Hello all. This is my first post here. I know I am quoting a three year-old post here, but I just have a question. The range and fuel usage of gyros regarding cubs was being talked about. Now I am not a pilot yet, but from what I have read, gyros actually can get quite a bit of range. For example, the AutoGyro Calidus has a range of up to 500 miles and can cruise easily at 99 miles per hour (it is capable of up to 120 mph). From what I have read, the Cubs, if you mean the Piper Cub planes, are similar in performance, with a range of about 460 miles and a cruising speed of 115 mph.Both of those use a massive amount of fuel for the range traveled. Range can be essential for getting way into back country.
I wouldn't expect that, no, not even on a good day.if the engine breaks down on you in mid-air, you just go into a controlled descent. If the winds are high enough, you can even hover and maintain altitude and sometimes even gain altitude.
Perhaps if someone built one with collective pitch control and partially powered main rotor, like Dick DeGraw's Gyrhino. Otherwise, nah, STOL isn't a strong point, neither is range, etc.From my admittedly completely amateur view here, it seems the gyro could be a very good bush aircraft, with its extremely STOL capabilities, long-range capabilities, safe flying characteristics, ability to handle high winds, etc...what do you think?
I don't think it would really perform better with a PSRU. To much weight increase for the extra thrust. Percentage wise, that would be a large increase in weight. Empty weight of 450 lbs and using a 1835 cc, 60 hp, Type 1, VW with a firewall forward weight of 141 lbs. I think going to a straight drive 2276 cc VW of 80/85 hp with just an additional 2 pounds of weight would work better. I have almost enough VW engine parts to built a 2276 cc, flywheel drive. I think building a carbon fiber intake and going to thinner exhaust tubing, I can save the 2 pounds. BTW- Not using flaps yet.Pop's Cub with a PSRU and the Double Ender would be on my short list.
The reasons I have read they are safer is that autogyros have a lot less that can go wrong with them in the air in comparison to a helicopter, are already in autorotation so if the engine shuts down, you go into a controlled landing, cannot stall, and are often better in high winds (not always as you pointed out).To the Autogyro question is, depends. Most homebuilt anythings are smaller than certified; that is where they gain performance. Not an apples to apples comparison. Autogyros are pretty quirky. As to wind they will stand a bunch but a helicopter can stand more if it has a fully articulated head. A two bladed helicopter has less tolerance if it mast bumps when slowing the blades down when shutting down. The real difference in that is there is no tail boom to cut off on the Autogyro but that is really not a good reason. As for being safer, not really. There is less total control. Less training to be flying maybe but not better.
Why are gyros regarded as very short takeoff and landing aircraft then? I know that with some modifications, you can also make a gyro jump take off, where it needs no forward motion on the ground to get going. They also have a mechanism that links the rotor to the engine temporarily to start it spinning so that your forward motion takeoff will be very short. My understanding is that if you start forward motion without the rotor spinning yet, then your takeoff will be much longer due to the time it takes to get the blades spinning.Autogyros do not like to turn with the rotor direction; it will bit it does better turning into the rotor because it keeps the rotor loaded. Really windy you will prefer to make 3 rights to get your left turn. Autogyros land short but takeoffs are pretty long even with spinning up the blades. You will not go to the same places as a helicopter off airport.
Comparing a same engine autogyro vs airplane, the airplane will probably go half again as far. You will be able to carry more, go faster, on less fuel in an airplane. A Cub vs Autogyro is more of a non sequitur comparison. Most autogyro people just want to fly an autogyro; there is really no other reason but want.
Here is where I read that claim:I wouldn't expect that, no, not even on a good day.
~~~http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/outside/gyrocopters-go-mainstream/“If the wind’s favourable enough, say between 35 and 45 km/h, it’s possible to hover without losing any altitude. Actually, if the wind’s strong enough, you can even climb!”
Perhaps if someone built one with collective pitch control and partially powered main rotor, like Dick DeGraw's Gyrhino. Otherwise, nah, STOL isn't a strong point, neither is range, etc.
A difference with a helicopter though is that the pilot has a very limited window to put the helicopter into autorotation. Also, if you watch some gyro landings, they seem to have pretty good control.All helicopters autorotate and with much more control.
What was the reason he lost rotor RPM?Short takeoff is relative. My friends old 2 seat AutoG would land in about 50 ft but took at least as much T/O run as his RV7, but probably half of a Cessna 150. He also one time lost rotor RPM on takeoff, once, and had to land on the road just outside of the airport; he did drive the AutoG back to the airport.
Wouldn't letting the rotor decay also be the fault of the pilot? I do hope to be able to own and fly all three types some day. I have read some say that for pure sport flying, just for enjoyment, they prefer gyros most because they are far easier to fly than a helicopter.It would have been called a crash if anyone saw it. He got rid of the AutoGyro for a proper helicopter. Stalling an airplane is only the fault of the pilot; let the rotor decay on an autogyro and you will wish you were in an airplane stall. That is what happened to my friend. I personally think if you went to fly all three types, you would never ride in an AutoG again unless it is just something you just want to conquer.
I see, thank you for the information. Yes, all aircraft have their special advantages. FWIW, here is a video of a modern gyro in which the pilot makes a landing with the engine turned off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXjI81SuSKYYep letting the rotor decay is the fault of the pilot and low inertia blades like most AGs and Robinson helicopters are why the pilot has to be on the ball. No free ride, you can screw up an AG in the air just like anything else. I believe he took off with lower than wanted RPM and turned with the blades and fell out of the air. He sold it and an FAA agent bought it and balled it up. Autos in a helicopter is pretty much a non event if done right; an AG will need more field unless the wind is really blowing in which you might be backing up without wanting to. An Autogyro is more like a powered parachute. You are at the mercy of the wind. All you are going to do is head into it. With a helicopter auto you just need to be into the wind at the flair. So if you need to turn around to get to a field, you are much better in a heli. You will be coming down with both at about the same rate so there is no advantage. To learn helicopters , you just have to be patient enough to get through the learning curve. It is one of the few things that is a "you have never done it before" thing. It is equal to a child learning to ride a bike. It is a thinking man's(woman's) machine, you must be its master all the time, but its not hard. Watching my friends AG; he would get blown down wind like a leif and he would turn around and chug back. It was a 2 man 100hp Subaru ship he usually flew solo. The sister ship to his his buddy had was totaled too. My boss autoed one of our helicopters into a small back yard ,and had to knock on the front door and convince the owner he just landed a helicopter in her back yard, and if he could use the phone; ah, time before cells. No AG would have made that without being wrecked.
Depends on the phase of flight. At cruise, it's a pretty big window, in a hover 4' off the deck, it's nonexistent.A difference with a helicopter though is that the pilot has a very limited window to put the helicopter into autorotation.
Despite the PM quote, that would be a rare event.“If the wind’s favourable enough, say between 35 and 45 km/h, it’s possible to hover without losing any altitude. Actually, if the wind’s strong enough, you can even climb!”