First Titanium Autogyro flys in the USA

[NoWingsAttached]

At 490 pounds that is fully 100 lbs lighter than my Air Command Tandem! I want to get my hands on one of these and install a YG4. 30 more HP, 30 less lbs! I already spoke to the Aussie about it at length several months before TAGNA announced here, but he wanted to wait until the program had a chance to mature a bit before letting me try it. I promise you, though, one is coming in the foreseeable future.

 

[Abid]

490 pounds is the static thrust of the prop/engine

490 pounds is the static thrust of the prop/engine

At 490 pounds that is fully 100 lbs lighter than my Air Command Tandem! I want to get my hands on one of these and install a YG4. 30 more HP, 30 less lbs! I already spoke to the Aussie about it at length several months before TAGNA announced here, but he wanted to wait until the program had a chance to mature a bit before letting me try it. I promise you, though, one is coming in the foreseeable future.

490 pounds is the static thrust not the weight of the aircraft.

I see a lot of people here give a lot of credence to static thrust testing for possible representation of prop performance. It actually means very little in reality. No one flies statically with no airspeed. As soon as you pass 20 mph, that number is meaningless actually. A proper propeller designed with its chord and twist optimized for a certain speed range will not perform well at all at static condition. Just FYI. I used to do these tests all the time with great care, till finally I did some digging around to understand what is really happening. After that I throw these results right in the garbage can where they really belong.

 

[MadMuz]

Very true Abid, not to mention, as the prop travels faster thru the air in flight... it makes less and less thrust until the prop is hitting the airflow with no angle of attack and the machine will not go any faster. To me, the static thrust is only a good indicator of whether the machine has hardly any thrust, a fair amount, quit a bit or a hell of a lot.... the best indication would be a race to an altitude, such as 5000' with the same weight in each machine.... but then, the drag of each machine is different too....:yo:

 

[Joe Pires]

490 pounds is the static thrust not the weight of the aircraft.

I see a lot of people here give a lot of credence to static thrust testing for possible representation of prop performance. It actually means very little in reality. No one flies statically with no airspeed. As soon as you pass 20 mph, that number is meaningless actually. A proper propeller designed with its chord and twist optimized for a certain speed range will not perform well at all at static condition. Just FYI. I used to do these tests all the time with great care, till finally I did some digging around to understand what is really happening. After that I throw these results right in the garbage can where they really belong.

Is there an on-ground test that you feel would offer a better comparison and allow people to get a side by side evaluation of two props?

PS: sorry for continuing the derailment of your thread.

 

[Vance]

Best Propeller?

Best Propeller?

When trying to find out the best propeller for a particular aircraft I feel rate of climb and fuel consumption have more value than a static thrust test.

I have never been that excited about how fast I am able to accelerate for a stop.

I have also found that some propellers work over a wider speed range and I feel there is value in that.

 

[Texasautogyro]

While at Rotors we conducted the same test as before at Newton kansas. Conditions were the same except location of course and altitude of 4250. Density altitude of 7000+. Outside temp 82f. After take off with a full load we still climbed over 400 ft per min. I have flow a turbo MTO with the standard prop at this location and I feel the Bolly Prop showed much better then the IVO the autogyro prop and the powerfin at this altitude.

 

[Abid]

OT: Prop comparison

OT: Prop comparison

Is there an on-ground test that you feel would offer a better comparison and allow people to get a side by side evaluation of two props?

PS: sorry for continuing the derailment of your thread.

Yes. Do the same test on the same aircraft in very similar weather conditions at the same weight. Do all the tests using a MAP sensor and OAT sensor to calculate power percentage, instead of using RPM. Do rate of climb, speed range for straight and level and takeoff ground roll tests.

Look at
http://www.stolspeed.com/id/62

for instance.
I have tested many props on Searey carefully including Duc (French) prop models (2 different ones), Sensenich, Sterna, of course Warp drive, etc. That Kool prop listed in above report is actually Lugo prop from Ukraine and is extremely similar or the same as Aero prop (also from Ukraine and from the same city) that I have used for thousands of hours. They are good but not as good as Sterna and GA prop I am using right now. Also, Ukraine is having issues in that area and supply is becoming problematic unfortunately.

 

[NoWingsAttached]

490 pounds is the static thrust not the weight of the aircraft.

I see a lot of people here give a lot of credence to static thrust testing for possible representation of prop performance. It actually means very little in reality. No one flies statically with no airspeed. As soon as you pass 20 mph, that number is meaningless actually. A proper propeller designed with its chord and twist optimized for a certain speed range will not perform well at all at static condition. Just FYI. I used to do these tests all the time with great care, till finally I did some digging around to understand what is really happening. After that I throw these results right in the garbage can where they really belong.

My speed reading is getting really bad...I am missing more and more! THanks for setting me straight.

I dont' really understand why thrust numbers would be meaningless though. I thought all aircraft engines were rated for thrust? Or is that just jet engines?

Ya see, in a jet engine there is no corkscrewing...just thrust, and that's it.

So if it is relevant for a jet, why not a prop? They are both moving air.

 

[GyrOZprey]

N556XT - weight.

N556XT - weight.

We weighed "FSTE" AKA "Festey" on 3 new bathroom scales prior to fueling when we were setting up for A/W inspection!
@ ROTR .... the cool aircraft scales we sitting there in the big hanger & we rolled it on early one morning when pre-flighting. We had to subtract the weight of 2 helmets, fire extinguisher, and 10 gal of fuel ......

we confirmed all up empty weight with rotor installed came to 622 lb.

The gyro ( rotax 914 engine) with oil & coolant weighed 547lb ... PLUS the rotor @ 75 lb.

In Justin TX we compared to Mark's yellow 912 MTO with rotor on .. the two gyros were very close in weight!

....... just some Titanium trivia ... for the curious!

We got a chuckle out of how Michael on his radio calls ID'd as red gyroplane ** 6 Xray titanium! :lol:

 

[loftus]

I thought this gyro was supposed to be 40 + pounds lighter than the MTO. MTO is supposedly 540-550lbs (240-247kg) empty weight in the handbook???? So really pretty close?
Anybody actually weighed their MTO

 

[Texasautogyro]

Jeff I suppose it depends on what scales you use and what you add on as extras. Did the scales get calibrated? I did weight my MTOs both of them. They came out different on two sets of scales just like the TAG did. So this does not surprise me.

 

[PW_Plack]

When trying to find out the best propeller for a particular aircraft I feel rate of climb and fuel consumption have more value than a static thrust test.

I think the static thrust test became popular for gyros in the era of the single-place stick machines, when thrust at low speed was a much bigger priority than thrust as 90 knots.

All the new tandems are aimed at the cross-country crowd, and they all take some runway to get off the ground, but cruise efficiently.

 

[Vance]

Static Thrust Tests are Easy.

Static Thrust Tests are Easy.

I think the static thrust test became popular for gyros in the era of the single-place stick machines, when thrust at low speed was a much bigger priority than thrust as 90 knots.

All the new tandems are aimed at the cross-country crowd, and they all take some runway to get off the ground, but cruise efficiently.

It is my observation that best rate of climb for most gyroplanes is between 55 and 65 miles per hour Paul.

A static thrust test doesn’t tell much about how the propeller will work at best rate of climb.

A static thrust test doesn’t tell much about how the propeller will perform at cruise of even 70 miles per hour.

In my opinion the thrust test became popular because it was easy and a way to compare gyroplanes that were otherwise not comparable.

Testing an aircraft takes time and patience and is what is supposed to go on in the phase one testing of an experimental.

I spend very little time accelerating a gyroplane from zero air speed.

 

[PW_Plack]

It is my observation that best rate of climb for most gyroplanes is between 55 and 65 miles per hour Paul...A static thrust test doesn’t tell much about how the propeller will perform at cruise of even 70 miles per hour.

Vance, many small gyros powered by Rotax two-strokes, especially ultralights, are so draggy they can only dream of such speeds. The last single-place I flew weighed 340 pounds, was powered by a Rotax 503, had no windscreen or pod, and the minimum power required speed, Vy and best glide were all 37 MPH. On a machine like that at elevations like ours, the terms "cruise" and "static" begin to converge!

 

[cfibob]

Weight of a MTO

Weight of a MTO

Wow. 622 on the TAG! I thought it was supposed to be lighter. We just weighed on 'calibrated aircraft scales', what I think is the heaviest MTO (without floats) to my knowledge. It came in at 630 lbs. However, that aircraft is 914 powered, has the larger 8.8 rotor system and an additional generator/alternator!

 

[Steve_UK]

Here are some facts


MTO 912 empty 250KG = 551 LB

MTO 914 empty 260KG = 573 LB

other weight combinations are listed on the CAA PDF below

I suspect the only way we will ever get a like for like will be when TAG submit the TE to the UK CAA for Type Approval - this will generate a report like the PDF below

https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/20111103GyroTADSBG02Iss09RotorSportUKMTOSport.pdf

 

[JAL]

My speed reading is getting really bad...I am missing more and more! THanks for setting me straight. I dont' really understand why thrust numbers would be meaningless though. I thought all aircraft engines were rated for thrust? Or is that just jet engines? Ya see, in a jet engine there is no corkscrewing...just thrust, and that's it. So if it is relevant for a jet, why not a prop? They are both moving air.

That's not what Fara is saying. The thrust produced at 0 airspeed at full throttle ( while tethered to the ground) is not comparable to the thrust with airspeed. An engine and prop combination can be optimised for a static trust test but not create as much thrust as a combination optimised for a certain cruise speed which may not register as well on a static thrust test.

The pitch of the blades, the aerodynamics of the aircraft, pusher or tractor and the way the engine delivers he power are all variables that can be changed to get the maximum for what you are trying to achieve.

I am not sure how you should determine how efficient ( iow thrust) a engine and prop combination is because it should be measured at a set airspeed (not static) and therefore a better measure would be to determine it mathematically from empirical flight testing

 

[loftus]

I guess the question to ask is everything else being equal, is static thrust one indicator of a props performance or not? In other words setting a fixed prop on a tandem pusher gyro, for a Rotax 914 to deliver say 5400 RPM at max RPM on the ground, is static thrust not a measure that can be used to compare two props at least at those parameters? If not, why not? I understand hat this does not automatically mean the props will be comparable in all situations, but it would seem reasonable that static thrust can be used as a reliable starting point. I guess the next question to Fara is: Is there data to show that there is no connection between static thrust and other forms of measurement or is there a linear relationship? Do prop manufacturers have this type of data?

 

[Abid]

The empty weight of the gyro should be given with coolant, engine oil, prop, rotor blades and unusable fuel. Max empty weight should include options like back seat instruments, back seat controls for training, lights, avionics options etc.

The machine should be weighed on good quality scales that have been calibrated within the last year or you can easily get 30 to 40 pounds off even. For sure on bathroom scales it's possible to get that far off.

The weight difference between an EFIS and regular dial gauges is easily 10 to 12 pounds. Back seat instruments can add significant weight like in the TAG here, the back seat controls could add 10 to 12 pounds. Lights another 3 to 4 pounds. Things add up quickly. The difference between empty weight of standard gyropkane and with options (max empty weight) could be up to 45 pounds.

 

[Jazzenjohn]

How do the rotor blades compare between the TAG gyro and the MTO? 75 pounds seems pretty light!

Empty weight includes undrainable fuel and oil as per FAA-8083-30_Ch04: Empty Weight: The empty weight of an aircraft includes all operating equipment that has a fixed location and is actually installed in the aircraft. It includes the weight of the airframe, powerplant, required equipment, optional or special equipment, fixed ballast, hydraulic fluid, and residual fuel and oil. Residual fuel and oil are the fluids that will not normally drain out because they are trapped in the fuel lines, oil lines, and tanks. They must be included in the aircraft’s empty weight.

It makes a big difference on my ultralight gyro, but as long as the TAG and MTO are weighed similarly, I don't think it makes much difference. It could account for some of the published vs actual weight differences as some manufacturers include oil and others don't on their spec sheets.