Tweet
Hi,I"m a glider/fixed-wing pilot with an interest in autogyros, and intend to be a gyro pilot soon enough (Come on, Lotto!) but have had a fascination with gyrocopters since seeing Mad Max 2 as a kid.I was wondering though, what are the technical implications of trike vs. taildragger landing gear?Most/all of the original/older ideas had taildragger undercarriage with a tractor prop (obviously due to development of aviation and aircraft designs at the time) but after Benson did his work, most seem to be trike with a pusher prop.I understand about Centre of Gravity issues, line of thrust, power pusher-overs, keeping the disc under load etc, but fail to understand why nearly all modern gyrocopters have a trike/pusher arrangement.I notice that the Little Wing and Pitbull have returned the Cierva"s general look. I understand this to be for stability/positive static stability/etc reasons.I found some discussion in a US forum saying that few people owned a Pitbull but little else apart from that.All modern/shiny/snazzy designs are still trike/pusher (e.g. AC-10 Arrowcopter/RAF2000/Calidus 9/etc).Does a trike undercarriage make for easier takeoff/landings?Is there an aeronautica/physics/practical/ease of piloting/etc reason for this?Thanks.
-
-
Basically when Bensen designed his Gyrocopter it was marketed as something any handyman could build with simple handtools.Three sticks of aluminium an engine,rotors and chair.Cierva type (fuselage)Gyro"s were a lot more complicated with welding, fabric covering etc etc. Exactly the same today.Center line thrust tractor gyro"s are no more stable than center line thrust pusher gyros.The advantage is tractor taildragger types by design can have the horizontal stabilizer a lot further back.Any type of conventional (taildragger)
-
I couldnt think of anythn worse than lookn up the a$$ end ofa 912 all day.Its much more cumfy sittn out frunt and visability is 100%.
Comment
Comment