Gyroplane Thrustlines vs. Center of Gravity

eddie

RAF, turbo subaru 230hp
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,683
Location
Polvadera,nm 87828
Aircraft
230 HP turbocharged RAF
Total Flight Time
8,000 plus
Excellent answer stewart.

Best regards,eddie.....
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
Bloodyell Stew, why complicate a simple, very capable machine with all that lectric automation dead weight?
Just do it.

The only thing id like to try out that would increase rates, simply, is a teetering prop.;)
 

Murray Barker

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
163
Location
Brisbane
Firstly "Mad Muz", the plus or minus 2 inches is a strong recommendation, not a "you will do this or else". Please read the appropriate regs.

Also it is a strong recommendation that a horizontal stabilizer be fitted. A small flat piece of plywood isn't a HS.

This seems to be one of the things the Euro gyro manufacturers have got right.Some would say the only thing..

Unfortunately we have had our fair share of buntovers ,with obvious results, in Australia
None of these as far as records indicate, have involved a CLT gyro with a decent HS.

Some however involved pilots who thought they could fly anything,unstable or not, until the right set of circumstances during flight comes along.
 
Last edited:

SIIaCanuck

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
110
Location
Alix, Alberta
Aircraft
RAF 2000 2.5 GTX
Total Flight Time
3500hrs +
Bloodyell Stew, why complicate a simple, very capable machine with all that lectric automation dead weight?
Just do it.

The only thing id like to try out that would increase rates, simply, is a teetering prop.;)

Vectored thrust?

Genius.

With the way things are going, all that 'lectric stuff will weigh about as much as a pocket calculator.

Perhaps you're right though, best to keep it simple.
 

MadMuz

Newbie
Joined
May 1, 2014
Messages
1,091
Location
Landsborough, Qld, Australia
Aircraft
Open Gyro, Grumman AA5, Cessna
Total Flight Time
350
Firstly "Mad Muz", the plus or minus 2 inches is a strong recommendation, not a "you will do this or else". Please read the appropriate regs.

Also it is a strong recommendation that a horizontal stabilizer be fitted. A small flat piece of plywood isn't a HS.
.

My bad Murray, I must have missread the regs, I thought that it read 'had to'

I personally wouldn't like to fly a machine without an appropriate HS, I went for a fly (as a passenger only) in an early RAF that cured me of that completely.... butt puckering stuff..... and a guy I built side by side 2 seater for in the late 90's wanted a tall tail with no HS..... that confirmed it..... unquestionably
 

Doug Riley

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
6,416
Stew, as an engineer you'll recognize that agility in a rotorcraft has as much to do with the behavior of the rotor as it does with the behavior of the fuselage. PPO, torque-over and yaw-induced precessional stalls are all cases of the rotor's being unable to get out of the way of a fuselage that can accelerate (angularly) faster than the rotor can.

There's nothing to be gained from making the gyro's fuselage statically unstable while using the same old rotor that can only precess so fast without diverging or beating itself to pieces.

The trend (generally a healthy one IMHO) since the Bensen era has been toward larger, lower-RPM and more massive rotors. This does not make for ideal cattle-mustering machines, but otherwise has saved lives and enhanced the ability of sport gyros to fly decently on smallish engines.
 

Resasi

Gold Supporter
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
7,893
Location
London/ Kilifi Kenya
Aircraft
Gyrs, RAF 2000/Mgni/Bnsn/Hrnet/Mrlin/Crckt/MT-03/Lyzlle AV18-A/Prdtor. Pax ArrowCopter
Total Flight Time
100+ gyro, 16,000+ other
Might be splitting hairs here, and no wish to look for conflict. Given and accepting that the stability/agility ratio between fixed wing and gyro flying machines are not related, together with Doug's observation above, I remain just slight puzzled by this

Agility is in no way related to stability.
You can be stable or unstable but still have the same level of agility.
The down side to the big HS asa fix for instability, is it costs energy, and the damping effect slows the rate.
rate
.
I am guessing the second 'rate' was finger trouble, and that an HS slows the rate...I am assuming of pitch. It has made for a safer machine and at albeit a small cost in rate of pitch, and of available power. But surely a decrease in agility, if agility in a flying machine is measured in roll, pitch rates, and available surplus power.

I am simply guessing and happy to be enlightened but if I add an HS to the Bensen, I am expecting to have a safer machine but at a small cost in agility. Of course hoping so small as to be unnoticeable.
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,934
Location
Florida
A horizontal stabilizer causes the airframe to more quickly align itself with the flightpath of the rotor.

This does not equate to a reduction of agility; conversely, airframe lag and overshoot resulting from inadequate or no horizontal stabilizer is hardly an indication of agility.
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
A down loaded HS ( needed to counter the rotating force of a HTL ) costs energy in any high rate pitching or acceleration. Pretty simple.
A highly damped machine, wether its through a slug of an airframe or nose heavy blades has, as intended by the engineer, a slow rate of responce.

If your normaly opperateing in confined areas in unpredictable conditions, you need energy efficiancy and high responce rates.
Most people dont, so its not so critical.
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,934
Location
Florida
Move the stick and the rotor settles into its new orientation and assumes a new flight path within 2 or 3 revolutions.

A stabless airframe doesn’t do anything right away. The new thrust vector orientation, displaced relative to the CG, begins an acceleration of the airframe in pitch or roll, whatever the case may be. As the airframe accelerates, it eventually overshoots the commanded position, where unlike a FW, the rotor provides very little damping.

The reaction of most individuals accustomed to flying without a horizontal stabilizer in a feeling of increased crispness.

Professionals like Birdy can utilize lag and overshoot to play toss and catch.

With a Bensen type airframe, always use a “T” tail as keel mounted horizontal stabs don’t do much. With ‘T” tails, differential incidence can be used to cancel torque roll although torque isn’t a big issue with 4’ props turning 4.000 rpm. Torque = (HP x 5252)/rpm
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro

The reaction of most individuals accustomed to flying without a horizontal stabilizer in a feeling of increased crispness

If undamped efficiancy and lighter stick pressures means crispness CB, then your onto it. ;)
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
Oh, i forgot, it can also be pitch and power stable too, if its built proper.
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,934
Location
Florida
Crispness means tighter coupling of rotor and airframe, with minimum lag and overshoot, Birdy. Loosely coupled airframe and rotor makes flying such a gyro feel like stirring a tub of oatmeal.

Stick force in a gyro depends upon rotor and control system characteristics alone. Generally, heavy rotor = heavy stick. Noseheavy rotor = heavy stick. Tailheavy rotor = light stick.

A Bensen with seat tank and light wheels is almost exactly CLT so a stab doesn’t detract from efficiency.

Angle of attack stability means that a flying machine always heads into the relative wind. An upward gust requires that a gyro pitch noseup; a downward gust requires that a gyro pitch nosedown. More throttle and the gyro should go noseup, keeping airspeed constant.
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
A Bensen with seat tank and light wheels is almost exactly CLT so a stab doesn’t detract from efficiency.
Zactly.
And i think you got your gust/pitch bit assup. ;)
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
9,934
Location
Florida
How embarrassing! You’re right- I was bass ackwards in response to gusts. Thanks for catching it.

In an upgust, the resultant wind is rising, so an aircraft must pitch nosedown to maintain constant angle of attack.
 
Last edited:

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
I had to read it a few times to be sure, but figured you were just baitn me.;)
 

Jean Claude

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
2,136
Location
Centre FRANCE
Aircraft
I piloted gliders C800, Bijave, C 310, airplanes Piper J3 , PA 28, Jodel D117, DR 220, Cessna 150, C
Total Flight Time
About 500 h (FW + ultra light)
In my opinion, the rate of roll (or pitch) primarily depends of the angular clearance given to the hub. Damping of the tail is negligible. Example:
 

birdy

Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
7,052
Location
Alice Springs-central Oz.
Aircraft
open frame single seat & a 'wasa' RAF, among other types.
Total Flight Time
7000 odd, bout 5000 gyro
Bout the only thing that governs roll rate, below the teeter bolt, is the length of the mast, or more accurately, the distance between the teeter bolt and the COM.
Greater the seperation, slower the rate.

Pitch is a compleatly different chook.

Damping in pitch, by design, is sposed to tame pitch rates.
Highly damped frames wont fly into their rotors, but their undamped ( not nose heavy) rotors could fly into the frame, usualy the teeter stoppers.
If the pilot ignors the hammering stick warning, his tail is next in line.
A miss match of damping magnitudes between frame and rotor could see a ham fisted opperater do damage.
 

Jean Claude

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
2,136
Location
Centre FRANCE
Aircraft
I piloted gliders C800, Bijave, C 310, airplanes Piper J3 , PA 28, Jodel D117, DR 220, Cessna 150, C
Total Flight Time
About 500 h (FW + ultra light)
Birdy, To apply a continuous rate of roll (or pitch), RTV must pass through the mass center. So, the rate not decreases. In this case, my sketch shows the mast height is irrelevant. The mast height is involved only in the change of roll rate when the stick is fix (this is called damping)
 
Last edited:

MadMuz

Newbie
Joined
May 1, 2014
Messages
1,091
Location
Landsborough, Qld, Australia
Aircraft
Open Gyro, Grumman AA5, Cessna
Total Flight Time
350
Doesn't lengthening the mast lower the center of mass, which slows the roll rate (of the entire machine) therefore what Birdy said is pretty well bang on? That's how I see it?


You cant really achieve a continuous roll rate (like an aerobatic FW) because we can only roll as far as to not unload the rotor? From my experience, a short mast makes for a very quick to respond machine (less stable) and a long mast machine more 'damped' (more stable) so I find it hard to disagree with Birdy?
 
Last edited:
Top