Building of a manned copter with a gasoline engine.

[DaleB]

3. I already answered and this question. For VERY DARK AND LAZY - I repeat - will be the same as with a helicopter, which broke the reducer!
Only in difference from the helicopter (I repeatedly REPEAT) - I have a system of parachute rescue.

I don't think there would be time to deploy a parachute system if one (or more) rotors fail. The high CG and un-balanced vertical thrust will flip that thing over in a heartbeat. Just my opinion. You could use accelerometers to determine when to automatically deploy -- a risky approach, but in any case I doubt a 'chute would do a lot of good outside of one or two specific failure modes.

The helicopter will be autorotated if the engine has decayed and the propeller does not get stuck. If it sticks - no autorotation.
If the blade breaks - the same - there will be no autorotation - the helicopter will fall.

The plane will only plan if the engine has decayed. In the event of a breakdown of something else - a wing, a stabilizer, or even a flap or aileron - the airplane is likely to fall.

That is - the ability to plan or autorotate - depends on what a breakdown.

But it does not bother anyone - everyone flies.

True, but that's because the failure modes you describe represent a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall total incidents. In-flight breakup, whether fixed wing or rotary, is an exceedingly rare occurrence. Engine stoppage and gearbox failure is certainly not. You cannot simply hope it never breaks because of your superior design, which I think history has shown will be nowhere near as failure-free as you imagine it might be. You really have to assume that anything that moves will break with some degree of frequency. You'll never be wrong. So... what happens, exactly, when your pilot is flying along at max thrust and the left front gearbox fails? Prop stopped or prop free-wheeling, the result is the same. In a matter of half a second or so your pilot (and his hapless passenger) will find themselves in a rapidly rotating free-fall. No control at all, and deploying a parachute will just provide shroud to contain the body parts after impact.

Besides - why should it break?
In comparison with these propellers, mine are just a coffee grinder!
But on helicopters this heap has been flying for decades!

You just answered your own question, I think. I don't think your system is designed and built to the same standards as Kamov. And it's not the prop hubs I would worry about, it's all the power transmission parts.

Just do everyone a favor. When it's time for flight testing, load that sucker with sandbags instead of live bodies, and fly by remote control for the first hundred hours or so. It may be very enlightening.