This to do with my ongoing "Why the Chinese play cricket" timeline. Is an 11 seat plus pilot and copilot a practical proposition in the mid 30s
Transport autogyro - A question for the panel
- Thread starter Miss Construction
- Start date
Perhaps greater CW sponsorship of De la Cierva's designs - perhaps initially as a ship to shore mail and VIP delivery aircraft for liners?
The Spanish were performing ship baord ops by March 1934 - perhaps with greater interest from their lordships this happens earlier on CW ships?
The major problem with large autogyro design was the increase in hub stress as blade disc area is enlarged. Accordingly, if there was some reason to have an 11 passenger autogyro in say 1934, it would be possible to lay out a two fuselage, four rotor configuration with the fuselages spaced a rotor diameter apart at opposite ends of a wing and horizontal stabilizer. Fore and aft, the rotor masts would straddle the center of gravity location, again spaced a rotor diameter apart. Engines in the nose of each fuselage- the pilot and five victims in the left fuse. and the remaining six in the other.
It would be possible to spin-up the rotors in flat pitch while on the ground for a jump takeoff or, assuming counter rotation, to bleed some engine power into the rotors to lower stall speed (maybe this last is too complicated). Anyhow the large area of the interconnecting, full flapped wing would insure very short takeoff. Anybody want one?
Dynasoar
It would be possible to spin-up the rotors in flat pitch while on the ground for a jump takeoff or, assuming counter rotation, to bleed some engine power into the rotors to lower stall speed (maybe this last is too complicated). Anyhow the large area of the interconnecting, full flapped wing would insure very short takeoff. Anybody want one?
Dynasoar
A practical proposition, yes. But the technology needed is several years ahead of what was currently being developed then.
So either you have to start an ambitious design challenge in 1930 and fund it through 1935 in order to see the first series production in 1937- and mind you, the first phase will be smack in the middle of the Great Depression. Or you have to wank away the Depression in the first place
Alternative you can speed up the development of autogiros in the late 1920's so that by 1933, producers can think of building flying trucks and busses instead of flying motorcycles.
Alternatively you can just have Howard Hughes decide that autogiros are his best way to get a foot in the door in the airplane market and stick it to the Boeings and Curtisses of the nation. IRL, he spent most of his career with a chip on his shoulder because he was convinced the big aircraft manufacturers were conspiring against him to keep him from getting any government contracts, and the big airlines were even worse.... So if some time traveling doctor (of psychoanalysis) In 1927 wisper the word 'autogiro' in his ear, he could very well abandon his efforts to be a film director and become a full-time autogiro maker. And in 1935 we'd have the first flaprotor shuttle bus. Of course Hughes bring Hughes, he'll abandon the project in 1937 after only 15 examples being built. Afterwards it will be revealed that the whole enterprise was a giant money pit and that the autogiros sold were priced below their production cost.
Thank you all. In the timeline, due to a whole series of events stretching back to the 1870s, the British empire not only has a considerably higher GDP, it's also been insulated from the Great Depression to a significant degree. So the money is there. I'll have to throw in starting the program circa 1932, so its ready by 1939. Sounds good to me. Plus it may jump start helicopters.
Oh and shameless self promotion. This is the timeline this comes from. I'm trying for a dieselpunk 30s and then going beyond that.
Why the Chinese play cricket
Why the Chinese play cricket
Awww shucks, you'll make me blush lol.
Which as anyone who knows me will tell you, is a remarkably hard thing to do.
Well as a regular follower of Why the Chinese play cricket I will add my kudos and recommendation.
As for the original question, it might also depend on having higher quality engines. With a higher horse power and heat generation, it might be possible. I do not know specifics, but thought I might suggest this.
As for the original question, it might also depend on having higher quality engines. With a higher horse power and heat generation, it might be possible. I do not know specifics, but thought I might suggest this.
I've actually pushed Autogyro development so by 1930 it's about three or four years ahead which should give me my mega autogyros by 1935.
Miss C,
If you are interested in what I've learned is called "Steam Punk". check out my steam lifted and powered semi-rigid airships in a recent thread. They would work, with numbers and all-
(Edit) Forgot to mention, the four rotor configuration I described was to permit use of existing Pitcarin or Kellett autogyro rotors. Larger rotor design would be the long lead-time item. What I suggested could be flying in less than a year with 1933 technology.
Dynasoar
If you are interested in what I've learned is called "Steam Punk". check out my steam lifted and powered semi-rigid airships in a recent thread. They would work, with numbers and all-
(Edit) Forgot to mention, the four rotor configuration I described was to permit use of existing Pitcarin or Kellett autogyro rotors. Larger rotor design would be the long lead-time item. What I suggested could be flying in less than a year with 1933 technology.
Dynasoar
Last edited:
These are in truth meant as novelties in the timeline. Existing on the fringes to add colour
Just read the latest updates. Now to get them to go after insurgents in the remote deserts and mountains.
His Majesty's Gurkha Special Air Service!
Hm, I don't think so. That's one of the downsides of autogyros. They can land and take-off fluidly and gently (though they need a runway), but they are rather limited in the amount of mass (and thus weight) they can take aboard. All autogyros to date have been small machines, because there's a limit to what an aircraft with that sort of propulsion and flight setup can carry without its performance getting a serious hit. The reason you don't see large autogyros, nevermind transport autogyros, is because of those size and weight limitations. The whole point of traditional "gyros" is that they're small rotorplanes/rotorcraft, useful for recreation or recon, but not much else. Look up some contemporary autogyro videos on YouTube. You'll notice that even the bigger, comfortable ones, with fully-enclosed cockpits, are very much in the vein of small two-seater helicopters.
The biggest transport role I could see for a conventional autogyro would be serving as a small bush plane, transporting a very small amount of baggage and cargo along with passengers. (I suppose it could carry one or two bigger packages of medicine to frontier settlements in some wilderness with a runway, but definitely not something as big as a single crate. The autogyro simply doesn't have the space or the carrying capacity.)
However, all is not lost ! You might find the OTL Fairey Rotodyne design interesting. A development of previous smaller gyrodyne prototypes, this was the largest gyroplane ever built, but it never entered mass production. The distinction between a regular autogyro and a gyrodyne is that the latter has motor-assist for the main rotor and can VTOL like a helicopter, but tends to have a free-spinning rotor during regular flight. The majority of OTL development work on gyrodyne designs was done by Fairey Aviation Company in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s. Due to economic difficulties, it became one of those technological dead ends of OTL aviation.
Last edited: