The Fairey Rotodyne

R

rocketeer

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
23 November 2006
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Hi all.Im brand new here and enjoying the site 100%.
So can anyone provide any info on Rotodyne projects please?? ??? ???
Remember seeing an article in an old Flight mag about a Naval Variant but have seen nothing since!!
Help please.
 
Welcome rocketeer !
A naval variant of the Rotodyne is unknown to me so far, sounds interesting !
The latest variant I know, is the Tyne powered Rotodyne, a 3-view from
D.Wood "Project Cancelled" is shown below. Regarding this book, this variant
should give "the services" a vertical take-off transport capability for e.g. 70 troops,
trucks, missiles or the fuselage of a fighter. Implicitly a naval use maybe mentioned
here .... To enhance performance especially in hot-and-high conditions, fitting of
an additional R.B.176 in each nacelle was proposed.
 

Attachments

  • Rotodyne_Tyne.JPG
    Rotodyne_Tyne.JPG
    15.3 KB · Views: 1,137
I've a vague recollection of a proposal for anti-sub use, with high speed to the action zone then hovering the advantage, but I can't remember where.
 
Cutaway courtesy of Flight, who are currently putting all their cutaway drawings onto the web. When finished they should comprise 75% of all aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • Fairey-Rotodyne.jpg
    Fairey-Rotodyne.jpg
    158.2 KB · Views: 1,096
Thanks for the Rotodyne facts guys.As I remember it, the naval variant was going to be much as the Merlin is today,ASW etc.Just imagine trying to land a bird the big on todays carriers!!
 
At the time the US Marine Corps was looking for a Medium Transport-Assault helicopter, to which it chose the Sikorsky CH-53A Stallion, Kaman submitted a variant of the Fairey Rotodyne to the same Request for Proposals.
Does anyone have anything on Kaman`s proposal ???

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Found this thread the other day while looking for Rotodyne info. Ever since I saw a drawing of an Army one, I've pictured USA Rotodynes being escorted by AH-56s. :) Anyway, I'm still looking for a copy of a pic from a magazine & unlike the K-140, I do recall it to be a basic Rotodyne Fairey & Kaman proposed to the US Army, (not USMC) but rather than turboprops, it appeared to be powered by some sort of turbofan. If I can round up the pic, I'll post it, but there was definitely a version intended for the USA.


rocketeer said:
Hi all.Im brand new here and enjoying the site 100%.
So can anyone provide any info on Rotodyne projects please?? ??? ???
Remember seeing an article in an old Flight mag about a Naval Variant but have seen nothing since!!
Help please.
Click to expand...
 
The Rotodyne concept is seeing something of a resurgence in the United States. DARPA has a program with the Groen Brother Corp., for a ~400 knot, jet rotodyne. It was also considered in the Army JHL effort, but did not make initial selection.
 
Hi,

Early studies for Rotodyne.


http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1957/1957%20-%201867.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Rotodyne I.JPG
    Rotodyne I.JPG
    16.3 KB · Views: 717
  • Rotodyne.JPG
    Rotodyne.JPG
    21 KB · Views: 719
I have to wonder, had the UK government not killed the Rotodyne, would it have given the venerable CH-47 a run for its money on the market? One would have to remember that the CH-47 was new at that point too and was not without its mechanical and logistical challenges. I know Army Aviators who got out of the service when they found out they would have to fly the "Boeing Body Bag" as it was less than affectionately known in the early sixties.

I would love to see a "what if" of the rotordyne in RAF colors... mostly because the U.S. Army green is so uninspiring. What would a Rotodyne Mk.45 circa 2007 look like? Six bladed high efficency props and thick cord BERP rotors? Refuel probe? FLIR? Sorry I could go on.
 
IIRC, they also are proposing a C-130 based a/c for firefighting.

yasotay said:
The Rotodyne concept is seeing something of a resurgence in the United States. DARPA has a program with the Groen Brother Corp., for a ~400 knot, jet rotodyne. It was also considered in the Army JHL effort, but did not make initial selection.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • armyrotodyne.jpg
    armyrotodyne.jpg
    365.8 KB · Views: 564
Hmm. Strange. I sent 2 separate posts & the 2 combined! Anyway, regarding the image I posted, all I know think I recall is it's from an Air Classics, Airpower or Wings magazine from probably the 1980s. I used to be bad about copying only the portions of an article that I wanted & sometimes enlarging it at that time, so I have no ref to the image.



frank said:
IIRC, they also are proposing a C-130 based a/c for firefighting.

yasotay said:
The Rotodyne concept is seeing something of a resurgence in the United States. DARPA has a program with the Groen Brother Corp., for a ~400 knot, jet rotodyne. It was also considered in the Army JHL effort, but did not make initial selection.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
yasotay said:
I have to wonder, had the UK government not killed the Rotodyne, would it have given the venerable CH-47 a run for its money on the market? One would have to remember that the CH-47 was new at that point too and was not without its mechanical and logistical challenges. I know Army Aviators who got out of the service when they found out they would have to fly the "Boeing Body Bag" as it was less than affectionately known in the early sixties.

I would love to see a "what if" of the rotordyne in RAF colors... mostly because the U.S. Army green is so uninspiring. What would a Rotodyne Mk.45 circa 2007 look like? Six bladed high efficency props and thick cord BERP rotors? Refuel probe? FLIR? Sorry I could go on.
Click to expand...

Mr Yasotay, you have to register at the whatif modelers forum. You'll find tons of interesting stuff on the Rotodyne ;D
 
Done! Well as soon as the Administrator lets me in.

Anyway, having some time last night I sat down and started tinkering with the Rotodyne and what I thought it might look like these days. The grey is where things have changed. I know it should go into another area, but I thought it silly to start a new thread just to post a 'doodle'.
 

Attachments

  • rotodyne_idea.jpg
    rotodyne_idea.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 763
overscan said:
A great little video of Rotodyne

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9633v6U0wo
Click to expand...

Very cool video, Paul! Thanks for sharing that one. But one question- I had no idea that the top half of the fins were of variable geometry- it appears from the video there are three settings- flat, angled, and vertical. I suspect that the flat setting is used for blade clearance until the rotor is at full speed, but the other two angles?
 
In the second part of the video, about at 1 ' 20'', the Rotodyne takes-off with the
fins in the vertical position, and no changing of the angle is recognisable at all.
Perhaps this mechanism was deleted during a later modification, as it turned out
to be not necessary ? ???
 
yasotay said:
Done! Well as soon as the Administrator lets me in.

Anyway, having some time last night I sat down and started tinkering with the Rotodyne and what I thought it might look like these days. The grey is where things have changed. I know it should go into another area, but I thought it silly to start a new thread just to post a 'doodle'.
Click to expand...

Cool! Do you kept using Yasotay as member name there ?
 
Rotodyne was proposed as an ASW type for the Royal Navy. However its hover performance was deemed inadequate and it was considered too noisy for operators to use sonar systems properly. Fairey thought all this was a load of rubbish.

Would BERP blades work with tip jets?

KB
 
The document is National Archives DSIR 23/26669 if anyone wants to check it out. It's a letter from GS Hislop Ch. Eng. (AC) of Fairey, replying to criticism from the Navy about Rotodyne's suitability for ASW ops. Sadly I only have scribbled notes of this document rather than a copy. The gist is:

Low hovering efficiency - Rotodyne has has good hp/lb, so criticism must refer to fuel consumption.

High Noise - mainly from powewrplant, not tip jets and since the Navy looked at a prototype without sound proofing, the noise argument wasn't relevant. The Naval version would have civil standards of sound-proofing, which would produce noise levels equivalent to a fixed wing aircraft.

Hislop concludes that the 200mph performance combined with hovering would make Rotodyne a formidable ASW platform.

KB
 
Interesting. I have to wonder how the special rotor system of the Rotodyne would have been folded for deck and under deck storage.
 
Might the RN's criticism of excessive noise be based on the ability of a submerged submarine to hear propeller driven aircraft when submerged? It was always one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Nimrod over the P-3 - the P-3's propellers were quite noisy apparently and gave warning of the aircraft's approach, whereas the Nimrod's turbines were much quieter. Personally, I've always believed its bullshit but perhaps they knew/understood something Fairy didn't want to accept.
 
My gosh, if the P-3's props were bad, how much worse could the ASW versions of the various Soviet Bears have been?


rickshaw said:
Might the RN's criticism of excessive noise be based on the ability of a submerged submarine to hear propeller driven aircraft when submerged? It was always one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Nimrod over the P-3 - the P-3's propellers were quite noisy apparently and gave warning of the aircraft's approach, whereas the Nimrod's turbines were much quieter. Personally, I've always believed its bullshit but perhaps they knew/understood something Fairy didn't want to accept.
Click to expand...
 
rickshaw said:
Might the RN's criticism of excessive noise be based on the ability of a submerged submarine to hear propeller driven aircraft when submerged? It was always one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Nimrod over the P-3 - the P-3's propellers were quite noisy apparently and gave warning of the aircraft's approach, whereas the Nimrod's turbines were much quieter. Personally, I've always believed its bullshit but perhaps they knew/understood something Fairy didn't want to accept.
Click to expand...

I think it's out of the Rotodyne's timeframe, but in the Nimrod 'era' there was talk of fitting SAMs in the conning towers of subs. Shorts' Blowpipe was trialled on HMS Aeneas in the 70's with the Submarine Launched Airflight Missile (SLAM). It was a pack of 4 Blowpipes on an extendable mount. They could be launched at periscope depth.

IIRC ASW aircraft have to go pretty low and slow to drop ASW torpedos. A system like SLAM could ruin their day. Good enough reason for going with a Nimrod if excessive noise is a factor.

Starviking

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Aeneas_(P427) (Yup, wiki, but I do remember this from a book in the distant past)
 
starviking said:
rickshaw said:
Might the RN's criticism of excessive noise be based on the ability of a submerged submarine to hear propeller driven aircraft when submerged? It was always one of the arguments put forward in favour of the Nimrod over the P-3 - the P-3's propellers were quite noisy apparently and gave warning of the aircraft's approach, whereas the Nimrod's turbines were much quieter. Personally, I've always believed its bullshit but perhaps they knew/understood something Fairy didn't want to accept.
Click to expand...

I think it's out of the Rotodyne's timeframe, but in the Nimrod 'era' there was talk of fitting SAMs in the conning towers of subs. Shorts' Blowpipe was trialled on HMS Aeneas in the 70's with the Submarine Launched Airflight Missile (SLAM). It was a pack of 4 Blowpipes on an extendable mount. They could be launched at periscope depth.

IIRC ASW aircraft have to go pretty low and slow to drop ASW torpedos. A system like SLAM could ruin their day. Good enough reason for going with a Nimrod if excessive noise is a factor.

Starviking

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Aeneas_(P427) (Yup, wiki, but I do remember this from a book in the distant past)
Click to expand...

I have taken the liberty of creating of splitting this thread:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2214.0.html

The SLAM system is entirely worthy of its own thread.
 
TinWing said:
I have taken the liberty of creating of splitting this thread:

[ur]http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2214.0.html[/url]

The SLAM system is entirely worthy of its own thread.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Thanks
 
Looks like the early design for 20 pax, powered by two Dart engines
 

Attachments

  • Rotodyne_dart.GIF
    Rotodyne_dart.GIF
    57.8 KB · Views: 514
i've been wondering, if, instead of the noisy, thirsty tip-jet system, the rotodyne would have been more sucessful if it had used a mechanically driven rotor, de-clutched for cruise flight, torque compensation being by means of the propellors, like the original gyrodyne.

cheers,
Robin.
 
Rotodyne's origin was military: battlefield insertion less vulnerably than Hamilcar-type (powered) gliders - that's how (GAL) Beverley began. By 1950 MoS had settled on Westland-licences and Bristol Sycamore for close-in lift (no rotory combat then contemplated), and Bristol 173 as basis for heavier work, inc. ASW. Fairey, out in cold, came up with tip-jet as its raison to insure that work. Funding continued even after US agreed in 1952 to give us tandem-rotor Bell XSL-1 (which failed). Noise didn't matter/wasn't perceived. If by, say, 1956 Fairey had derided their own Selling Proposition, Westland S.56 (Westminster) would have been favoured. The civil notion was desperation as military prospects evaporated, and Fairey sought some basis to value the Helicopter business for Sandys' industrial consolidation. Kaman took a licence, but operating economics did for it (not noise, in those less PC days).
 
Rotodyne's origin was military
Click to expand...

another mis-conception on my part corrected, i thought that thr Rotodyne was primarily civilian in nature.

cheers,
Robin.
 
"1. The cargo hold of the Rotodyne has a constant cross section
of 2,13m x 2,84m along the whole lenght. Volume is 92 cbm.
2. Troop transport: 70 fully equipped soldiers with a total mass of 7,94 t.
The seat arrangement with two aisles allows for quick unloading
3. Casualty transport: 24 stretchers. 25 seats, total mass of 4,72t,
3 ambulance men, or 44 stretchers, 3 ambulance men, total mass of (?)
4. Fuel transport: 612caniters with 18 litres each, total mass of 9,1 t,
or 9 rollable fuel tanks with 1136 litres each, total mass of8,6 t
5. and 6. Vehicles (?) with a total mass of of 5,44 t. Number of vehicles
depends on size and weight.
7. Airfield equipment: 3 fully equipped soldiers, 1 bulldozer, weight 8,17 t
1 roller
8. Steel planks for airfield or street construction: 280 planks, total mass
8,17t, installation of rolls in the cargo floor is possible to ease losading/unloading "
 
... and more!
 

Attachments

  • scan0029 (2).jpg
    scan0029 (2).jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 345
  • scan0032 (3).jpg
    scan0032 (3).jpg
    38.3 KB · Views: 381
  • scan0032 (2).jpg
    scan0032 (2).jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 289
  • scan0031 (2).jpg
    scan0031 (2).jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 264
Always a pleasure to see new information on one of the greatest "should have been" efforts. Thanks so much.
 
..and a little bit more still!
 

Attachments

  • TA_04JAN_52_P12 (2).jpg
    TA_04JAN_52_P12 (2).jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 257
  • 018 (2).jpg
    018 (2).jpg
    98.7 KB · Views: 307
  • 002 (2).jpg
    002 (2).jpg
    97.4 KB · Views: 323
  • TA_29AUG_52_P270 (2).jpg
    TA_29AUG_52_P270 (2).jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 256

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom