AGSCalabrese wrote:
> Thanks for all the responses.
>
> I would like to clarify some of my thoughts .......
<snip>
> #3  By adding a second engine perhaps I can reduce failure to a 50%
> loss of power and the ability to choose a "safe" landing.
>
> #4  My intention is to make autogiro with a crash cage that survives
> 40 mph with 4 point support for the inhabitants plus a seat that is "
> locked " into the crash cage.  I would want to protect for pieces of
> the autogiro flying around chaotically.
>
> #5  I want the autogiro to be able to shift to fixed wing flight in
> the air  ( and back again ) and go from 80 mph ( 129 kph ) in autogiro
> mode to 140 mph ( 225 kph ).   All of this this may be an unattainable
> dream ....
>
> #6  I want a dual ( or triple ) redundant virtual instrument panel , I
> want GPS terrain maps digitally displayed , I want the rotor and stuff
> that could fall apart instrumented to a extreme degree.
>
> #7   Super dream ......   I want flat packs strapped to the chest and
> back of the passengers that activate in free fall or manually to
> create a "fall ball" around the user that slows their descent to the
> ground and then provides adequate cushioning to stop them safely.
> Maybe a new sport.


Gus, what is your end goal? Most GA pilots have an order of magnitude higher 
chance of dying in a car accident. It follows then that your efforts would 
be better spent improving the safety of land vehicles.

Moreover... heart disease and cancer claim far far more lives than flying or 
driving. Design a treadmill that people would actually use, and you'll save 
10,000 times more lives than you would if you designed a 100% fatality-proof 
autogyro.

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist