Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: ysi_maniac on April 24, 2016, 04:59:32 AM
-
Would it be intelligent to embark an autogyro in post WWI battleships? instead of hydroplanes.
-
I suppose it is possible - one would need to clear a deck area though. I am also not sure if airflow around the deck et might cause difficulties.
-
I suppose it is possible - one would need to clear a deck area though. I am also not sure if airflow around the deck et might cause difficulties.
If placed on the fan tail it would be fine. Airflow would allow the rotor to spin up without engine input. While it might not be able to hover very well, it would be able to make a land on without too many difficulties. However, their load carrying ability was extremely small. Look at the IJA experience on their escort carriers to see what I mean.
-
As I said on the same thread over on What If, the types of autogiros tested were small and of limited capability because only small ones were available. Had an autogiro of comparable size and power to contemporary fighters or recce aircraft been available, it might have been a very different story. The IJA's autogiros had just 240bhp: imagine what you could do with 750bhp....
-
Not really as the autogiro was a late-20s conception that was
under constant development until the late-30s when it finally
reached the abilities hoped for by its creators. The only successful
'large' autogiro was the Pitcairn PA-19 and it was of the earlier,
four-bladed rotor with wings design. With The later three-bladed
direct control wingless type, none of the larger, heavier types built
were successful, with ground resonance being the critical difficulty
and cause of crashes. Bigger more powerful engines just created
bigger problems, adding horsepower was not a viable solution.
Sitting on the fantail the airflow from the forward motion of the ship
would not be enough to spin a large rotor to takeoff speed and even
if you got it going fast enough, it wouldn't enable vertical takeoff,
autogiros with a rotor-spinup drive still required a take-off run,
jump-start capability machines were a separate, more involved
development.
Interestingly Weir's team under Bennet at Cierva in
Britain and Pitcairn's folks under Stanley at American Autogiro
Corporation and Pitcairn were both working on advanced
designs with powered spinup jumpstart rotors and buried engines
driving pusher or tandem props.
Pitcairn referred to their work as the 'composite' or 'autogiro-helicopter',
Weir called the UK version the 'gyrodyne'. Letters between the two discussing
the projects and descriptions in Pitcairn's papers are dated from 1937-1939.
:icon_fsm:
-
A most interesting post Jon. :)
Like to see what current tech autogyro would be like.
-
Film of Japanese autogyros including shipboard ops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EFt7cLCRSY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EFt7cLCRSY)
The take-off run is pretty short.
Even if a shipboard autogyro did require a low-powered catapult to get airborne, the ability to land back aboard would still be a huge advantage over seaplanes.
-
Do not recall the name of the company but the German Navy had a small autogyro that was intended to be deployed on their submarines. It would be used as a search platform while tethered to the submarine as it cruised on the surface. A search platform with room for one observer/operator that would be winched back down to the submarine and stowed in a watertight container before the submarine submerged.
I read about that in an old Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, or maybe the Mechanics Illustrated published during the WW2 that I had many years ago. It was all quite interesting, interesting enough to remember all these years later :)
-
This one Jeff?
Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_330)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/FA-330_Bachstelze2.jpg/1024px-FA-330_Bachstelze2.jpg)
Note there are no pontoons so .... :o
-
Thanks Carl. Yes, that is the autogyro that was described in the article.
-
BTW folks the correct spelling of the name bestowed by the inventor is autogiro.
:icon_fsm:
-
Has anyone seen or considered a twin rotor autogiro? I'm thinking of something equivalent to a autogiro equivalent to the Focke Achgelis Fa 223 Drache.
-
The only successful
'large' autogiro was the Pitcairn PA-19 and it was of the earlier,
four-bladed rotor with wings design.
A very attractive design:
(http://www.aerofiles.com/pitc-pa19.jpg)
-
The Pitcairn PA-38 was an interesting proposal
(http://www.aerofiles.com/pitc-pa38art.jpg)
-
Finally, there was the Pitcairn XO-61 (aka, PA-44, YO-61 & A.G.A. XO-61): It was in competition with the Kellett YO-60 and the Sikorsky R-4, but fell victim to cooling problems with its rear-mounted engine and the coming of the helicopter with its ability to hover.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Pitcairn_XO-61.JPG)(http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=92675&d=1335477010)(http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=92676&d=1335477010)
(http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=92674&d=1335477010)
-
My question was oriented to produce what can,arguably, be the smallest whif project ever done ...
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro01.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro01.jpg.html)
... well, in fact this will be part of my Acorazado Libertad.
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro02.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro02.jpg.html)
Inspired by Pitcairn PA-38
http://www.aerofiles.com/pitc-pa38art.jpg (http://www.aerofiles.com/pitc-pa38art.jpg)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro03.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro03.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro04.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/ModellingProjects/AcorazadoLibertad/autogiro04.jpg.html)
This model is scale 1/600. Then 2,50 cms corresponds to 15 m. This makes me think in the size of some medium bomber of WWII. I assume this could be an useful aircraft
What do you think?
-
Germany, 1941
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/cb/8c/f7cb8cf7829f811e746f74af65beeb8c.jpg)
-
Good luck with that tiny rotor. ;D