• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ryan Liftfan VTOL designs & the XV-5

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
82
fightingirish said:
Ryan COIN Vertifan Artwork from 2 Feb 1969 (...) I hope, this is the right topic.
Fantastic pictures! Thank you so much for sharing! (the Ryan buff in me is drooling...)
This may not be the perfect topic for STOL designs but it will do for now, not to worry... ;)
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,001
Reaction score
164
Oops, sorry, actually thought it to be VTOL/VSTOL, especially because of the
mentioned "stopped" prop. Perhaps you can give a name to this child ? Have
browsed to the designations list, but it would be pureguessing from my side ...
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,001
Reaction score
164
Found in "Der Flieger", April 1960, a Ryan fan-in-wing design, somewhat similar to the one
posted by hesham in #4:
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,443
Reaction score
744

Attachments

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
617
Reaction score
170
Hi- Here is more XV-5 art. Sorry for odd sizes but they were scanned from a Ryan brochure. They illustrate the XV-5 accompanying a F-4 strike force and rescuing a downed pilot.
 

Attachments

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
617
Reaction score
170
Couple more drawings showing rescue compartment.
 

Attachments

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
20
Thanks RAP, these are great! the detail on the SAR version of the XV-5 is interesting.
Of course landing the XV-5 right next to the hospital tents is a bit ludicrous given the downwash, but this is pretty cool nonetheless! :)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,443
Reaction score
744
Video was transferred from film and uploaded by forum member "Reelarchives".
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
20
Great videos. I must have seen hundreds of XV-5 pictures and never noticed details such as the thrust attenuators and the shape/hinge layout of the front fan exhaust. Very cool! :)
 

shedofdread

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
404
Reaction score
17
Whilst I believe it is [to a degree] frowned upon to make too many 'thanks for posting' type of replies, when someone takes all that effort to disseminate such information as is contained within those videos, it would very wrong not to say a public 'thank you' to 'Reelarchives'. I don't know about anyone else, but I found them fascinating.

Regards,
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
179
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Video was transferred from film and uploaded by forum member "Reelarchives".
I didn't intend to steal the thunder of Reelarchives, but the video has been on YouTube for four months now. So I reasoned that it was OK for me to share them here on the forums.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,443
Reaction score
744
Yep, just making sure credit was given to the uploader.
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Was there a technical problem which prevented this aircraft from being adopted?
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Hot Breath said:
Was there a technical problem which prevented this aircraft from being adopted?

Hi Hot Breath,


if you meant the whole concept,I know that aircraft (XV-5) not stable in vertical
take off and landing operations,made a chance for impacted hard with the ground
from rear or front part of fuselage,as I read before.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
8
Website
www.tommythomason.com
One metric for VTOL airplanes is disc loading, the gross weight divided by the lift area. Helicopters have a low disc loading. Jet lift has a high disc loading, somewhat reduced if part of the thrust comes from a high-bypass-ratio jet engine (e.g. Harrier and F-35), and provide much higher top speeds than the lowest disc-loading concepts.. Low disc loading is assciated with hover efficiency, low power required, and low downwash. High disc loading is penalized by high fuel burn, high installed power, and high downwash.

It is instructive to note the disc loading of VTOL aircraft concepts that have become operational are on or near* either extreme of the attached chart (sorry for the low resolution but it was the best I could find on the interwebs). The others in the middle—like the tip-driven lift fan, tilt wing, ducted fan, radial-lift propellers, etc.—have all been evaluated, some more than once, and found wanting. They either don't hover efficiently enough or don't fly fast enough to offset their shortcomings in downwash, handling qualities in hover and/or conversion, system complexity, useful load, engine-out capability, etc.

*The tiltrotor (V-22) is a move toward the middle from the low disc-loading end of the chart. The only move at the high end was to an even higher disc-loading configuration, the YAK-38 Forger with lift-engines, and it is no longer operational.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Thank you for this explanation my dear Tailspin.
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,346
Reaction score
208
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hot Breath said:
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
Theoretically.

The tip-jets on a Rotodyne-type vehicle generally have nowhere near the thrust needed to lift the vehicle off the ground directly. Instead, the system is a way to convert the high jet velocity of the tip-jets into low velocity downwash from the rotors. The total *power* is the same (actually, the rotors produce less power than the jets, due to losses), but the vastly larger rotors entrain a far greater mass flow of air. The end result is greater thrust at lower velocity. The same reasoning is why everyone gets thrilled when, at an air show, they see a stripped-down piston engined plane standing on its tail, it's engine running at full power to make the plane just barely hover... but everyone yawns when a helicopter with the same power/weight ratio nonchalantly lifts off and goes straight up. Same power to much larger-diameter blades equals a lower velocity jet but greater thrust.

The Rotordyne was, IIRC, loud enough to turn your brain to paste, and that defeated its utility in urban settings.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,916
Reaction score
24
Hyperbole?

Actually the Rotodyne was no louder than the V-22 Osprey. When the Rotodyne was tested in central London no complaints were received from the surrounding inhabitants to the Battersea heliport.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
8
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Hot Breath said:
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
The problem with what I'll call compound helicopters (rotor lift combined with powerplants that provide thrust and possibly a small wing to unload the rotor) is the drag of the rotor, which is non trivial. Most if not all of the helicopter manufacturers have attempted to make a helicopter go fast that way and been successful. The problem is that the weight of the added propulsion system (and more when a wing is added) reduces the payload and the range on the same amount of fuel is significantly decreased as cruise speed is increased (although you'll get as far as you can at top speed that much faster, just nowhere near as far). As we used to say when marketing the tiltrotor, Bell proved three things with its Huey powered by jet engines: you can make a helicopter go fast, what you put on it to do so equals the payload, and you burn two hours worth of fuel in about 20 minutes at top speed.

The tiltrotor is a viable solution for some missions because the drag of the rotors is eliminated in cruise flight and it uses the same propulsion system for hover and forward flight. So the penalty is mostly the weight of the wing and the conversion system. (Although the disc loading is higher than a helicopters, a bit too high in the case of the V-22, some of the penalty is offset by the ability to use a more twisted rotor blade.)
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,346
Reaction score
208
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

Although promising in concept and successful in trials, the Rotodyne program was eventually cancelled when a combination of politics and lack of commercial orders arising from concerns over high levels of rotor tip-jet noise doomed the project.
...
The one great criticism of the Rotodyne was the noise the tip jets made; however, the jets were only run at full power for a matter of minutes during departure and landing and, indeed, the test pilot Ron Gellatly made two flights over central London and several landings and departures at Battersea Heliport with no complaints being registered,[6] though John Farley, chief test pilot of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier later commented:
<blockquote> From two miles away it would stop a conversation. I mean, the noise of those little jets on the tips of the rotor was just indescribable. So what have we got? The noisiest hovering vehicle the world has yet come up with and you're going to stick it in the middle of a city</blockquote>
There was a noise-reduction programme in process which had managed to reduce the noise level from 113dB to the desired level of 96 dB from 600 ft (180 m) away, less than the noise made by a London Underground train, and at the time of cancellation, silencers were under development, which would have reduced the noise even further — with 95 dB at 200 ft "foreseen",[18] the limitation being the noise created by the rotor itself.[19] This effort, however, was insufficient for BEA who, as expressed by Chairman Sholto Douglas, "would not purchase an aircraft that could not be operated due to noise", and the airline refused to order the Rotodyne, which in turn led to the collapse of the project.
There is more to "noise" than just volume. One of the problems that would come with a design like the Rotodyne is that you would have both the high-pitched screech of the tipjets and the low-frequency thwop of the rotors. With a conventional helicopter you have the noise produced by the turboshaft engine, but the difference between the turboshaft and the tipjets can be pretty striking. The tipjets and the turboshaft might produce the same power, might be equivalently loud, but the tipjets will be individually smaller than the turboshaft. In general this makes them higher pitched, especially given that the tip jets on the Rotodyne were not tip *turbojets,* but basically rocket engines. If you want to make a horrible racket, it's hard to beat rocket engines.
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Tailspin Turtle said:
Hot Breath said:
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
The problem with what I'll call compound helicopters (rotor lift combined with powerplants that provide thrust and possibly a small wing to unload the rotor) is the drag of the rotor, which is non trivial. Most if not all of the helicopter manufacturers have attempted to make a helicopter go fast that way and been successful. The problem is that the weight of the added propulsion system (and more when a wing is added) reduces the payload and the range on the same amount of fuel is significantly decreased as cruise speed is increased (although you'll get as far as you can at top speed that much faster, just nowhere near as far). As we used to say when marketing the tiltrotor, Bell proved three things with its Huey powered by jet engines: you can make a helicopter go fast, what you put on it to do so equals the payload, and you burn two hours worth of fuel in about 20 minutes at top speed.

The tiltrotor is a viable solution for some missions because the drag of the rotors is eliminated in cruise flight and it uses the same propulsion system for hover and forward flight. So the penalty is mostly the weight of the wing and the conversion system. (Although the disc loading is higher than a helicopters, a bit too high in the case of the V-22, some of the penalty is offset by the ability to use a more twisted rotor blade.)
Thank you but I find that somewhat confusing. Surely the same propulsion system is used in both hover and forward flight for the Rotodyne, all that changes is where the efflux comes out? The rotors may create drag in forward flight but they also contribute significant lift, so the problem of drag is somewhat offset. What is eliminated is the heavy gearbox for the rotors, so there is significant weight saving, while the large rotor area creates far more lift than the small wing can in forward flight, so a heavy payload can be carried. It appears to be a different series of compromises, rather than necessarily one system (Rotodyne) is necessarily significantly better than another (tilt-rotor). Both were/are too specialised for civilian operation anyway.

I appreciate that we are straying somewhat from the original purpose of the thread.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
8
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Hot Breath said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
Hot Breath said:
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
The problem with what I'll call compound helicopters (rotor lift combined with powerplants that provide thrust and possibly a small wing to unload the rotor) is the drag of the rotor, which is non trivial. Most if not all of the helicopter manufacturers have attempted to make a helicopter go fast that way and been successful. The problem is that the weight of the added propulsion system (and more when a wing is added) reduces the payload and the range on the same amount of fuel is significantly decreased as cruise speed is increased (although you'll get as far as you can at top speed that much faster, just nowhere near as far). As we used to say when marketing the tiltrotor, Bell proved three things with its Huey powered by jet engines: you can make a helicopter go fast, what you put on it to do so equals the payload, and you burn two hours worth of fuel in about 20 minutes at top speed.

The tiltrotor is a viable solution for some missions because the drag of the rotors is eliminated in cruise flight and it uses the same propulsion system for hover and forward flight. So the penalty is mostly the weight of the wing and the conversion system. (Although the disc loading is higher than a helicopters, a bit too high in the case of the V-22, some of the penalty is offset by the ability to use a more twisted rotor blade.)
Thank you but I find that somewhat confusing. Surely the same propulsion system is used in both hover and forward flight for the Rotodyne, all that changes is where the efflux comes out? The rotors may create drag in forward flight but they also contribute significant lift, so the problem of drag is somewhat offset. What is eliminated is the heavy gearbox for the rotors, so there is significant weight saving, while the large rotor area creates far more lift than the small wing can in forward flight, so a heavy payload can be carried. It appears to be a different series of compromises, rather than necessarily one system (Rotodyne) is necessarily significantly better than another (tilt-rotor). Both were/are too specialised for civilian operation anyway.

I appreciate that we are straying somewhat from the original purpose of the thread.
From a powerplant standpoint, the Rotodyne was somewhat better than kludge originally used for compound helicopters, which was a separate set of propulsion engines. However, it still had both the rotor/hot-gas ducting and propellers/gearboxes systems that are more redundant, heavy, and problematic than the corresponding tiltrotor interconnect system and conversion actuator, not to mention the Rotodyne's lower cruise speed and higher fuel consumption. Your characterization of helicopter rotor lift over drag with speed is incorrect; while not good at low speeds (for a dramatic illustration of maximum helicopter lift-over-drag versus an airplane's, have your only engine fail in flight: In a helicopter, you'll be looking between your feet and over the side for a place to land; in an airplane, you'll be looking there as well as much more toward the horizon), it becomes even worse at not very high speeds (200 mph) due to the rapidly increasing drag of the advancing blade tip as it reaches transonic speed and the loss of lift on the retreating blade. That's why most compound helicopters have a wing to unload the rotor in forward flight and the Sikorsky XH-59A and X2 have a coaxial rotor.

For a mission standpoint, the compound helicopter (to include the Sikorsky X2) and the tiltrotor address very different requirements. The compounds are basically a helicopter with the capability of a somewhat higher cruise speed, albeit with a reduction of its useful load (payload and/or range) that increases notably with speed. The tiltrotor achieves higher cruise speeds and range than a compound helicopter of the same size, equal to that of a turboprop airplane's (there is a useful load penalty, however, because of the higher installed power, etc.) and hover/autorotation capability not too inferior to a helicopter's. In other words, if there's a runway at both ends of the trip, an airplane is better than a tiltrotor or helicopter. If there is no runway at one end and the origin and destination aren't too far apart, a helicopter is better than a tiltrotor. In the latter case, if time enroute is absolutely critical and the distance is short enough, then a compound helicopter is worth considering; up to now, the marginal increase in cruise/dash speed of the compound helicopter has not proved worth the reduction in payload/range.

As for civil operation, AgustaWestland still plans to certify the AW609 tiltrotor and an airliner derivative of the V-22, while unlikely, is justifiable in some situations that may yet develop.
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Tailspin Turtle said:
Hot Breath said:
Tailspin Turtle said:
Hot Breath said:
Thanks for that explanation. So, I assume the Fairey Rotodyne, despite using tip driven jets for its rotors works out quite well?
The problem with what I'll call compound helicopters (rotor lift combined with powerplants that provide thrust and possibly a small wing to unload the rotor) is the drag of the rotor, which is non trivial. Most if not all of the helicopter manufacturers have attempted to make a helicopter go fast that way and been successful. The problem is that the weight of the added propulsion system (and more when a wing is added) reduces the payload and the range on the same amount of fuel is significantly decreased as cruise speed is increased (although you'll get as far as you can at top speed that much faster, just nowhere near as far). As we used to say when marketing the tiltrotor, Bell proved three things with its Huey powered by jet engines: you can make a helicopter go fast, what you put on it to do so equals the payload, and you burn two hours worth of fuel in about 20 minutes at top speed.

The tiltrotor is a viable solution for some missions because the drag of the rotors is eliminated in cruise flight and it uses the same propulsion system for hover and forward flight. So the penalty is mostly the weight of the wing and the conversion system. (Although the disc loading is higher than a helicopters, a bit too high in the case of the V-22, some of the penalty is offset by the ability to use a more twisted rotor blade.)
Thank you but I find that somewhat confusing. Surely the same propulsion system is used in both hover and forward flight for the Rotodyne, all that changes is where the efflux comes out? The rotors may create drag in forward flight but they also contribute significant lift, so the problem of drag is somewhat offset. What is eliminated is the heavy gearbox for the rotors, so there is significant weight saving, while the large rotor area creates far more lift than the small wing can in forward flight, so a heavy payload can be carried. It appears to be a different series of compromises, rather than necessarily one system (Rotodyne) is necessarily significantly better than another (tilt-rotor). Both were/are too specialised for civilian operation anyway.

I appreciate that we are straying somewhat from the original purpose of the thread.
From a powerplant standpoint, the Rotodyne was somewhat better than kludge originally used for compound helicopters, which was a separate set of propulsion engines. However, it still had both the rotor/hot-gas ducting and propellers/gearboxes systems that are more redundant, heavy, and problematic than the corresponding tiltrotor interconnect system and conversion actuator, not to mention the Rotodyne's lower cruise speed and higher fuel consumption. Your characterization of helicopter rotor lift over drag with speed is incorrect; while not good at low speeds (for a dramatic illustration of maximum helicopter lift-over-drag versus an airplane's, have your only engine fail in flight: In a helicopter, you'll be looking between your feet and over the side for a place to land; in an airplane, you'll be looking there as well as much more toward the horizon), it becomes even worse at not very high speeds (200 mph) due to the rapidly increasing drag of the advancing blade tip as it reaches transonic speed and the loss of lift on the retreating blade. That's why most compound helicopters have a wing to unload the rotor in forward flight and the Sikorsky XH-59A and X2 have a coaxial rotor.

For a mission standpoint, the compound helicopter (to include the Sikorsky X2) and the tiltrotor address very different requirements. The compounds are basically a helicopter with the capability of a somewhat higher cruise speed, albeit with a reduction of its useful load (payload and/or range) that increases notably with speed. The tiltrotor achieves higher cruise speeds and range than a compound helicopter of the same size, equal to that of a turboprop airplane's (there is a useful load penalty, however, because of the higher installed power, etc.) and hover/autorotation capability not too inferior to a helicopter's. In other words, if there's a runway at both ends of the trip, an airplane is better than a tiltrotor or helicopter. If there is no runway at one end and the origin and destination aren't too far apart, a helicopter is better than a tiltrotor. In the latter case, if time enroute is absolutely critical and the distance is short enough, then a compound helicopter is worth considering; up to now, the marginal increase in cruise/dash speed of the compound helicopter has not proved worth the reduction in payload/range.
You keep mentioning gearboxes. There are none in the Rotodyne except for the two which are part of the Eland turboprops. The ducting would not add significant weight to the desire, afterall, it's just tubing and would weigh significantly less than any gearboxes and shafts which are part of a tiltrotor design? Are you suggesting that a helicopter the same size as the Rotodyne would carry significantly larger loads than the Rotodyne further but slower? Wasn't the whole point of the Rotodyne that it was significantly faster than a comparable helicopter?

As for civil operation, AgustaWestland still plans to certify the AW609 tiltrotor and an airliner derivative of the V-22, while unlikely, is justifiable in some situations that may yet develop.
As I understand it, they are still looking for firm customer orders.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Unknown USA VTOL Surveillance & Recce Aircraft Project of 1960s

Hi,

here is unknown VTOL surveillance and recce low-wing aircraft project of 1961,intended for
army and had a lift fans in fuselage,can anyone ID it ?,page 33;

http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=1ZUDOCzJUrcC&pg=PA32&dq=flying+magazine+jan+1961&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iS8MVOq_GIjDO4_dgdAJ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAzg8#v=onepage&q=flying%20magazine%20jan%201961&f=false
 

Attachments

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,665
Reaction score
33
Re: Unknown USA VTOL Surveillance & Recce Aircraft Project of 1960s

Interesting!
When the U.S. Army had ambition ;)

Regards
Pioneer
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,918
Reaction score
269
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLkkZhhoEtg
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
82
hesham said:
here is the Ryan VTOL Vertifan or fan-in-wing aircraft project of 1960s.
Not "the", but "a" Ryan Vertifan, one of the many designs that were elaborated during the 1960s under the Vertifan name.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
In Flying Review 7/1963,


they spoke about strike fighter project,based on XV-5,and powered by one J85 Turbojet
with three lift fan,what was it ?.
 

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
82
Browsing through an old index of blueprints (probably from SDASM) I've just come across the mention of a VTO-Executive variant of the Vertifan, also under the Model 143 designation. The closest thing I've found to this description in my files is this Vertifan project, but I can't say for sure if it's just that, or another project of the same era.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Thank you my dear Skyblazer.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Re: Unknown USA VTOL Surveillance & Recce Aircraft Project of 1960s

Hi,


here is a small info about that mystery surveillance and recce aircraft project,maybe we
can ID it.


Самолеты вертикального взлета и посадки (1966)
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,443
Reaction score
744
Re: Unknown USA VTOL Surveillance & Recce Aircraft Project of 1960s

Looks like the Soviet textbook simply stole these and painted over the US insignia.
 
Top