Fairey Rotodyne

[Mossie]

Of course the other difference between the 'dyne and the V-22 is that the 'dyne only used its tip-jets during take-off and landing whereas the V-22 uses its rotors the whole damn time.  Also as I've pointed out and as Mossie has reminded us, a civil aircraft faces very different regulations compared to a military one.

I was alluding to the time frame & purely civil regs, that the challenges that a modern Gyrodyne might face similar noise problems due to more stringent controls.

Is Gibbings' book on the Rotodyne any good?

I'll echo Kit, yes, well worth having.  Covers just about everything, bit of backgorund to early tip driven projects, the Gyrodyne, Jet Gyrodyne, Ultralight, Rotodyne Y prototype, Rotodyne Z proposed production model (with mock-up pics) & potential modern revival.  Plenty of pics, diagrams, three views & such.  The noise issue gets a fair bit of attention.

[GTX]

the Eurocopter X3 disappoints me - I would have expected better from them for a so called (by them) revolutionary aircraft.  It just looks like they came up with it over a few minutes and couldn't even be innovative with the name.  Calling it the X3 just seems like they wanted to appear one better than the Sikorsky X2 which seems much more innovative.

Anyway, back to the rotodyne.  The following John Baxter book has some fictional operational Rotodynes in it:



Regards,

Greg

[Mossie]

What role are they used in Greg?

[rickshaw]

The 'dynes are used basically as far as I can figure out, as replacements for the Dakota on transport runs along the NW coast of Australia.  Not a role I'd have given them, myself as the 'dynes unique abilities are wasted where a normal runway can be used.  The book is interesting but its more a case of it being a series of semi-interconnected stories but not a continuous narrative which forms a complete alternative history.

[rickshaw]

There was nothing wrong with either the concept or the practicality of the Rotodyne.  

I didn't say there was, I for one, like the concept and have no doubt that a solution to the tip jets would have come about.  

What I like about the V-22 is that it does use it's engines 100% of the time, my pet pieve is aircraft designs that have equipment that only serves one purpose and for the rest of the time is just dead weight being hauled around.  To me it just doesn't make sense.

Mmm, so you don't like aircraft undercarriage/landing gear then?   

The tipjets were there for a purpose.  Nothing wrong with having specialised equipment which is designed to fulfill a particular role.  Without it, you can't make the aircraft work!

The reason I brought the X3 up, is it answers a number of things to solve a very large transport type.  I've been thinking about a converted C-130 or C160 Transall, only I would use the engines in the nacelles for the power (so they're used 100% of the time) and have a disconnect for the main rotor when it goes into auto-rotation.

Doesn't that negate your earlier point?  Afterall, you're carrying around that extra weight and equipment - rotor, gearboxes, drive trains which only gets used at certain points in the flight...

[Mossie]

I've personally never been too comfortable with the V-22.  It may not have extra engines, but weight is added with the tilt mechanism & the oversize props when in conventional mode.  Not too mention the mechanical complexity that plauged it through it's development, taking a lot more time & expenditure then the Rotodyne ever did & that was cancelled partly because of it.  The V-22 will almost never serve with anyone other than the USMC because of the huge cost.

What I've always liked about the Rotodyne is it's simplicity.  The tip jets were mechanically simple & involved no working parts, just a compressor stage.  The Rotodyne Z would have introduced to engines purely for powering the tip jets, although this was only because spec creep required a larger airframe & powerful enough turboprops weren't available at the time.

[Cobra]

Hey Guys, I Always Thought the Rotodyne was a Cool Design. if it had Gone into Production,Would it have been Used for SAR/ASR Duty? The Reason i ask is Because Aside from the U.S. and a Few Others,I Always Considered UK ASR/SAR to be Top Notch Operators!  Dan

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Nice to see this one pop back up to the top of the pile.... still got my heart set on doing one (but probably not this year).... Got a number of Modeldecal sheets that could end-up being piliged to provide the markings !

Ian

[Mossie]

Hey Guys, I Always Thought the Rotodyne was a Cool Design. if it had Gone into Production,Would it have been Used for SAR/ASR Duty? The Reason i ask is Because Aside from the U.S. and a Few Others,I Always Considered UK ASR/SAR to be Top Notch Operators!  Dan

Dan, have a look through my profiles thread.  I did several SAR birds, RCAF, USN, USCG & RAF.  I also did an AFRES CSAR machine, which most of the military aircraft schemes could double up for.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,12245.0.html

The Rotodyne would have been on the large side for SAR although the transit speed may have been attractiv.  The noise from the tip jets may have caused problems too, although a standard helicopter can be deafening in the hover.  Large helicopters are used for CSAR, so this may have been a safer bet.

Nice to see this one pop back up to the top of the pile.... still got my heart set on doing one (but probably not this year).... Got a number of Modeldecal sheets that could end-up being piliged to provide the markings !

Ian

Bump it up! Bump it up!

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Nice to see this one pop back up to the top of the pile.... still got my heart set on doing one (but probably not this year).... Got a number of Modeldecal sheets that could end-up being piliged to provide the markings !

Ian

Bump it up! Bump it up!

Not this year, Simon, comitted m'self to too many GB's on other sites 

Ian

[Mossie]

Forget them, this one, this one!  Pwwwrrrllleeeassse.......

[kitnut617]

Doesn't that negate your earlier point?  Afterall, you're carrying around that extra weight and equipment - rotor, gearboxes, drive trains which only gets used at certain points in the flight...

I would have to say all of that equipment would be used all the time

[rickshaw]

Doesn't that negate your earlier point?  Afterall, you're carrying around that extra weight and equipment - rotor, gearboxes, drive trains which only gets used at certain points in the flight...

I would have to say all of that equipment would be used all the time

So is the equipment on the Rotordyne.

Personally, I'd like to build a Rotordyne but the only available kit at the moment is the 1/78(?) scale Revell one.

Has anybody moulded a 1/72 one to replace the Airfix kit or made one of the Type Z?

[PR19_Kit]

Airfix themselves re-released their 'dyne kit not too long ago, and then stopped doing it, the dummies! They do still appear on ebay, one on there now at £11.00, but the earlier moulding commands STUPID prices for some reason.

[rickshaw]

Airfix themselves re-released their 'dyne kit not too long ago, and then stopped doing it, the dummies! They do still appear on ebay, one on there now at £11.00, but the earlier moulding commands STUPID prices for some reason.

Yes and yes.  Strange decisions are made in Airfix which appear to be without rhyme nor reason.

My understanding of the differences between the Type Y and the Type Z Rotodyne is that the fuselage was slightly stretched and the wing plan and span changed as was the tail unit.  Is that correct?  There is a relatively poor drawing of the Type Z here:



Are there any better available?