Tandem vs Side by Side; Perfect vs Ideal.

[Gyronaut]

As promised, herewith my 5 cents worth with regard to Side-by-side vs Tandem vs Perfect vs Ideal. The ultimate Gyro. Does it exist?

Let me start by making it very clear that I am in no way associated or affilliated with any manufacturer or agent of any Gyro. I have never collected commission on the sale of a Gyro and I intend to keep it this way, in order to remain totally unbiased.

My first Gyro was a tandem enclosed machine. A Sycamore with a 33ft rotor which performed (and still does) quite adequately considering I (we) don't weigh much.
We flew sorties over snow-capped mountains in the winter and remained quite comfortable inside while our friends in their open cockpit machines froze. I flew to Victoria Falls with three friends in open cockpit machines and realized then that closed cockpit (with removeable doors/summer canopy) would be the ideal.

As Flynote said, there comes a time when your passenger gets gatvol of looking at the back of your head in a tandem machine and their enthusiasm for flying begins to wane.
So we acquired a side by side Magni M24 which makes the flying experience for the softness so much more pleasant. Yes the doors pop off without much effort and you get the open cockpit feeling but it is still an enclosed machine. In the meantime we also got hold of a Magni M16 open cockpit tandem machine - this is my softness' favourite machine - because she gets to fly it from the front seat now that she has her own license. I doubt very much that she would be flying back seat in either of our tandem machines if she didn't learn to fly herself.
If we fly together now, we fly in the side-by-side. If I fly alone I prefer enclosed tandem.

Now, lets analyze the real requirement. Assuming you are a 61 year old sophisticated gentleman that has soft-top cars & everything you want in life. Which would be the best machine for you? I am a 55 year old skollie with a cabriolet and I will tell you what I think - for what its worth.

When I owned a Lotus Turbo Esprit, it was not the 0 - 100 performance in 3.8 seconds or the incredible road handling that I really enjoyed. What I really enjoyed was parking it, looking back on the way into the shopping centre and admiring its beautiful lines, knowing that this incredible machine was mine. I would lie if I said I didn't enjoy the little crowd of admiring people it usually had around it when I returned. The fact that it was a bitch to get in and out of, that it was a really hard ride and always smelled of fuel never bothered me in the least. I wanted it because I wanted it and it was unique. Klaar.

I have all but one of the locally available Gyro's on my license and have had the privilege of instructing on all (but one) of them during the past few years. Each have their own little pro's and cons and in general they are all variations of the Finn, Jukka Tervamaki's 1960's pusher design. The Magni's grew from his ATE3 design. The Ela was a Spanish copy of this with one or two modifications with regard to internal size and prerotation. It is a known fact that the German MT Autogyro's are based on the Ela. Only the Xenon was a total redesign but it also relies quite heavily on the same design principles when it comes to prerotation and where the fuel tanks are etc.

About 18 months ago, I was fortunate to fly in the Arrow-copter. I experienced the same 'back-of-head' view that I had in other tandems. Then in Springs last week, I got the opportunity to do my Instructors conversion onto the Arrow-copter AC10 courtesy of Ashley Read and Matthew Zalewski. Finally, I got to fly it alone from the front seat.

Again, I remind you that the convex was done at my own expense and I am in no way associated with Arrow-copter so whatever I have to say are my own un-biased views.

The Arrow-copter is the ULTIMATE GYRO. Its monocoque design means there is no rigid keel and mast made from chrome-alloy or stainless steel. Monocoque is a structural approach that supports loads through an object's external skin, similar to a pingpong ball or egg shell. The term is also used to indicate a form of vehicle construction in which the skin provides the main structural support. This structural integrity is achieved using materials such as carbon fibre and kevlar and is widely used in the manufacture of formula 1 racing cars. One of the main benefits of this design is that the occupant can be easily enclosed in a solid and safe 'pod' allowing the rest to absorb any unplanned energy during an impact. They cleverly (in my opinion) created external fuel tanks that double as winglets that generate up to 30% of the lift during flight. The biggest benefit here of course is that you are not sitting in 75+ litres of fuel. They are designed to shear on impact and hopefully will be left behind. The thought of sitting in all that fuel, should a rupture occur, scares me in all the traditionally designed gyro's.

The propeller on the Arrow-copter is another work of art. It performs amazingly well for a two-bladed prop, gives the machine a throaty roar and the variable pitch works well as a fuel-tank range extender on longer flights. In the hover it does not cavitate as do the Arplast or other traditional props keeping a fistful of thrust even at zero airspeed. Of course the decibel level is much lower and the machine is noticeably quieter thanks to this unique propeller.

Now, getting into the front of the Arrow-copter, strapping in the four point harness and sitting back in the fully adjustable porche-style seat - you simply feel like Tom Cruize in an F16. Top Gun has got nothing on you. The view is unrestricted all round and everything is where it should be or where you intuitively expect it to be. The machine is an absolute pleasure to fly. It behaves exactly as you would expect it to aside from the slight pitch forward on takeoff when the winglets start to 'fly'. Once in the air you will easily forget that you are in a Gyro and you become 'top-gun' in his F16 because the performance, even at JHB altitude and heat, is quite simply amazing.

The canopy has hinge-pins that release with a simple secure locking mechanism allowing it to instantly pop off to be replaced with a summer canopy giving you the open cockpit high-performance bike feeling.

So there you have it Flynote... in my humble opinion the Arrow-copter is the Perfect Gyro for all the reasons given above. This does not mean that the other Gyro's available today are not great machines that suite individual requirements, simply that the Arrow has thought of it all, and I personally want it - because I want it!

Len

[Gyronaut]

Monocoque Lambo

[FLYNOTE]

And a damn good looking gyro at that, the Arrowcopter. Lennie, true to form and in keeping with your reputation of always being thorough , once again bells time for you. In your personal opinion, to which you are entitled as an instructor... how would you compare the Arrowcopter to Calidus in terms of flight characteristics. If you wake up in the morning and Christine tells you to " vlieg in jou moer". Which will be your choice of machine to comply with her wishes? The side by side or the tandem?

[Gyronaut]

...how would you compare the Arrowcopter to Calidus in terms of flight characteristics.

They are both fantastic machines that have their own pro's and cons. Since you asked, here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
They both have very light rotor systems making them very responsive in flight. I find the head-control offset/Bowden Cable setup on the Arrow slightly better than the Calidus which makes the stick lighter both on the ground and during flight. As I said the prop and simple Variable Pitch control on the Arrow makes it feel and sound better. The Calidus is lighter so theoretically it should be quicker. I have never compared directly but I sense the Arrow does in knots which most other machines do in Miles. The Arrows I flew both had small torque-plates offset on the outer vertical stabilizers giving them very good yaw stability so they require very little (if any) rudder input during flight. The Arrow feels very stable in all 3 the flight axis' during flight due to the strut winglets and the additional weight. It is really easy to land as a result of this stability. Yaw on adding or removing power is hardly noticeable.

Getting in and out of the Calidus is easier for us older geezers although the back seat of the Arrow has more leg room as you sit with your feet on the ground rather than around the pilot. The front wheel on the Arrow castors freely and it is steered on the ground with independent toe brakes. The downside to this is that it will take a lot more for an ab-initio student to master. The upside is that it works like a traditional airplane. It is intuitive if you are a pilot already. It can turn on a tickey so you do not have to push/turn it by hand. The downside is that you could overheat the brakes if you rode on them for steering.

...If you wake up in the morning and Christine tells you to " vlieg in jou moer". Which will be your choice of machine to comply with her wishes? The side by side or the tandem?

Tandem enclosed for sure. I'd get to my 'moer' quicker and easier using less fuel.

One last thing. Neither the Calidus nor the Arrow are easy to pre-flight properly. It seems there is a move towards the traditional way of doing things in airplanes . Your AMO/AP issues a release to service, you as the pilot walk around and see as much as you can but you cannot really preflight properly without removing cowl covers, with great difficulty.

Swings and roundabouts.
If you are in the market, my advice is to fly them both and decide for yourself.

Must go fly!
Cheers
Len

[Jabbanaught]

LEN as always like Flynote has mentioned , you can be trusted to give feedback on any machine without being bias .

I still hold a current PPL thus have done lots of hours in the side by side cocpit , yes its nice to look your pax in the eye or let the hand slip to the leg (eyes front ) , but the visability is not that great . When i started flying gyro the one thing i loved about these machine was that i could see everything left , right and directly below me . I have flown the same route in the fixed wing and never 50% saw of what you do in the Gyro.

Having looked at whats available in the enclosed tandem market my choice falls to the Calidus , purely because i love the looks of the machine , its fast and very comfortable , and if you have been to the factory and see how they build them , you are hooked at the proffesional outfit they have .

Do i secretly admire the Arrow , Yes it looks like it wants to fly and is really sexy , I love the lines , but what kept me away was unfortunately the price !

[whirly]

I read all this with a lot of interest! Still trying to wrap my head around the prices of these machines though.

Would the Calidus or Arrow Copter be OK to train an ab initio gyro pilot with?

Whirly.

[FLYNOTE]

Len...what a boytjie! Now you are getting to the issues I was hoping to get you to touch on! I have always regarded you since my very first " clear prop" as the rotornut to take note of. You see, you know and understand the flight characteristics of each and every gyro around. Your approach to training your students has always depended on the machine they were going to fly. You are entitled to apply your knowledge and experience of the gyros gracing the SA air below controlled airspace to enlighten the rest of us. I would love to read your thoughts on how you find the various gyros we fly. I am a huge
Xenon fan for its comfort, space and the luxuries aimed at pilot comforts. This is my first choice as side by sides go. But now I am moving back to tandem as I fly solo most of the time and I want more speed and manouvreability... And it must be enclosed. I am too " soft" nowadays for the wind in the hair and muggies between the teeth experience. Xenon...and most, probably all side by sides, need airframe adjusting according to every change in power setting . Not so for M22 or the 16. Is this a characteristic of a side by side only? What are the issues to expect in a side by side which you do not encounter in tandems and vice versa?

[Gyronaut]

Thanks for the kind words, I simply love these machines - as do you gents.

Whirly, neither the Calidus or Arrow-copter or Sycamore are ideal trainers. The instructor has very little visibility of the instrument panel from the rear. They do come with an optional 'Instructor kit' which can include rear trim, mag-cut off switches, airspeed and alt etc - at a price of course. Nothing beats an open cockpit MT03/S, Ela or Magni M16 as a trainer. What I have found works best for ab-initio students is to complete the training on one of these open tandems and then to do a conversion onto a side-by-side. Existing gyro, helicopter or fixed-wing pilots can go straight to the side-by-side. The handling or flying characteristic difference can be compared to the difference between a fixed wing with tricycle gear and a taildragger. You have to be sharp on the pedals.

Enclosed machines are more prone to yaw due to the windage on the side of the larger canopy. Side-by-sides more so because of the relatively short moment-arm forward of the CofG. This short moment-arm is also responsible for the additional rudder input required at every power change. The torque effect is less pronounced in the tandems which have a much longer moment-arm from the CofG.

Landing a tandem is much easier than landing a side-by-side. I think the wider 'belly' floats and stalls, sometimes unexpectedly, where the narrower bodies don't and therefore behave quite predictably.

Yep, the price of Gyro's in general is a problem, not helped at all by the exchange rate. My logic tells me that we are paying the price for the increased safety and survivability that gyro's in general give us. The Arrow-copter's external fuel tanks are a giant leap forward in this area and yes, It does come at a price. What is your life or the life of your loved-one worth?

While writing this I have suddenly come to the realisation that I will have an Arrow-copter in my hanger one day.

where is that damn piggy-bank when I need it? ...

Fly safely
Len

[Condor]

Very interesting discussion and also useful information and opinions for the non-gyro pilots to understand the wonderful machines we fly.

It is very interesting to note that on a question to the owner of the Auto-Gyro factory on the spread of models they manufacture (deliver one per day for every working day, built on order only) his answer was 1/3 MT-Sport (open cockpit), 1/3 Calidus (tandem enclosed) and 1/3 Cavalon (enclosed side-by-side)

Side-by-side or tandem is the only question, enclosed is here to stay.

I loved my M22 open cockpit Magni and have the world of respect for this brand, but they do not have a product that meets my current demand.

So my white Calidus with tinted canopy (credit to Flynote) complete with Dynon 10" Skyview glass cockpit is in production.

[Gyronaut]

Congratulations Condor! Good choice. I know you will be very happy with your lovely machine.

[mak]

Len, you have a lot more experience than myself, so I am not going to argue with you, but purely state that my experience is a bit different than yours.

Side-by-sides more so because of the relatively short moment-arm forward of the CofG. This short moment-arm is also responsible for the additional rudder input required at every power change. The torque effect is less pronounced in the tandems which have a much longer moment-arm from the CofG.

I have found the direct opposite on the tandems and side-by-sides that I have flown. The change in power is more pronounce on the tandems. My logic tells me that the same yaw effect / movement from a fixed source / point will have a more pronounced effect at the end of a longer moment-arm than at the end of a shorter moment arm.
I also found the enclosed tandems to feel almost "slippery" through the air and made rudder inputs very sensitive, especially with cross winds and do require more rudder input than the side-by-side. Perhaps because the tandems have a larger side on area than the side-by-side they are more susceptible to cross wind.

Landing a tandem is much easier than landing a side-by-side. I think the wider 'belly' floats and stalls, sometimes unexpectedly, where the narrower bodies don't and therefore behave quite predictably.

Again, I found the side-by-side easier to land and because of the wider wheel base a lot more forgiving if you don't get it 100% right. I did however adjust my landing technique on the side-by-side a little from the tandem and land with a bit more power than with the tandem. I think I tend to add power just about where the "belly stalls" as you referred to it above and might be the reason that I don't notice it anymore.
Cross wind landing for me are easier as the side-by-side feel more stable, but I think this is because of the smaller side on area of the side-by-side as mentioned earlier and it might also be the better rudder authority up to touch down that the type specific side-by-side has over tandems.
The above are just my personal experiences on the different types. Each one has it's own flight characteristics and just something to get use to. All in all I enjoy flying all of them.
It seems as if most "solo" pilots prefer the tandems, but for me that fly 64,348% of the time with a passenger, I don't think I will be able to go back to tandem. Watching my son "fly" and seeing his facial expression once airborne and while he "flies" as well as enjoying the company of a passenger on a cross country trip is absolutely priceless for me and far outweighs the 7 minutes and 3 seconds that I might save with a tandem on a 2 hour cross country flight with a 9,67 mph cross wind component.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy flying my side-by-side, but I also enjoy flying Tinkerbell's tandem.

[Yoda]

Just to add perspective, what are the prices of these models compared to each other?
Maybe someone can help out....

Magni M16 65 000 Euros
MTO3
Ela 08
Callidus
Magni M24
Cavelon
Xenon
Arrowcopter

[FLYNOTE]

Forums are fantastic to just share chatter but more so if we can pick up pointers from one another. I would really love something like a " Kloppers Corner" where we can throw questions at someone who is regarded as a top instructor on gyros. I personally have something like close on 2000hrs on gyros but find myself doubting myself every now and then. I had a mini refresher advanced course in Germany last month practicing engin outs. Im not talking simulated, Im talking the big unexpected total silence followed by ...and now? The instructor gave me the mark to land without any purring from behind and only after the third attempt did I more or less succeed. This confirmed once again that we tend to think we are ok if we have plenty hours on our machines but the importance of refreshers cannot be under estimated.
Len, please take me through the phases that lead up to ending up behind the power curve and the resultant major balls up that results. The only accident I ever had was as a result of ending up exactly there and not being in a position to recover. This was in my M22. Will a side by side bite sooner. Is one gyro more forgiving than the other and when do you see HKGK with enough time and space to save the day?
The prices of the respective gyros are on the websites of each manufacturer ... Am I correct? But you need to put a price tag on the service you get from the local agents and obviously the supplier. Any machine is only as good as the after sales service and backup you receive.

[Hangarguy]

Just to add perspective, what are the prices of these models compared to each other?
Maybe someone can help out....

Magni M16 65 000 Euros
MTO3
Ela 08
Callidus
Magni M24
Cavelon
Arrowcopter

Cavalon R1 mil
Calidus - R800 k
Arrow Copter - R1.8 mil

[Gyronaut]

There is a short powerpoint I made a while back on the subject Johan, it can be found at http://www.sagpa.co.za/docs/Dragons%20b ... 0Curve.pps

I agree with what Mak said about side-by-sides being easier in crosswinds, good point. As for the moment arm discussion, how about we walk a tightrope together, two poles weigh the same - you have a short pole and I have a long one?

Here is the crux of what its all about!

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy flying...