4 Seater Gyro's

[THI]

I know there is a lot of development on 2 seater gyro. Does anyone know of a 4 seater gyro? There are one or two manufacturers (Groen Brothers & CarterCopter) but nothing that is commercially available.

Why not use the fuselage of a normal 4 seater a/c and slap a couple of rotors on it?

[RV4ker (RIP)]

If a 2 seater needs 114hp will a 4 seater not need 300+ HP? COST

[johnht]

I've heard talk (perhaps speculation?!) that Xenon is busy with a three seater variation. There is such a lot of development in the Gyro space that I would not be surprised!!? In my opinion this would really be great. Imagine being able to take a couple on a site seeing trip in an (enclosed) 'couple friendly') gyro??

John

[RV4ker (RIP)]

A bit like that 3 seater trike posted a while back.

[THI]

RV4ker - I'm not an engineer but if they can get 4 seater Jabiru in the air with 120hp I'm sure they can do that with less than 200hp? Maby the 3300 or 5100 Jab engine?

Johnht - That is precisely my point. Take the whole family for a trip!

That will be great!

[Low Level]

If a 2 seater needs 114hp will a 4 seater not need 300+ HP? COST

Don't think so. In relation to the Magni's and MT's, the Sycamore is already 150 kg overweight - 240 kg compared to 390 kg. I have a 31 ft rotor, and I weigh 100 kg. I have taken 100 kg pax with full fuel. That is the load including extra weight - 350 kg.

Thinking hard fitting 33 ft rotors and the RAF (Subaru) 165 hp motor to a gyro, you'll be able to lift quite a bit.

Only problem is enclosed body seems to get heavy.

[THI]

If a 2 seater needs 114hp will a 4 seater not need 300+ HP? COST

Don't think so. In relation to the Magni's and MT's, the Sycamore is already 150 kg overweight - 240 kg compared to 390 kg. I have a 31 ft rotor, and I weigh 100 kg. I have taken 100 kg pax with full fuel. That is the load including extra weight - 350 kg.

Thinking hard fitting 33 ft rotors and the RAF (Subaru) 165 hp motor to a gyro, you'll be able to lift quite a bit.

Only problem is enclosed body seems to get heavy.

The Carter Gyro uses an 34ft rotor with expected gross weight of 1600lb and using a 100hp rotax 914. Maybe a bit optimistic? But these engineers think its do-able

[gyrosa]

About the 4 seater gyro idea, I do not think that it is impossible. It can be done, and in my opinion, using the Cierva type configuration and swing a larger diameter prop it can work with a three blade or even 4 blade rotor. I do not think longer blades are allways the answer because Magni did experiment with a 4 blade rotor which had a shorter diameter and it scared him due to the fact that this thing had a furious rate of climb (his feet were above the horison). The question we need to ask is will it be allowed in the RSA with a gyro plane licence which is essentially for 2 persons max or will the SACAA require something more in the line of PPL perhaps?

[THI]

About the 4 seater gyro idea, I do not think that it is impossible. It can be done, and in my opinion, using the Cierva type configuration and swing a larger diameter prop it can work with a three blade or even 4 blade rotor. I do not think longer blades are allways the answer because Magni did experiment with a 4 blade rotor which had a shorter diameter and it scared him due to the fact that this thing had a furious rate of climb (his feet were above the horison). The question we need to ask is will it be allowed in the RSA with a gyro plane licence which is essentially for 2 persons max or will the SACAA require something more in the line of PPL perhaps?

Hi gyrosa, do you know where I can get some info on those limitations? CAA Website? Thx

[gyrosa]

Yes you can try the CAA directly through persons such as Fanie Keyser or Neil Thomas. As the 4 seater will be unique in this country, I am pretty sure that there is no immediate answer from them as far as the law book goes, HOWEVER be advised that should the idea be for commercial work ie sight seeing, etc., you will be opening another chapter where they will require a commercial pilot license, the aircraft must be maintained at a AMO, an operator's license.
The other side of the coin is that gyro's, microlights, balloons, home builts etc., all fall into the category of non-type certified aircraft and therefore are mainly for sport and recreation. These aircraft then fall under RAASA in future and not the SACAA. When you go commercial, you go under the SACAA.
I am not so sure that a commercial venture was the original intention for gyroplanes at all (I was one of the founding members and chairman, that drew up the original constitution as well as MOP during the 1990's). The commercial idea does open another avenue, and, while I am not against it in total, I am wary of every Tom, Dick and Harry suddenly buggering off into the blue on a Maverick mission to go "commercial" without complying to the regulations, which in turn will give the industry a bad name again. A similar idea took place with the microlighters a few years ago and the SACAA came down heavily on these guys (and schools) for doing it.
At present the accident rate is also great cause for concern to not only the SACAA but to a few instructors like myself. This accident rate has resulted in enormous and unaffordable increases in our insurance to the point that the insurance guys are now looking at who is or was the instructor who trained the pilot, before they even consider the applicant for any insurance - if at all.
The act within the SAGPA training realm needs a major overhaul, accident rates MUST be reduced, and the SACAA must be able to see a visible reduction in accidents AS WELL as a visible increase in responsibility, before they will easily consider a venture like this (and possibly waive some of the "heavy requirements").
Finally, I will add that there are instructors who are responsible, but there are also instructors who by the very nature of their instruction are simply not "cutting it". Very dangerous exercises are being enforced on the students as part of their so called training and this is now accepted by those students as the norm. In addition, and this is the part that really gets under my skin, is that these so called instructors are considered senior instructors and carry some or other weight with RAASA as well as the SACAA. Example, a student was taught to turn back to the runway after a simulated engine failure after take off. The student, now qualified, practiced this idea, and his aircraft now needs major repairs. The same instructor, when I took him on his conversion to type a few years ago, did the same thing and I FAILED HIM OUTRIGHT!
Hope this gives you some insight as to what you are up against.