Fairey Rotodyne

Sadly there is but a section of fuselage and some components only remaining of this unusual aircraft. They can be found at “The Helicopter Museum” at Weston-super-Mare.
I think it has been discussed on here before – a search may well pull up some various snippets of information.

Fascinating machine. In the book The Alternate RAAF/RAN (at Work now so can’t check title and author) there are some fascinating scenarios with Australia operating Super Rotodynes in their “little” wars in Southeast Asia. I wonder what it would have looked like in the RAF supporting Harrier ops, or maybe even as a COD type for the Royal Navy; might make an interesting “what if” modelling project for someone, especially as the Airfix kit is not nearly so rare and expensive as a few years ago.

Try THIS link. Don’t know whether any survived though.

Fairey Rotodyne

Does anyone remember the Rotodyne at White Waltham after it was scrapped? I went on a factory visit in 1964 and remember a large part of the fuselage I think in the hanger being used for Scout assembly. Any photos of it at that time?

BTW, I remember seeing the Fairey Gyrodyne outside an ATC hut in Southampton many years ago…….

Ken

We have the Gyrodyne at the Museum of Berkshire Aviation, Woodley

http://www.aero51.plus.com/html/exhibits/gyrodyne.htm

Yes Ken, the Gyrodyne was outside the headquarters of 424(Southampton)Sqn. A.T.C. for a long time. The C.O., Sqn.Ldr. Alan Jones was responsible for obtaining the machine from Fairey’s at White Waltham because his uncle was the works manager there. A pity he couldn’t obtain the Rotodyne as well!

Albert Ross ??

Are you still alive ???

Don’t see you in Smith’s these days – in fact I haven’t seen you for such a long time, I assumed that you had passed away !!!

BTW, I remember seeing the Fairey Gyrodyne outside an ATC hut in Southampton many years ago…….

Ken

In Smiths nearly EVERY day at 1230, unless I am away with work! Thought YOU had died also! Changed your reading habits, or fed up waiting for Smiths to reorganise that chaotic congested area?

Sorry Robbo, that’s not the same machine! That’s the Fairey Jet GYRODYNE.

Albert Ross ??

Are you still alive ???

Don’t see you in Smith’s these days – in fact I haven’t seen you for such a long time, I assumed that you had passed away !!!

BTW, I remember seeing the Fairey Gyrodyne outside an ATC hut in Southampton many years ago…….

Ken

Top stuff all.

I have found this thread quiet interesting 😎 , Thank’s all 🙂 .

Great idea’s around this sort of aircraft type have come and gone over the year’s from the U.K, U.S.A. and former U.S.S.R.

And yes sometime’s politic’s get in the way and they jump up and down about developement cost’s and so on, and pull the plug :rolleyes: .

Anyway there’s seem’s to be little else that I can add, that has not been covered all ready,
So Here’s a Few pic’s of the Beast from Axl’s 😉 .

Cheer’s all far and wide 😀 , Tally :dev2: Ho! :dev2: Ho! Phil :diablo: .

But to add to Tony, when developing unconventional systems hoping to find a market for it, you’re bound to run into development problems (as in with any other system). Solving these problems for an unconventional system is usually far more difficult than with systems whose ins and outs are already well known. But new systems have new problems. Nothing you can fix because of earlier experience, just look at the V-22 and the problems it’s plagued with.

Quite true, but I would argue that the Rotodyne was technically an extremely simple vehicle by comparison with the V-22 – in fact, simpler than a helicopter, since the rotor didn’t have to perform such tricks. It was also much safer, with two separate systems for staying aloft: the tip-driven rotor, and the engine-driven propellers. The contrast between the apparently trouble-free development of the Rotodyne (AFAIK) and the immense problems which have plagued the V-22 is quite stark, especially since the Rotodyne’s designers lacked the benefit of modern computer aids.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Why not go to see the Fairey Jet Rotodyne prototype at the Museum of Berkshire Aviation. It’s a great place to wander around and have a chat with the volunteers who run it – they’re a mine of information.

If you have a search through the forum archives you’ll find a thread from the forum gathering there a couple of months ago.

Rob

Sorry Robbo, that’s not the same machine! That’s the Fairey Jet GYRODYNE.

The British national airlines during the 50s and 60s were as much of a hindrance to British civil aircraft as Sandys was to military designs.
The most glaring example is the Trident. DH perceived a market for an airliner to be powered by 3 RR Medway engines. BEA said the design was too large and insisted it was made smaller. The Medway was never built and almost immediately the Trident was found to be too small. Boeing built a couple of thousand 727s at the original size and DH sold 140-ish(?) Tridents.

Both Tony and JBoyle make very good points.

But to add to Tony, when developing unconventional systems hoping to find a market for it, you’re bound to run into development problems (as in with any other system). Solving these problems for an unconventional system is usually far more difficult than with systems whose ins and outs are already well known. But new systems have new problems. Nothing you can fix because of earlier experience, just look at the V-22 and the problems it’s plagued with.

The Soviet equivalent to the Rotodyne, the Ka-22 Vintokryl (with side-by-side rotors rather than a single one as on the British whirlywing) was cancelled exactly because of this. After two crashes for which no specific cause could be found, it was decided to re-allocate the resources used for the Ka-22 and go for other projects instead. Also, like with the Rotodyne, the excessive noise generated by the Ka-22 made embarking it a truely painful experience for the troops carried. Just like the noise of the Rotodyne made urban operations a bit doubtful.

here is a photo from my collection

It wasn’t just the British “new concept designs” that failed commercially, it was also many of the much more conventional aircraft too. Most British manufacturers were very much geared towards satisfying technical and performance specifications set by the government – whether for military aircraft or civillian airliners. Whilst military aircraft are invariably “government” driven, airliners are a different kettle of fish. Too often, British airliners were tailored so close to the requirements of the two nationalised airlines (BOAC and BEA) that they proved impossible to sell to anyone else. Indeed, often the national airlines discovered that the planes they had thought they wanted turned out to be inappropriate for their needs so they either cut the orders or asked for a major redesign – ot bought American.

The manufacturers themselves seemed unable (with the odd exception) to think of general market requirements and were just too wedded to the state airlines. The exceptions were aircraft like the BAC 1-11 and later the BAe 146. Even the Viscount (which of course, WAS a success) was based on an Air Ministry specification.

It anyone was that interested in it, they would have taken the concept (not nesessarily the specific design) and developed it in the same way the US eventually developed jetsliners (after Comet) and rear-engined jetliners (after the Trident and Caravelle). If the concept were really practical, I would think we’d have seen large gyroplanes by now…from someone.

That doesn’t necessarily follow. It is always very hard to introduce a new concept into the market; it is commercially less risky to carry on developing a known kind of product than to strike out in some radical direction. And big companies try to minimise their commercial risks.

One example; all kinds of alternatives to the poppet-valve piston car engine have been proposed, many with clear advantages demonstrated in test-beds. Some of them have even made it into production (sleeve valves and rotary pistons). But most manufacturers aren’t interested – they prefer to continue to develop the ancient poppet valve because they understand it and are geared up to make it.

In terms of the infrastructure required, a jet airliner is just a development of a turboprop which is in turn a development of a piston-engined plane. They all need the same kind of airports. A VTOL airliner is a different matter; to be worthwhile, it has to make use of its characteristics to use city-centre landing grounds, so an entire infrastructure of such grounds, served by ground transport, has to be built. That’s a huge step, and too much of an investment risk (even if the noise problem was solved).

A similar problem affects the return of airships; various studies have shown that they could still make a worthwhile contribution in a number of roles, but there is no infrastructure in place to support them.

The story of the V-22 is a good example of the problems of selecting a highly capable – but technically new and complex – solution to a requirement. Unless the government is picking up the development tab, the industry doesn’t want to know. As it happens, I think that the gyroplane could have provided much of the performance of the V-22 at a fraction of the development time and cost.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Helicopter Museum – Weston

I have to agree with a lot of what Mr Boyle says. In the late 1950s, the British aircraft indistry was well on the road to self destruction anyway. Sandys did play his part (as did Dennis Healey later on) but these individuals became handy scapegoats for what was probably inevitable anyway.

The poor beast was done to death by a politician called Duncan Sandys who in retrospect seems to have been in the pay of the US aviation industry – allegedly.

Moggy

Like the pre-nationalized the UK industry at the time, there was no monolithic “US Aviation Industry” in the 50’s…. Can you see the execs of Boeing, Bell, Douglas, North American, Fairchild, Grumman, Hiller, Curtiss-Wright, Kamen, Martin, Cessna, Republic, Northrop, Sikorsky, Piasecki, Lockheed, Convair, Beech, Piper, etc ,etc…all getting together and saying “this thing is too good…we’ve got to stop it!” and developing a slush fund to pay off one foreign politician to “kill” the program?
Really, now… :rolleyes:

If there was a pound (or dollar..or franc..or mark..or yen) to be made, the industry (or Fairey) would have developed it on its own
Remember, back in the 50’s UK aviation companies often did put up their own money to develop aircraft.
With all due respect to Mr. Sandy’s….I doubt if even he could singlehandedly “kill” a program. If Fairey had the proverbial “world beater” it would have continued development…even if government funds were cut. Unlike the TSR 2, which as a warplane needed govt. funds, as a commercial venture the Rotodyne could have received funding elsewhere.
And remember, the US wasn’t opposed to buying European aircraft at the time…remember all the Viscounts, BAC 1-11s, Fokker F-27s, and Caravells in US airline service?

Not to mention the various Doves, Herons, and DH 125s in corporate fleets…not to mention the DHC models..Beavers, Otters and Caribous in the Army and Air Force.
If the US liked a foreign plane at the time…and there was a market for it, it would be produced under license…remember the B-57 / Canberra and the license built Fokkers?

It anyone was that interested in it, they would have taken the concept (not nesessarily the specific design) and developed it in the same way the US eventually developed jetsliners (after Comet) and rear-engined jetliners (after the Trident and Caravelle). If the concept were really practical, I would think we’d have seen large gyroplanes by now…from someone.

And don’t forget, New York Airways placed a sizeable order (for between 5-15) for Rotodynes. Kamen was going to make them under license. They certainly had an interest in seeing the program take-off.
Anyone who knows the history of Charles Kamen and his vast industrial diversification efforts (his helicopter business became a just small part of his eventual holdings) knows that he would’t give up a promising and lucrative market unless there was a mighty good reason.

Eventually, the interest and money wasn’t there to overcome its development and technical problems.

I recall having a toy Rotodyne back in the 60s. There was a long flexible cable attaching the side of it to a handgrip with a winding handle. You furiously wound the handle and this made the blades rotate; the thing would actually take off!

Don’t recall it being all that noisy, except for a steadily increasing panting noise 🙂

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum