My crazy STOL idea ...

[bexrbetter]

don't give up on the autogyro, i like the short wing concept. would that reduce the need for a large rotor swept area?

Well I see it as a short wing plane with "rotor lift assist".

 

How about short wings with a smaller rotor on the end of each one?

Damn you Marty for putting ides into my head, I went looking at "Twin Twirls" (RC Models) and they are incredibly stable, and only need 2 axis controls, rudder and HS, no ailerons needed - if you know how a Flying Flea works you will understand that when rudder is applied, the advancing wing's upswept tip is pushed up to create roll (and vice versa for the retreating wing), same for a Twin Twirl (as long as the rotors are set with dihedral). And like a Flea, likely you hold the stick (rudder operate) over the whole time for the turn and when you let it go the plane straightens.

 

 

 

[bexrbetter]

One of the Guys at Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's Company) likes the idea also, although he's gone for rotor control and 3 blades that makes things complicated and expensive ..

 

Aircraft Albums

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

 

Here we are, a prop on each wing. I loved Simon Black when I was ten.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

[ATTACH=full]50221[/ATTACH]Here we are, a prop on each wing. I loved Simon Black when I was ten.

Yes, i think that's an interesting possibility, was just considering it before.

 

High wing and the smaller rotors immediately above wing struts, the best structural solution probably.

 

 

 

[Deskpilot]

2 or 3 blades on the rotor? Obviously, 2 for simplicity, but some designers favour 3. Why?

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Just wait till the girls and the grog arrive!

You didn't have to wait long

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A girl and a gyro - what a pair!

 

 

[bexrbetter]

2 or 3 blades on the rotor? Obviously, 2 for simplicity, but some designers favour 3. Why?

2 blade, one of the points for the craft is that one guy removes the short wings easily, or folds, (about 2.5 meters long and easy to handle), ties the rotor longitudinally, and you're ready to trailer and or park it in a garage.

 

Could do an STOL with huge wings but then you couldn't handle them by yourself, this way is easier and also no stall.

 

3 blades are easier to balance, or rather, less of an issue when out of balance. 2 blades are much cheaper.

 

 

 

[geoffreywh]

What the young female was flying is a "Gyrocopter" named by Mr. Benson of the U.S. I have no interest in those. We are lloking at Gyroplanes or Autogyros...Although both have rotors they are different animals.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

What the young female was flying

I'm interested in both of them

 

Oh, you're talking about the aircrafts aren't you.

 

I'll start calling mine the Versicraft (versitile aircraft), named by that Scaled Composite guy above.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

That young lady deserves a spanking. Did you see what she did wrong. Take another look (you bloody perverts haha) In her other videos, one sits there watching, and waiting, and hoping for a nipple to pop out.

 

BTW, I'm first in line to spank her. Got it. Hmmm, perhaps that should be, Go tit.

 

 

[Downunder]

And perhaps best described as "a rotor assisted aircraft" to put some distance between yours and pure "gyro" type designs?

[riverduk]

My number 1 rule in flight, if the wing goes faster than the fuselage, it isn't safe, love the theory but they aren't popular for a reason, just my 2 cent worth, cheers.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Sometimes watching flying videos gets the pulse racing.

 

 

[AussieB1rd]

You didn't have to wait long

I didn't see any Gyro Copter

 

 

[bexrbetter]

My number 1 rule in flight, if the wing goes faster than the fuselage, it isn't safe, love the theory but they aren't popular for a reason, just my 2 cent worth,

Leave your address and I'll post you your change.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

This is a wingless tractor gyroplane obviously doing it's first flights, I just found it very inspiring and soothing, so thought I would post it as it's related.

 

I know why people build pushers, it's just a far easier and cheaper way to get flying, but it's very obvious that tractors are far more stable and just fly right ....

 

 

 

[Birdseye]

I know why people build pushers, it's just a far easier and cheaper way to get flying, but it's very obvious that tractors are far more stable and just fly right ....

Cierva were doing quite nicely leading up to WW2. From all I've read, it was the outbreak of war and the accelerated development of helicopters that impacted on them.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Reading and watching on Utube I see that stubby wings are very important. It seems that if the aircraft's forward speed can equal the rotor tip speed then the rotor drag is greatly reduced (they said the drag disappeared, but I don't believe that) ...The

 

pitbull series have, I believe the best looks, the "radial engine" cowl and round fuselage have a very appealing 30's look. The stub wings would have to be detachable or the hangar costs come up again and the advantage vanishes....

 

 

sorry inserting pictures is way beyond me..................

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The Pitbull is certainly interesting looking, but has never flown to my knowlege and way overpriced. Would be around $200K Aud.

 

I guess they were looking for a cult market and it didn't grab.

 

Once again I don't understand the prices, the VW powered Little Wing would cost you over $70K Aud landed for a craft that should be far cheaper IMO.

 

 

That's "aviation tax" I guess, oh well, getting closer to see if I'm full of it or not.

 

 

[Birdseye]

The little wing is so little its totally invisible.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The little wing is so little its totally invisible.

Over 700 sets of plans sold, so shows some interest.

 

There are a number flying and more under construction, but I think when you buy something that looks like it will be cheap and get hit with 2 major barriers, it explains a bit.

 

The 2 major barriers being the designer won't help you with anything other than a Rotax or Rotec Radial fitment (that's a joke in itself).

 

And then there's the extreme costs of the rotor gear, the blades alone are going to set you back $4500 USD without any rotor head gear, which I guess is that price again.

 

So suddenly your 'cheap homebuilt kit' blows out of all proportion with a $25 to $30K component cost thrown on top.

 

 

[Birdseye]

I was referring to the apparent absence of any wing, vestigial or otherwise.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

The "Little (totally absent) Wing" designer obviously feels that it just must have (reliable) 100hp. I can, sort of, see that. As the owner of the Marque you don't want people fitting all sorts of unsuitable engines, getting into trouble and getting your nice flying design a bad name. Of course one can always buy the plans and fit whatever suits you. Certainly as the rotor, & equipment is sooo expensive. I hope Bex can design (and test? ) a cheaper construction method than cutting the wings off a Cub...

 

Then , with his 3 cylinder engine purring sweetly away, Take China by storm and fill the skies with the chop-chop sound of money..... Isn't the company that makes the rotors called "Dragon Wings?" How appropriate

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The "Little (totally absent) Wing" designer obviously feels that it just must have (reliable) 100hp. I can, sort of, see that. As the owner of the Marque you don't want people fitting all sorts of unsuitable engines,

120hp Corvairs, 100 Suzukis, 80hp Subarus, etc are well enough proven now, plenty of them flying. Remember that the base Little Wing uses a 100 peak hp, 60 cruising VW.

 

Turning your nose up at established engine conversions that are a great fit for the craft is not good customer service.

 

I was referring to the apparent absence of any wing, vestigial or otherwise.

I knew that