Fairey Rotodyne.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyond its time.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Manitoba Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,593
Received 274 Likes
on
152 Posts
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?
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?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
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.
Sixty years on, manufacturers still struggle to solve the complexities and weight issues of that problem.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bradfield CO11 2XD
Age: 81
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royal Aeronautical Society Garden Party at White Waltham
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.
Colin.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stories from an old fart.
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.
Many more stories if interested.
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.
Many more stories if interested.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe trying to enjoy retirement “YES”
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 60s a dynamic period of our aeronautical history
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by evansb; 18th Feb 2016 at 21:49.
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.
Last edited by heli1; 21st Feb 2016 at 11:37. Reason: Addition
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
Last edited by megan; 28th Oct 2019 at 01:19.
"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?
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?
