Personal helicoptors

There was a guy buzzing around 5B2 last summer in a two seat gyro copter, guy in the back was the instructor.  It seems to me that an auto-gyro would be easier to drive and the only drawback is not being able to vertically lift.

They come in a bunch of styles.

Other than being so weird they're really cool, what advantage does a gyrocopter have over a fixed wing? Storage?

Keith Tanner said:

Other than being so weird they're really cool, what advantage does a gyrocopter have over a fixed wing? Storage?

They can not stall. They can operate at very low speeds and are capable of very short take off and landing distances on a wide range of terrain.

For an ultralight aircraft, this makes them incredibly safe. The greatest risk in operating an aircraft is stalling on takeoff and landing approach. They're also more stable in gusty conditions.

Ultralight aircraft tend to be quite hazardous to operate, and a gyrocopter avoids most of the issues that cause that. They lack the performance of a fixed win plane, but if you're look for an ultralight you can't take advantage of that anyway.

They're very lightweight and compact. You can take the rotor assembly off and easily trailer the vehicle around.

https://www.dlr.de/ft/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1396/1935_read-40093/

Cool, thank you.

Sorry to hijack:   A tourist stop in upstate NY called Frontier Town had two gyros to entertain tourists.  They crashed,  My friend's Dad was their mechanic so he bought the wreckage.  He removed the gyro up top and gave one to the kids to play with.

Pusher prop, steer the front wheel with your feet, and a bunch of 10 year olds chasing it around the field taking turns driving.  What could go wrong?

914Driver said:

 What could go wrong?

Far less than the potential when it had a gyro on top and a 54 year old with 7 figures in their account behind the sticks. 

I've seen/heard of far more gyros crashing. I believe it has 100% to do with the pilot. They cannot stall and fly slow so it lulls the pilot into thinking that little/no training is ok, and because the get away with little to no training they become full of themselves and push beyond the capabilities of the aircraft, and...themselves.

Auto gyro, in general, are at least as dangerous as helicopters.  As noted, a lot of that is likely the pilots and the very simple designs.  Although you can't really stall an auto gyro, if you unload the gyro, you are basically dead.

Unloading the gyro (e.g. pushing over hard enough, or a combination of wind and angle) can very likely result in tumbling forward (done), or a rotor strike on the body (likely done).  The common positioning of the engine to create a high thrust line (power = nose down) can make this much easier than most realize and there is no safe way practice recovery (like stall in aircraft) since there almost never is one.

So yes, avoid an autogyro unless you really know what you are doing, similar to a helicopter.

But, you say, canard configuration aircraft cannot stall....  well.... 

In reply to aircooled :

They always get that wrong. the canard stalls before the main wing, dropping the nose and preventing a deep stall. But crank a canard around hard with the perfect storm of conditions, and a deep stalled canard, well,  you're in deep E36 M3. A well designed canard is safer, but not foolproof.

Sounds like safer aircraft just build better fools.

I'll stick to fixed wings and stay away from ultralights.

Plenty of fixed wing ultralights. And I reiterate that they are as safe as you make them. They aren't all lawn chairs with weedeater engines. Morrie Hummel's Ultracruiser is a Part 103 legal ultralight if you build it exactly as Hummel tells you to. Its all metal.

Ever since 8/27/90 I say berkeley a helicopter.

except for any flown by GRMers.

I was 90% sure on that date, I checked and wholeheartedly agree.

edit: I went back and read up on the crash that killed SRV. It was pilot error caused by lighting of the take off area.  Once the pilot got above the light polls of the parking lot he was basically blind. The other 3 pilots were instrument rated and obviously went right to the gauges.  SRV's pilot had recently failed the instrument check ride. The conditions were VFR but it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adjust, I avoid light for 30 minutes before a night flight.

This is what the NAPA guy built, a Mosquito; teaching himself.

Was thinking about the tail rotor safety issue, I wonder how long until kit helis get electric tail rotors like this:

This could improve reliability AND give easy FBW yaw control options.

Some helicopters have a NOTAR setup where a turbine-driven fan directed through a nozzle at the tail does the work of a tail rotor, but powering that with anything other than a turbine may not be practical:

I'd be up for "Little Nellie" if it were available....

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Surprised its not more prevalent. Electric tail rotors are very common in R/C. In Bell's case, that 4 points before total failure. Pilot should be all over it.

In reply to Appleseed :

I've seen HVAC fans in Bells fail about every six months. Don't think I'd trust them in a 429 tail. I've never had a mechanical tail rotor fail, just seen some poorly designed ones.

914Driver said:

This is what the NAPA guy built, a Mosquito; teaching himself.

This Picture gave me a little HaHa moment... 

What's the reasoning for the helmet?  
Protection from head wound while walking up to and getting seated?  
Protection from flight accident?  

The helmet might not be enough for either.  I figured the helmet was for eye protection but he's not using that way.

I believe the electric tail rotor concept has more to do with power, efficiency and production costs. Early in my tenure at my current company I worked for a division that made a lot of tail rotor drive components (including the 429). If you take into account the parts from the main rotor gear box and the secondary output for the tail rotor drive to the actual tail rotors there are a fair amount of not cheap parts. I seem to recall the TRD having ~10% of the power output of the main rotor so you can gain that efficiency, assuming you can get the electrical power when you have excess capacity. 

Doesn't help with the small helicopter question just some thoughts. 

cue "Surfin' Bird"....

In reply to stroker :

Don't look up how many Zerks need grease after ever hour of flight. Holy hell.

In reply to stroker :

I'm no expert, but that seems like less of a personal helicopter and more of a flying party bus.

<sotto voce> (I was trying to get someone to do a build thread...)

In reply to stroker :