Before the collective was lifted the power was removed from the rotor. The rotor's inertia and overspeed in the spin-up is what allowed it to hop into the air. If power had been left driving the rotor then torque from the powered rotor would have rotated the craft opposite to the rotor's direction of rotation, the reason why a helicopter has a tail rotor. And in the video you can see that the rudder does not deflect like it is trying to fight torque, so the rotor is free spinning. As the craft moves upward the engine power is increased increasing the propeller thrust. As the craft starts moving forward the airflow changes from being pulled down through the rotor to up through the rotor, autorotation. Which keeps the rotor turning and away it flies.
They may want it--but if no one buys it--manufacturers don't make them. I have been a pilot since 1990 and talked with my bosses and other aircraft owners. Initial and operating cost is one of the main things they all consider when choosing the aircraft they use. Then for a commercial operations is how many different jobs can the one aircraft do--more jobs more income. If you check throughout aviation there are many civilian and military aircraft that just did not get the attention and support needed to enter service. Also checkout how many manufacturers gambled to build an aircraft and then folded cause the aircraft would not sell. Air & Space 18A (from 1965 to 2000) built 68 and it had jump takeoff ability. Heliplane bought the type certificate in 2012 and want to put it into production again--so where are they? I mean the aircraft and the customers that want to buy a jumping gyro.
@@beeqool certification and licensing favour gyroplanes with fixed-pitch rotors. at least in some parts of the world. flapping and collectively pitching rotors are a dark art. to be avoided if possible. only professionals pay the added complexity and they have cash to buy "real" helicopters capable of hovering indefinitely. the niche vor a complex gyroplane is too small as failure to sell any reasonable numbers proved. I still love the idea!
Very surprised this design wasn't commercially successful, it's very aesthetically pleasing aircraft, you know the old saying, " if it looks as though it will fly well, it probably will".
Polyus Studios So sad to see such a brilliant design that broke so many barriers to ultra light aircraft with VTOL capabilities go bust due to lack of sales😢 This needs to be resurrected!!!
@@l0OoD1GBY ultralight? This was a Canadian design and I do not know what qualifications for ultralight status in Canada are, but in the US that is no where near ultralight. My guess would be 3x the 250 lb weight limit and a good 2x the 55 mph max speed limit. But even as an experimental, I'd be interested!!
How am I just finding out about this channel? This channel is gold, great audio, no loud obnoxious music and great video. Good work man keep it coming.
Very reminiscent of the CarterCopter, a modern gyroplane that depended on spinning up a high-inertia rotor to store enough energy for a take-off hop. Very promising design, especially looking at its range and speed in comparison with conventional helicopters. Like the Avian design, though, it just never caught a break. A true helicopter is a massively expensive machine with terrible fuel efficiency, and there are an awful lot of applications that call for VTOL but not for hover. I hope one of the many hybrid gyro designs eventually gets a fair chance to prove itself in these applications. And here as in so many cases, early designs from Canada (and indeed many other countries not so well known for aviation) anticipate most of the ideas being put forward now.
The Lycoming engine is not a zero360 but an O-360 as in Oscar. O stands for opposed like R stands for radial or V for inline-vee. You got it right on the injected IO-360 ;)
Nailed it! The loss of imagination! The swashplate like a helicopter is key! You have to have that control and advantage catching and finessing air under your wings (the disc) and using your inertia and wide rotor RPM to make it look good! Beautiful Machine!
This Gyroplane was ahead of its time and the market just wasn't ready for it. Even today Gyroplanes still fail to break into mainstream aviation and are limited to hobby flying. Even the biggest Gyroplane available, the Groen Brother Hawk 4 saw a lot of development as a 4 passenger aircraft but found no buyers (yet). It seems you have to be a sucker for punishment if you want develop and sell a new Gyroplane design.
They needed an aggressive marketing man taking that around the prairies doing demo hops. I'm back in Oz now but 76-86 when I lived in Calgary this wasn't heard of despite the core tech being 50 years old by that time. If you build it they don't always come; you have to go out and find them.
@@polyus_studios that's a big problem for start up companies to overcome. First you have tremendous design and development costs, then tons more to get regulatory approval. By then you are broke unless you have mega backing, and if you are doing something truly unique you won't get mega backing. You are left with a product to sell but no money left to promote it..... so no one buys it because they don't know about it...
@@peterclark4685 a 4seater gyroplane would have a multitude of uses that will make it highly marketable: air ambulance, inter- city commuter, inter-island hopper, police and military patrol, etc. A gyro plane does not need an airport
@@rosebarnes9625 - Rose, you hit it on the nail with "mega backing". If George Soros, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk were behind it we'd see these things hopping around everywhere. Then, when they become popular, the sales momentum would generate it's own market demand.
Armstrong Avenue in Georgetown. Thank-you for making these films, I'm looking forward to your presentation on the Hydrofoil (HMCS Bras d'or) as my dad worked on the project.
So sad to see such a brilliant design that broke so many barriers to ultra light aircraft with VTOL capabilities go bust due to lack of sales😢 This needs to be resurrected!!!
The Fairey Rotodyne prototype was carrying 25+ VIPs between London and Paris without issues when the British government forced a merger between Fairey and British Leyland. Leyland had the prototype Rotodyne and ALL of it's R&D assets destroyed because they wanted to build only helicopters. It was just another British immoral political disgrace and a HUGE loss to the aviation world. How very sad.
You can always rely on the British authorities to quash a good idea ie Whittles jet engine ( no help) or computers post wwll ( literally given to US ) or the Fairey Rotordyne gyro ( final version passed all concerns).
They never gave a price for it. Honestly it looked like an awesome machine and the specs were great, not sure why most sport pilots wouldn't be interested unless it was cost.
There are a couple good reasons why you don't see gyrocopters on every tarmac alongside the antique Cubs and fifty-some year old Cessnas and Pipers. First, they require a specific rating, meaning you have to take still more flying lessons after earning your pilot's license (or get the license in the specialized aircraft and not be able to rent a 172 for a weekend trip). Second, they're slow compared to a fixed wing aircraft with similar engine power and payload. This one could barely make 120 kt on 200 hp; a 172 (with twice the seats) can do close to 180 mph on the same engine, therefore having 50% longer range with the same fuel capacity. Or a 152 (same seat capacity) can do the same speed on 140 hp at probably half the fuel burn rate. And the third reason, as with everything else, is that they cost more than a comparable fixed wing aircraft -- which would be fine if they either outperformed the conventional, or were significantly safer, but they don't have either advantage.
Sur l'Avian 2/180 gyroplane?! Il était très en avance sur son temps en ce développant des nouvelles technologies de l'époque! Ce qui est dommage, je suis sûr qu'actuellement si se magnifique autogire pouvait reprendre avec les technologies nouvelles, il serais produit en série avec succès cette fois-ci!
" I know what happened? The craft was ahead of it's time; And?When something is advanced, humans or members of society does not understand it's full potential or capabilities." 👍
How could such a useful aircraft have failed to be successful? Brilliant design work for its time and I could imagine this design having been used in developing countries for all sorts of aerial work. If it could seat three (?? looks like the rear seat was a side by side double??) it would have had a useful payload. External fuselage mounted cargo pods might have worked too. I hope that somewhere someone with insight and the cash will be able to develop it further using modern composites and more economic engines. I suspect that there have been many more up to date designs to parallel it since, but the vertical hop seems unique...? Thanks for the film, great historical interest.
LM Other gyroplanes with similar form from the same era failed to gain a foothold. Overall, a gyroplane just doesn't beat a helicopter for capabilities or performance.
Excellent documentary ... the design, look and feel would still stand rhe aesthetics of our modern times. Pitty the developers had been 50-60 years their time ahead.
got to inspect the blade control rod fasteners.. every flight.. i was taking a lesson in an air and space 18A and it tipped over while spinning up... one fastener loosened up even though the bolt was wired and painted
This story reminds me of the small airliner size British Fairey Rotodyne and the US Carter Aviation's Cartercopter. BOTH are VTOL "autogyros" with tremendous potential but doomed to fail because they are "different" from helicopters. The irony is that helicopter VTOL rotor technology was stolen directly from autogyro technology.
Cavalon and Calidus seem to be more modern and cheaper 2-seater versions, although they're light sport aircraft rather than utility vehicles. Would be cool to see an electric gyro that uses metal-air batteries. Even if the range was more limited, it could still be a useful sightseeing aircraft.
It's unfortunate Avian Gyroplane didn't survive, I really think it should have found a niche market, because as a gyrocopter it would have been relatively easy to fly and more people could have flown it in areas not so accessible for conventional airplanes.
Main drawback of the gyrocopter is the limited seating capacity. It can only seat 2people. So the buyers it attracts are the flying enthusiasts. Designers must endeavor to design a 4seater or a 5 seater gyro plane. As such, it opens up a wider market: city hopper, air ambulance, island hopper, military or police patrol or surveillance, etc. The ducted fan is remarkable, designers must add a tail to include rudder, horizontal and vertical stabilizers. I believe a gyro plane is one business idea whose time has come
True. Designers must endeavor to design a 3 seater or 4 seater configuration. Then the market is wider: air ambulance, city hopper, island hopper military or police patrol or surveillance, etc
Ah, this is pretty close to my design for a giro in having a shrouded fan for propulsion - though my specs is for a far deeper and thickly chorded blade at lower revolutions, since it is mass of air movement that creates thrust rather than simply speed. I stole my idea from the Optica rather than this little beauty. My design has a completely different method of turning the rotor for pre-rotation and assisted climb, though.
Although I have never flown in or piloted an autogiro, it seems the hop feature would increase the complexity and cost of the aircraft. These type of craft has caught the imagination of Europeans, I have been to many European shows where the variety display was outstanding. These small very uncomplicated crafts are perfect for rural living, or just to travel from place to place. Someone who owned one told me he was running out of gas, so he checked gas stations near him and dropped on a field, folded the rotor and drove the unit out of the field to a road and gas station, filled up with premium gas, and return to flying. Try that with a fixed wing aircraft.
@@luciousbrun5437 I, for one, would appreciate a 'jump' gyro for personal use. Lots of fun and less complex than a helicopter. Safer than fixed wing, if operated within its proper parameters. Gyros seem to be fairly popular in Europe.
@@luciousbrun5437 A gyro by definition uses a free turning rotor for lift therefore it relies on the constant forces of nature and they never change. A gyro's performance capability is forever implied. Words without a verified source are empty coz they have no associated credibility. Own your shit...
What a crying shame? such a beautiful flying craft , versatile , inherently safe, auto gyrate to land in an emergency? Maybe there just wasn't the market for it back then. But I bet there is today, if I had to fly just one craft, that would be it!! well done to all the engineers who made it possible, shame the Canadian air force couldn't use it , maybe as a reconnaissance craft, it would have kept it alive and the interest in it too!
I want one!!! Make the landing gear pull up close to the airframe. It would sell as a retractable gear plane and look sexier than its gawky self while under flight.
The Air & Space 18A had similar configuration and payload though 30 knots slower but lower fuel consumption. They beat Avian to market by three (3) years (1965 vs. 1968) and sold 68 units.
What an amazing innovation. A hybrid helocopter/gyroplane. I wonder if there is any merit in equipping it with a tail rotor so that it can land and take off as a conventional helicopter and cruise as a gyrocopter. I think that there is potential for lower fuel consumption than is possible with a conventional helicopter.
A Autogyro uses the forward thrust Provided by the rear Pusher Engine. a Tail rotor would NOT be possible in a Autogyro, no forward thrust. the Rotors in a Autogyro are usually unpowered (Little Nelle), and the Forward thrust over the Blades which turn the Blades. what you are thinking of is just a mini Helicopter, not really a new Idea. the US Military even played with the idea of Backpack helicopters. neve paned out.
@@markplott4820 This particular gyro has a powered main rotor that allows it to hop into the air.It then disconnects the drive before it starts to spin and engages the propellor. If however it had a tail rotor, then it could hover like a conventional helicopter in addition to the gyro function which would probably be a more economical flight configuration.
It would be more feasible to tripple or quadruple the rudder surface area to counter spin instead of the added expense of a whole additional power and control system...
I think the best marketing approach might be, Safety below 500 ft. compared to standard helicopters. This autogyro with muffler might be acceptable to fly into a neighborhood... due to greater safety over a helicopter. (CarterCopter has a foolproof auto jump control)
Actually I would say even higher, maybe even 500 feet. Helicopters have a height velocity chart which shows the height and speed needed to enter autorotation if the engine fails. A gyro is already in autorotation so there is no transition. A helicopter that is hovering above 10 feet will not have a smooth landing unless it is high enough to enter into autorotation, one type I flew had to be 500 feet above the surface when in a hover. Below 10 feet helicopters use rotor inertia to drive the rotor. (different types have different numbers these are just general) Where gyros loose there advantage is when they do not have collective pitch, the feature that helps them jump also. When a helicopter comes in during autoratotation it flares to reduce speed a few feet above the surface (or above the tree tops) right down to zero speed if the pilot chooses and the conditions permit or require it. And then as the helicopter sinks vertically collective pitch is added and cushions the landing. A gyro with a fix pitch rotor cannot quit do that, their speed can be reduced, even to zero as well (headwind helps), but they would still be coming at an angle to landing like an aeroplane. A vertical landing would be rough/hard, still beats the aeroplane (a vertical landing in an aeroplane is called a crash).
I was always fascinated by the Carter jump copters, but they suffered the same fate.....no buyers. I just don't understand why the market won't support it. Seems like a huge convenience and safety feature...ie...no runway needed.
I thought it looked like a good design, I wonder why it did not sale, the price, or whatever I would buy one of them before I would ever buy a helicopter. Helicopters seem to me to be hard to fly.
It’s a neat design but it’s not hard to see why it failed. It has all the disadvantages of both a helicopter and a plane. It can’t do true VTOL and can’t hover which means it can’t do most thing helicopters where used for. Executive transportation, sky cranes, search and rescue,etc. It also can’t do what most planes do, is cruise faster. A plane with a similar sized engine would have a must faster cruise. Not the mention I imagine is was a good deal more expensive than most planes on the market.
To put it simply, gyrocopters fly similarly to planes but have rotors, so they have more capabilities than most planes and require less runway space. In exchange, they can only fly so fast, as their rotor tips cause turbulence and shockwaves if they go faster than the speed of sound.
Crazy to me how Canada designed so many great aircrafts yet few of them made commercial success, a gyroplane like this has a lot of uses but there very few of them out there. They should just sold it to the Soviets, they would loved it they still operated a few gyroplanes.
@@polyus_studios i know there are already some electric planes like Alice from an Israeli company called EVIATION and 2 seater trainer planes like PIPISTREL.
There's not much real-world use for a VTOL without a cyclic-controlled powered-rotor, that's due to the need to choose the exact landing position and approaching it carefully. Also, a helicopter which cannot turn on the dime and cannot hover is a bluff. Where's there's wind, the unpowered rotor is stuffed too.
The video shows the limit of its jump, I do not know the numbers. As for the ducted propeller. The duct improves the propellers thrust so a smaller diameter can be used. And in this design the duct also helped with directional stability.
A propeller creates vortices of disturbed air outward from the tips that create a lot of drag. Ducting a propeller prevents those vortices and therefore greatly increaces the efficiency of the propeller.
As an ex helo pilot & owner I have always wanted a gyro but, that lack of vertical/hop/jump take off has put me off. With battery capacities of 450 watts per KG now in production surely compared to 200 hp gas engine weights electric is now real. The jump start is real & proven so why no models out there considering the torque avaliable.
I agree, gyroplanes are overlooked and underuses, given their far smaller cost and near perfromance compared to helicopters in many areas of usage. Helicopters guys 1, gyro men 0.
That's a shame being orphaned like that, but reading the comments here from folks in-the-know, I think I see why it did not take off quite like it one would think. Especially the comment regarding take-off complexity and that there are already a bunch of stunt-minded pilots crashing their simpler autogyros (or 'gyroplanes). The thing looks great though, very aerodynamic.
he Airframe can be improved with a ALL composite Design, the motor should be an Turbocharged gas engine and a 6 blade Prop, and the Rotors should be all composite and 4 blades instead if just 3.
the hover gyo was invented by Igor bensen... never was brought to market... he died before it could become a serious competitor to the helicopter... the big thing about gvros is their autorotation in the event of power failure... if the hover gyro had been improved as was the helicopter, no telling how important it might have become
Amazing video. It’s a shame the America 🇺🇸 government didn’t test of these for the military. They would have made lots of sale I think. Curse of the Arrow continued. Who would have known.
I would suspect some goings on behind closed doors by large helio companies, there is no way THIS should have failed, it's far safer, cheaper to run and has everything any police force or ambulance service could ever want. Large helicopter companies have made wars happen for far longer for money
Before the collective was lifted the power was removed from the rotor. The rotor's inertia and overspeed in the spin-up is what allowed it to hop into the air. If power had been left driving the rotor then torque from the powered rotor would have rotated the craft opposite to the rotor's direction of rotation, the reason why a helicopter has a tail rotor. And in the video you can see that the rudder does not deflect like it is trying to fight torque, so the rotor is free spinning.
As the craft moves upward the engine power is increased increasing the propeller thrust. As the craft starts moving forward the airflow changes from being pulled down through the rotor to up through the rotor, autorotation. Which keeps the rotor turning and away it flies.
why dont modern gyro companies use that idea? seems simple.
Because it is more complex it adds cost. Companies would add it but aircraft owners/buyers do not want to pay for the ability.
They may want it--but if no one buys it--manufacturers don't make them.
I have been a pilot since 1990 and talked with my bosses and other aircraft owners. Initial and operating cost is one of the main things they all consider when choosing the aircraft they use. Then for a commercial operations is how many different jobs can the one aircraft do--more jobs more income.
If you check throughout aviation there are many civilian and military aircraft that just did not get the attention and support needed to enter service. Also checkout how many manufacturers gambled to build an aircraft and then folded cause the aircraft would not sell.
Air & Space 18A (from 1965 to 2000) built 68 and it had jump takeoff ability. Heliplane bought the type certificate in 2012 and want to put it into production again--so where are they? I mean the aircraft and the customers that want to buy a jumping gyro.
Like Carter Aviation Technologies, perhaps. www.cartercopters.com
@@beeqool certification and licensing favour gyroplanes with fixed-pitch rotors. at least in some parts of the world.
flapping and collectively pitching rotors are a dark art. to be avoided if possible. only professionals pay the added complexity and they have cash to buy "real" helicopters capable of hovering indefinitely. the niche vor a complex gyroplane is too small as failure to sell any reasonable numbers proved.
I still love the idea!
Very surprised this design wasn't commercially successful, it's very aesthetically pleasing aircraft, you know the old saying,
" if it looks as though it will fly well, it probably will".
Very good
Polyus Studios So sad to see such a brilliant design that broke so many barriers to ultra light aircraft with VTOL capabilities go bust due to lack of sales😢
This needs to be resurrected!!!
A gyro copter/plane is easier to fly, easier to maintain and cheaper!
@@polyus_studios name of the music?
@@l0OoD1GBY ultralight? This was a Canadian design and I do not know what qualifications for ultralight status in Canada are, but in the US that is no where near ultralight. My guess would be 3x the 250 lb weight limit and a good 2x the 55 mph max speed limit. But even as an experimental, I'd be interested!!
The Canada curse. Everytime they come up with a great aircraft, some unknown force squashes it...
In this case, it is known.
No one bought one.
I heard the same thing about the Water Engine ;p
Never knew about this aircraft at all!... THE most beautiful gyrocopter ever!
i think that would be the rotodyne
I actually like the AVRO concept a little better.
I grew up in Georgetown and nearby Acton in the mid 60s...I remember the Avian flying around the area and how loud it was!
I absolutely love it 👌 I'll never understand why an aircraft like this didn't sell like hotcakes 🤷♂️
Kept finding myself losing the narration cuz I was drifting off with those strings - what a sound!
How am I just finding out about this channel? This channel is gold, great audio, no loud obnoxious music and great video. Good work man keep it coming.
Bravo Sir, another great upload.
Thank you
It's a rarity when anyone presents an aircraft I'm not already familiar with. This is one of those rarities. Congratulations.
Wow I am impressed
Very reminiscent of the CarterCopter, a modern gyroplane that depended on spinning up a high-inertia rotor to store enough energy for a take-off hop. Very promising design, especially looking at its range and speed in comparison with conventional helicopters. Like the Avian design, though, it just never caught a break. A true helicopter is a massively expensive machine with terrible fuel efficiency, and there are an awful lot of applications that call for VTOL but not for hover. I hope one of the many hybrid gyro designs eventually gets a fair chance to prove itself in these applications. And here as in so many cases, early designs from Canada (and indeed many other countries not so well known for aviation) anticipate most of the ideas being put forward now.
O as in Ohhhhh 360. Opposed. You got IO right. Injected Opposed. Overall, great video. Thank you for posting.
The Lycoming engine is not a zero360 but an O-360 as in Oscar. O stands for opposed like R stands for radial or V for inline-vee. You got it right on the injected IO-360 ;)
I noticed this as well -- good catch...👍👍
Nailed it! The loss of imagination! The swashplate like a helicopter is key! You have to have that control and advantage catching and finessing air under your wings (the disc) and using your inertia and wide rotor RPM to make it look good! Beautiful Machine!
Thanks again. Great series
This Gyroplane was ahead of its time and the market just wasn't ready for it. Even today Gyroplanes still fail to break into mainstream aviation and are limited to hobby flying. Even the biggest Gyroplane available, the Groen Brother Hawk 4 saw a lot of development as a 4 passenger aircraft but found no buyers (yet). It seems you have to be a sucker for punishment if you want develop and sell a new Gyroplane design.
Build It and They Will Come versus Market Driven.
It is best to have a proven market and customer base up front.
They needed an aggressive marketing man taking that around the prairies doing demo hops. I'm back in Oz now but 76-86 when I lived in Calgary this wasn't heard of despite the core tech being 50 years old by that time. If you build it they don't always come; you have to go out and find them.
@@polyus_studios that's a big problem for start up companies to overcome. First you have tremendous design and development costs, then tons more to get regulatory approval. By then you are broke unless you have mega backing, and if you are doing something truly unique you won't get mega backing. You are left with a product to sell but no money left to promote it..... so no one buys it because they don't know about it...
@@peterclark4685 a 4seater gyroplane would have a multitude of uses that will make it highly marketable: air ambulance, inter- city commuter, inter-island hopper, police and military patrol, etc. A gyro plane does not need an airport
@@rosebarnes9625 - Rose, you hit it on the nail with "mega backing". If George Soros, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk were behind it we'd see these things hopping around everywhere. Then, when they become popular, the sales momentum would generate it's own market demand.
Armstrong Avenue in Georgetown. Thank-you for making these films, I'm looking forward to your presentation on the Hydrofoil (HMCS Bras d'or) as my dad worked on the project.
Grat video, good material. Thanks...
So sad to see such a brilliant design that broke so many barriers to ultra light aircraft with VTOL capabilities go bust due to lack of sales😢
This needs to be resurrected!!!
MAKE IT ECONOMICAL, AND FOLK CAN GO GET THEIR GROCERIES AND CHORES IN THIS..
Would this make a good unmanned delivery drone?
You want it brought back? Are you ready to invest? If not it will remain a keyboard pipe dream.
Amazing video!!!
Just awesome!
reminds me of the rotodyne. would have revolutionized air travel but was shut down just as it had a good shot at actually being produced in numbers
The Fairey Rotodyne prototype was carrying 25+ VIPs between London and Paris without issues when the British government forced a merger between Fairey and British Leyland. Leyland had the prototype Rotodyne and ALL of it's R&D assets destroyed because they wanted to build only helicopters. It was just another British immoral political disgrace and a HUGE loss to the aviation world. How very sad.
You can always rely on the British authorities to quash a good idea ie Whittles jet engine ( no help) or computers post wwll ( literally given to US ) or the Fairey Rotordyne gyro ( final version passed all concerns).
Beautiful aircraft.
They never gave a price for it. Honestly it looked like an awesome machine and the specs were great, not sure why most sport pilots wouldn't be interested unless it was cost.
There are a couple good reasons why you don't see gyrocopters on every tarmac alongside the antique Cubs and fifty-some year old Cessnas and Pipers. First, they require a specific rating, meaning you have to take still more flying lessons after earning your pilot's license (or get the license in the specialized aircraft and not be able to rent a 172 for a weekend trip). Second, they're slow compared to a fixed wing aircraft with similar engine power and payload. This one could barely make 120 kt on 200 hp; a 172 (with twice the seats) can do close to 180 mph on the same engine, therefore having 50% longer range with the same fuel capacity. Or a 152 (same seat capacity) can do the same speed on 140 hp at probably half the fuel burn rate.
And the third reason, as with everything else, is that they cost more than a comparable fixed wing aircraft -- which would be fine if they either outperformed the conventional, or were significantly safer, but they don't have either advantage.
I especially like the ducted fan that doubles as horizontal and vertical stabilizer - although may be lacking moment arm.
Very nice
Love this music!
Sur l'Avian 2/180 gyroplane?! Il était très en avance sur son temps en ce développant des nouvelles technologies de l'époque! Ce qui est dommage, je suis sûr qu'actuellement si se magnifique autogire pouvait reprendre avec les technologies nouvelles, il serais produit en série avec succès cette fois-ci!
" I know what happened? The craft was ahead of it's time; And?When something is advanced, humans or members of society does not understand it's full potential or capabilities." 👍
How could such a useful aircraft have failed to be successful? Brilliant design work for its time and I could imagine this design having been used in developing countries for all sorts of aerial work. If it could seat three (?? looks like the rear seat was a side by side double??) it would have had a useful payload. External fuselage mounted cargo pods might have worked too. I hope that somewhere someone with insight and the cash will be able to develop it further using modern composites and more economic engines. I suspect that there have been many more up to date designs to parallel it since, but the vertical hop seems unique...? Thanks for the film, great historical interest.
LM Other gyroplanes with similar form from the same era failed to gain a foothold. Overall, a gyroplane just doesn't beat a helicopter for capabilities or performance.
The Rotordyne was the king of autogyros & it to was cancelled.
Excellent documentary ... the design, look and feel would still stand rhe aesthetics of our modern times. Pitty the developers had been 50-60 years their time ahead.
'unrealized potential' should be the motto of Canada
neat story
got to inspect the blade control rod fasteners.. every flight.. i was taking a lesson in an air and space 18A and it tipped over while spinning up... one fastener loosened up even though the bolt was wired and painted
Beauty… An updated fuselage maybe a sleeker carbon fibre monocoque and this will sell. Love the “Pegasus” nameplate too!
Its a very attractive gyro. I will have to look Pegasus up
Such informative videos. But that music... it's so sad! Beautiful, but sad.
This story reminds me of the small airliner size British Fairey Rotodyne and the US Carter Aviation's Cartercopter. BOTH are VTOL "autogyros" with tremendous potential but doomed to fail because they are "different" from helicopters. The irony is that helicopter VTOL rotor technology was stolen directly from autogyro technology.
Cavalon and Calidus seem to be more modern and cheaper 2-seater versions, although they're light sport aircraft rather than utility vehicles. Would be cool to see an electric gyro that uses metal-air batteries. Even if the range was more limited, it could still be a useful sightseeing aircraft.
450w/KG are for sale now so the e-power dream is achievable.
It's unfortunate Avian Gyroplane didn't survive, I really think it should have found a niche market, because as a gyrocopter it would have been relatively easy to fly and more people could have flown it in areas not so accessible for conventional airplanes.
Main drawback of the gyrocopter is the limited seating capacity. It can only seat 2people. So the buyers it attracts are the flying enthusiasts. Designers must endeavor to design a 4seater or a 5 seater gyro plane. As such, it opens up a wider market: city hopper, air ambulance, island hopper, military or police patrol or surveillance, etc.
The ducted fan is remarkable, designers must add a tail to include rudder, horizontal and vertical stabilizers. I believe a gyro plane is one business idea whose time has come
True. Designers must endeavor to design a 3 seater or 4 seater configuration. Then the market is wider: air ambulance, city hopper, island hopper military or police patrol or surveillance, etc
It also does not need an airport
Needed to get it into a James Bond movie and sales would have taken off!
Love this design so simple. VTOL gyroplane. Go electric.
So sad how Canadas aerospace companies thought out of the box, and all of them pretty much died off
Great video ! I never knew this aircraft existed. I wish they bring it back.
You want “them” to bring it back. Why not you? If you rely on a nebulous “them” it will never happen.
thats sad it looks so cool
Ah, this is pretty close to my design for a giro in having a shrouded fan for propulsion - though my specs is for a far deeper and thickly chorded blade at lower revolutions, since it is mass of air movement that creates thrust rather than simply speed. I stole my idea from the Optica rather than this little beauty. My design has a completely different method of turning the rotor for pre-rotation and assisted climb, though.
Is a shrouded fan for the rotor blades also in your design?
It is in mine.
Unfortunate demise for an aircraft with such potential. The 'hop' feature is what is missing in today's gyros.
Although I have never flown in or piloted an autogiro, it seems the hop feature would increase the complexity and cost of the aircraft. These type of craft has caught the imagination of Europeans, I have been to many European shows where the variety display was outstanding. These small very uncomplicated crafts are perfect for rural living, or just to travel from place to place. Someone who owned one told me he was running out of gas, so he checked gas stations near him and dropped on a field, folded the rotor and drove the unit out of the field to a road and gas station, filled up with premium gas, and return to flying. Try that with a fixed wing aircraft.
What potential? It had none which could be classed as commercial which is why no one bought one.
@@luciousbrun5437 I, for one, would appreciate a 'jump' gyro for personal use. Lots of fun and less complex than a helicopter. Safer than fixed wing, if operated within its proper parameters. Gyros seem to be fairly popular in Europe.
@@luciousbrun5437 Yes!!!
@@luciousbrun5437 A gyro by definition uses a free turning rotor for lift therefore it relies on the constant forces of nature and they never change. A gyro's performance capability is forever implied. Words without a verified source are empty coz they have no associated credibility. Own your shit...
This would be great competition to the German Auto Gyro line.
What a crying shame? such a beautiful flying craft , versatile , inherently safe, auto gyrate to land in an emergency? Maybe there just wasn't the market for it back then. But I bet there is today,
if I had to fly just one craft, that would be it!! well done to all the engineers who made it possible, shame the Canadian air force couldn't use it , maybe as a reconnaissance craft, it would have kept it alive and the interest in it too!
Mannn I want one
I want one.
Well, that's a shame it didn't sell. It looks like a very fun little sport aircraft.
I want one!!! Make the landing gear pull up close to the airframe. It would sell as a retractable gear plane and look sexier than its gawky self while under flight.
Its time will come.
Were the wheel covers Standard or an Option ?
That was great, a nice page of Canadian history. One thing however. The engine's are not prefixed by "zero" but rather "oh" as this indicated Opposed.
@Polyus Studios we hould make a Jack up version of this thing and use it as attack Helicopters
Definitely more attractive than the typical gyro plane they are literally L frames with an engine strapped and a little bit of fairing
The Air & Space 18A had similar configuration and payload though 30 knots slower but lower fuel consumption. They beat Avian to market by three (3) years (1965 vs. 1968) and sold 68 units.
A side by side would be more popular, might need adjustable seats for CG.
@@polyus_studios I'm guessing top speed was 10% greater with the narrower tandem seating. (200kph about 120 mph)
Canadian aviation engineers... always thinking outside the box that no other investor or company can get outside of to join their genius.
What an amazing innovation. A hybrid helocopter/gyroplane. I wonder if there is any merit in equipping it with a tail rotor so that it can land and take off as a conventional helicopter and cruise as a gyrocopter. I think that there is potential for lower fuel consumption than is possible with a conventional helicopter.
A Autogyro uses the forward thrust Provided by the rear Pusher Engine.
a Tail rotor would NOT be possible in a Autogyro, no forward thrust.
the Rotors in a Autogyro are usually unpowered (Little Nelle), and the Forward thrust over the Blades which turn the Blades.
what you are thinking of is just a mini Helicopter, not really a new Idea.
the US Military even played with the idea of Backpack helicopters. neve paned out.
@@markplott4820 This particular gyro has a powered main rotor that allows it to hop into the air.It then disconnects the drive before it starts to spin and engages the propellor. If however it had a tail rotor, then it could hover like a conventional helicopter in addition to the gyro function which would probably be a more economical flight configuration.
It would be more feasible to tripple or quadruple the rudder surface area to counter spin instead of the added expense of a whole additional power and control system...
I think the best marketing approach might be, Safety below 500 ft. compared to standard helicopters. This autogyro with muffler might be acceptable to fly into a neighborhood... due to greater safety over a helicopter. (CarterCopter has a foolproof auto jump control)
Actually I would say even higher, maybe even 500 feet. Helicopters have a height velocity chart which shows the height and speed needed to enter autorotation if the engine fails. A gyro is already in autorotation so there is no transition. A helicopter that is hovering above 10 feet will not have a smooth landing unless it is high enough to enter into autorotation, one type I flew had to be 500 feet above the surface when in a hover. Below 10 feet helicopters use rotor inertia to drive the rotor. (different types have different numbers these are just general)
Where gyros loose there advantage is when they do not have collective pitch, the feature that helps them jump also. When a helicopter comes in during autoratotation it flares to reduce speed a few feet above the surface (or above the tree tops) right down to zero speed if the pilot chooses and the conditions permit or require it. And then as the helicopter sinks vertically collective pitch is added and cushions the landing. A gyro with a fix pitch rotor cannot quit do that, their speed can be reduced, even to zero as well (headwind helps), but they would still be coming at an angle to landing like an aeroplane. A vertical landing would be rough/hard, still beats the aeroplane (a vertical landing in an aeroplane is called a crash).
I was always fascinated by the Carter jump copters, but they suffered the same fate.....no buyers. I just don't understand why the market won't support it. Seems like a huge convenience and safety feature...ie...no runway needed.
I thought it looked like a good design, I wonder why it did not sale, the price, or whatever I would buy one of them before I would ever buy a helicopter. Helicopters seem to me to be hard to fly.
It would sell now!
I reckon if the propeller cowl wasn't there it would be more aesthetically pleasing. Think it needed to look more like a jet to gain sales.
WHY have I NEVER heard of this aircraft before??!!
It’s a neat design but it’s not hard to see why it failed. It has all the disadvantages of both a helicopter and a plane.
It can’t do true VTOL and can’t hover which means it can’t do most thing helicopters where used for. Executive transportation, sky cranes, search and rescue,etc.
It also can’t do what most planes do, is cruise faster. A plane with a similar sized engine would have a must faster cruise. Not the mention I imagine is was a good deal more expensive than most planes on the market.
I want one
what a name , "Peter Pain"
haha remembers me of the movie "Die Hard4"
or peter pan
Im confused this is my first time hearing about gyrocopters soo whats the benefit of making this a gyrocopter as aposed to a helicopter??
To put it simply, gyrocopters fly similarly to planes but have rotors, so they have more capabilities than most planes and require less runway space. In exchange, they can only fly so fast, as their rotor tips cause turbulence and shockwaves if they go faster than the speed of sound.
Fred Flintstone That too haha, you're not worrying about ailerons and they're very hard to stall compared to a fixed wing aircraft.
Crazy to me how Canada designed so many great aircrafts yet few of them made commercial success, a gyroplane like this has a lot of uses but there very few of them out there.
They should just sold it to the Soviets, they would loved it they still operated a few gyroplanes.
Im sad. I like this plane.
I would not be surprised by any flying machine from a company headed by some one whose name is Peter Pan !!!
Oscar dash 360
should not they be considering building Electric versions of these?
@@polyus_studios i know there are already some electric planes like Alice from an Israeli company called EVIATION and 2 seater trainer planes like PIPISTREL.
There's not much real-world use for a VTOL without a cyclic-controlled powered-rotor,
that's due to the need to choose the exact landing position and approaching it carefully.
Also, a helicopter which cannot turn on the dime and cannot hover is a bluff.
Where's there's wind, the unpowered rotor is stuffed too.
bruh i cant believe this is real cuz i drew a silmilar style of that copter
how high could it jump? why does it have a duct?
The video shows the limit of its jump, I do not know the numbers.
As for the ducted propeller. The duct improves the propellers thrust so a smaller diameter can be used.
And in this design the duct also helped with directional stability.
Duct is for Streemlining.
A propeller creates vortices of disturbed air outward from the tips that create a lot of drag. Ducting a propeller prevents those vortices and therefore greatly increaces the efficiency of the propeller.
Title of the music?
@@polyus_studios yow, my guy thanks. This music calms my nerves😊
How the heck did this fail? Had to be poor marketing. That thing is awesome!
THAT IS SO SAD ! HOW ECONOMICAL ? I C ALOTTA FOLK FLYING TO LOAD-UP THEIR GROCERIES IN THIS CUTIE)
Should have been in You Only Live Twice over the 116.
As an ex helo pilot & owner I have always wanted a gyro but, that lack of vertical/hop/jump take off has put me off. With battery capacities of 450 watts per KG now in production surely compared to 200 hp gas engine weights electric is now real. The jump start is real & proven so why no models out there considering the torque avaliable.
It's now been taken over by ARC Aerosystems who have upgraded it to be an electric aircraft.
why is the reason of its commercial failure???????
I agree, gyroplanes are overlooked and underuses, given their far smaller cost and near perfromance compared to helicopters in many areas of usage. Helicopters guys 1, gyro men 0.
That's a shame being orphaned like that, but reading the comments here from folks in-the-know, I think I see why it did not take off quite like it one would think. Especially the comment regarding take-off complexity and that there are already a bunch of stunt-minded pilots crashing their simpler autogyros (or 'gyroplanes). The thing looks great though, very aerodynamic.
he Airframe can be improved with a ALL composite Design, the motor should be an Turbocharged gas engine and a 6 blade Prop, and the Rotors should be all composite and 4 blades instead if just 3.
An updated/modernized version would be cool
the hover gyo was invented by Igor bensen... never was brought to market... he died before it could become a serious competitor to the helicopter...
the big thing about gvros is their autorotation in the event of power failure... if the hover gyro had been improved as was the helicopter, no telling how important it might have become
wonder why the igor bensen hover gyro never got popular
Amazing video. It’s a shame the America 🇺🇸 government didn’t test of these for the military. They would have made lots of sale I think. Curse of the Arrow continued. Who would have known.
Uber should have bought the assets and added autopilot to ferry passengers.
Don't understand why companies think the Gyrocopter is a good investment. It has a very nich market with too many moving parts.
Like a baby Fairey Rotodyne.
Just like Canadaire tilt rotors. I believe the American Aircraft Makers is responsible just how the tilt rotor design lost to a now Vietnam relic
I would suspect some goings on behind closed doors by large helio companies, there is no way THIS should have failed, it's far safer, cheaper to run and has everything any police force or ambulance service could ever want. Large helicopter companies have made wars happen for far longer for money
Man, Canadian Aviation, with a few exceptions, seems to be cursed...