C-130 Hercules

[Mossie]

Just to be clear, I love autogyros and related critters(Brooks's "Cierva Autogyros" is an excellent book and I recommend it wholeheartedly), but bald statements along the lines of "only politics have prevented Gyrodyne development" as made by the head of the current project, to my mind smack of boosterism and gloss over the technical realities. Best of luck to them all, but it aint' the best thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, too right Jon.  Too many people land on one side or the other, either the development problems killed it or the politics did.  Of course, it was somewhere in between.  The Rotodyne was a very ambitous project even by todays standards & you could say Fairey were guilty of stretching themselves too far.  They where producing a brand new airframe, a whole new concept & (often forgotten) a very new type of powerplant for the time in the turboprop.  They had more problems with Napier & the Eland then they did the tip jets, forcing a late change of engine & all the problems associated with that.

The politicians, to give them some due (for once) supported the Rotodyne heavily in the beginning.  Of course, as soon as the project looked like it might be getting in to trouble, they put as much distance from it as they could rather then strengthing it's position.  Also, of course, was the infamous Sandys' dis-soloution of the aircraft industry & with it Faireys, meaning Westlands now had to change from full gear on the Westminster project to get up to speed on the Rotodyne, delaying matters further.

My gut feeling is that if the politicians had supported it at the end we'd be seeing fleets of them now, but it's by no means certain.  I don't think the technical problems were insurmountable, but they played they're part in the demise of the project.

Simon.

PS, I'd seen designs before for the four poster design but I thought it was just a paper project.  Lets hope this one goes ahead too.

[kitnut617]

One of the technical issues Jon has mentioned is too much wing area effecting the down-wash from the rotor.  I seem to remember reading this was an issue with the V-22 too, and their solution was to have the large flaps turn down even further than required for forward flight until almost vertical.

This could be applied in our scenario too.

Robert  

[Mossie]

I don't know of a three view but there's a high three quarter shot on the Groen Brothers Website that might help, scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://www.groenbros.com/military.php

Simon.

[jcf]

I don't know of a three view but there's a high three quarter shot on the Groen Brothers Website that might help, scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://www.groenbros.com/military.php

Simon.

That's the low-wing Adam A700 based craft that they were showing models of last year...the artist's rendering in your first post is of a high-wing aircraft with apparently increased aspect ratio wings.

As to Roberts comments on downwash and the V-22, yep and it demonstrates why the Tilt-wing is potentially superior.

Cheers, Jon

[Mossie]

Yep, you caught me Jon! Different concepts, but probably similar enough for Tophe's purposes of rotor clearance, especially since it's not a finished design by any means.

With the V-22 (& other tilt rotors), it's capability is potentially superior to a Gyrodyne, however if you mounted twin rotors would you get the same level of down wash?

With tilt rotors, I've always had concerns about the mechanical complexity & the potential reliability.  It's hard to tell with the V-22, but the various development problems showed that this can occur, whether or not all the problems are ironed out yet I don't know.

I would assume that the relative simplicity of a gyrodyne would bring improved unit & operational costs over a tilt rotor?  This would give advantages to those air arms and airlines that don't have the budget of the US especially, providing a slightly less capable machine at a lower price.

Simon.

[Mossie]

I've got the wrong designation, I can't remember it off the top of my head.  I'll see if I can dig it out for tomorrow but it's similar in concept to this but a much older design:

http://www.kulikovair.com/k0123/k0123flyerb.jpg

Simon.

[jcf]

I've got the wrong designation, I can't remember it off the top of my head.  I'll see if I can dig it out for tomorrow but it's similar in concept to this but a much older design:

http://www.kulikovair.com/k0123/k0123flyerb.jpg

Simon.

You may be thinking of the Bell X-22 Tilt-duct:


Also used on the Doak 16:


and the NORD 500:


Cheers, Jon

p.s. wonder how Igor Kulikov is doing these days, worked with him at Boeing on the 747-400 in the late nineties.

[Mossie]

You may be thinking of the Bell X-22 Tilt-duct:

X-22, That's the one, Cheers Jon!  You know when you know what it is your thinking about but it just won't come?  I got Boeing stuck in my hand & just couldn't push it away.  It was bugging me all last night!

Anyway, my idea was to form a gap in the ducts & have the tip jets protruding to increase the rate of rotation.  Probably not a goer, I know very little about ducted fans, putting a gap in the side would probably drastically reduce it's effectiveness unless you put a spacer in to chase the rotors?  Just throwing thoughts around!

I guess your mate Igor is doing very well judging by the amount of concepts on his website:  Kulikov Air

Some very nice looking designs, he obviously likes ducted fans!

Simon.

[GTX]

Hi folks,

Some C-130 concepts that never made it:

C-130WBS (Wide-body STOL):



C-130VLS:



C-130 Seaplane:



Regards,

Greg

[MAD]

I think it a mistake by Lockheed not to have continued with the more capable C-130WBS variant of the venerable Hercules.
After all the greatest operational problem with the C-130, has been its internal dimensions in today operational requirements.
After all if the C-130WBS variant had of been developed and put into service, we would probably never have heard of nor needed the dragged-out and costly Airbus A-400.

Does anyone have the internal dimensions of the proposed C-130WBS?


M.A.D  

[The Rat]

Here's another proposal, and I have more pics if anyone is interested:

[The Rat]

Okay, since all one of you clamored, here's more. All of these and the previous one are from an article in the February 2, 1980 issue of Flight International. This one really seems do-able:

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I had an idea for an unconventional approach to creating a STOL C-130.  This would require a 1/144th scale C-130 kit and a two 1/72nd scale A-10 kits in order to pull it off. 

The intent is to create something that was tried before with two prototype cargo aircraft (YC-14 and YC-15) and the An-72 Coaler that actually made it into series production. 



Smaller scale in this case is better to hide some of the imperfections so using a 1/144t scale C-130 and two sets of A-10 engines to create a similar looking STOL C-130 sound pretty good.  For those of you with bigger bank accounts, you could try to tackle this in 1/72nd scale or 1/48th scale but be prepared to get divorced or move to a larger residence to support your project. 

So build the C-130 up to the point that the wings are attached, leave off the propellers and spinners.  Get your 1/72nd scale A-10 engine pods (suitably modified, of course) fit them to the C-130 engine nacelles in a way that has them surrounding the existing engine and off-center as you want to have the majority of your ducted fan blowing across the top of the wing.  The small part left under the wing could either be cut away and blended in to the existing C-130 engine nacelle to allow to blow some air under the wing, the idea is to have the C-130 engine exhaust exposed and used as the new engine exhaust.  Does this sound plausible? 

The idea is to have four ducted fans in a similar arrangement to the Coaler in the above image when you are finished.  Then paint and mark appropriately for what ever country and service you wish.  I know Toad would be looking for his Maple Leaf roundels about now or Air Tanker Markings.   

[frank2056]

I like that idea; that's what I tried to do in 1/400 scale with this:



You could put the A-10 engines high and far forward enough to not have to cut into the lower wing.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I like that idea; >>snip>>You could put the A-10 engines high and far forward enough to not have to cut into the lower wing.

Frank,

I like what you did with that tiny little model, excellent and exactly what I was trying to describe.  Guess we all have similar ideas for a lot of these subjects.  By the way, was that model of yours a C-5 Galaxy before it was modified?