Talk:Fairey Rotodyne/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fairey Rotodyne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Tip jets

What was the design of the rotor tip jets? Were they ram jets or did they have any moving parts?

They were not ram jets, they were fed with air from the compressor via the central hub. This gave them less drag than a ramjet as well as a higher compression ratio, and meant that they ran at zero speed.WolfKeeper 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional media

A cut-away diagram of the Rotodyne were to be seen at London's Science Museum until October 2009 : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/xray-perspectives-the-eagle-comic-returns-821980.html
The apparent copyright holder http://www.dandare.co.uk/ seems to be out of business, does that mean that the picture is free? TGCP (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Documentary on YouTube

There's an interesting documentary on the Rotodyne here on YouTube: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

analysis quote by Farley

I'm wondering if it isn't a case of WP:Undue. Its taken from a general criticism of British aviation industry. Farley at Hawker-Siddeley wasn't involved in the rotodyne programme - he didn't got to the Empire Test Pilot School until 1963 - and as Hawker didn't do helicopters - save the heliCrane via Blackburn/RAE and a compound Hawker Siddeley H.S.803 project later - may not have had much to do with them so it looks a bit like having a go from the touchlines.

The full comment on the Rotodyne in Empire of the Clouds is "And as for the Fairey Rotodyne, they couldn't build a gearbox strong enough to handle the necessary torque so they opted for tipjets to drive the rotor. Did you ever see or hear a Fairey Rotodyne fly? From two miles away it would stop a conversation. I mean, the noise of those little jets on the tips of the rotor was just indescribable. So what have we got? The noisiest hovering vehicle the world has yet come up with and you're going to stick it in the middle of a city?"

Anyone got an opinion? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable, because it may be inaccurate as a description of the Rotodyne and it's certainly inaccurate as a description of a Rotodyne with the developed, quieter, tip jets that Napier had already tested, but it's accurate as the political perception of the Rotodyne at the time, which is why it was eventually cancelled. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Rotodyne's problem was not in any way a technical one, it was, like so many other British aviation projects of the time, that of politics. The intended purchaser and end user was the government - BEA was government owned - and like in many such projects funded by the government, the projects became political footballs. The Rotodyne's tip jets were noisy initially, but with developments the noise was coming down, and detractors never pointed out that the tip jets were only run briefly while taking off and landing.

The amusing thing is that the competing helicopter that was to have been ordered instead of the Rotodyne was eventually cancelled too - the Westland Westminster - so the Rotodyne's detractors didn't do themselves any good either. A case of shooting both the competition and oneself in the foot at the same time. The Rotodyne XE521 was also a more or less usable aircraft, which could have been put into production and sold to customers fairly easily as-was, whereas the Westminster was nowhere near being a saleable aircraft.

The RN and RAF did the same over TSR2 and the supersonic Buccaneer. The government cancelled them both so neither gained from their attempts at criticising the opposition. Both camps failed to realise that there is a third alternative to 'A' or 'B' - that is 'Neither' and as this is usually cheaper it is often a favourite choice for politicians. BTW, the cancellation of the Rotodyne is why the RAF eventually got Boeing Chinooks. Likewise the cancellation of the HS 681 is why the RAF had to obtain the Lockheed Hercules, so the work (and employment) in both cases went to America. If the F-111K hadn't been cancelled then the TSR2 work would have gone there too.

You see, the problem that British aviation faced in the late 1950s and all through the 1960s and seventies, right up to the present day, was that their main customer appeared to be made up of people who had the talent and characteristics of both Neddie Seagoon and Hercules Grytpype-Thynne, including the brains of the former, and the moral codes of the latter. With people like that running things, you can't go right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, "And as for the Fairey Rotodyne, they couldn't build a gearbox strong enough to handle the necessary torque so they opted for tipjets to drive the rotor ..." - with apologies to John, he's completely wrong. The whole point of the tip jets was to allow the rotor to free-wheel in flight as a gyrodyne and as the rotor was only ever needing to be driven during take-off and landing there was no point in wasting space and weight on a complicated (and heavy) drive system that was only going to be used twice in a flight.

... rather reminiscent of the arguments for the Harrier's Pegasus as opposed to Rolls-Royce's advocacy of separate lift jets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

At least, unlike the Germans, they never tried to use both at once.

The Harrier concept is clearly implausible, as had been known since Wibault's time, because it's impossible to make the engine and fans for it. Then Bristol-Siddeley improved the metallurgy of initial compressor stage blades enough that the Pegasus became - surprisingly - possible. After that it was rather obvious and the lift jets vanished near overnight. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sad. The Rotodyne was truly a ground breaking aircraft, and far ahead of it's time. When compared to aircraft performing a similar function (Boeing Vertol 107 or the V-22 Osprey), Fairey's solution was diabolically clever and incredible. I'm surprised no company has attempted to resurrect the concept. Loud? Yes, but I'm certain today it would have been mitigated. Tip jets and gyro-rotor. I love it.

longest rotor(rotary wing) on an aircraft?

It is notable that the Rotodyne did not have the longest rotor diameter, out of all rotorcraft, at the time. As an encyclopedia it is important to describe historical machines with reference to the worldly state of affairs at the time. Context is important. The Rotodyne while holding the sub-category record, as detailed here on the List of large aircraft, did not have the longest rotor out of all rotorcraft at the time. The Mil Mi-6 did, which first flew in the same year 1957.

In a similar vein, I corrected the Tupolev Tu-160 article recently to reflect the fact that it wasn't the longest mach 2+ aircraft that has ever flown. Prior to my edit, readers could be misled with how the lede had been written. Now the article is more factual.

here's a reference that directly discusses the Rotodyne under the same heading as the Mi-6. The Soviet Union was designing a similar heavy lift rotorcraft to the Rotodyne, the Kamov Ka-22, but cancelled it as: http://www.airvectors.net/avgyro.html the Mil Mi-6 Hook heavy-lift helicopter seemed to do the job as a heavy-lift rotorcraft.

No it is not notable that it didn't have the longest rotors. It is true of almost every (except one) rotorcraft that they do not have the longest rotors.

Are you planning to add the Mi-6 to all rotorcraft articles, down to the Kaman Huskie? After all, it has longer rotors than all of them too. The problem is that unless this article starts claiming "The Rotodyne had the longest rotors", then it is simply irrelevant if something else did instead. No-one is talking about rotor length.

The Ka-22 was not the same as the Rotodyne. Nor (as is so often claimed) was the Rotodyne a copy of it. The Ka-22 didn't have tip jets, it used a geared rotor head. Thus it needed counteraction to the torque reaction, which it did with paired rotors. The Rotodyne could just a single, simpler and lighter rotor head. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was common in 1957, at the time of the Fairey Rotodyne's inception, to find reports that it had the largest rotor "in the world".

It is for this reason that I think it wise to state that the Mi-6 actually held that record. Lastly, I am aware that the Ka-22 was not identical in design, however the 2 craft followed the same design goal; of making a heavy lift rotorcraft. The link I had initially added above clearly goes into all this if you care to read it.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So if you want to write an article for "Cold War misunderstandings of Soviet achievements by the Western press" then go for it. But it still doesn't belong here, any more than repeating claims of the Rotodyne as having the largest rotor.

Nor was the Rotodyne intended as a heavy lift rotorcraft (it was a feeder route aircraft, with VTOL). To think it would be is to completely misunderstand all of Fairey's work on gyrodynes, and on the technical aspects, strengths and weaknesses of the tip jet rotodyne platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, AirVectors is a Tertiary Source, and also not a reliable source itself, as it isn't professionally fact-checked, and contains some speculation and opinion. It's a good site, but not meant as a professional source. I concur with Andy that the information you're adding is better left out. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the rotor diameter of the Hughes XH-17 is longer than the Rotodyne or the Mi-6, and first flew in 1952. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was merely attempting to correct a common misnomer BilCat, one that I initially came across, while watching Discovery Wings, years ago, IIRC. Interestingly the Hughes XH-17 was not operational past its dubious debut in 1952, so by 1957 the contenders were the Rotodyne and the Mi-6. With the latter having the largest rotor diameter then in service. However by bringing up the Hughes rotorcraft, I think you're beginning to see why it is important to rank these historical vehicles, as "comparison and context" is a great pedagogical/teaching aid.

Andy Dingley, All heavy lift aircraft are capable of being troop transporters/"feeder route aircraft". It just needs to sling a cabin around to be classed as such. Once the thrust is there, it really doesn't matter what heavy thing it lifts. P.S while not a gyrodyne, The XH-17 also had tip-jets.

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

At that time, 1957, due to the secrecy of the Cold War, it is likely that the actual rotor diameter of the Mi-6 was unknown in the West.

The Rotodyne outclassed any converted heavy-lift helicopter as a feeder-liner due to the Rotodyne's much higher speed, which was important for city-centre-to-city-centre journeys. The Rotodyne was in effect a small airliner/cargo freighter that could by-pass the normal airports and deliver it's passengers/cargo right into the city centres. The nearest comparison would be the Boeing Vertol 107's that used to fly passengers from the roof of the Pan Am Building in New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fairey Rotodyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fairey Rotodyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)