What future is there for autogyros?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 5 months

Posts: 459

The FAA defines a gyrodyne as an aircraft that powers its rotor for landings, take-offs, and low speed flight, but otherwise flies as an autogyro. The first gyrodynes were apparently the Doblhoff WNF342V3 and WNF342V4 prototypes during the WWII; the former was destroyed in a crash, but latter is reportedly in the NASM collection. Later notables include the McDonnell XV-1 (reportedly the first rotorcraft to exceed 200 mph) and the Fairey Rotodyne. Most gyrodynes have resulted from attempts to extent the range of tip-drive helicopters, which tend to be fuel hogs. An notable exception was the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, which had a turboshaft-powered main rotor, but diverted something like 90% of its power to a pusher tail rotor while in forward flight.

To date, no gyrodyne has entered quantity production, but hope springs eternal, e.g. the Carter Copter.

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 6,043

One of the problem factors I have heard discussed in operating light gyroplanes is that of them generating pilot over-confidence.
Like any aircraft they will bite if inadverently flown outside of their limits.

As we discussed a couple of years ago autogyros have to be operated strictly within their flight envelope,ie they are not as forgiving as most light aircraft.
Also they have more safety critical small components than a light aircraft has.

Cheers baz

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 12

I have studied the history and development of gyroplanes quite extensively, own and operate two Air & Space 18A gyroplanes, and hold CPL/CFI in gyroplanes (among other qualifications) and offer the following observations for your considered opinions.

1. A gyroplane must be designed, constructed, and maintained to accepted aeronautical standards to be considered safe and reliable for everyday use. The Autogiros of the Cierva company (and its licensees), though each successive model incorporated sometimes significant improvements or differences from those preceding, were produced and operated by aviation professionals. This resulted in the outstanding safety record for this type of aircraft in terms of fatalities and injuries, even though accidents occurred with some regularity. Experimental gyroplanes, with very few exceptions, are designed, built, and operated by amateurs which has resulted in the very bad reputation now attached to this type of aircraft.

2. When the gyroplane was superceded by the helicopter, development of the former ceased and further rotorcraft advances passed it by. The helicopter has benefited enormously from concentrated development over the past 65 years; conversely, the gyroplane was developed during the period of 1920 - 1940 (or so) by probably less than 50 qualified engineers worldwide.

3. The gyroplane can easily land in an area from which it cannot take off, unless substantial jump-takeoff performance is available. A jump-takeoff is a low performance maneuver since most the energy is expended is the first five seconds and used to sustain the aircraft in the air while it is accelerated to a climb airspeed which may or may not provide adequate performance to clear obstacles. The minimum permissible gyroplane rotor r.p.m. for takeoff should provide jump takeoff capability.

4. Gyroplanes need a tail rotor. Any aircraft that can routinely operate at airspeeds where control about one or more of its axes is degraded must be fitted with a control system to eliminate that deficiency.

5. Gyroplanes should avoid operating from runways, particularly at busy airports, when possible, to avoid traffic conflicts due to the time required for takeoff, and the airspeed differential between it and faster airplanes during climb.

6. Gyroplanes can easily operate from a non-runway area on an airport when such operations can be conducted without hazard.

7. Gyroplanes should not takeoff when insufficient clear area is available under the flight path in the event of emergency.

8. The maximum climb angle attainable by a gyroplane after liftoff is at best equivalent to that of STOL airplanes.

9. Gyroplanes can maneuver as necessary after takeoff to avoid obstructions, depending on performance available.

10. Gyroplanes should not execute a landing approach to an area where conflicting traffic can appear at the last moment since go-around performance in the landing flare is at best marginal.

11. Gyroplanes can especially benefit from a combination of a modern hingeless rotor and vibration control technology.

12. Gyroplanes can be safely maneuvered without regard to minimum airspeed or rotor r.p.m. as necessary to meet a potentially hazardous situation.

13. Gyroplanes can fly safely at altitudes and airspeeds which are unsafe in other types of aircraft, particularly at low altitude.

14. The inherent safety of the autorotating rotor significantly reduces pilot stress and workload in both normal and emergency operations.

15. Irreversible controls, three axis trim and a rotor stability augmentation system significantly reduce pilot fatigue on a long flight in a gyroplane.

16. Gyroplanes can easily execute a precautionary landing, off-airport if necessary, without hazard to persons or property.

17. Gyroplanes must have provide payloads comparable to airplanes of similar size to be useful.

18. Gyroplane performance must enable the completion of flights of reasonable range within periods comparable to those commonly undertaken with comparable aircraft, e.g. two to three hours or so.

19. Controllability and performance necessary to successfully and reliably execute landings in crosswinds up to at least 10 knots must be provided. Crosswind landings in an Air & Space 18A, for example, are not recommended, even though approved in the flight manual, due to the ease with which loss of control can occur at the very last stages of the maneuver.

20. Pilot training for gyroplanes is available but sometimes hard to find.

Included herein are observations published in my article available at www.gyroplane.aero/gyroplane_xc_article.html

Member for

18 years

Posts: 660

4. Gyroplanes need a tail rotor. Any aircraft that can routinely operate at airspeeds where control about one or more of its axes is degraded must be fitted with a control system to eliminate that deficiency.

That's an interesting point.
I gained a gyroplane PPL some years ago as part of an industry project .
Certainly the idea of being dependent on an aerodynamic rudder post engine failure ( and immediate loss of slipstream over the fin ) felt a little disconcerting , particularly when you look at the keel area forward of the rotor mast. The final IAS of about 45 kt left reasonable rudder feel eventually, but events in between tended to keep you on your toes for a few seconds.
I do wonder if the initial Cierva tractor type of configuration with the consequently longer tail surface moment arm would be inherently a bit less touchy in this aspect.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 12

I don't think that the tail moment arm is going to make much difference when there is very little to no controllable yaw moment available at low airspeeds, particularly during the landing flare.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 6

Gyrocopter safety

I had a flight in a gyrocopter with Phil Harwood up at Rufforth a few weeks ago.
http://gyrocopterexperience.com/
I've flown in lots of aircraft but the gyrocopter was by far the most exciting. In the interview I did with him for my podcast he said that the new breed of gyrocopter that have been certified by the CAA are much safer. The bad safety record was due to lack of training and the fact that many, if not all, were home built. The latest model of Calidus from Autogyro looks really cool.

Attachments

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 6

Accident statistics

How do you find out what the actual accident statistics for autogyros are by the way?
Are they listed anywhere?

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 1,179

One of the problem factors I have heard discussed in operating light gyroplanes is that of them generating pilot over-confidence.
Like any aircraft they will bite if inadverently flown outside of their limits.

A few months back I was chatting with some fellow workers, including one who is a Rock Ape about unusual things we had seen during deployment's from our unit. The Rock ( RAF Regiment, for those who don't know RAF Speak) told us of how he was on detachment to an Army Camp, located on an ex RAF Station a few years back, when he was volunteered, to support an old boy's reunion on the camp, by the fact that he was the only serving RAF Serviceman there at the time. Now this guy's only real interest in aircraft has been in shooting them down (as a Rapier SAM operator), and the one which is bringing him back from hot and dusty places. So except for the prospect of some free beer, he was not looking forward to it. Anyhow, he gets chatting to the old boy's and finds out one of them is a quite famous pilot, who is still flying on a US pilots Licence, due to his UK one getting revoked and the guy is going to give the old boy's a bit of a display, before he flys home in his autogyro (at this point, I told the rest who the old boy was, seeing that I've met him once as well). Anyhow, the rock them goes on to tell us how he then saw Wg Cdr Ken Wallis embed his autogyro into some goal posts on the football field (found a report about it here).

Seem's they can catch out even the most experienced pilot.