I found two chapters in Denver that I will call. The website does not say what EAA stands for. Gus > On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Carl Denk wrote: > > 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 > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist