This is my modified Air Command gyrocopter fitted with a Yamaha Genesis 120 horse power 973cc four stroke engine that came out of a Yamaha Vector snowmobile
@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 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.
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.
@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.
@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
@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 6 months ago
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
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 11 months ago
climbs about as good as my C150 haha
joshuaspolar 11 months 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