gyrocopters are safer in terms of pilot errors, which are almost eliminated if you follow some really basic guidelines. you also don't really need a runway for landing so engine-out is almost a non-event.
so yes, safer in many, not all, aspects
>gyrocopters are safer in terms of pilot errors, which are almost eliminated if you follow some really basic guidelines. you also don't really need a runway for landing so engine-out is almost a non-event. >so yes, safer in many, not all, aspects
I know nothing about any of this flying stuff, but I would imagine anything with a fixed wing that could possibly glide down safely would be inherently more safe than a rotor craft at any height more than a few meters off the ground. Care to explain how that isn't true?
Engine out in a rotor craft sounds like a straight drop-like-a-rock event to me...
>Engine out in a rotor craft sounds like a straight drop-like-a-rock event to me...
nope, gyrocopters engine-out glide about 3:1 (from 1000 feet of altitude you glide 3000 feet horizontally). planes glide about 10-20:1 depeding on how aerodynamic they are, so yes you glide further which is better.
the diffence is, planes land at much higher airspeed (=energy) while gyros can land with almost 0 airspeed so you don't need a runway, you just land anywhere with a few meters of space and since you have almost no energy the eventual crash will be very mild = safer.
they also can't stall mid-air which is the biggest killer in general aviation airplanes
Aviation in general borders insanity. Anything done by rotary wing basically requires it.
https://i.imgur.com/HFjXroz.jpg
autogyro is -supposedly- safer than other ultralight
Zero experience in this but wouldn’t the paramotor be the safest personal aircraft? 9:1 ratio, can land at zero-ish airspeed, and no need for flimsy wheelchair wheels either. If shit goes really really bad like a fuel tank fire you could even ditch the engine (in theory, I’m not sure if that’s a thing irl)
6 months ago
Anonymous
I'm no expert. Just a random dude who knows nothing about any of the subjects in this thread. But I routinely see youtube videos of paraglider envelopes collapsing. Maybe there have been some recent advances.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>random wind gust appears >your parachute partly collapses >ropes tangle, you're a falling rock
No thank you, soft wings can't handle the weather. It's gliders for me. No engine so nothing to break, worst case scenario you land in a field. Most glider deaths are due to mid-air crashes, that's how reliable they are. Just don't stall/spin and don't hit another plane and you're golden.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Knowing nothing about the subject, I'm curious how many of those crashes would be due to not being properly radio outfitted to make whatever more mobile/powerful craft aware of their general inability to get out of the way if the wind isn't co-operative.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Gliders do have radios, and they are plenty maneuverable, those aren't the issue. It's just that in glider competitions it can sometime look like pic related: many gliders in tight space, because that's where the lift is. and then crashes can happen. It's not very often, but still.
That makes sense, didn’t know they could collapse so easily. But those need like loads of flat runway to land right
maybe no 'so' easily, but still. very weather sensitive, gusty winds and turbulence is a no-no for soft wings (and rogalos as well). gliders need about 100-200 meters for landing, usually it's not a problem to find a nice field to land if needed.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I just want to fly around like a moron on my farm without worrying about collision or wind lift, can autogyro do it?
6 months ago
Anonymous
absolutely, I'd even go as far as to say it's the perfect machine for that job
6 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, have you also tried yachting?
If yes, what would you recommend from cost/fun perspective, yachts or gliders?
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Anon, have you also tried yachting?
nope, but it sounds nice. what sucks about gliding is that (unless you own top-end motorised glider) you need other people to get you into the air. yachting sounds like something you'll be able to do completely solo whenever you please, so there's that.
6 months ago
Anonymous
That makes sense, didn’t know they could collapse so easily. But those need like loads of flat runway to land right
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Most glider deaths are due to mid-air crashes,
I checked the statistics a while back and most deaths were due to running into the side of the mountain. I've always wanted to fly somewhere with good mountains (new zealand, alps etc.), and at least I'm more likely to survive that long, since the terrain here is flat and sucks and is stupid.
Knowing nothing about the subject, I'm curious how many of those crashes would be due to not being properly radio outfitted to make whatever more mobile/powerful craft aware of their general inability to get out of the way if the wind isn't co-operative.
>not being properly radio outfitted
How many crusty billionaires die on their yachts every year because they forgot to bring GPS to their pleasure cruise? none. There's more avionics capability in one of those motherfrickers than an entire clapped-out rental fleet of analog 172s. They had to add a mode to randomize some of the the traffic avoidance info, because people were using it to check on their opponents during a contest and gain an advantage.
6 months ago
Anonymous
most glider piloting also happens around mountains, because they generate insanely good updrafts
6 months ago
Anonymous
Worked good for Hamas
6 months ago
Anonymous
Paragliders are sensitive to airbursts and can only be used in comparatively low wind, and rain or moisture (think going in a cloud) on your wing can lead to disaster.
Landing can be tricky and worst case can frick you up, especially when strapped to an engine.
No, you can't ditch the engine but Inever heard of any issue but I only paraglide, no engine.
TL/DR, your points are mostly valid but there is more to it and it's hard to compare.
>think of a maple seed that spins and thus descends more slowly.
This, as long as the rotor doesnt seize up or similar due to whatever the problem is, you have a very good chance of walking away from any landing during a crisis.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Since the rotor isn't powered, it's pretty unlikely to seize up due to an engine failure.
Gyrocopters (autogyros) absolutely are rotorcraft and use a rotary wing, not a fixed wing.
>Rotorcraft can generally be divided into two categories: helicopters and gyroplanes (often referred to as gyrocopters or autogyros.) A helicopter uses one or more powered rotors or rotary wings to fly and maintain directional control, while a gyroplane uses a traditional engine and propeller for thrust, and an unpowered rotor for lift.
Yes, but a better way of looking at it it would be that autogyros are designed to operate in a constant state of autorotation, but helicopters that lose power need to adjust the rotors collective pitch and tilt to keep the rotor autorotating and allow it to glide like an autogyro.
Autogyro rotors are tilted slightly backwards to cause them to autorotate in forward flight via air pushing up through the rotor from underneath, unpowered helicopter rotors *can* do that if you set the controls properly but it's not how they normally operate.
Well you need to save on weight as much as possible
It’s definitely not the safest thing ever, but if you’re into auto gyros safety obviously does not bother you
>general aviatiors are deranged.
No anon, they just want to fly but the guberment is making it mega gay to do so. >nooooo you have to have a $30k certified boomer engine, unchanged from early 60's >did you get your hours bro, just fly around in circles like a moron >nooo you must huff lead fumes, because you just have to OK? >double magnetos bro, its for reliability, never mind that a random shitbox engine is by several orders of magntitude more reliable
>magnetos
US aviation is just moronic. Magnetos in the year of our lord 2023? What the frick is this, a 100 euro lawn mower? Never heard of ignition coils?
Magnetos are better than coils in literally every way for planes. They spark hotter and will continue to run even if the plane has a full electrical failure.
here's secret little tip for you when you find something modern using something that seems old fashioned... ready?
because it's super reliable and nearly bullet proof.
see skippy (can I call you skippy? great).
see skippy everything about airplanes is about reliability, and redundancy. why? because skippy, you can't pull over on a cloud and work on your plane.
2 sets of spark plugs
2 magnetos
multiple sources of fuel which can be crosslinked in some cases.
multiple sets of instruments.
systems that can work without power or hydraulics like dropping the landing gear in to locked positions even if hydraulics fail.
If you had even a tiny amount of initiative you would look things up before you write here and be seen as a fool. this isn't /misc/ where morons run rampant in an echo chamber unchecked.
some of use just might be licensed airframe and powerplant mechanics, and even have flight experience.
but you just keep spouting the random thoughts that jump in to your head.
this is a based post. but anon is still correct. regulations are to keep poor people from dangerous machines. if someone wants to yolo it,they should be allowed to. Why? because government answers to freecitizens, not the other way around.
You can do a home built experimental and sidestep a lot of these rules. You know what most home builders use, though? Certified engines with carburetors and magnetos because they're reliable.
>a random shitbox engine is by several orders of magntitude more reliable
unfortunately, the random shitbox engine will stop being reliable when you try to run it at 80% power forever.
even if this wasn't the case, when you combine a random shitbox engine with an amateur-built gearbox (technically it's a power system unit or some bullshit) to get the required RPMs (due to speed of sound it has to spin slowly) it will suddenly become very unreliable.
the lycosaurus just werks (TM), you can see Rotax has more modern technology but they are in Europe, and European people hate us.
Not any random shitbox but there's the Thielert Centurion 4.0 that people are excited for because it's a moder. Mercedes diesel, not a 60 year old design.
>Thielert Centurion 4.0
the infamous Bankrupter of Diamond Aircraft? the archetypical Debacle of Engineering? The engine so shitty that avweb guy used it as a case study of an engine with a long, protracted development cycle and numerous issues that only lasted as long as it did because of a series of unlikely coincidences?
I think I'll go with a Hitler engine, thanks. It isn't reputed to be very reliable, but at least I can build it from a kit and I'll know how to do maintenance myself.
Weird I heard about it from avweb too and he seemed positive about it.
Excuse the hijack, but the AvWeb guy retired this past week (there were two, actually, Paul betorelli and Paul Berge, and the other (Berge) retired last month).
Too based of a man. Now all we got is that cuck mentor now
6 months ago
Anonymous
We still have guys like Dan Gryder who are pretty decent, but I am definitely sad about both Pauls retiring. That just leaves Russ Niles, Mark Phelps and Kate O'Connor to do the videos, but Russ is the only one with video experience and he has not done anything in about 12 years. AvWeb got bought up by Flying Magazine a couple of months ago too.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Dan Gryder >there was a crash yesterday >let me tell you exactly what happened guys >two months later we find out exactly what happened, completely different from what Dan Grifter was guessing >oh I was totally wrong (again)? better delete the videos!
remember this moron didn't even correctly guess that Trevor Jacob's crash was on purpose, I'm willing to bet that video is no longer on his channel though. Shit personality if you ask me.
🙁
Paul Betorelli is such a cool dude. I hope he enjoys his retirement.
>Paul Betorelli is such a cool dude.
he really is, we need more dudes like him
6 months ago
Anonymous
He is not good with crash analysis, sure, but his AQP videos are decent. He did point out that it does seem like the AOPA Cessna crash seemed to have performed an "impossible turn" following a partial or full power loss.
to be fair...
if you knew anything about aircraft, it really does not matter where the fuel is in the plane, on impact if the fuel tank ruptures it's all over.
I don't see the problem here anon. If there is a situation where the fuel catches on fire you're probably having a way bigger problem than that fire already.
This seems smart from a weight and balance point of view though. You and the fuel are basically acting like a point mass. Easier to design around that and one other heavy thing (engine) than moving it elsewhere and having 3 significantly heavy masses. Plus fuel gets burned so one of those masses is losing mass all the time. This is a clever solution to me
After a hard enough landing you're sitting in a puddle of gas though, likely with injuries that prevent you from moving away or even be conscious, so that might outweigh the benefits.
There's a great difference when you're sitting on top of the tank and it needs to handle your weight on top of fuel weight. The odd shape doesn't help either.
In other words, heavy as frick.
Clearly standalone tank and seat are cheaper, safer, and likely not even heavier.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>safer
ah yes the "safety" fallacy.
the ol' safety first meme. but you see chip (can I call you chip). Chip, if safety was truly first no airplane would ever fly because flying is not now nor ever will be "safe" it will however be Safe enough.
this design is safe enough. whether you like it or not.
6 months ago
Anonymous
You're 1000x more likely to die in a car crash
6 months ago
Anonymous
From a flight stability and control perspective, having any variable weight load (crew, cargo, fuel) as concentrated at one point (near its center of gravity) as possible is the ideal. This is especially true in an ultralight where the pilot even leaning slightly is enough to alter trim.
The safest aircraft is one that maintains the same center of gravity and pitch/ yaw/ roll characteristics regardless of how much fuel it has on board...the more spread out the variable weight it carries is, the more the trim changes and has to be carefully adjusted to maintain safe flight characteristics.
This seat/tank that puts all of that weight in one spot is based on that basic design principle that is important during 100% of normal flight operations, rather than creating a less stable arrangement for the sake of "safety" in an extremely rare and mostly avoidable circumstance, where if you crash land hard enough to rupture the tank via body weight you are very likely dead anyway.
You're also dead wrong about a separate tank not weighing more; the only way to make that happen would be to compromise the strength of one or both parts and/or the extra mounting hardware. You seem to believe that the seat is flimsy and no considerations have been made for shock loading in the event of an extreme impact on landing.
You couldn't be more wrong, it's probably the hardest thing on that aircraft to damage, as are fuel tanks. Combining the two makes perfect sense.
Captcha: ORGY XK
6 months ago
Anonymous
Unfortunately in real world the arrangement that's perfect in balance, aerodynamics, weight, structural design and safety at once is not possible, there are always some compromises.
The pilot is not even in the CG a lot of the time on ultralights in the first place.
>the seat is flimsy and no considerations have been made for shock loading in the event of an extreme impact on landing.
Exactly the opposite, it has to be made very sturdy and rigid to maintain integrity and not develop any leaks in the hardest reasonable landings (up to 25g iirc) with the heaviest rated pilot on top, while being long with a weak point in the middle (seat bend). This makes it very heavy compared to a regular tank of the same volume and shock rating. On top of it, a separate seat can also be made deformable to absorb some of the impact and save pilot from spine injuries, with this one it's impossible.
6 months ago
Anonymous
LOFL, editing quotes to say the exact opposite of what was said.
Then a bunch of bullshit that ignores the reality of the rotomolded materials involved, which are both strong AND extremely deformable without cracking, while being very lightweight.
Face it, fricktard, your total ignorance is glaring, not to mention your unfamiliarity with basic logic.
>deformable to absorb some of the impact and save pilot from spine injuries
You're so dumb you assume that the seat shell itself is the only way this kind of impact can be absorbed and/ or directed away from the occupant
LMAO
6 months ago
Anonymous
Wow someone's mad. Clearly you've reached the limits of your competence if the only argument you've left is ad hominem.
Put your favorite anime figurine inside a cardboard box and drop it on the floor. Now do the same while sitting on top of it. That's the difference between loads on a normal tank vs seat tank. No you can't make it soft because you would squish fuel out of it with your weight and it would pop like a water balloon in a crash. No you can't make it thin and light because this would make it soft or it could buckle under compressive forces (which a normal tank coincidentally doesn't experience pretty much at all because guess what - nobody's sitting on top of it)
>the seat shell itself is the only way this kind of impact can be absorbed and/ or directed away from the occupant
Among those simple, cheap and light enough to be used on a homebuilt ultralight it more or less is
you probably believe that the ending of die hard 2 was real and you can blow up a plane by lighting fuel on fire and it will blow the plane up when it takes off.
y'all are some dumb ass motherfrickers, you're supposed to put the pilot IN the liquid, ideally ingesting the liquid into the lungs and oxygenating with a separate system. I doubt a puny rotor thing would have enough maneuvering capability to take advantage of this, but either way, the entire benefit is lost if you put a solid object in between the pilot and the liquid.
>waah it could catch on fire
whatever, he'll probably unload the rotor and inadvertently do a backflip and then die from a stroke on the way down anyway
Imagine if your boosack got stuck on a seam and avgas got rubbed all over your scrotum. Do non-glider pilots really?
>powered by braps
Ultralights are the sketchiest death traps you can build. However, they're extremely based because the government can't tell you what to do.
autogyro is -supposedly- safer than other ultralight
That's not true at all.
gyrocopters are safer in terms of pilot errors, which are almost eliminated if you follow some really basic guidelines. you also don't really need a runway for landing so engine-out is almost a non-event.
so yes, safer in many, not all, aspects
>gyrocopters are safer in terms of pilot errors, which are almost eliminated if you follow some really basic guidelines. you also don't really need a runway for landing so engine-out is almost a non-event.
>so yes, safer in many, not all, aspects
I know nothing about any of this flying stuff, but I would imagine anything with a fixed wing that could possibly glide down safely would be inherently more safe than a rotor craft at any height more than a few meters off the ground. Care to explain how that isn't true?
Engine out in a rotor craft sounds like a straight drop-like-a-rock event to me...
>Engine out in a rotor craft sounds like a straight drop-like-a-rock event to me...
nope, gyrocopters engine-out glide about 3:1 (from 1000 feet of altitude you glide 3000 feet horizontally). planes glide about 10-20:1 depeding on how aerodynamic they are, so yes you glide further which is better.
the diffence is, planes land at much higher airspeed (=energy) while gyros can land with almost 0 airspeed so you don't need a runway, you just land anywhere with a few meters of space and since you have almost no energy the eventual crash will be very mild = safer.
they also can't stall mid-air which is the biggest killer in general aviation airplanes
autogyros are different from helicopters, the rotor is unpowered. think of a maple seed that spins and thus descends more slowly.
>think of a …
I’m not going to think of that and stop trying to put thoughts in my head
Zero experience in this but wouldn’t the paramotor be the safest personal aircraft? 9:1 ratio, can land at zero-ish airspeed, and no need for flimsy wheelchair wheels either. If shit goes really really bad like a fuel tank fire you could even ditch the engine (in theory, I’m not sure if that’s a thing irl)
I'm no expert. Just a random dude who knows nothing about any of the subjects in this thread. But I routinely see youtube videos of paraglider envelopes collapsing. Maybe there have been some recent advances.
>random wind gust appears
>your parachute partly collapses
>ropes tangle, you're a falling rock
No thank you, soft wings can't handle the weather. It's gliders for me. No engine so nothing to break, worst case scenario you land in a field. Most glider deaths are due to mid-air crashes, that's how reliable they are. Just don't stall/spin and don't hit another plane and you're golden.
Knowing nothing about the subject, I'm curious how many of those crashes would be due to not being properly radio outfitted to make whatever more mobile/powerful craft aware of their general inability to get out of the way if the wind isn't co-operative.
Gliders do have radios, and they are plenty maneuverable, those aren't the issue. It's just that in glider competitions it can sometime look like pic related: many gliders in tight space, because that's where the lift is. and then crashes can happen. It's not very often, but still.
maybe no 'so' easily, but still. very weather sensitive, gusty winds and turbulence is a no-no for soft wings (and rogalos as well). gliders need about 100-200 meters for landing, usually it's not a problem to find a nice field to land if needed.
I just want to fly around like a moron on my farm without worrying about collision or wind lift, can autogyro do it?
absolutely, I'd even go as far as to say it's the perfect machine for that job
Anon, have you also tried yachting?
If yes, what would you recommend from cost/fun perspective, yachts or gliders?
>Anon, have you also tried yachting?
nope, but it sounds nice. what sucks about gliding is that (unless you own top-end motorised glider) you need other people to get you into the air. yachting sounds like something you'll be able to do completely solo whenever you please, so there's that.
That makes sense, didn’t know they could collapse so easily. But those need like loads of flat runway to land right
>Most glider deaths are due to mid-air crashes,
I checked the statistics a while back and most deaths were due to running into the side of the mountain. I've always wanted to fly somewhere with good mountains (new zealand, alps etc.), and at least I'm more likely to survive that long, since the terrain here is flat and sucks and is stupid.
>not being properly radio outfitted
How many crusty billionaires die on their yachts every year because they forgot to bring GPS to their pleasure cruise? none. There's more avionics capability in one of those motherfrickers than an entire clapped-out rental fleet of analog 172s. They had to add a mode to randomize some of the the traffic avoidance info, because people were using it to check on their opponents during a contest and gain an advantage.
most glider piloting also happens around mountains, because they generate insanely good updrafts
Worked good for Hamas
Paragliders are sensitive to airbursts and can only be used in comparatively low wind, and rain or moisture (think going in a cloud) on your wing can lead to disaster.
Landing can be tricky and worst case can frick you up, especially when strapped to an engine.
No, you can't ditch the engine but Inever heard of any issue but I only paraglide, no engine.
TL/DR, your points are mostly valid but there is more to it and it's hard to compare.
>think of a maple seed that spins and thus descends more slowly.
This, as long as the rotor doesnt seize up or similar due to whatever the problem is, you have a very good chance of walking away from any landing during a crisis.
Since the rotor isn't powered, it's pretty unlikely to seize up due to an engine failure.
These are not rotor aircraft, they are fixed wing aircraft with an u powered drag prop to slow you down in nearly all events
I had no idea this was even a thing until this thread. Thanks for making me learn something new!
I went and found this video on youtube that explained it well. Pretty cool!
Gyrocopters (autogyros) absolutely are rotorcraft and use a rotary wing, not a fixed wing.
>Rotorcraft can generally be divided into two categories: helicopters and gyroplanes (often referred to as gyrocopters or autogyros.) A helicopter uses one or more powered rotors or rotary wings to fly and maintain directional control, while a gyroplane uses a traditional engine and propeller for thrust, and an unpowered rotor for lift.
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aviation-interests/ultralights/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/types-of-ultralights/ultralight-rotorcraft
You can autorotate those things to the ground if the engine fails like real choppers, right?
Yes, but a better way of looking at it it would be that autogyros are designed to operate in a constant state of autorotation, but helicopters that lose power need to adjust the rotors collective pitch and tilt to keep the rotor autorotating and allow it to glide like an autogyro.
Autogyro rotors are tilted slightly backwards to cause them to autorotate in forward flight via air pushing up through the rotor from underneath, unpowered helicopter rotors *can* do that if you set the controls properly but it's not how they normally operate.
Aviation in general borders insanity. Anything done by rotary wing basically requires it.
Well you need to save on weight as much as possible
It’s definitely not the safest thing ever, but if you’re into auto gyros safety obviously does not bother you
>general aviatiors are deranged.
No anon, they just want to fly but the guberment is making it mega gay to do so.
>nooooo you have to have a $30k certified boomer engine, unchanged from early 60's
>did you get your hours bro, just fly around in circles like a moron
>nooo you must huff lead fumes, because you just have to OK?
>double magnetos bro, its for reliability, never mind that a random shitbox engine is by several orders of magntitude more reliable
Ultralights are based because you can just fly.
uncle soondead please stay off the internet, now take your meds and go back to sleep.
>magnetos
US aviation is just moronic. Magnetos in the year of our lord 2023? What the frick is this, a 100 euro lawn mower? Never heard of ignition coils?
Magnetos are better than coils in literally every way for planes. They spark hotter and will continue to run even if the plane has a full electrical failure.
>will continue to run even if the plane has a full electrical failure
Too bad you can't say the same thing about the fuel pump.
Nearly all reciprocating engines in GA aircraft have a mechanical fuel pump as the primary pump, for exactly that reason.
Some high wing designs are gravity fed and don't even need a fuel pump.
once again the idiot says idiot things.
here's secret little tip for you when you find something modern using something that seems old fashioned... ready?
because it's super reliable and nearly bullet proof.
see skippy (can I call you skippy? great).
see skippy everything about airplanes is about reliability, and redundancy. why? because skippy, you can't pull over on a cloud and work on your plane.
2 sets of spark plugs
2 magnetos
multiple sources of fuel which can be crosslinked in some cases.
multiple sets of instruments.
systems that can work without power or hydraulics like dropping the landing gear in to locked positions even if hydraulics fail.
If you had even a tiny amount of initiative you would look things up before you write here and be seen as a fool. this isn't /misc/ where morons run rampant in an echo chamber unchecked.
some of use just might be licensed airframe and powerplant mechanics, and even have flight experience.
but you just keep spouting the random thoughts that jump in to your head.
>this isn't /misc/ where morons run rampant in an echo chamber unchecked.
Lmao, it basically is though
nah, diy is full of morons who constantly use PrepHole as a psuedo google.
there do seem to be a lot of morons that appear to have been banned from other boards that shitpost here.
no, 80% of posts here are just idiots that can't or won't use google.
>use PrepHole as a psuedo google.
I wouldnt have to if Google wasn't filled with formulaic ai blog shit and gave me the answer I needed.
what a homosexual reddit-tier post jesus. have a nice day immediately.
>reddit-tier
oh thank you. reddit must be a great place, you homosexuals talk about it a lot.
Hop skip and jump directly into a turbofan.
pic related champ.
this is a based post. but anon is still correct. regulations are to keep poor people from dangerous machines. if someone wants to yolo it,they should be allowed to. Why? because government answers to freecitizens, not the other way around.
magnetos are based, ive turned off the battery in a cessna practicing a full electrical failure when I was young. enjoy your flame out, moron
You can do a home built experimental and sidestep a lot of these rules. You know what most home builders use, though? Certified engines with carburetors and magnetos because they're reliable.
>a random shitbox engine is by several orders of magntitude more reliable
unfortunately, the random shitbox engine will stop being reliable when you try to run it at 80% power forever.
even if this wasn't the case, when you combine a random shitbox engine with an amateur-built gearbox (technically it's a power system unit or some bullshit) to get the required RPMs (due to speed of sound it has to spin slowly) it will suddenly become very unreliable.
the lycosaurus just werks (TM), you can see Rotax has more modern technology but they are in Europe, and European people hate us.
Not any random shitbox but there's the Thielert Centurion 4.0 that people are excited for because it's a moder. Mercedes diesel, not a 60 year old design.
>Thielert Centurion 4.0
the infamous Bankrupter of Diamond Aircraft? the archetypical Debacle of Engineering? The engine so shitty that avweb guy used it as a case study of an engine with a long, protracted development cycle and numerous issues that only lasted as long as it did because of a series of unlikely coincidences?
I think I'll go with a Hitler engine, thanks. It isn't reputed to be very reliable, but at least I can build it from a kit and I'll know how to do maintenance myself.
Weird I heard about it from avweb too and he seemed positive about it.
Excuse the hijack, but the AvWeb guy retired this past week (there were two, actually, Paul betorelli and Paul Berge, and the other (Berge) retired last month).
Too based of a man. Now all we got is that cuck mentor now
We still have guys like Dan Gryder who are pretty decent, but I am definitely sad about both Pauls retiring. That just leaves Russ Niles, Mark Phelps and Kate O'Connor to do the videos, but Russ is the only one with video experience and he has not done anything in about 12 years. AvWeb got bought up by Flying Magazine a couple of months ago too.
>Dan Gryder
>there was a crash yesterday
>let me tell you exactly what happened guys
>two months later we find out exactly what happened, completely different from what Dan Grifter was guessing
>oh I was totally wrong (again)? better delete the videos!
remember this moron didn't even correctly guess that Trevor Jacob's crash was on purpose, I'm willing to bet that video is no longer on his channel though. Shit personality if you ask me.
>Paul Betorelli is such a cool dude.
he really is, we need more dudes like him
He is not good with crash analysis, sure, but his AQP videos are decent. He did point out that it does seem like the AOPA Cessna crash seemed to have performed an "impossible turn" following a partial or full power loss.
>Trevor Jacob
🙁
Paul Betorelli is such a cool dude. I hope he enjoys his retirement.
to be fair...
if you knew anything about aircraft, it really does not matter where the fuel is in the plane, on impact if the fuel tank ruptures it's all over.
I don't see the problem here anon. If there is a situation where the fuel catches on fire you're probably having a way bigger problem than that fire already.
Faustian spirit.
That's not even general aviation, that's ultralights. They have very few rules and are not regulated very closely. Actual GA is a lot more strict.
>You can't use fuel as armor.
This seems smart from a weight and balance point of view though. You and the fuel are basically acting like a point mass. Easier to design around that and one other heavy thing (engine) than moving it elsewhere and having 3 significantly heavy masses. Plus fuel gets burned so one of those masses is losing mass all the time. This is a clever solution to me
After a hard enough landing you're sitting in a puddle of gas though, likely with injuries that prevent you from moving away or even be conscious, so that might outweigh the benefits.
There's no difference if the fuel is a foot behind you in a centerline tank or a foot to your left and right in wing tanks.
You're surrounded by gas no matter what. Do you think real airplanes store it in a different dimension or something?
There's a great difference when you're sitting on top of the tank and it needs to handle your weight on top of fuel weight. The odd shape doesn't help either.
The odd shape is part of design so it doesn't buckle under your fat ass.
Clearly it's fine.
In other words, heavy as frick.
Clearly standalone tank and seat are cheaper, safer, and likely not even heavier.
>safer
ah yes the "safety" fallacy.
the ol' safety first meme. but you see chip (can I call you chip). Chip, if safety was truly first no airplane would ever fly because flying is not now nor ever will be "safe" it will however be Safe enough.
this design is safe enough. whether you like it or not.
You're 1000x more likely to die in a car crash
From a flight stability and control perspective, having any variable weight load (crew, cargo, fuel) as concentrated at one point (near its center of gravity) as possible is the ideal. This is especially true in an ultralight where the pilot even leaning slightly is enough to alter trim.
The safest aircraft is one that maintains the same center of gravity and pitch/ yaw/ roll characteristics regardless of how much fuel it has on board...the more spread out the variable weight it carries is, the more the trim changes and has to be carefully adjusted to maintain safe flight characteristics.
This seat/tank that puts all of that weight in one spot is based on that basic design principle that is important during 100% of normal flight operations, rather than creating a less stable arrangement for the sake of "safety" in an extremely rare and mostly avoidable circumstance, where if you crash land hard enough to rupture the tank via body weight you are very likely dead anyway.
You're also dead wrong about a separate tank not weighing more; the only way to make that happen would be to compromise the strength of one or both parts and/or the extra mounting hardware. You seem to believe that the seat is flimsy and no considerations have been made for shock loading in the event of an extreme impact on landing.
You couldn't be more wrong, it's probably the hardest thing on that aircraft to damage, as are fuel tanks. Combining the two makes perfect sense.
Captcha: ORGY XK
Unfortunately in real world the arrangement that's perfect in balance, aerodynamics, weight, structural design and safety at once is not possible, there are always some compromises.
The pilot is not even in the CG a lot of the time on ultralights in the first place.
>the seat is flimsy and no considerations have been made for shock loading in the event of an extreme impact on landing.
Exactly the opposite, it has to be made very sturdy and rigid to maintain integrity and not develop any leaks in the hardest reasonable landings (up to 25g iirc) with the heaviest rated pilot on top, while being long with a weak point in the middle (seat bend). This makes it very heavy compared to a regular tank of the same volume and shock rating. On top of it, a separate seat can also be made deformable to absorb some of the impact and save pilot from spine injuries, with this one it's impossible.
LOFL, editing quotes to say the exact opposite of what was said.
Then a bunch of bullshit that ignores the reality of the rotomolded materials involved, which are both strong AND extremely deformable without cracking, while being very lightweight.
Face it, fricktard, your total ignorance is glaring, not to mention your unfamiliarity with basic logic.
>deformable to absorb some of the impact and save pilot from spine injuries
You're so dumb you assume that the seat shell itself is the only way this kind of impact can be absorbed and/ or directed away from the occupant
LMAO
Wow someone's mad. Clearly you've reached the limits of your competence if the only argument you've left is ad hominem.
Put your favorite anime figurine inside a cardboard box and drop it on the floor. Now do the same while sitting on top of it. That's the difference between loads on a normal tank vs seat tank. No you can't make it soft because you would squish fuel out of it with your weight and it would pop like a water balloon in a crash. No you can't make it thin and light because this would make it soft or it could buckle under compressive forces (which a normal tank coincidentally doesn't experience pretty much at all because guess what - nobody's sitting on top of it)
>the seat shell itself is the only way this kind of impact can be absorbed and/ or directed away from the occupant
Among those simple, cheap and light enough to be used on a homebuilt ultralight it more or less is
tl;dr lrn 2 structural mechanics
Motorcycles of rhe air
>have mexican food for dinner
>fly back home on your ultralight
>explosive farts set your tank on fire
>have mexican food for dinner
>fly back home on your ultralight
>explosive farts provide jet thrust propulsion
>have mexican food for dinner
>fly back home on your ultralight
>explosive farts provide fuel via tube shoved up your ass
What are the aeronautical advantages of having a violently sparking Li-Po secured to the fuel tank with some cheap velcro straps?
safety costs weight and weight is at the greatest premium on these
If you really insist on having the Li-Po next to the fuel tank at least consider anti-spark connectors
you really are that stupid?
>violently sparking LIPO
moron.
>you really are stupid, moron
Okay ESL
The brushed DC motor, spark plug wires and exhaust are of much more concern
See brushed DC motor above
you probably believe that the ending of die hard 2 was real and you can blow up a plane by lighting fuel on fire and it will blow the plane up when it takes off.
y'all are some dumb ass motherfrickers, you're supposed to put the pilot IN the liquid, ideally ingesting the liquid into the lungs and oxygenating with a separate system. I doubt a puny rotor thing would have enough maneuvering capability to take advantage of this, but either way, the entire benefit is lost if you put a solid object in between the pilot and the liquid.
>waah it could catch on fire
whatever, he'll probably unload the rotor and inadvertently do a backflip and then die from a stroke on the way down anyway
I am amused.
Was this designed by a Black by any chance?
African Aerospace at it again?
it's not focused enough on helicopter shape to be Black based, too utilitarian
Av fuel isn't explosive like gasoline
no it, even more flammable.
Got 10 to 12 K in it as shown.