>>1787984Yes it's possible, if by accident proof you mean less likely to suffer a fatal accident in the first place. The number one reason for autogyro accidents is pilot error, with very few accidents being due to weather conditions and even less of them being caused by mechanical failure. As such there are two things that can be done, which are:
1) to improve pilot training to adequate standards
2) to make the basic autogyro design more forgiving of wrong inputs.
I'll be focusing on the later point since it's the most critical, especially since autogyros used to be some of the safest flying machines around before ww2. Why?
Because most of them followed the tractor configuration pioneered and developed by juan de la cierva like
>>1788914, and produced in greater numbers by harold pitcairn. These models essentially behave like regular airplanes but with far less sensitivity to cross winds and with the advantage that they couldn't stall; at zero forward speed they behave like parachutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQieKnglzj4 Don't think that pusher autogyros lost these advantages, because that's would not be true; the problem is that pusher autogyros, as designed by igor bensen, don't behave entirely like regular airplanes in the first place.
cont
