Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 14:50 GMT
If I recall the Rotodyne was very noisy when the engines were ignited, but not much noisier than a regular helicopter once up and running. The design team were certainly in the process of making further silencing changes when the project was cancelled.
Rotodyne, Blue Streak, VC10, TSR2, Emma Peel and Thunderbirds - just how cool was Britain in the 1960s?
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 15:25 GMT
Looks and sounds like a First Class Private Business Flying Machine with Virtual Proxy Stealth Controls, which is bound to be AIdDARPA Business Interest.
Perceptions Management Control Interests......with BeMusements Clarified Perfectly. Using Military Brains to Server and Protect Innovative Business Interests will Destroy the War Franchise .... Its very Own Cancer.
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 15:25 GMT
Noise was the Rotodyne's biggest problem.
All efforts go in to making aircraft as quiet as possible on and near the ground (it upsets the locals) but who cares how much noise you make at 35,000ft.
Sadly the Rotodyne design makes more noise on/near the ground that at any other time. But then having 4 compressed air nozzels venting to atmosphear at the tip of each rotor is never going to be THAT quiet!
If anyone is interested you can still see the rotodyne prototype at the International Helicopter Museum (http://www.helicoptermuseum.co.uk/)... well, what's left of it...a fuselage loop about 4ft long.
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 15:25 GMT
Much better kit is already out there and working. The Carter Copter lands and takes off vertically, can do 450mph, achieves mu=1 and looks goddam cool as well. check out: www.cartercopters.com they even have vids of it in action.
Mine's the white one with the furry dice
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 19:50 GMT
I don't understand why they contracted this out. Surely the answer was to purloin some more alien technology. Just ask the CIA to shoot down another spaceship, only this time go for one with spinny things on the top.
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 20:17 GMT
"a reduction in force that reduces its employee work force"
PS. Why can't the comment form remember that I don't want it to remember me on this computer? ; )
Posted Tuesday 3rd June 2008 08:05 GMT
So isn't this more or less just another modern reinterpretation of the X-Wing (aka Sikorsky S-72)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-72
Posted Tuesday 3rd June 2008 08:12 GMT
"I don't understand why they contracted this out. Surely the answer was to purloin some more alien technology. Just ask the CIA to shoot down another spaceship, only this time go for one with spinny things on the top." ..... By Andy Bright
Posted Monday 2nd June 2008 19:17 GMT
Sure can't fault the Logic in that Submission, Andy. And who would lay any such Claim to an Alien Fleet with Advanced Technologies Morphing into Methodologies?....auka Global Operating Devices [also universely known as]
And the Bill God Icon because there's money aplenty to be Made and Shared for Spending on IT...... IPCurrent Energising Currency Flow/Markets Action.
Posted Tuesday 3rd June 2008 10:17 GMT
Forget all these new-fangled designs - simply get some jump-cables on Thunderbird 2 and you're sorted.
Mines the blue jacket with the gold sash....
Posted Tuesday 3rd June 2008 19:33 GMT
merely sleeping!
The problem is that the majority of tech companies involved with DARPA, or any government "stimulus" (like all the so-called "green" tech and electric car companies of Algorean ilk) are *not* about making or researching a product or technology-their company exists for the sole purpose of *obtaining Government money*. No other reason. So when there's not enough windfall being stolen from taxpayers' pockets, the company decides it's not profitable to keep up the sham. It then "goes away" and the principals involved recreate another "company" to cash in on the next ill-advised porkbarrel project ("green energy", "security", recycling, whatever).
However, if a technology actually has real promise, someone somewhere will create a company to sell it:
http://www.cartercopters.com
Back to the article
