Andrew Crane wrote:
"Joachim Colling" wrote in message
...

To me the gyrocopter principle seems to be much cheaper (and safer?)
than the heliocopter. Why has development of medium and larger size
gyrocopters stopped? And smaller are also very few?
Joachim Colling


They take the worst aspects of fixed wing and rotary and combine them into
one machine. A helicopter is useful because it can perform vtol. However
this is at the cost of energy economy, high maintenance and slow forward
flight. The giro can't perform vtol but still suffers the downsides.

If I try very hard, I might just about see the point of the carter copter,
but that's not a full-time giro.

Regards
Andrew



Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Here's another. A properly
designed gyroplane is as stable and easy to fly as a Cessna 150,
maneuvers like a helicopter, and, with a rated pilot, is safer than
both. Although vertical takeoff can be nice, a zero ground roll landing
is far more important for safety (and it's really fun besides).

BTW Have you ever actually flown a gyroplane, or are you simply
repeating what you've read/been told?

There are actually a lot of interesting things happening in the
gyroplane world right now. Check out http://www.rotaryforum.com .