> > On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Vitaliy wrote: > > AGSCalabrese wrote: >> Thanks for all the responses. >> >> I would like to clarify some of my thoughts ....... > >> #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 > My end goal is an autogiro that a scaredy cat like me would pilot. Gus -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist