Looks great. I can't wait to see it in the air.

And I thought a 600 Hp 89 Camaro was dangerous as hell, this man needs a gold plated wheel barrow to lug around those big brass balls, well done sir

Wow I thought the radial engine gyrocopter was cool, this is fantastic!! Now get those rotors on Barry!

Nice gyrocopter but I also love your army flight helmet 👍

I was under the impression that we would see it fly. What you have there is a jet powered go-kart.

Wallis would be proud! "OLD NELLIE" turbine-style!

WAY COOL!! Expensive with that PBS TJ-100 $56,000 jet engine, but cool. He can use a Polini 40H.P. engine for a pre-rotator engine and both engines together will still weigh less than a Rotax or other comparable engine. The 40 gal. per hour fuel burn is its Achilles Heel. I've wanted to try this on a trike. If Barry has really deep pockets, he should mount a TJ-100 jet engine on Evolution Trike's new "REVOLT" Trike. It would work perfect...convert the back seat into a 40 gallon fuel tank and you have 60 gallons of fuel and 1& 1/2 hour range.

Awesome. Cant wait to see the main rotors installed to see how this would actually fly. Would the be any way to istall a "pre rotator " take off assist to this new design?

Few more weeks of final assembly !!!! :)

I like where this going.

Sehr cool 👍🏼

Does it fly?

Neat. at 1.29 he has a tea shirt then on taxi back a blue jacket :)

What does one of these cost? And can they be used for practical transportation . . .?

So, did you actually put the rotor back on and get it into the air? If so, what did you do to spin up the rotor?

Hey Gomer, the wappawappa roundyround thingie ain't there!

Do you think that's going to have some power push over? I'm no engineer but I would prefer the engine cliser to CG. Am I missing something?

We are waiting on an update Barry !!!

Is it possible to have a coaxial gyro?

What about no prop wash over rudders at low speeds?

I guess jet propulsion is not the most effective while not airborne. Maybe ideally it would be like also a hybrid of the lightest tricycle (maybe motorcycle? Or is that too crazy?) with enough power to get enough speed to take off, then at some point right before that, the jet starts. Or at very least, perhaps, have some redirection of the jet to focus somewhat towards the ground, I guess. Not like attempting vertical take off, but just so that it pulls the air between the gyroplane and the ground, so to speak, versus the air against a much less resistant surface behind.

How is low speed rudder authority achieved?

Where's the flying of it then ?

Neat!! Let's get a rotor on that thing and get it up in the air where it belongs!! Yah!!

Fascinating. Any updates? Thank you.

God, there's no sound I love more than a jet turbine spinning up.

I want a Djinn.

Can always put a refuelling probe on the front, lol. but I want to see how fast it will go with that Jet engine.

Or even a tandem rotor

El J-12😍

Son véritable vol d' essai officiel est pour quand!?...

Looks and sounds awesome! But with all due respect, what's the point? Aside from increased TBO and the bragging rights, no particular advantages will result from using a turbojet such as faster cruise. And the big disadvantage, of course, is the huge jump in cost of acquisition and operation. Still, it's very cool.

Why not !

Когда полëты ?

Yeah, I can see it working, but it's going to be a kero guzzler per mile for sure.....:)

For real high dollar there is a small turbine . the hardest after that is the rotors and assembly everyone needs a jetgyro they just dont know it yet.

The old comment, 'More money than...' comes to mind. This is a bit like buying a Ferrari engine and bolting it to a tractor. But, if he's looking for a pre-rotator, he could probably use bleed air to a highly geared pneumatic drill?

Sweeeeeet

Now flyer?

I would be afraid the delay in response of jet/ turbine verses the almost instantaneous application of power of propeller born engines, would be of great concern to the barnstorming culture historically demonstrated by the Autogyro community. Nevertheless three cheers to gentlemen and his desire to seek alternate ways power our fun little machines. Almost half the profits from the total cost of the bird,it seems, these days are in the pockets of a company which begins with an R and ends with an X. Completion is great in any form. So many more would join us in the air if we weren’t priced out of the market by the prices which are being demanded by current power plants.

I see the quoted fuel consumption, which makes this concept more than slightly unrealistic. The only benefit I can see is the elimination of prop torque at high power and drag at low settings. Also, unless there is sophisticated rotor management, you will not get more performance out of a jet turbine than you will a piston based engine. Even the argument that the power unit weighs considerably less than the equivalent cylinder block propulsion engine is negated by the necessity of carrying 4 or 5 times as much fuel for comparable range. It is interesting, and makes a lovely noise, but it is not a practical option.

Могу ошибаться, но на малых скоростях лучше тяга винта, чем реактивная тяга. Ротор автожира всё равно не позволит разогнаться.

Forgotten something?

Is his seat the fuel tank? If so…mad scientist all the way…genius but pure insanity 🤣🤣🤣

did it fly

I agree with mark ,so you built a jet engine go cart that can 8 mph big deal

Being a bit older & thinking about my mortality I love everything about this except that the seat is filled with jet fuel and it looks like 2 tanks of jet fuel under the seat.

Looks like it didn't make it. It probably flew so fast the rotors were pulled off.

I think I know why the gyrocopter won't get airborn..... I see a slight design flaw that's easy to overlook.

Turbine engine sucks enormous air in operation. It's wrong location engine's been installed.

its a jet car

Jet powered trike

This is how you lose you’re underpants

Insane

I have not flown a gyro copter...perhaps this is a worthless point to make. Most jet engines require more spoolup time than reciprocating engines. Is there a situation flying a gyro where you could accidentally go into a low energy state with the engine idling...and not recover thrust quickly enough to salvage the landing? T-37’s used “thrust attenuators” during approach...they deployed to reduce thrust as the throttle came back to help slow the aircraft, without having the engine rpm go to a near idle rpm. If speed bleed off due to wind shear, advancing the throttle cause the attenuators to stow...and since the engine was NOT near idle the thrust recovers very quickly. Just throwing it out in case it might be applicable. Perhaps an auto gyro doesn’t find itself in situations needing a rapid thrust bump to overcome gusts or shear.

An amusing idea just came to me watching this video...…..supposing the guy mounted 3 or 4 pulse jets behind the seat instead of the insanely expensive jet engine.....almost no moving parts.....good fuel economy and very light weight. The V1 flying bombs proved the pulse jet as a viable "means of transport" in WW2......the pay load was a one ton bag of bad stuff.....just thinking.

....taxiing.

First pre-rotator test: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f9Oqqqpj29GXoI0.html

For the speed that a gyro fly a jet engine isn't the better choice.

lol jet powered pram.

WTF ? DOES IT FLY OR JUST TAXI AROUND??????????????????

Looks like a jet powered rascal scooter...just sayin'

Using a jet-engine on a slow flying gyrocopter is nothing but waste of energy.

Ludicrously load, slow throttle response = no thanks

I want to see these fly not someone who is practicing switch and switch.

This will never fly , ever

This jet autogyro is badly constructed , and a missed opportunity . Its horizontal jet thrustline is too high , and at the same height as the thrustline of a autogyro with motor and propellor . But the latter has a reason for that , namely the diameter of the propellor , which may not touch the ground , and is therefore set too high . However , with a jet one does not have that problem of the propellor . Therefore the height of the horizontal jet thrustline could , and should , have been lowered to the height of the vertical point of gravity of the craft , which is at the pelvis of the pilot , and not , as now needlessly set , but not in the case of a propellor , at the height of the shoulders of the pilot . In this way , when forward thrust is applied , there will be no momentum caused by the offset of the height of the forward thrustline and the height of the gravity point pointing backwards . The craft will be pushed cleanly forward , or would have , if built properly . The jet autogyro could be much safer than the propellor autogyro (except if built on high legs and low propellor) .