Heliopters autogiros for the ww2: underused, or not worth it?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just you wait....

Good points about the artillery spotters being the unsung warriors.
As for the other roles (tactical transport, anti-sub anti-mine work, maybe having one-two aboard of the destroyers...) seem to me that a helicopter designed around a 700-1200 HP radial would be a nice asset to have. Having, say, a half of the Piasecky H-21 capabilities (so, not 3 to 5 crew, plus 20 soldiers, but crew of 2 + 10 soldiers, or weight equivalent).
 
Such helicopters were built, they were just too late for WW II.

Sikorsky H-19 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piasecki HRP Rescuer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Piasecki H-25 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British helicopters

Bristol Sycamore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bristol Type 173 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russian Helicopters

Mil Mi-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note it sometimes took as long as six years to go from prototypes first flight to service use. In 1942 when the decision to go into production would have to be made in order to get large numbers in service in 1944 the existing helicopter designs were far from perfect in regards to control issues, Center of gravity issues, transmission issues and so on. They were flyable but still needed a lot of work. Trying to build 700-1200hp machines when the 150-450hp machines exhibited some rather crude control methods or responses seems a little premature.

Even how to make blades was up in the air. The R-5/S-51 series wound up with at least two different sets of blades in it's career. Composite blades, what ever that means ( and I doubt it is carbon fiber and epoxy ) and metal blades. Blades could be metal, metal leading edges on wood, all wood, wood framed and fabric covered and maybe one or two I left out. Not knowing how they work on a 450hp machine leaves you some really big question marks for a 700-1200hp machine. Even how to make all metal blades could take a bit of work, extruded? folded and welded? Multi-piece and welded?
Just because you can make even a 16ft propeller may not mean you can make a 45-55ft diameter rotor.
 
OK, davebender, I would not have liked that either! But maybe if they could have been used off of a flat decked freighter for submarine spotting, subs usually submerged at the sight of aircraft thereby forcing them to run on electrics during the day, may have kept them from obtaining a night-time attacking position (at least some of the time). It would have been a better system than the CAM ships. It would have required a ship or ships capable of operating several choppers to give the proper coverage.
 
Germans used them in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black (?) seas. Using them in the North Atlantic or on the Russian convoys would have been much harder.

Cam ships were not anti-sub ships/aircraft but anti Condor/Reconnaissance ships/aircraft.

Having any sort of aircraft against subs helps as the Blimp shows. By the time you have any sort of reliable helicopter on the Allied side you have a fair number of escort carriers carrying things like Swordfish which can carry not only decent armament but in some case search radar.
 
You are correct, CAM was anti-aircraft. My thought was that a deck for choppers would have been easier to produce than a deck for fixed-wing (of course completely disregarding any infrastructure to be carried on board to operate said choppers!).
 
IMO the only useful fuction for an auto-gyro was like the Fa 330 (thought probably more like a kite) towed by a ship. Quick setup and take down and useful for recon. No fuel needed to be carried.
 
The German Navy used Fi-282s that way except they operated off the deck of naval vessels. IMO it's an ideal WWII naval mission for helicopters. If / when a submarine is spotted the helicopter can drop a small floating flare (night) or smoke pot (day) to mark the location for ASW vessels to investigate.
 
At night?????

Pray tell how did the helicopter crew spot the submarine at night?

Night take-offs and landings are going to be a real joy for the Helicopter crew also. Although you can always light up the flight pad for the helicopter (and any submarine in range).
 
davebender said:
WWII submarines were located visually at night from DE lookout positions. Helicopter based observers would be at least as good.
Click to expand...

Not really. The ocean looks very different from the deck of a ship when compared to an aircraft at altitude. You can see items reflected on the water especially on a moonlit night, from the air you're looking for a needle in a haystack. I've been on seaches at night over water, it's like looking for a black spot on a piece of coal.
 
You also have developing technologies. By the time you have helicopters in any numbers a fair number of the escorts have radar. At least on the Allied side. If the ship has to tell the helicopter where to go try to pick up the Submarine visually it might as well use it's it's own gun to fire a flare shell if it's close. If it is beyond radar range then EVEN if the Helo spots something the sub is going to be somewhere in a mile to 2 mile radius of the "small floating flare" by the time the surface ship gets there.
 
Spotting lamps for a helipad are "paintcups", meaning no sideways emission of light and while that might eliminate the possibility of being spotted by surface ships or subs, it does pose a risk being spotted by prowling NF units.

I don't recall reading anywhere, that the Kolibri (or other Luftwaffe helos) operated at night
 
I do not believe they did either. It was tricky enough with the way they landed them on ship (they winched them down), don't think they would want to add more difficulties to it.

Would a surfaced sub kick up enough of the bioluminescence to be seen at night? I know CV's could.
 
the technologies and tactics overlap. A Helo or Gyro or Blimp or kite could provide aerial reconnaissance in daylight at greater distances than a mast head look out could. At night they would be almost worthless. Radar, while not 100%, extends a bit the search horizon over visual, works in worse weather and at night. Early radar could add several tons of top weight to a destroyer. Placing even a light Helo on an upper deck position adds a few tons of top weight. Which is the more useful addition?

Space for Helo's, even small ones on a WW II Destroyer is severely limited.



The lines between the Fore mast and the main mast are the long range radio antenna/s. leaves pretty much the space aft of the mast. Land the "X" gun mount for the helo?

The helicopter wasn't really a workable system until 1944/45. Better radars, better radios, newer aerial systems, the acknowledgement that if the enemy got within torpedo range of the defending destroyers things had really gone to pot all contributed to changes in the destroyers mission/s and armament mix.

A modern US Arleigh Burke class destroyer can carry TWO Seahawk Helicopters but they weigh 3-4 times what a large WW II destroyer did, they are larger than some WW II light cruisers.

The Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH was able to fit on a WW II Destroyer but required the loss of several quad 40mm Bofors guns or two (?) twin 3in AA mounts.

Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WW II helos could be useful on ships, the question is are they going to be as useful as whatever is you have to take off to fit them in?

WW II helos could be useful on land, the question is just how many missions can they do that can't be done as well or cheaper by another type of aircraft. For some missions only a helicopter will do. Artillery spotting isn't one of them.
 
The Kreigsmarine did test a Kolibri successfully between 1941 and 1942 aboard the Köln, the landing platform was atop turret B (Bruno) and it was impressive even in poor weather. Unfortunately, they didn't say if there were any night-ops conducted :/

The KM was so impressed, they operated about 20 Kolibris in the MTO as recon (and messenger) units.

The other Kolibris were used as artillery spotters and over-land recon units.

There was even an actual helo staffel, TS/40, based out of Mühldorf.
 
The Royal Navy used the Hoverfly operationally on the SS Daghestan covering one convoy in January 1944. I never found any other operational evidence but the helicopter was used in the US Navy for supplying maintenance to the land and air forces, this was Project Ivory Soap. The development of the German Helicopter will be found in BIOS overall report No8. Most of what they achieved will be found there, most of the U-boat talk is pure myth. It was only in 1945 the Hoverfly was developed for working with the UK forces. If you want more gen read, "The Sycamore Seeds." It covers the history of the autogiro and Helicopter mostly in Germany and UK, it finishes with Hafner's Bristol designs in 1960. Sadly no Soviet stuff
 
Prior to the war's outbreak there were plans within Britain to put rotorcraft into series production - although to what end isn't often explored, as up to that point the autogyros were not really practical for much more than personal transports. This is the Kay Gyroplane, the first rotorcraft with variable incidence blades that it was hoped by its designer would go into production, but as with the typical autogyros of the time, it suffered from limitations in performance and load carrying capability. It could take off vertically however, the variable incidence rotors and a drive shaft from the motor to the rotor head enabled this.

1907 Edinburgh NMS Kay Gyroplane

The Cierva derived designs certainly gained interest and were used to demonstrate their potential prior to the war and even during the war - in Australia, this aircraft was used to explore torpedo spotting over harbours and was used by the RAAF and USAAF units based in the country to explore the concept of a flying jeep, or Fleep.

VH-USR 1

This is a Flettner 282 Kolibri undergoing restoration in the UK, at the Midland Air Museum.

1107 Midland Air Museum Kolibri

Placing an aircraft of any sort on a warship takes up space and adds weight. Aircraft are flammable, too, all of which makes adding aircraft facilities to existing ships that don't have them in WW2 a bit risky, but obviously not impossible for a cruiser or larger. Post war, a few firms explored the possibility of a light simple helicopter that would take up minimal space and add less weight than a traditional helicopter. Fairey came up with the Ultralight. Here's a survivor of the prototypes built at the Midland Air Museum.

Ultra-Light
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
bf109xxl
B
Roald Dahl RAF Logbook : anyone has it ?
Replies
4
Views
378
bobolex
B
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
478
Dimlee
Hornet Deck Load for the Doolittle Raid
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register