Autogyros - some to consider - prices - records - saftey and more! 

This is incorrect technically. There are not many gyroplanes doing the powered pushover (PPO) bunt any longer. That was when some older gyroplane models that were very high thrust line but also did not have a horizontal stabilizer. That is not the case any longer. There are no production gyroplanes with tractor configuration so you comment of a century of existence is not correct. They did not exist for a century. Tractor gyroplanes are less maneuverable and you cannot do maneuvers in them like you can in the typical pusher configuration. PPO is hardly the cause of fatal accidents today. You are 15 years behind the times on this.

@@abidfarooqui4899 beg to differ, there's not many tractors, but for example the little wings have been around for decades, so the statement IS correct... and I did mention that the problem with PPO was most acute with Bensons... In any case, tractors are safer... and hold altitude and distance records...

@@PRH123 Show me Little Wings flying. 6 years manufacturing gyroplanes and I have yet to see "one" flying anywhere. In other words if very few fly very rarely, it is easy to have less accidents

@@abidfarooqui4899 Actually you're wrong too. The Bensen has proper CG vs thrustline line. It was a machine with a very short mast and most importantly it had 3 degrees of downthrust. Most dominator style machines have zero degrees downthrust. Thrustline vs CG is a factor of the vector of thrust in relation to the CG. The trouble is most people thought what's the point of pointing the prop at the ground some and ignored it. Look at the early gyros they all had around 5 degree + downthrust that was for a reason. Now lots of Bensen's did end up unloading the rotor disk inspite of this. So is it the stabilisers? No it won't stop it either. All you need to do to unload your rotor is push the blades past the point where the disk is level they will at this point stop in about 2 seconds and you will fly straight through the rotor. Yes having downthrust is important and yes you can achieve the same thing by raising the seat to shift the cg. but it will not stop you unloading your rotor. Neither will stabilisers. In Australia stabilisers were mandated, you cant get one registered without one. Did it stop people unloading the rotor? NUP. It just means ever fatal accident now happens with a machine fitted with a stabiliser. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. Death rate is just as high as it ever was. Same with high cg vs thrustline machines. At my club a few of us one weekend were trying to convince a boastful student not to try to take his new high cg tall tail, massive HS machine up over 100knots. He had 5 solo and was boasting he was going to crack 100knots the next weekend. Several of us explained he was at significant risk of fatally unloading his disk. He assured us this would not happen because of the high CG vs thrustline and Stabiliser. We argued it would not stop it but he ignored us. The next weekend he unloaded that machine at 1500ft at 95knots (his GPS was recovered) it was windy conditions and he was flying around some hills and ridges and likely overcontrolled in response to an updraft. He stopped chopped his HS off the rudder with his own rotors and apparently his body was found minus one leg about 50ft from the fuselage with wreckage spread over some distance before that. There is a real easy test you can do to prove idiot proof devices you could take any given machine up to 100knots or more and punch the stick forward real hard. If it doesn't unload and kill you you have an idiot proof machine. Funnily enough I've never met a CFI or Instructor willing to try that out. Wonder why? So until someone selling you on this device or that I'd scale my confidence in its success or safety not based on nebulous claims of safety but look for proof. In the meantime the real issue which is lack or appropriate training and pilot discipline is the opportunity cost that has killed hundreds and the real reason that the sport is dying.

@@cameronlapworth2284 The way I love sporty a d futuristic looking gyros I was looking forward to owning one in about a year or two, but this answer dampened my spirits.

That's also how I first fell in love with autogyros.

The Air and Space 18A is a Jump takeoff gyroplane. It and the McCulloch J2 were the only FAA certified gyroplanes for a very long time. Most others were experimental category aircraft. There is an A&S 18 A at the air museum at Cape May NJ. Along with it is A McCulloch J2 N4326G which was mine that I donated after my health caused me to stop flying. These are very capable safe rotorcraft. The notorious RAF2000 was a dangerous gyro due to high thrust line and no Horizontal stabilizer. They will porpoise and if not controlled will bunt. I have over 30hrs in the RAF which was my training until I purchased the J2. Clear Skies!

Well then its because you arent JFK jr. 😂

I'm interested in building my own gyro sometime, but how safe is a self built gyro?

Great gyro, quality you’ll pay for

*certificated

@@louskunt9798 >>> Are referring to _"CFI"?_

The high accident rate is complicated but it mainly has to do with poor pilot training (often little or no pilot training). I was lucky in the days I learned to fly it was the wild wild west and there was very little in the way of good training. At the time my instructor was one of two who had access to a dual powered machine but more importantly we had access to a gyroglider (gyro with no engine towed behind a car). Training before dual powered machines was largely self taught or someone standing on the side of the strip watching you then giving you tips when you came back in. The gyroglider made this infinitely safer and combining this with dual and supervised ground running in your own gyro was crucial. Many gyros were poorly built (for example not putting down thrust on, getting the balance wrong etc). Our instructor test flew all our machines and had us make the machines safe before we progressed. One of the biggest issues was power to weight ratio. Most of us were flying direct drive VW's (the two stroke Mac) was too expensive and unreliable in Australia (unreliable everywhere but expensive to get here). So machines were generally under powered. The advent of the 532 rotax meant big props efficient props with redrives so a direct drive VW would have say a 52 inch prop and now with redrive you were turning a slower 60inch + prop and an engine that weighed literally 1/2 that of a VW and less than 1/2 a subraru. When the 582 came along you now had 62 hp in a 40kg engine which made two seat powered machines possible. Efficient wide chord rotors too. But the machines dual do not fly like the same machine solo. It goes from an under powered slug to a rocket ship. This is where the glider was helpful not only did you learn all the basics in a very cheap machine towed behind a car but solo in the glider is even lighter than a single seater and a solo gyroglider feels like a single seat machine when flying unlike a dual powered machine. That combined with hours doing ground runs getting used to balancing on the mains in your own machine small hops, bigger hops etc. Was the key. Others thought they could give all that away and actively campaigned against the glider. For one dual instructors were not going to make as much money if a student only did 3-5 hours dual powered which was typical when you combined glider and ground training. So people were spending 20-30 hours paying $120/hr (back then much more now) dual then jumping out of that machine into often a single seat machine which was essentially identical but only one seat so 1/3 less weight which mean going from say a climb rate of 300-500ft/min to 1000-1500ft/min on the same engine. It was murder there was a sudden spike in fatalities. The baby was thrown out with the bath water. Gone were the clubs and the gyrogliders and suddenly in comes the dual powered machines and more people where dying not less. At club I learned to fly at I never saw a single student over 15 years even destroy a set of rotor blades in training. Yes we had idiots go and do stupid things like fly through powerlines or do other dodgy stuff but in training I never saw a machine crashed. Other instructors meanwhile had multiple students die within 5 hours of finishing 20-30 hours dual training. I fear the advent of the more powerful 915 will see this sort of thing happen again because the average eurotub has lots of power but is increadibly heavy and the power to weight of the old machines with a Rotax or Mac is very high. If you don't believe me then look at the data on the Wallis machines flown off 20 ft blades, 116kg empty weight, and compare it to the modern eurotub powered by say a 912s or even 914. Now imagine it with two people and the performance is not really that much better than the old days. Shove 140hp and send a bloke solo and watch out. Need to have some careful training.

Low and slow flight, great for observation platforms, they don’t consume as much as you think. Extremely short take off and if you want a STOL plane, you’ll spend far more than you would on a gyro. They are always in auto rotation, that’s a huge advantage in an emergency, they can land with zero roll and with a 15kt headwind (depending on pre rotation) take off very close to zero roll. I hold a PPL/IFR/VFR and own my second gyro, as far as I’m concerned gyros are safer and far less expensive to maintain. Most mistakes seem to be made by high time fixed or rotor pilots, gyros are a different animal.

@@Helo-Driver Gyros are not safer, it's the opposite (accident statistics prove it), they are very sensitive to negative load factors. And I can't see why they are "far less" expensive to maintain ! They have the same engine as light plane, have a propeller just like light planes and have a rotor that light planes don't have...

I don’t think there’s any safe way of deploying a parachute as long as the rotors are still intact. I think they’d foil your lines with even a slight movement. Possibly with a tractor configuration where you could deploy a chute from the rear in a catastrophic failure and then land hard nose down. I’m curious if anyone else sees it differently. I know chutes have been available for some light fixed wings for a long time.

@@tjscott395 I have an idea but not sure if I should disclose it here then someone makes something out of it but I think my design overcomes the issue with ropes getting in the way of the rotors.

On the contrary, it could be said its faster than a helicopter and requires much less runway than an airplane, it can also fly a lot lower for better scenic views. Its like a car, a lot more practical than a monster truck for daily use, and less dangerous than a motorcycle