> Autogiro's have small wheels and expect a smooth > surface for a safe landing. Not my autogiro ........ > Autogiros are very light weight, and a 2nd engine will be a > considerable performance penalty Not if it was two engines running at the same time sharing the load. Why would a crash cage add much weight to the autogiro ? Materials have really improved in the last 10 years. Why would a triple redundant virtual panel weigh more than the traditional instruments ? And why would it be big money ? I don't think display panels are too heavy anymore. I can get lightweight, low power, processors like the sheevaplug cheep. > http://www.airventure.org/ looks like a great suggestion. > Yep, look what the government has tried, The day I can't out perform the government is the day I turn in my EE spurs. I really appreciate Russell's comments. Just the facts jack ; no cold water in the face. I am 58 years old and dying while screaming at the top of my lungs as the autogiro plunges to the earth is as good a way to go as any. My uncle died peacefully.... not so for the 40 passengers in the bus he was driving over Loveland pass. ( i am lying ) Best Gus > > > > On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Carl Denk wrote: > > Sounds like a good starting place would be Oshkosh, Wisconsin to see > what others have done as a starting point. Unfortunately the annual > affair just ended. :( > http://www.airventure.org/ > > AGSCalabrese wrote: >> Thanks for all the responses. >> >> I would like to clarify some of my thoughts ....... >> >> #1 My mention of the balloon was misleading. I don't want a ballon >> for floating ..... I want a parachute that opens and deploys in one >> second. It seemed to me that in order for this to happen, the >> parachute must be opened with gas pressure. >> > The Cirrus chute is opened with a rocket, but there is still a > period of > time to slow an aircraft that could be doing more than 200 mph > forward, > not to mention the downward vector. >> #2 I can see that flying between mountains that have not been sussed >> out ahead of time could be scary. I want to autogiro where the >> obstacles have all been cataloged. I want to create an autogiro >> corridor between Denver ( near Denver ) and Pueblo, Colorado . I >> don't want to fly more than 500 feet off the ground. My >> understanding >> of the glide characteristics ( which may be incorrect ) of an >> autogiro >> make it possible to pick short landing spaces and do a "flare >> landing". >> > I have flown several times between Denver and Pueblo. Other than the > congested area, it's relatively flat with sagebrush and other somewhat > sparse vegetation. Autogiro's have small wheels and expect a smooth > surface for a safe landing. The flare landing, which in general > would be > a normal full stall landing, is still going to roll out at least 50 > feet. On anything less than pavement, mowed grass or smooth dirt, > expect > a forward rollover. I would not want to be near with those blades > rotating just above my head. :( Even a larger plane, meant for rough > landings including Piper Super Cubs and Otters and Beavers would be > difficult to make an unscheduled landing in that terrain. A > retractable > landing gear plane would probably be safer bellying in with gear up. > The > area is about a mile high, and the density altitude will reduce > performance by very roughly 50%, or twice landing takeoff distances, > 1/2 > rate of climb, and one may find impossible to get off the ground at > all > if the service ceiling (maximum altitude possible) is less than the > density altitude. > > After taking a mountain flying class out of Colorado Springs, I took > the > wife for a ride down toward Pueblo, around Pikes Peak, and down the > valley by Woodland Park. Flying the Western mountains is different > than > the Eastern mountains. The West has generally wide flat bottomed > valleys > where a reasonably safe landing can be accomplished under control. The > East usually has heavily wooded, steep sided valleys with a narrow > stream. There may not be anywhere within miles to even pick as a good > landing site, even with a helicopter. >> #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. >> > Autogiros are very light weight, and a 2nd engine will be a > considerable performance penalty >> #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. >> > More weight >> #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 .... >> > Yep, look what the government has tried, the Harrier, Osprey, and with > all the homebuilts, there is nothing, and there are some very sharp > aeronautical engineers out there. >> #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. >> > More weight and now big money. >> #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. >> > Need altitude for safe landing, need way to exit the plane safely. >> Best >> >> Gus >> >> >> > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist