Gyrocopter your way over to buyraycon.com/taskandpurpose for 15% off your order! Brought to you by Raycon.

@Mwwwwwwwwe

10 ай бұрын

"Aaand I've been demonitised"😂😂 seems lots of KZreadrs get demonitised/ age restricted for saying things which are unflattering to the CCP

@mich421

10 ай бұрын

I don't understand the measurements you can also add the metric system in addition to the imperial one I would like to understand the measurements

@rocko7711

10 ай бұрын

Holy Crap, that really is from the James Bond movie of: You Only Live Twice

@HinduPAGANcowpissdrinkerRAKESH

10 ай бұрын

This guy keeps on hating chinaa while usa owes chinaa 2 trillion in debt

@jeffk464

10 ай бұрын

Who needs suicide drones when you have 1.3 billion people.

I don’t know how viable the gyrocopter would be in combat, but they sure look like fun to ride.

@jacobnugent8159

10 ай бұрын

It looks like a homemade experimental aircraft

@MostlyPennyCat

10 ай бұрын

Indeed, I have a friend who has flown one, they are wonderful to fly around in, the closest you can get to actually being able to fly. And it's STOVL, _very_ STOVL Not quite VTOL but close, you can use your garden as an aerodrome.

@danfernandez6100

10 ай бұрын

From my limited flight sim experience: negative G maneovers are a NO-NO-FUCKING-NO (your rotor loses rpm when diving down, earns rpm when pointing nose up or banking to the sides; lose too much, and the rotor stops working as a wing, earn too much and the centrifugal forces will rip your rotor). You can only hover if you point your nose into the wind and the wind is as fast as you can go or slower. There are only two safe ways to fly a gyro: slow and high altitude, or fast and low altitude. And even that fast is not faster than most motorbikes. They are not practical. Maybe a drone version would be, if you can make a drone brain to understand how a gyrocopter flies. But a manned one? Police vehicle, or as a flying guerrilla vehicle that can take off and land from grass fields with little hint of airfield activity. Hell, the antitank missiles could be dropped some metters before blasting off into their target, so maybe the vehicle would not be damaged. Maybe a fast, low altitude gyro can be mistaken with waves long enough for a suicide squad to take an antiair position at a great cost. Maybe in a desperate situation, it may have some sense. But talk about thinking out of the box! EDIT: one thing usefull, though: pull that stick hard, and the bird turns as much horizontal speed as you have into a steep climb, it rockets up like a homesick angel... for a small amount of time. So maybe a paratrooper squad could turn half a dozen of these into AA cannon/missile decoys by jumping while pressing a "jump up now" autopilot button, while some antiradar missiles fly into them, then land into the chaos? I don't know, they are chinese. Zerg rush is in the asian DNA...

@geronimo5537

10 ай бұрын

When china brings back US mil vietnam ideas.

@jeffk464

10 ай бұрын

Well, the US has aircraft that can only operate in a low threat environment like Afghanistan. I imagine this fits into the same category, you better be careful how you use it.

I hope he makes a video on what’s going on in Africa right now. Wagner, coups, uranium mines, France being kicked out, new alliances between African countries etc. The entire continent is just a massive tinder box at this point.

@phyrr2

10 ай бұрын

Since Rhodesia fell it's been in flames ever since.

@honeybadger1656

10 ай бұрын

Don't forget Malema calling for the Genocide of white people in South Africa.

@konstantinriumin2657

10 ай бұрын

French retained a lot of colonial influence, but they cannot keep it forever.

@SmokesKwazukii

10 ай бұрын

hot take but WW3 might largely be fought on the African continent

@Taskandpurpose

10 ай бұрын

I'm working on the Niger episode right now, hoping to have it finished next week I dont want to rush it

After watching Hamas using gliders I realized this is actually a good idea. If you fly it low and use it to pass fences, walls and even mined fields.

@Zyzyx442

7 ай бұрын

For only $5000 these would be amazing for any NATO country that's not the USA. Here in Norway they would be perfect for the National Guard, mostly for logistics and rapid troop movement.

@1individeo

7 ай бұрын

@@Zyzyx442 true, and for small countries like Belgium or Switzerland where they dont always have enough depht to use fighter jets effectively. And it is also a good alternative to just sending drones in rescue missions

@Zyzyx442

7 ай бұрын

@@1individeo Good point, like MASH in Korean War just much more affordable as $5000 is like nothing, Norway developed some first gen survaillance drones black hornet and they cost $195,000 a piece and isn't much better than a commercial drone for it's intended use. China really made something work here, quantity is in itself a quality - Stalin

@Ramxie35

6 ай бұрын

since they are cheap, imagine over 10000 of these things flying towards u

@bobsmith3983

6 ай бұрын

@@Ramxie35 And they launch their guided missiles!! The enemy would be devastated.

I mean we have now had it proven to us that Paragliders are a viable military strategy, so in many ways, these Gyrocopters are just more advanced versions of that

@jackuzi8252

6 ай бұрын

Yep. Imagine being able to disable up to 4 tanks with a $6,000 piece of equipment. And the equipment only required 20 hours of specialized training (10 hours X 2 guys), so there'd never be a shortage of "pilots" even if the enemy could bring down significant numbers of them.

@bibsp3556

6 ай бұрын

Aren't they doing that for like 500 bucks with essentially mail order drones?

@jackuzi8252

6 ай бұрын

@@bibsp3556 Well, we've seen drones drop explosives onto tanks. I'm not convinced these little bombs are doing any significant damage, unless they can get it down an open hatch.

@bibsp3556

6 ай бұрын

@jackuzi8252 they strap an RPG shaped charge to an fpv and take out t90s, for under a grand. They can carry em pinpoint and just ram. Super effective. I've seen ones that drop tank mines off RC car like things too.

@elburropeligroso4689

6 ай бұрын

A gyrocopter armed with a Hydra rocket pod would make for decent close air support. A whole fleet of them with rocket pods would make for one hell of a mobile MLRS system...

You could buy almost 22 of these for the price of a single Stinger missile (around $120,000). In an attrition war scenario, that has to be something.

@padnomnidprenon9672

10 ай бұрын

Equip 10 millions chineses with this and you got some cavalery indeed

@BadOompaloompa79

10 ай бұрын

Estimated cost is 40,000 for the gyro. So. Almost 3 ( not counting armament). Could be really useful at that cost though.

@walkingoutdoor6620

10 ай бұрын

@@BadOompaloompa795.500 USD... only 40.000 Commie Money

@siamihari8717

10 ай бұрын

Doesnt matter if you have 2 million cheep tanks. If every time we blow up a tank its crew dies. Eventually you run out of crew and just have hunks of metal. Crew Survivability is more important then cheeper cost.

@cuhyotepowered1201

10 ай бұрын

You wouldn’t need a stinger for these. The US has plenty of rotary cannons that could easily defend against gyrocopters.

I'm not a gyrocopter pilot, so I did a quick check for gyrocopter service ceiling. Seems like they top out at about 8,000 feet (2,438m). The mean altitude of the Himalayas is 6,000m, so their utility in the Himalayas would be limited.

@EIGYRO

10 ай бұрын

With a turbo-charged engine, go as high as you like, but it'll be cold. The alt record is 30,000+.

@useodyseeorbitchute9450

10 ай бұрын

@@karthik-tb5yt If you are making a weird design choices and making something cheap enough for single theater? Yes. Just you bolt bigger engine and bigger rotor.

@clivenorman2314

10 ай бұрын

You’re not going to fly than at more than 200 ft, they’re not designed for high service ceilings and that would make them far too vulnerable. You need to fly low in these. and landing is easier than any other aircraft out there including a helicopter.

@MetaView7

10 ай бұрын

@@EIGYRO turbo can help the engine. but what about the rotating blades? They are still cutting through thin air.

@peekaboopeekaboo1165

10 ай бұрын

@@AbhijeetKundu Yes ... And that "new border" became a Chinese territory.

I can sure Hamas must have watched this video and took some notes. 🤣🤣🤣

Considering what was just accomplished with paragliders, these don’t seem very comical at all.

Please note that retired Wing Commander Ken Wallis actually flew his WA-116 autogyro, "Little Nelly", in all the flying sequences of James Bond's "You Only Live Twice" movie in 1967. He passed away in 2013 at the age of 97. R.I.P..

@sachinmesta4238

10 ай бұрын

RIP to the Gentleman,

@shuji808

10 ай бұрын

Looked sketchy AF lol all balls!!

@enginepy

10 ай бұрын

That’s interesting but I’m not sure what your point is

@c3aloha

10 ай бұрын

@@enginepythe Chinese autogiros look exactly like the one from 1967 James Bond is the point.

@JC4Life3

10 ай бұрын

Just laughing at the first part. 😂😂😂😂 Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!

From the original Chinese videos mentioning the gyrocopter, I think considering this as a "motorcycle" that can fly over some very difficult terrains might be the best way to think about it.

@davidgoodnow269

10 ай бұрын

*EXACTLY.*

@andrewmellor4239

10 ай бұрын

I agree. It seems useful for infantry mobility and border patrols. What I don’t understand is why they put missiles on it. My best guess is they’re intended for deterrence. Knowing that one of the gyros could return fire with a missile, might be a big enough threat that lightly armored vehicles would choose not to take pot shots at it with an LMG.

@haoxiangsun1866

10 ай бұрын

@@andrewmellor4239 I think the IJA using bicycle troops to defeat British army in Malaya during WWII is a good example of why having weapon mounts on the "aerial motorcycle," and 2-seated motorcycles mounted with heavy machine guns are also popular during that time as well.

@zsdfasdfas

10 ай бұрын

So true! 'I have a really cheap and crap attack helicopter' seems ridiculous, 'I gave thousands of soldiers access to flying motorcycles that can also mount rockets' =O now that's useful! What can't you do with that!

@theotheleo6830

10 ай бұрын

@@andrewmellor4239 The missiles look too small to be real. I think the host is right, they were just having fun with it. All of the other gyros had no weapons at all.

Title says "is worse than you think", video goes on to list all the possible uses and advantages, and then finally fails to actually acknowledge any of them.

In a new twist, Hamas surprised Israeli defence attacking with paragliders Now we see how these things may work on the battlefield

Honestly seems extremely useful. 600 lbs of payload, call it 400 with pilot, moving 100 mph in any terrain with 120 mile round trip range as the crow flies, all for less than the cost of a decent set of NVG... Seems like a very economical way to get around.

@dylanmulvaney9912

10 ай бұрын

Ya the only way that it could be improved is having a LMG jerry rigid as a last resort weapon

@hbsavage0387

10 ай бұрын

See but China also has the same issue as Russia quality control isn’t the strong suite for either. It’s definitely not a bad idea but I see this far more useful on the back lines then on the front lines. Mostly just cause this thing is air defenses wet dream. At least with drones they are unmanned and even cheaper and a much tinier target. Now it is a very nice vehicle for getting personnel where they need to be but as a strike craft it just doesn’t seem to fit in this era of warfare. At least the US Little Bird has a metric crap ton of fire power. The Apache is far more survivable. The cost is very much a big upside though and it’s ability to be used in any terrain is also nice. We just don’t have the info needed to make a good judgment since China is known for giving very misleading and doctored info.

@dylanmulvaney9912

10 ай бұрын

@@hbsavage0387 the main reason why quality control is an issue with the Russians and Chinese is the fact that centralized control over everything has makes numbers more important the high quality products. The difference between the T-34 tank and USA Sherman tank are a good example of this. But for the silly gyro-copter I think it would be a good resource patrolling places like mountains or thick forests. Especially if it had a thermo-camera and night vision. But this would defeat the purpose of a cheap light aircraft.

@hbsavage0387

10 ай бұрын

@@dylanmulvaney9912 trust me I know why they have these issues and the history behind it and I agree with you that seems to be the best fit for this aircraft

@lilrickyno2

10 ай бұрын

And let’s not forget, china’s major advantage over the rest of the world is a numbers advantage, so an machine that would be easy to mass produce like this, could be a major game changer for them

I think cheap weapons systems like this could be more viable than most people think. If you could field 50 or 100 of these for every real attack helicopter that could mean your gyrocopters are more effective depending on missions and usage. I think the war in Ukraine is showing us that cheaper solutions can be very effective if deployed under the proper circumstances.

@dmar4194

10 ай бұрын

I doubt you'd be able to. I understand the logic of quantity over quality but I just cant imagine this being cheaper than the .50 cal that will shoot it down.

@ainz1325

10 ай бұрын

Easy machine gun target 😂

@MarkoLomovic

10 ай бұрын

@@dmar4194 well it is very cheap since Chinese means of production enable it. Like it costs less then one full kit on US soldiers meaning that you can attach one of these to pretty much every squad to have at their disposal for various use. Even if it is not good in striking capability just having that utility and in those numbers make it very useful. Rough terrain and you need to do ammo run ? It is basically like a jeep and you know there is always place for a jeep in army.

@zinjanthropus322

10 ай бұрын

​@@dmar4194It can stay way out of range of any 50 cal and with the right missiles even shorad systems as we've seen in Ukraine with KA52s armed with long range anti tank missiles.

@paladin773

10 ай бұрын

​@@zinjanthropus322how it doesn't have the space for the radar that those missiles use. The only missiles that those things would use are fire and forget or short range missiles.

Soviet Union used gyrocopters in first year of WW2 as a nice artillery spotter and recoinassance vehicle. Main advantages was: Cheap design, Very easy to pilot and low skills required, Easy to nearly hover above positions (Remember, these was times before helicopters), Very safe cuz even if you got injured or gyro's engine shot - it'll nearly automatically land itself like a glider (There were a pilot who was an artillery spotter and he was shot but not killed, he lost consciousness and his gyro self-landed near his arty battery so the pilot was saved). And nowadays gyros can just straight vertically land themselves. So, i think, gyrocopter can be really cheap and easy-to-maintain solution in war on attrition. New ones are also very maneurable, much more maneurable than helicopters, so they, maybe, can even dodge some rockets, with good pilot skills, idk.

In WW2, the soviets were struggling to counter the german tiger tank so they started building a massive amount of cheap,quickly built tanks. The idea was just get as many guns out on the field as quickly as possible. The tactic worked. Although the tiger was far superior, they couldnt hold up to the swarm of cheap russian tanks. This seems to be a similar philosophy. They can build them in mass. One of these might be laughable but get a thousand of them firing rockets and they become an overwhelming force.

@F-14D_Tomcat

6 ай бұрын

I think that the difference between a cheap soviet tank and a small cheap open air gyrocopter is that cheap soviet tanks arent suseptable to assualt rifles if lucky, if not an lmg

@AlmightyOmmm

5 ай бұрын

That's... not true. The Tigers also had Panzer 3's and 4's and StuG's and StuH's around them. The Soviets did build a lot of tanks, but they were shoddy and desperately made and barely eaked out a win. German tanks weren't magic though. And T-34's were not cheap if you made them according to design, which no factory actually achieved until after the war.

@natehill8069

4 ай бұрын

I think what your saying is "Quantity has a Quality all its own"

As an Airborne Ranger, I often rode on the outside of a little bird, sitting on a little bench with my sling rope clipping me in. Definitely less protective than this, but the idea is to come in shooting with a fantastic situational awareness. Vulnerable, but deadly.

@JC4Life3

10 ай бұрын

Power Rangers maybe 😂

@ThatOneGuyWhoLostHisHandle

10 ай бұрын

Come in shooting, lol, this won't be used against haji's "ranger" this would be the next tool in our lineup against China and Russia, so you can go ahead and take that job for all of us yeah? Cause something tells me your not going to be doing much shooting from that thing... Not any meaningful shooting that is, you might make a great distraction though!

@siamihari8717

10 ай бұрын

How do you. With your experince. Think such a implement would stand up to quality marksmenship or missiles?

@ThatOneGuyWhoLostHisHandle

10 ай бұрын

@@siamihari8717 They aren't armored, and literally couldn't be past very small arms, so at the moment they will always be susceptible to gunfire. I know I'm not the supposed ranger but that doesn't really give you insight into the ballistic capabilities of a gyro-copter anyways...

@siamihari8717

10 ай бұрын

@@ThatOneGuyWhoLostHisHandle Im simply looking at what can be suposed to be Battlefield Experince. Even if he doesnt get to play with one directly for a full diognostic, someone with his credentials should be capable of seeing somewhat the weaknesses that do exist

Remember how the germans and allies used gliders to great success during ww2. In my opinion every military should expend more on cheap options to pair with the big guns. One can never know, maybe some of those guns end up being extremely cost effective in the future.

@PrograError

10 ай бұрын

maybe we will get that mega airships of the Advanced Warfare COD... (tho it looks more like a one time use in combat, at least drone swarm will be there to help...)

@triadwarfare

10 ай бұрын

With today's wars, using soldiers as cannon fodder's gonna bankrupt a first world nation thanks to how high the pension/benefits are whenever they're killed in combat. That's also why Russians refuse to ID most of their dead. Using gliders would guarantee there will be casualties, especially if used in a contested area. This is why neither Russia or Ukraine is employing this strategy.

Hamas paragliding into Isreal on dozens of these things shows it isn't a dumb idea if it's effective.

@raygeno7937

8 ай бұрын

@dootydooter4130 exactly, like Hamas Israel too are specialized at killing civilians the different is Israel has hypocitres western backing them up.

this footage looks so familiar... it's like I've seen it on the news or something😆

As you said, a gyrocopter costs far less than normal heli ( especially a attack helicopter) and the crews can be trained much faster and the requirements for the crews are much lower. So you could build huge swarms of gyrocopter wings that could overwhelm AD through sheer numbers. And they are compact enough so they can be hidden in any barn or shed

@Oblivisci........

10 ай бұрын

Yeah I don't count anything out these days especially since special operations in America are adopting a crop duster.

@v3llkan

10 ай бұрын

*CRAM Enters the chat

@electric_boogaloo496

10 ай бұрын

With a 20mm or 30mm anti air battery, they would drop like flies.

@russetwolf13

10 ай бұрын

You could literally take them out with infantry weapons and pintle mounted guns.

@theonyxknightknightmaster3792

10 ай бұрын

My thoughts exactly

The first use of an autogyro on actual combat missions was, if I am not mistaken in 1934 in Asturias, Spain during the Revolution that took place there. The Spanish Navy had recently acquired two Cierva C.30 autogyros and once the revolution started both aircraft were deployed to the North of Spain. They were used on observation and liaison roles, and they were often subject of rifle fire. There are reports that they were hit a couple of times but nothing else than some fuselage holes.

@SurveyTurtleGaming

10 ай бұрын

yeah but those rifles weren't semi automatic. imagine what 3 guys with semi auto rifles could do to these things they aren't exactly fast.

@nox5555

10 ай бұрын

@@SurveyTurtleGaming Rifles are rarely used in modern armies. Nato pretty much only uses Submachine guns like the M4. they used pretty highpowered bolt action rifles in the spanish civil war...

I would say the Gyrocopter is the modern parachute trooper. If you have a swarm of hundreds of these, combined with drones and regular jets and helicopters, this can very effectively in invading a site.

Well...this aged well.

When you need a cheap yet effective tool and your personnel are expendable and you want to leverage your 2 million strong army in a battle of attrition... makes sense to me.

@remogatron1010

10 ай бұрын

Drones can do that now and much cheaper too. Stick to computer games little boy.

@xblade11230

10 ай бұрын

Umm if personnel was expendable they would just give them a gun and send them in as infantry Giving each person a personal helicopter is going to be more expensive than just making them infantry

@dmar4194

10 ай бұрын

@@xblade11230 No, because they can do much more with a gyrocopter than they could on the ground.

@dmar4194

10 ай бұрын

@@remogatron1010 Dont be arrogant when you're wrong.

@remogatron1010

10 ай бұрын

@@dmar4194 stick to computer games kid

I wouldn't underestimate it. If there's a scenario where each side is racing for control of the top of a hill or ridge, a flight of these things could just manage to deliver the small amount of troops needed to get the first grip on top of the hill. Also if it is used as a universal transport in the rear (like Jeeps in WW2 and Vietnam), it definitely won't get stuck in mud or other bad terrain.

@Krack2805

10 ай бұрын

maybe if we were still doing WW2 style combat.... ? why would a modern combined arms military like the US need to race for control of hills or forts unless its dealing with like civilians or insurgents? these are only really good for harassing and baiting.

@kanan348

10 ай бұрын

This thing needs proper runway to take off and land.

@rmf9567

10 ай бұрын

This day and age, nothing will be taken down immediately. Shotgun with bird shot could probably knock it down.

@lordgod9958

10 ай бұрын

I wonder what the fuel costs are like relative to a jeep as you said for something like this? Seems impractical from that angle to use this as a transport unless the carrying capacity is way better than these estimates put it at

@aaaaaaaard9586

10 ай бұрын

A single Black hawk can haul 20 light equipped personnel while with that thing you need 20 of those as well as 20 pilots to do the same, with a much shorter range and need for runways.

I think Hamas just showed that this could work under certain circumstances.

now it make sense after attack on israel using glider

Remember that in WW2 an American Piper Cub reconnaissance pilot strapped a bazooka on his plane and successfully hunted German armor. Low and slow has its place...but maybe not on the modern battlefield. In any case, forewarned is forearmed.

I feel like these would be helpful patrolling littorial areas in a defensive role. The antitank rockets would be a deterent for fast boats that are trying to infil or exfil special operations. Lighter, cheaper to obtain and maintain than a helo, they could provide manned patrol options. I am thinking like blimps and small planes did in the US for WW2 and beyond.

@azumishimizu1880

10 ай бұрын

Let us first win the Ukraine war via proxy, before giving advice too other countries. We also, lost the Korean war.

@emillaularsen6255

10 ай бұрын

@@azumishimizu1880I wouldn’t say you lost Korea since the country was basically split 50 50

@azumishimizu1880

10 ай бұрын

@@emillaularsen6255 Im Dutch and we have too admit it. Being pushed from the Chinese border and NK ends up with slightly more territory, even after we took the whole peninsula is a loss imo.

@emillaularsen6255

10 ай бұрын

@@azumishimizu1880 there hadn’t even been stopped until what was it 2018 Also most of the land nk has in uninhabited mountains

@BPo75

10 ай бұрын

@@azumishimizu1880 As the task was to preserve the South Korea from assimilation of the North Korea, I'd say the UN mission was a resounding success.

Yep.. Dad built one. Main components were a £10 front disc wheel hub of a car (Rotor hub).. £25 Aluminium scaffolding for the chassis, a free plastic school chair for sitting on, £100 for 2 x 11 foot wooden rotors and a £3000 brand new A registered Skoda Estelle II as a tether weight and transport device. It flew on a windy day with a 30 mph head wind. Weaponry included laughability at the senseless central tether point dad used and bits of wooden rotor blades shattering after hitting a ploughed field at 300 mph from an altitude of 1 inch. :) Memories.

Fascinating video! I can only imagine how much research this took. Bravo for this effort!

A Tank hunting Gyro-copter is a fine sign of a Totalitarian Regime that has a procurement officer with a brother who owns a gyro-copter company.

@MostlyPennyCat

10 ай бұрын

And there we have it!

This actually kinda reminds me of cavalry. If used right I feel like they can transport a lot of troops with a swarm of these things through tough terrain

@vattmann1387

10 ай бұрын

You're right. If they got the costs down enough it'd be a lot like Dragoons using their horses to get close enough then dismounting to engage.

@ianstobie

10 ай бұрын

Convert the back seat to take a horse or mule, and you've got literal air cavalry! You could discard the gyro on landing since it's cheap. Probably got room for a few nosebags of oats to keep horse motivated.

@fish3977

10 ай бұрын

It really is giving me 21st century dragoon vibes. In general, they just seem like a light transport heli that could be actually attached to the unit with the pilot being a fighter as well and with it being so cheap, you could potentially discard it upon landing if need be Lmao, the two comments before me said literally what I did. It really is just that obvious of an idea!

Confusion with autogyros is due to the constant comparison with helicopters due to there being a main lift rotor. It has always been the problem with auto gyro adaption. Seeing them as a wingless fixed wing aircraft or even parachutes and hang gliders their advantages seem easier to see. For military purposes, i can see advantages in covert special forces operation for its short take off, vertical landing ability (although, the latter takes some wicked skill and timing to pull off), ability to “glide” without power for the final mile and they’re cheap allowing them to be ditched. We all remember how radical idea the airborne infantry was with their parachutes and gliders back in the 40s and this seems like a more modern version of that without the need for a transport/tow plane and also allow for the soldiers to evacuate themselves.

After seeing what's just happened in Israel with the paragliders I think we should take these more seriously.

@Taskandpurpose

7 ай бұрын

Yes completely agreed. what we're looking at here is China vs. the United States and gyrocopters used in a conventional war where one nation has a population of 1 billion and the other 330 million. Not terrorist attacks with Hamas and Israel with a combined population under 20 million.

It seems like a handy little logistics and surveillance aircraft for second line duties that would free up helicopters and more expensive drones for more important tasks. Dropping off ammo, water, food, aid station cas-evac etc in rough terrain or to garrison positions seems like the most logical use for it. Considering the price and the amount of service personnel China has it makes quite a lot of sense.

@Tiananmen1989FreeTibetHK

10 ай бұрын

You must be living in WW2 era. Even missiles could be detected miles away nowadays. This thing is just a floating targets for stingers and anti air defenses. hell snipers could have fun in taking them down lol. Cheap vehicle for cheap fodder human lives. Chinese way

@vattmann1387

10 ай бұрын

You must be living in COD era. These things are great for logistics rather than shooty shooty kill parts of warfare. If you can deliver hot food, water and ammo to you second line troops to pass on to the front line you have a major advantage for moral and supply stuff. @@Tiananmen1989FreeTibetHK War isn't all about fighting people. You've gotta look at supplies etc. I'd have loved these in Iraq *For money they are really worth it if you have surplus population like China has

@horaceandpete7129

10 ай бұрын

@@Tiananmen1989FreeTibetHK You don't get the idea. First, not every region has a full fleged anti air defenses. Second, Chinese PLA has variable kinds of weapons to deal with different situations, if you have snipers in the field, then the droids will teach them what hell is like.

@ambereyes5393

10 ай бұрын

Resupply vehicle? Too small, evacuation vehicle? You got to be kidding. A sucking chest wounded person would never survive the bouncing on takeoff. Rough terrain? Think again. A gyro needs a runway. It's also not good in bad weather and is very slow in terms of military performance. You are probably right about the price however. and the surveillance angle may have merit, but you can hear them coming for quite some distance. I'm thinking that more than anything you're a genuine fan of gyrocopters. Me too.

@nabiji

10 ай бұрын

​@@Tiananmen1989FreeTibetHK how long, in a total war situation do you think it would take to resupply a stinger missle? Also, if these work in small swarms, how many I'd a stinger missle going to take down?

I could see these being used to quickly flood an airspace forcing AA weapons/crews to make rapid decisions about target priorities. This could lead to mistakes, hesitancy, or just saturation beyond what AA assets are available. Edit: Let me also add in that people are saying “just do it with a drone”. Drones capable of carrying that payload are far more expensive than a $5,500 gyro. Also I think far too many people are acting like the CCP expects even half of these gyro’s/operators to make it back. Take a bunch of hastily trained people, cram them into these vehicles, and get a small percentage through to unleash whatever payload they are carrying. Edit 2: Missiles are by their very design, long distance weapons. Much longer range than .50 BMG, M240B’s, etc. If they flew them in range of said systems, they are asking to die.

@puddingsimon2626

10 ай бұрын

have you seen moder AA guns? Reinmetals new Skyguard would be perfect for these things

@jozefkovac6858

10 ай бұрын

Zerg rush strategy.

@u2beuser714

10 ай бұрын

​@@puddingsimon2626 But aa's like skyguard cant take out gyrocopters because they dont fly in predictable path meanehile drones do always fly in a predictable path. So they are useless in my opinion

@keith3761

10 ай бұрын

@@puddingsimon2626 Skyguard also has a massive cost $$$, and like a tank or static Artillery once it fires its position is now revealed on the modern battlefield. you take out 1 or 2 of these and in exchange lose your skyguard that seems like a very good trade cost wise. Hell take out a whole squadron of these and the skyguard still losses in the cost for cost battle. If these gyros have radios with laser rangefinder and can gps send target data to arty or long other range weapons then just firing on it will be bait. Not to mention there is nothing stopping the gunner from controlling a drone as well to laser or GPS paint targets for his missiles similar to what a apatche can do. Price tag on a skyguard is HIGH and how many will most armies have?

@yoelmio533

10 ай бұрын

​@@u2beuser714Any modern aa can track a target that moves unpredictably. If not these systems would be useless against helicopters and jets. Which they aren't. Gun aa like the skyguard is limited by range, not by "unpredictability".

I thought it was gonna be a video about an old and obsolete military vehicle but damn that being a real modern day military vehicle is crazy

This strikes me as an ideal vehicle for the zombie apocalypse. Lightweight, easy to operate and maintain, and completely keeps the operator out of the hot zone.

@lampy5490

7 ай бұрын

There's one in Mad Max 2.

@TheInfamousMrFox

7 ай бұрын

For the whole 6 months of fuel you'd get. Unless you can refine your own!

@GoblinKnightLeo

7 ай бұрын

@@TheInfamousMrFox You can get a lot done with 6 months of effectively unlimited fuel.

@MrJimheeren

7 ай бұрын

The zombie apocalypse? What are you. Twelve

@GoblinKnightLeo

7 ай бұрын

@@MrJimheeren You replied - what are you, thirteen?

I could see these being used by infantry like modern day dragoons. They are cheap and don't have a big radar signature, so long as you aren't flying over enemy territory it seems like a good option for a highly mobile unit.

@JohnJohnson-hu3um

10 ай бұрын

Kids with bricks > modern dragoons.

@BosonCollider

10 ай бұрын

This. They are better than paratroopers in almost every way. And they look like they could carry a 120 mm mortar

@JC4Life3

10 ай бұрын

No thanks. Lol 😂

@justinpowell1139

10 ай бұрын

RCS has nothing to do with size. I assure you these things will look like a flying whale on any radar.

@inkoalawetrust

10 ай бұрын

@@JohnJohnson-hu3um A child with a brick could also give a soldier brain damage by throwing the brick at his head.

i think people underestimate how usfull a cheap easy to use air vehicle can be. sometimes the thing that gives you the leg up is just having something your enemy doesn't. that being said its probably more helpful for logistics than combat

@insanittiez4860

10 ай бұрын

The problem is that quantity does not outclass quality. Any soldier with a decent gun can shoot down these things. It’s also going to be hard for them to aim while on that thing. Basically, the only advantage it has is in it not being intimidating enough to warrant someone just shooting it down out of provocation. In an actual war, you would just be sacrificing your troops since anyone that manages to survive a crash from that thing will probably be chopped in half by the propeller blade

@shadowmancy9183

10 ай бұрын

@@insanittiez4860Quantity has a quality all it's own. If you send 10 to kill a tank, and only one makes it in range to fire, it's cheaper than losing a helo. PRC puts the dollar value of each soldier at $0.

@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine

10 ай бұрын

@@shadowmancy9183 Quantity significantly increase your upkeep cost and complexity. You now need to maintain ten times as many vehicules. They have their uses that's true but if you base your army on cheap assets, you're going to lose pretty much every war.

@aamerjamal

10 ай бұрын

How russia use ka52... Those who think they can shoot it with any thing other then anti air missiles are stupid... A machine gun or even AA guns don't give a range of 10-15 km... What ka52 doing to ukrainian column images what these can do for same tectics.... And in 100s...

@insanittiez4860

10 ай бұрын

@@shadowmancy9183 The problem is that it doesn’t take a tank to shoot it down. All you need is one solder with a 50 caliber to make quick your 10 gyrocopters. That’s why quantity doesn’t matter in this case. The aircrafts are cheap by the people riding them aren’t. Assuming it’s 3 people per gyrocopter, you will basically be sending 30 people to die. The odds of them surviving the crash are already extremely low and they are properly more likely to get chopped in half after by the propeller

Used in a swarming type mission kinda makes sense, it isn’t always best to use the most expensive and complex equipment.

Hey Cappy: what do you think of this machine given that Hamas just used hang gliders to attack Israel? Not to mention the size of an attack might mean these vehicles are low priority targets for air defense. Just spit balling, but I wondered if real world examples might change opinions. Love the channel keep it up

Having piloted gyroplanes in the past, I've often wondered why they don't get used more often in a military role. A cost/benefit would vote for them on that basis alone as well as the maneuverability and short field capability.

@SoloRenegade

9 ай бұрын

it's been tried many times, even way back in WW2. just no practical. best use I can think of is replacing Police camera helicopters, or news helicopters.

@tommeliusbthaprofit6157

9 ай бұрын

you can build cheaper drones to do the same thing, though. just about every pro/point about the gyrocopters is thrown out the window by the fact that making them unmanned would be cheaper, easier, better lol

@designsbyphilip510

8 ай бұрын

I have always felt Gyroplanes should be used in search and rescue missions vs military missions. Though, as stated in the video they do have a very small radar image (without stealth technology built into it) and can travel very low. Could be well used for a surprise attack. As for search and rescue, imagine a flood. Send up Gyros to find the people and send in the boats to get them out. Or to go in and get a downed pilot.

@SoloRenegade

8 ай бұрын

@@designsbyphilip510 They would be good for search, but not rescue. They are best for things like police work, replace news helicopters, etc. Roles in which hovering is not required, but slow flight is, as is flying over congested areas with few emergency landing spaces. They are cheaper to own and operate than helicopters, and can be equipped with cameras and such for observation. Might be good for some misc missions like science, where yo could touch down and let your science passenger collet samples, data, etc. But helicopters currently do those jobs. Makes me wonder what I'm missing about why gyrocopters aren't used in those roles. Gyroplanes are easy to spot on radar due to their rotor blades. hard to mask them with stealth.

@Andrey_Gysev

8 ай бұрын

Soviet Union used gyrocopters in first year of WW2 (soviet part, you know, 1941) as a nice artillery spotter and recoinassance vehicle. Main advantages was: Cheap design, Very easy to pilot and low skills required, Easy to nearly hover above positions (Remember, these was times before helicopters), Very safe cuz even if you got injured or gyro's engine shot - it'll nearly automatically land itself like a glider (There were a pilot who was an artillery spotter and he was shot but not killed, he lost consciousness and his gyro self-landed near his arty battery so the pilot was saved). And nowadays gyros can just straight vertically land themselves. So, i think, gyrocopter can be really cheap and easy-to-maintain solution in war on attrition. New ones are also very maneurable, much more maneurable than helicopters, so they, maybe, can even dodge some rockets, with good pilot skills, idk.

If it's cheap and can kill a tank, it's a viable weapon system.

@lukas081559

10 ай бұрын

A drone can do the same but w8thout risking the multiple trained operators

@KyriSvk

10 ай бұрын

@@lukas081559 Well that matters if you care about your people...

@J_X999

10 ай бұрын

​@@lukas081559China has a LOT of drones as well. The gyrocopter is more for surveillance.

@u2beuser714

10 ай бұрын

​@@KyriSvk China isnt in a position to not care for its people, their demographic time bomb is ticking and they need the people

@T.efpunkt

10 ай бұрын

@@lukas081559 even a iranian shahed drone costs 4 times as much as the hunting eagle. If your country has 1.5 billion people...

Considering how Hamas used paragliders for infiltration successfully, I would not write off these as a real threat in war.

I think it’s an interesting idea. An ultralight drone would be better in most situations this might encounter but this costs 6k and requires minimal training. Sensors, hardware, software, and training drone operators plus the infrastructure needed to use them at extreme ranges are a few examples. I don’t even know if a low flying drone would even function in a very mountainous area. I can also see it being primarily exported to small militaries rather than for their own use.

@iangow-robinson9671

8 ай бұрын

Exactly, the shear cost of airframes, maintenance cost and training cost. poaching helicopter and jet pilots or the maintenance crews is a such common practice in developing nations many consider it pointless to try. This and assassination was a huge issue in Iraq and Afghanistan surrounding nations offering double there salary.. Everyone, wants more highly trained staff but a gyrocopter is not something many would want to poach. It's like india opening hindi Dr programs many western nations poach developing medical staff targeting those speaking western languages, language retraining greatly reduces compatibility & thus preserving investment by making them less desirable. A low flying drone in mountainous terrain would have to be able to operate in thinner air & unless autonomous likely require pseudo satellites and signal relays to avoid loss of signal. similar to issues in urban environments.

It's basically a flying anti-tank infantry crew without the jetpacks. Very, very useful.

@Chuckvsfrank1232

10 ай бұрын

It's a flying dumpster that will spin out of control and crash the instant it fires a missle

@fish3977

10 ай бұрын

​@@Chuckvsfrank1232 A) missile will light it's propellant once it's no longer attached to the Choppa B) you can dismount before firing your rpg

@Chuckvsfrank1232

10 ай бұрын

@@fish3977 Ukraine would have a field day shooting these down. You would need like 50 of these all at once to make a big difference which is the point of them being cheap to mass produce with all the disadvantages that brings. So if these were ever to be used in a real conflict then I doubt China would see favorable results and discontinue the project

@fish3977

10 ай бұрын

@@Chuckvsfrank1232 you're thinking of them as assault crafts instead of troop transports in still held territory or as an alternative for parachutes that can also take off for limited situations. Also big question is, again, who are you fighting against? E: these seem like way simpler things to fly than proper helicopters so you could also just train people over few weekends to be pilots instead of the far more extensive requirements for actual pilots. Y'all are right about small arms fire being an issue with these but using Ukraine as an example, it's already clear that even proper helicopters can't get near frontlines without being easy picking for ground troops

@BosonCollider

10 ай бұрын

@@Chuckvsfrank1232 Imho, you want to load it with loitering munitions like switchblades, not with homing rockets.

so glad task and purpose is getting the recognition they deserved, I was praying for them

The low cost aspect and strength in numbers could be a significant advantage

They could build 4,500 of these for the price of a single Black Hawk. Very handy little utility aircraft. Looks like loads of fun too!

Just an idea, but if they are cheap and easy to train on they could be a tool to overwhelm local air defense. Basically you accept that most of them won't reach the target but enough will. That might be usefull in a landing operation where losses allways are horrendous. Tanks and bunkers opposing a landing are prime targets in such operations.

@DavidHalko

10 ай бұрын

Looks great for a Taiwan Landing Operation, along with thousands of little boats. Why spend billions on a big boat to target when one can spend millions on thousands of helicopters & boats, to achieve the same goal?

@billycarr7446

10 ай бұрын

So back to the towed glider concept of WW2 Europe. I can see a small widow where they could prove very useful. Light attack quick reaction force. The gyrocopters will be abandoned at the target area. Better yet, I see a tofu dregs boondoggle for pols to get rich with their friends in manufacturing. Pity the soldiers that have to fly them.

@deconklin659

10 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing. They have plenty of people to sacrifice for such a strategy.

@bhufcbufdwo8404

10 ай бұрын

Even if half the population dies in the war, theres still plenty lol

@thaneoffife6904

10 ай бұрын

You could also use them in a recon in force type deal. Send them into a specific area then have more capable platforms take out the aa that reveals themselves. Kind of like the wild weasels but a bit more suicidal.

I've seen that exact helicopter in front of the grocery store. You just pop a quarter in it and the kids can ride it for a minute.

Idk why many think its like for frontal attack everything. I m pretty sure this would be used for specific scenarios. Backup, infantry/tank support and others.

It's kind of terrifying. It'd be like being issued a motorcycle as an outrider in a conflict. We used to do that, so I can see the use for these. It was a dangerous job, but it was a lot more dangerous to not have them in some environments. There's also all the brush wars, especially in Africa, where something like this could be useful. And at $5500 each, they're almost a disposable resource. (If I ever get drafted, I am going to see if Australia can buy me one of these)

@jonymanay

10 ай бұрын

Aus should have these in madmax fashion.

@Dr.LightMarker5613

10 ай бұрын

Don't worry, Australia will just have Daddy China equip you colonials 😂

@sambojinbojin-sam6550

10 ай бұрын

Also, it's hard to hack something that has barely any electronics on it. If that becomes an even bigger thing, then at least it's got that on its side. Killing biologicals? Easy. Hacking bio-pilots? That's pretty hard. So you can put guns on these, somewhat safely (ok, as safely as these things are to fly, so not that safely). But there is a pilot in the, or a, loop/ crash/ instant kaboom/ whatever.

I mean, those vs having to cross difficult terrain and possibly mine fields, sounds like a improvement. Building enough of those for the troops to play around with, is the best way to figure out what uses there are for them. I imagine some border outpost can use one to get to some poor lost tourist and arrest him. It definitely gives more autonomy to units that would normally not have any air support. It can also boost morale in down times. And help to train anti air crews. I also imagine it would help officers to get a nice overview of their own defences and weak points. Also finding drunk soldiers who wandered off base. Or delivering ammo and food to some poor conscripts at some checkpoint.

@DJSockmonkeyMusic

10 ай бұрын

I can absolutely think of lots of uses for these things, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to fly on one into an assault on an enemy position.

@gasdive

10 ай бұрын

​@@DJSockmonkeyMusic well that's not what they're for. Armies use motorcycles, but they don't ride them into combat.

@heyarno

10 ай бұрын

@@gasdive The usa has special forces that claim to use motorcycles for operations behind enemy lines. So for roles where the moment of surprise helps, these things might work. Like crossing unguarded terrain, that nobody expects to be crossed. Then deal with some civilian factory guards, place charges and escape. Also China is fighting the urigurs some times. And they don't have sophisticated air defence. So instead of sending troops through some choke point, these things could make life easier for soldiers, while still being cheaper than the use of proper helicopters. But I agree, those would suck in combat with a proper enemy that waits for them. Before and after combat sounds like the best time for those things.

Turns out…these things are overpowered af

They could be really useful to deliver advance/special forces. I wouldn't discount it. It's small, light and can be hidden easily.

These machines are seen as a cost-effective addition to a regular helicopter fleet. They are excellent for simple tasks behind the lines.

@khanhnguyen-tt3ff

10 ай бұрын

These machines are cost-effective, but the pilot are not, it going to take 18 year to grow a human to fighting age and take another 2 to 5 year to train a pilot.

@nekko5778

10 ай бұрын

@@khanhnguyen-tt3ff dont think theyll be flown anywhere close to the front plus china got more then enough people

@zemog1025

10 ай бұрын

Areo jeep.

@abrahamdozer6273

10 ай бұрын

You lead them like a duck.

@abhijeetkundu2271

10 ай бұрын

You can use a man-pod for the same task

In my opinion, most of China's "weird weapons and equipment" aren't supposed to be taken seriously. Just because China is showing something off, doesn't mean they intend to use it. If it seems stupid, it's most likely just for show.

@u2beuser714

10 ай бұрын

Or like their VN-20 its for export customers

@borisstanislav4560

10 ай бұрын

It might have a use in the battlefield, where soldiers are not armed with rifles, or pistols, or machine guns, rpgs, atgms, stinger missiles or slingshots.

@addygreen8919

10 ай бұрын

One thing also to consider is that human live is not that valuable in China, because they have a lot of humans and the CCP has in general not very high moral standards. So attacking with cheap gyrocopters instead of using drones or more survivable but more expensive assets is maybe no big deal for the Chinese military. Maybe ten cheap gyrocopters with anti tank weapons are more effective than one attack helicopter.

@TheZachary86

10 ай бұрын

Dude at the end of the video he gave use cases for law enforcement, which is what is being used in China. This entire video is a clickbait

@RainedOnParade

10 ай бұрын

If it has the range to land on Taiwan, it would be the first wave of an invasion. Cargo planes carrying paratroopers are easy to detect. But, a gyrocopter carrying saboteurs is not easy to detect, they’re as loud as a motorcycle! With how cheap they are for a modern military($5500) there is no reason not to use them, especially with atgm(s).

After the last day events this chopper could be usefull for some factions

Given what Hamas just achieved with para bikes and drones this isn’t so stupid.

1) Can't be jammed 2) Low radar reflection 3) Useful in delivering orders that would keep an enemy from electronic intercepts

@K5hK

7 ай бұрын

👍🏼

For the costs this is underrated in numbers. Moving troops in mointain dense terrain can be a game changer

@rooster1012

10 ай бұрын

Insertion of sniper teams and forward observers is where these would shine, and let's be honest $4500 and an expendable Chinese soldier may be why they would equip these for ground attack.

@delfinenteddyson9865

10 ай бұрын

the only thing i wonder is if these crafts have enough lift in mountains

@mugnuz

10 ай бұрын

@@delfinenteddyson9865 the video said they can go up to 4,5km... Not perfect to reach the top of every hymalayan mountain but good enough to bring them close

@delfinenteddyson9865

10 ай бұрын

@@mugnuz good point!

@mugnuz

10 ай бұрын

If i imagine that even rocky terrain motorcycles or buggies cant go full speed on many terrains its even more valuable. But i guess you need to have that 65 meter runway to lift of again. But i guess thats easily doable with the first few landings.

Hamas enters the chat. So we watched this video and said yeah we will have some of that. But let's simplyfy it and just use parasails. Too soon?..

For the Himalayas where the bird's way is much shorter than a walking path, these would be great to get around in. Especially since it doesn't need a dedicated pilot but anyone can fly it.

@OrangeNotLemonLime

Ай бұрын

They won't work at the altitude, and you will what, land it on the side of the mountain?

I have a feeling that this could be very cost efficient if used correctly. This could be used in low-threat areas where it can accomplish task that a helicopter would be to large or just overkill. And deploying a drone might either take to long (for a large drone) or not be up to the task (for a small drone). All in all this is either not significant news (they don't provide any special capabilities to China) or it is significant bad news for China (they plan on using them in a role they are not suited for).

@BPo75

10 ай бұрын

Gyrocopters are a lot cheaper to operate than a helicopter, and unlike most drones, it can't be jammed or brought down with EW-warfare. So, there is a another tool in the box that can be used in specific scenarios.

@DeltaCain13

10 ай бұрын

They are, however, quite susceptible to small arms fire and environmental conditions, way more so than modern helicopters or drones.

@Wardads1

10 ай бұрын

Nope its utter rubbish.

@njalsand133

10 ай бұрын

CCP would just send them swarming an AA battery

@JoHn-gi1lb

10 ай бұрын

Lol, deploying a drone takes too long but not the gyrocopter?

I kept hearing 'Ride of the Valkyries' played on a kazoo orchestra. But on a serious note you are probably right Cappy, its more likely to be used in domestic suppression.

@HubertofLiege

10 ай бұрын

Nothing better that the smell of my sweaty palms in the morning

@ls200076

10 ай бұрын

​@@HubertofLiegeDon't worry, the aerial police will soon arrest you. Living in the mountains won't protect you!

Honestly, the only capacity in which I could see any gyrocopter being used seriously is with special forces operators in the field.

Just using them as non combat ATV's makes sense. Low cost, versatile, fast way to move troops.

1 Nighthawk that carries 11 troops and 2600 pounds, costs approximately 15 million (more or less depending on order size). That is 2700 of these gyrocopters which carries 1-3 troops each and 600 lbs in payload. This isn't just a little more cost effective, its astronimically more cost effective under the right scenario. Each could carry an anti tank crew, dismount near the front line (maybe at night if you give the infantry nvgs which the pla are trying to do) and hide in tree lines ambushing approaching armor. Imagine hundreds or thousands of them rapidly deploying overnight. The Ukraine war has proven that modern main battle tanks can be taken out by ambushing anti tank crews. Just the fact that these could exist on the battlefield will cause people to rethink their combined arms doctrine.

@Zeknif1

10 ай бұрын

And not just ATGMs… you could theoretically kit one out to carry an LMG team with useful quantities of ammo or a Sapper team with gear specific to the mission with accompanying gyrocopter filling out the rest of the squad’s lineup.

@kirgan1000

10 ай бұрын

Yes its the very low end of a attack/transport helicopter, and can be very effective, if its used within their limitation. Thinking of Ukraine, use 100 of them to fly over a river, and deploy 200 soldier, who attack the defender from behind, and create a bridgehead. Only the threat will force the enemy to hold a mech battalion in reserve for each front section.

@erikvan9582

10 ай бұрын

These things can't land or take off the same way a helicopter does or hover,this application is not good for this platform

@danny7694

10 ай бұрын

I was about to say, on paper this doesn't even look that bad to me. They look hella nimble too, sure small arms could be able to take it out compared to like a nighthawk or even a chinook but given they''re used for police work, why not? and like someone else pointed out; They look fun to ride!

@deathpyre42

10 ай бұрын

The issue is that you just need one decent machine gun to wipe out an entire wing of these. You'd basically be assigning thousands of troops to a suicide mission.

Don't underestimate how versatile and what potential the gyrocopter actually has...... Full potential has never been developed or tried

At night, this would be safer than a traditional transport heli. The pilot has to wear NVGs of course, but the folks on the ground would have a much harder time to see them, and radar would be helpless. So these would actually be a pretty good way to insert spec ops over a short distance. Safer than using something that could actually be picked up over radar.

correction from your video. Blade resonance isn't just an issue for gyroplanes it was discovered in gyroplanes and solved. It happens in 3 bladed rotor systems which need led lag hinges. As the advancing blade goes into wind it lags back momentarily at certain rev ranges (usually during wind up and wind down) two blades can end up closer together (at higher speeds the centrifugal forces reduce this tendency). This means there is more rotation mass at one point of the rotor and it pulls the gyro around in a cyclic rhythm which if allowed to develop results in the machine tipping over. This was solved in gyros with wide gear stance with appropriately geared shocks or in helicopters with wide skids. It is still an issue with any rotor craft with an uneven number of rotors 3, 5 etc. Like collective pitch control and articulated heads etc. It was all solved in gyros before helicopters who just added a tail rotor to a gyroplane head. came along. Also as for take off distance. This Chinese gyro is basically a copy of typical European designs but early gyros and some modern ones use jump take off systems. They use ptich change heads to overspeed the rotor to 150% of flight rpm then pull in positive pitch leaping off the ground about 20ft and continue on from there. Presumably this isn't being used here for cost and simplicity. They can take off on a short bit of road or a tiny paddock and there is no way of building one for $5000 the engine alone is worth about $30 000. But even at $50 000 compared to a R22 helicopter (which it will outperform) at over 1/2 a million let alone a military chopper you could fly a dozen of these hard to detect at say a bunch of tanks and launch from a few feet from the ground if you needed or high enough to be near invisible. Its not as silly an idea as it seems. How's this different from dropping explosives of Russian tanks from drones? Lateral thinking.

@shrederikt.7302

6 ай бұрын

Bravo !

I'd imagine they are more viable than you'd think. Given how cheap they are, you can probably move a significant number of troops into an area, undetected and very quickly. This would be especially valuable in the rocky terrain of tiawan. Lastly, if they are any bit effective against tanks, 1 6,000$ gyrocopter can take out a 10 million $ tank. This would be enough to win a war.

@sridharm1282

10 ай бұрын

then can be shot with powerful guns before reaching target , few bullets enough to take it down

@nhatvu8800

10 ай бұрын

I don't think so. This gyrocopter is a silly idea and a waste of money. It wouldn't survive even in WW1 era, let alone modern warfare (that's why the Germans gave up on it, they could have used something like this in WW 1 and 2). A cheap infantry rifle can take out a $6000 gyrocopter, because they fly slowly and low, they are vulnerable to infantry gunfire. A rifle bullet hitting those missiles the gyrocopter carries, KABOOM!

@tomitiustritus6672

10 ай бұрын

Imagine getting swarmed with 50 of those. Sure, they'd have heavy losses, but that's only a problem if you happen to care or have a very limited personnel pool. Both not neccessarily problems the PLA has.

@Stylenwavin

10 ай бұрын

An regular mofo can shoot at a slow motorcycle in the air lol

@sridharm1282

10 ай бұрын

@@nhatvu8800 True, few bullets , if far then smallest drones which cost 100's of $ with few grenade's good enough to take out lives count

I'd imagine if you integrated these in Recon groups and in conveys (including a basic Humvee/MRAP patrols), equipped them with thermal systems and smoke/chaff abilities it would make spotting ambushes and mine fields very easy. I kind of wonder if IED would have been less effective in the Afghanistan war if the patrol groups had some integrated. it is almost like the airborne equivalent of the FC470 CRRC

@MaxMerritt-kx1yb

10 ай бұрын

Giant shark nets dropped on a swarm from c130s will fix them I think the Chinese mite use them for short coastline attack, s if you know what I'm mean 😮

@JC4Life3

10 ай бұрын

Hahaha 😂😂😂

@marcanton5357

10 ай бұрын

Or they could use them in human wave strategy to get the enemy to waste their missiles and rockets on them. Kind of like using boats to attack ships.

@MrSGL21

10 ай бұрын

exactly when you start thinking of it as a sky atv or motorcycle instead of a combat aircraft it makes alot of sense.

@citizenschmitizen

10 ай бұрын

You could fit a whole bunch of them on an assault ship. You can shut the engine off and glide into the LZ in the dark. Insulate for reduced thermal signature. They also seem perfect for strafing trenches with dribbling bomblets.

also we increasingly find low cost alternative having very high success rates, ie at-4 trucks v old armor

useful in mountain, jungle, and forest terrain

It's quite possible this could be used as some sort of jeep - just for getting soldiers around places that are not necessarily at or near the front lines. Although it would definitely help get troops on tops of hills, ridges, and cliffs where a regular jeep would get stuck. Sometimes all you need is to win the race to the top while the other country has to march up.

@juanjoseleonvarea2495

10 ай бұрын

They don't have to use the gyros in places where they can be shot down by the enemy, but they do make it easier to quickly transport a contingent of soldiers to a forward position where they can stop, counterattack or encircle the enemy.

@scottlidstone1902

10 ай бұрын

We can laugh at these, but I wouldn't be laughing if they were loaded with light machine guns over a crowd of protesters.

@tylerphuoc2653

10 ай бұрын

@@scottlidstone1902Machineguns run out of bullets, but the engine affixed to this vehicle could be attached to a generator with aversive sound cannons. That would kill people's will to demonstrate themselves faster than a machine gun burst would

@AimlessJourney

10 ай бұрын

A gyrocopter is STOL not VTOL like a conventional helicopter. This means it's not as versatile and requires some sort of flat runway to pick/drop troops.

@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire

10 ай бұрын

You're not going to be landing (and be able to take off / reuse the aircraft again) on any old unimproved section of ground...

I just LOVE the fact they are open toped ! The Enclave will make short work of these ... Just imagine a 20mm smacking one of these lol

Here's the other thing: Gyros have extremely low maintenance needs, and Helicopters have extremely high maintenance needs. The hub of a gyro has one moving part for each blade in a simple blade. and a blade-plane angling plate. Build it strongly and it needs only a bit of oil pre-flight. Almost no maintenance except for the engine and control cables. Cheap, 10 hours training tops, No need to hire techs. Oh, one other thing: Landing a gyro is nearly always done with the engine at idle. If you lose your engine, you won't panic, they can land almost without any roll. You will live. But all the rest is true.

I would love to get my hands on one of these things. It's actually not a bad idea. The rockets are kinda dumb but this seems like a good policing/recon vehicle. Not a fighting vehicle.

I actually don't hate the idea. If you have tons of infantry who could be taught to use the thing and you're fighting in mountainous terrain, it could be pretty handy. We saw how useful infantry squads with Javelins can be, so think of this as a cross between a Javelin crew and a super-light Apache.

@brianv1988

10 ай бұрын

😂

@happyjohn354

10 ай бұрын

it has a 9000 foot service ceiling equip it with automatic grenade launchers keep your distance and it will cause many problems for infantry meanwhile its so small you can tow it behind a car and thus they can pop up basically anywhere as light air support.

@happyjohn354

10 ай бұрын

@@micaheiber1419 You also have to take into account cost effectiveness and wartime production though. Example for the cost of 1 FIM-92 Stinger the Chinese can field over 20 of these aircraft. a "cheap" loitering munition the Switchblade 300 is over 6,000 USD still like 1000 USD more expensive and potentially less effective than this platform. It also needs specialized electronics manufacturing. Meanwhile the gyrocopter is so simple it can be produced out of car factories if need be.

@micaheiber1419

10 ай бұрын

@@happyjohn354 A drone doesn't need a *guy* in it though, if manned aircraft are going down at the same rate as drones it's going to take a hell of a lot of patriotism for guys to continue getting in them (+you lost the cost of his/their training, gear, labor, and the invested logistical cost of transporting both people and vehicles around while keeping them safe from precision strikes).

@happyjohn354

10 ай бұрын

@@micaheiber1419 bruh they stated that it takes roughly 10 hours of training to effectively fly also they would still have a higher survival rate than infantry.

Ground resonance is not an issue in normal teetering rotor gyros, only in the rare few with fully articulated rotors. Also, not really short takeoff, but VERY short landing. And while takeoffs are optional, landings are compulsory.

@natehill8069

4 ай бұрын

As long as you have a clutch where you can pre-spin the rotor to 60% RPM before starting to roll (which all that I have looked at do) they can take off in

They also allow a parachute element to come in, attack and get out

Another classic movie appearance of the gyrocopter was in Mad Max 2. I kept waiting for it to be mentioned. It appears to be a "relic'd" Bensen B8V.

They are easily mocked but I can for sure see it being effective when used correctly.

I think the main point here is the cost and simplicity. This thing costs less than a single 155mm round, and you can train a civilian to operate it in less than a day. I am surprised Ukraine is not buying these to hunt down Shaheds and FPV drones.

@Propapanda0213

10 ай бұрын

Why not just make drones then, unless the cost of human being is even cheaper than a chip

@jordyp3696

10 ай бұрын

cheap military drones are still more expensive then 7 of these things. those drones can not carry people, transport anything heavy or deliver troops. these things can be used in so many different ways, whereas drones just shine in very specific jobs (dropping a bomb or gathering intel).

@volition2015

10 ай бұрын

@@Propapanda0213 Drones are vulnerable to EW, as war in Ukraine shows. Human lives matter of course, but during wartime some soldiers are sacrificed to accomplish a mission and to (hopefully) save more lives as a result.

You can tell just by looking at it that it struggles to carry to crewmembers, ordinance, fuel, and an engine of sufficient power. it also is clearly a VFR-only vehicle.

Anyone who thinks that slow moving and seemingly obsolete aircraft have no place in war has never heard of the Battle of Taranto.

I could see this used in mass quantities as a method to suppress tanks or to rapidly deploy infantry At 5000 dollars each (compared to 13 million for an attack helicopter) that's 2600 gyros of 1 attack helicopter.

@nobodyherepal3292

10 ай бұрын

And get shredded by AA guns straight out of WW2….

@ItsJoKeZ

10 ай бұрын

thats also 5200 pilots, missles, fuel for each, refueling, and then loss costs because they are unarmored. you know what's cheaper? not dying.

@jonp8015

10 ай бұрын

@@ItsJoKeZ It really depends on how much value you place on the lives of your own troops. If twelve of their soldiers die killing one of ours, the CCP sees that as thirteen dead men that were otherwise potentially dangerous to the party.

@MrTreacletime

10 ай бұрын

@@nobodyherepal3292 If you have enough AA guns to shred 2600 gyrocopters then no helicopter is getting through.

@nobodyherepal3292

10 ай бұрын

@@MrTreacletime true, which is why Taiwan has so many.

I think this is genious, just look at Operation Varsity, where the allies used more than 1000 gliders to deploy troops behind the front.

I don’t quite understand how these could take off in a shorter distance than a normal plane. And why did the push configuration became the standard configuration for autogyros, what was its advantage?

A good support vehicle. It would solve any logistic problem I suppose.

Imagine a hundred of these little things fly in like a horde of locusts, and land and disembark two troops per landing. If they fly five feet off the ground on approach, using terrain, they would be a nightmare to shoot down.

As shown in several of your video clips, some gyrocopters can spin up their rotor on the ground, allowing a jump takeoff from standstill.

@nightwingaven69

10 ай бұрын

You mean like a helicopter lol

@gottagowork

10 ай бұрын

​@@nightwingaven69 Cheapest helicopter I could find (5 second search) was Composite-FX XE 290 at around $50k for one seat. The Phoenix A600 Turbo will set you back $100k for two seats, and a Robinson R22 a whopping $300k. If the gyro is around $5k for three seats (and 4 Hellfire'ish missiles?) - think sniper team delivery - pretty good bang for the buck.

@zopEnglandzip

10 ай бұрын

A reduced take off, they still need a rolling start.

@JC4Life3

10 ай бұрын

Lol 😂! 👍🤣🤣🤣

Remember jetpacks and flying platforms? This will be about as useful

Could be like a recon for a platoon or something.