UFO HeliThruster and IFR?

[virtuPIC[_2_]]

Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.

However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but also
(FAA-?) certified planes.

If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the necessary
instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be allowed to fly it
IFR given that I had the necessary pilot certificates? Would I be
allowed to fly it outside US?

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying!
http://www.airspace-v.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

virtuPIC wrote:
> Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
> regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.
>
> However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
> that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but
> also (FAA-?) certified planes.
>
> If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the
> necessary instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be
> allowed to fly it IFR given that I had the necessary pilot
> certificates? Would I be allowed to fly it outside US?
>
> Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
> virtuPIC

With the certified probably not. With the EX-AB sure, if you can get the DAR
to write the limitations correctly.

If you do this let us know. We are always looking for a deal on good used
avionics and salvage is usually a pretty good place to look.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> virtuPIC wrote:
>> Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
>> regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.
>>
>> However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
>> that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but
>> also (FAA-?) certified planes.
>>
>> If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the
>> necessary instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be
>> allowed to fly it IFR given that I had the necessary pilot
>> certificates? Would I be allowed to fly it outside US?
>>
>> Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
>> virtuPIC
>
> With the certified probably not. With the EX-AB sure, if you can get
> the DAR to write the limitations correctly.
>
> If you do this let us know. We are always looking for a deal on good
> used avionics and salvage is usually a pretty good place to look.

I did a little looking and there doesn't seem to be an FAA certified version
and for that matter I couldn't find any of them flying in the US.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:21:13 +0200, virtuPIC >
wrote in >:

>UFO HeliThruster

Apparently this auto-gyro is incapable of recovering from negative G
forces. It is unclear what method is used to prevent encountering
meteorologically generated negative G force in the case of turbulence
for instance.


http://www.ufo-helithruster.com/safety_ufo_helithruster_gyrocopter.html
First PPO "Power Push Over", by far the most dangerous of the
three scenarios discussed here. What happens here is the gyro is
deliberately forced nose down creating "Negative G". Negative G is
almost always non recoverable. Gyros are NOT designed to do this
maneuver. PPO is a flight maneuver (deliberate) at the top of a
climb or a nose-down dive from level flight.

Further, an “innocent” POWER ON can bring about PPO! Innocent in
that it should be a safe thing to do, that is, putting power on.
If the design of the gyro has some fundamentals wrong with it, or
a combination of them; high profile C of G, poor stability,
insufficient tail profile, then when power is applied vigorously
the propeller in such a craft can push the "top" of the Gyro
forward while the "bottom" lags (drags) behind, thus inducing PPO.
Technically what has happened in PPO is that the ROTOR has (in
effect) been uncoupled from the aircraft. Therefore, if you unload
the rotor (by making a zero-g maneuver) the rotor drag almost
vanishes and the thrust of the engine will make the aircraft
nose-down.

Power Push Over are done by people who are stupid, maybe to
impress a crowd they will dive at high speed, pull out at the
bottom which loads up the G forces (the rotor revs will
automatically increase), they do a spectacular zoom upwards and
when they reach the position when they stop climbing, we are in
zero-g, for a second there is no incoming air to turn the blades,
even worse the airflow is reversed, and this has a dramatic effect
on stopping rotor revs. With decreased rotor revs a pilot pushes
the stick forward, but it is too late; it is impossible to recover
lost revs.

This sounds scary stuff and it is. We hope you aren't stupid
enough to see if PPO is unrecoverable. But let's put this in
perspective, when you fly an airplane you know you can't land it
up side down, so you don't do it; with gyros you can't fly in
zero-g so you don't do it.

[Jim Stewart]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> virtuPIC wrote:
>> Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
>> regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.
>>
>> However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
>> that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but
>> also (FAA-?) certified planes.
>>
>> If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the
>> necessary instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be
>> allowed to fly it IFR given that I had the necessary pilot
>> certificates? Would I be allowed to fly it outside US?
>>
>> Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
>> virtuPIC
>
> With the certified probably not. With the EX-AB sure, if you can get the DAR
> to write the limitations correctly.
>
> If you do this let us know. We are always looking for a deal on good used
> avionics and salvage is usually a pretty good place to look.

LOL. I was wondering how you'd bring
it all together in the end...

[Jim Stewart]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> virtuPIC wrote:
>>> Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
>>> regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.
>>>
>>> However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
>>> that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but
>>> also (FAA-?) certified planes.
>>>
>>> If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the
>>> necessary instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be
>>> allowed to fly it IFR given that I had the necessary pilot
>>> certificates? Would I be allowed to fly it outside US?
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
>>> virtuPIC
>>
>> With the certified probably not. With the EX-AB sure, if you can get
>> the DAR to write the limitations correctly.
>>
>> If you do this let us know. We are always looking for a deal on good
>> used avionics and salvage is usually a pretty good place to look.
>
> LOL. I was wondering how you'd bring
> it all together in the end...

You might also want to ask yourself why
so many of the pictures show pilots wearing
helmets....

[virtuPIC]

> You might also want to ask yourself why
> so many of the pictures show pilots wearing
> helmets....

Yes, indeed. I've been wondering a long time...UFO claims they are
safe. And I can't imagine an accident where a helmet would be of real
use. Is it just my lack of fantasy? Lack of knowledge?

Well, since there seems to be no FAA-certified HeliThruster answers
have become less interesting. However, there might be some gyrocopter
with closed cabin that is easy to handle, stable, able to reach some
100 mph, and IFR-capable. (?)

virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying!
http://www.airspace-v.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

virtuPIC wrote:
>> You might also want to ask yourself why
>> so many of the pictures show pilots wearing
>> helmets....
>
> Yes, indeed. I've been wondering a long time...UFO claims they are
> safe. And I can't imagine an accident where a helmet would be of real
> use. Is it just my lack of fantasy? Lack of knowledge?
>
> Well, since there seems to be no FAA-certified HeliThruster answers
> have become less interesting. However, there might be some gyrocopter
> with closed cabin that is easy to handle, stable, able to reach some
> 100 mph, and IFR-capable. (?)
>
> virtuPIC

I don't think you will find any gyrocopter that is suitable for IFR flight.
It just isn't the nature of the beast.

[Jim Stewart]

Steve R wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> virtuPIC wrote:
>>>> You might also want to ask yourself why
>>>> so many of the pictures show pilots wearing
>>>> helmets....
>>> Yes, indeed. I've been wondering a long time...UFO claims they are
>>> safe. And I can't imagine an accident where a helmet would be of real
>>> use. Is it just my lack of fantasy? Lack of knowledge?
>>>
>>> Well, since there seems to be no FAA-certified HeliThruster answers
>>> have become less interesting. However, there might be some gyrocopter
>>> with closed cabin that is easy to handle, stable, able to reach some
>>> 100 mph, and IFR-capable. (?)
>>>
>>> virtuPIC
>> I don't think you will find any gyrocopter that is suitable for IFR
>> flight. It just isn't the nature of the beast.
>
> On the helmet issue, fighter pilots wear helmets and in the event of a crash
> in those birds, the helmet is useless. Of course, they have the recourse of
> ejecting and the helmet plays a big role in protecting the pilot in that
> event. Wearing a helmet does not guarrantee survival but it can tip the
> scales in the pilots favor under the right circumstances and we never really
> know what those circumstances might be in a given emergency situation. So,
> I have to ask, what's your life worth to you? If a helmet will increase my
> chances of living through a given situation by a couple of percentage
> points, I don't have a problem wearing one!

Indeed, I have no problem with you wearing one.

OTOH, since I've never seen a pilot in a
standard certificated fixed-wing aircraft
wearing a helmet, I must assume that the
helmeted gyrocopter pilots are feeling a
greater degree of risk than the fixed-wing
pilots.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steve R wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't think you will find any gyrocopter that is suitable for IFR
>> flight. It just isn't the nature of the beast.
>
>
> As far as gyrocopters are concern, I agree, they're not an ideal IFR
> platform. However, neither are helicopters when you get right down
> to it but they fly IFR all the time. Making an aircraft IFR
> certified, at least as I understand it, is more a matter of installed
> equipment (gauges, radios, auto pilots?) than the aircraft itself.

The issues that Gyros have with negative G's make them less IFR capable than
a similar helicopter or fixed wing aircraft. Has any manufactuer EVER
certified an Gyro for IFR flight?

In in most cases, in the experimental-HB arena the only difference in a IFR
legal plane and a one that isn't legal is the installed equipment.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

I came across an abandoned autogyro in the Oklahoma panhandle in a farmer's
field alongside his other abandoned trucks and tractors. It was a two-place
tandem fully enclosed fiberglass cockpit with what I believe was a 260 HP
engine. I think it was built by Aerospace Industries if I remember right,
and it carried an N-number registration. I'm pretty sure it would cruise
above 100 mph because it had a pretty small rotor diameter.

I used to regret I didn't try to talk the guy into letting me haul it out of
his field for him ;-)

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:46:35 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>The issues that Gyros have with negative G's make them less IFR capable than
>a similar helicopter or fixed wing aircraft.

Is this claim a Mollerism?

http://www.cartercopters.com/
I have heard that two-bladed, teetering rotor systems have a
reputation for something called "mast bumping" in low-g flight.
What is mast bumping, and why is the CarterCopter not susceptible
to this problem?

Mast bumping is caused in helicopters by a lack of control of the
aircraft due to the rotor not producing much lift or negative
lift. During a zero-g maneuver, when the rotor is unloaded, it
does not create any lift force, so it does not have any force to
apply to the helicopter to control it. In this situation, if the
pilot moves the cyclic to try and control the aircraft, the rotor
will still tilt, but since it is producing no net lift, it will
not have a reaction on the rest of the aircraft. If the pilot
inputs more control because he does not feel the aircraft
responding, he makes the rotor tilt even more, until it hits the
mast. The tail rotor can aggravate this problem. Because it is
still producing a force, it pushes the aircraft to the side, and
if it's not directly on the centerline, causes the aircraft to
roll as well. The pilot feeling this movement will try to counter
it with the stick, causing the problem outlined above, with the
tail rotor pushing the fuselage in the opposite direction of the
rotor.

In the CarterCopter, because of the dual control system (airplane
as well as autogyro), the pilot always has control of the
aircraft, as long as he has sufficient airspeed. During a zero-g
maneuver, with the rotor unloaded and producing no lift, the
elevators and ailerons are still effective. When the pilot moves
the stick, the ailerons or elevator will control the fuselage,
keeping it in approximately the same relative position compared to
the rotor, so mast bumping is not a problem.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" <> wrote

> OTOH, since I've never seen a pilot in a
> standard certificated fixed-wing aircraft
> wearing a helmet, I must assume that the
> helmeted gyrocopter pilots are feeling a
> greater degree of risk than the fixed-wing
> pilots.

My take is that in the case of an engine failure, the gyro driver has the
"autorotate" maneuver as his emergency landing option. The chance of a
survivable but hard landing is a real possibility. A helmet would possibly
help that hard landing be survivable.

On the other hand, a fixed wing emergency landing is likely to be relatively
smooth, (no helmet needed) or so hard that a helmet would not likely help
much.

That's my guess, anyway.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Steve R" wrote


> Don't assume that the gyro is automatically going to be a hard landing and
> the airplane is automatically going to be a smooth one. It's just not
> that simple.

I take from the tone that you are an autogyro guy. :-)

I know and understand how an autogyro handles an engine failure. It is a
smooth landing, and slow, _if_ the pilot does everything right, and if
sufficient altitude and forward speed exist at the time of the failure.

If the pilot misjudges the flare, bump. If the engine craps at a low
altitude, and there is not enough time to trade altitude for airspeed and
rotor speed, bump. Helmets help bumps.

If a fixed wing has good altitude and speed, he has a chance to get a smooth
landing, if there is suitable room for a landing. No need for helmet,
perhaps. Not enough room, probably, a helmet won't help.

If there is not sufficient altitude and airspeed, and there could be a
stall-spin, also, there will probably be little left that a helmet could
help.

If anything, I'm coming down on the side of a gyro accident being (possibly)
more survivable, and a helmet would definitely help, when it comes right
down to the last seconds.

Lastly, I know these are all probably's. No solid rule holds for everything
in life.

It just my gut feeling that a helmet is likely to do you more good in an
autogyro than a fixed wing. Not in an enclosed cockpit fixed wing?
Probably going to want a helmet, for one of those, too. That also reminds
me of another reason so many autogyro drivers wear helmets. The majority of
autogyros probably are open cockpit, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
...
>I think it was built by Aerospace Industries if I remember right, and it
>carried an N-number registration. I'm pretty sure it would cruise above 100 mph
>because it had a pretty small rotor diameter.

Probably this:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5249/a18a.htm

Vaughn

[Vaughn Simon]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5249/a18a.htm

Another certified autogyro, the McCulloch J-2:
http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001904.jpg

Vaughn

[karl gruber[_1_]]

> I have heard that two-bladed, teetering rotor systems have a
> reputation for something called "mast bumping" in low-g flight.
> What is mast bumping, and why is the CarterCopter not susceptible
> to this problem?

It really isn't "mast bumping." It is "mast bump." It only happens once,
destroys the helicopter and you with it.

Karl
Helicopter mode

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Vaughn,

everyone and their brother must have hit that geocities URL because it
is now "down" due to exceeding its bandwidth.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I think it was built by Aerospace Industries if I remember right, and it
>>carried an N-number registration. I'm pretty sure it would cruise above
>>100 mph because it had a pretty small rotor diameter.
>
> Probably this:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5249/a18a.htm
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
et...
> Vaughn,
>
> everyone and their brother must have hit that geocities URL because it is
> now "down" due to exceeding its bandwidth.

I just got it OK, but that probably locked it out for a while. Anyhow, just
Google "Air & Space 18A" and there are probably other sites out there. In fact,
here is a good picture of one in flight:
http://www.thejumpingfrog.com/si/1208795.html

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:09:00 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5249/a18a.htm
>
> Another certified autogyro, the McCulloch J-2:
>http://dayton.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001904.jpg
>
> Vaughn
>

And, of course, there is this early autogiro:

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/earhart-Autogiro.htm
Pitcairn PCA-2 Autogiro
Amelia Earhart’s second Autogiro crash is known from a single
source, a letter39 to author Susan Butler from Helen Collins
MacElwee, sister of Amelia’s New York, Philadelphia and Washington
Airway Corporation (NYPWA) colleague Paul Collins. Paul Collins
and his sister Helen witnessed the second accident. After a
"rather erratic" Autogiro flight she made after taking off from
the airfield in Camden, New Jersey, she "finally landed on a
fence. Amelia stepped out frustrated and furious, and announced,
"I’ll never get in one of those machines again. I couldn’t handle
it at all." Earhart’s third accident in an Autogiro occurred
during her subsequent Beech-Nut tour while at the Michigan State
Fair in Detroit, Michigan on September 12, 1931. Attempting a slow
landing in front of the grandstand, she failed to level off in
time and dropped twenty feet to the ground. She wrote her mother:
"My giro spill was a freak accident. The landing gear gave way
from a defect and I ground-looped only. The rotors were smashed as
usual with giros, but there wasn’t even a jar."


Photographs of ten gyrocopters here:
http://www.gyrosaway.com/MoreAbout.htm


The Magni Gyro M-16 is in current production in Italy, and available
for purchase in the US: http://www.magnigyro.com/
Photographs:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Magni+M-16&distinct_entry=true

[Maxwell]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I think it was built by Aerospace Industries if I remember right, and it
>>carried an N-number registration. I'm pretty sure it would cruise above
>>100 mph because it had a pretty small rotor diameter.
>
> Probably this:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5249/a18a.htm
>

I saw one of these at the Hill Top Fly-In. Prettty neat. I think it sold
while it was there.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

As a past gyro pilot from the days when instruction simply wasn't possible
and a licensed "Stuck Wing" pilot as well as helo rated, I chose to wear a
helmet. I only needed it in the gyro to attenuate the noisy engine. I
never wore a helmet in the "Stuck Wing" simply because I didn't have one.
However when we encountered the rotor off the Sierra wave one day I could
have used the helmet to keep my head from beating on the canopy of a T-34.
I chose to wear the helmet in a helicopter because in a crash and even with
zero forward speed, the blades can contact something outside and start
flinging shrapnel about. Also the chief instructor of the test pilot school
has said he doesn't feel too safe in a helicopter where the pilot is not
helmeted. His example was a bird came thru the windscreen and the helmet
with visor saved the pilot from serious injury and the passengers from a
sh--ty ride with an unconscious pilot. Also a widely experienced bush pilot
of my acquaintenance requires his pilots working for him in the " Stuck
Wings" to wear helmet, Nomex suits and gloves. This highly experienced
pilot has a bunch of stories that supply good reasons for insisting on these
safety items.
"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>> virtuPIC wrote:
>>>> Yes, I confess. I don't know much about rotorcrafts. Especially
>>>> regarding gyrocopters my knowledge is even more limited.
>>>>
>>>> However, on the net I just stumbled over UFO HeliThruster. Rumors are
>>>> that it is rather stable. The manufacturer not only sells kits but
>>>> also (FAA-?) certified planes.
>>>>
>>>> If I would buy such a certified HeliThruster, fit it with the
>>>> necessary instruments, and give it an N-registration, would I be
>>>> allowed to fly it IFR given that I had the necessary pilot
>>>> certificates? Would I be allowed to fly it outside US?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
>>>> virtuPIC
>>>
>>> With the certified probably not. With the EX-AB sure, if you can get the
>>> DAR to write the limitations correctly.
>>>
>>> If you do this let us know. We are always looking for a deal on good
>>> used avionics and salvage is usually a pretty good place to look.
>>
>> LOL. I was wondering how you'd bring
>> it all together in the end...
>
> You might also want to ask yourself why
> so many of the pictures show pilots wearing
> helmets....
>
>