>>17896962) The tractor design uses entirely conventional control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, rudder), while the bensen gyro uses rotor head control for pitch and roll. This means the former feels and handles much like a conventional aircraft, with control effectiveness decreasing with speed, and the aircraft defaulting to a stable attitude when control is lost (as they are in autorotation gyros have passive stability from their rotors, unlike regular helicopters). Furthermore, the control surfaces are relatively large and far away from the center of mass, which makes them more effective in damping any oscillation without pilot input. Finally, the front position of the propeller has naturally more ground clearance than the pusher configuration, which allows it to be more easily positioned with respect to the center of gravity centerline. (pic related)
By contrast the rotor head control of the bensen gyro is 100% effective at all speeds as it depends on rotor rpm rather than airspeed, and it's made with a very small lever ratio to minimize vibrations from rotor (meaning that a large rotor head movement leads to a small control movement), which makes it fabulously responsive but also allows the pilot to destabilize the gyro at low speeds, with no hope of recovery. Add to that the design's very low polar moment of inertia, and it will very quickly rotate beyond the reaction speed of the pilot - and there are no control surfaces to dampen the oscillations. Even the rudder position adds to this, as it is placed such that it reacts strongly to pilot input (it's fed air from the propeller) but it doesn't have enough size or distance from the CoG to prevent excessive yaw (and over 90º of yaw makes the airflow go in reverse, stopping the rotor dead).
Again compare the bensen to the modern autogyro, and note how the later added a proper horizontal stabilizer as well as fixed vertical fins. It works, but you could do better or go with a fly by wire system.
cont
