Autogiro as PAV?

[Dale Harris]

Why hasn't the AutoGiro ever taken off as a PAV (personal aerial vehicle)?
It has nearly VTOL capabillities which are crucial for any serious PAV IMHO.
Maybe one with computer controlled fly-by-wire (which would make it safe to
fly for relative novices ) could help kickstart the market, although cost
would be a problem as well as liabillity.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Szalay]

"Dale Harris" > wrote in
:

> Why hasn't the AutoGiro ever taken off as a PAV (personal aerial
> vehicle)? although cost would be a problem as well as
> liabillity.
>
>

IMHO: those two issues are the main reason, along with the restrictions
imposed by local govt.

We used to have a couple of them that flew out of an rural area near
the river, the farmers complained about the noise, as did the few
homeowners in the area, As the neighberhood grew, the county
govt types enacted noise ordinances and got support from the FAA
the result they were banned from the area, along with a local
"Private" airstrip with its resident dozen GA planes.

Hell, the complainers are still trying to close down the main
GA airport here, and its been in existance since the 1920's
when all the area was rural..
Damn fools knew there was an airport there when they bought or built
their houses..

[virtuPIC]

Even worse, what about IFR? I've got no personal experience with
autogyros but I've been told of good chances of fatal mast bump in low-
G-conditions which you might encounter in turbulence.

virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying!
http://www.airspace-v.com/ggadgets for tools & toys

[Dale Harris]

"John Szalay" > schreef in bericht
42...
> "Dale Harris" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Why hasn't the AutoGiro ever taken off as a PAV (personal aerial
>> vehicle)? although cost would be a problem as well as
>> liabillity.
>>
>>
>
> IMHO: those two issues are the main reason, along with the restrictions
> imposed by local govt.
>
> We used to have a couple of them that flew out of an rural area near
> the river, the farmers complained about the noise, as did the few
> homeowners in the area, As the neighberhood grew, the county
> govt types enacted noise ordinances and got support from the FAA
> the result they were banned from the area, along with a local
> "Private" airstrip with its resident dozen GA planes.
>
> Hell, the complainers are still trying to close down the main
> GA airport here, and its been in existance since the 1920's
> when all the area was rural..
> Damn fools knew there was an airport there when they bought or built
> their houses..

Most private airplanes use engines with archaic technology in them because
of the conservatism in the aviation industry. There\s no reason why quiet
four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile accellerating.
And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they would
need to do is clear all the trees.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-08-18, Dale Harris > wrote:
> Most private airplanes use engines with archaic technology in them because
> of the conservatism in the aviation industry.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Remember, a component failure in a car
is no big deal: you just pull over to the side of the road and stop, like I
did when the transmission in my Explorer died one memorable Sunday
afternoon. The same failure in an airplane is a major emergency, and will
get your name in the papers.

I'm a lot happier flying beind an O-200 than I would be a Rotax.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dale Harris wrote:
>There\s no reason why quiet
>four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
>mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile accellerating.
>And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
>even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they would
>need to do is clear all the trees.
>

Not sure how computerized fuel injection would make a difference in the
noise output. My plane has two mufflers on the exhaust and the engine is
pretty quiet already. The vast majority of the noise comes from the prop
slicing through the air.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Ron]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:46:26 +0200, "Dale Harris"
> wrote:


>Most private airplanes use engines with archaic technology in them because
>of the conservatism in the aviation industry. There\s no reason why quiet
>four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
>mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile accellerating.
>And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
>even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they would
>need to do is clear all the trees.
>
>
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I agree the noise issue could be resolved pretty easily. Landing in
the street is another story. Besides tree clearance, there are myriad
local ordinances that would probably get you jailed every time you
tried it, not to mention the occasional "slicing and dicing" of the
occasional pedestrian that wanders by. ;-)

Ron Kelley

[Dale Harris]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:88dfc4ab63e88@uwe...
> Dale Harris wrote:
>>There\s no reason why quiet
>>four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
>>mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile
>>accellerating.
>>And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
>>even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they
>>would
>>need to do is clear all the trees.
>>
>
> Not sure how computerized fuel injection would make a difference in the
> noise output. My plane has two mufflers on the exhaust and the engine is
> pretty quiet already. The vast majority of the noise comes from the prop
> slicing through the air.

It wouldn't make a difference in sound output, at least not a whole lot, but
since the engine runs smoother it may be somewhat quieter.

The big plus with fuel injection is that the pilot doesn't have to adjust
the fuel mixture.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Dale Harris]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:46:26 +0200, "Dale Harris"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Most private airplanes use engines with archaic technology in them because
>>of the conservatism in the aviation industry. There\s no reason why quiet
>>four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
>>mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile
>>accellerating.
>>And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
>>even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they
>>would
>>need to do is clear all the trees.
>>
>>
>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> I agree the noise issue could be resolved pretty easily. Landing in
> the street is another story. Besides tree clearance, there are myriad
> local ordinances that would probably get you jailed every time you
> tried it, not to mention the occasional "slicing and dicing" of the
> occasional pedestrian that wanders by. ;-)

You're right, I was thinking more along the lines of special airstrips,
about 10-20m in length in every block. But paved roads could easily be used
in an emergency.



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Ron]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:23:16 +0200, "Dale Harris"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:46:26 +0200, "Dale Harris"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most private airplanes use engines with archaic technology in them because
>>>of the conservatism in the aviation industry. There\s no reason why quiet
>>>four stroke engines with computerized fuel injection and automobile style
>>>mufflers couldnt be used which are as quiet as an automobile
>>>accellerating.
>>>And with AutoGiros there's a good chance that runways and airports aren't
>>>even needed, a PAV could land right in the street, the only thing they
>>>would
>>>need to do is clear all the trees.
>>>
>>>
>>>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>> I agree the noise issue could be resolved pretty easily. Landing in
>> the street is another story. Besides tree clearance, there are myriad
>> local ordinances that would probably get you jailed every time you
>> tried it, not to mention the occasional "slicing and dicing" of the
>> occasional pedestrian that wanders by. ;-)
>
>You're right, I was thinking more along the lines of special airstrips,
>about 10-20m in length in every block. But paved roads could easily be used
>in an emergency.
>
>
>
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I'd go along with that. Short strips for autogiros are more
reasonable that longer strips for conventional aircraft. Lower
landing speeds are a plus also.

Ron Kelley