What a very UKRM way...

Yeah, and it's a shame. There used to be a fair amount of it going on near
where I lived as a sprog, but not anymore. Great to watch in real life, as
opposed to YouTube clips.

And the only way to earn money is as a commercial pilot at the top of the
salary ladder. Instructors earn pennies. A minimum 1000 hours on your
ticket, including a wodge of them on the type of aircraft you want to fly
commercially is also pretty much the standard if you want a job flying.

Flying as a means to make money or even to simply earn a decent living costs
a few quid [1] and takes a ,long time and there's still no guarantees.

Or as one could say "If you want to make a small fortune from flying, start
out with a large one."

[1] I the same way that a few quid equals many thousands.

 

A gyro would not be able to carry much spray liquid though, you'd be
forever having to go back and refill.

 

I worked on a mixed arable/dairy farm just after finishing A'levels. My
father was the herdsman. The boss' son, who had spent time in Australia,
thought heli-spraying would work on a farm in the Wye Valley. The largest
field was 50 acres and that had a power line running across the long
diagonal.

We found the work involved preparing the fields, putting markers out as
this was pre-GPS, helping the pilot load spray, notify residents, close a
road etc took loads of work and the job cost a shed load more than hiring a
man and a lightweight tractor with a huge fucking boom for a couple of
days.

 

Yeah, but I was referring to a gyro, not a heli. Gyros are much
lighter.

 

Oi. That was my joke from last week you plagiarising old ****.

 

Oh. I've been co-opted onto the gardening meme. Uphill struggle, as ever.

 

Nicely played Sir.

 

In return, perhaps you should educate steve in the delights of uphill
gardening.

 

So are torches

 

I prefer Zippos.

 

Well, a small single-seater, sure, but they don't *have* to be that
tiny.

 

1 cubic metre of water = 1 tonne. More than the weight of the gyro.
Makes a hell of a difference in light aircraft. I don't know how much
spray they have to carry but even if it is just 500 litres, that's
seriously gunna affect a gyro's performance.

 

'Seasy, innit. I _am_ ginger.

 

I was really thinking in terms of a purpose-designed aircraft; you're
looking at existing sport models, which are in effect the microlights
of the rotorcraft world - it's a bit like saying that because a
microlight can't be used as a crop duster, no other fixed-wing
aircraft can.

Admittedly the majority of current gyro types do tend to be small
single-seaters (in the UK largely due to cost and licensing
restrictions), but there's no engineering reason why that should be
so.

 

Valid point, but still is there a gyro out there that can haul half a
tonne? I still think that once you get to that weight, you would be
going to a helicopter.

So why aren't they out there?

 

That's a structural load test. There's no way that thing would fly
with 1600 kg on board [1]

Neat looking little aircraft though.

[1] or were you taking the piss?

 

At this very moment? Probably not, for the reasons I'll give below.

The majority of current gyros are cheap recreational one or two-seat
aircraft for enthusiasts, simple as that. They don't need high lift
capability.

Generally, commercial aircraft are used for getting from point A to
point B rapidly, or one needs to land/takeoff vertically or hover.
Obviously the ability to do both would be the ideal but there are
penalties. Conventional fixed wing aircraft are efficient at the
high-speed bit but need runways. Helicopters can do the VTOL/hover
bits but are usually much more expensive to run and can't fly fast. A
basic gyro is a kind of halfway house and does neither particularly
well. They aren't out there simply because there are few commercial
applications that require one-tonne lift capability, other than very
specialized ones, where they may compete.

One such specialized application might be crop dusting, where the low
cost and low speed capability of a gyro could be useful and the need
to hover or takeoff vertically isn't required, which is why I
mentioned it in the first place. Perhaps the development costs would
be prohibitive, but that didn't stop the development of such aircraft
as the Dromader, NDN Fieldmaster, etc.

There are other issues, to be fair. In the UK, recreational gyros have
a relatively poor safety record.

Gyro enthusiasts will point out how stable they are, how easy to fly
and how safe they are; they will usually point to the fact that they
can't be stalled like a fixed-wing and engine failure merely means
they sink naturally rather than needing immediate emergency action
like a helicopter. However, they do have one handling flaw that can be
fatal if the pilot is inexperienced. Suddenly shoving the stick
forward can unload the rotor and cause the aircraft to tumble forwards
out of control. This is irrecoverable. Unfortunately, an experienced
fixed-wing pilot's instinct is likely to be to do just that if he gets
it into his head that he's about to stall. Certain older designs were
also prone to what's known as a 'powered push-over', which has
essentially the same consequences and is caused by having a high
thrust-line WRT the CofG. Naturally, modern designs take account of
this possibility.

 

The thrust-line problem made it very easy to cause an acident, but
ultimatelty it usually took pilot input to actually cause the crash.

 

But you can gyro a heli to the ground.

Personally, I'd want that engine lift and the power in the blades to
be able to push out if needed. YMMV

And yes I agree you could probably build a gyro with that amount of
lift, but that fact that no-one yet has done it seems to indicate to
me that the dynamics may not be there - you have to get a shitload of
thrust to keep rotation up. Willing to be proved wrong.

 

Not if you are low and slow. You need height to autorotate, you can
convert speed into height but low and slow is a fatal combination
if the donkey quits.
Fizzicks innit.