Hawk 5

Illini85

Gold Supporter
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
283
Location
Hopkinsville, KY
This is the Groen Brothers operation revised. I believe, if memory serves, they developed prototype single and two place gyros (Hawk 1 and 2). They also built the Hawk 4 which famously provided aerial patrol during the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. A very serious design and engineering firm that has focused its efforts on military and commercial applications. I believe they actually received DARPA money to explore development but when that ran out there really wasn't a revenue stream to fuel ongoing operations. They did provide a retrofit tail kit for the RAF gyro that had a cruciform tail configuration. That lead to them ultimately to offer a full kit marketed as the Sparrowhawk.

The company went through bankruptcy and then recapitalization and I thought Chinese interests had purchased them at one point. I just think they never found a market that could pay their price that wasn't being served by helicopters.

This link provides more info.

http://www.buildagyrocopter.com/groen-brothers-hawk-gyroplane/

That single place Hawk is a very appealing design from an aesthetic point of view.
 

ventana7

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
1,546
Location
Salida, Colorado
Aircraft
Xenon Gyroplane, Cessna 182
Total Flight Time
1,000+
Thanks. I knew all the Groen players very welll, including many Sparrowhawk dealers who collectively lost millions. David Groen’s greatest gift was getting investors, not designing, or building gyros. The Hawk 4 cost more than a Jet Ranger with 1/2 the usefulness. I spent lots of time at their Buckeye operation which lost millions of dollars. I had a Sparrowhawk which I flew to all 48 states in the US in 2006.

My real question is has this new iteration actually built anything?

Anyone know?
 

twistair

Living in the Skies
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
1,161
Location
Kronshtadt, Russia
Aircraft
none own :( currently flying Calidus mostly
Total Flight Time
Don't know exactly, ca. 3000 hours
My real question is has this new iteration actually built anything?

At the moment nothing at their website tells about this. Their "team" list also doesn't show any attention to technical part of any design project: director, brigade general, advisor, advisor, general again etc etc. Looks like the same Groen game at their best.
Website content is also nothing but cheap cartoon videos and some veeery old photos of Hawk-4 .
 

Mayfield

Gold Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
911
Location
Avondale, Arizona
Total Flight Time
>14K hours
Nice paint job. Looks like the same airframe I first flew in 1999. The giveaway is the little bump on the nose where the air data probe was mounted for testing.
I don't recognize the rotorhead. The one I'm familiar with was a large underslung head with coning hinges. I know the original batch of tension/torsion straps timed out at least 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Doug Riley

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
6,609
This latest sighting of a Hawk IV/V coincides with discussions we've been having elsewhere on this Conference. Never mind the "cool factor" (which almost everyone here would acknowledge!). Does the gyroplane have a serious mission that would justify type certification? And, if so, would a gimbal head-teeter hinge control system work in a serious gyro?

Lots of people have tried. Really, really hard. No cigar so far.

Cierva conceived the autogiro in the 1920's (er, that's roughly a century ago) as a response to stall-spin crashes. Stall-spin crashes are still with us - and gyros still don't stall or spin.

But arguably aviation has made its peace with stall-spin and moved on. Meanwhile, the autogyro/gyroplane still uses an inefficient "air drive" to spin its rotor, eating up the efficiency gained (and then some) by not driving a tail rotor. Sadly, to achieve "runway free" operations, we have to resort to a heavy, complex, expensive helicopter-style rotor drive and control system.

Again, we here adore the cool factor, but the cold-blooded business person is going to ask hard questions: what advantage is left, once we account for the power-hogging autorotative rotor drive and a costly, standard helo control system, clutch and drive shaft?

Just buy a JetRanger, indeed.
 

C. Beaty

Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
10,101
Location
Florida
A stiff in plane seesaw rotor requires inplane flexibility in its mounting. Attaching another rotor at 90 degrees or any other large lump of mass spoils that scheme and will ultimately result in inplane cracking of root or hub arrangement.
 

ventana7

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
1,546
Location
Salida, Colorado
Aircraft
Xenon Gyroplane, Cessna 182
Total Flight Time
1,000+
Nice paint job. Looks like the same airframe I first flew in 1999. The giveaway is the little bump on the nose where the air data probe was mounted for testing.
I don't recognize the rotorhead. The one I'm familiar with was a large underslung head with coning hinges. I know the original batch of tension/torsion straps timed out at least 10 years ago.
Hey Jim great to see you still hanging out here.
All the best.
Rob Dubin
 
Top