I saw a couple new machines at El Mirage (maybe AR's?) with vertical masts and was wondering if they were chrome-moly, or DOM.I don’t understand what happened that designers don’t tilt the mast back at the blades natural angle of 9 degrees anymore. It relieves a whole lot of stress.
Those are excellent questions... I hope they had some qualified engineers look at the design. I know we have several mechanical engineers on faculty at my university who specialize in and have extensive experience in aeronautical/aerospace engineering who would be qualified.Looks cool. The first thing that grabbed my attention was the double mast stitch-welded together. Is there some flexible element in the design to prevent total rigidity? My next question would be about the load imposed on the lower member of the (welded?) pylons that the main gear struts fit into. To my inexperienced eye this looks like a weak point but I am unfamiliar with the design.
Just from being here on the forum for a while, I'd feel safer with a tail wheel on the gyro just in case.Also noticed that the main gear is substantially raked back, which explains its nosewheel-down resting stance without tail support. I am told this could necessitate a longer takeoff run, although Sport Copter rests this way too. However this design appears to lack drag struts as well, so again I'd want to revisit the main gear strut pylon, specifically the rear leg compression strength. It's probably fine but I'm the guy who looks at all the bolts and bearings before getting onto carnival rides. Sorry, can't help it.
The frame and mast of the AR-1 appears to be built from high strength welded stainless steel.I saw a couple new machines at El Mirage (maybe AR's?) with vertical masts and was wondering if they were chrome-moly, or DOM.
The gyroplane in the video appears to me to have a tail wheel.Just from being here on the forum for a while, I'd feel safer with a tail wheel on the gyro just in case.
OK - I didn't see it, but I didn't watch the entire thing. From what I saw, it looked like it did not have one.The gyroplane in the video appears to me to have a tail wheel.
That explains the tiny tail wheel.ONLY $42,000
That strut design looks a bit sketchy to me... I'll have to consult my wife (mechanical engineer) for a more informed opinion, but I don't see anything to absorb any force other than the tires and bending those long struts. There needs to be something that requires less force to move than the force required to bend those struts (e.g. a standard shock absorber design) or those struts are going to bend on a hard landing.One concer I have going back to the landing gear is the wide low slung stance of the struts appears to me to be conducive to bending on a harder landing.
Actually, there are several aircraft that use tubular steel landing gear legs as shock absorbing devices. The Cessna 152 is a good example. There are also several aircraft that use upper and lower weldments with a fiberglass rod between as the shock absorbing element.That strut design looks a bit sketchy to me... I'll have to consult my wife (mechanical engineer) for a more informed opinion, but I don't see anything to absorb any force other than the tires and bending those long struts. There needs to be something that requires less force to move than the force required to bend those struts (e.g. a standard shock absorber design) or those struts are going to bend on a hard landing.
And the same thing on the nose wheel - there's nothing other than the tire to absorb shock.
They been around for years. One of Dad’s customers put one on a two place Dom like 15 years ago. He said the HP wasn’t what was advertised but it was good engine.I am interested in how the simonini engine plays out in the future of aircraft engines...