I notice that lots of people want STOL aircraft. Youtube is filled with backcountry fliers in Avids and Kitfoxes and Draco. But almost no one flies a gyrocopter. It seems perfect made for the mission.

So, why no gyrocopters? And is it really that they are just less cool?

Randy,

I think they are cool but I question the safety aspect. One of my friends here has just under 30,000 hour of helicopter time and in his retirement is one of the few gyroplane instructors in Canada. From talking to him, he has had as more forced landing in his (relatively) small amount of gyroplane hours as he did in helicopters.

Glenn

Are you able to tell us more?

Not really my stories to tell but I think lot of them have to do with the non-certified/experimental nature of most (all?) of the current gyroplanes.

Same engine, reduction drive, fuel distribution etc. problems as you might encounter with home-built airplanes but with added complexity putting them in a class closer to home-built helicopters.

It seems they would do ok to land, but they still need to take a run at takeoff and much of the backcountry ops are at high density altitude, on rough ground, and carrying a load. None of these issues play well with lightly built, low powered gyros. And as others have suggested, the build quality and strength is not likely comparable to (for example) a Super Cub, Husky, or Scout. Also, rotor wing aircraft have different (more restrictive) rules than fixed wing aircraft when it comes to landing on public land.

What? Why?? Why would a gyro opted be more legally restricted than a cub (or Anatov AN-2, just to paint a mental picture)?

My brother has a German made MTOsport Gyroplane and it performs quite well in and out of high density strips (7-8K feet MSL) - it takes off and lands on a dime. The MTO is all carbon fiber and fairly robust - you can also get the Cavalon with a fully enclosed cabin - https://www.auto-gyro.com/en/Gyroplane/AutoGyro-Models/. I would not call these poorly built, unreliable or flimsy aircraft.

I've flown a Carbon Cub in and out of the Valle de Bravo field in the picture (7348' MSL - 2,592 strip) and it also does well. Both are good back country aircraft. It's just a matter of preference - it's a completely different type of flying.

Gyros can typically get off the ground pretty quickly, but need to accelerate in ground effect before climbing to have enough energy to land in the event of an engine out. It’s hard to match the landing distance in about any other aircraft. Insurance in a gyro makes rising insurance threads here look silly. Expect insurance in an Autogyro or Magni to be around 10% of hull value a year

Gyro's definitely have some gotcha's where your fixed wing habits and intuitions will lead you astray.

In a fixed wing, your instinct is to unload the wing when you stall or turn too tightly or anything goes wrong. You can re-load the ring instantly if you overcorrect or made a mistake. In a gyro, unloading the rotor can put you in a bad situation where it's hard to spin up again and get your lift back. And maybe you strike the rotor on the tail.

So insurance is expensive and not that many CFI's to train you. It's a bad idea to take your fixed wing instincts and train yourself. So... it remains a very small niche market.

I'm sure all the bad habits and any robustness issues could be engineered out with enough time and money. Just remember the pre-WWII fixed wing airplanes that had horrible safety records before airfoils were designed to be docile and easy to fly.

In the meantime, I look at gyro's like the weight-shift Trikes.... my fixed gear habits are trouble (in a trike you push forward with your hands to go UP, pull down to go DOWN) and it's not worth it.

That's not a bad analogy.

Autorotative flight is "different." Not good or bad, just different- different from how airplanes fly and different from how gliders glide. Most helicopter flight can be described as either powered flight or unpowered (autorotative) flight. Then gyrocopters have autorotative flight but with the distinction of a propeller usually providing forward thrust, which introduces some key differences compared to flying a helicopter in autorotation- conceptually as well as what your hands and feet need to do with the controls and what they should never do.

It's all really neat stuff, and if you can get over the atrocious fuel burn then it opens up a new world of flying, but to jump in without good instruction is asking for trouble.

It's on my bucket list...

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]

Here's mine. Crazy fun and very solidly built.

My rule of thumb when thinking about a gyro is that it takes about twice as much power to do the same thing that an airplane does. Conversely, if you have 2 ships with Rotax 912, like a Cavalon and RANS S-7, the RANS will carry twice as much on the same power. This comes in play when you start loading camping gear. Another corollary to this is, there's simply no gyro that is large enough to compete with a SuperCub (although helicopters that big exist, obviously).

Not sure where that "rule of thumb" comes from, but I could not disagree with you more when it comes to the "light aircraft" end of the spectrum... Comparing the Cavalon to the RANS S-7, I see that published takeoff distance is 30m (94 ft) for the Cavalon, versus 325 ft for the S-7. Cruise speed is 100 mph for the Cavalon, versus 110 mph for the S-7, about a 10% advantage for the S-7. Same power = similar performance.

As for the "carry twice as much on the same power" statement... Again, based on the published specifications for the Cavalon and S-7 on their respective web sites, the useful load on the Cavalon would be 561 lbs, versus 588 lbs for the S-7. That's a slight edge for the fixed-wing. Both carry the same amount of fuel: 26 gallons.

Given that both aircraft use the same Rotax 912ULS engine, they would burn fuel at the same hourly rate, giving the S-7 an advantage in range (because of the 10 mph faster cruise speed), but nothing truly dramatic. Frankly, both can easily cruise for 3+ hours with an hour of reserve fuel, which is as long as most of us care to fly on a single bladder load...

I think your best argument is the "room for camping gear"... Baggage capacity in the Cavalon is 44 lbs, versus 50 lbs for the S-7. Six pounds doesn't sound like a lot of difference, but the baggage compartment of the S-7 is substantially larger, and will accommodate bulky items that would never fit in the "pair-of-backpacks" sized area behind the seats of the Cavalon.

But I would argue that the limited Cavalon baggage space is a design decision based on the typical usage in Europe, rather than a design limitation imposed by gyroplanes themselves. I've seen belly pods for gyros that offer a lot of "cubic space" that remains within the CG envelope. I've also seen other gyros with substantially larger baggage areas than the Cavalon. With one of those, a gyroplane might easily exceed the baggage capacity of most LSA fixed-wings. (Notable exceptions would be the Jabiru LSAs that are derived from 4-place models certified in Australia. Those Jabirus have arguably the largest luggage capability of ANY 2-seat airplanes!)

Are they the only folks making a gyro with side by side seating? Here's an article I found.

https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/flig ... -1-4808115

They mention a cruise speed of 70knots with the turbo 914 engine.