Fairey Rotodyne tactical transport

[spaceshiprepairman]

I was finally able to find at a fair price the 1/78 Revell Fairey Rotodyne. While the aircraft itself does hold enough fascination for me to want to try an OOB with an alternate paint scheme(say a commuter subsidiary of BOAC, or similar), I've been wondering if this might've made a reasonably good tactical transport. I've seen discussions in the past of arming this as a gunship like the Apache or others, were it to have been produced for the military to carry arms and kill things, it wouldn't be a gunship, but a tactical transport, like the Mil Hind. Yes, that ugly beast does carry all manner of offensive stuff, but it also carries 8 fully equipped troops, making it a tactical transport. 

 

So, thinks I, it'd be nifty with fully kitted troops, as well as light vehicles like the SEALs' very aggressive dune buggies. And in addition to all manner of biologically offensive things that go boom, I've also been thinking of something in her tummy, something that shoots, kinda like Schrage muzik that the Germans used during WW2, only instead of firing at an angle upward, why not a quartet of something that shoots mounted in or on(in would be preferable, the part that peaks out would be a lot simpler, perhaps just some barrels poking out at a 30 degree angle downward. Perhaps even, given her size, more than one row of guns. 

 

However, given that I like to share what I learn, anyone else have any helpful suggestions(like "get your head examined"), I welcome them(glutton for punishment that I am). 

 

Besides that, another possibility would be a FAA COD for UnReps(underway replenishments)

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

I also have this kit, although I will stick with one of the prototype schemes. Nevertheless, if you are going down the ˝what if tactical transport˝ road, my suggestion would be to hang as much as possible ordnance bellow those stub wings. Cheers

Jure

[spaceshiprepairman]

Unless I make the ordinance ad other things from scratch, given the odd scale, if I can afford it, find someone with a 3d printer, and blow it up to 1/72. The kit then would be an oob. But it's not a matter of hanging all kinds of stuff on the wings(them too, however), but the fuselage, sides and belly, with ordinance at specific stations. A friend of mine did a whif of a terrorist Cessna 172 that had all manner of ordinance to the point where the full size wouldn't've been able to taxi ten feet before the landing gear collapsed. Think a Mi24 that had been given growth hormones. 

[Graham Boak]

There have been a number of published works dealing with why the RAF didn't get the light transport they wanted (the Herald).  The competitors were the Caribou which the Army wanted, and the Rotodyne Z which nobody did but seemed like it might a good idea.  The key problem with both was that they needed many more airframes than the Herald to meet the Army's requirements, and failed to meet all but the shortest-ranged RAF ones.  Cost, possible development problems and noise were also drawbacks of the enlarged Rotodyne.

 

I haven't been able to track down the published pieces, at least one was in an Air Britain publication but I can't find anything where I expected, in Chris Gibson's On Atlas' Shoulders. (Great book anyway, as are all his works.) 

[Jure Miljevic]

My apologies, spaceshiprepairman, I missed the OOB rule. Does this limits your options to spare box and AM stuff that can pass as being in 1/78 scale? Cheers

Jure

[spaceshiprepairman]

Gosh no. I never heard of such a rule. 

[Jure Miljevic]

Neither did I but one never knows. Around here OOB category used to allowed up to 15% of modifications - and that included improvements like cutting Bf 109 kit's fuselage and inserting plug(s) to correct kit's length. I understand these days dropping flaps on a model counts as a major surgery.

Back to the matter at hand: I agree with your realistic approach but I am afraid this severely limits your options. Position of nose undercarriage cancels out chin turret and while heavy weapons like (hypothetical, of course) landing area clearing version of Tall Boy would have been easily within Rotodyne's lifting capability, it would have been impossible to push such Daisy Cutter lookalike out and still remain airborne. So my suggestion would be to mount suitable external fuel tanks (Hunter's 230 gal. would be fine) under the wings (a must if you decide on COD what if), Matra 115 unguided rocket pods on wing tips and perhaps flare dispenser near engines' exhausts. Not much, but I hope it helps. Cheers

Jure

 

[Des]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

There have been a number of published works dealing with why the RAF didn't get the light transport they wanted (the Herald).  The competitors were the Caribou which the Army wanted, and the Rotodyne Z which nobody did but seemed like it might a good idea.  The key problem with both was that they needed many more airframes than the Herald to meet the Army's requirements, and failed to meet all but the shortest-ranged RAF ones.  Cost, possible development problems and noise were also drawbacks of the enlarged Rotodyne.

 

I haven't been able to track down the published pieces, at least one was in an Air Britain publication but I can't find anything where I expected, in Chris Gibson's On Atlas' Shoulders. (Great book anyway, as are all his works.) 

 

Got a copy of this a while back , lot of interesting information and brand new copies still available for ten pounds with free shipping on Amazon  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fairey-Rotodyne-David-Gibbings/dp/0752449168/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=fairey+rotodyne&qid=1569261150&s=gateway&sr=8-2

[spaceshiprepairman]

On 9/23/2019 at 12:50 PM, Jure Miljevic said:

Neither did I but one never knows. Around here OOB category used to allowed up to 15% of modifications - and that included improvements like cutting Bf 109 kit's fuselage and inserting plug(s) to correct kit's length. I understand these days dropping flaps on a model counts as a major surgery.

Back to the matter at hand: I agree with your realistic approach but I am afraid this severely limits your options. Position of nose undercarriage cancels out chin turret and while heavy weapons like (hypothetical, of course) landing area clearing version of Tall Boy would have been easily within Rotodyne's lifting capability, it would have been impossible to push such Daisy Cutter lookalike out and still remain airborne. So my suggestion would be to mount suitable external fuel tanks (Hunter's 230 gal. would be fine) under the wings (a must if you decide on COD what if), Matra 115 unguided rocket pods on wing tips and perhaps flare dispenser near engines' exhausts. Not much, but I hope it helps. Cheers

Jure

 

Welp, I am going for a realistic whif, that is, everything and anything that it would've been capable of lifting and flying. My apologies, but as a real life A&P mechanic, I can't accept "hang anything anywhere you want. If I wanted a toy for amusement, then I'd go that child's route(hang all the cool stuff my imagine could think, and hang reality). I'd rather see what would fit within more realistic and restrictive factors. That's the way I swing.

[Jure Miljevic]

My concerns about were about OOB limitations which prevent modifications like moving nose undercarriage slightly aft which in your case would allow for installation of a chin turret. Otherwise I agree with you: to me even Fw 190 with BT1400 under her belly looks just ridiculous despite the fact that she actually flew in such a configuration! Cheers

Jure

[spaceshiprepairman]

Welp, funny you should say that, because I met someone on facebook who has a couple Rotodynes, one 1/72, the other 1/48 he makes from a 3d printer. While the quarter scale Rotodyne would be perfect(my preferred scale), the price is a tad dear for my taste at 130 pounds sterling, the 1/72 more affordable at 40. In case you're interested, his name is Rikki Wolfe. 

 

So, I think if I ask him to consider ceratain mods, such as the repositioned nose gear and others.

[Jure Miljevic]

Sounds promising but I already have Airfix's boxing of Rotodyne, although kit's scale is somewhat unusual. Then again, through the years I built several kits in odd scales and I was quite pleased with results in most of the cases. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads up. Cheers

Jure

[junglierating]

14 hours ago, spaceshiprepairman said:

Welp, I am going for a realistic whif, that is, everything and anything that it would've been capable of lifting and flying. My apologies, but as a real life A&P mechanic, I can't accept "hang anything anywhere you want. If I wanted a toy for amusement, then I'd go that child's route(hang all the cool stuff my imagine could think, and hang reality). I'd rather see what would fit within more realistic and restrictive factors. That's the way I swing.

Ah someone who likes his weight and moment calculations 🤣🤣🤣

[spaceshiprepairman]

Well, that is the problem with being an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic, stuck in realism. And I've seen enough fantasy for several lifetimes.