If I could afford the machine, then investment in rating would be immaterial. Anyway, I believe that there is a separate gyroplane rating as this is not a powered rotor and is not capable of hover, well, maybe into a stiff head wind. I think the last time I looked at the regs it was 40 hrs of flight time required. 20 w/ Gyroplane CFI and 20 solo. Plus passing the written tests. If someone goes with an ultralight version of a gyroplane .. yeah, no license required. Scary isn't it.
Looks to me like it has a powered rotor. Gyrocopters would not spin up standing still as this one does. Now, how it's powered I don't know, but it's clearly spinning up with the prop. Gotta admit I like the lean in turns.
It has a rotor pre-rotator. No anti-torque petals, no tailrotor- it's a gyro. The prerotator spins up the rotor blades to reduce takeoff distance. Getting a gyrocopter rating is harder because you will have to travel far and wide to find an instructor to give you training. Gyros are not very commercially viable because they have almost the same amount of complexity/operating cost (yes, it cheaper but not by much) without the benefits that a helicopter can give you. A STOL airplane can give you more utility than a gyro and have less than 25% of the cost of a gyro. Generally, a STOL airplane can fly faster than a gyro, as the rotor disk is very inneffecient in forward flight. It creates lift, boy do they ever, but that severely cuts down on the speed due to drag. Yes, gyros can land vertically and without power, somewhat controlled via autorotation (what makes them spin while flying without having to power the rotor) but the whole rotor assembly is still a complicated piece of machinery that needs periodic ($$$) maintanence. Sorry, not trying to be a downer- I personally love gyrocopters and would like to thank Cierva for designing them back in the 20's and 30's... Before Sikorsky built the first working example of a helicopter that we can all recognise as a helicopter, autogyros were the only game in town. BUT the fact remains that they fall into a spot in the envelope of cost/utility that makes them impractical. I almost started getting my rotorcraft license with a gryo rating rating after I got my commercial license, but the one and only instructor I could get to, never could get his Air & Sace DA-18 legally flyable to take students. Other gyro instructors are few and far between.
If you are looking for something along those same lines, but less expensive, and easier on maintanence, I'd look into SkyCar. I can remember when they first started a trip from London to Timbuktu in 2009. It's not really rocket science, just a big parafoil lifting a dune buggy chasis. It probably went faster while it was on the ground, but that's not always the point! Here's the link: ParaJet Automotive :: SkyCar
I guess I'm lucky, there are 3 Gyroplane CFI's within an hour of me. I've always liked them. It seems as if they don't have enough parts to fly. Short take off and even shorter landing requirements. Can out handle a fixed wing Not very many airplane pilots want to be flying at 2-300 feet. Where as gyroheads are loving it. But, their carrying capacity is pretty limited. Especially for the homebuilt and experimental airframes. But their maintenance can be handled by the owner. Helios require FAA certified mechanics. Commercial models like the ones out of Germany and Italy, those are freaking sweet. Calidus, Magni etc.
Well, one could tie the rotor down and push with the prop. But, I'm pretty sure that would be a hazard to pedestrians and iceberg lettuce.
There was a guy in the earily 90's,in Debary,Fl.that was selling kit's similar to this one that had a 50mi.range: One man Backpack helicopter Powered by G8-2 Pressure Jet Engine invented by Eugene Gluhareff 1956 - YouTube Matt
The Gen H-4 has been under development for over 10 years. It's not really a helicopter, but rather a coaxial vertical propeller system. NO AUTOROTATION, he gets by the whole safety thing by using four individual 20hp motors, so if one goes out, you had better get it on the ground before the next one goes. Pretty cool that he's still improving on it, though. I wouldn't think twice to give it a try. The Gluhareff engine works, but it is a deadly killer of experimental aircraft pilots because it will shut off for no appearent reason. It relies on the liquid form of propane in the engine in order to operate. So, it uses liquid propane, still liquid. It gulps it down. Maybe it may be better in a rotorcraft because you can autorotate when the thing quits on you. Gluhareff has been building these things since the 70's- I bought the plans from Popular Science when I was a kid... There's a reason people aren't using these things to fly, even though the experimental aircraft market is very innovative, quite different than the general aviation fleet, they aren't suicidal.
