Talk:Autogyro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New dumbed-down intro needed

This article needs a better non-technical description of how an autogyro works at the outset; I was perplexed as to how exactly an autogyro takes off, since its rotor is "driven solely by aerodynamic forces." Only after you read through many overly-technical phrases like "the rotor is declutched" and "The vertical component of the total aerodynamic reaction of the rotor (rotor thrust) is termed lift" do you begin to understand that, as far as I can tell, the engine spins the rotor to to create an airfoil,

Only *before* takeoff.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This would be a good thing to mention in the intro.Wachholder0 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

which provides lift, and is later allowed to be "driven solely by aerodynamic forces." I know very little about aviation and I imagine the average reader doesn't either, so I think the article should try to avoid sounding like a technical manual.

It's quite difficult to explain why the top rotor spins when in flight unless the reader knows about concepts like 'relative wind' and 'centers of lift' and so forth. Most people that know that stuff generally know about quite a bit of technical stuff. So it's unclear that most people would benefit from knowing how an autogyro works. The best I have been able to think up is that the top rotor acts like a glider wing, and increases in speed in the same way as a falling glider does.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hesitant to rewrite it myself due to my gross and total ignorance of aviation, but will fearlessly do so if someone else doesn't. Thanks Wachholder0 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends who the audience for this article should be. If we set the bar very low on how much technical information we can assume then the article needs to be 3-4x bigger, but it isn't clear that most people want to know this stuff anyway.WolfKeeper 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The audience should be "general readership" who would need to reference an encyclopedia. I am not proposing rewriting the whole article, just the intro. Compare the intro for helicopter. Anyhoo, I could have rewritten the intro by now, which is what I propose to do in the next few days. Wachholder0 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Not that much different, actually. Wachholder0 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

The article says that the autogyro is less efficient and slower than a fixed-plane. Can you compare to a helicopter or a blimp. Maybe as fuel per load or fuel per kilometer.

Neutrality and so

It seems that this article was written by a autogyro buff; and extensive description of flight maneuver characteristics may not be the content of a true encyclopedia. It even gives advice to autogyro newbies, but this information is useless for the normal audience of wikipedia. It must be said too that parts of this article may have been copied from an autogyro manual. There is more interesting stuff out there on the web than that in this article. Greetings from --212.152.4.212 22:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Keimzelle on de.wikipedia.org)

Yeah, it seems there are a lot of "defenses as to why it's not so popular" mixed throughout. But I wouldn't mind a general description of the physics involved... I can't picture how it would work! ---Ransom

You know how a helicopter works? Well basically the rotors of the helicopter are not only the reason why they move forward, but they act as wings, because the rotors are shaped like airfoils too. Now an autogiro is basically the same as well, but in this case, the motor ain't hooked up to the rotor, but to a propeller, and the propeller moves the aircraft forward, causing the rotors to rotate. But when the rotors start to rotate at a high enough speed, they start generating their own lift. AllStarZ 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I must agree with the comment above - there's a lot of subtle advocacy mixed in with the facts, many of the facts are prtobably over-detailed, and some particular models appear to be being promoted over others (perhaps with good reason, but the article needs to be made more neutral and revised for the lay-reader). Graham 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

To AllStarZ; The difference between lift in helicopters and autogyros is that helicopters mechanically "pull" air down through the blades, creating thrust and thus lift, and air in autogyros is (for want of a better term) "pushed" up through the blades creating lift (and drag) as it forces the blades to rotate. For autorotation to commence there has to be an initial movement of air up and across the blade.

Principles

Can someone write an overview of what keeps things in the air, and how they differ from a helicopter? It seems to be the most important thing, and yet it's missing (or hidden). --161.73.58.135 21:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Look up Bernoulli's Principle fool. AllStarZ 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is a view that Bernoulli doesn't explain much. Try Lift (force) and see if that helps. Also, calling someone a fool for asking a perfectly good question is against the spirit of co-operation we are trying to engender here. Can you please indent your comments. Graham 12:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

radar calibration

i'm sure i remember hearing on a uk documentry that theese were used to calibrate radar (before the introduction of helicopters) as whilst they couldn't actually hover they could fly in a pattern that involved very little movement from a point. Plugwash 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, we are going backwards

Last time I checked out this article it didn't seem so bad, but since then it's got quite a bit worse! Wikipedia is not a flight manual; most of the "Warnings" section is superfluous, and certainly the extensive quotation from some regulations or other totally unnecessary. As if any prospective pilot would be looking here for instruction. This article should be about the autogyro as a concept, its history and notable designs, and even talk something about its flying characteristics, but it certainly should not be going extensively in how to (or how not to) fly one. I would be tempted to post a cleanup notice but I know how annoying they are, especially when posted by someone who hasn't contributed much - so instead I'm just posting this message and see what sort of discussion it leads to, if any. On another note, why did my Mad Max 2 wiki ref get removed? I'd have thought that was interesting, since it's one of only a very small handful of films where an autogyro is a key part of the plot. Graham 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added bits in the warning section about "Pilot Induced Oscillation" and the advisability of being properly instructed, even for pilots familiar with other types. Much of the failure of the type to gain wider popularity may be the accidents (caused by improper handling) related to it. It may beg the question why there is a "Warnings" section in a reference source, but since it is there I used it to point out a major cause for crashes. I feel it is correct to indicate why the subject may not be more widely known to the public. To balance this, I have also added two of the major "good" characteristics of the autogyro - the fact it cannot be stalled whilst in autorotation and that it will autorotate even at zero forward airspeed - in the main body of the piece. This is, after all, why the craft was invented/created in the first place.
As regards Mad Max 2, since the Wallis autogyro is forever mentioned in relation to On Her Majestys Secret Service why not MM2? The MM2 'gyro has more plot relevance and more screen time in a film that is possibly as well known (and as iconic) as the James Bond feature. It should be pointed out that neither of the aircraft were in fact capable of some of feats depicted; the Wallis weapons payload is pure wishful thinking (I believe they were balsa mockups), and the MM2 gyro is a single person payload craft (and as for landing it in the middle of a congested area with no roll....!) Whatever, I think you should stick it back in since it is most peoples introduction to the existance of these things. LessHeard vanU 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe the MM2 removal was just an accident - I'll stick it back in and see if it stays this time. (And yes, I thought that landing was pretty suspect!) I agree that the accidents are notable, but I don't agree that an extensive "warnings" section is the right way to acknowledge them - a brief summary of typical causes and links to e.g. pilot induced oscillation, etc should suffice (PIO should have its own article if it doesn't already, since it happens in other aircraft too). And of course this should be balanced with the good characteristics that you mention. Perhaps a "Flying characteristics" section would be better, maybe divided into advantages and disadvantages compared with other aircraft types. The extensive FAA regulations should go altogether - they are just not appropriate, and in any case pertain only to the US. By the way, I took the liberty of indenting your comments - it makes a thread easier to follow - hope that's OK. Graham 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Re indenting - no problem. I've only been contributing for a couple of weeks and am not familiar with layaouts and stuff. In this regard, I do not know how to alter/amend/delete/create headings etc. (this is my usual approach to new sites - jump in and start typing, hopefully learning on the way) so I just add to the existing order. If anyone wanted to re-arrange it, then fine. With regard to autogyro safety records, I do believe this to be a major reason for the lack of popularity since there are many other uneconomic and/or marginal use modes of transport that have prospered.LessHeard vanU 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool - you'll soon pick it all up. Learn by doing. When you have an edit view of the page, you can pick up things like the syntax for headings quite easily - the double or triple equal signs surrounding the text do the trick there. I think you might be right about the popularity or otherwise being down to the accident record, though it's totally illogical since if people really cared about not having accidents they'd never drive! I'd quite like to build/fly a gyro - the simplicity and STOL performance appeal to me, but I AM a little put off by the power pushover stuff and whatnot, though no doubt good instruction is essential and once you have trained it's no big deal. That said, FINDING an instructor is another matter. Anyway, straying off the point - the point is the article needs a big sort out. Maybe I'll find the time to make a stab at it myself, though I hesitate to tread on the toes of other, more prolific contributors here. Graham 11:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I found an ANZAC gyrocopter maker; UFO (they were described as Australian, but I note their prices were NZ$!). If a major market is Australia they may be able to put you onto an instructor, or someone who else who can. Nice aircraft too, and a brief look at the specs seem to answer your reservations regarding pushover.LessHeard vanU 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Records and Application

Regarding the Keech speed records; has the decimal point been misplaced in the kph given? I do not want to simply "move" it as there may be a missing figure in each of those given.LessHeard vanU 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to resolve this, but as Wikipedia seems to be the source for the majority of Google results the incorrect (and they are, at this forward flying speed the craft is likely to be descending at a faster rate!) speeds. I found the archived FAI World Speed Record page, and it appears that they are the original source of the incorrect data. I note that Keech has set some new speed records in February of this year, but the FAI list them as currently unratified (and they are much more believable too, in the 170+ k/h range). Once they are ratified then I will make the necessary amendments. I am tempted to remove the incorrect ones completely, but I want to use this template - and I'm too much the newbie to know how to "revert" this layout if I deleted it.
I have now put up Keech's latest speed record ratified by the FAI, the March 2005 500km closed curcuit attempt, and removed the previous set. This certainly seems a much more believable figure - I'm surprised nobody questioned a world record speed of appx. 10-12mph!. Keech has some record attempts of March this year still awaiting the FAI. These I will post when I get them. I think we should use FAI ratified records, since this is the internationally recognised aero records body.LessHeard vanU 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have placed the 3 world records, accredited to Keech, created Feb 06 in the text.
Folks may like to know that I emailed the FAI raising my concerns about the veracity of some of the speed records, and received a charming response regarding the type and manner of courses flown in respect of said records (?!). I responded by pointing out again the likely error in the published speeds. To date I have had no reply and the same data is still on the FAI site... LessHeard vanU 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

is it true

that while autogyros couldn't actually hover they could fly a pattern that resulted in very little movement and was therefore used for calibrating early radar? Plugwash 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read that, too. Perhaps a Google search?LessHeard vanU 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass-manufactured gyros

Are there any autogyro manufacturers that sell completed autogyros-meaning ones that are built at the factory, not from a kit in your backyard?--Belugaperson 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is: check out the website of Groen Brothers Aviation: [[1]] Here you'll also find a lot of usefull information about gyroplanes. Groen Brothers has built the first turbine powered gyroplane, the Hawk4.217.11.35.99 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.[2] --04:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...correction has been accomplished. Akradecki 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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].

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.

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)


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)

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Autogyro/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
*After seeing the WP:MILHIST classification of the article, I evaluated it according to the common criteria WP:AVIATION shares with WP:MILHIST for B-Class article assessment and found that the article is fairly complete according to the criteria. I recommend reviewing A-Class article criteria to further improve it and then recommend it for peer review. --Born2flie 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two comments from readers have suggestions for this article.
I will try and get to this if possible, but I would recommend an editor with experience in Autogyros handle a rewrite. --Born2flie 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

== B-Class? ==

I'm going to have to go review the diffs between my original comments and this one. As an editor stated on the Talk page, this article has progressed in reverse. It now requires significant cleanup, not only to meet WikiProject Aircraft's guidelines, but Wikipedia's general guidelines. --Born2flie 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Flight Characteristics

There are very little information regarding how an autogyro actually flies. How does it compare to an airplane or a helicopter in terms of take-off, landing, handling and top speeds? Jonathan Karlsson (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've built and flown gyrocopters (the name Autogyro properly belongs only to Cierva's invention and was a trade name). Depending on such variables as engine power, altitude, air temperature etc they usually have a short take off and very short landing roll. If the rotor can be spun up before take off, they can leap into the air. They are fairly resistant to crosswinds and turbulence, much more so than fixed wing aircraft of the same mass. Despite being incredibly manoeuvrable, they do NOT tolerate negative G situations, as the rotors become unstable, begin to flap wildly and can hit the rudder or pusher prop. As the rotor in autorotation creates a lot of drag and is very inefficient, they generally have a top speed much lower than the same power plant and propeller would give for a fixed wing aircraft. --Phil Wardle (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
the name Autogyro properly belongs only to Cierva's invention and was a trade name - Actually the Cierva Autogiro Company trade name was Autogiro with an 'i' - spelt with a 'y' it's the generic name for any rotocraft of this type. IIRC, 'gyrocopter' was a trade name registered by the Bensen Aircraft company in the US. So the correct generic name for these types of aircraft is autogyro. If the name is spelt with an 'i' then the aircraft is built using the Cierva Autogiro Company's patents - hence Pitcairn Autogiro company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.48 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Performance, and engine failure/stall characteristics

Does anybody know how many miles to the gallon these things typically do? Also, in the case of an engine failure/stall, what is the landing like? Let's say you're at 5,000 feet and your engine fails - do you make a soft landing? Hard landing? Can you die this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.26 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Although these pages are for discussing the article rather than the subject I can give you some quick answers - generally gyros do less than helicopters but more than fixed wing planes of similar performances (the rotors are not powered, hence the power need by helis to maintain flight is un-needed, but autorotation develops a lot of drag compared to fixed wings...) If the engine fails while you are in autorotation you remain in auto rotation, only your foward speed decreases until you start descending (descent also causes the wing to autorotate). Your landing will be hard but generally survivable - with skill you should still be able to execute a flared landing and be none the worse except at the wrong destination. Of course you can die this way, but usually through panicking or bad luck. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I know these pages are for discussing the article. I guess I was asking that this information be put into the article if anybody knew it. I would do it but have had too many complaints when I made edits. But thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.26 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Landing under autorotation doesn't have to be hard e.g. this one which was done pretty much engine-off. As for fuel consumption, it can be quite heavy. A Bensen-type gyro fitted with a Rotax 582 (or Rotax 503) two-stroke engine can consume as much as 25 litres/hour yet can only fly at 60-70mph. A larger gyro fitted with a Rotax 912 or Subaru engine would have lower consumption (<20 litres/hour at 75% throttle) and would go faster. --TimTay (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Barry Jones performed a forced landing in the Alps using the Rotax 914 turbo. Dr.K. (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The question with including the information indicated/requested is how to include it? There is no general performance criteria for fuel consumption, and it will always be a range for a general article that ranges between the worst and the best, although a statistical majority range could be discovered. Furthermore, unless the information comes from a reliably published source, the information is original research and cannot be included in the article. Other general aircraft articles attempt to include a Safety section. Engine failure and stall characteristics could be included in such a section in this article, again, if it can be referenced through reliable published sources. --Born2flie (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It would be interesting to include such section if we can find RS for it. No place for WP:OR here. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the non-powered landing characteristics of the gyrocopter, on mine it was basically a case of point the nose to the ground at about a 60 degree angle while maintaining an airspeed of 60 mph. Right before you become a lawn dart, pull back and flare. If the weight and balance on the aircraft is right (i.e. you did a proper "hang test"), you will flare into a landing and the aircraft will be none the worse for wear. Mine wasn't and I ended up with a broken bone in my foot, a broken rib, and a bit of runway rash. With respect to its glide ratio, it's basically a case of looking between your legs and that is where you are going to land. Grumman581 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In view of the "CAA's assertion that autogyros have a poor safety record", some stats on safety would be appropriate. How do autogyro crashes compare on a per-air-hour basis with small fixed-wing craft? Is the CAA assertion backed by fact, or is it a nanny-state version of CYA? Graywriter (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time the UK CAA was dealing with a number of fatal light autogyro accidents caused by inexperienced pilots subjecting their mostly home-built aircraft to sudden negative-g as in a bunt, i.e., pushing the stick abruptly forward after a climb leading to the rotor blades flexing enough to chop-off the aircraft's tail, IIRC, one unfortunate pilot doing just this with tragic results during a televised air show in the 1990's
In normal level or turning 1-g flight the rotor blades are bent upwards with the weight of the aircraft, but with sudden negative-g they become unloaded and spring-back in the other direction i.e., downwards, and in some circumstances this can result in them striking the tail unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ornithopter

Perhaps a comparisation with ornithopters can also be made, as these are also cheaper than helicopters and have comparable charisteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.171.128 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem very different to me. -- Beland (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Perhaps mention that most autogyros costs about 10% as much to own and operate as a helicopter (some cheaper) yet can accomplish 90% of what a helicopter can do. Unlike a helicopter an autogyro cannot hover, take off or land vertically.

ref= http://www.auto-gyro.com/index.php?lang=e&header=autogyro&value=beschreibung —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.58.166 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But gyrocopters can hover. (maybe just certain models in the right wind conditions?) --64.149.36.182 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Gyro's cannot truly hover, that is stay in one place relative to the ground in most wind conditions. A gyro which can sustain flight at (for example) 25knots will appear to hover if flying directly into a 25knot wind - but should the wind die the gyro will fly away. Again autogyro's can land "vertically" if flying below sustainable velocity into a wind - and they can land the last few feet of an approach vertically if the pilot flared just before landing. Lastly, some gyros can "bunnyhop" vertically into the air by spinning the rotors (via a pre-rotor clutch) in a no pitch configeration beyond the rpm needed to sustain flight and then apply the necessary pitch. This is only for gyro's with adjustable pitch rotors - which is uncommon. The other problems in this approach is that the engine is run without the prop engaged, which means both the engine and the reduction gear get very hot, and then the prop needs to be engaged while the engine is still racing to provide the necessary thrust to maintain flight when the rotors energy has dissipated sufficiently not to create lift. It takes a very skilled pilot who can manage the engine output, pre-rotor drive/rotor pitch, prop clutch, etc. while controlling the craft in vertical ascent - possibly more difficult than controlling a helicopter. For this reason nearly every gyro takes off from a roll, even if some instances are very short when the rotor is prespun. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Mention this info above in article.

Primary picture unclear

As the specifics (vertical propeller: powered, horizontal: unpowered) of the text is easy to miss, the 300px-Aurogyro-ELA-07-Casarrubios-Spain.jpg image should be replaced by a schematic schowing arrows and the text "powered propeller" and "unpowered propeller". 87.64.62.138 (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Airflow in auto-2.jpg is such a schematic, but I found it confusing since it shows a helicopter and not an autogyro. Starting discussion on diagram for this article in a new section... -- Beland (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Generic terms and trademarks

The term Gyrocopter was coined by Igor Bensen and registered as a trademark in his name. His machines were autogyros of the kind now commonly called gyroplanes (both terms generic), employing a two-blade, teetering rotor of extremely simple construction allowing recreational flying machines to be built cheaply. Autogiro with an "i" is a Cierva trademark, but autogyro is a generic term for any rotary-winged aircraft with an autorotating main rotor. Wilford used the term gyroplane, which at that time had a more general meaning than it does now, to describe his type of autogyro, which unlike those of Cierva (three hinged blades) and Bensen (two blades, teetering) had no flapping motion, but instead used a feathering motion to compensate for the difference in forward velocity between the advancing and retreating blades. Wilford's was the first rigid rotor system. To repeat: autogyro, gyroplane are generic terms; Gyrocopter, Autogiro are trademarks of Bensen and Cierva, respectively. 120.28.194.16 (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocket power?

Parts of the new section "Rocket powered autogyro" may not conform with the subject of the article, which is autogyros with "unpowered rotor" in regular flight. The sentence "The engine weight and engine power may be reduced by half, because smaller engine is needed for takeoff" implies torque to the rotor shaft and thus not an unpowered rotor, but more accurately an actual helicopter or perhaps heliplane or gyrodyne. I do not see a conflict between tip jets and unpowered rotor, as this happens only during takeoff/landing due to the high fuel consumption. TGCP (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removal of the entire section as lacking factual basis or support. This section reflects at best merely some individual's unfinished pet project, not a true category of autogyros. The section provides no citation to any actual hydrogen peroxide tip jet autogyros in current or historical use, but instead merely describes a theoretical modification that could be, but in practice is not, made. There have been a few tip jet helicopters, and there is occasional TALK of tip jet gyroplanes, but where is there a real aircraft? There is only one citation I can find on the web of a single prototype attempting this design direction, and as of the last posting, it shows only one non-vertical take-off of a true autogyro with peroxide tip jets for pre-spin (see this link: http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1259.html ). There is no evidence of anyone ever stopping and starting such a system in flight as the section claims. The notion that a smaller engine is needed is also completely unsupported (rotor system drag is likely to be slightly increased with the addition of tip jets, thus increasing the power required in flight; once again one can only speak in theory, because it's not done in practice). The section also provides an unsupported "pie in the sky" view of the effectiveness and practicality of systems that are not actually used in practice, and ignores real world issues (e.g., how do you think Homeland Security would react to people attempting to buy large quantities of rocket propellants?). Jonwithnoh (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the section should be removed, as it points to the two Faireys (Fairey Jet Gyrodyne and Fairey_Rotodyne) which flew as true autogyros. The peroxide system lacks references. TGCP (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Some questions occur to me and I hope that answers can be included in this article:

  1. What is the flight range, both height and distance? The article includes the women's record for height (18,000 feet) but this doesn't seem like it would be typical. Is an autogyro usually flown in the same altitude range as a helicopter (and what is that)? How far can a flight be before refueling? I ask to know what kind of trips would be feasible in this machine or if it is for local use only.
  2. It seems like in some of these designs (where the pilot is not in an enclosed cockpit), it would be difficult to use a radio. What is done so that the autogyro doesn't interfere with the flight of other aircraft? The way I've seen these machines used in media, it's almost like jumping on a bicycle and taking off. But there must be some kind of communication to avoid other aircraft.
  3. The article says that 1,000 autogyros are in use by military agencies. Is it against the law to own one as private citizen? Are they for military use only (aside from props in movies)?

Thanks! Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Range varies significantly, with some ultralight versions carrying 5 gallon fuel tanks, and the Air & Space 18A carrying over 27 gallons, and with wide variation of engine power (near 50 to 180 hp or more). 200 miles is practical for many. 18,000 feet is unusually high. An advantage of gyros is that they may be safely flown at very LOW altitudes (and speeds), because their ability to land in extremely small places makes it easy to stay in gliding range of a suitable emergency landing site even when quite low to the ground; their ability to fly very slowly without a stall/spin risk also enhances low altitude safety. Pilots of unenclosed gyros often wear a flight helmet with built-in headphones and microphone for radio communication with other aircraft and/or air traffic control. They are subject to airspace use rules, much like those applicable to helicopters. The great majority of gyros are privately owned and flown as civil aircraft, not in military use.Jonwithnoh (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Advantages / Disadvantages

It seems to me that this article would benefit from a section comparing them to fixed-wing and powered-rotary-wing aircraft, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for reliable sources. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I (not difficult to have more than "essentially zero") could develop something?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Advantages: Inability to Stall. Very slow airspeed as even in a zero airspeed vertical descent the airflow is managed by the Rotor. Very Short Landing space required as ZERO GROUND ROLL. Very maneuverable. Easy to preflight and re hanger with a small hanger footprint. Very stable even in strong winds, this is because the rotors cut through the air and great speed and are not really affected by turbulence. Massive amount of fun to fly.

Disadvantages:Lots of Drag so not the best for long distance cruising. Lots of drag so higher fuel consumption than a fixed wing.

Not capable of a short field takeoff in strong crosswinds, unless you can go into wind across the runway.Spaff55 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[2]

References

  1. ^ Vector Flight
  2. ^ Own experience

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Autogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Two history sections

There are two seperate history sections, should these be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.98.216 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed shortening of the popular culture section.

I propose something like

Since their invention, autogyros have appeared in many works of fiction. Appearances where the autogyro features as a significant part of the story include several films from the early 1930s, such as International House (1933) , Stand Up and Cheer! (1934), It Happened One Night (1934) and Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps (1935).

Its simple design and low airspeed also make it a favorite of low tech speculative fiction (e.g. Mad Max 2) and fantasy, such as WarcraftIII, where helicopters would seem implausible. The latter also inspired it's appearance in multiple other video games, such as League Of Legends and Dota2.[1]

Feedback would be nice. 80.153.82.37 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

”It’s” is short for “It is”. I think you intend “Its simple design ...”Dolphin (t) 12:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I scored 115 on my final English exam. On the oral exam the examiner actually cried... The Internet has corrupted me. 80.153.82.37 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your shortened version is an improvement. It will allow the “trivial” banner to be erased.
”The latter also inspired it’s appearance ...” Misspelling of “its” again. Dolphin (t) 00:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, but I've restored some of the Bond, because Wallis' own involvement was so important for autogyros. Did Cierva ever get involved in films? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Hero – Gyrocopter". www.dota2.com. Retrieved 2019-03-19.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Autogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Autogyro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autogyro/Archive_1&oldid=1146808684"