Back in the late 1980's we built a two-engine gyro, and the engines were closer to the center using overlapping propellers. Even at that, it was a deathtrap because if one engine died, the other engine thrust would yaw the aircraft so fast that you would lose control before you could throttle down the other engine. Even at low power, one engine would spin the gyroplane uncontrollably. In reality, there was no dual-engine reliability because you would need to add an auto-kill switch to both engines if one quit, which means you now had twice the chance of an engine failure, and a gyroplane twice as heavy to land. Even Dr. Bensen tried the crisscross one over the other rotor system and found metal failure developing due to the constant variant speed difference between the to rotors. Before you spend so much money on a project like this, just look at history and see what didn't work. There is nothing new under the sun in gyroplanes.
Thanks for that insight Dennis and hope you are well. Do you have any old images of that aircraft? You are right there is so much time and energy spent in trying to re-invent what has likely been invented / tried before. I was at an airfield last week looking at one of the original Avian gyroplanes that is being rebuilt.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 Perhaps 2 engines inline like the Cessna Skyhawk would be the best choice. They would also cancel out the torque issue that appears to be present on the newer 915is powered gyro's.
I'll bet the dual rotor is so the disk can be smaller. To carry the extra weight of 4 people the rotor would need to be either be bigger, or have more. They opted for more. I'm sure it fits into a pretty small hangar space.
Looks in the video as if both rotors go in the same direction. I would have thought that one going clockwise and the other anti. would be best. Does anyone have any knowledge? Just given this some thought and perhaps two blades being close would be a recipe for disaster. So does it look as if they are free of each other, but going in the same direction. Best Dave
I got interested in autogyros because I couldn’t afford a helicopter 🚁 now I am getting back into helicopters because because I can’t afford a autogyro 😳😂
What amazes me is that tractor gyros are more inherently stable and safer, but everybody insists on designs that look like a helicopter (ie engine in the rear) but are not…. the tractor gyro holding the most performance records (and unblemished safety record) the Littlewing is built and flown by almost nobody…. Because it doesn’t look like a helicopter…. We’re all a bunch of 5 year old kids mentally in the end :)
I saw some small helicopters that use the same tilting rotor hub and fixed pitch blades as many gyros but but with coaxial powered rotors so they have some of the simplicity of gyroplane but is actually a helicopter and only a little more complex than a gyro. I expect it would not be as good as due to the gyroscopic effect compared to a proper collective pitch control system.
The first Cieva had contra rotating wings, but could not achieve take off. This craft has them in synchronous rotation, allowing them to be mounted together daily closely as rotor wash is less of an issue. However, stacked contra rotating wings (per Kamov helicopters) would raise the thrust line allowing engines easier placement. I feel rigid rotor technology and 3D printing production could make contra rotation a viable, likely smoother, alternative for all light gyro planes.
can only agree, especially since we are limited to single rotor design, and the knowledge that gyros run ever so much better lighter yet the trend seems to be to ever more complex space ships for 2 persons designed for distance transport. Is it me or is that less of a need for sport flying? myself Im still looking for that tractor layout with horizontal tail, standing on high cushion tail dragger gear and a solid metal core pulled along by reliable power and a 2 blade prop
The safest single engine aircraft ever designed was the Ercoupe. It had no rudder pedals and could not be cross controlled, which causes stalls and spins. Also, the rudders were outside the propeller wash which prevented yaw problems while under power. The plane fell out of favor for a more dangerous design by Cessna and others. Lots of pilots die in spin accidents that would have not happened had they been flying Ercpoupes. Although not infallible, the design was much safer than any other. Too bad so many good things are destroyed by "fair" competition. Simple is better than complex when it comes to safety.
You got that right! Ercoupes are available used from $19,00-$30,000 in various conditions. I would love to see someone like Ran’s re-introduce the design for the light sport category.
Ironically the accident (and death) rate for Ercoupes was factually higher than for other piston singles in the same class. The results surprised everyone, but since the 70’s have been well analyzed and written up, you can Google it. Unfortunately safety isn’t simple.
@@PRH123 exactly. it has been found out that some ercoupes have been retrofitted with proper rudders in order to better adapt to crosswind landings, which in an ercoupe are (purportedly) a bit of a pain. the reasons for stall-spin on the turn base to final (too slow for the 90° turn) can - despite not leading to a spin - also be potentially dangerous for an ercoupe.
Igor Benson tried a twin (4 blade) rotor system on one of his gyros, yet little was described as of its performance. H2 autogyro which flew somewhere in Europe 10-15 years ago, which short clips can be found on YTube. Seemed to indicate that the performance of a longer length single rotor set-up (28ft), could be equally matched with a twin rotor length setup of 22-23ft. Again it seems that tried designs of past are re-emerging, in the current prototypes. Obviously, as they work. However, the naysayers come out of the woodwork with their 'tin hats' on, claiming it's too radical. I would dearly like to see the autogyro become more widely accepted and available to the masses, than only for the few that have deep pockets.
But what's the advantage of this twin-rotor system? Doesn't it represent more weight & complexity? Or does shortened rotor length offer other advantages?
Hi thats a good question - it has been a while [I made this film around a year ago]. It is likely to refer to one of the webinar's. However all my own clips are from the original pilot posting his own flights on RUclips which I think I refer to this one:- ruclips.net/video/dpfNu1oQ2ow/видео.html [see from around 25m 50sec - it looks as if the aircraft is used commercially for experience flights or as a training aircraft and there are some squirrelly landings which get rough}. Or we could look at this video and question the MAUW given the guy looks +100kgs and with MAUW of 560kgs and empty weight of circa 340kgs mean I think that aircraft is likely very at the limit ruclips.net/video/EEvi_f6AtRk/видео.html
If they can mass produce this at a fraction of cost of standard helicopters, this would be more in demand given that its a 4 seater. The terms here is it should be "low cost."
I disagree. There is no market for it and those who can afford to travel by helicopter won’t care if it is cheaper. Plus they can’t be operated from rooftop helipads. The Nano is close to the right market for gyroplanes now. A little bigger maybe for light sport, but less complex than the outrageous costs of Cavalon. J-3 cub gyro plane maybe. 😁
The FC4 looks like a fine machine. Except two of everything!!!! Twin rotors two engines two prop's!!!! Twice as much maintenance twice as much fuel burn not to mention engine controls & indications it all equates to twice as much money!!!! Oh well........
If it’s FAA part 103, no license. AC must be 254lbs or less, I believe there is a HP rating also..50hp? hold no more than 5 ga fuel and will not exceed 55 kts at full power and stall at speed in excess of 24 kts in level flight. It’s been a while since I looked at the reqs and where I am right now I’m unable to verify but I believe that’s pretty close to the reqs, you must verify on your own, this is from memory in 1998.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 - I've no experience with aviation whatsoever, but when I compare the features of gyroplanes to other small aircraft, they really do look appealing. I've watched various videos of other types of small aircraft in turbulence and winds, and they can get really unpleasant - but gyros seem to fare relatively better than the others. But the main problem is affordability, as there don't seem to be any ultralight gyros. The only one I've heard about is Fusioncopter JK-2 Nano, which seems to be bucking the trend. Are there any others? By contrast, look at the various fixed-wing nanolight trikes powered by 2-stroke engines, which have now become available in UK under their deregulated Sub-70 category (there are even multiple electric versions!). Could it not be possible to adapt such nanolight trikes into gyroplanes? Even if they won't qualify for Sub-70 exemptions, they'd still offer benefits on cost and portability. ruclips.net/video/gDMhzMVoKHc/видео.html
I imagine the 4 seater is a pretty smooth flyer. The twin rotors may make it even smoother. Possibly they make use of sympathetic resonance for stability. One reason people don't like small planes is the effect of turbulence on the lightly loaded wings. Thus may be the competitive advantage a four seater twin engined gyro has.
@Simon Manning - one would hope for smooth flying - but it _looks_ like the Fusioncopter FC4 has an unusual single rotor with two blade sets that rotate in the same direction? This does increase the aero 'solidity' of the rotor system. Without seeing the details it is hard to be sure how it has been done, but it would provide a similar solidity to a normal rotor pair with double the chord - which will reduce the RRPM for a given load, all other things being equal. An unusual design choice. But it has two engines and four seats, so the AUW will inevitably be higher, so it will need a larger rotor system diameter to avoid a high disk loading, which increases their take-off and landing speeds. Hard to know much more, since there is little information on their website. It looks gorgeous. But it may be that this was the main objective - cannot see that they have an engineering solution to their extra weight problem. Sympathetic resonance? Stability? How? Be interested to learn that . . . You are dead right about the effect of turbulence on lightly loaded fixed wing aircraft. The Autogyro blades can (and often are) much more highly loaded than the slower-flying light aircraft - this works because they are flying faster (but in a circle), so slow forward flight and excellent gust penetration are combined to good effect. The late great Ken Wallis reported successful flights when all fixed wing aircraft (including military) were grounded, and trees were leaving the ground.
@@bmull81 I assumed twin rotors to avoid complexity in the need to manage blade advance/retreat management issues. Thinking at the same time that sympathetic resonance effects would keep the blades apart (it might not, or be insufficient). Sympathetic resonance is the tendency for cyclical things with mechanical connection, the common axial in this case, to stay in phase. For example similar pendulum clocks attached to the same wall. The pendulums will stay exactly in phase.
@@bmull81 looking again at the clip the blade clearly have separated rotors and can move freely and independently. I imagine that in flight they will remain at 90 deg to each other due to sympathetic resonance. But its a wild guess really.
@@simonmanning1844 Hi Simon, thanks for the responses! Yes, there are (eg) wheel-balancing products and tools that rely on that resonance. The advancing/retreating blade issue is primarily one of lift equalisation - teetering heads and flapping hinges are the standard variations, with feathering heads being less widely used. Adding a second free rotor does not influence this action directly.
I think the future of the autogyro is its efficiency and stable flight characteristics. The only market for large autogyros is governments and militaries, but that is a potentially large market. Autogyros are also very well suited to air ambulance service in remote areas of the world. Helicopters will always be too expensive for long distances for most governments and hours on rough roads may be both more expensive, less safe, and higher risk for the patient.
Hi - I'm not sure the technology that exists in Canada in 2023 but when I was in Vancouver over 5 years ago you had "Google". It is a wonderful thing where you can type in words and it suggests further websites you can visit. So for example you could "google" "Fusioncopter FC4"....
Why does the gyroplane industry insist on eating itself? The gyroplane flying club should be renamed the anti-aviation brigade. You don’t help pilots get safer by standing on the sidelines slinging flaming arrows at their misfortune and (sometimes) death.
Ken I take the point but is that honestly (if you have seen all or even previewed the range of +100 films) see the channel?? There is stuff about history/background/practical flying tips / model reviews / new developments/ cautionary points and accident reviews... what bit is standing on the sidelines slinging arrows??
не видно самого интересного-как попадают 4 человека в этот Fusioncopter FC4). Судя по конструкции это "гимнастических этюд" с задираеием ног выше головы. А в грязную погоду пассажиры этого "такси" измажутся грязью с ног до головы.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 на мой взгляд идеальной кабиной для Автожира на "2+" человека является схема ARGON-915GTL, созданная К.Врановски на базе схемы, придуманной Р. Селье. Все другие конструкции, которые я видел в интернете, не выдерживают критики. Они похожи на попытку нарисовать "Джоконду", но чтобы баба была другая))...
autogyros provide no real solutions as it is incapable of performance even remotely resembling VTOL (the last portion of this video demonstrates very clearly) the short landing is actually a "trap" of sorts: you may get in, but you'll never, ever get out (flying).
Авто/Мото
Back in the late 1980's we built a two-engine gyro, and the engines were closer to the center using overlapping propellers. Even at that, it was a deathtrap because if one engine died, the other engine thrust would yaw the aircraft so fast that you would lose control before you could throttle down the other engine. Even at low power, one engine would spin the gyroplane uncontrollably. In reality, there was no dual-engine reliability because you would need to add an auto-kill switch to both engines if one quit, which means you now had twice the chance of an engine failure, and a gyroplane twice as heavy to land. Even Dr. Bensen tried the crisscross one over the other rotor system and found metal failure developing due to the constant variant speed difference between the to rotors.
Before you spend so much money on a project like this, just look at history and see what didn't work. There is nothing new under the sun in gyroplanes.
Thanks for that insight Dennis and hope you are well. Do you have any old images of that aircraft? You are right there is so much time and energy spent in trying to re-invent what has likely been invented / tried before. I was at an airfield last week looking at one of the original Avian gyroplanes that is being rebuilt.
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 Perhaps 2 engines inline like the Cessna Skyhawk would be the best choice. They would also cancel out the torque issue that appears to be present on the newer 915is powered gyro's.
Surely a twin engine gyro would be better suited to a three or even four blade rotor?
I'll bet the dual rotor is so the disk can be smaller. To carry the extra weight of 4 people the rotor would need to be either be bigger, or have more. They opted for more. I'm sure it fits into a pretty small hangar space.
or turn 41% faster as lift squares with airspeed.
@@buzzwerd8093 but at some point a heli rotor can't turn any faster or it loses efficiency.
Looks in the video as if both rotors go in the same direction. I would have thought that one going clockwise and the other anti. would be best. Does anyone have any knowledge? Just given this some thought and perhaps two blades being close would be a recipe for disaster. So does it look as if they are free of each other, but going in the same direction. Best Dave
I got interested in autogyros because I couldn’t afford a helicopter 🚁 now I am getting back into helicopters because because I can’t afford a autogyro 😳😂
What amazes me is that tractor gyros are more inherently stable and safer, but everybody insists on designs that look like a helicopter (ie engine in the rear) but are not…. the tractor gyro holding the most performance records (and unblemished safety record) the Littlewing is built and flown by almost nobody…. Because it doesn’t look like a helicopter…. We’re all a bunch of 5 year old kids mentally in the end :)
I saw some small helicopters that use the same tilting rotor hub and fixed pitch blades as many gyros but but with coaxial powered rotors so they have some of the simplicity of gyroplane but is actually a helicopter and only a little more complex than a gyro. I expect it would not be as good as due to the gyroscopic effect compared to a proper collective pitch control system.
The first Cieva had contra rotating wings, but could not achieve take off. This craft has them in synchronous rotation, allowing them to be mounted together daily closely as rotor wash is less of an issue. However, stacked contra rotating wings (per Kamov helicopters) would raise the thrust line allowing engines easier placement. I feel rigid rotor technology and 3D printing production could make contra rotation a viable, likely smoother, alternative for all light gyro planes.
N232PG had a crash landing in Cali, nose gear came off in crash. Parts not on backorder as of June 2021
can only agree, especially since we are limited to single rotor design, and the knowledge that gyros run ever so much better lighter
yet the trend seems to be to ever more complex space ships for 2 persons designed for distance transport. Is it me or is that less of a need for sport flying?
myself Im still looking for that tractor layout with horizontal tail, standing on high cushion tail dragger gear and a solid metal core pulled along by reliable power and a 2 blade prop
Not sure, but I feel like that dual rotor system is just waiting for a situation that causes the blades to slap into each other. IMO.
Counter rotating coaxial main rotors?
The safest single engine aircraft ever designed was the Ercoupe. It had no rudder pedals and could not be cross controlled, which causes stalls and spins. Also, the rudders were outside the propeller wash which prevented yaw problems while under power. The plane fell out of favor for a more dangerous design by Cessna and others. Lots of pilots die in spin accidents that would have not happened had they been flying Ercpoupes. Although not infallible, the design was much safer than any other. Too bad so many good things are destroyed by "fair" competition. Simple is better than complex when it comes to safety.
You got that right! Ercoupes are available used from $19,00-$30,000 in various conditions. I would love to see someone like Ran’s re-introduce the design for the light sport category.
The manufacturer should install a ballistic parachute to avoid crash landing of which not few pilots died.
Ironically the accident (and death) rate for Ercoupes was factually higher than for other piston singles in the same class. The results surprised everyone, but since the 70’s have been well analyzed and written up, you can Google it. Unfortunately safety isn’t simple.
@@PRH123 exactly. it has been found out that some ercoupes have been retrofitted with proper rudders in order to better adapt to crosswind landings, which in an ercoupe are (purportedly) a bit of a pain.
the reasons for stall-spin on the turn base to final (too slow for the 90° turn) can - despite not leading to a spin - also be potentially dangerous for an ercoupe.
Igor Benson tried a twin (4 blade) rotor system on one of his gyros, yet little was described as of its performance.
H2 autogyro which flew somewhere in Europe 10-15 years ago, which short clips can be found on YTube. Seemed to indicate that the performance of a longer length single rotor set-up (28ft), could be equally matched with a twin rotor length setup of 22-23ft.
Again it seems that tried designs of past are re-emerging, in the current prototypes. Obviously, as they work.
However, the naysayers come out of the woodwork with their 'tin hats' on, claiming it's too radical.
I would dearly like to see the autogyro become more widely accepted and available to the masses, than only for the few that have deep pockets.
But what's the advantage of this twin-rotor system? Doesn't it represent more weight & complexity? Or does shortened rotor length offer other advantages?
Hi Phil can you please tell me which is the other video you mentioned that featured n232pg? I'd like to give it a watch. Thanks!
Hi thats a good question - it has been a while [I made this film around a year ago]. It is likely to refer to one of the webinar's. However all my own clips are from the original pilot posting his own flights on RUclips which I think I refer to this one:- ruclips.net/video/dpfNu1oQ2ow/видео.html [see from around 25m 50sec - it looks as if the aircraft is used commercially for experience flights or as a training aircraft and there are some squirrelly landings which get rough}. Or we could look at this video and question the MAUW given the guy looks +100kgs and with MAUW of 560kgs and empty weight of circa 340kgs mean I think that aircraft is likely very at the limit ruclips.net/video/EEvi_f6AtRk/видео.html
How to find a training center in my area? I'm in central California.
when will be ready the 4 seat ?
Simple is always best
If they can mass produce this at a fraction of cost of standard helicopters, this would be more in demand given that its a 4 seater. The terms here is it should be "low cost."
I disagree. There is no market for it and those who can afford to travel by helicopter won’t care if it is cheaper. Plus they can’t be operated from rooftop helipads. The Nano is close to the right market for gyroplanes now. A little bigger maybe for light sport, but less complex than the outrageous costs of Cavalon. J-3 cub gyro plane maybe. 😁
Frame vibration in video due to engines synchronous direction, engines need to be asynchronous for smooth flight.
Do you have any idea why this twin rotor system isn't used in helicoters?
No - but of course the rotor control is more complex with heli as it requires pitch control
I’m waiting to build one but I don’t know where to find the blades
Hi - you are looking to build a Fusioncopter or a gyroplane?
Для чего нужен двойной ротор?
The FC4 looks like a fine machine. Except two of everything!!!! Twin rotors two engines two prop's!!!! Twice as much maintenance twice as much fuel burn not to mention engine controls & indications it all equates to twice as much money!!!! Oh well........
Wondering why one couldn’t put two small jet turbine engines on instead?
Hi - turbines for forward power instead of props? No they aren't very efficient in the speed window of a gyro. Prop is better.
Great imagination. But it’s so damn complicated and expensive...
The word "Aviation" in Latin translate to "Expensive"
Is this a gryo . What kind of license would be required for this
I guess it may depend on the country, I had one, a simple fixed wing pilots license was required.
If it’s FAA part 103, no license. AC must be 254lbs or less, I believe there is a HP rating also..50hp? hold no more than 5 ga fuel and will not exceed 55 kts at full power and stall at speed in excess of 24 kts in level flight.
It’s been a while since I looked at the reqs and where I am right now I’m unable to verify but I believe that’s pretty close to the reqs, you must verify on your own, this is from memory in 1998.
@@XRakkgruntX thanks ☺️
If you can afford any of these gyrocopters, we'll a jet helicopter like the heli cycle is around 50k. And goes 120. MPH
And only has 1.5 hrs in the air. $50k is just the kit. Add engine, avionics, etc.
I should have done this when I was 16
Its never too late Brian! Get involved before it really is and some virus gets you!
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 - I've no experience with aviation whatsoever, but when I compare the features of gyroplanes to other small aircraft, they really do look appealing. I've watched various videos of other types of small aircraft in turbulence and winds, and they can get really unpleasant - but gyros seem to fare relatively better than the others. But the main problem is affordability, as there don't seem to be any ultralight gyros. The only one I've heard about is Fusioncopter JK-2 Nano, which seems to be bucking the trend. Are there any others? By contrast, look at the various fixed-wing nanolight trikes powered by 2-stroke engines, which have now become available in UK under their deregulated Sub-70 category (there are even multiple electric versions!). Could it not be possible to adapt such nanolight trikes into gyroplanes? Even if they won't qualify for Sub-70 exemptions, they'd still offer benefits on cost and portability. ruclips.net/video/gDMhzMVoKHc/видео.html
I imagine the 4 seater is a pretty smooth flyer. The twin rotors may make it even smoother. Possibly they make use of sympathetic resonance for stability.
One reason people don't like small planes is the effect of turbulence on the lightly loaded wings. Thus may be the competitive advantage a four seater twin engined gyro has.
@Simon Manning - one would hope for smooth flying - but it _looks_ like the Fusioncopter FC4 has an unusual single rotor with two blade sets that rotate in the same direction? This does increase the aero 'solidity' of the rotor system. Without seeing the details it is hard to be sure how it has been done, but it would provide a similar solidity to a normal rotor pair with double the chord - which will reduce the RRPM for a given load, all other things being equal. An unusual design choice.
But it has two engines and four seats, so the AUW will inevitably be higher, so it will need a larger rotor system diameter to avoid a high disk loading, which increases their take-off and landing speeds. Hard to know much more, since there is little information on their website. It looks gorgeous. But it may be that this was the main objective - cannot see that they have an engineering solution to their extra weight problem.
Sympathetic resonance? Stability? How? Be interested to learn that . . .
You are dead right about the effect of turbulence on lightly loaded fixed wing aircraft. The Autogyro blades can (and often are) much more highly loaded than the slower-flying light aircraft - this works because they are flying faster (but in a circle), so slow forward flight and excellent gust penetration are combined to good effect. The late great Ken Wallis reported successful flights when all fixed wing aircraft (including military) were grounded, and trees were leaving the ground.
@@bmull81 I assumed twin rotors to avoid complexity in the need to manage blade advance/retreat management issues. Thinking at the same time that sympathetic resonance effects would keep the blades apart (it might not, or be insufficient). Sympathetic resonance is the tendency for cyclical things with mechanical connection, the common axial in this case, to stay in phase. For example similar pendulum clocks attached to the same wall. The pendulums will stay exactly in phase.
@@bmull81 looking again at the clip the blade clearly have separated rotors and can move freely and independently. I imagine that in flight they will remain at 90 deg to each other due to sympathetic resonance. But its a wild guess really.
@@simonmanning1844 Hi Simon, thanks for the responses! Yes, there are (eg) wheel-balancing products and tools that rely on that resonance. The advancing/retreating blade issue is primarily one of lift equalisation - teetering heads and flapping hinges are the standard variations, with feathering heads being less widely used.
Adding a second free rotor does not influence this action directly.
@@simonmanning1844 Heh! Many a wild guess has worked out for me!
makes me wonder why igor bensems hover gyro never hot popular
I think the future of the autogyro is its efficiency and stable flight characteristics. The only market for large autogyros is governments and militaries, but that is a potentially large market.
Autogyros are also very well suited to air ambulance service in remote areas of the world. Helicopters will always be too expensive for long distances for most governments and hours on rough roads may be both more expensive, less safe, and higher risk for the patient.
what happens if an engine fails
You’re already in autorotation with an auto gyro so just look for somewhere to land.
It suddenly gets quiet, except for a rhythmic, woosh, woosh, woosh sound, and you'll need to land in the next few minutes.
Twin engines? Twice the chance to loose an engine and get in trouble. WTF!
Ima stick to jets 😅 these always look like they shouldn’t be flying 😂
Hahaha a twin gyrocopter, twice as expensive!
Pilotwings anyone? lol
Lets see it hover ?
Whats the point ?
We have airplanes already
4 seats good , 2 engens not so good take more fuel that way
PLEASE ! try to ADD LINKS to these products and more detailed info ! ---- from Canada J.
Hi - I'm not sure the technology that exists in Canada in 2023 but when I was in Vancouver over 5 years ago you had "Google". It is a wonderful thing where you can type in words and it suggests further websites you can visit. So for example you could "google" "Fusioncopter FC4"....
Why does the gyroplane industry insist on eating itself? The gyroplane flying club should be renamed the anti-aviation brigade. You don’t help pilots get safer by standing on the sidelines slinging flaming arrows at their misfortune and (sometimes) death.
Ken I take the point but is that honestly (if you have seen all or even previewed the range of +100 films) see the channel?? There is stuff about history/background/practical flying tips / model reviews / new developments/ cautionary points and accident reviews... what bit is standing on the sidelines slinging arrows??
не видно самого интересного-как попадают 4 человека в этот Fusioncopter FC4).
Судя по конструкции это "гимнастических этюд" с задираеием ног выше головы. А в грязную погоду пассажиры этого "такси" измажутся грязью с ног до головы.
Это хороший момент! Было бы интересно посмотреть, как 4 человека действительно упаковываются в самолет!
@@gyrocopterflyingclub6148 на мой взгляд идеальной кабиной для Автожира на "2+" человека является схема ARGON-915GTL, созданная К.Врановски на базе схемы, придуманной Р. Селье.
Все другие конструкции, которые я видел в интернете, не выдерживают критики. Они похожи на попытку нарисовать "Джоконду", но чтобы баба была другая))...
Reeeaaally BAD naming of the vid!
Get rid of that apartheid add please
? Hi what are you referring to?
autogyros provide no real solutions as it is incapable of performance even remotely resembling VTOL (the last portion of this video demonstrates very clearly)
the short landing is actually a "trap" of sorts: you may get in, but you'll never, ever get out (flying).