Aerocommuting in a homebuilt?

[Jim Harper]

Hello! I originally posted this on rec aviation owning, and think that
I should come to this august group for thoughts:

The original post was:

<Hi. I already have some thoughts on this, and am not a total innocent
in these matters. I am just sort of curious about how this group of
posters would think on my problem.

I work in Montgomery, Alabama. I would like to move to Duluth, GA. The
airport there (LZU) is 15 miles from where I want to live. My job is
around 3 miles from the airport (MGM) in Montgomery. The two airports
are 158nm apart.

I am a 1000 hour private pilot (selg) with a fresh IFR rating. Much of
my time is in gliders, but I am current in high performance.

Figure a budget of around $100K to buy an airplane. I don't need 4
seats, so right now I am toying with the idea of one of the homebuilt
very fast 2 seaters...200mph would make the commute faster. I can
afford the insurance, and understand that I would be burning a fair
amount of fuel...I can afford that too.

Would you consider it? What airplane would YOU choose?

Thanks for your imput. No, I am not a troll...this is a real
question.>

After thoughts and a few responses, I have evolved my position to
something that looks like this (there were several comments on what
would I do if I couldn't fly the commute…addressed here.

<Thanks, Dale...and to those who previously posted and added info. Let
us continue the discussion. Regarding flexibility and
reliability...the trip isn't so outlandish that I couldn't drive from
LZU to MGM in the morning. I'm the Chief (:-) ) and if I'm a half-hour
late or so, no sweat. Coming back to LZU (afternoon Tstorms)...well, I
could keep my apartment in Montgomery, or sleep in my office...and as
far as that goes, I can afford a motel, should that be the best
choice. I have a week off every 5 weeks, and that should help me deal
with scheduled maintenance...and if there is unscheduled...well, see
my weather plans...motel, office...maybe keep my current Apt for a
while.

As far as equipment, how about I throw out this one: Van's
homebuilt...RV series. There are 4 for sale that are IFR certified on
TOP right now, top price is around $84K...down to $50K or so. That is
a pretty honest 180-200MPH airplane, would be an interesting IFR
platform...but they are reputed to be stable and have well balanced
controls. This is, of course, an aluminum airplane. By the way, to my
best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.

My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
(tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
conventional.>

So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
forward to your thoughts! Thanks!

Jim

[C.D. Damron]

I'm looking forward to the replies. My father was looking at doing the same
thing, whenever VFR conditions permitted. His commute was about 100 miles
or so and his office was a couple of blocks from a strip in College Park,
MD.

He left Litton and that plan dried up.

[Rich S.]

"Jim Harper" > wrote in message
om...
> By the way, to my
> best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
> aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
> essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
> other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
> are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.

Jim..........

As I understand the situation, legal IFR requires ONLY the correct
equipment.

My homebuilt's Operating Limitations state:

"Phase II - Operation after flight testing is complete"
"5. Unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in
accordance with FAR 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day
only."

Note: In the word "correct" I am including necessary certification and
maintenance of avionics, instruments, etc. -- Unless somebody wants to
pick nits.

Rich S.

[EDR]

Don't even think about IFR in any high performance airplane without an
operating two-axis autopilot.
Most high performance experimentals are unstable when you release the
controls. Without a working two-axis autopilot, you are not giving
yourself a fighting chance.

[Lyle Cox]

How about a Sting retract from the Czech Republic. 170 mph on 4.5 gph.
Factory-built airplane with delivery in about 3 months after order. Should
cost around $65K USD.


"Jim Harper" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello! I originally posted this on rec aviation owning, and think that
> I should come to this august group for thoughts:
>
> The original post was:
>
> <Hi. I already have some thoughts on this, and am not a total innocent
> in these matters. I am just sort of curious about how this group of
> posters would think on my problem.
>
> I work in Montgomery, Alabama. I would like to move to Duluth, GA. The
> airport there (LZU) is 15 miles from where I want to live. My job is
> around 3 miles from the airport (MGM) in Montgomery. The two airports
> are 158nm apart.
>
> I am a 1000 hour private pilot (selg) with a fresh IFR rating. Much of
> my time is in gliders, but I am current in high performance.
>
> Figure a budget of around $100K to buy an airplane. I don't need 4
> seats, so right now I am toying with the idea of one of the homebuilt
> very fast 2 seaters...200mph would make the commute faster. I can
> afford the insurance, and understand that I would be burning a fair
> amount of fuel...I can afford that too.
>
> Would you consider it? What airplane would YOU choose?
>
> Thanks for your imput. No, I am not a troll...this is a real
> question.>
>
> After thoughts and a few responses, I have evolved my position to
> something that looks like this (there were several comments on what
> would I do if I couldn't fly the commute.addressed here.
>
> <Thanks, Dale...and to those who previously posted and added info. Let
> us continue the discussion. Regarding flexibility and
> reliability...the trip isn't so outlandish that I couldn't drive from
> LZU to MGM in the morning. I'm the Chief (:-) ) and if I'm a half-hour
> late or so, no sweat. Coming back to LZU (afternoon Tstorms)...well, I
> could keep my apartment in Montgomery, or sleep in my office...and as
> far as that goes, I can afford a motel, should that be the best
> choice. I have a week off every 5 weeks, and that should help me deal
> with scheduled maintenance...and if there is unscheduled...well, see
> my weather plans...motel, office...maybe keep my current Apt for a
> while.
>
> As far as equipment, how about I throw out this one: Van's
> homebuilt...RV series. There are 4 for sale that are IFR certified on
> TOP right now, top price is around $84K...down to $50K or so. That is
> a pretty honest 180-200MPH airplane, would be an interesting IFR
> platform...but they are reputed to be stable and have well balanced
> controls. This is, of course, an aluminum airplane. By the way, to my
> best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
> aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
> essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
> other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
> are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.
>
> My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
> flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
> week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
> aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
> A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
> experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
> experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
> (tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
> more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
> conventional.>
>
> So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
> forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
>
> Jim

[Jim Harper]

"Lyle Cox" > wrote in message news:<WvgOa.60032$fG.41694@sccrnsc01>...
> How about a Sting retract from the Czech Republic. 170 mph on 4.5 gph.
> Factory-built airplane with delivery in about 3 months after order. Should
> cost around $65K USD.

Thanks for the comment, Lyle. I am having trouble getting any info on
this machine. Looks like it COULD be pretty terrific, but I do want
IFR capability. Looks like you can equip it that way...but the price
would seem to get up to the $70K range...which would buy a very nicely
equipped, IFR certified RV-6...with more speed and about the same fuel
burn, methinks.

And then, one avoids the whole issue of will it be certified here? If
you know more, let me know, I am interested in any possiblities.

Jim

[Qaz]

I was just dreaming in Trade a Plane. I think the RV would be a great plane,
but you might check a Lancair 320 or 360. Several are equipped IFR, they
have a high wing loading. We have two in our EAA chapter. From the talk they
fly honest, but the laminar flow wing quits flying when it quits flying.

Also, you might take a look a BD-4 if you can find one. It is tube and
fabric and there are not many copies, I understand that it was a fine plane
that was done in by the BD-5 fiasco.

Cheers
Jeff
"Jim Harper" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello! I originally posted this on rec aviation owning, and think that
> I should come to this august group for thoughts:
>
> The original post was:
>
> <Hi. I already have some thoughts on this, and am not a total innocent
> in these matters. I am just sort of curious about how this group of
> posters would think on my problem.
>
> I work in Montgomery, Alabama. I would like to move to Duluth, GA. The
> airport there (LZU) is 15 miles from where I want to live. My job is
> around 3 miles from the airport (MGM) in Montgomery. The two airports
> are 158nm apart.
>
> I am a 1000 hour private pilot (selg) with a fresh IFR rating. Much of
> my time is in gliders, but I am current in high performance.
>
> Figure a budget of around $100K to buy an airplane. I don't need 4
> seats, so right now I am toying with the idea of one of the homebuilt
> very fast 2 seaters...200mph would make the commute faster. I can
> afford the insurance, and understand that I would be burning a fair
> amount of fuel...I can afford that too.
>
> Would you consider it? What airplane would YOU choose?
>
> Thanks for your imput. No, I am not a troll...this is a real
> question.>
>
> After thoughts and a few responses, I have evolved my position to
> something that looks like this (there were several comments on what
> would I do if I couldn't fly the commute.addressed here.
>
> <Thanks, Dale...and to those who previously posted and added info. Let
> us continue the discussion. Regarding flexibility and
> reliability...the trip isn't so outlandish that I couldn't drive from
> LZU to MGM in the morning. I'm the Chief (:-) ) and if I'm a half-hour
> late or so, no sweat. Coming back to LZU (afternoon Tstorms)...well, I
> could keep my apartment in Montgomery, or sleep in my office...and as
> far as that goes, I can afford a motel, should that be the best
> choice. I have a week off every 5 weeks, and that should help me deal
> with scheduled maintenance...and if there is unscheduled...well, see
> my weather plans...motel, office...maybe keep my current Apt for a
> while.
>
> As far as equipment, how about I throw out this one: Van's
> homebuilt...RV series. There are 4 for sale that are IFR certified on
> TOP right now, top price is around $84K...down to $50K or so. That is
> a pretty honest 180-200MPH airplane, would be an interesting IFR
> platform...but they are reputed to be stable and have well balanced
> controls. This is, of course, an aluminum airplane. By the way, to my
> best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
> aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
> essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
> other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
> are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.
>
> My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
> flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
> week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
> aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
> A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
> experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
> experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
> (tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
> more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
> conventional.>
>
> So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
> forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
>
> Jim

[Scott VanderVeen]

>Also, you might take a look a BD-4 if you can find one. It is tube and
> fabric and there are not many copies, I understand that it was a fine
plane
> that was done in by the BD-5 fiasco.
>

Tube and fabric BD-4? Must be a rare one.

By the time you get a wx brief, drive to airport, pre-flight,
un-chock/tiedown, run-up, take off/climb, cruise at 150-170kts, descent,
then make an approach, land, taxi, shut down, tiedown/chock, drive to where
you are going. - You might save 0 - 45 minutes. Over the 3:15 drive.

Don't bother justifying it, just do it and smile or drive and wish.

Scott V.

[Wooduuuward]

Have a look at:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/j.ednie/gyrohtml/marketing.html

Jim Harper wrote:
>
> My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
> flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
> week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
> aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
> A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
> experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
> experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
> (tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
> more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
> conventional.>
>
> So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
> forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
>
> Jim

[Jim Harper]

>
> By the time you get a wx brief, drive to airport, pre-flight,
> un-chock/tiedown, run-up, take off/climb, cruise at 150-170kts, descent,
> then make an approach, land, taxi, shut down, tiedown/chock, drive to where
> you are going. - You might save 0 - 45 minutes. Over the 3:15 drive.
>
> Don't bother justifying it, just do it and smile or drive and wish.
>
> Scott V.

I am SO busted. Yep, I did the math too, and agree. I WOULD point out
that flying would be so much more restful/fun. I would also avoid
cross Atlanta traffic...which would NOT be a minor point.

I am working on going with doing it and smiling!

Jim

[Jim Harper]

Wooduuuward > wrote in message >...
> Have a look at:
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/j.ednie/gyrohtml/marketing.html

Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.

Jim

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward > wrote:
>> Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.
>
>Why annoying? could you elaborate?

On
my
browser
(IE
5.5)
all
the
text
is
displayed
vertically
like
this.

It
does
make
it
hard
to
follow
the
point
the
page
author
is
trying
to
make.

I
turned
my
monitor
ninety
degrees,
but
it
didn't
help
:
-
)
..

Ron
Wanttaja

[Wooduuuward]

I used to have that problem with IE 4.5 on a Mac,
then I switched to Netscape and it went away.
I use 5.5 IE on a Mac and don't see that happen anymore.
interesting, browser problem.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward > wrote:
> >> Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.
> >
> >Why annoying? could you elaborate?
>
> On
> my
> browser
> (IE
> 5.5)
> all
> the
> text
> is
> displayed
> vertically
> like
> this.
>
> It
> does
> make
> it
> hard
> to
> follow
> the
> point
> the
> page
> author
> is
> trying
> to
> make.
>
> I
> turned
> my
> monitor
> ninety
> degrees,
> but
> it
> didn't
> help
> :
> -
> )
> .
>
> Ron
> Wanttaja

[RobertR237]

In article >, Richard Riley
> writes:

>
>In homebuilts, I'd look at the Glassair Super 2S, the Express, the
>Velocity and (if you can find one at that price) the Swearengen SX300
>
>

The Express would be an outstanding choice for an IFR platform. The Velocity
would be OK too. The SX300 and Glassair would not be on my list. The KIS
(Pulsar) Super Cruiser is also a good choice with just below 200 mph cruise
(more possible with right engine prop combination). The Lancair ES would be at
the high end price wise but would be one of the best.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Wooduuuward]

Landing. One of a gyroplanes pluses is it's ability to land and only
roll about twenty feet or less. Which to me is an important consideration
if you're wanting to use it to commute. True, top speed is 110 -120 mph.
but it can take wind gusts up to 30 knots without problems while in the air.


Richard Riley wrote:
>
> Since he doesn't list STOL as a requirement, and he wants to do 200
> mph in IFR, why would you think a gyro is a reasonable choice?
>
> Netscape does get rid of the single col layout. Instead it displays
> in tiny tiny tiny fonts and links the same color as the background.
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:45:36 -0400, Wooduuuward >
> wrote:
>
> :Have a look at:
> :http://www3.sympatico.ca/j.ednie/gyrohtml/marketing.html
> :
> :Jim Harper wrote:
> :>
> :> My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
> :> flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
> :> week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
> :> aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
> :> A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
> :> experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
> :> experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
> :> (tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
> :> more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
> :> conventional.>
> :>
> :> So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
> :> forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
> :>
> :> Jim

[Wooduuuward]

I would think you would have more than
a common browser. But yes, very well said. two thumbs up.

Peter Dohm wrote:
>
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> > Wooduuuward > wrote:
> >
> > >I used to have that problem with IE 4.5 on a Mac,
> > >then I switched to Netscape and it went away.
> > >I use 5.5 IE on a Mac and don't see that happen anymore.
> > >interesting, browser problem.
> >
> > If it displays poorly on a very common browser, it's NOT a "browser
> > problem", it's a poorly designed page.
> >
> > Mark Hickey
> >
>
> Well said!
>
> Peter
>
> > >Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:39:46 -0400, Wooduuuward > wrote:
> > >> >> Please don't take this as a slam, but what an annoying webpage.
> > >> >
> > >> >Why annoying? could you elaborate?
> > >>
> > >> On
> > >> my
> > >> browser
> > >> (IE
> > >> 5.5)
> > >> all
> > >> the
> > >> text
> > >> is
> > >> displayed
> > >> vertically
> > >> like
> > >> this.
> > >>
> > >> It
> > >> does
> > >> make
> > >> it
> > >> hard
> > >> to
> > >> follow
> > >> the
> > >> point
> > >> the
> > >> page
> > >> author
> > >> is
> > >> trying
> > >> to
> > >> make.
> > >>
> > >> I
> > >> turned
> > >> my
> > >> monitor
> > >> ninety
> > >> degrees,
> > >> but
> > >> it
> > >> didn't
> > >> help
> > >> :
> > >> -
> > >> )
> > >> .
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >> Wanttaja

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>In homebuilts, I'd look at the Glassair Super 2S, the Express, the
>>Velocity and (if you can find one at that price) the Swearengen SX300
>>
>>
>
>The Express would be an outstanding choice for an IFR platform. The Velocity
>would be OK too. The SX300 and Glassair would not be on my list. The KIS
>(Pulsar) Super Cruiser is also a good choice with just below 200 mph cruise
>(more possible with right engine prop combination). The Lancair ES would be at
>the high end price wise but would be one of the best.
>
>
>Bob Reed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A real nice SX300 can be had for $200,000 or so. Dunno about
it as a choice IFR platform, but I know two owners that I can ask
if anyone has that kind of serious money for shaving 20 minutes
off a daily drive to work.


Barnyard BOb

[Qaz]

BD 4 is not tube and fabric? Must be thinking of the Tailwind..Oh well.

Cheers
Qaz
"Scott VanderVeen" > wrote in message
news:j_oOa.1355$Ph3.739@sccrnsc04...
> >Also, you might take a look a BD-4 if you can find one. It is tube and
> > fabric and there are not many copies, I understand that it was a fine
> plane
> > that was done in by the BD-5 fiasco.
> >
>
> Tube and fabric BD-4? Must be a rare one.
>
> By the time you get a wx brief, drive to airport, pre-flight,
> un-chock/tiedown, run-up, take off/climb, cruise at 150-170kts, descent,
> then make an approach, land, taxi, shut down, tiedown/chock, drive to
where
> you are going. - You might save 0 - 45 minutes. Over the 3:15 drive.
>
> Don't bother justifying it, just do it and smile or drive and wish.
>
> Scott V.
>
>

[Big John]

Jim

Have you considered a Mooney? 150 plus (probably 170 plus solo). Wing
leveler to help in IFR. Standard bird that can be repaired by any A &
E. Not bad MPG. In your price range. 4 seat if you need them. Can be
certified IFR. Good residual resale value.

Sold mine (Mark 20C) to a computer type in Seattle. He ran my engine
out and put a zero time engine in and ran it out and sold with about
500 hours on the third 2000 TBO engine to a software type who lived
north of San Fran and commuted to San Jose to work.

Look before you buy <G>

Big John
Point of the sword



On 6 Jul 2003 19:09:17 -0700, (Jim Harper) wrote:

>Hello! I originally posted this on rec aviation owning, and think that
>I should come to this august group for thoughts:
>
>The original post was:
>
><Hi. I already have some thoughts on this, and am not a total innocent
>in these matters. I am just sort of curious about how this group of
>posters would think on my problem.
>
>I work in Montgomery, Alabama. I would like to move to Duluth, GA. The
>airport there (LZU) is 15 miles from where I want to live. My job is
>around 3 miles from the airport (MGM) in Montgomery. The two airports
>are 158nm apart.
>
>I am a 1000 hour private pilot (selg) with a fresh IFR rating. Much of
>my time is in gliders, but I am current in high performance.
>
>Figure a budget of around $100K to buy an airplane. I don't need 4
>seats, so right now I am toying with the idea of one of the homebuilt
>very fast 2 seaters...200mph would make the commute faster. I can
>afford the insurance, and understand that I would be burning a fair
>amount of fuel...I can afford that too.
>
>Would you consider it? What airplane would YOU choose?
>
>Thanks for your imput. No, I am not a troll...this is a real
>question.>
>
>After thoughts and a few responses, I have evolved my position to
>something that looks like this (there were several comments on what
>would I do if I couldn't fly the commute…addressed here.
>
><Thanks, Dale...and to those who previously posted and added info. Let
>us continue the discussion. Regarding flexibility and
>reliability...the trip isn't so outlandish that I couldn't drive from
>LZU to MGM in the morning. I'm the Chief (:-) ) and if I'm a half-hour
>late or so, no sweat. Coming back to LZU (afternoon Tstorms)...well, I
>could keep my apartment in Montgomery, or sleep in my office...and as
>far as that goes, I can afford a motel, should that be the best
>choice. I have a week off every 5 weeks, and that should help me deal
>with scheduled maintenance...and if there is unscheduled...well, see
>my weather plans...motel, office...maybe keep my current Apt for a
>while.
>
>As far as equipment, how about I throw out this one: Van's
>homebuilt...RV series. There are 4 for sale that are IFR certified on
>TOP right now, top price is around $84K...down to $50K or so. That is
>a pretty honest 180-200MPH airplane, would be an interesting IFR
>platform...but they are reputed to be stable and have well balanced
>controls. This is, of course, an aluminum airplane. By the way, to my
>best understanding, getting the FSDO to change an experimental
>aircraft's certification from VFR only to IFR and VFR requires,
>essentially, the correct equipment AND convincing information that any
>other example has received the certification, so the fact that there
>are 4 implies that any COULD be modified as necessary.
>
>My mission will be me...or me and my lady, with minimal baggage,
>flying either the commute or other longer-legged vacation trips (see 1
>week in 5 off). I already own a homebuilt glider (HP-16 (also
>aluminum)) and am delighted with it. I'm in a glider club with several
>A&P friends and a AI as well, so I have resources available, and am
>experienced with the care and feeding of a homebuilt. I have extensive
>experience with taildraggers, so I don't need the -a version
>(tricycle), and anyway, a brief perusal of the NTSB data base shows
>more landing accidents with the tri-geared version than the
>conventional.>
>
>So, what do y'all think? Assuming you want to comment. I am looking
>forward to your thoughts! Thanks!
>
>Jim

[Wooduuuward]

Yes, I do think landing a gyro is easier / safer than landing a fixed wing.
That's how the whole idea for it originated.
I continue to read the crash reports for all aircraft on the faa website.
A gyro is lifted off the ground by a wing, one that spins (rotorblade). Because
it spins upwards of 200 rpm, wind gusts do little to it's stability in flight.
Gyroplanes can be slowed in flight to 20 mph, ground speed (or less if put into the wind)
The stored inertia in the rotor can be used to advantage, for doing a
'jump take off'.


AL Mills wrote:
>
> So, do you think landing a gyro is easier / safer than landing a fixed wing?
> What about the stored energy or inertia in the rotor system??