Dear fellow gyronauts :

As I promised in my last reply last week, I would come back to you with some more information on the Twinstarr gyroplane and its status. Let me first clear up some misconceptions/inaccuracies in this thread so far; previous quotes from this thread shown in boldface below.


If you have a Twinstarr, part of a Twinstarr or know of someone with a Twinstarr that might be willing to sell please contact me so that I may pass the information on to him.
Feel free to contact me directly any time on this email address :
gyrowoody@yahoo.com

or by phone :
** 44 1493 332 794 (A note to my overseas friends ; please take into account I am on Zulu time, and it isn’t really funny being woken up at 3 AM if I am on an early start that day or have been working a late shift previously and need all the sleep I can get).

Please note I work as an offshore pilot and the nature of that line of work is that I am sometimes uncontactable for some time. I will try to resolve most of your emailed questions as soon as I can though.



I was hoping to be a dealer for Woody but he is not interrested I guess. I can use mine and make a jig before I put it together. This would save on importing kits for the UK.
Not correct . I am interested to hear from any seriously interested parties who understand what this design is capable of. I am a pilot and am not interested in becoming lodged behind a desk as a businessman all day. I fly for a living and have a substantial experience in gyroplanes in particular. The business side of things is not my forte, on top of which I got bitten last year. Many may remember the thread started by Ken Padden about my dealings with him. I lost a good deal of money (including all of what I had saved to put it through the approval process ) through that deal. The thread was closed by the administrator for good reasons. You will therefore understand that I will not repeat that bad experience and that I will take serious measures to protect myself from anybody who likes to steal the design and manufacturing rights to this excellent (and frankly speaking: unequalled) design, or who thinks of acquiring it in a quick and dirty way. I will deal with people who know what they are talking about and who understand the value of safety of this subject and who will accept the terms and conditions as I lay them down to protect myself and the design. This has grown out of selfpreservation. I am sure if you are sincere you will understand and appreciate this/probably do the same. I don’t think these terms and conditions are unreasonable ones and I think it is only fair.
As for making a jig yourselves: please be aware that many tens of thousand manhours went into the design and manufacture of the machine and it may not pay you to do so, besides the legal complications. Frames and kits can be imported relatively inexpensively, and I have always strived to keep cost to the customer to a minimum. Those who know me personally well enough will testify and confirm this. There are enough USA (and other nations) citizens who know/remember me out there.


I hope Woody reads this maybe he will see it is a good deal to sell them again here in the USA where it started and not just keep in the his world.
I have read it and am happy that finally the light is coming on in the USA (and perhaps the rest of the world may follow) and that people are beginning to realise how good the Twinstarr-design really is. There is plenty of good reason why, but it takes experience to recognise this. Look at the present market in detail and you will see there is nothing like it out there.

jigs are in KY
Not true; all jigs, fixtures and subassembly jigs have been brought over to the UK for several years now.

One problem with Woody making them (other than possibly not providing them in the US) is that from what I have read he plans on NOT using the Lycoming engine. Everyone that has talked to me about my Twinstarr wants the 0-320 setup.
Incorrect : the airframekit for both the Twinstarr (Lycoming 0-320) and the Twinstarrlite is identical. Perhaps you need to read again the article which appeared in the PRA magazine some years ago (August 2003) under the title: ”Twinstarlite : A New Block on the Kit; More (f)or Less ?” Some of the wordplay was lost in the typesetting for the magazine I think, so I would be happy to email an original copy to all who are interested.

If we make the information public domain (free) I wonder what the legal ramifications would be?Doing that with a protected design could create more than a serious legal problem for yourself. I advise against it. It would also open the door for any less knowledgeable individual to all sorts of experimentation and destroy by some silly accidents the reputation the Twinstarr has carefully built up for many years. Surely that is not what one wants ? I have been with the design from the start and believe me; I know what works and what doesn’t. Sometimes we have the duty of protecting the individual customer against himself.

Interesting, Tim; I was thinking along those same lines! As I have my TwinStarr completely torn down right now, I was thinking about taking precise measurements of the entire rig, tube by tube, and reverse engineering it in a CAD program. Then I could build my own jigs, change some things that could be slightly improved, and then make another one ... my way.Here again: do not take this too lightly. More work went into it at the Farrington Aircraft Corporation with at least a staff of 5 employees in the years there than any single individual can do in about 15 years at least, and that is taking into account only the work and development done by Farrington. It does not take into account neither the manhours nor the money my brother and I have put into it to develop the Twinstarrlite. At, say only 3 US$ per hour, you can calculate how much you would have to invest time- and money-wise before you would come up with the goods (if you did everything right the first time, that is). A lot more research went on than you might imagine. Believe me, I have been there. Why try to re-invent the wheel? Modifying and adding personal touches is inherent in the experimental aircraft world, but that is where the gyroplanes got their bad reputation from as well. There are more features on the Twinstarr design that make it into the brilliant design that it is than you can make out when you just copy or even modify it without knowing the original design brief. This is not just any gyroplane; it is one of the VERY few that were DESIGNED by professionals (not us, but Don etc.) instead of just built, and it shows in the performance, safety, handling, construction.... basically everywhere. BUT only if you know what to look for. Don't underestimate the quality of the design, even if you think you can improve upon it.


I was under the impression that the Lyc had VERY differn't engine mounts and that the mast of the Twinstarr would have to be modified to accept a differn't engine weight since we don't use 'standard' style cheek plates.
Again, this was already taken into account during the design phase:
The Lycoming engine comes in two versions ; dynafocal mounts or parallel (semi-focal?)mounts. We have the engine mount welding jigs for both versions. One of our machines is dynafocal, the other one has the parallel engine mount. The engines are interchangeable on the airframe (unique design). Look at the pictures. Other engines can be used, but the engine mount is critical to the success or failure of it. Many factors are involved. Best to leave this to us and ask for advice first. We are open to suggestions, but like I said before: we will not compromise the design by randomly launching untested options left, right and centre if we have not tested them or have them tested to our satisfaction and approved them. E.g; Chuck Peterson came up with an extended instrument panel. It looks very well made, but we have to test it before we can recommend it. If it’s OK, you can order one directly from him after we have approved that option. We will not steal the idea nor the production right from him.
Any customer can contact us for such a mod to get it approved or improved, as the case may be.

It seems these companies come and go rather quickly
I don’t think you can accuse the Farrington Aircraft Company from being shortlived; for more than 25 years they held the strong position of being the only fulltime gyroplane training outfit in the world, a reputation well deserved. They were renowned for their quality of instruction and their vast know-how on gyroplanes. It was (not for nothing) called “The Gyroplane Center of the World” for good reasons.

(1) Underestimating the time required for even a good design to become popular. Running a company through the time from product introduction to significant sales volume can burn lots of capital.
If Don Farrington would still be alive he would be the first one to confirm this. Like I said before; The Twinstarr took tens of thousands of manhours to come to its present state, and that was even before the advent of the Twinstarrlite ! It was designed more than 13 years ago and is still more than holding its own in the market.


(2) Some of the most original designs come from dreamers, who aren't always the best businessmen.
How true ! And often the best designs do not get recognised until after the death of the designer and/or the demise of the company. It is no different with the Twinstarr. I flew and trained many students in it for years without any problems. It is the only machine that will give you that kind of reliability and low maintenance coupled to excellent performance and exemplary stability.
I am probably more of a dreamer than a businessman, but I have learned at my peril not to repeat the mistake of making myself vulnerable to crooks!! (Cannot afford it in the first place, after last year’s disaster)


mine is dynafocal 0320a normally are conical series e are dynafocal. The dynafocal has less vibration.We have both engine mounts available depending on your version of engine.


I think the Lycoming 0360 would be a better choice for hot weather flying.
There is no problem with hot weather flying ; Paducah had temps of well over 100 degrees F every day in summer. We still took off with students who weighed well over 320 Lbs!!!!! It may be useful to talk to other owners about “hot and high performance”. I have never heard any complaint about that. The 0-320 engine was chosen because it would still perform well in those temps, and it did! I can remember flying at hot Mentone days with passengers who other manufacturers could not carry because of their weight, and we still outperformed the other machines despite the fact that we were carrying a far heavier load than they were in the same atmospheric conditions. Saying 'more is better' becomes invalid where it concerns weight.

Woody doesn’t know how many where built but with Brent being #21 that would be about it.We have tried to compile a list of machines and their registration numbers as well as respective owners. We have located a number of them, but we would still like to hear from the following owners : Johnny Ray Lovingood, Hammond Richard Dwayne, and the present owners of the following previous owners ; Phil Horras, Tom Ballard (believed to be sold) and Harmon Mc Kenzie (believed to be sold), Marvin Smiley(unknown).
Of all Twinstarrs sold all but one are still in existence and none have ever had a fatal accident. Only one was destroyed while being flown by an unlicensed pilot, injuring pilot and passenger. In 13 years that is not a bad record, I guess.

Please give us an address. email or snale mail
See above for contact details.


And now for some exciting news :
1.On august 7 2006 an Irish registered Twinstarr (EI-DJX) flew across the Irish Sea en route to the British Wallis Days in a historic flight. See upcoming article in the press soon.

2.Present state of development of the Twinstarr is investigating the following:

-prerotator also for the rear seat, as well as instrumentation in the rear seat, probably digital.
-New construction method to build the tail surfaces. We are looking into using a “matched hole” method to simplify/speed up tail construction.
-We are trying to find more ways of reducing the noise output (and keeping or even improving the standard performance) by using different propellers etc.
-Possibilities of other engine options on the Twinstarr.
-Other engine options on the Twinstarrlite, given sufficient customer interest.
-Other rotorsystems to cut down on the stickshake. The most successful option so far is the Averso head and blades. Virtually stickshake-free (This is what we had on the Irish one flying across the Irish sea, by the way).
-Plans for a custombuilt trailer are to be developed and made available to customers.
-We are at present looking into what the best procedure would be to get it through for approval in most countries ; whether that be BCAR “T” or LSA approval or other. The FAA 51% rule was already met years ago.
-Enclosed version.
-Different, more modern looking shape for the pod without sacrificing aerodynamics or controllability (stability).
-further weight reduction (=increased payload) by using carbon fibre material for the pod.
-larger instrument panel (we will evaluate Chuck Peterson’s design which he then can manufacture as an option or even as the standard).
-Electric trim system in both roll and pitch axis.
-Creating a website with all relevant info and downloadable brochure.

Please take into account that these things take considerable time (not to mention money), and that none of these mods will be released until we have tested each and every one to our complete satisfaction, so be patient. Good things come to those who wait.
Production will be resumed as soon as we have at least 5 deposits of people willing to put their money where... With all the production tooling, including all the CAD files etc. at hand, we only need to know how big the real interest is before finding the necessary reliable investors for putting this professional machine for the enthusiast back on track.
For those who thought the Twinstarr design was dead, we do apologise for the disappointment.

Sincerely,
Woody