the books.

I didn't say that ballistic chute equipped aircraft were more dangerous or more prone to accidents. I said that the fitting of a chute in the Cirrus did not appear to significantly improve its safety. Not the same thing.

I am all for improving safety in aviation, its my job and has been all my working life and I am happy to help wherever I can.
 
The one factor I have not seen discussed in depth here (maybe I missed it; sorry if so; some the posts are pretty long) is the initial justification for an airframe recovery system versus a personal parachute, in the context of an open single place aircraft.

In a four-seater airplane, it might well make much more sense to equip the aircraft than attempt to equip (and train?) each passenger separately, especially given the egress difficulty for all four on board. The choice made by Cirrus makes sense for those aircraft. But why bother at all if you don't have those challenges?

Many, many gyros in the U.S. have minimal enclosure and seat only one. A backpack or seatpack chute would certainly seem sufficient. Neither a BRS nor a personal emergency chute will be of much use at low altitude, so there is little advantage either way on that factor. If higher, the technology for deployment for an airframe device without rotor interference seems lacking/unproven at the moment, while the technology for emergency chutes is well-established, relatively cheap, and easily had. My Strong Parachusion, with 26 ft low-porosity canopy, is under 14 pounds total. Avoiding rotor interference is a matter of pushing away and pulling the D-ring when clear (of course, exiting ANY aircraft because it is damaged beyond controlability and moving in odd ways will offer some issues of that sort, whether the wing is spinning or fixed, and the same is true for an airframe system that might need to work when the gyro is inverted or tumbling). Some minimal training is easily had from your local skydive club, and isn't much to ask of a pilot who wants to enhance his survivability (plenty of FW acro pilots have been down that road).

If I hit an iceberg with my jet ski, should I worry about an inflatable shroud for the sinking personal watercraft when a simple flotation vest for me will do?

Hiya Wasp,

The Germans did this in single seat Gyro's way back in WW2 albeit for different reasons.

The gyro gliders flown from submarines were fitted with a chute for the pilot.

When the time came to use it, the pilot pulled a lever that was (dangerously) close to the rotor. This action caused the rotor to seperate from the frame and as it did so it extracted the parachute speeding up deployment.

It is quite an clever solution, but the risk of accidentaly jettisoning the rotor is too great. It may be acceptable in wartime or for highly trained military pilots but is not so acceptable for us normal earthlings.
 
The ideal solution is to have the pilot eject from the gyro.


Here is an example of a downward ejection seat. Just pull the chain.

Any Interest In Gyro Design?


Here is an example of an upward ejection.

Guy Goes through Helicopter Blades - YouTube


In both cases it is suggested that the pilot wear brown pants.



Alternatively, why not make the gyro more reliable????


Dave
 
Holy cow, what a video!
I can only imagine the damage the guy sustained...
As for a digital deployment system, wouldn't you basically just need a gyroscope and an accelerometer as well as a controlling unit comparing both data outputs for stable / non stable combinations (pragrammable for each different gyro)? Rotor RPM is already available...
This technology is available in modern phones, thus not very expesive. As for stability- if you have to steep an angle (gyroscope) at to low an acceleration or decceleration (accelerometer) and your gyro starts to turn upside down (gyroscope), or the rotor is too strongly unloaded (rpm input), deploy the BRS. Obviously this is just an example, I am not a gyro pilot yet and this is probably wrong, but creating a deployment mechanism with these kind of data shouldn't be impossible, no?

cheers,

peter

p.s.: is there a programmer here who could comment on how realistic that would be?
 
Last edited:
When even military programs with far deeper pockets than us normal folks gave up on any sort of parachute or ejection seat setup in helicopters that's a clue.

And those were ships where they expect to get shot at, etc. & the odds of ever potentially needing such a system are certainly a lot higher than your average civilian pilot. The hazards outweighed the benefits.

Take a hard look at why rotorcraft typically crash, you'll find more important things to "fix" first. Starting with the pilot...
 
When even military programs with far deeper pockets than us normal folks gave up on any sort of parachute or ejection seat setup in helicopters that's a clue.

And those were ships where they expect to get shot at, etc. & the odds of ever potentially needing such a system are certainly a lot higher than your average civilian pilot. The hazards outweighed the benefits.

Take a hard look at why rotorcraft typically crash, you'll find more important things to "fix" first. Starting with the pilot...

I totally agree Brett.

Fixing the pilot is a lot easier said than done. ;)
 
Hello,

I was out and a lot happened in this thread. To go back to the questions on the Junkersfly sling solution depicted at the Aero:
The sling with the red rotational joint has the advantage of relying on nothing else but the hopefully most stable point of the craft. It will work, regardless if the rotor still spins or not. You may pull a strong additional (slack) cable through the mast and the rotor bearing to make sure the rotor does not ever come off and you should have something that always works, IF and that is a big IF, you deploy it high enough and the cable really makes it through the rotor unscathed. A dome would also work, however, if you are falling head over heels, you still have to cope with the cable going through the rotor, but this time being wound up around the mast.

Gabor, there is no significant vacuum over the disk, these are gyros, not helicopters.

The Focke-Angelis type rotor release only works, if you happen to be in proper, upright flying mode, in other words, when there is no reason to pull it. If you are toppling over, there is no telling, where the detached rotor will go and how it will entangle chute, craft and rotor. This mechanism was designed for a rapid descent, in case the ship was attacked and needed to go for an emergency dive. Then you don't want to be late at the door.

There were experiments done for ejection seats in helicopters, coupled with explosive rotor blade bolts (you want to have those two things happen in the right order). Apparently it was too un-reliable and you do not want to find out that one or more of the rotor blades are still attached, while you are being ejected.

Kai.
 
When even military programs with far deeper pockets than us normal folks gave up on any sort of parachute or ejection seat setup in helicopters that's a clue.

And those were ships where they expect to get shot at, etc. & the odds of ever potentially needing such a system are certainly a lot higher than your average civilian pilot. The hazards outweighed the benefits.

Take a hard look at why rotorcraft typically crash, you'll find more important things to "fix" first. Starting with the pilot...

Indeed,if we all were "perfect people", billions of $$$$$ could be saved.....but we aren't and that's not a clue but true.
Most "safety items" are invented/developed because people do make mistakes.....given a few who don't.
If a deep pocket can't solve a problem,than the problem can't be solved,that's one way of thinking but there might be other ways.

"Thinkering is a free trade and it should stay that way" "Alois Sweinstein",nephew of Albert Einstein !!!!
 
KD, I built a gyro called the H-1 Racer. The body is all 1/8 honeycomb covered with kevlar and carbon fiber. The whole body which covers the whole gyro weighs only 12 lbs. Forget battery power. Too heavy. The rotor blade is the key to a better gyro. If a blade could be made to change pitch in a natural way without any outside mechanical or electronic input to get the maximum lift in any position, that would a major, major improvement. I remember reading an article many years ago were someone had taken a rotor blade cut about a foot off the end, sprung loaded it and it dramatically increased the lift. I have always thought that was a good idea. Have a good day
 
Hi Karl,

Actually, I don't quite remember what was said versus implied (or I inferred) in the previous conversation that I was not party to but just happened to read. However, I did (as I'm sure you saw) dig up some data on the Cirrus fatality rates which supported your initial statement (as I remembered it). From what I read, I would agree that very little can be said about what did or did not occur to cause the fatality rate on those planes equipped with chutes. Not enough data all around and no explanation that I could find quickly for why the guys in the owner's association had a much lower fatality/crash rate. In any case, not enough data to draw any conclusions about much of anything except for the higher crash/fatality rate up to 2007. Thanks.

Regards,
KD
 
Top