Project X-6 - twin engine gyro

phantom

Newbie
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
1,417
Location
Eagle River
Bensen built his first twin engine gyro with two outboard engines and he linked them together so if one failed the running one turned both props, if I was going to build another side by side this is what I would do but my next twin will be another push pull but with larger props than the 66inch stubs that I had on the first one.
Norm
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,324
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
I would imagine this machine will be powered by twin rotax 912 or 914 engines. As reliable as you can get.
In the training for multi-engine airplane ratings, where one typically flies with Lycoming or Continental power that easily meets or exceeds Rotax reliability, the old saying is that after the first one fails the second engine will get you to the scene of the crash. If reliability was 100%, we wouldn't need to train for failures. Twice the equipment means twice the opportunity for failures.
 

Texasautogyro

Gyro Master Instructor
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
1,751
Location
Tomball Texas
Aircraft
AutoGyro MTO Sport/Cessna 172
Total Flight Time
3800 with over 1900 in gyro
I have flown the twin Aircam. And when one engine quits you hardly even notice. A gyro might not feel like that. I am sure it all depends on design along with many other things.
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,324
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
Thanks for the info.... but I need more clarity. If I build a 4 seater gyro with twin engines and still fly it as E-AB with a Private rating the FAA doesnt care as I am flying solo. Now, if I go ahead and carry passengers in it but have no multi engine rating as required in a fixed wing. What am I doing to get in trouble with the authorities?


I do understand the multi engine helicopter scene but gyro's are very different and I am still learning(slowly).....

I know I can fly solo with just a PPL in a multi engine fixed wing EAB without having the type certificate endorsement but cant fly with one/more passengers.

Please shine some light!
If you have a Private Pilot Certificate with a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating, you can fly a 700 passenger gyroplane with all the seats full and with 318 engines, perfectly legally, if you can get it off the ground. Whether EAB or Standard Airworthiness, there simply is no pertinent restriction on the pilot privileges with that rating.

Airplane category has class ratings of single engine land, single engine sea, multi-engine land, and multi-engine sea, with endorsements for tail dragger, etc. Rotorcraft category has only helicopter and gyroplane ratings. You can fly a rotorcraft (heli or gyro) with any form of gear (tricycle, tail dragger, floats) from land or sea with one, two, or ninety-seven engines all on the same rotorcraft (heli or gyro) rating.

If you do not have a Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating, then you must fly under the experimental "loop hole" (FAR 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B)), which only applies when solo in the aircraft (and you cannot fly a Standard Airworthiness gyro like my A&S 18A). You could leave 699 seats empty on the experimental beast I described above and be legal, but once the first passenger boards, you need the rating. It has nothing to do with gyroplanes in particular; the loop hole simply exempts solo flight in experimentals from the usual rating requirements.

P.S. A multi-engine airplane rating makes absolutely no difference here and provides no extra privileges for rotorcraft. If you need a rating at all for any gyroplane operation, it is the rotorcraft-gyroplane rating that counts.
 
Last edited:

PW_Plack

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
8,487
Location
West Valley City, Utah, USA
Aircraft
Sport Copter Vortex 582
Total Flight Time
FW: 200 Gyro: 51
If I build a 4 seater gyro with twin engines and still fly it as E-AB with a Private rating the FAA doesnt care as I am flying solo...
This is at the core of your misunderstanding. You're talking about a Private Airplane rating. You'd need a Private Rotorcraft/Gyroplane rating. If you already hold the former, you won't be required to take the knowledge ("written") test for the latter, but you'll need to log training, get an instructors recommendation for the practical test, and pass it.
 
Last edited:

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,324
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
Per Order 8130.2h the FAA closed the "loop hole", at least for EABs registered with new operational limitations..
This is at the core of your misunderstanding. You're talking about a Private Airplane rating. You'd need a Private Rotorcraft/Gyroplane rating. If you already hold the former, you won't be required to take the knowledge ("written") test for the latter, but you'll need to log training, get an instructors recommendation for the practical test, and passit.
The exemption of FAR 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B) is still in the regulations. The order referred to above is an action by the FAA that denies new builders access to the exemption, by imposing a requirement, not in the regulations, but in the specific operating limitations issued for that particular aircraft. If your airworthiness certificate is under the authority of 14 CFR 21.191(g) (amateur built), the FAA now is insisting that the operating limitations include a paragraph in a form like this:

The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold _________ category and ______ class certificate or privilege. The pilot in command must hold all required ratings or authorizations and endorsements required by part 61.

(where the blanks will be filled in with Rotorcraft and Gyroplane for a new gyro project). That language is taken from FAA Order 8130.2H Appendix C-1 No. 7.

Nobody has challenged this yet, to my knowledge, but I have sincere doubts about the legality of that requirement. In essence, it amends 61.31, but was issued administratively without going through the rule-making process that is required by law for changing the FARs (no public comment period, no hearings, no notice of proposed rulemaking, etc., which can ordinarily be avoided only with emergency orders, and this isn't an emergency order). The "loop hole" is still there for operating limitations issued before the order was amended, but prospectively the order denies many builders the benefits of 61.31(k).

Administrative agencies such as the FAA have limited quasi-legislative power delegated by Congress, but it is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires the NPRM process.
 

PW_Plack

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
8,487
Location
West Valley City, Utah, USA
Aircraft
Sport Copter Vortex 582
Total Flight Time
FW: 200 Gyro: 51
JR, I'd bet this one will hold up to challenge. I don't think there's ever been rulemaking required for op lims, and this change will seem reasonable to anyone who's not a gyro partisan. There seems to be reasonable room for flying a gyro with a Private/Airplane if you get a CFI's endorsement for PIC, which will annoy only those trying to fly with no gyro training.

I'm more upset with the way FAA counsel twists the intent of the regs every time soneone writes a letter, but that's a different rant.
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,324
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
I don't think there's ever been rulemaking required for op lims . . .
Everything the FAA does has to be authorized somewhere. The existence of operating limitations has a basis, but the current form of the order removes all discretion from the process and contradicts/trumps a duly promulgated regulation, and that's simply not kosher. Federal courts are not fond of agencies doing end-runs around the Administrative Procedure Act.

My belief is that it would be shot down if challenged, but my prediction is that the challenge won't come because it's cheaper and less trouble to get the rating than to take it to court. It would take a group like EAA that might care enough and could fund a brief court battle to bring it to a head; no individual is likely to pick this particular fight.
 
Top