Started by ysi_maniac, April 23, 2016, 02:04:19 PM
Quote from: zenrat on April 23, 2016, 10:33:50 PMThe Germans had the Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 Wagtail which was a manned Autogiro kite launched from U-Boats.
Quote from: Weaver on April 23, 2016, 02:45:47 PMI've always thought so. The usual criticisms of autogyros was that they were small with limited capability, but that was largely due to the fact that the autogyros tested were the ones that were available and they were small ones because they were generally built as private ventures by small companies. I'm not aware of any autogiro of the period with, say, a 500bhp engine.To get take-off and landings on a ship you could either have a disengagable drive to the rotor, or more simply, have a landing platform with reasonably smooth airflow (possibly retractable) and simply steam into wind to allow the autogyro to land vertically relative to the ship. A more powerful machine would also be less vulnerable to over-deck turbulence than a lighter one, in the same manner as fixed-wing planes.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 24, 2016, 11:06:55 PM...Westland Cierva CL.29 , 550hp, never took off due to 'vibration' (ground resonance)...
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2016, 05:23:55 PMQuote from: zenrat on April 23, 2016, 10:33:50 PMThe Germans had the Focke-Achgelis Fa 330 Wagtail which was a manned Autogiro kite launched from U-Boats.I've got a 'kit' of one of those, and it's enclosed in a black paper envelope about 3" x 4"! The whole thing is done in etched nickel-silver, apart from the landing skids which consist of a length of grey styrene rod 1.5 mm in diameter which they expect me to split down the middle before glueing either side of the etched skids!
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on April 24, 2016, 11:06:55 PMNot 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.P.A. 33/33B/34 420 hp, suffered a variety of issues, but generally OK.Westland Cierva CL.29 , 550hp, never took off due to 'vibration' (ground resonance)TSAGI A-12, 670hp, looked like an I-16, originally unstable with serious rotor-headvibration, spring-damping developed after much work, highest speed 153mph, lowest 32mph,destroyed when a rotor-blade disintegrated in flight, a not uncommon problem as girosweights/powers/rotor speeds increased.TSAGI A-15, 700hp, large two-place, 60' rotor, ground resonance as experienced with othercompanies large 'giros, most likely never got off the ground.So work was done on larger more powerful machines, with little result.
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 22 queries.