Here's a Flyingboat with a difference

[Ollie]

You want a helicopter the size of a C-130?...then build a big helicopter.

It's actually called a Mi-26.

[jcf]

You want a helicopter the size of a C-130?...then build a big helicopter.

It's actually called a Mi-26.

Yep.  

My brother got a chance to wander through one at Abbotsford one year.

[Ollie]

Oh, the one under contract for CHC?

 

[jcf]

Oh, the one under contract for CHC?

Nope, it was in the late 80s-early 90s don't recall exactly.

[Mossie]

You want a helicopter the size of a C-130?...then build a big helicopter.

It's not a helicopter though, but a Gyrodyne.  In the case of the Rotodyne, tip jets powered the rotor, as far as convertiplanes go it was an elegant & mechanically simple design.  Once the aircraft was in the air, the rotors would autorotate like an Autogyro.

I have no idea on the technical viability of a C-130 gyrodyne, it does seem a bit clunky to me & a new design would probably be desirable.  The Fairey Rotodyne however is a proven design & worked well.  When it was dropped it was for a combination of cost & politcal reasons, not because the technolgy was not ready.

Gyrodyne technology has been passed over since then for a variety of reasons.  Immediately after the Rotodyne affair, no-one wanted to touch it as it was a politcal hot potatoe.  After that, most large companies had a very good understanding of helicopters & to develop a gyrodyne would take extra development (exemplified by Jons qoute), leaving the technology to small guys that found it hard to get a foot in the door.  Groen Bros have finally been taken seriously with their DARPA contract to desgin a 'Heliplane'.  It's only taken fifty years!

Simon.

PS I'll probably start a new thread on this as we're hijacking Roberts topic!

[grayman]

I noticed he uses the term "Gavin" for the M113.  Is this the same fellow who says that all of the Army's armored vehicle problems would be solved if they'd buy a stretched M113 with a turret supporting crew-served weapons?  I think I remember the site.  He also advocates putting ducted tail rotors on all helos and buying Seamasters.

This chap and his "Gavins" are subject to much derision at the AFV News board (http://www.com-central.net/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=73).

[jcf]

You want a helicopter the size of a C-130?...then build a big helicopter.

It's not a helicopter though, but a Gyrodyne.  In the case of the Rotodyne, tip jets powered the rotor, as far as convertiplanes go it was an elegant & mechanically simple design.  Once the aircraft was in the air, the rotors would autorotate like an Autogyro.

I have no idea on the technical viability of a C-130 gyrodyne, it does seem a bit clunky to me & a new design would probably be desirable.  The Fairey Rotodyne however is a proven design & worked well.  When it was dropped it was for a combination of cost & politcal reasons, not because the technolgy was not ready.

Gyrodyne technology has been passed over since then for a variety of reasons.  Immediately after the Rotodyne affair, no-one wanted to touch it as it was a politcal hot potatoe.  After that, most large companies had a very good understanding of helicopters & to develop a gyrodyne would take extra development (exemplified by Jons qoute), leaving the technology to small guys that found it hard to get a foot in the door.  Groen Bros have finally been taken seriously with their DARPA contract to desgin a 'Heliplane'.  It's only taken fifty years!

Simon.

PS I'll probably start a new thread on this as we're hijacking Roberts topic!

I'm well aware of the nature of the beast, but if you note their breathless prose they are suggesting that their critter can perform as well as a heavy lift helicopter. Which it will not for reasons of simple physics.

As to the DARPA contract, best of luck...but a DARPA contract often leads nowhere.

Cheers, Jon

[Mossie]

I'm not extolling the virtues of a converted C-130, but of the Gyrodyne.  I think it's been one of those designs that's been overlooked & could be very successful if allowed to blossom.

If you look carefully at the blurb you'll see that the C-130 was to be used as a test vehicle for potential US Army development contract.  Yes, they propose a production variant, but as acompany, you've got to follow up on your projects, if only for the sake of it.  If the Herc showed the concept was do-able, I'm sure GBA would have either found a more suitable conversion for a production contract (they do say this would be the preferred route, they have no large scale production facilities themselves & it's the lowest risk approach), produced a brand new design (they've already gone this route with the DARPA contract, conversley) or least likely, heavily adapted the Herc to suit (you might as well start new).

I think the best option would be to produce brand new, manufacturers have often shot themselves in the foot when trying to adapt new technologies to existing airframes (with several noteable exceptions).  Look at the troubles faced by manufacturers that tried to convert existing piston engined aircraft to jets, those that started with all new designs had a much easier ride.

I really want to see the Groen Bros succeed, unfortunately, as you say Jon, DARPA contracts (& R&D in general) often lead nowhere, but if the virtues of their designs are shown, the larger manufacters will not be able to ignore it & we'll hopefully finally see 'Fairey Rotodyne's' in the sky.

Simon.

[lancer]

Why not just re-do the Rotodyne with modern avionics and engines?

[Mossie]

Funny you should say that Lancer!  Robert & me have both been talking about converting an Airfix Rodyne to the Rotodyne Z (i've just this minute got hold of two Airfix kits).  At the moment, I intend to build a RAF version, maybe a MLU version sometime around the mid to late 80's & display it alongside a similar set up for a TSR2.  Might always chance my mind of course!

If your talking about a 1/1 machine, unfortunatley a lot of time has passed since the Rotodyne was built.  A lot of advances in aerodynamics & manufacturing techniques have taken place since then as well as avionics so the same aircraft way out of date.

You could say the same about a converted Herc, except for two things.   Firstly, there's a lot of them about, so there's the advantage of not starting from scratch.  Secondly, the design hasn't stayed static, a good chunk of J models still incorporate 50's technology but it's been updated to modern standards.  You might as well start from scratch rather than build a design based on old technology that you can't convert because it no longer exists.  Unfortunatley all that's left are a few parts in the Helicopter Museum:



   

Simon.