Rotodyne Resurection

[mikehotwheelz]

The history of British aviation is full of disastrous government decisions and lost opportunities, but considering the way military planning nowadays seems to be heading for expeditionary conflicts surely the cancelled Fairey Rotodyne of the early sixties would be worth another look.






Specifications (Rotodyne "Y")
General characteristics

* Crew: 3
* Capacity: 40 passengers
* Length: 58 ft 8 in (17.9 m)
* Rotor diameter: 90 ft 0 in (27.4 m)
* Height: 22 ft 2 in (6.76 m)
* Disc area: 6,360 ft² (591 m²)
* Empty weight: ?lb ?(kg)
* Loaded weight: 33,000 lb (15,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 38,000 lb (17,000 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Napier Eland turboprops, 2,800 hp (2,100 kW) each

Performance

* Maximum speed: 213 mph (343 km/h)
* Range: 520 mi (830 km)
* Service ceiling: ft (m)
* Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)
* Disc loading: 5.2 lb/ft² (25 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.17 hp/lb (280 W/kg)

Considering these figures are attained without advanced composites or compact engine technology they compare very favourably with the V22 Osprey. However the Rotodyne had the added safety of engine redundancy was far less complex and would, if it were built today, be far less costly than the Osprey.

Sure, I know this is only a pipe dream but I'd be interested in what others think about how a resurected Rotodyne, built with modern techniques, would fit into todays tactics and arsenals.

 

[daviesg]

Totally agree that bringing back a modern version of the Fairey Rotodyne would be a great idea. Surely as a concept its far superior than the V 22 Osprey which it would compete with! If the Uk had some Guts then Bae and Rolls Royce could easily re-produce the Rotodyne! Suerly there are many potenial military and commerical customers out there! Would love to see this happen but has its a British idea, France, Germany and US would loathe the idea of it not being one of their own ideas!!!Live the dream

 

[rickshaw]

The Rotodyne would never get past the far more stringent noise regulations governing civilian aircraft in use today. It was by all accounts a horrendiously noisy beast because of the tip-jets on the rotors. I suspect there may now be a way to get around some of that noise, with swept back tips but I wonder whether it could be worth the effort.

 

[daviesg]

Think you will find that those problems were ironed out just before the project was cancelled! If sound is the main critism of the Rotodyne then that goes well when it is compared to the Osprey which has been in development for over 20 years, many times over budget and with a poor safety record. From a practical point of view the US should have bought the designs for the Rotodyne back in the 60s and then would have had the capability offered by the Osprey 25 years ago! Do not beleive that the British aircraft engineers of the 1950s and 1960s do not receive the credit they deserve. In most respects the problem of Vertical Take off landing was solved by them but since not many applications have been found. If the JSF ignored most of the best attributes and design of the Harrier! Simple is usually the best!

 

[Systems Adict]

While the design was simple, ingenious & practical and would have been an asset to aviation in the 1960's & 70's, like most "What if..." designs of equipment, logical reasoning (apart from Funding) and the practicalities of such craft meant that at the time they where not seen as the perfect piece of equipment to fill a particular role that may not have even existed at the time.

Much greater attrocities such as the loss of the TSR 2 programme, due to the change of Gov't. lost aviation a Tornado sized Mach 2 fighter/bomber which would have been the envy of the world, & been years ahead of it's time.

However, hindsight is a wonderful thing, it shows that at times engineering / design, (or the reasoning behind rejecting particular ideas, for whatever reason) sometimes runs a parallel route to that in evolution, namely Survival of the fitest.

Evolution usually supports the right attributes for the environment. Engineering doesn't, & the most practical may not succeed in the eyes of the most financially backed product.

Systems Adict.