Wow... How kuuuul....

Welcome to the new guys.... don't be shy, join the party Say something, no one bites (much)

Don is the newest. GyroDon. He is looking into building a gyrobee or a hornet.
I invited him here to go through our collections of plans and ask away.
It does take a while as you know.
I used to be shy myself....I think.....ok maybe not.....so your point was?

Do we have plans and stuff here?

Have you got any for your dom? Erik wants some

Or could you take some measurements of yours I wouldn't mind the dimentions of a dom actually too

Scotty, do your rotors still have that shaking problem or have you still got the rubber strap around the walking beam?

Hello all. Sorry it took me some time to give a thanks for my welcome to this forum. I am so looking to get started on this project. After some thinking and more reading I have made the decision to build the Gyrobee. I made my decision on the Gyrobee do to the amount that have been built and flown. Its also something a little more affordable for me at this time. I am not new to the aviation world, just gyros. So for my first question is mast. I am going single tube and probably mast clamp instead of drilling. What thickness 1/8 or 3/16?

Don the mast is usually 6061 T6 2"x2" .125 or 1/16" if you prefer.
Make sure you get a stamped true alloy.

I plan on ordering from Aircraft Spruce unless you know of and place local to save on shipping.

Don I do find more and cheaper deals here. I use them all the time.
http://www.onlinemetals.com

Well, the more Erik learns, the less he can make up his mind.

Right now I'm looking into selling my 503 and get a 582 to have more options.

More options will just make it worse.

And to really make me dizzy, I've seen a few interesting Rotax 912 and 912S engines.

A Gyrobee, Dom Ultra or Hornet with the 503. A Hornet, Dom or Behemoth (light) with a 582. Or build what with a 912??

Cheers
Erik

Gab, .125 should be 1/8" - right?

Yes, stamped so they don't give you 6063 alloy instead.

Cheers
Erik

Erik,
Welcome to my World.

Started with Hornet, 3 redo's as I learned more.....bought Air Command basket case...cheap......
Going on 3 yrs. and almost done.

Something to think about.

My recommendation..Build a Hornet and learn and use what you have in parts and fly in a shorter time or start ALL OVER!!!!

Been there...done That!!

Then build or buy the next one. Cuz once you start flying a gyro....there will be another one!!!

Well Darren, I ordered and paid the Skywheels at Oshkosh in 1988, so I win

Going on not 3, but 30 years

I need to see, how it all ends up on march 29th. But an engine swap is ok - it won't change much.

If I could end up selling my 503 to completely cover a nice 582 including a Warp Drive prop - I'd do that!

I know it's not much, but I have something that doesn't exist anymore - a brand new 503 with a real 0 Hours TT - not rebuilt.
And there are a few people locally, who would like to have a spare 503. But I need to first find a 582.

The choices make me dizzy, but I don't want to be cured.

Cheers
Erik

Yes of course 1/8"
My brain gets funny with numbers at times

Erik how much do you weigh? (in lbs please, )
The 503 is MUCH simpler and weighs less than a 582, since you have the engine now,,,build it with what you have, then you can always upgrade later, Yes the 582 is a great upgrade for sure, but unless you are heavy, or just have extra cash burning a hole in your pocket...go with the 503 for now, plus the 503 will sell easier if someone can see you fly it, if you decide to upgrade later.

Great advice Scotty, as I have said to Erik, if he is under 80kg (about 180#) a 503 would be very sufficient to begin with (his island is just above sea level, cool climate) and even if he is a bit over 100kg (220#) a 503 will get him started, but it wouldn't take long to realise a 582 would be perfect. But building his first machine (unless he is built like a Danish shot putter or hammer thrower) the simplicity of a 503 fitment would be great

On the 9 series Rotax, my advice is no.... to buy a one it will still be expensive... the cost of a rebuild to spec will be astronomical the machine will end up heavier and more complicated and as we know, eventually he needs to fly of a 250 yard strip.....

Train and first flights with the 503, get a 582 later, show anyone wanting to buy your 503 running and flying on your machine.... that proves it works

Hi Guys.

Present time I weigh 201 lbs. Then add clothes, please.

The reasons I'm thinking of selling the engine right now are:

1. Anyone can see, it's a brand new engine - never run. When I start running it, who can say, how much it has run? So wouldn't it be best for me to sell it now? When I already know by now, I'll want a stronger engine.

2. It has an A gearbox (2.58:1), which can't handle most composite propellers (according to Rotax).

3. It has a single carburetor, so it misses some HP's. But it also runs less RPM's. Some more ponies would be nice so I can use intake silencer and after muffler and still have enough power. We're not allowed to make much noise.

From what I've heard so far, those who have to certify my gyro hate single ignition and two strokes.

I still dream of a low TT 80HP Rotax 912 - but it's , although there are some fairly cheap ones out there. Hmm, doesen't the 912 have single ignition? That's a Eurotub engine, so it should be allowed. But then I'd need a larger rotor.

Cheers
Erik

Hi Again - I just emailed the material certification guy.

No, double ignition is not required - just highly recommended.

In the future it will be required, if the gyro union joins up with the FW UL's.

And two vs. 4 strokes must be about noise. So I may keep my 503, if I so choose.

Phew. It could be fun to use the old/new 503 for the Time Machine.

Anyone got a second carb for my 503?

Cheers
Erik

That's good about single ignition Erik, if double ignition is required, that means engines like Subaru, Honda, Yamaha and early rotaxes will not be able to be used?

I know I have mentioned to you, but so the others know, the dual ignition bullshit came from the early days of flying when engines and ignitions were very poor and they would fail nearly every flight... spark plugs could break (not good glues/bonding) plug leads were copper core which could break, mags and points that could fail etc, so they doubled everything so hopefully both wouldn't fail at the same time.

Now with modern equipment, spark plugs, leads, coils and cdi ignitions rarely fail, even in aircraft with ly-continentals, the second ignition is really only there because the rules were written in the 20's and 30's that 'all aircraft engines need duplication' ...... the unfortunate thing about the twin ignition rule, is that because there has to be a second spark plug per cylinder, you cant put one in the correct place..... that is why when you do mag checks on a Cessna, when running on both at 1500rpm and you go back to just left, you get a drop of 150rpm back to both, 1500rpm, just to right, drop 150rpm..... that is because neither the left or right plugs are in the optimum place in the cylinder head..... if they could have one spark plug in the correct position, the motor would run better... as an example the 5 valves per cylinder car engines with one spark plug in the middle at the top of the hemispherical chamber.... runs perfectly and never have plugs fail.... if the law became that cars had to have twin ignitions, then they couldn't be 5 valves any more.... same a Lycoming or continental could have 4 valves if it didn't have to have 2 spark plugs per cylinder, but the stoopid old law states they MUST

People will know what I mean, cars after about 1980 NEVER stop because of a fouled spark plug or a broken spark plug wire.... they just don't stop, maybe if it has done 100,000 miles with no maintenance.... but an aircraft with modern engine components, being serviced every 100 hours, spark plugs get looked at, if not replaced etc, so a spam can with single plugs (in the right spot) would be fine, and no more likely to fail than the current twin ignition with both plugs in the incorrect place.....