:smack:
It’s an autogyro, not a helicopter, not that I expect the average TV talking head to have any clue as to the difference.
It’s also going to wind up f****** up small scale civilian aviation even more than it already has been.
What if you had little propellers on the tips of the propellers…and little propellers on the tips of those propellers…and little propellers…
when invented wings were heavy. they provided lift with less weight for old materials.
That reminds me… does anyone know what the B. in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stands for?
If you lose the engine, you autorotate down in a controlled manner, and land almost anywhere, no runway needed.
“Gyrocopter” is a trademark of Bensen. IIRC, Part 91calls them gyroplane.
All rotorcraft are tricky (compared to fixed wing) - the gyroplane has the added feature of not only being limited to VERY low altitudes (just high enough to be fatal), but they will drop like rocks if he rotor is unloaded - as it is in any negative G maneuver.
Remember dad driving over the hill crest and giving you that little “Wheee” moment?
That is negative G.
Why, “Benoit B. Mandelbrot”, of course.
While we’re at it, do you know an anagram for “Banach-Tarski”?
…and, to think we were all once so worried about the high rate of accidents with ultralights! 
Seriously, it’s a real pity that a few assholes gave powered paragliding a bad name. It’s one of the safest, funnest, most economical ways to fly ever invented. It’s a huge thrill to footlaunch into a smooth laminar breeze, and feel the wing lift you off the ground.
I feel for ya, Son! As a motorcyclist, I know full well the damage the fringe brings down on the rest of our heads.
I’ve actually been thinking about a gyro for a while. Would have been perfect for where I live. High, steady winds, lots of open area. Looks like that (might) will get the fucks put to it now. 
Asshole (guy that did this)!
Edit: Eh, I’been drinkin’. Ignore the bullshit in this post. Would still like a gyro, though.
Autogyros aren’t limited to low altitudes, the Avro Rota had a service ceiling of 8000 feet.
And why use rotors instead of wings? Because this guy, Juan de la Cierva, wanted to make a plane that wouldn’t stall.
I am going to guess Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.
The Avro Rota was a 1933 design using, essentially, a real airplane’s fuselage and power plant.
It has nothing to do with the “flivers” produced since the US Mail stopped using the Autogyro.
Uh… WTF about limited to very low altitudes? Where do you get that from?
I’ve got friends who fly gyros a lot like what doofus flew into DC. They don’t have any problem getting thousands of feet off the ground, just like fixed wing ultralights and microlights.
You don’t usually fly something like that so high largely because it’s frickin’ cold up there and you can’t see much. Being able to fly low and slow is a major feature of flying machines like that, not a bug, but they most certainly can fly high enough that the ability of the pilot to handle cold air and thin air becomes more of an issue than the machine’s ability to climb.
I just found my new screen saver
Well, here’s the first step; gasp in wonder at The Helicogyre:
http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helicogyre/helicogyre.htm
Just to be clear, am I right in assuming that:
Gyrocopter = autogyro = gyroplane? All 3 are unpowered rotary wing craft, right?
“Gyroplane” is what the US’s FAA calls all of them. Other countries may use different terms.
Informally, “gyrocopter” and “autogyro” are different terms for the same thing, although some aviation types will split hairs on that.
You also have to be careful about commas - “unpowered rotary wing” might mean a gyroglider, which is a glider with a rotary instead of a fixed wing. It might be more accurate to say “powered aircraft with an unpowered rotary wing”.
Plane and Pilot magazine just had a special issue on gyroplanes (March 2015). I am fascinated by them because they are very rare in the U.S. but have really taken off in Europe (no pun intended). They say that “you get 90% of the utility of a helicopter at 10% of the price”. Many, if not most, of the ones in the U.S. are either older models or experimental, home-built aircraft of questionable quality but there are a number of manufacturers of new ones all around the world. Even new ones are cheap compared to a newly manufactured sport planes and practically free compared to a helicopter with roughly similar speed and lift capability. Brand new ones start at less than $50,000 and one stripped down model is less than $22,000 if you are willing to do a quick assembly yourself. Even the high-end, premium, ready to fly models cost about $100,000 brand new. Those amounts may not cover the deposit alone on a helicopter.
Their operating costs are extremely low as well. They don’t require a true airfield let alone a long runway because they are true STOL aircraft. They also use relatively little fuel and maintenance is simple because they have a fundamentally simple design.
I have never seen a real gyroplane in real life despite being a life-long aviation buff and perpetual flight student. The closest I ever came was watching the movie Annie where they land a gyroplane on the White House lawn to drop by to see FDR. That wasn’t a completely made up scene by the way. The Pitcairn Autogyro is a real aircraft and was contemporary to the movie’s setting.
Autogyros have advanced a lot in recent years however. The production models look like this Cavalon or this Aerotrek now. They are so cool that I feel compelled to fly one. Forget flying cars that will never truly appear. I can hop right in one of these today and accomplish most of the same goals.
Here is what it looks like to fly in a Cavalon if you are interested:
I think I have a new addition to my Christmas list.