On 17 June 2005, the CarterCopter became the first rotorcraft to achieve mu-1 (μ=1), an equal ratio of airspeed to rotor tip speed,[3] but crashed on the next flight[1] and has been inoperable since.
On a helicopter this would cause massive lift dissymmetry and insoluble control issues but the fixed wings keep the aircraft in the air and stable.
The low rotation speed and flat feathering of the rotor means that it causes little drag, and the company claims that the aircraft would be potentially able to leverage the advantages of fixed wings as well as gyrocopters, giving almost all the capabilities of helicopters (except hovering) but with a relatively simple mechanical system.
The rotors would still experience flapping as they rotate due to dissymmetry of lift between the two sides of the vehicle, but Carter Aviation claims this is manageable.
[17] The prototype's engine was normally aspirated, and hence limited to just 320 hp (240 kW) and the aircraft went about 173 mph (270 km/h);[18] which is still ~40% faster than a conventional autogyro but slower than gyrodynes of the 1950s.
[25] Test pilot Larry Neal claimed that the CarterCopter is a challenge to fly because it is a combination of helicopter, autogyro and fixed-wing aircraft.
[20] However, on the next test flight the same day in 2005, the CarterCopter made a hard landing (crashed),[1] causing significant damage, but the pilots were unhurt.
[29][30] It was initially believed that the CarterCopter was unrepairable; later inspection showed that it could be repaired, but the company chose to work on a small open wingless autogyro demonstrator instead.
[34] The company claims that the testing indicated[35][citation needed] that the vehicle architecture could potentially outperform helicopters on every dimension except sustained hover, and should be much cheaper to buy and maintain.
[36] Data from Aviation Week,[37] American Helicopter Society,[38] AeroNews,[29] Jane's,[4] CarterCopters.com[39]General characteristics Performance Related development Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era