Is an autogyro with full direct control easier to fly than a autogyro
with only lateral control?

what's wrong with this question?

why are we reading old post that are dated as new, such as are there any arf autogyro mfg. or the whopper and others. dosent anybody have any new questions or insites? AL SNYDER good day!!

Welcome Joel and Al,

Joel: >>>...Is an autogyro with full direct control easier to fly than a autogyro with only lateral control?...<<<

Perhaps a bit more patience needed on takeoff for a larger, dual direct control model during the initial blade acceleration phase. Don't want to strip out the fore/aft tilt servo.

Al: >>>...dosent anybody have any new questions or insites?...<<<

Fresh out of "dosents" and "insites", but do have a fresh question for you: How does "delta hinging" effect "mu" (if at all?)

STEVE read your question but i dont know what mu is . i am new at autogyros ,but i will find out. AL

Hi ya'll,
First> Direct Control (D.C.) it would seem a better label would be
"Infinite rotor control" the ability to have both pitch and lateral plus any combination of the two. Example> partial "up" along with
some right or left.
I have had considerable eperience evaluating the control ability
of elevators versus rotor pitch control.
History> Giro V orgionally flew with elevator only for pitch control.
I could hardly wait to have infinite control, sounded so high tech!
To have the ability I developed a simplistic infinite control rotor
head. Complete details in 11/2000 RCM.
This head was simply added to Giro V so that both elevator and
fore and aft rotor were available.
Good opportunity to evaluate both?
Considerable previous experience with elevator allowed immediate comparison.
It was found that craft reaction as far as direction was cocerned
was similiar when using either method.
However, a diffinite superiority was found using elevator.
Assume the craft is in level flight and a climb to altitude is desired. You are familiar with how an airplane reacts in that
situation? The Giro reacts in a very similiar way when elevator
does the work.
When fore and aft rotor is asked to do the same as expected
the reaction is to produce the desired climb.
However, what is felt to be a shortcoming is very evident.
With elevator, airplane or Giro, there is very little if any loss of
forward air speed as the climb commences
Difference seen with fore and aft is the craft immediately slows
down, very unlike the elevator responce,
Would seem the difference makes elevator a superior control?
But, continued use of infinite control has seen a nicety.
This comes with two factors.
First very advantageous at all times is fore and aft control allows
the ability to trim the pitch mode which unlike elevator is effective at all flight speeds.
Secondly, with a different rotor for example> if it is apparent there is not enough lift or perhaps to muh, the needed increase
or decrease can be had by changing the rotor angle of attack
with the infinite head.
Bottom line> for best general performance elevator seems superior. Yet, the advantages of fore and aft are nice to have
Best way, have them both!
Should say, in practise what Steve mentions is correct. Generally
speaking when using elevator we can hold some "up" on the take
off run and the Giro will not lift until it is ready.
Holding some "up" with fore and aft can cause the Giro to lift
before sufficent rotor RPM is attained, result an abort!
Thought> it was only a few years ago when Giro mysteries were
abundent. however with many obtaining experience needed knowledge has been accumullated. Nice to know the new craft
will work instead of the hope it used to be!
OK?

Hal [email protected]

I fly most of my designs with a direct control head. The linkage hook ups are easier. I tilt the rotor back to assist in spinning the blades into autorotation on take off. Likewise upon landing, applying full forward tilt helps stop the blades turning. My models are small, .061 to .074 size around 16 to 20 ounces in weight. I have never noticed the models slow down when the rotor is tilted back in flight, but that could be due to the small size of my machines.

Hi Andy,
Sounds just fine, good that you are doing well!
As I did, you might try adding elevator and then compare the
craft's reaction to each.
Then read my post and see if you find similiar results.
If you do that let me know how it turns out.
Good luck!

Hal [email protected]

Exactly the type of 'gyro I'm interested in building! Could you share some pix or plans of how your d.c. system works and the general layout/construction?

Dear "DB"....

Mr Wrisley published a construction article in the August RC Modeler 2002. It's called the "Gyroshtick" uses an .074 engine.
The design builds quickly and the resulting aircraft flys very well.

Bill F

Hi Dickeybird,
I spent 3 years developing a Gyro to suit the average R/Cers
desires and needs. The result was a fine Gyro that does it all and
has no short comings.
Giro V report and plans were in the 2/2000 RCM
Further developing produced a simplistic infinite control rotor head which is composed of purchased parts which aby school boy
could assemble.
Report in 11/2000 RCM
Giro V with the infinite head has considerable flawless flight time
Good luck, need more just ask>

Hal deBolt [email protected]