Autogyro embarked in Battlships

[jcf]

C'mon Harold you know I'm well acquainted with the history of the experimental establishments in the UK and US,
nor do I lionize any developers, you went from the specifics of the discussion to a generalization BTW, as I
don't lionize anyone for anything and have never had any heroes of any sort. The garden shed analogy is
meaningless in this context because the primary parties involved were all wealthy and well connected.

Anyhow, ironically, the end result of a massive government influx of cash into autogiros in the 1930s would be the
faster development of the helicopter, not big autogiros.

On a technical note something to understand is that an autogiro is not a helicopter and the rotary wing of
an autogiro functions in a different manner, it is literally a wing that provides lift like a fixed wing, the helicopter
rotor functions as an airscrew. As a result the flight and operational characteristics of the two are very different.

BTW the proper spelling of the name given to the machine by its inventor is autogiro, the spelling with the 'y'
came about many years later and the origin is uncertain.

[jcf]

Nicely done Carlos, certainly looks the part.

[Weaver]

C'mon Harold you know I'm well acquainted with the history of the experimental establishments in the UK and US,
nor do I lionize any developers, you went from the specifics of the discussion to a generalization BTW, as I
don't lionize anyone for anything and have never had any heroes of any sort. The garden shed analogy is
meaningless in this context because the primary parties involved were all wealthy and well connected.

Anyhow, ironically, the end result of a massive government influx of cash into autogiros in the 1930s would be the
faster development of the helicopter, not big autogiros.

On a technical note something to understand is that an autogiro is not a helicopter and the rotary wing of
an autogiro functions in a different manner, it is literally a wing that provides lift like a fixed wing, the helicopter
rotor functions as an airscrew. As a result the flight and operational characteristics of the two are very different.

BTW the proper spelling of the name given to the machine by its inventor is autogiro, the spelling with the 'y'
came about many years later and the origin is uncertain.

Then why did you call such processes and institutions products of the Cold War? All I did was point out that they were no such thing. Your point about the individuals being well connencted and wealthy simply reinforces my point that money and resources are neccessary to get things done, and the amount that's provided affects both the scope and the speed of what's done. Doesn't matter if it's government money or private money, it's what makes things happen.

I'm fully aware of the technical differences between an autogyro and a helicopter, thank you. Since the autogyro is technically simpler than the helicopter, it was a natural subject for earlier development when the whole business of rotor craft was in it's infancy.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, both 'autogiro' and 'autogyro' are equally acceptable spellings. According to the Wikipedia page on the craft, 'autogiro' was registered as a trademark by Cierva, so other manufacturers took to using 'autogyro' or 'gyroplane' as an alternative. Since I'm mostly talking about the whole class of craft, not just Cierva's machines, I regard 'autogyro' as more appropriate.

[ysi_maniac]

Some comments, just to speak about:

I have calculated about 5000 kg weight. Can an autogyro be this size. 3 meters more than an Avenger but without wings?
Could it perform scouting and torpedo bombing too?

[jcf]

Then why did you call such processes and institutions products of the Cold War?

I didn't, go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

BTW the first operations on and off a ship by an autogiro, by any rotary wing aircraft that is, were on September 23, 1931,
by a U.S. Navy Pitcairn XOP-1 (PCA-2), the ship was the U.S.S. Langley.

[jcf]

Some comments, just to speak about:

I have calculated about 5000 kg weight. Can an autogyro be this size. 3 meters more than an Avenger but without wings?
Could it perform scouting and torpedo bombing too?

Realistically? No, the largest autogiros attempted in period were well less than 2,000 kilos empty and what was
probably the largest trialed, the TSAGI A-15 was around 2,500kg loaded, and had an 18m rotor diameter.
The problem with enlarging the pure autogiro is that as weight increases rotor blade length has to increase, in
order to produce a wing-'disc' with enough aerodynamic lift, which increases tip speed which requires blade
strengthening (blade tip blowout was a not unusual problem as autogiros increased in size, this was due to
aerodynamic pressure building up inside the blades as tip speeds increased) which increases weight which means
etc., which also contributes to ground resonance issues etc. Unlike a helicopter simply increasing available horsepower
doesn't solve the problem. Also a large pure autigoro would be slow, they were quite a bit slower than conventional aircraft
with the same power.

However there is a way around it, make it an autogiro-helicopter or gyrodyne, in simple terms, the rotor is driven
during take-off and landing, like a helicopter, and auto-rotates in forward flight, like an autogiro.
Cierva-Weir in the UK and Pitcairn in the US were both investigating the concept in the late-30s. Pitcairn was looking
at two separate engines, one for the rotor system and one for forward propulsion (tractor or pusher), but interconnected
so that both systems could be powered from a single engine in an emergency. Bennet at Cierva-Weir went for a single engine
driving both, as was used in the Gyrodyne he designed at Fairey post-war.

Going for a fictional autogiro-helicopter/gyrodyne layout would also increase the potential speed of your aircraft, and it wouldn't
alter the external appearance of your model.


Cheers, Jon

[ysi_maniac]

Ok Jeffry, you saved my life wth the gyrodyne option. My alternative life I must say

[zenrat]

As always, the answer is Rotodyne!   

Now stop bickering you two or i'll send you to your rooms.

[Weaver]

Then why did you call such processes and institutions products of the Cold War?

I didn't, go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

What you wrote was:

Yeah, if you want to apply how things were done in the Cold War and, to a more limited extent today, to a period when such concepts and processes were all but non-existent, a truly crappy economic situation, and the war drums were a throbbin', then sure.

<my highlighting>

Tell me how else to read it.

[Weaver]

Good article on autogyros:

http://www.sagpa.co.za/docs/Development%20of%20the%20Autogiro%20a%20Technical%20Perspective.pdf

[jcf]

Then why did you call such processes and institutions products of the Cold War?

I didn't, go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

What you wrote was:

Yeah, if you want to apply how things were done in the Cold War and, to a more limited extent today, to a period when such concepts and processes were all but non-existent, a truly crappy economic situation, and the war drums were a throbbin', then sure.

<my highlighting>

Tell me how else to read it.

I guess it turns on individual use of idiom, operative phrase being all but. 

[Weaver]

Then why did you call such processes and institutions products of the Cold War?

I didn't, go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

What you wrote was:

Yeah, if you want to apply how things were done in the Cold War and, to a more limited extent today, to a period when such concepts and processes were all but non-existent, a truly crappy economic situation, and the war drums were a throbbin', then sure.

<my highlighting>

Tell me how else to read it.

I guess it turns on individual use of idiom, operative phrase being all but. 

I read 'all but' as 'nearly'. I'm not aware of any other usage, but if you meant something different, then by all means explain.

[jcf]

Exactly, nearly nonexistent when compared to the Cold War period, with the obvious exceptions of the RAE and the N.A.C.A.,
neither of which were in period what they became during WWII and the following Cold War when they were budgeted for blue sky
works. Thus my, clearly failed , attempt at humour about Cold War processes in the inter-war period. During the period under
discussion they both operated under constricted budgets with relatively little money and a primary directive towards research that
improved the existing aeronautical state of the art, and, particularly the RAE, military concerns (defense in post-WWII tems),
which is probably why both missed the importance of Busemann's swept wing paper at the Volta Conference in 1935. Developing
a new method of flight really wasn't in their wheelhouse, did they [rovide some assistance?, sure, but it was never of high importance.

Pitcairn received development funding from the Dept. of Commerce which was used for his  roadable projects, but the first big US
government funding for rotary wing research didn't come until 1937, however by the time it made it into the actual budget the amount
had shrunk from $2 million to $300,000 and it was directed to helicopter research, not autogiro.

BTW the helicopter predates the autogiro, so the notion that the latter led to the former as some sort of natural progression or evolution
of rotary wing flight is mistaken, what happened is that in attempting to solve the problems of rotary wing flight as they applied to the
autogiro, they solved the problems for the helicopter with the ironic result that by so doing they doomed their child. So it goes.

[Weaver]

Exactly, nearly nonexistent when compared to the Cold War period, with the obvious exceptions of the RAE and the N.A.C.A., neither of which were in period what they became during WWII and the following Cold War when they were budgeted for blue sky works. Thus my, clearly failed , attempt at humour about Cold War processes in the inter-war period. During the period under discussion they both operated under constricted budgets with relatively little money and a primary directive towards research that improved the existing aeronautical state of the art, and, particularly the RAE, military concerns (defense in post-WWII tems),
which is probably why both missed the importance of Busemann's swept wing paper at the Volta Conference in 1935. Developing a new method of flight really wasn't in their wheelhouse, did they [rovide some assistance?, sure, but it was never of high importance.

Exactly: you've missed the point of my original what-if proposal. NACA and the RAE were using government money to do fundamental research during the pre-war period and did help out the aircraft industry in many ways, so it's entirely credible to suggest that if government priorities had been different, they'd have been working on different things. I know perfectly well that that they didn't do research on autogyros because they wern't an official priority, but my proposal was what if they did? I'm also well aware that they didn't have infinite funds and that putting research time and effort into autgyros may well have incurred an opportunity cost in some other field, but so what? What-if scenarios have no obligation to be an improvement on reality; they only have to be interestingly different. In my opinion, they're actually more credible for having downsides.

Pitcairn received development funding from the Dept. of Commerce which was used for his  roadable projects, but the first big US government funding for rotary wing research didn't come until 1937, however by the time it made it into the actual budget the amount had shrunk from $2 million to $300,000 and it was directed to helicopter research, not autogiro.

So what-if it had been $3 million in 1935?

BTW the helicopter predates the autogiro, so the notion that the latter led to the former as some sort of natural progression or evolution of rotary wing flight is mistaken, what happened is that in attempting to solve the problems of rotary wing flight as they applied to the autogiro, they solved the problems for the helicopter with the ironic result that by so doing they doomed their child. So it goes.

True, but there's also a degree of caution, inertia and conservatism in the requirements/evaluation/selection/purchase process. Had autogyros become established as the 'normal' rotary wing type earlier, instead of being a niche curiosity, then there may well have been a body of opinion, particularly in the military, that would would have looked at these 'newfangled helicopter things' with the same mistrust and 'why fix what ain't broke?' attitude that many biplane pilots of the previous decade reserved for monoplanes with their 'dangerously' high landing speeds and worrying lack of bracing wires.

[jcf]

The military services of both countries tested autogiros and were unimpressed by their capabilities and
the lack of near term improvement in the offing, also they were abreast of helicopter developments
which promised to overcome the weak points of the autogiro, so they started moving towards the helicopter
fairly early.

Add the end of the day, plain ol' physics was the bigger challenge than any lack of funding.