Talk:Autogyro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Pop culture

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture:

A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.

The Little Nellie reference is given as a specific example of the Wallis autogyro, not a as pop-culture reference in and of itself. If the Mad Max 2 appearence used another autogyro design, then perhaps it would merit mention in that section. However, comic apprearences do not feature actual airframes, and are usually generic types, not specific models. In addtition, they usually don't pass the "notability" threshold. - BillCJ 17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen some Mad Max fansites, and there are references to the type/make of gyro. I will find it and re-enter the details (in due course).
I have had a look at the guidelines on that page; it is noted that films like Top Gun can be included because they are canonial; which makes me believe that MM2 qualifies. TG is about the desire to be best, and competition with colleagues, centred around Navy flying - I submit it could be about any military combat vehicle. In MM2 the autogyro is central to the plot, it is the vehicle of one of the major protagonists which refers to the individuality and non-conforminst attitude of the character. It performs tasks within the plot that no other vehicle could (even though it stretches the truth regarding capability) making it essential, and it appears in several scenes in throughout the film. Why this example cannot be used when the equally fantastical Little Nellie is often quoted, when it appears in only two consecutive scenes and is not central to the plot. Also, this more recent film is likely to be most peoples introduction to the fact of the existence of autogyro's.
Lastly, the timescale of the use of autogyros in popular fiction in the 1930's may be relevant as it indicates the period when the craft was familiar to the public. The advent of the helicopter resulted in the decline of the autogyro in popular culture as much as in the aviation world.
Those are my thoughts on the matter. I will get round to adding back the MM2 info, when I get the make/type details, drekkly. LessHeard vanU 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If the MM2 aircraft is the same type (Wallis) as Little Nellie, then I have no problem with MM2 replacing it as an example. However, I believe the LN reference was originally added (not by me) because it is more well-known, filmed much earlier, and piloted by the creator, Ken Wallis, in the film. But I am opposed to creating another list of pop-culture appearences, and they NEVER stay small. Everyone always thinks their faverite instance of an apperaence is notable, and should be there. So if that means we end up taking out the "Little Nellie" reference altogheter, then that's fine by me. - BillCJ 21:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: I have added a {{citation needed}} tag to the Little Nellie section, as the info needs to have verifiable sources, as would the MM2 and 30's comics appearances. - BillCJ 21:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. It is my understanding that the Wallis type autogyro is a development of a Bensen model, and the MM2 'gyro is also an obvious Bensen derived design. Would the fact that they are different makes/models (of different eras, also, perhaps) be sufficient to include both - in a brief manner, naturally? LessHeard vanU 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A couple of observations, if I might: after reading over this article, it seems that the biggest problem here is a serious lack of citations. I threw a couple of {{fact}} tags in, but I would urge the folks that did the actual writing here to dig into their memories and cite the sources they used.
Secondly, if you're going to include cultural references, have a section near the end of the article for them. Sticking them into the history section isn't really appropriate, as film appearances in general, and these in particular, do not have a direct bearing on the history of the aircraft itself. Having seen neither MM2 nor the Bond film, I can't speak to the notability of the appearances of either, so instead I'd like to address the notability concept. The reason the F-14 is in Top Gun is used as an example is because the plane's appearance was indeed notable: it was widely discussed in the media, as was its direct effect on the Navy's recruiting numbers. The Huey's appearances in Apocalypse Now was also well-discussed in the media. So, in my mind, if an autogyro appearance in MM2 was noted in the media as being important to the film, and that can be cited, then by all means, throw it in. If the Bond film resulted in an increase in the popularity of the autogyro, and a flocking of buyers to the showrooms (tongue firmly planted in cheek), then sure, include that. Otherwise, let's focus these encyclopedia articles on the aircraft itself, and not turn it into just another fan-cruft strewn web page. Akradecki 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As I commented when attempting to find the correct speed records for autogyro's, it appears that Wikipedia is the major reference point on the internet. It also appears that nearly every modern reference book is a POV pusher (which is itself a pun, since a major debate is which is the best position for the airscrew) for the type/manufacturer preferred by the author, or is even an inhouse publication by a maker. There appears to be a serious shortage of decent reference sources.
My understanding of the Top Gun effect is that spotty male youths believed that they were going to be instructed by Kelly McGinnis! Also (on a serious note) I recall there being some media attention given to the fact that the USN first gave and then retracted support for the film, I recall very little being said about about the Tomcat.
Re the Bond film, it did give birth to a spate of films using gyro's in the plots (and most were indeed flown by Cmdr. Wallis) and possibly spiked the interest of youths of the time, i.e. me! LessHeard vanU 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So, then the proper recouse would be to not just document the plane's use the Bond film, but document that it led to other film use as well. That makes the film a watershed event. Manufacturer-authored books may be POV pushers, but they can also be valuable sources of factual data. The wise editor will filter the former and only include that latter. At least, though, it conforms the article to WP:V, or at least more-so than it is now. Akradecki 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the comments here I have reinstated the popular culture section as I originally published it. I do acknowledge that it could be moved later in the article. Feel free to move it to an appropriate location. --Cheesy Mike 20:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it toward the end of the article; it didn't fit in with any of the preceding sections. As commented by Akradecki the examples should be more than just a listing, but have some detail. I will find out the basis of the MM2 'gyro. I assume that the comic/pulp 'gyros are 1930's Cieva types with tractor propellers? Perhaps there should also some comment about the rise and decline of autogyros in aviation was reflected within the comic book idiom, to give the notes some context? LessHeard vanU 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Getting citable info on MM2 is more difficult than I thought/remembered; this is all I have found so far re gyro and pilot

These tanks are manufactured in Oz by Gerry Goodwin who built and flew his gyro in famous "MadMax" movie. He has no website...

It seems that Goodwin is a bit like Wallis, but without the fanclub that runs his website, in that he built and flew the autogyro for the film. Third party comment will not suffice for a reference, however. I will keep digging. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
ps. The basic info re MM2, as appears in the article, is on the IMDb website. If anyone can make the link (not one of my skills) then that would be great. I suppose that the same source can be used for the Bond movie link? LessHeard vanU 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To get around notions of triviality/notability of items included, I have used the framing device of the rise, fall and re-rise of popularity of autogyros as indicated by incidents in popular culture.LessHeard vanU 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Rupert Bear note as it did not indicate when it was first published. Dating occurrences stops the section being a collection of trivia. If a date can be found (it is likely to be 1930's) then please put it back in. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First flight date?

Would someone with the appropriate resouces look up and confirm the first flight date of Cierva's machine as Jan 17? 1923 in aviation lists it as Jan 9, so one needs to be changed. Thanks! Akradecki 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: This reference says 9 January 1923.[1] --04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...correction has been accomplished. Akradecki 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General characteristics

Would the editors please consider wikilinking or explaining inline the following terms?

  • jump takeoff
  • pitch-over maneuver
  • collective flare
  • cyclic flare
  • Cierva {license?}

Please consider a comment on how common the jump takeoff feature is. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbon development?

There is a mass of great information here but it seems to have accumulated bit by bit, making it hard (for me, a non-expert) to follow. One example is the position of the section on flight controls, v. near the beginning. A rewrite would be a massive job - is there a volunteer here with the knowledge, the expertise and the time? TraceyR 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocketeer

At the end of the film The Rocketeer, I'm pretty sure that Howard Hughes (Terry O'Quinn) rescues the couple from the exploding zepplin using an autogyro. RoyBatty42 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia, not notable. --Born2flie 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bensen and POV

User:BillCJ correctly, and in good faith, reverted the edits by User:24.163.57.134 as possible vandalism, since there was no summary. I looked over the edits and feel that the anon editor was removing possible POV, and I have since removed the part about Bensen being a Doctor of Divinity as being of no relevance (would a Doctorate in Medicine or Philosophy made him any more or less of an expert in aerodynamics?) and put a cite request on the "inherent" problems with the design. I am aware that there are characteristics of pusher type 'gyros that are not as apparent (or non existant) in tractor types, but it may be argued (well, here I am doing so) that there are sections in this article with a pronounced anti Bensen (design) bias. Instead of removing them they should be templated so any evidence can be cited. If after a while no good source can be found then they could be removed. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. It was late when I reverted, so I didn't feel like researching the matter at such a late hour to determine its potential legitimacy. Thanks for following this up. - BillCJ 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I labeled the Bensen's design section as POV. Definitely need to work on the NPOV of this section and other sections as noted above in the Neutrality discussion. Editors need to understand that if they are correcting a fact they dispute, the edit should be sourced and establish or maintain neutrality. To change a fault attributed to the Bensen design to being attributed to "poorly designed Bensen-type clone kit designs" doesn't remove the POV, just changes it. I will try to focus on these extraneous sections and rein them in during this next week. --Born2flie 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

I would like to suggest an edit for the lead paragraph:

An autogyro is a type of rotorcraft invented by Juan de la Cierva in 1919, making its first successful flight on January 9, 1923 at Cuatro Vientos Airfield in Madrid, Spain.[1] The lift for an autogyro is provided by a rotor, similar to that of a helicopter. Unlike a helicopter, the rotor of an autogyro is driven by aerodynamic forces alone once it is in flight. Thrust for the autogyro is provided by an engine-powered propeller similar to that of a fixed-wing aircraft.

Autogyros are also known as gyroplanes, gyrocopters, or rotaplanes. When the term is spelled autogiro it is a trademark that can only be applied to products of the Cierva Autogiro Company or its licensees, and the name Gyrocopter was a trademark of the Bensen Company.

I have removed repetitive statements and given prominence to Cierva and first flight. I have also removed the assertion that it is not a hybrid. Logically, it is not a hybrid, since successful development of the helicopter followed in the wake of Cierva's successful flight, however, the article is not about how the aircraft type is not a hybrid and the assertion is not discussed further in the article. --Born2flie 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. The only points I would make is that although every design so far has used a propeller it is not limited to that form of propulsion (a low powered turbofan is feasible) and that many gyro designs are of pusher configuration, which is rare (outside of some Rutan and Piaggio? designs) in current fixed wing propeller aircraft. The "not a helicopter/hybrid" point does need to be made somewhere in the article, since it is fundamental to the design and history of the craft. I look forward to your continued improvements. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge sections

The following sections: Principle of operation, Flight controls, General characteristics, Flight characteristics, Bensen's design, all seem as if they can be merged into a common section that eliminates some of the duplication of information. I would recommend maybe that they all be included into two sections already recommended by the WP:AIR guidelines, Development and Design. --Born2flie 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am happy if you were to edit per the above - this time the only proviso is that the Bensen design is not the only type and that tractor propelled designs do have significant differences that should also be covered. LessHeard vanU 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Understood, and agreed. --Born2flie 07:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a good reference for tractor design autogyros? --Born2flie 08:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

WP:NOT says, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Specifically, "Wikipedia articles are not...collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines." (formatting mine)

So, what stays and what goes, because the External links section is entirely too big. I vote that only links that are descriptive of autogyros and their aerodynamics as a whole remain and throw out the rest. --Born2flie 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur completetly. However, would there be anything left after -type links or pilot associations. Of course, that's no reason to keep them either!- BillCJ 07:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've left the association links and the websites with information about Gyros. They can be the link directories if they want. Most of them have good information as well, so it doesn't violate WP:EL and WP:NOT. --Born2flie 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certification

The following subsections were removed from the article as they are difficult to include into the current structure. --Born2flie 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US certification

A certificated autogyro must meet mandated stability and control criteria; in the United States these are set forth in Federal Aviation Regulations Part 27: Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft. Such autogyros are issued a Standard Airworthiness Certificate by the US Federal Aviation Administration. Bensen-type autogyros are generally home built, either from plans or from a kit. Home-built aircraft are operated under a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental category, so there is no guarantee they will perform as claimed by their manufacturers. It is important to note that Bensen-type autogyros have a poor safety record - this is due to two factors: (1) significant stability and control deficiencies inherent in the design, and (2) an unfortunate record of this type of autogyro being flown by unqualified / untrained pilots. NTSB accident records give a clear picture of the safety of autogyros with Standard Airworthiness Certificates compared to those with Special Airworthiness Certificates[citation needed].

[edit] UK certification

In 2005 the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued a mandatory permit directive (MPD) which restricts operations for single seat autogryos. The MPD is concerned with the offset between the centre of gravity and thrust line, and apply to all aircraft unless evidence is presented to the CAA that the CG/Thrust Line offset less than 2 inches (5 cm) in either direction. The restrictions, which are considered oppressive by many in the UK autogryo community, are summarised as follows:

  • Aircraft with a cockpit/nacelle may only be operated by pilots with more than 50 hours solo flight experience following the issue of their licence.
  • Open frame aircraft are restricted to a minimum speed of 30 mph (26 knots), except in the flare.
  • All aircraft are restricted to a Vne of 70 mph (61 knots)
  • Flight is not permitted when surface winds exceed 17 mph (15 knots) or if the gust spread exceeds 12 mph (10 knots)
  • Flight is not permitted in moderate, severe or extreme turbulence and airspeed must be reduced to 63 mph (55 knots) if turbulence is encountered mid-flight.

[edit] Discussion

I don't feel they are that relevant to the discussion of autogyros in general. I'm sure they are important to those involved in autogyro/gyroplane groups, and I wonder if they aren't adequately covered in the External links to those groups? --Born2flie 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the certification information is relevant to the article - especially the UK restrictions on flight. I will do some work to make them even more encyclopaedic than they currently are. In the meantime I have reintroduced them minus the seemingly contentious Bensen information. --Cheesy Mike 09:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
“ so there is no guarantee they will perform as claimed by their manufacturers ”
Is this statement supported by the FAR description for Special Airworthiness Certificate, or is it POV? --Born2flie 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to edit/remove - my experience is with UK certification. --Cheesy Mike 10:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll look into it. If I can't find a reference for it, I'll remove it. --Born2flie 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you took care of it. Are there other countries (Oz for instance) that have rules for certification of autogyros? --Born2flie 13:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cierva (tractor) configuration

Are there any modern examples of tractor configuration autogyros? --Born2flie 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Little Wing is a name I am familiar with. Any kit built around the Cieva design will always be a tractor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture

This section got tagged again. I think the lead-in sentence is the key to retaining the section. We need to convert it from a bulleted list to a discussion of the autogyro being included in popular culture with the listed references. They should be chronological and they should coincide with a. the autogyros popularity during the 1930s/early 1940s. b. the resurgence of the autogyro in popular culture and any accompanying resurgence in public attention to autogyros, and whether it precedes the cultural reference or follows it. --Born2flie (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, this was pretty much discussed in the section at the top of this talkpage. I agree that bulletin points is not the way to go, it makes it look too crufty. Not only should we note autogyros appearances in contemporary films and magazines, but that some modern movies referencing the era also include autogyros as period pieces. As for post war films and media Little Nellie and the Gyro Captain's craft seem to be the only obvious examples - although I believe that some sub-James Bond films included autogyro's soon after. I think it can be argued that these later films used the craft for their novelty, and spiked public interest rather than the films of the 30's which simply reflected the public awareness of the type. I look forward to reading your reworking of the section... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)