best machine the RAF never had
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
You have all missed one that was available and could have been a worldbeater in the sales dept..
Handley Page Herald, already had been redesigned to incorporate a rear ramp, outclassed the Andover in performance on rough ground and didn't need the squatting gear to offload its cargo, sadly lost to us due to the great mans resistance in joining Waste of Space and Government policy because of that.
see
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/handley-page-hp-124-military-herald.4685/
Handley Page Herald, already had been redesigned to incorporate a rear ramp, outclassed the Andover in performance on rough ground and didn't need the squatting gear to offload its cargo, sadly lost to us due to the great mans resistance in joining Waste of Space and Government policy because of that.
see
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/handley-page-hp-124-military-herald.4685/
Last edited by NutLoose; 4th Mar 2020 at 21:41.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Rotordyne.. What could have been
General characteristics
Comparison
Chinook
General characteristics
- Crew: two
- Capacity: 40-48 passengers
- Length: 58 ft 8 in (17.88 m) of fuselage
- Wingspan: 46 ft 6 in (14.17 m) fixed wings
- Height: 22 ft 2 in (6.76 m) to top of rotor pylon
- Wing area: 475 sq ft (44.1 m2) [47]
- Airfoil: NACA 23015[48]
- Empty weight: 22,000 lb (9,979 kg)
- Gross weight: 33,000 lb (14,969 kg)
- Fuel capacity: 7,500 lb (3,402 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Napier Eland N.El.7 turboprops, 2,800 shp (2,100 kW) each [49]
- Powerplant: 4 × rotor tip jet , 1,000 lbf (4.4 kN) thrust each [50]
- Main rotor diameter: 90 ft 0 in (27.43 m)
- Main rotor area: 6,362 sq ft (591.0 m2) Rotor aerofoil: NACA 0015
- Blade tip speed: 720 ft/s (219 m/s)
- Disc loading: 6.14 lb/ft2 (30 kg/m2)
- Propellers: 4-bladed, 13 ft (4.0 m) diameter
- Maximum speed: 190.9 mph (307.2 km/h, 165.9 kn) speed record [51]
- Cruise speed: 185 mph (298 km/h, 161 kn)
- Range: 450 mi (720 km, 390 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 13,000 ft (4,000 m)
Comparison
Chinook
- Crew: 3 (pilot, copilot, flight engineer or loadmaster)
- Capacity:
- 33–55 troops or
- 24 stretchers and 3 attendants or
- 24,000 lb (10,886 kg) payload
- Length: 98 ft (30 m) [150]
- Fuselage length: 52 ft (16 m)
- Width: 12 ft 5 in (3.78 m) (fuselage)[150]
- Height: 18 ft 11 in (5.77 m)
- Empty weight: 24,578 lb (11,148 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming T55-GA-714A turboshaft engines, 4,733 shp (3,529 kW) each
- Main rotor diameter: 2× 60 ft (18 m)
- Main rotor area: 5,600 sq ft (520 m2)
- Blade section: root: Boeing VR-7 ; tip: Boeing VR-8[151]
- Maximum speed: 170 kn (200 mph, 310 km/h)
- Cruise speed: 160 kn (180 mph, 300 km/h)
- Range: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km)
- Combat range: 200 nmi (230 mi, 370 km)
- Ferry range: 1,216 nmi (1,399 mi, 2,252 km) [152]
- Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
- Rate of climb: 1,522 ft/min (7.73 m/s)
- Disk loading: 9.5 lb/sq ft (46 kg/m2)
- Power/mass: 0.28 hp/lb (0.46 kW/kg)
"Rotordyne.. What could have been"
And a nation of deaf people - one thing tho' it would have made selling Concorde easier.............
And a nation of deaf people - one thing tho' it would have made selling Concorde easier.............
NutLoose, thank you so much for making public the Rotodyne / Chinook comparison (one which I had considered privately in the wayback).
What an opportunity lost ... one of so many in that era.
What an opportunity lost ... one of so many in that era.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I know some people at Fairey's - that's not what they say - there were "hopes" they could reduce the noise but development was stopped before they could really show it was acceptable..... and acceptable in the '60's is very very different from acceptable today - there were still a load of Caravelles flying around Europe then
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I know some people at Fairey's - that's not what they say - there were "hopes" they could reduce the noise but development was stopped before they could really show it was acceptable..... and acceptable in the '60's is very very different from acceptable today - there were still a load of Caravelles flying around Europe then
Ahhh the Caravelle, a Comet in disguise, . I take it you know why..