For the new kids

[gyroplanes]

Ray Umbaugh developed a factory gyroplane from his smaller Bensen style gyros down in Florida. Ray had several odd looking prototypes and a story I remember was that Chuck Beaty saw one of the ships in a sink hole the locals used as a dump. Ray's gyro became the Umbaugh (something), which later became the Air & Space 18 gyro, I believe they were made in Muncie, Indiana. at the time. Don Farrington bought an 18a or two, and had several modifications approved by the FAA. They were a good flying machine, but quite lumbering (my opinion. I don't have much flying time in them) Don tried and tried to market them commercially, but without much success.

I was quite surprised to find a 18a dealer at a small airport in Hobart, Indiana. How I found out about the dealer, was the crash of an 18a at that airport (Hobart Sky Ranch) More on this later when I locate the information. (it's quite surprising)

 

[WaspAir]

Umbaugh was the business guy behind it (not an engineer), who wanted a farm-to-farm capable STOL aircraft for his agri-chemical salesmen to use. The design and prototyping was done through people like Gilbert Devore and Fairchild Aircraft in Maryland. They went through several very different tail configurations before settling on the triple tail eventually seen on production models.

Farrington bought the type certificate, parts inventory, about a dozen incomplete ships, and several airworthy examples after Air & Space folded. He had STCs for a noise reduction kit and rotor collective trim.

 

[Abid]

Ray Umbaugh developed a factory gyroplane from his smaller Bensen style gyros down in Florida. Ray had several odd looking prototypes and a story I remember was that Chuck Beaty saw one of the ships in a sink hole the locals used as a dump. Ray's gyro became the Umbaugh (something), which later became the Air & Space 18 gyro, I believe they were made in Muncie, Indiana. at the time. Don Farrington bought an 18a or two, and had several modifications approved by the FAA. They were a good flying machine, but quite lumbering (my opinion. I don't have much flying time in them) Don tried and tried to market them commercially, but without much success.

I was quite surprised to find a 18a dealer at a small airport in Hobart, Indiana. How I found out about the dealer, was the crash of an 18a at that airport (Hobart Sky Ranch) More on this later when I locate the information. (it's quite surprising)

I keep saying and people don't agree but if I wanted collective pitch and jump takeoff and all that, I would just go to a helicopter. Simple point. Gyroplane is best because of its extreme simplicity. We will see how ELA Jump TO gyro will do but my guess is it will find out the same thing they found out long ago. We can argue about it but the history and stats are right there and as they say history repeats itself.

 

[Mayfield]

He had STCs for a noise reduction kit and rotor collective trim.

I don't remember the details. Did Don have the STC for the fiberglass cowling? Was that part of the kit to quiet it? When I ferried mine from Paducah to Phoenix, it still had the aluminum cowling. Most of the aluminum cowling and a roll of duct tape made it to Arizona. I bought a wrecked 18A and used the fiberglass cowling.

 

[Mayfield]

We can argue about it but the history and stats are right there and as they say history repeats itself.

As much as I enjoyed flying the 18A, Groen Hawk 4, 5, and 6, I just couldn't get to a marketable product other than the Sparrowhawk. The truth is that the American Ranger, TAG, Magni, etc, are much better engineered from a mechanical standpoint. Aerodynamically, the SH was okay, but the gyro manufacturers mentioned above made intelligent compromises to get to marketable products.

I know people will point to the Fairey ships, but my engineers discovered the gyroplanes and gyrodynes just didn't scale well. A compound helicopter makes more sense

 

[Abid]

As much as I enjoyed flying the 18A, Groen Hawk 4, 5, and 6, I just couldn't get to a marketable product other than the Sparrowhawk. The truth is that the American Ranger, TAG, Magni, etc, are much better engineered from a mechanical standpoint. Aerodynamically, the SH was okay, but the gyros mentioned above made intelligent compromises to get to marketable products.

I know people will point to the Fairey ships, but my engineers discovered the gyroplanes and gyrodynes just didn't scale well. A compound helicopter makes more sense

Yes once gyroplanes get heavier, the equation is extremely non-linear. A simple example is Sport Copter SC-II with 230 HP engine. The AR-1 914 can takeoff shorter, climb better, go faster and is more maneuverable and more stable all while carrying the same 2 people in the same conditions. 115 HP versus 230 HP. It is just too heavy of a beast to perform. Same would be true on scaling up with other machines.

 

[Mayfield]

I see N6155S in the above pictures has the fiberglass cowling/quiet kit. To answer my question in post 4, I guess the cowling and the fairing above the tail boom is all the same modification.

 

[WaspAir]

Yes, the kit involved cowlings and exhaust plumbing all in one STC.

 

[WaspAir]

I keep saying and people don't agree but if I wanted collective pitch and jump takeoff and all that, I would just go to a helicopter.

They are very different animals.
I owned both a helicopter and an 18A at the same time, and one is not a substitute for the other. They were not even close for cost of purchase, maintenance, operation, and piloting ease, or the nature of the experience and the enjoyment provided. It strikes me as something like suggesting that motorcycles and convertibles are substitutes for each other.

You might not be interested, and of course you are entitled to your own tastes, but that doesn't make your "just get a helicopter" logic valid for others

Have you flown both?

You still might not like it, but you might understand those who disagree if you had some experience in them.

P.S. I thought this thread was about history of this model.

 

[Mayfield]

P.S. I thought this thread was about history of this model.

Yep. It is. Thanks for starting it Tommy. Brings back good memories of John Potter, Don Farington, Al Wadill, others who shared the 18A adventures

 

[GyroChuck]

Al Wadill. Was he the one that was called a Cadillac salesman.

 

[Doug Riley]

Hmm. The notion that scaling up a gyro results in poorer performance compared to the smaller original doesn't jibe with basic aerodynamics. If it's nevertheless true, then that's a substantial mystery worth exploring.

As we all know, the Reynolds number principle says that large airfoils are more efficient than small ones at a given airspeed. This has to do, IIR, with the boundary layer being thinner as a percentage of the dimensions of the 'foil itself. So -- the A&S, with its foot-wide blades, should at least not be LESS efficient than a Bensen.

Chuck Beaty pointed out, with numbers, that one of the sources of inefficiency in the larger, heavier experimental-class gyros was the continued use of blades with single-place-gyro chord lengths. The resulting blade loading (not necessarily disk loading, though sometimes that, too) was/is not ideal.

Of course, manufacturing cost has something to do with that. It's easier to make longer blades using the same spar extrusion and other tooling than to start from scratch building wider blades.

Gyros in general, large and small, are pretty inefficient. Turning the rotor using an indirect "windmill drive" squanders an awful lot of engine power compared to the shaft and gearbox of a helicopter. We waste that power stirring up (and so heating up) the air. Imagine if our cars used such a setup to turn their wheels.

 

[Abid]

They are very different animals.
I owned both a helicopter and an 18A at the same time, and one is not a substitute for the other. They were not even close for cost of purchase, maintenance, operation, and piloting ease, or the nature of the experience and the enjoyment provided. It strikes me as something like suggesting that motorcycles and convertibles are substitutes for each other.

You might not be interested, and of course you are entitled to your own tastes, but that doesn't make your "just get a helicopter" logic valid for others

Have you flown both?

You still might not like it, but you might understand those who disagree if you had some experience in them.

P.S. I thought this thread was about history of this model.

The cost is going to come out almost the same. You are not keeping up. ELA Jump gyro for instance is to sell at $230k. With MOSAIC I am pretty sure a 2 seat simple Heli will be the same. It’s not that I don’t like it. I actually think it’s cool to jump. I don’t think there is a market. If there was, 18A would have been a resounding success. Carter stuff would have been in production with someone. Groen Brothers would not have taken $20 - $30 million and wasted them back in the day. Every sheriff department would have a Cavalon by now. God knows they tried by hook or crook including convincing DOJ Light aviation division chief who just happened to be AutoGyro USA original owner's across the street neighbor to even award grants to buy AutoGyro machine for rural sheriff's departments back till few years ago.

They may not be the same for flying but for engineering it’s 80% already there.

18A from what I have heard wasn’t a great performer, but I don’t have any time personally to judge it.

 

[Mayfield]

Al Wadill. Was he the one that was called a Cadillac salesman.

Yes he was. Al loved to sell. I've lost track of him now.

 

[Doug Riley]

Oceans of money were thrown at helicopter development once the military got a taste of the Sikorsky R-4. Had the same sums, or even .01% of the same sums, been spent on autogyro development in the post WWII era, we'd have some pretty fine gyros.

Trouble is, you can't keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paris. That is, you can't take away the hover, and the hovering landing, and not see disappointment in the customers' eyes. The hover is just DAMN handy. The customers have seen all the episodes of M*A*S*H.

So, as Abid says, once you jack the price to cover swashplates, collective, variable-pitch prop, and complex rotor hubs, then say "Well, no, it can't hover except in a full gale," you've unsold your 18A, or Groen Hawk, or whatever.

Those of us who find gyros uniquely FUN (and to hell with utility/economy) just aren't plentiful enough to make a market for large, relatively complex gyros.

 

[Mayfield]

I wasn't clear in stating the reasons "WE" weren't able to make the larger gyros scale well performance wise.

We worked with Boeing Phantoms works, DARPA, Georgia Tech and others.

Contractors or consultants included Ray Prouty, Gordon Leishman, Dan Somers (did the airfoil for our rotor blades), and yes, Chuck Beaty. I hired many other good men and women as well. We didn't suffer from a lack of brain power.

I just couldn't install enough power at an acceptable cost in dollars or weight, to compete with a comparably sized helicopter.

Just a quick and dirty comparison:

The Hawk 5 and the Bell 206, minus the rotor system, weigh very close to the same. The Hawk 5 rotor weighs roughly twice as much as the 206 rotor. Yeah, I know, "But the gyro doesn't need the heavy transmission". Been there. Ran the numbers. Back to the comparison: The Bell 206 flies very nicely on the RR 250 series engine, 420-450 SHP. The Hawk with the same engine lumbered and had 1/3 the useful load.

So, I'm not arguing with those that say gyros are the answer, I'm saying that I and my team did not demonstrate superiority in any measurement I can think of.

I think compound helicopters hold great promise. I was early in a study, with Phantom Works, on a CH-47 winged prototype with a thrust engine in the cargo bay. This was only a prototypical thought process as we know a huge engine in the cargo area sort of negates the value of the CH-47 cavernous interior.

Early work indicated, even without the wings, significant speed increase was probable. As the thrust engine was throttled up, the collective was lowered and the disc tilted back.

This project did not get to the hardware stage, but Phantom Works has significant computer simulation capabilities. I have some degree of confidence in the predictions.

I sure love gyros though

Jim

 

[Abid]

I wasn't clear in stating the reasons "WE" weren't able to make the larger gyros scale well performance wise.

We worked with Boeing Phantoms works, DARPA, Georgia Tech and others.

Contractors or consultants included Ray Prouty, Gordon Leishman, Dan Somers (did the airfoil for our rotor blades), and yes, Chuck Beaty. I hired many other good men and women as well. We didn't suffer from a lack of brain power.

I just couldn't install enough power at an acceptable cost in dollars or weight, to compete with a comparably sized helicopter.

Just a quick and dirty comparison:

The Hawk 5 and the Bell 206, minus the rotor system, weigh very close to the same. The Hawk 5 rotor weighs roughly twice as much as the 206 rotor. Yeah, I know, "But the gyro doesn't need the heavy transmission". Been there. Ran the numbers. Back to the comparison: The Bell 206 flies very nicely on the RR 250 series engine, 420 SHP. The Hawk with the same engine lumbered and had 1/3 the useful load.

So, I'm not arguing with those that say gyros are the answer, I'm saying that I and my team did not demonstrate superiority in any measurement I can think of.

I think compound helicopters hold great promise. I was early in a study, with Phantom Works, on a CH-47 winged prototype with a thrust engine in the cargo bay. This was only a prototypical thought process as we know a huge engine in the cargo area sort of negates the value of the CH-47 cavernous interior.

Early work indicated, even without the wings, significant speed increase was probable. As the thrust engine was throttled up, the collective was lowered and the disc tilted back.

This project did not get to the hardware stage, but Phantom Works has significant computer simulation capabilities. I have some degree of confidence in the predictions.

I sure love gyros though

Jim

That is right. Thus, if I ever do a jump takeoff 2 seat gyroplane, it will be MOSAIC helicopter with simplified controls and it can be at or even lower price than ELA jump gyroplane and Argon 916. Remember with MOSAIC if I am understanding correctly, helicopters can be flown with a Sport Pilot license and ASTM compliant simplified controls 2 seat helicopters will be allowed. They obviously have to make the design and production acceptance testing standards for it but it seems like that is what is coming to me. Why would I do jump takeoff gyroplane. What problem does it solve. I can see the standard fixed pitch gyroplane is simple and for people not wanting to deal with complexity and maintenance, it is a great rotorcraft that handles turbulence even better than many light 2 seat helicopters and flies and cruises just fine till 100 mph. It is safe (although as we know the pilots entering the gyroplane market are not and there are the same accidents over and over) and a lot of fun.

 

[scottessex]

For the price of the ELA jumper, you might be able to get one of these:

CH7 Helicopters - Helisport | CH77 Ranabot

www.ch-7helicopter.com

Or one of these easy to fly Co-ax choppers.

EDM Aerotec

www.edm-aerotec.de

 

[gyroplanes]

Al Wadill. Was he the one that was called a Cadillac salesman.

Cadillac Al ! Gave us a big surprise

 

[wolfy]

I wasn't clear in stating the reasons "WE" weren't able to make the larger gyros scale well performance wise.

We worked with Boeing Phantoms works, DARPA, Georgia Tech and others.

Contractors or consultants included Ray Prouty, Gordon Leishman, Dan Somers (did the airfoil for our rotor blades), and yes, Chuck Beaty. I hired many other good men and women as well. We didn't suffer from a lack of brain power.

I just couldn't install enough power at an acceptable cost in dollars or weight, to compete with a comparably sized helicopter.

Just a quick and dirty comparison:

The Hawk 5 and the Bell 206, minus the rotor system, weigh very close to the same. The Hawk 5 rotor weighs roughly twice as much as the 206 rotor. Yeah, I know, "But the gyro doesn't need the heavy transmission". Been there. Ran the numbers. Back to the comparison: The Bell 206 flies very nicely on the RR 250 series engine, 420 SHP. The Hawk with the same engine lumbered and had 1/3 the useful load.

So, I'm not arguing with those that say gyros are the answer, I'm saying that I and my team did not demonstrate superiority in any measurement I can think of.

I think compound helicopters hold great promise. I was early in a study, with Phantom Works, on a CH-47 winged prototype with a thrust engine in the cargo bay. This was only a prototypical thought process as we know a huge engine in the cargo area sort of negates the value of the CH-47 cavernous interior.

Early work indicated, even without the wings, significant speed increase was probable. As the thrust engine was throttled up, the collective was lowered and the disc tilted back.

This project did not get to the hardware stage, but Phantom Works has significant computer simulation capabilities. I have some degree of confidence in the predictions.

I sure love gyros though

Jim

Sure would be interesting reading about what other aviation projects you have been involved in Jim.
I knew you were heavily involved in Groen Bros, but there is much more to see here.

wolfy