Talk:Autogyro: Difference between revisions

This article needs a better non-technical description of how an autogyro works at the outset; I was perplexed as to how exactly an autogyro takes off, since its rotor is "driven solely by aerodynamic forces." Only after you read through many overly-technical phrases like "the rotor is declutched" and "The vertical component of the total aerodynamic reaction of the rotor (rotor thrust) is termed lift" do you begin to understand that, as far as I can tell, the engine spins the rotor to to create an airfoil,

Only *before* takeoff.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good thing to mention in the intro.Wachholder0 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which provides lift, and is later allowed to be "driven solely by aerodynamic forces." I know very little about aviation and I imagine the average reader doesn't either, so I think the article should try to avoid sounding like a technical manual.

It's quite difficult to explain why the top rotor spins when in flight unless the reader knows about concepts like 'relative wind' and 'centers of lift' and so forth. Most people that know that stuff generally know about quite a bit of technical stuff. So it's unclear that most people would benefit from knowing how an autogyro works. The best I have been able to think up is that the top rotor acts like a glider wing, and increases in speed in the same way as a falling glider does.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to rewrite it myself due to my gross and total ignorance of aviation, but will fearlessly do so if someone else doesn't. Thanks Wachholder0 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who the audience for this article should be. If we set the bar very low on how much technical information we can assume then the article needs to be 3-4x bigger, but it isn't clear that most people want to know this stuff anyway.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The audience should be "general readership" who would need to reference an encyclopedia. I am not proposing rewriting the whole article, just the intro. Compare the intro for helicopter. Anyhoo, I could have rewritten the intro by now, which is what I propose to do in the next few days. Wachholder0 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Not that much different, actually. Wachholder0 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the autogyro is less efficient and slower than a fixed-plane. Can you compare to a helicopter or a blimp. Maybe as fuel per load or fuel per kilometer.

It seems that this article was written by a autogyro buff; and extensive description of flight maneuver characteristics may not be the content of a true encyclopedia. It even gives advice to autogyro newbies, but this information is useless for the normal audience of wikipedia. It must be said too that parts of this article may have been copied from an autogyro manual. There is more interesting stuff out there on the web than that in this article. Greetings from --212.152.4.212 22:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Keimzelle on de.wikipedia.org)

Yeah, it seems there are a lot of "defenses as to why it's not so popular" mixed throughout. But I wouldn't mind a general description of the physics involved... I can't picture how it would work! ---Ransom

You know how a helicopter works? Well basically the rotors of the helicopter are not only the reason why they move forward, but they act as wings, because the rotors are shaped like airfoils too. Now an autogiro is basically the same as well, but in this case, the motor ain't hooked up to the rotor, but to a propeller, and the propeller moves the aircraft forward, causing the rotors to rotate. But when the rotors start to rotate at a high enough speed, they start generating their own lift. AllStarZ 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just come across this article, I must agree with the comment above - there's a lot of subtle advocacy mixed in with the facts, many of the facts are prtobably over-detailed, and some particular models appear to be being promoted over others (perhaps with good reason, but the article needs to be made more neutral and revised for the lay-reader). Graham 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To AllStarZ; The difference between lift in helicopters and autogyros is that helicopters mechanically "pull" air down through the blades, creating thrust and thus lift, and air in autogyros is (for want of a better term) "pushed" up through the blades creating lift (and drag) as it forces the blades to rotate. For autorotation to commence there has to be an initial movement of air up and across the blade.

Can someone write an overview of what keeps things in the air, and how they differ from a helicopter? It seems to be the most important thing, and yet it's missing (or hidden). --161.73.58.135 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look up Bernoulli's Principle fool. AllStarZ 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a view that Bernoulli doesn't explain much. Try Lift (force) and see if that helps. Also, calling someone a fool for asking a perfectly good question is against the spirit of co-operation we are trying to engender here. Can you please indent your comments. Graham 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure i remember hearing on a uk documentry that theese were used to calibrate radar (before the introduction of helicopters) as whilst they couldn't actually hover they could fly in a pattern that involved very little movement from a point. Plugwash 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked out this article it didn't seem so bad, but since then it's got quite a bit worse! Wikipedia is not a flight manual; most of the "Warnings" section is superfluous, and certainly the extensive quotation from some regulations or other totally unnecessary. As if any prospective pilot would be looking here for instruction. This article should be about the autogyro as a concept, its history and notable designs, and even talk something about its flying characteristics, but it certainly should not be going extensively in how to (or how not to) fly one. I would be tempted to post a cleanup notice but I know how annoying they are, especially when posted by someone who hasn't contributed much - so instead I'm just posting this message and see what sort of discussion it leads to, if any. On another note, why did my Mad Max 2 wiki ref get removed? I'd have thought that was interesting, since it's one of only a very small handful of films where an autogyro is a key part of the plot. Graham 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added bits in the warning section about "Pilot Induced Oscillation" and the advisability of being properly instructed, even for pilots familiar with other types. Much of the failure of the type to gain wider popularity may be the accidents (caused by improper handling) related to it. It may beg the question why there is a "Warnings" section in a reference source, but since it is there I used it to point out a major cause for crashes. I feel it is correct to indicate why the subject may not be more widely known to the public. To balance this, I have also added two of the major "good" characteristics of the autogyro - the fact it cannot be stalled whilst in autorotation and that it will autorotate even at zero forward airspeed - in the main body of the piece. This is, after all, why the craft was invented/created in the first place.

As regards Mad Max 2, since the Wallis autogyro is forever mentioned in relation to On Her Majestys Secret Service why not MM2? The MM2 'gyro has more plot relevance and more screen time in a film that is possibly as well known (and as iconic) as the James Bond feature. It should be pointed out that neither of the aircraft were in fact capable of some of feats depicted; the Wallis weapons payload is pure wishful thinking (I believe they were balsa mockups), and the MM2 gyro is a single person payload craft (and as for landing it in the middle of a congested area with no roll....!) Whatever, I think you should stick it back in since it is most peoples introduction to the existance of these things. LessHeard vanU 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe the MM2 removal was just an accident - I'll stick it back in and see if it stays this time. (And yes, I thought that landing was pretty suspect!) I agree that the accidents are notable, but I don't agree that an extensive "warnings" section is the right way to acknowledge them - a brief summary of typical causes and links to e.g. pilot induced oscillation, etc should suffice (PIO should have its own article if it doesn't already, since it happens in other aircraft too). And of course this should be balanced with the good characteristics that you mention. Perhaps a "Flying characteristics" section would be better, maybe divided into advantages and disadvantages compared with other aircraft types. The extensive FAA regulations should go altogether - they are just not appropriate, and in any case pertain only to the US. By the way, I took the liberty of indenting your comments - it makes a thread easier to follow - hope that's OK. Graham 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re indenting - no problem. I've only been contributing for a couple of weeks and am not familiar with layaouts and stuff. In this regard, I do not know how to alter/amend/delete/create headings etc. (this is my usual approach to new sites - jump in and start typing, hopefully learning on the way) so I just add to the existing order. If anyone wanted to re-arrange it, then fine. With regard to autogyro safety records, I do believe this to be a major reason for the lack of popularity since there are many other uneconomic and/or marginal use modes of transport that have prospered.LessHeard vanU 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - you'll soon pick it all up. Learn by doing. When you have an edit view of the page, you can pick up things like the syntax for headings quite easily - the double or triple equal signs surrounding the text do the trick there. I think you might be right about the popularity or otherwise being down to the accident record, though it's totally illogical since if people really cared about not having accidents they'd never drive! I'd quite like to build/fly a gyro - the simplicity and STOL performance appeal to me, but I AM a little put off by the power pushover stuff and whatnot, though no doubt good instruction is essential and once you have trained it's no big deal. That said, FINDING an instructor is another matter. Anyway, straying off the point - the point is the article needs a big sort out. Maybe I'll find the time to make a stab at it myself, though I hesitate to tread on the toes of other, more prolific contributors here. Graham 11:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an ANZAC gyrocopter maker; UFO (they were described as Australian, but I note their prices were NZ$!). If a major market is Australia they may be able to put you onto an instructor, or someone who else who can. Nice aircraft too, and a brief look at the specs seem to answer your reservations regarding pushover.LessHeard vanU 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Keech speed records; has the decimal point been misplaced in the kph given? I do not want to simply "move" it as there may be a missing figure in each of those given.LessHeard vanU 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to resolve this, but as Wikipedia seems to be the source for the majority of Google results the incorrect (and they are, at this forward flying speed the craft is likely to be descending at a faster rate!) speeds. I found the archived FAI World Speed Record page, and it appears that they are the original source of the incorrect data. I note that Keech has set some new speed records in February of this year, but the FAI list them as currently unratified (and they are much more believable too, in the 170+ k/h range). Once they are ratified then I will make the necessary amendments. I am tempted to remove the incorrect ones completely, but I want to use this template - and I'm too much the newbie to know how to "revert" this layout if I deleted it.

I have now put up Keech's latest speed record ratified by the FAI, the March 2005 500km closed curcuit attempt, and removed the previous set. This certainly seems a much more believable figure - I'm surprised nobody questioned a world record speed of appx. 10-12mph!. Keech has some record attempts of March this year still awaiting the FAI. These I will post when I get them. I think we should use FAI ratified records, since this is the internationally recognised aero records body.LessHeard vanU 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the 3 world records, accredited to Keech, created Feb 06 in the text.

Folks may like to know that I emailed the FAI raising my concerns about the veracity of some of the speed records, and received a charming response regarding the type and manner of courses flown in respect of said records (?!). I responded by pointing out again the likely error in the published speeds. To date I have had no reply and the same data is still on the FAI site... LessHeard vanU 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that while autogyros couldn't actually hover they could fly a pattern that resulted in very little movement and was therefore used for calibrating early radar? Plugwash 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that, too. Perhaps a Google search?LessHeard vanU 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any autogyro manufacturers that sell completed autogyros-meaning ones that are built at the factory, not from a kit in your backyard?--Belugaperson 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]