New 2 place enclosed Gryo unveiled in France

[WHY]

One of the greatest features that I notice in the European designs is that the beauty is not just skin deep but also has taken a very significant step in the area of streamline aerodynamics and has there by applied more of the horsepower to flight and performance rather than "pushing air around".

Tony

 

[C. Beaty]

But less aerodynamic than Jim McCuthen’s WindRider or Hank Hinchman’s Dominator clone; I think he called it the H-2 Racer.

I’m skeptical that flow can remain attached in a SxS pusher configuration. If the flow does separate, you end up with a bigger wake than some open machines.

 

[WHY]

A good technical point in favor of the tandem design.

Tony

 

[Vance]

The only real innovations in gyros since Bensen switched over to the offset gimbal rotorhead were those by Dick DeGraw:

Partially powered rotor with power split between prop and rotor by differential gearing.

Bensen didn’t invent the offset gimbal rotorhead nor did Dick invent jump takeoff but both refined those things in a way that made them practical and useful.

Bensen was the first to combine the offset head with a rotor having central flap hinges.

Dick DeGraw was one of the few to design a 3-blade rotor system with drag hinges that did not require dampers while avoiding ground resonance.

But those Flash Gordon wheel spats sure look spiffy.

I feel some of the European designs work better than the Bensen designs.

I feel that part of a successful innovative design is marketing. History is littered with better mousetraps.

If they can improve without a radical departure, more power to them and less R&D costs for a more affordable product or a better profit margin.

This may lead to a longer lived company and better customer support.

It looks to me like a better customer experience is on the horizon.

When I flew the Calidus it was quiet, comfortable, had imperceptible stick shake and carried two fairly large size adults well. It had more range than anything Bensen marketed. It was easy to fly.

It has a composite frame with a welded stainless steel rear section and mast.

It has a hub bar that I don’t understand. The rotor control was a departure from Bensen and the trim was pneumatic. It performed well over a very wide speed range and didn’t burn much fuel for the distance.

The engine has demonstrated reliability beyond any two stroke I am familiar with.

That is faster, more comfortable, safer and more reliable and I would choose the Calidus over a Mac powered Bensen for any of the missions I fly.

Hopefully the competition and profit margins will improve the breed and allow innovation to enter the market so that the innovation artists can be better compensated for their efforts.

When I am too old to build perhaps there will be a production gyroplane that I would buy if they continue to improve.

Thank you, Vance

 

[C. Beaty]

Hi

Has the Sport Copter II had any success in export markets ? A quick look on the FAA website appears to show three examples registered.

The machines built by Magni, AutoGyro, Celier, ELA can be found across the globe - why.


Steve

The RAF-2000 could be found across the globe - why.

 

[Brent_Brown]

lower priced is why you find the raf 2000

 

[aerobatic]

Bensens with $30,000 engines.

Plastic Ferrari on VW Beetle chassis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_car

C'mon Chuck be honest for one time!

With a price tag over 100K$, how could you compare those european gyro with a cheap mockup Beetle? Those are pretty much closer to a real Ferrari to me than to a cheap car.

Where is the cheap plastic; I only see and touch carbon fiber and space age fiber composite in those european marvels I've flown. Should a gyro look ugly to fit your standards?

How could you post such comments when you never get close to a DTA J-Ro? Did you ever saw the quality of construction of a DTA trike? Did you fly one?

Your comments prove to me what I conclude long time ago : you're mind is set from the beginning since you are continually bashing all those gyro that are not built in your country.

Maher

 

[C. Beaty]

The correct terminology, Maher, is FRP (fiber reinforced plastic) whether the reinforcing fiber is glass, Kevlar, graphite or horsehair.

All are amateur designs, basically copies of Magni with one or two exceptions. Magni was a helicopter mechanic without formal engineer training who got his start by building a Bensen and then scaling it up.

But for the exceptions, not one designer seems to have been aware of the need to balance propeller torque, something that all Cierva designs did as a matter of course. Offsetting the rotorhead laterally does not prevent torque roll.

The exceptions are Nicolas Karaolides (Aviomania) but he’s technically in Asia and perhaps the designer of the Xenon, Raphael Celier.

The problem with gyroplanes being a fringe activity is that there’s no money for proper staff. It’s primarily a cut-n-try business.

And it’s no better in the US.

 

[aerobatic]

OK, you know the terminology better than me!

And you're the expert. And Magni is not!

In single engine plane, propeller torque is compensated by increasing a bit the angle of attack of one wing from the other. Still, it just solve the problem at cruise speed. When you suddenly change your throttle settings, you still need to compensate for some roll effect. The Calidus has an optional lateral trim for that. But it's not good enough!

We just need to trash everything and wait until YOU built the PERFECT gyro. A tandem please and one fully enclosed for us up here. And, please, don't forget to hire a real designer like Jonathan Ive so it won't look too ugly.

When that time come, I will may be dead (in my badly designed european gyro) or I will probably be able to afford a real helicopter because your solution won't be cheaper...

 

[Redbaron]

Engineering math - YouTube

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

Basic math

Abbott And Costello 13 X 7 is 28 - YouTube

 

[Redbaron]

LMFAO, thanks for sharing that jeff.

Basic math

Abbott And Costello 13 X 7 is 28 - YouTube

 

[Steve_UK]

Hi

""The exceptions are Nicolas Karaolides (Aviomania) but he’s technically in Asia and perhaps the designer of the Xenon, Raphael Celier.

The problem with gyroplanes being a fringe activity is that there’s no money for proper staff. It’s primarily a cut-n-try business.""



Cyprus is a member of the European Union.

Staff - AutoGyro Gmbh employee 80+ staff - there are not three men and a dog - see

http://www.auto-gyro.com/en/Company/About-Us/


Regards


Steve

 

[Gyro_Kai]

torque is compensated by increasing a bit the angle of attack of one wing from the other.

That is correct and that is how Aviomania is doing it

Still, it just solve the problem at cruise speed. When you suddenly change your throttle settings, you still need to compensate for some roll effect.

Wrong, I'm afraid. The beauty of the aerodynamic torque compensation, be it by a high, Dominator type rudder, or elevators with different aoa, is, that they work over a very large spectrum of airspeed.

The torque effect comes from the propeller putting the air, which is put out, into rotation and thrust. This causes a torque on the propshaft, and rotational, kinetic energy is put into the airstream. If you now place a device into the rotating airstream which (over-) rectifies the rotation, you exert the opposite torque. If you mount that device on the same platform as the propeller, it more or less cancels each other out. If you give more throttle, you have more torque on the propeller, more rotational energy and thus more torque on the rudder/tail. It works immediately and reliably, without any changes on the device.

The Calidus has an optional lateral trim for that. But it's not good enough!

Yes, the Calidus does not fully compensate the torque roll by rudder, but partially by mounting the rotor off center. In normal flight this will always produce the same, constant torque of the weight of the gyro x leverage of the offset. So this is right for exactly one, and only one, throttle/weight situation. For every other situation you have to apply force, either by hand or by trim spring. The lateral trim is a fix for symptom. The root cause lies in the construction fault.

I think what Chuck meant by "beetle in a Ferrari costume" is the following:
Ferrari still uses 4 wheels, steers by rotating the front wheels around an almost vertial axis and people sit in seats with a round steering device in front of the driver. BUT, Ferrari has changed not only motor, but also transmission, gearbox, suspension, brakes, motor electronics and materials to match the more horsepower. If you put a Ferrari motor in a beetle chassis and neat plastic cover on top, you still don't have a Ferrari and chances are, after leaving the parking lot, you will find bits and pieces flying around if you either accelerate, brake or turn.

But, Chuck, unfortunately the Gimbal head and fixed Rotor pitch are now part of the regulations in Europe, limiting freedom in construction. The last true innovation I have seen is the 4 blade rotortec rotor and that is not yet (off the ground corrected available in the marketplace, either. Within these limits a lot of things have changed, especially powerplant and aerodynamics. With new tail designs we may even get the torque out, but still, the steps of advancements are minute.


Kai.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

But for the exceptions, not one designer seems to have been aware of the need to balance propeller torque, something that all Cierva designs did as a matter of course. Offsetting the rotorhead laterally does not prevent torque roll.

I remember having some success with my Hybrid design by offsetting the angle of incidence of the h/stabs. They were too small BUT proved the point at that time Chuck.

Aussie Paul.

 

[Learjet]

All are amateur designs, basically copies of Magni with one or two exceptions. Magni was a helicopter mechanic without formal engineer training who got his start by building a Bensen and then scaling it up.

Come on Chuck, you know full well that the Magni offerings are based upon Jukka Tervamakki's orginal JT-5 autogyro design which he sold to Vittoria Magni in 1974, so your skewed argumentum ad hominem carries little credibility. The JT-5's "DNA" lives on and is all too apparent in the rotor systems, large horizontal stab and basic airframe design in the Magni models to this day. Jukka spent a summer working for Bensen, who was no doubt an influence - but in asserting that the JT-5 was simply a scaled up Bensen, one could similarly assert that the Bensen was based upon the WW2 Focke-Achgelis FA 330 Bachstelze gyroglider with an engine)... both rather tenuous notions Vittorio Magni may well not be a university degreed aeronautical engineer (I have no idea of his qualifications, if any), however Jukka Tervamakki's aeronautical, rotor wing specialization, engineering qualifications and experience speaks for itself.

 

[ROTORTEC]

But, Chuck, unfortunately the Gimbal head and fixed Rotor pitch are now part of the regulations in Europe, limiting freedom in construction. The last true innovation I have seen is the 4 blade rotortec rotor and that is not yet off the ground, either.

Hello Kai,

I do not know where you have the impression from, but we are flying, testing, evaluating and improving for more than 12 Month now, with only good results.

John

Rotortec Platzrunden - YouTube

 

[Gyro_Kai]

Sorry John, wrong wording. I meant, is not available, yet, to the public. So not off the ground, commercially. I didn't mean insult, I actually meant it as praise.

Kai.

 

[C. Beaty]

One of the most studied instances of torque roll was the fatal accident of Pee Wee Judge at the Farnborough airshow a number of years ago. The entire sequence was shot on broadcast quality 16 mm film.

When the rotor is unloaded, the airframe responds to whatever remaining forces are acting upon it; namely propeller thrust and torque. Propeller torque can invert a gyro nearly as quickly as can a large offset of propeller thrust line.

The solution is simple when the designers understand the problem.

All Cierva Autogiros compensated for propeller torque by differential incidence of horizontal stabilizer surfaces centered in the propeller slipstream. Many even used an inverted airfoil on the down lifting side.

Bensen did not provide propeller torque compensation, leaving the imitators without a pattern to follow. A McCullogh engine, spinning the prop at 4,000 rpm, didn’t make much torque but even so, most tumble out of the sky accidents involved at least an element of torque roll.

 

[C. Beaty]

Come on Chuck, you know full well that the Magni offerings are based upon Jukka Tervamakki's orginal JT-5 autogyro design which he sold to Vittoria Magni in 1974, so your skewed argumentum ad hominem carries little credibility. The JT-5's "DNA" lives on and is all too apparent in the rotor systems, large horizontal stab and basic airframe design in the Magni models to this day. Jukka spent a summer working for Bensen, who was no doubt an influence - but in asserting that the JT-5 was simply a scaled up Bensen, one could similarly assert that the Bensen was based upon the WW2 Focke-Achgelis FA 330 Bachstelze gyroglider with an engine)... both rather tenuous notions Vittorio Magni may well not be a university degreed aeronautical engineer (I have no idea of his qualifications, if any), however Jukka Tervamakki's aeronautical, rotor wing specialization, engineering qualifications and experience speaks for itself.

Jukka Tervamaki, as a Bensen employee, learned a fair amount about gyros.

He appears to have followed Bensen’s diagram with respect to CLT in the JT-5. The propeller thrust line looks to run through the center of the pilot’s back.

And of course the rotor system of the Magni was a Tervamaki design, using the NACA 8H12 airfoil that was first employed by Bensen, as was the trademark triple vertical fin design. Most copies of the Magni incorporate the triple fin design, their designers appearing to believe triple fins are the magic ingredient.