Thanks, Jean Claude.
Yes, looks very very interesting.
The first trial will be using the conventional rotor that we know to minimize the risk, but we can do the four-blade rotor when the autogiro will be tested and the new way to fly tested and safe.
In any case, if we do the 4 blade rotor head, will be always a fix rotor, no cyclic input.
Our main concern is how to control the autogiro in the take-off and landing, as you know the autogiro will be controlled by the ailerons, and tail surfaces.
In a gyro the control is done by the cyclic so even we have cero airspeed we have control, but in our case, we need a minimum FW airspeed to control the autogiro.
From the other side, the current airstrips are runways, (longitudinal lines) with no possibility to align the take-off and landing path with the wind. In the old times were circular strips facing the wind.
This is our main concern.
How to control the autogiro in the case of cross wind?
We need a minimum speed to have “control” by the ailerons like a FW, but in a FW you can reduce the incidence angle of the wing after take-off to kill the lift. In our case the rotor will be turning, and our “wing” will have the chance to tip over the ship even when our forward speed will be cero.
We define as critical:
- The prerotation phase, with the rotor close to 30degress incidence.
- The take off run in the case of cross winds, with no lateral control.
- The rolled landing like a FW.
- The time from the airspeed is almost cero to the time the rotor will be stopped. In this time the risk of tip over is very high.
The idea we have to minimize those events, even the rotor is fix, is to have two positions: flight and ground for it. In fly mode will have the correct incidence and in ground mode will be parallel to the floor.
This is today our main concern from rotor design point of view. When will be solved we will move to a rotor closer to the C4 design.
Thanks for all your inputs.
See a video to explain the concept.