Amphibious ship take off and landing

[Wooki]

Still, wouldn't an autogyro require a takeoff and landing roll of some sort?

No.

Granted, it will be far sorter than that of a comparable fixed-wing aircraft, but on the cramped flight deck of an LHA/LHD, this could still be a constraint.

Plus, once you get the autogyro up to full combat loads (gas, cargo, and fully-armed troops, plus any additional mission equipment (door guns, etc.), the takeoff roll could be even longer.

See above

Also, would an autogryo be able to sling-carry loads? I'm not an expert on air assault, but it seems to me like an aircraft that cannot truly hover might have some difficulty in picking up and dropping sling-carried loads.

An autogyro is not a helicopter. It requires forward motion for flight. So you can take off vertically by "spinning up" the rotor, but you cannot land the same way unless you power the rotor again as in your example below (the rotodyne). It is however simple to make, robust and simple to fly and land.

Perhaps a compromise might be achievable? Something like the Fairey Rotodyne?

One a related note: (Marines Plan Pick for Cargo UAS Demo)

:type

The guy is doing an academic study, to (I would presume) get him to study the problems associated with Naval Air Operations. Everything to do with an aircraft carrier of any sort is a compromise, so it is a great way for students to learn to think "outside-the-box". It is not a full blown mission requirement,

In reality, the most cost effective solution is to build a bigger aircraft carrier and a tilt rotor that can actually lift a useful load. The whole reason the V-22 blew out in cost were ridiculous "deck footprint" and replacement of the CH46 constraints. Bigger aircraft carriers mean less aerial compromises, that means uber savings in aerial platform development, while giving a couple of blue collar workers some more employment.

circa 22 Billion USD later? Beula? Anyone? Even a total conversion of the WASP class fleet to angled decks would have cost less.

It all comes down to the color of money and that is largely why you get these program inefficiencies.

cheers

w

 

[Kilo 2-3]

An autogyro is not a helicopter. It requires forward motion for flight. So you can take off vertically by "spinning up" the rotor, but you cannot land the same way unless you power the rotor again as in your example below (the rotodyne). It is however simple to make, robust and simple to fly and land.

Hmm...So what's the best option for temporarily spinning the rotors? Is it a small auxiliary engine on board the autogyro (adds weight and some complexity)? Or some kind of external start cart? This certainly isn't an earth-shakingly important issue, but it is worth considering.

The autogyro idea is a very intriguing one, and I'd certainly like to discuss it further, if you're willing to.

 

[Marc 1]

Hmm...So what's the best option for temporarily spinning the rotors? Is it a small auxiliary engine on board the autogyro (adds weight and some complexity)? Or some kind of external start cart? This certainly isn't an earth-shakingly important issue, but it is worth considering.

The autogyro idea is a very intriguing one, and I'd certainly like to discuss it further, if you're willing to.

Usually some way of coupling the main engine (normally used for propulsion) to the rotor head via a transmission.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Autogyros can prerotate before take off (cheap gyros have to taxi around a bit and then take off), I believe they have electric or a geared shaft (~800rpm) that a powerful enough that a few meter roll is enough to get them airborne (although on a ship, wind over the deck might make this even easier). You can't generally take off with prerotation (although there can be exception), applying torque to the rotor while off the ground will start spinning the aircraft (see helicopter with damaged tail rotor).

Autogyros are easier to build, maintain and fly. They are a 7hr qualification on most licence internationally (although aircraft tend to be lumped in experimentals). Cost is about the same as a family car.

The Fairey Rotodyne had a lot of potential, but was mostly roped up in british industry mismangement + collapse. They were had working prototypes carrying 8.2T and max speed of 370kmph and up to 75 passengers. It would be able to operate of invincibles or wasp ships.

Sling loads are generally a no go, but the rotodyne could have carried most loads internally, much faster.

I think there is a lot of potential for autogyros for UAV's. Lot less complicated, more compact, simplier to fly/land, possibly faster.

 

[gforce]

The Wasp class LHD is as big the aircraft carriers of WW2. It's doable, but I imagine light props (eg Cessnas) are going to get thrown around by the elements upon landing.

Is the Wasp class LHD as big or as long as the USS Hornet aircraft carrier that launched the modified B-25 Mitchells by the Doolittle Raiders in WW2?

 

[swerve]

Is the Wasp class LHD as big or as long as the USS Hornet aircraft carrier that launched the modified B-25 Mitchells by the Doolittle Raiders in WW2?

You could look that up in a few seconds. Try Google.

 

[gforce]

You could look that up in a few seconds. Try Google.

USS Hornet

Length:

* As built:770 ft (230 m) (waterline at design draft), 824 ft 9 in (251.38 m) (overall)
* From 2/42:827 ft 5 in (252.20 m) overall length

Beam: As built:83 ft 3 in (25.37 m) (waterline), 114 ft (35 m) (overall)

USS Wasp

Length: 844 ft (257 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32 m)

Hmm... Interesting which leads me to think that a B-25 Mitchell can be launched from the USS Wasp LHD!

 

[Sea Toby]

USS Hornet

Length:

* As built:770 ft (230 m) (waterline at design draft), 824 ft 9 in (251.38 m) (overall)
* From 2/42:827 ft 5 in (252.20 m) overall length

Beam: As built:83 ft 3 in (25.37 m) (waterline), 114 ft (35 m) (overall)

USS Wasp

Length: 844 ft (257 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32 m)

Hmm... Interesting which leads me to think that a B-25 Mitchell can be launched from the USS Wasp LHD!

The Doolittle Raid was done without fully loaded Mitchell bombers, either in bomb load or fuel load. Its besides the point today as no air force has Mitchell bombers any longer.

While the Doolittle Raid had positive emotional political success, the damage to Japan was next to nil...

 

[winnyfield]

Hmm... Interesting which leads me to think that a B-25 Mitchell can be launched from the USS Wasp LHD!

But they can't be recovered.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

But they can't be recovered.

Which is why operating B-25/equivalents from an LHD or LHA would require you to already hold bases ashore. You'd be better off using the deck space for helicopters, tiltrotors, VTOL/STOVL fast movers, etc.

Just to verbalize what most people here are probably thinking: it* ain't happening.

*"it" being flying B-25s off of an LHA.