The Fairey Rotodyne (2014 thread re-emerges)

My father would always recall hearing the Rotodyne start up and run, considering we lived some four miles south of Wokingham and about 8 miles from White Waltham airfield [as the crow flys] so i wonder if anything aviation connected today could reproduce the same level of noise which could be heard over the same distance on start up?.

There is a rather excellent book on the subject made by our very own David Gibbings just a few years ago…

An excellent book…that combined with Putnam’s Fairey Aircraft are good places to start with the Rotodyne saga.

Again, the UK government purse holders closed the book on a promising project…remember the conditional orders from the US and Japan…one of the drawbacks of a socialist scheme where you have bureaucrats and politicians deciding what gets funded/built.

On the other hand, if it was all were smooth sailing ahead, you’d think a U.S., Japanese or French concern would have bought the project for pennies on the pound and proceeded with it.

Pilot John Morton retired to New Zealand and was interviewed only a few weeks ago for The Helicopter Museum. Chief Pilot Ron Gellatly passed away quite a few years ago.
In terms of modern day use, look outside Europe to countries with less well developed ground transport networks in Africa,South America and South East Asia where sophisticated airports may also not exist.And look offshore too,where new oil and gas exploration is moving beyond the economic range and reasonable travel time of helicopters .this is where a modern day Rotodyne would sell,as will a commercial tilt rotor eventually. Compound helicopters like this will be the only answer,why else is Eurocopter/Airbus developing a future commercial scaled up X3 ?

There is a rather excellent book on the subject made by our very own David Gibbings just a few years ago http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fairey-Rotodyne-David-Gibbings/dp/0752449168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392913218&sr=8-1&keywords=rotodyne+gibbings

I’m interested to know what would have happened if a tip jet had failed while in use. Would the uneven distribution of thrust have resulted in structural failure? Or (depending on weight and height)would the rrpm decrease beyond the red line?

An autorotation to a forced landing would have been ‘interesting’!

Are there any Rotodyne pilots out there? Or sim drivers?

Perhaps so but the Gatwick Express came nearly 25 years later and the Heathrow Express nearly 40 years later.

The best form of city centre to city centre transport is the high speed railway and I have often wondered whether the huge amount of money the government of the day was poring into the railways had an effect on Rotodyne funding. After all, why spend the taxpayers hard earned on a poor second choice? A railway train can take 500 or so passengers verses the 30 tops of the Rotodyne and a be lot cheaper to the farepayer and taxpayer.

The Rotodyne was built to a Ministry of Supply contract as was often the way in those days when the UK still had a command economy, hence the military serial number.

While noise was being addressed, it was an issue. John Farley said ‘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?’ To start with the noise level was 113dB which is roughly equivalent to the noise experienced by the operator of a road drill and will cause hearing damage. That had been reduced and it was expected to get it down to a much more tolerable 96dB. No doubt the merger of Fairey into Westland was a major factor, but the noise issue shouldn’t be totally dismissed as a production version had yet to be built and no doubt potential operators were nervous of a totally new concept and the surrounding issues.

I can remember, in about 1963, the Rotodyne landing vertically at Westland’s Hayes factory, where I had been an apprentice, until ejected. The noise caused a mass rush to Bournes Bridge over the railway, to witness its unannounced arrival. It maneuvered into position and touched down safely. I heard it’s only visit to Hayes was for it to be fitted with seats prior to the forthcoming SBAC Show at Farnborough. I can’t understand why this can’t have been undertaken at its usual base at White Waltham.
It only ever carried the military serial XE521.
As an ATC Cadet, I once flew over the top of the Rotordyne at White Waltham, while its rotors were rotating, with white exhaust trails streaming from the tip mounted jet exhausts! The flight in the Chipmunk was nice as well!

Oh, rubbish. I travelled on the SRN4 many times and was never given a screwdriver!

I loved the Hovercraft for its 60s ‘Thunderbirds’ or ‘Stingray’ ambience, but there’s no denying that it was noisy and vulnerable to weather. I was on one that spent nearly 20 minutes trying to get lined up for the harbour entrance at Dover after a really rough crossing that had the bottom of the hovercraft slapping the wave tops. On eventual arrival the captain said that had the weather had deteriorated far more than expected and had they known it would be that rough, they would have cancelled the crossing. I’m still sad that it was pensioned off, albeit not surprised.

Even on a calm day every passenger was issued with a posidrive screwdriver to keep replacing those that fell out e-route.

There’s no denying that last point!! You didn’t travel for comfort, just convenience and talking about noise – that brings us neatly back to the Rotodyne. Inside the Hovercraft was noisier than outside the Rotodyne!!

Perhaps it should also be taken into account that the thing was very early in its development cycle !
I doubt it would have been any worse than the ‘Belvedear’ ; )
I also remember with fondness some very fast crossings on SRN4’s,although in rough weather the middle bit of the crossing was not pleasant when they had to slow right down and there was no escape route from the smell of vomit LOL

The Hovercraft crossed the Channel for 32 years frequently used by yours truly and had it not been for the Tunnel new and better developed craft might have been developed. And the technology is still in use in various forms throughout the world. A deserved legacy of Christopher Cockerill more than 50 years after SRN 1.

Thanks for the replies. It’s a shame there’s not the chance to see one today.
Apart from videos that is.

I notice that in the Youtube video, it has a military serial No. Was it being trialled as a military aircraft at the time ?

Whatever the reasons, it was a fascinating thing. Period promo video here

http://youtu.be/u4Z1UnRZDyo

I guess, in common with many British aviation developments of the time it would have sold a few.

The nearest parallels I can think of would be the Cross-Channel hovercraft, a dead-end now consigned to history.

Moggy

The correct decision at the time? I don’t know but I do recollect that it seemed to have great potential at the time. As seen from today’s perspective it would not have made sense but then, perhaps a different story.

I didn’t see or hear it, but I do know some who did and they said it was very noisy. It was also very heavy, underpowered and would have been very expensive to operate. Did the world need it? Probably not, but I did enjoy making up the Airfix kit!

Regards

HP111 and others have already posted the more likely explanation.

Possibly so, but surely a case of the correct decision being arrived at for the wrong reason?

It turned out right in the end

Moggy