Fairey Rotodyne.

[Noah Zark.]

Hi Folks.
A question from an enthusiast if you don't mind. I was watching a good video clip of the Rotodyne when it was out and about on sales trips, etc.
Obviously, and unfortunately, as we know, it all came to nothing. But what did occur to me was the question - when the machine was cruising in forward flight, how was the lift distributed between rotor and wing? Was the stubby wing actually producing much lift, or was it just something to keep the Elands separate?

[Dash8driver1312]

The wing was taking up to half the load in flight. The rotor was auto rotating in forward flight, with all the engine power going to the propellers.

[Noah Zark.]

Thanks for that, Dash.

[Arnie Madsen]

There is a good (recent) book available on the Fairey Rotodyne ..... I have it but have only glanced at a few pages so far. It has plenty of good content and pictures.

Best way to describe the machine is it has vertical lift capabilities like a helicopter .... and flies forward as a gyro-plane

Very seldom mentioned is how noisy the tip jets were. It was quite a concern and is one of the reasons it did not win immediate approval. Otherwise it was a good concept and performed well..

[heli1]

I am sure this aircraft has been discussed before on
Prune but it was cost and the absence of launch orders that killed it. The tip jet issue was overcome and in any case they were only on for a very short time during takeoff and landing .Engineers still admire the concept and visit the Helicopter Museum to study the dynamic system which is on display there,together with examples of the tip jets and the silencers,one complete blade and a section of the cabin.
The book mentioned is also available too.
The museum has recently been refurbishing one of the blade sections and has kept the original skins with a view to selling pieces framed with a photo and certificate of authenticity to raise funds.
So if you would like an original piece of Rotodyne on your wall,pm me or write to the museum!

[ambidextrous]

If you go to the 'Museum of Berkshire Aviation' located on what remains of the old Woodley Airfield, nr.Reading, RG5 4UE, you will find the one remaining example of the "Fairey Jet Gyrodyne". This appears to have been a 'proof of concept' test demonstrator for the Rotordyne. Two were built, one crashed if I remember the notes correctly. Worth a visit for the other exhibits on display.
With fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

[HeliStudent]

Rotordyne landing at London Battersea Heliport -

The Fairey Rotodyne 4/4 - YouTube

also the Avro Rotordyne :E

Avro Rotodyne - YouTube

Can anyone say what would have happened if they developed a Rotordyne for North Sea operations, would the cost per unit be more than, the same as or less than the EC 225 or other modern helicopters?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Having just finished reading "Empire of the Clouds", one of the test pilots remarked that it was a stupid idea from the start to develop the worlds noisiest helicopter and then plan to use it in cities.

[Fareastdriver]

if they developed a Rotordyne for North Sea operations,

It's not the cost that is so much of the problem, it's the size. At 90 feet rotor diameter and 33,000 lbs AUW there are severe problems coping with anything that size offshore. Not only would you have insufficient clearance for the rotors but most helidecks are not designed for that weight.
During the days of the Chinook only certain decks could be used and some only a certain way; something that can be done in a Chinook because of its tolerance to cross and tailwinds.
Oil companies have gone off big movers; offshore trials with the EH 101 Heliliner did not come to anything, the beancounters wont risk it.

[HeliStudent]

Thanks FED :ok:




North Sea discussion moved to North Sea News (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/501099-north-sea-news.html)

SP

[KING6024]

I was lucky enough to be taken in to the RAe Society Garden Party at White Waltham in I think 1958 when I was only 16.The Rotordyne was demonstrated and was very impressive apart from the noise.The other aircraft of interest were a row of Gannets for the German Airforce/Navy ??
Colin

[SASless]

Fairey Rotodyne - YouTube



Perhaps the Rotordyne design could have prevented the development of the Osprey had it gone into Production.

[jpphoopha]

I have copies of all UK National Archive documents pertaining to the Rotodyne. The definitive reason for its cancellation is that the British Government would not meet BEA Chairman Sholto Douglas' demand to provide indemnification of the corporation against noise complaints. BEA was otherwise willing to put the Rotodyne into service.

Another related reason is that the US Army was prepared to place an order for 200 Rotodynes based on the prototype. Fairey's decision to direct further development to the larger Type Z model resulted in abandonment of any further procurement efforts.

In either case, had the Rotodyne entered service, the impetus to reduce tip-jet noise would have existed much as occurred with the development of the turbojet into the turbofan.

[HeliStudent]

Perhaps the Rotordyne design could have prevented the development of the Osprey had it gone into Production.


Maybe cheaper too?

I've found this stamp from Kampuchea which seems to show an image of the Rotordyne but it has also created a number of questions such as did Kampuchea ever buy a Rotordyne? The date 1987 is also a bit strange because Kampuchea was supposed to be Cambodia by then?

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-WPdRKnymFvw/UdBT6wNzkAI/AAAAAAAANu8/FpMMRiKc4gc/w350-h268-no/Kamopuchea_Helicopter001.jpg

Apparently if you were in Kampuchea in 1987 your letter may have had one of these Rotordyne stamps stuck on it.

[HeliStudent]

The Chinese 1 fen note, about 1.5 inches X 1 inch had a picture of a Russian copy of the Douglas DC3 on it.


http://numishow.com/images/D/1953%20China%202%20Fen%20obv.jpg

I've discovered that its actually the Two Fen note! ;) :ok:

[Fareastdriver]

I should hang on to that 2 fen note. Judging by the way the Chinese Yuan is appreciating against other currencies it will be worth a bob or two in the future. I can see that it is a multiple of two because it is green. That note is dated 1953.

[Robbo Jock]

Just out of interest. Rather than using the tip jets, couldn't they have just driven the rotors normally and used assymetric thrust on the turboprops to counter torque? That would have kept the basic layout but cancelled the take-off/landing/hover tip-jet noise.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Robbo, that's basically what the frogs did with the X3, I think the Rotordyne team probably didn't think of it at the time. Maybe?

[heli1]

Robbo.....but more complex.the beauty of the Rotodyne was no gearbox or complicated transmission parts to go wrong.The X3 has a main gearbox and auxiliaries,although much more reliable perhaps than the conventional helo transmissions of the fifties.

[Robbo Jock]

Damn! It has been thought of. There goes my patent :-)
Maybe the control systems weren't refined enough at the time? Though I doubt that, to be honest. Maybe it was just a focus on one thing (driving the rotors 'torque free') to the exclusion of alternatives? (Never been guilty of that myself, ever :-) ) Just a little strange that someone on the team didn't think, when assaulted by the noise, "how's about we....?"

(edit) Just seen heli1's post. Probably on the money there.

[ShyTorque]

Perhaps the Rotordyne design could have prevented the development of the Osprey had it gone into Production.

Shame it didn't. It had a very impressive payload/empty weight ratio. Far better than some other more recent projects in the US of A....... :oh:

[SansAnhedral]

Shame it didn't.

I'm not sure you would want the "bad guys" knowing you were approaching for about 10 miles with the volume of those tip jets...not to mention I really question the manuverability of the rotodyne in forward flight.

[heli1]

Nice to see the interest in this...but please note Rotodyne had no R in the middle!
Anyway,three follow up points
1) When the Helicopter Museum collected a test blade from Aston Down airfield many moons ago they also collected a number of tipjet silencer units,which had been trialled on the blade(attached to a whirl tower). The story goes that these noise tests were actually connected to Rolls Royce work silencing the noise levels of the Viper engines on the HS125 corporate jet but previously had demonstrated significant noise reduction in the Rotodyne application. Certainly the evidence is that by the time of the cancellation the noise issue was much less of a show stopper.
2) Physically moving the blade was and still is a major challenge.It is so heavy as to require about 8 -10 strong men to lift it.....even moving one of the blade arms is a six man job.....so weight was a big issue. Today with modern composites it would be so much more viable.
3) There was another factor in the early 1960s that led to cancellation and that was that when Westland took over Fairey and the Bristol helicopter division,they had three" heavy lift" helicopters on their books but only one had any orders,the Belvedere. As they couldn't afford to develop all three ,the Rotodyne and the Westminster were abandoned. Big mistake in retrospect as the Belvedere never amounted to much( another story of poor government investment when you look at the Chinook story ) and the Westminster also could have been very successful ......perhaps subjects for new threads at some other time?

[ShyTorque]

The tips jets were only lit up for takeoff and landing.
Not forgetting that you can feel a Chinook coming from almost ten miles away.

[SASless]

At least we know where the SK Blackhawk got its design idea from......



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/PeteP/CBFS/Helicopters/Westminster.jpg

[heli1]

Sasless.....actually the Westminster used a dynamic system based on the experimental Sikorsky S-60, which itself was developed from the earlier S-56 Mojave with big outrigger radial piston engines. Westland installed two Eland turbines and built up the airframe as a testbed.Later the principle went back across the Atlantic to emerge as the S-64 Skycrane.
Two Westminsters were built and both were scrapped ,ending up as tie rods under a concrete platform at an industrial site in a village near Yeovil!

I see the Rotodyne in the background of the picture.......

[SansAnhedral]

The tips jets were only lit up for takeoff and landing.

Or any amount of hover/loiter, correct?

Come to think of it, what was the rotodyne's hover performance like?

[cockney steve]

Come to think of it, what was the rotodyne's hover performance like?

F'in noisy! :}

hat, coat.

slinks off to read "meccano Magazine " articals,July and November 1958, covering the Rotodyne and it's appearance at Farnborough, that year.:8

[John Eacott]

Or any amount of hover/loiter, correct?

Come to think of it, what was the rotodyne's hover performance like?

33,000lb payload

http://www.jefflewis.net/graphics/aircraft/Fairey_Rotodyne_3.jpg

[John Eacott]

Interesting stuff, considering it was a 1950's experimental design. This video certainly demonstrates the capability and also the post war attitudes toward flying: gear activation in the hover being just one instance!

The tip jet noise was horrendous but was being sorted: silencers were under development to reduce tip jet noise to below that generated by the blades themselves, but politics involving the UK aircraft industry in the 1959-60 era consigned many a promising company and project to the scrap heap. Rotodyne was just one of them which (if fully developed) had the potential to change the course of rotorcraft operations.

y9633v6U0wo&NR

Flight magazine had a 1957 article (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%201865.html) which is also worth reading: remember, this was 56 years ago in answer to a Fairey proposal in 1946 followed by a BEA specification issued in 1951. What amazing foresight and vision, if only we had the like of that in these risk averse times :ok:

[John Eacott]

The History channel had a programme on the Rotodyne: in the fourth of these clips it's interesting that on one of two flights into Battersea, the noise measuring down in the street couldn't detect the tipjets above the surrounding traffic noise!

xyxj8soYqwQ

5A7iQXAwgcY

0iR2oM_LVmk

wKlOfpCw8aE

[Chris Scott]

George Hislop - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10245689/George-Hislop.html)

[oldgrubber]

Out of interest, a modern American company tried to redo the concept quite recently and even had DARPA involved. Unfortunately they ran out of money and also DARPA have gone with a more complex compound aircraft design that has extending blades.
They have instead had a recent injection of cash from the Chinese and have come up with a couple of rather nice autogyro designs instead.
Home - Groen Brothers Aviation Global, Inc. (http://www.groenbros.com/index.php)

Cheers now

[riff_raff]

Kinda, sorta like the Rotodyne rotor:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/1/ca6642ef-06ab-4666-8133-724d369ec302.Full.jpg

[SansAnhedral]

OG

The Groen Bros machine was much more akin to the CarterCopter demonstrator rather then the tip-jetted Rotodyne. Plus, Jay Carter's machine has been built and is actually flying, even having broken the Mu = 1 boundary a few years back.

[PANews]

The problem with Groen products is that the company has no money [subject to this supposed Chinese interest] so everything they present is 'What if...?'

It has been like that for a long time and they are therefore just one of dozens of companies across the world producing paper aeroplanes for the ephemera market.... and the autogyro industry has more than its fair share.

The favourite ploy is to design something really smart and stick POLICE signs on it..... as if that makes them work much better!

[oldgrubber]

Sans,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood the Groen (DARPA) machine to be a "tip jet" aircraft. The Carter copter family use a heavily weighted tip to produce extra inertia when spun up, so the aircraft can't hover but it does do impressive jump takeoffs.
One of the proposed uses for the DARPA aircraft was long range SAR which would have required a hover capability, possible only with a fully driven main rotor.
I have seen the videos of the new prototype Carter machine and it is a real cracker though.

Cheers now

[heli1]

PA News....how could you be so cynical? If the banks think its a great idea and part with the money surely its gonna work!!

[SansAnhedral]

OG

You are correct, I missed your reference to their DARPA specific program (as opposed to their Hawk series craft) My mistake! :8

[oldgrubber]

Sans,
No probs.
My current favourite contender for most innovative compound aircraft is this beauty.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/7/0/2160079.jpg
I really hope they develop this into a production aircraft. Its not as simple as a tip jet type or plain gyro, but it looks awesome; and it shifts. One wonders if they are using some of the Carter technology under licence, like the slowed rotor.

Cheers now

[Bravo73]

...but it looks awesome

Hmmm. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

[oldgrubber]

Bravo,
I think you may be right!
It's the the "Grubber" part of me that speaks. I see the mechanical beauty of something as well as the aesthetic. The Rotodyne was just such a beast.
p.s. I even like the Seaking MK7!!

Cheers now

[henry_crun]

Sorry, late on parade, stumbled across this thread by chance. Here is a contemporary of the Rotodyne with tip driven rotors reverting to autogyro mode in forward flight.


http://mike-wsm.org.uk/zpp166.jpg


Pair of XV-1 in flight

Photo courtesy of Deutsches Museum

[heli1]

Same very basic origins,as the engineer involved was one of the same team who pioneered this concept in Austria during the war.....another of the team went to France and eventually created the Djinn .

[ricardian]

BBC News magazine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35521040)

[occasional]

I seem to remember seeing the Rotodyne at Farnborough and dont remember it being particularly noisy.

[Thud_and_Blunder]

dont remember it being particularly noisy

I remember my Dad taking us (I'd have been about 6 or 7 years old) to visit friends, who it turned out lived near where the Rotodyne was being tested. It wasn't just the very high noise levels that startled the bejabers out of us as our hosts' children looked on knowingly, it was the nature of that noise. Can't imagine too many people would've been happy to hear 4 screaming tip-jets at near-supersonic speeds passing overhead on a regular basis.

Lovely idea, though...

...and that picture in the article looks like the airborne version of the proverbial busload of nurses from Rinteln.

[handysnaks]

....and just like the busload of nurses, it never arrived!!:p

[Frying Pan]

If ever you get the chance to pop into White Waltham airfield (West London) and visit the West London Aero Club you'll see plenty of old original photographs and Fairey memorabilia on the walls there. The Fairey factory was once situated there. The WLAC is also a good place for a chat over a proper pint.

Cheers, FP

[stiarno]

Couldn't believe this project was consigned to the scrap bin-one prototype that was broken up after many successful (albeit noisy) flights? Surely this was another missed opportunity in the aviation hall of shame?

[terminus mos]

It lives on, most recently as the Eurocopter X3. What's old is new again.

[ShyTorque]

The Rotodyne had an exceptional lift capability when compared to its basic weight, even by today's standards.

The tip jets were only needed for very low speed and vertical flight, so cruise noise was far less.

Shameful to think it was axed.

Also shameful that the article mentioned the lack of a city heliport in our capital in the early 1960s and yet even today we still have to rely on the ever more difficult Battersea landing site.

[Stanwell]

To us kids in the fifties, the Rotodyne was a legend and, as far as we were concerned, a fait accompli.
Airfix put out a kit in 1:72 and it sold very well indeed.
I'm sure I've still got the remains of mine - somewhere in the attic.

[heli1]

...and the remains of the real one are at The Helicopter Museum at Weston-super-Mare...rotor pylon and head,cabin section,tip jets,complete blade on display.

[dsc810]

and the Fairy Gyrodyne is at the Berks aviation museum
Fairey Jet Gyrodyne (http://museumofberkshireaviation.co.uk/html/exhibits/gyrodyne.htm)

[Upland Goose]

Gyrodyne XJ 389 was on display outside my ATC Squadron (424) Southampton for many years. Few of us realised the importance of it. We were more interested in English Electric Lightnings in the early 60's !

I am so pleased that XJ389 was preserved, as she was getting tired standing outside.

Many years later, now still flying helicopters, I have reflected on the Rotodyne and realise how innovative and advanced she was. Vibration, plenty in the early stages, which they overcame to the benefit of all of us Rotorheads who followed. Noisy yes, at the time, but they were working on that. Politics was one area that Fairey could not overcome - so RIP Rotodyne.

For those of you who still have an appetite for the aircraft, I can recommend the book 'Fairey Rotodyne' by David Gibbings and there is some lovely, cheesy, but enjoyable stuff, on Youtube. Enjoy !

ShyTorque is an advocate I know - we spent many a leg in the S76 yarning about the Rotodyne - but then he was a QHI and QFI. That's hedging your bets for the future :ok:

[Arnie Madsen]

.

I still think the Fairey Rotodyne could fulfill a category somewhere between standard helicopters and the highly technical and exotic Boeing V-22 Osprey

The Fairey Rotodyne is fairly simple technology , it is a heavy lifter , reasonably fast , and if you are not flying it downtown the noise would not matter so much.

I have the David Gibbings book on the Rotodyne and it has plenty of info , pictures and mechanical component drawings etc.

Post WW2 we had a surplus of aircraft manufacturers in a world that needed farm tractors , cars , and washing machines. That is why a lot of those good projects were set aside.

.

[ShyTorque]

ShyTorque is an advocate I know - we spent many a leg in the S76 yarning about the Rotodyne - but then he was a QHI and QFI. That's hedging your bets for the future

Jack of all trades, master of none.... :O, but I would certainly have loved to fly the Rotodyne! Way before its time, I reckon. ;)

[oldgrubber]

The latest attempt to produce a true "tip jet" aircraft was by the Groen Brothers aviation company for DARPA. Unfortunately they ran out of money and although they achieved significant progress the project was dropped by DARPA.
Groen Aeronautics Corporation (http://www.groenaeronautics.com/)

Cheers all

[pax britanica]

Back in the day i lived very close to the extended centre line of 23R 5L (apologies if they were designated differently then magnetic changes etc) and I remeber the rotordyne clearly as that runway was used a lot back then with dpertures on 23 and landings on 05 it was a great spot for a kid fascinated by aviation.
As irecall the rotordyne underwent an extensive set of tests at LHR and even now 50 plus years on i can rememebr just how incredibly noisy the Rotordyne was.However it was a very very impressive looking machine at a time when BEA were still flying Daks and Vikings around as mainline aircraft .

Iwas neve sure why it got cancelled other than no one buying it but was that to do with noise, the weird appearance putting airlines off or the focus on early jets and the success of the Viscount as Europes short haul king making people feel it was just too weird.

[heli1]

The main reason for cancellation was the loss of government funding.Westland had the Westminster and Belvedere on their books too and only the latter had MoD support. So the Rotodyne and the Westminster( which also had great potential ) got the chop. By then noise wasn't much of an issue....they had developed silencers for the tip jets which actually were only used during the vtol takeoff and landing phase ...they were switched off in the cruise.

[outhouse]

The Fairey Rotodyne was as indicated well beyond its time in concept and technical development.
Unfortunately it was also well beyond the understanding of those who could have sanctioned development towards a fantastic use both in civilian and military areas.
As always the British invent a really great concept and then manage to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to taking advantage of the idea.
We invented the movable tail plain that advanced the ability of controled fixed wing flight above Mk 1, guess what, we gave it to the US, FACT.
:D

[Arnie Madsen]

.
Canada did the same with the Avro Arrow ... it was a Mach 2 Interceptor way ahead of its time ... built 6 and then the government decided to scrap it.

Most of the engineers ended up going to work for NASA in the USA and put a man on the moon.

[claudia]

Even worse, Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine and we gave
it away to the Americians.

[Stitchbitch]

..and the Soviets!

[riff_raff]

There was no conspiracy that caused the demise of the Rotodyne. Yes, the tip jets were noisy. But the aircraft still required fixed wings and turboprop engines for cruise flight. The benefit provided by the tip jet rotor for VTOL operation of a commercial passenger aircraft was not worth the added complexity. There was plenty of space available to build conventional airport facilities.

What happened with the Rotodyne was no different than what happened to the Concorde. Ultimately, neither aircraft design could convince operators that it provided sufficient economic value.

[outhouse]

Interesting stuff, I did understand that the Swing technology used in the F111 was a British design, again given away for wine gums I expect. though I suspect the British could not afford to develop a useful aircraft to use it.
:ugh:

[treadigraph]

Outhouse, I believe Barnes Wallis contributed to the development of swing wings but the variable geometry concept had been around for a while.


Wish I could have seen the Rotordyne and Westminster... I do recall seeing the Jet Gyrodyne outside the ATC hut in Southampton when passing by once in the 1970s - what in the heck is that?

[John Eacott]

Interesting stuff, I did understand that the Swing technology used in the F111 was a British design, again given away for wine gums I expect. though I suspect the British could not afford to develop a useful aircraft to use it.

I guess that sums up the Tornado :p

[ShyTorque]

There was no conspiracy that caused the demise of the Rotodyne. Yes, the tip jets were noisy. But the aircraft still required fixed wings and turboprop engines for cruise flight. The benefit provided by the tip jet rotor for VTOL operation of a commercial passenger aircraft was not worth the added complexity.

But the Rotodyne could naturally de-ice its main rotor blades with no extra weight penalty.

Sixty years on, manufacturers still struggle to solve the complexities and weight issues of that problem.

[KING6024]

When I was 15/16 I was lucky enough to be taken into White Waltham as a guest and saw the Rotordyne up close and flying,very noisy ! Another highlight was seeing Fairy Gannets in German Air Force/Navy? livery awaiting delivery

Colin.

[outhouse]

This Thread is proving rather interesting for me, and I do apologise for a certain amount of thread drift.
I was connected with Farnborough (RAE) in the early sixties and had the then privilege by working on some of the advances in aviation and most of those that seemed to not be taken advantage of by the UK or were passed over to our friends.
The Jet engine and its advances at Farnborough by Whittle, his engine was a Centrifugal compressor engine, as we all know. Those who have had to Take the CAA exam know of the disadvantages of his design.
However, he did have a parallel line of research. It was the Annular compressor concept, this was fare better than his original concept and he was able to build a basic prototype, before funding ran out.
The basic design was conceived in the late 30s. The engine design was submitted to the US as a joint project, a Jet fighter that could have been operational in the early period of WW2 was a design concept, seemingly it was beyond the military thinking of both the US and British.
I visited the Smithsonian a number of years ago, at the back of a display of various engine concepts was a very corroded Annular compressor engine. It was annotated as the first jet engine of US design of the late 50s early sixties. On the underside of the engine was a Data plate. Guess what it said. Yes. It must have been one of the early engines sent to the US from Farnborough pre second WW.
:ok:
Many more stories if interested.

[Stanwell]

Yes please, outhouse.
It's all very relevant to that dynamic period of our aeronautical history.
Even start a new thread if needs be - there's plenty of eager ears.

[outhouse]

Thanks Stanwell.
A good idea, the above will be the name and thanks.
Maybe the first story will be the three development aircraft named Avro 707. they were collard Red Silver and White, all had very different development tasks. The 60s were so interesting and we had the cutting edge on development, don't mention the TSR 2?? or the Bristol 188.
:ok:

[evansb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Z1UnRZDyo&ab_channel=GroenAviation

u4Z1UnRZDyo


http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/FaireyRotodyneParked.jpg

[heli1]

Have to disagree with riffraff...the Rotodyne was actually very simple technology...no complex transmission,simple rotorhead and the tip jets were switched off after transition to forward flight when the noise ceased,and the rotor free wheeled,providing added lift to the short wings. Simpler than the tiltrotor and incidentally both BEA and Okanagan were interested in in the unbuilt larger version for intercity travel....and Kaman also wanted to be the US licence holder.

[Bravo73]

A fairly recent (new) vid about the Rotodyne:

https://youtu.be/dkJOm1V77Xg

[megan]

We invented the movable tail plain that advanced the ability of controled fixed wing flight above Mk 1, guess what, we gave it to the US, FACTNot a fact at all I'm very much afraid, the slab tail had been investigated by both sides prior to the Brits M.52, notably on the XP-42 and a modified Spitfire. The F-86E was the first supersonic capable aircraft to utilise the slab tail. The problem with using a slab tail on a supersonic aircraft was that it needed powered controls because of the pitching moments on the surface, the reason the X-1 didn't use a slab was because controls were manual, hence use of a normal elevator and trimable tailplane, no power source being available. The French used a slab tail on the Morane-Saulnier G in 1912, the Wright Brothers could possibly claim to be the first, though it was at the front (canard) rather than the back.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x1006/1280px_morane_saulnier_g_racer_b1e9767fc494e5dcc4ee50a59d9ea fcb9eab0cab.jpg

[Cornish Jack]

"Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine"
In fairness, would it not be more correct to say Frank Whittle invented 'A' jet engine. The Messerschmitt flew before the end of WW2 and, presumably, used own-design powewrplant?

[seer557]

The Rotodyne was, at least, somewhat more successful than the (Hunting) Percival P.74!

[Less Hair]

OT:
"Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine"
Hans von Ohain invented the jet engine. (patented 1936)
Ernst Heinkel built the first jet He 178 to fly in August 1939.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178

BTW they had some interesting helicopters as well:
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/nazi-helicopters-focke-achgelis-fa-223-drache-and-fa-330-bachstelze-at-war/

[Fareastdriver]

Frank Whittle has akways been regarded as the inventor of the turbojet engine. From Wili:

Whittle's jet engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine) were developed some years earlier than those of Germany's Hans von Ohain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Ohain) who was the designer of the first operational turbojet engine.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle#cite_note-2)

earned him a place on the officer training course at Cranwell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Cranwell). He excelled in his studies and became an accomplished pilot. While writing his thesis there he formulated the fundamental concepts that led to the creation of the turbojet engine, taking out a patent on his design in 1930.

Without Air Ministry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Ministry) support, he and two retired RAF servicemen formed Power Jets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Jets) Ltd to build his engine with assistance from the firm of British Thomson-Houston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Thomson-Houston).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle#cite_note-5) Despite limited funding, a prototype was created, which first ran in 1937

[Less Hair]

Meanwhile, in Britain the Gloster E28/39 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_E28/39) had its maiden flight on 15 May 1941 and the Gloster Meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor) finally entered service with the RAF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF) in July 1944. These were powered by turbojet engines from Power Jets Ltd., set up by Frank Whittle. The first two operational turbojet aircraft, the Messerschmitt Me 262 and then the Gloster Meteor entered service within three months of each other in 1944.

In fact the Heinkel was the first jet aircraft flying.

[Fareastdriver]

Fronn Wiki again.

The engine was extremely simple, made largely of sheet metal. Construction started late in the summer of 1936 and was completed in March 1937. Two weeks later the engine was running on hydrogen, but the high temperature exhaust led to considerable "burning" of the metal. The tests were otherwise successful, and in September the combustors were replaced and the engine was run on gasoline for the first time. Ohain had at last, albeit five months after Frank Whittle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle), working in parallel in England, run a self-contained turbojet.

There was also an Italian turbine aircraft that usea a piston engine to drive the compressor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_N.1

[megan]

I have trouble with the word "inventor", for the jet engine in the form that Whittle and we know it was first patented in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume using an axial compressor, French patent no. 534,801, filed: 3 May 1921; issued: 13 January 1922. Never built though, as the necessary technology did not exist. The very first gas turbine patent was by Englishman John Baker in 1791 UK patent no. 1833 – Obtaining and Applying Motive Power, & c. A Method of Rising Inflammable Air for the Purposes of Procuring Motion, and Facilitating Metallurgical Operations. Although he never built one at the time a working version was shown at the Hannover Fair in 1972.

von Ohain had the first operational jet engine, the He 178 getting airborne 27 August 1939 where as Whittle was a little later, the Gloster E28/39 was in 15 May 1941.

I'm reminded of the quote "we see more and farther than our predecessors, not because we have keener vision or greater height, but because we are lifted up and borne aloft on their gigantic stature". People have ideas and dreams, but are held back by the limitations of their times, metallurgy being just one of many. They lay the ground work with their ideas and dreams and folk such as Whittle and von Ohain are able to capitalise on the previous work and bring their own dreams and ideas to a project and by dint of experimentation and hard graft bring about a successful conclusion. Inventors though?Swing technology used in the F111 was a British designAn example of who can be credited as an inventor.

The Brits built the flying wing Westland-Hill Pterodactyl Mk.IV in 1931 with small sweep changes to adjust for longitudinal trim.
Messerschmitt built one only P.1101 which never flew, had ground adjustable sweep, the US took it home after the war and used it as a basis for their Bell X-5 which had in flight adjustable positions of 20, 40 and 60 degrees.
British Barnes Wallis started work on variable sweep in 1949, however the government pulled the plug on finance so he went cap in hand to the US where he received the same reception. He came up with the idea of the outboard pivot in 1954 to solve inherent issues with the concept. The detailed implementation of the concept was done by the NASA Langley Laboratory team of Alford, Polhamus and Barnes Wallis. British engineer L. E. Baynes patented a swing wing fighter in 1949 and a supersonic version in 1956.
The F-111 was the first production aircraft to use the concept.

Question : Who was the inventor of the swing wing, the chap who came up with the idea, or those who built the first practical aircraft?

[morrisman68]

Even worse, Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine and we gave
it away to the Americians.

Sadly, not so - it doesn't take much delving to discover von Ohain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Ohain

[megan]

The historical timelines show that von Ohain was still a university student when Whittle filed his first patent for a turbojet engine in January 1930, Whittle successfully ran his first engine in April 1937, some 6 months before von Ohain. von Ohain was the first however to fly a turbine powered aircraft.

The first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustainingly was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer Ægidius Elling, his first gas turbine patent was granted in 1884.

[meleagertoo]

Just to put the "invention" of the gas turbine into perspective...

1791: A patent was given to John Barber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barber_(engineer)), an Englishman, for the first true gas turbine. His invention had most of the elements present in the modern day gas turbines. The turbine was designed to power a horseless carriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-6)
1899: Charles Gordon Curtis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Gordon_Curtis) patented the first gas turbine engine in the US.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-7)
1900: Sanford Alexander Moss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Alexander_Moss) submitted a thesis on gas turbines. In 1903, Moss became an engineer for General Electric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric)'s Steam Turbine Department in Lynn, Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn,_Massachusetts).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-Leyes-8) While there, he applied some of his concepts in the development of the turbocharger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-Leyes-8)
1903: A Norwegian, Ægidius Elling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86gidius_Elling), built the first gas turbine that was able to produce more power than needed to run its own components, which was considered an achievement in a time when knowledge about aerodynamics was limited. Using rotary compressors and turbines it produced 11 hp.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-ASMEAElling-9)
1904: A gas turbine engine designed by Franz Stolze (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_Stolze&action=edit&redlink=1), based on his earlier 1873 patent application, is built and tested in Berlin. The Stolze gas turbine was too inefficient to sustain its own operation.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-:SY1-3)
1906: The Armengaud-Lemale gas turbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armengaud-Lemale_gas_turbine) tested in France. This was a relatively large machine which included 25 stage centrifugal compressor designed by Auguste Rateau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Rateau) and built by the Brown Boveri Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Boveri_Company). The gas turbine could sustain its own air compression but was too inefficient to produce useful work.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-:SY1-3)
1910: Holzwarth gas turbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holzwarth_gas_turbine) (pulse combustion) achieved 150 kW (200 hp).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-:SY1-3)
1920s The practical theory of gas flow through passages was developed into the more formal (and applicable to turbines) theory of gas flow past airfoils by A. A. Griffith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Arnold_Griffith) resulting in the publishing in 1926 of An Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design. Working testbed designs of axial turbines suitable for driving a propeller were developed by the Royal Aeronautical Establishment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet_development_at_the_RAE).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-:SY2-10)
1930: Having found no interest from the RAF for his idea, Frank Whittle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle) patented[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-11) the design for a centrifugal gas turbine for jet propulsion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_propulsion). The first successful test run of his engine occurred in England in April 1937.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-12)
1932: The Brown Boveri Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Boveri_Company) of Switzerland starts selling axial compressor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_compressor) and turbine turbosets as part of the turbocharged steam generating Velox boiler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velox_boiler). Following the gas turbine principle, the steam evaporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation) tubes are arranged within the gas turbine combustion chamber; the first Velox plant was erected in Mondeville, Calvados, France.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-13)
1936: The first constant flow industrial gas turbine is commissioned by the Brown Boveri Company and goes into service at Sun Oil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunoco)'s Marcus Hook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Hook,_Pennsylvania)refinery in Pennsylvania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania), US.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#cite_note-:SY4-14)