Join the EAA local chapter, visit and talk to lots of aircraft builders/pilots. You may call it cold water in your face, but I speak from the experience of building and flying a 200 MPH, 1000 mile range , 3 passenger aircraft for over 1000 hours in 11 years, and aways landing on a paved runway. Close friends have had most every type aircraft including everything from gyro's to jets, and I became familiar with the issues of a variety of aircraft. We measured weight in ounces, and big wheels, cages, etc. are all weighed in pounds. Only 20% of those who start building an aircraft finish it. I spent 3 years of going to aircraft events, talking to people, studying before starting construction, and that was after being a pilot for 30 years. AGSCalabrese wrote: >> 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