Littlewing LW-4 or 5?

[cook11]

Which layout is better? Will the longer LW-4 handle better? I would like to build a two seater but not sure which one. Is there a useful load difference between these two models? I'd love to put one on bush wheels like the cubs for off airport operations.

 

[cluttonfred]

You'd think that kind of information wouldn't be that hard to find, wouldn't you? Ron Herron deserves kudos for all he has done to revive interest in tractor autogyros, but his web site is absolute [email protected] You'll just have to e-mail him and ask, I guess.

 

[WHY]

Jonathon

Sometime back when I talked with Ron, he said he had shortened the fuselage since he found the extra length made no improvement. The original length was taken from the fixed wing design that the original Little Wing was based on. On the original fixed wing fuselages, the longer length is needed to stabilize the inertia of the wing, this inertia does not exist on a gyro due to the rotor bearing.

Tony

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

The longer tail arm is needed for the elevator control LW-2 but not for the direct control models which benefit with better tail to rotor clearance given their shorter length.

Also, have a look at a thread post I made here:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=423993&postcount=31

.

 

[mcbirdman]

To me the longer looks better. I dont like the rather abrubt transition of the fuselage into rudder post of the LW5. It is only 2 feet. The shorter version likely gives better rotor clearance but Ron said longer tail makes it more stable. As far as "absolute crap website" I disagree. I think the problem is you want more info to satisfy your needs which I understand. Look up littlewingwonder.com Hopefully this will help satisfy your cravings. Good Luck.

 

[cluttonfred]

Some specs of the modified LW-5 "Woodstock" here: http://www.airventuremuseum.org/collection/aircraft/4Herron_Keech Little Wing Autogyro.asp. My vote is for the shorter fuselage LW-5 as it is proven in "Woodstock" and why carry around extra weight that you don't need? I'd really like to see a side-by-side Littlewing model, perhaps taking its styling from the Piper Vagabond PA-15/17?

 

[cook11]

I'm a fan of two seat side by side idea as well. I own a Pacer so a side by side is what I am used to. I agree on the Pa-15/17 as a design base or even the J4 cub coupe. Needs to have clear lexan doors!

 

[cluttonfred]

My daydreams right now are of a side-by-side tractor gyro with a basic steel mast and keel to which are attached engine mount, seats, landing gear and fuel tank with the rest made up of sewn dacron over bolted and riveted aluminum tubes. Think of a cleaned up, trigear, Rotax-powered Pitcairn PA-22 mated to a tube-and-fabric Sky Ranger...

+

=

?

 

[cook11]

I'm a taildragger fan by heart....to me they look more traditional. For ease of construction the bede bd-4 bolted angle design would be hard to beat. Powered by a Wankel Rotary. I also like the out rigger suspension setup like the Just aircraft super stol or the Storch. To me something like the Ragwing RW-11 ragabond as a frame design but with bent aluminum angles instead of wood may be a good design? I own a CNC aluminum sheetmetal shop.....

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

Side-by-side design does add challenges to proper streamlining especially given a shorter length of fuselage.

I see elements of the PA-22 and AC-35 in this design.

.

 

[cluttonfred]

Neat! What is that, Alan?

 

[cluttonfred]

I'm a taildragger fan by heart....to me they look more traditional. For ease of construction the bede bd-4 bolted angle design would be hard to beat. Powered by a Wankel Rotary. I also like the out rigger suspension setup like the Just aircraft super stol or the Storch. To me something like the Ragwing RW-11 ragabond as a frame design but with bent aluminum angles instead of wood may be a good design? I own a CNC aluminum sheetmetal shop.....

The Bede system is certainly attractive, but it's hard to beat bolted tubes and sewn fabric for ease of building from a kit and ease of repair. Take a look at this time lapse video clip:

http://youtu.be/vJJGVHVB4Gk

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

Neat! What is that, Alan?

Some European design, there is video of it flying although I don't currently have a link.

.

 

[okikuma]

A number of years ago, someone in Australia I believe was building modified side-by-side version of a Little Wing Autogyro. I recall in the picture, the seat backs were the fuel tanks. There's a picture out there somewhere on the net, however I seem unable to find it at the present time.

Wayne

 

[okikuma]

The silver dope, side-by-side, tractor gyroplane is I believe a Russian design named the "Teddi Bear."

Autogyro Teddi Bear_01.AVI - YouTube

Autogyro Teddi Bear 01 - YouTube

Autogyro Teddi Bear 02 - YouTube

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

Wagtail looks to be based on either the Kitfox or the Avid series.

 

[Alan_Cheatham]

A number of years ago, someone in Australia I believe was building modified side-by-side version of a Little Wing Autogyro. I recall in the picture, the seat backs were the fuel tanks. There's a picture out there somewhere on the net, however I seem unable to find it at the present time.

Wayne

Here ya go:
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=395680&postcount=17

.

 

[TurboWalt]

Wagtail looks to be based on either the Kitfox or the Avid series.

Wagtail Aviation used a "Bushbaby" kit for that prototype of the Kriek. The Bushbaby is a South African version of a Kitfox 4. I'm really diggin the Kriek by Wagtail!

 

[cook11]

What are the key elements when designing a two side by side autogyro?

 

[mercert]

There is a side by side LW5 being built in Spain i think (or in Europe somewhere) and i cleared the pictures i had of it off my computer. It has a 48" wide cabing and a fuel tank/bench seat made from fiberglass. The challenge with the side by side design will be ballance when flying solo, especially with fuel weight ballance so ballast will need to carried and/or a trim device on the mast for side trim. I feel a side by side is very doable for the LW design, the Phenix is a SXS and it looks to fly very well.

James, like you i dont care for the "GEEBEE" look of the LW5 tandem two place as there is no definition for the vertical fin, that is why i made mine a single place with a very defined transition from the turtle deck to the vertical fin, that and i was not going to solo from the back seat!

Tim