Fairey Rotodyne
- Thread starter wuzak
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I actually just watched this.
My God.... Why is this not built by the million? Its pure brilliant! This would be fantastic!
My God.... Why is this not built by the million? Its pure brilliant! This would be fantastic!
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
I was a bit noisy, like rip your ears out by the roots noisy, when taking off.
- Thread starter
- #4
wuzak
Captain
Development of High Speed Rail would have killed it in the 1960s anyway.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Yes but with modern engines, quiet props and modern acoustic dampening I believe it would now be a better option than the Osprey with its extremely complex mechanicals (and the high repair and maintenance costs and probably uninsurable failure rates).
I can think of many places were high speed rail will never exist because the terrain will not allow it. Then there are countries like here in Australia where high speed rail is feared by the politicians and the rail companies that jerk their strings so will never happen. There is a high speed freight rail project that has been touted for the last 30 years and construction is about to start they claim but in one area it will cross a major flood plain (for political reasons) and the locals say it will destroy the local ecology, will make some farms which will be cut in two uneconomic, and the track will be destroyed by floods every few years. What would they know the poli's ask. A lot more that some shiny bum sitting in Canberra they say.
It would also be practical in third world countries where airports and airport maintenance are beyond what is left of the budget after the corruption has gutted it, Papua New Guinea being a prize example, and would allow private enterprise and the government operators to offer services to major population centres that no longer have an airport capable of the Dash 8's.
Last edited:
Interesting!
Used to be an Airfix kit
I dunno, the practicalities of those big ole rotor blades in confined spaces... The Osprey, while it has been troublesome, is a good idea and is the first of its kind, so naturally there are issues, but they are perhaps not as widespread as we might be led to believe. From Wikipedia:
"The V-22 Osprey had 12 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2006 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities. Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had seven crashes including two combat-zone crashes, and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 12 fatalities."
Read about the causes of the individual incidents here and you'll see that around half of them were through the rigours of in-service use, rather than a fault of the aircraft itself.
Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia
12 hull losses including prototypes, is that particularly high for an advanced, never before put into production, highly complex concept that offers enormous flexibility and performance in this type of airframe? And haven't they rectified the issues that caused the losses among the prototypes, which amounted to around three or four losses?
The fact is, the tilt rotor concept offers greater flexibility than the Rotodyne does but without the need for tip jets. You couldn't really operate the Rotodyne off a carrier. You also have three spinny things going round, one of which is much larger than the other two. Why not get rid of some of that inherent complexity and power the main rotor? The Rotodyne was just a big autogyro and they succumbed to the practicalities of the helicopter.
Yes, the tilt rotor has the complexities of the tilt mechanism, but like we know, the Osprey is the first of its kind, future tilt rotor aircraft will embody advances that will render the Osprey's hull loss record as an Osprey only thing.
Hmm, I've seen a Dash 8 land on grass. They have very generous flap area and good STO characteristics. There aren't many airports that a Dash can't operate from.
"The V-22 Osprey had 12 hull loss accidents that resulted in a total of 42 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2006 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities. Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had seven crashes including two combat-zone crashes, and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in a total of 12 fatalities."
Read about the causes of the individual incidents here and you'll see that around half of them were through the rigours of in-service use, rather than a fault of the aircraft itself.
Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey - Wikipedia
12 hull losses including prototypes, is that particularly high for an advanced, never before put into production, highly complex concept that offers enormous flexibility and performance in this type of airframe? And haven't they rectified the issues that caused the losses among the prototypes, which amounted to around three or four losses?
The fact is, the tilt rotor concept offers greater flexibility than the Rotodyne does but without the need for tip jets. You couldn't really operate the Rotodyne off a carrier. You also have three spinny things going round, one of which is much larger than the other two. Why not get rid of some of that inherent complexity and power the main rotor? The Rotodyne was just a big autogyro and they succumbed to the practicalities of the helicopter.
Yes, the tilt rotor has the complexities of the tilt mechanism, but like we know, the Osprey is the first of its kind, future tilt rotor aircraft will embody advances that will render the Osprey's hull loss record as an Osprey only thing.
Hmm, I've seen a Dash 8 land on grass. They have very generous flap area and good STO characteristics. There aren't many airports that a Dash can't operate from.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I looks at this and I say that this is cool.
Its very Thunderbirds.
Like some prediction of the future.
I would buy it.
Its very Thunderbirds.
Like some prediction of the future.
I would buy it.
When you get most of your information from the Airfix catalogue as I did in the 1960s the Rotodyne is normal.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I totally agree on powering the rotor - and yes I know that means more power and weight
In wet season at an airport that gets nearly 8 metres (300 inches) of rain per year?
In that case you'd be hard pushed to get a Rotodyne in then! But, yes, a Dash could lkand at an airport under those conditions because you're not going to have those conditions every day. If that's the case, you should seriously look at relocating your airport!
- Thread starter
- #14
wuzak
Captain
Would also require an anti-torque rotor, or differential operation of the propulsion motors. Or conter-rotating rotors. And a clutch system to allow the rotor to auto-rotate during normal flight.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
In that case you'd be hard pushed to get a Rotodyne in then! But, yes, a Dash could lkand at an airport under those conditions because you're not going to have those conditions every day. If that's the case, you should seriously look at relocating your airport!
In the tropics wet season lasts 5 to 7 months and yes yoy can have rain every day for weeks on end. You cannot build a schedule around that. Add to that volcanic action often "adjusts" roads and runways. Some are rebuilt but corruption means many close for good or operate with displaced thresholds - permanently. Weather forecasts and nav facilities are also disappearing due to corruption. It is not unusual for pilots to abort a landing because electricity has failed and with it goes the localizer. The Mil-18s are not approved to carry passengers or they would be very busy in some areas at times.
Thank the gods for GPS as in many areas many navaids are dead or out of calibration.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I got a lot of question.
How did they fuel the rockets on the rotors?
How fast must the aircraft be moving to twirl the rotors?
Powerng the rotors no longer makes it a gyro I guess.
Odd mentioning the Osprey cos it proves the need for the aircraft and that this aircraft had a market.
It would have offered more bang for the buck than a Dash 8 or Chinnook.
How did they fuel the rockets on the rotors?
How fast must the aircraft be moving to twirl the rotors?
Powerng the rotors no longer makes it a gyro I guess.
Odd mentioning the Osprey cos it proves the need for the aircraft and that this aircraft had a market.
It would have offered more bang for the buck than a Dash 8 or Chinnook.
- Thread starter
- #17
wuzak
Captain
The air was bled from the compressors in the engines on the wing. Not exactly sure where the fuel was added, but it was ignited at the tip.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,994
- Jun 25, 2013
The Rotodyne the rotor was driven by tipjets supplied with compressed air (iirc, the engines drove load compressors to supply the air). Ductwork took compressed air to the tip jets. Some rotating joints and plumbing took the fuel.
see Vertipedia - Fairey Rotodyne
and
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1962/1962 - 1392.PDF
Yeh, that's interesting, where specifically are you talking about? Remembering I live in the Pacific in admittedly a country with a temperate climate, but the tropics are on our doorstep; my family are on islands roughly halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand. I have worked with guys who service Air Niugini's Dash 8s out of PNG.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Papua New Guinea but not in Port Moresby. Airfields like Madang, Nadzab, Vanimo and most in the Highlands are all in less than pristine condition. Security fences are stolen as fast as they are erected in some areas. Nadzab was only built 30 odd years ago but you would not know it from its condition.
