Username Protected wrote:
So are some of these opinions based on actual experience, here say or unfounded bias? Here is a video from this weekend taken halfway down the 2500 foot runway at Valle de Bravo - 7342 MSL - 24C. The MTX takes off in less than 200 feet - judge for yourself how much ground effect he had to hover in... it’s all a matter of power to weight ratio. If I were to take off in a Cessna 140 in these conditions I’d have to hug on to ground effect the whole length of the runway.
Furthermore, where is the insurance cost being 10% of hull value come from? As far as the atrocious fuel burn, the MTX burns 5.5 gph and has a 200 nm range or 3 hour endurance. Coming from a 90-120 gph world that is about as inexpensive as it gets for me.
As stated, autogyros are just as fun as STOL but it’s a completely different type of flying.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/t2Qjrv07g6Q[/youtube]
Based on experience and facts. A steep climb after rotation will put many gyros in a situation that is completely dependent on the engine. A great article on gyroplane’s ‘deadman’s curve’ can be found here:
https://magniusa.com/assets/HV_Curve_for_Gyroplanes.pdfAlso, the popular rotorcraft association has been fighting to reduce insurance costs for many years by trying to roll out a co-insurance program. Europe and other countries may have better rates, but insurance has caused many instructors and owners to give up gyros in the US. Here is a piece from PRA in relation to high insurance costs. Hallmark notes premiums between 8-12% of hull value in the article as well
https://pra.org/insGroup.aspx
That would be another indicator of the risk levels of a Gyroplane. For reference, my helicopter premiums are just under 5.5% of hull and that's with 2 passenger seats and $2MM smooth. 3 years ago before the recent hardening of the insurance market it was 1/2 of that.
