Ever consider a compact contra-rotating prop set up to counter the nasty effects of engine/propeller torque on one of these? I understand that has an adverse affect on the nosing-over issue, especially with a lot of power (and torque) and even more so with increased speed.
@paullubliner The appeal of gyrocopters is their simplicity, so adding a contra-rotating prop would add weight, cost and complexity. The engine/propeller torque reaction is small, but easily corrected. The other great thing about gyrocopters is that the rotor is not driven by the engine (it "freewheels"), so there is no torque reaction, therefore no need for a tail rotor.
@Ilovemyoldguitar: I'm not talking rotor torque. When bunting (PIO) occurs there is a component of loss of control due to engine/propeller induced torque roll or am I missing something? With good engineering and materials, the "additional weight" of a dual prop system can be literally nil or even a further reduction in gross weight. Complexity? Nah. The lowered thrustline could reduce the overall height of a Gyro plane as well, bringing it closer to Wallis' ideal proportions with reduced weight.
Thinking about this 130 nytro engine in a cessna 120. Any idea of the engine weight? And would a cruise rpm of 6000-6200 be out of the question? Any help would be great. Thanks
@SickAudi because planes cost a lot of money, the cheapest pre-built ones are about 100k. helicopters are even more expencive. a gyrocopter gives you the best of both worlds for as low as 30k
@casey360360 Accually, you couldn't be further from the truth. We only paid $50k for our 1961 Piper commanche. Not bad for a 250 hp/ 165kts aircraft with retractable gear and the ability to climb to over 15,000 ft. $100,000 will buy you a WHOLE lot of airplane, and you can get into a very nice flying airplane for $30-50K, Easily, and not be restricted with you're PPL to any airspace other than A. But, gyro's are neet for pokin holes in the sky.
@lvbearboy yes, i talked to my flight instructor who had told me the prices originally, and he corrected himself. his Cessna 172SP was only about 60,000.
Ever consider a compact contra-rotating prop set up to counter the nasty effects of engine/propeller torque on one of these? I understand that has an adverse affect on the nosing-over issue, especially with a lot of power (and torque) and even more so with increased speed.
paullubliner 6 months ago
@paullubliner The appeal of gyrocopters is their simplicity, so adding a contra-rotating prop would add weight, cost and complexity. The engine/propeller torque reaction is small, but easily corrected. The other great thing about gyrocopters is that the rotor is not driven by the engine (it "freewheels"), so there is no torque reaction, therefore no need for a tail rotor.
Ilovemyoldguitar 5 months ago
@Ilovemyoldguitar: I'm not talking rotor torque. When bunting (PIO) occurs there is a component of loss of control due to engine/propeller induced torque roll or am I missing something? With good engineering and materials, the "additional weight" of a dual prop system can be literally nil or even a further reduction in gross weight. Complexity? Nah. The lowered thrustline could reduce the overall height of a Gyro plane as well, bringing it closer to Wallis' ideal proportions with reduced weight.
paullubliner 5 months ago
Comment removed
paullubliner 6 months ago
You better hope your brakes hold on that thrust test!! I think I would get in the aircraft for that.
bonhomechristopher 6 months ago
i have been one of those it feel goods u feel the air flow
vik4444444 7 months ago
i have been one of those
vik4444444 7 months ago
This must be the ferrari of the gyrocopters. I see some vids where it looks like they are made with a weedwacker and some 2x4's
paintballgundown8 8 months ago
seriously ,this machine runs so smoothly, the landing was more than perfect ,...take-off...nothing near it. GREAT VIEWING !
geometry001 10 months ago
climbs about as good as my C150 haha
joshuaspolar 11 months ago
How many time on air? What's the flying time limit.
CarloFabiane 1 year ago
...anyone able to direct me to licensing requirements in Canada to fly one of these?
Strato50 1 year ago
mmmm jumped outta one as well lol....
MgpMontville 1 year ago
Thinking about this 130 nytro engine in a cessna 120. Any idea of the engine weight? And would a cruise rpm of 6000-6200 be out of the question? Any help would be great. Thanks
jessehart05 2 years ago
All up weight of everything would be around 145 pounds. 6000-6200 RPM would be giving you around a 100hp according to the company HP chart.
Thanks, Todd 719 499-2378
DownlineByDesign 2 years ago
you know where to but this setup
soundofsoul1 2 years ago
lol why dont u just buy a plane
SickAudi 2 years ago
wheres the fun in that? trim it out and sit there. no thanks!
richtubeyou 2 years ago
ya but you have to register it as experimental aircraft....no thank you
SickAudi 2 years ago
@SickAudi because planes cost a lot of money, the cheapest pre-built ones are about 100k. helicopters are even more expencive. a gyrocopter gives you the best of both worlds for as low as 30k
casey360360 1 year ago
@casey360360 ya i hear that
SickAudi 1 year ago
@casey360360 Accually, you couldn't be further from the truth. We only paid $50k for our 1961 Piper commanche. Not bad for a 250 hp/ 165kts aircraft with retractable gear and the ability to climb to over 15,000 ft. $100,000 will buy you a WHOLE lot of airplane, and you can get into a very nice flying airplane for $30-50K, Easily, and not be restricted with you're PPL to any airspace other than A. But, gyro's are neet for pokin holes in the sky.
lvbearboy 1 year ago
@lvbearboy yes, i talked to my flight instructor who had told me the prices originally, and he corrected himself. his Cessna 172SP was only about 60,000.
casey360360 1 year ago
LOVE the way that sucker sounds!
GyroRon 3 years ago
ok 450lbs of thrust (i ran into your thread on rotaryforum)
pocketmonkey101 3 years ago
how much thrust?! Can't see at all.
pocketmonkey101 3 years ago