ianclivewright (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Given the complexity of a helicopter coupled with its slow speed, and the need of fixed wing aircraft to have a longish runway, I'd have thought the military would have had these. I would have thought, in the field it would be far easier to maintain, and far simpler to boot.Can't believe there isn't a market in the Third World, where rugged terrain and poor maintenance are probably the norm

hobomike1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

if a 747 goes down in the ocean there wont be anyone to save. I like this thing though.

peepeevagi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Who said passengers?A couple of companies, i could rule the world if i could Cite references >.>, have and/or are trying to develop VTOL "Rotodyne" Style craft.Apparantly retro faux po-mo-futuristic is the way to go.

rockyPants4000 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Huh? What people want to see VTOL airliners? Can you cite a study please? Most people hate airport security, lack of seat room, being stuck on the tarmac for hours, paying extra for onboard food and checked baggage.Taking off vertically is not at the top of any passenger's wish list.As far as short distance travel, it's now faster to drive a car, than to check in and out of two airport less than 300 miles apart, so there is absolutely no market for passenger VTOL. Still a cool aircraft!

peepeevagi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Well put it thisaway.It's a recurring trend, people wanna see Vtol airliners and personal aircraft.This IS the answer. Not to mention the other uses.Say a Boeing 747 goes down in the ocean.You can get half of the passengers to safety in one bloody go!

rockyPants4000 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Cool aircraft and cool name!But there's no "helpfull" issue this would solve in "today's market".Vertical takeoff and landing never has been and never will be necessary for civilian airline flight, airports work just fine.This would make a cool private transport though! Sign me up!

jaf569l (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

60% Rotor 40% wings. It was not brain shatteringly loud. It was at first but subsequent developement reduced this down to 95db. A new multijet nozzel design would have reduced it to 85db. It was flown into and out of Battersea Heliport several times and nobody noticed.

jaf569l (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Wrong! The problem was Duncan Sands! He ordered that the main British aviation industry companies should merge so Fairy were merged with Westland to make the UK lead Helicopter builder. The Rotodyne was caught in the middle of this. The next problem was the Rotodyne needed development to utilise Tyne engines and upsizing. The newly merged company approached the government for assistance which was turned down. Boeing did not want US forces using a UK aircraft so some bungs were paid!!

EnigmaNZ1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The problem with this is that it was British, and built at a time of defence cuts that put all the development costs onto the developers. A big order from the US for 200 never eventuated due to the cost of the Vietnam war iirc, so development was cancelled. What really peeves me is that instead of putting the protypes into an aircraft museum, they were scapped, so these vids are all we have today of this remarkable craft. Imagine it built today with modern materials, fast and safe transport.

Arcmate (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Gas was bled off from the turbines and fed to tip jets on the rotorblades - no torque problems which is why it had no tail rotor. After take off, I believe it flew mainly on it's wings and the rotor rotated like an autogyro. On approach to landing, the tip jets were powered up and it made a helicopter style landing. Somehow, it wasn't taken up by any operators although it seems totally plausable and contemporary now. It was brain shatteringly loud on take off if you were outside apparently.