Hi Stingray and folks, I have a question if I may please! After I have looked through both of the sites there seems to be a significant bias towards the cyclogyro machine. Why is that?
I have known this machine as a rotorcraft type that is designed for vertical lift, so this bias is confusing to me. It uses rotors that are not oriented vertically but are still rotors, and so the aircraft is classified as a rotorcraft in my opinion. Where do we draw the line between what is a true rotorcraft or not, when I have seen lift-fans and tilting propeller types listed here, which I believe are not rotorcraft or are a loose inclusion under the classification as rotorcraft.
I'm appreciative and awaiting your responses, thank you!
Cyclogyros are definitely a V/STOL design there is no doubt, but they do not classify as a rotorcraft type in the classic sense that they do not utilize a rotor system that faces vertically. Tilt-props also count as a rotor in this sense because they are capable of facing vertically. Lift fans I agree are a loose inclusion because i believe the smaller these are the closer they get to being in a similar classification to VTOL jets. Cyclogyro rotors never face vertically.
Its entirely up to Stingy if she wants to include them or not, though. :)
__________________
Airplanes are beautiful dreams. Engineers turn dreams into reality.
If we include cyclogyros we might as well include ornithopters since some of those were envisioned for vertical flight too. I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
they do not classify as a rotorcraft type in the classic sense that they do not utilize a rotor system that faces vertically.
I've obtained some older aviation publications recently that seem to suggest the opposite, as in the "classic" interpretation does seem to classify them as rotorcraft, in the same league as helicopters. The classification seems to have dropped them in later eras as the cyclogyro faded further into obscurity and the helicopter gained more popularity and widespread use. I'm a little torn on what to do here after reading that, combined with the fact that KQstardust has inquired about their lack of inclusion.
I personally side with Leela's interpretation, plus a bit of personal bias as I really don't like cyclogyros as much as other rotorcraft, but perhaps my personal feelings are irrelevant here, with regards to preserving obscure aviation history. I need to think about this some more.
__________________
lllllAs of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3 lllll
Thank you everyone, I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I'm glad that you are considering including cyclogyros. In my opinion they are significant artifacts in aviation history and deserve recognition in such a dedicated community. No stone is left unturned here and that is very admirable. I know that should you decide to make this choice, you will give them the same meticulous attention as you do with other rotorcraft past and present. Happy fortunes!
