This Plane Almost Reinvented Travel: What Went Wrong?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 окт 2019
- Watch More Mustard Videos & Support The Channel: nebula.tv/mustard
Support Mustard on Patreon: / mustardchannel
Mustard Merchandise: www.teespring.com/stores/must...
Instagram: / mustardchannel
TikTok: / mustardchannel
Facebook: / mustard-109952378202335
Twitter: / mustardvideos
Website: www.mustardchannel.com/
In the late 1950’s, intercity air travel was on the rise. But while a trip from New York to Boston by airplane might only take about an hour, you’d still need to get to and from the airport. And in many congested cities, that was already taking longer than the flight itself. As a solution, helicopter airlines had begun to crop up in major cities, letting passengers skip over traffic to connect airports with their city centers. But helicopters were ultimately too inefficient to become a viable form of mass transport. The Rotodyne was going to change all that. Taking off from downtown rooftops and heliports, but flying faster, further, and more economically than any helicopter, the Rotodyne would be the quickest way to move from one city centre to the next.
The Rotodyne might have looked like part helicopter, part plane, but it was actually neither. Where a helicopter uses engine power to spin a rotor blade to force air down and create lift, on a Rotodyne the large rotor wasn’t directly driven by a motor. Instead it used a freely-spinning rotor called an autogyro. As air passed naturally through the rotor blades during flight, it caused the rotor spin around like a pinwheel to create lift. The Rotodyne still had wings and a pair of turboprops much like an airplane. But in forward flight, the unpowered spinning rotor lifted more than half the aircraft’s weight. To take off and land vertically and hover, tip jets at the end of each rotor blade would be used to spin up the Rotodyne’s rotor. Once in forward flight, the tip jets were shut off and the rotor would once again spin freely.
When the first Rotodyne prototype took to the skies, it could carry 40 passengers over 700km and reach speeds of over 300km/h, all while being able to land and take off on a space not much larger than the aircraft itself. And after 350 successful test flights, the Rotodyne proved to be safe and capable. But despite plans for an even larger more powerful version, a combination of noise concerns and lack of government support for research and development ultimately led to cancellation of the project.
Select footage courtesy the AP Archive:
AP Archive website: www.aparchive.com RUclips: / aparchive and / britishmovietone
Like the aviation industry posters found in this video? Visit The Aviation Ancestry Database, containing over 80,000 high-quality examples: www.aviationancestry.co.uk/
Special thanks to Nick Arehart for helping clean up our audio:
/ airhrt_
Special thanks to: Chiba Cheegoni, Gibbo, Jake Hart, Coby Tang, Cole Gerdemann, Christian Altenhofen, Therandomuser, Justin Will, Jefferson Hu, Jean-christophe, Andrew J. Thom, Erik Hoel, Mark Moran, Colin Millions, Joel Salvador, TOOLCO CORP, Razvan Caliman, Joseph Zadeh, Danny Wolf, Matt Waters, Trent Bosley, Christopher Boyd, Guzman Martin, Travis Sinfield, Liam Klatsky, Jerome Froelich, Xan Daven, Donoteat and Kim Alexander Haustedt for supporting us on Patreon and helping Mustard grow: / mustardchannel
Thanks for watching!
Hi all - as some viewers are pointing out, it's a mistake to describe a 133 dB to 96 dB reduction as 15%. It's much more than that, as decibels are a logarithmic unit. Sorry for letting that error slip in and any confusion (note that 96dB is still incredibly loud).
Can you make a video about the international space station and the Mir space station
17db reduction is almost 8 times less noise! So a reduction of about 85%.
Well it reduced the noise level by 15%. The whole reason we use dB is to use perceptually linear scales. (EDIT: sound pressure level in dB is not perceptually linear. Sone is. F*ed that up) What you wanted to express is that the -perceived- noise level was reduced by 15% and that is in fact the case. Converting to linear levels, we get a far greater reduction but who cares when we don't perceive the difference as such?
I was just going to point that out.....
*113dB, not 133 while i am being nitpicky once again. :P Still wish you had that awesome Energia-Buran thumbnail picture in high res. :( (asked you a while back about it on twitter, but largest available one was still quite small)
Why does the British government need to destroy all useful engineering documents of cancelled projects damnit!
That's the one part I really don't get. There wouldn't be any hassle in just releasing the docs to the public, and they could have even sold them to some other company in the US or something but they decided to just toss them?
More likely somebody have hidden agenda
More or less the same story of the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow fighter jet.
Random Roughneck Russias eastern sides could use this, Runways are not so common there
The US also
"...and it all went to s$%t"
That took me completely off guard.
lmao, yeah that was classic :D
Seemed really out of place; He could have said ‘it went down the toilet’ to keep it PG-rated, without the need to hastily censor a word that we’re all going to recognize anyway.
JozMk. II ok boomer
@Prometheus I disagree. I think adults today are rude and kids are polite. Oh wait you meant swearing. Eh, it's whatever.
I love it when someone tells it like it is...or was..:)
I feel like out of all the failed projects this one is the only one im like damn thatd be cool as hell and i genuinly think it would work
Don't forget Ekranoplans. Utilizing ground effect is far more efficient than any airplane. Best part is that it gets even more efficient and reliable the bigger the craft gets
@@FlyLeah as someone who currently works as an aircraft mechanic, the maintenance with that many engines and salt water that close to the ground makes those things a tactical nightmare, not only that but like the video says, controlling the ground effect makes them super difficult, maybe on a smaller scale they might work but as large military purposes I don't think it's feasible
@@toinfinityandbeyond2082 About the stability issues I've heard its the opposite. Supposedly, the larger the Ekranoplan is the higher and more stable it flew.
The problem is the trans sonic barrier at the tips of all rotary wing aircraft. There is no way around it. This is why the only non jet powered high speed VTOL aircraft are things like the Osprey.
And that is what we need more Gen Z’ers giving us their opinion
I remember, when I was a boy, the sound of the Rotodyne. There was nothing like it. When you saw it flying over you felt like you were seeing the future. And perhaps it could have been, but it was too much ahead of its time.
Skkwkskskskwkwks yyou suck
Man you're a lucky person
How old are you?
@@PinoyPickUps Being born in 1954, I am quite old enough to remember the late 50s and early 60s. Beyond that, don't be impertinent:)
@@jonathanhill4892 Ow I see, thank you for sharing that. Im just happy to know that even at your age there are people that are still active in the RUclips community. I hope when I'll get old, I will still be sharp just like you.
This seems like a technology that should be revisited.
That’s true. But when governments and such are stable.
Totally. If this was developed in the 1960s then think about how better it could be today
It will soon be superceded by electric drones.
@@Spinattitude what kinds of drones
Would be perfect for military use
It should be illegal to destroy research. Maybe shoehorn it into protections on financial records?
Agreed
People have destroyed 3D development because they make no money off ads when people feel disoriented and focus on the 3D more than the ads that make them money.
Absolutely! Engineers can get what they need from them and make something better!
Fear of this rather useful technology falling into Soviet hands, I'd imagine it could make a good troop transport/lander if further developed (where noise no longer matters). So destroying something may be shortsighted given the work and lack of any ROI you'll get, given the risk of the reds though, they must have just thought this way was better.
@@karlosbricks2413/videos Destroy prototypes and manufacturing tooling sure, but keep the paperwork and data squirreled away somewhere safe.
TIP JETS? That is insane technology!
E
But won’t be it to be too heavy for it and disturbing the lifting force?
No, it's not. In the 1950's the Nederlandse Helikopter Industrie built a small helicopter that way. Not sure if if there's footage on YT, but has an entry in Wikipedia
Assuming a system that works, tip thrusters are an excellent way to power helicopter rotors. There's no torque. Thats why the Rotodyne didn't need a tail rotor.
The tiny Fairey Ultralight helicopter used a tip jet system back in the 50s. Its abandonment, once again, had more to do with politics than engineering.
This joke?
It almost physically hurts to see this beautiful thing to to waste. Couldn't they just resurrect the project and use today's advancements and technologies to fix the 60 year old issues?
No. In general, old technologies need to be re-engineered. I would imagine the safety standards would be different, as well as manufacturing methods. Analogy: you want to make an arrow, and have the best stone age arrow as an example; since you have no skill in cleaving obsidian, your stone arrow head will never be as good, but you can make a better steel head and make it faster with the available tools.
@@Coillcara Agreed, but the basic design is still viable and the concept is a good 👍 one. This would be a valuable aircraft for short flights. Your analogy with arrows is a good one, because the improvements and changes needed were not insurmountable.
@@Coillcara as much as i apreciate the look of the original machine, the point of the argument is to look back to this "concept" and translate it on modern design. Today we have new materials and solution to make this idea to work. Of course it will not have the same form. But the concept is still interesting
Keep in mind, this thing was being compared against helicopters, not fixed wing aircraft. There's no reason to suppose this design would be relevant. And I'm looking at a machine with too many conspicuous points of failure to go trusting it with human lives.
@@Coillcara How much different do you think the design would be, really? It's semantics to get into an argument about the incredible specificities between manufacturing of the 60s and today. Most of the groundwork is still the same.
5:08 Gotta love the test pilot gear back in the day: Suit and hat.
And probably a pre-flight drink or two
Don’t forget about the spinning blades 2 ft from his head
When men were men...not hair bun wearing pansies
What's even better is that that is Igor Sikorsky (if I'm not mistaken), the inventor of this specific helicopter and one of the most influential American pioneers of the technology
The man invented it, learned how to pilot it, and tested it himself
All the while wearing a suit and a fedora on every occasion
What an absolute baller
A real gentleman.
6:54 Small correction - since sound is on a logarithmic scale, the reduction in noise wasn't by 15%, *but rather by 86%*
@DT Undercover The loudness of a helicopter is about 85.5dB from 600 feet away - so if the rotodyne was to be no louder than a helicopter, it'd have to reduce its noise by 96% from the original (or 70% from the already revised version).
@DT UndercoverYeah, something like 99.7%
@@MagicznaPanda SPL (sound pressure level; typically measured in dB) decreases with distance, like any other wave. Specifying a dB level without specifying the distance from the source is meaningless. Usually when they say "90 dB", they mean "90 dB @ 1 meter". Your 85.5 dB @ 600 ft would be hella loud @ 1 m.
How did you get the 86% exactly? It should be more like 98%
even though the sound intensity has reduced by 86%, we’ll still perceive the loudness as 15% less
I sometimes wonder how big of a role does "Corporate Sabotage" play in the failures of these amazing technologies.
For example, a technology like this would've significantly hurt the "Airport Taxi" industry.
There are to many examples of sabotaged technologies to count. The man who invented the diesel engine was murdered and all his designs are "missing". He had designs for all kinds of new engines that ran on different fuels. Big oil didnt like this. Also Nikola teslas research and designs were all stolen after his death. The list goes on and on. Windows and google are constantly buying up patents and small startups to either use or shelf so there is no competition.
For more information on corporate sabotage and the British government try looking up Dr Beeching and his plans to "streamline" the British railway network whilst being actively employed by a massive asphalt company that wanted the government to shift towards road transport.
It's not that far fetched tbh. Tullamarine Airport (Melbourne International) in Melbourne Australia still doesn't have a rail link from the airport to the city centre. The reason? Taxi cab lobbying.
Not just taxis perhaps. Can't see airports supporting the idea of all their short and medium haul flights being handed over to mini inner city airports. All those passengers they would loose that are no longer paying for taxis, carparks or buying over priced food, drink and all the other tat they sell in airports to a captive audience? The financial stakeholders of airports don't care if if people spend hours travelling to airports by car, train or bus with all the additional pollution/congestion that goes with it. Not only that, from an air traffic control perspective, the creation of multiple new airports and the added complexity it would bring to airspace management is something that would take a lot to sort out and probably drive up operating costs.
@@ray.shoesmith same with Las Vegas airport, the idea was to make the Monorail go to the airport but taxi companies lobbied hard and the Monorail stops randomly a few blocks from the airport serving no one in that area
I genuinely hate how this aircraft didn't succeed, it should really be reconsidered.
Я думаю, могу спроектировать лучше, если будет спрос.
and moreso, i hate how it almost got a chance of succeeding, hell IT HAD ORDERS unlike alot of these. they just got colossally shafted by a government that only wanted more of the same boring crap and mergers that likely sore ceos telling the teams to kiss actual inovation goodbye
I feel like this would be the perfect model for flying cars as it removes the need for a runway
I've never even heard of the Rotodyne. Man I love this channel.
me 2
It's tragic that generations have been denied Airfix.
Probably because the rododyne never existed.
@@Matmamtmamtmamtmamtm That probably contributed to me not knowing of it.
Holt Hogan that’s because it’s the Rotodyne not the rododyne
I remember the Rotodyne flying over our house! The Rotodyne was based at a small airfield called White Waltham just outside Maidenhead and as a child we lived on the direct line between White Waltham and Farnborough which was the base of the British Aircraft Establishment. On several occasions we heard the distinct sound of the Rotodyne flying over and dashed outside to watch it go over. Yes, it was noisy, but so were most aircraft at that time, especially the big jets like the Boeing 707. The difference was the big jets landed at airports outside the city centres so did not fly low over the houses, except of course the ones on the flight path into the airports. People these days forget how noisy those old aircraft were!
A few years ago I heard a racket and went outside to see what it was and was treated to the sight of a Dreamliner on its way to the Farnborough Airshow escorted by a Spitfire and a Hurricane. I could barely hear the Dreamliner - the racket was all being made by the Merlins. A beautiful racket though!
edward Handley
That’s a lot to read..
Thats an amazing read. Thanks!
Wow, interesting! Thanks for sharing.
@@kbryce14 Wha-- no that's not. It's two short paragraphs that are neatly and pleasantly structured.
Yup. Me too. Just posted. This is awesome.
Missed a perfect opportunity to title it “Why the VTOL Airliner never Took Off”
Oof
Boo! Ewwgh! Bad!
Noise concerns? In American 🇺🇸 cities? Oh, come now.
"but it did!"
- someone that missed the memo
But it did
This NEEDS to make a comeback
but autogyro is that
loser
@@vihaanajaya3041 how so? Would do for a helicopter to be more efficient, faster and safer
@@FlyLeahauto gyros work by pushing arotor in front that spins to make lift. and helicopters use extra thrust to go foward that is less efficient than aurogyros
It has its called the v 22 osprey
@@inigobantok1579 The Osprey has nothing in common with the Rotodyne
Me: you returned? Even after all this time?
Mustard: of course, child. I never left.
Me: *sheds a tear*
Aka. "I'm glad you're back"
Accurate description of my feelings
Nice
he really never was gone, seems like the videos just get uploaded in a 2 month interval now
@@buscentral900 nice to meet u bic'ts !! 😁😀😂
When I was a kid, I put together a plastic model kit of a Fairey Rotodyne, with a detailed interior including seats, passengers, even luggage racks. I really thought it was the wave of the future. Technologically, it could have been, given a sufficient commitment.
If you still have it save that thing in a strong case. We got to save what little is left!
See Greg's Model s. Channel he makes the kit 🥰
I feel like this concept should be revisited to replace medical helicopters. You could deliver patients faster while burning less fuel. A lot of development has gone into miniature, quiet and efficient jet engines that could go on the blades. The larger cab size could also allow for more than one patient to travel at a time with ambulance like medical equipment and staff there for them.
Medical helicopters are a whole nother shitshow. Back when they deregulated air travel, it was generally good for the public but it left a loophole where air ambulances can charge whatever they choose. The companies behind the air ambulances realized no one really has a choice to take one or not, that’s usually up to a doctor and the patient might be unconscious so they started charging 5-10 times more than they needed too. And especially since doctors like the err on the side of caution with lives a lot of rides are both unnecessary and hyper expensive. So just to be clear the medical helicopters are not the expensive by any necessity, just price gouging lol
@@monhi64 which country do you live in?
@@procatprocat9647 America
@@somethingmoredecent unlucky
@@procatprocat9647 Depends
Last time I was this early, the dassalt mecure was selling well
jajajajajajajaja good one
LOL Great comment Cedric! 😂
It was just a Mirage.
Cedric Ye so, you were never early then?
Intellectuals will get this👍
So this was basically a massive gyrocopter? Not going to lie, that’s awesome
Ryan M. Yes, at cruise. But gyrocopters are not able to take off vertically. Imagine a gyrocopter in this size with a rotor that is not powered by something. Technically interesting but I don't think that it will make any sense. 🤔🙂
No, the video is completely wrong about that. The rotor was powered but by very noisy rotor-tip jets.
Vaughn Davis Wrong. The video has it absolutely correct and it’s easy to read other sources as well. It’s described as a compound gyroplane, where the rotor is not powered during cruise, but the tip jets are run during hover and the transitions in and out of hover.
Parand ? Why imagine that? This isn’t a giant unpowered gyrocopter, it’s a compound gyrocopter.
DoctorShocktor Yes, i think you are right. Sorry! People who has no clue about what they talking about are always right. The new rule. But wait, I did not ask you. 🤔 Have a nic3 Day. 😁
Someone needs to bring this back in today's technologies this should fit in just fine, including fixing the tip jet problem
Why? There are lots of airfields now in the World. Absolutely useless and inefficient thing.
@@Vladdy89 I thought the idea of using less fuel was a good idea
@@shenlun It's still gonna be inefficient. And extremely loud.
@@shenlun modern planes Are still better
look up lillium jet test flight
“It all went to sh*t”
Mustard had finally snapped.
This is so great to see. I’m the grand son of Geoffrey Hall who was chairman of Fairey. I never met him but to see the work he and the team of engineers in the company was trying to create is so humbling. One point that was not mentioned was that the British government had also compulsory purchased Fairey airfields which just so happened to be Heathrow, so a vertical take off aircraft didn’t suit the governments new airfields strategy? If anyone know more about this I would love to know. Charlie.
Are you familiar with Jaunt Air Mobility and Skyworks? They’re two companies working very seriously on technology that’s partially descendant from the Rotodyne, if i understand it correctly. The goal is to develop vehicles for urban air mobility, very much like the rotodyne concept. Really cool stuff.
I relish reading comments such as yours. In less than 24 hours, a blood relative of the man happened to watch this particular video and left a comment. What sort of peculiar alignment of interest and circumstance brings that about? The answer, of course, is at once obvious and yet unfathomable. I did not know this craft existed until now. I hadn't even thought of autogyros for years, and am fascinated by this. Too bad you don't have one in the family to go see. ;-)
@@briangarrett-glaser438 www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-skyworks-gyrocopter-returns-from-the-brink-459680/
Wow, so it is ... I had no idea.
A friend of mine worked for Fairey Hydrualics.
@@bsadewitz very cool!
The models are so clean like this is even better than a model aircraft.
@@cap5856 It is. He makes all these 3D models and animations himself.
@@lfox02 Having them sit on a (cgi) tabletop is a stroke of genius. The models read as fantastic scale models, rather than attempts to render a real-life aircraft. It falls short of the latter, which is not a criticism as big movies have dozens of people working on these things and it still often goes wrong.
For places like small islands or isolated cities (like those Spanish cities on the Morroccan coast that actually still have helicopter airlines), this sort of thing could be a really amazing addition to their transportation sector.
I'm not so sure that Spain operates helicopter services between it's North African enclaves and the mainland. Most of these connections are provided by sea ferry services and air services using efficient turboprop aircraft such as the ATR 72.
@@barrylenihan8032 There is a helicopter service to Ceuta from Algeciras on Mainland Spain with Helity using AW139s, priced very competitively with the ferry. You're right the ATR is used on rotations to Melilla from Madrid, Malaga, Granada and Almeria as the distances are much further.
6:05 I didn't expect that at all 😂😂😂
With today's technology, a quieter version can be made today.
Yes. And one that's more aerodynamic, and faster, and lighter, and...
No drones are superior.
@@imhorny169 drones are basically any remote controlled aircraft, this rotodyne can be one.
@@emancoy A remote controlled aircraft/helicopter, that sounds like it could work
It would be made obsolete as soon it as it rolled of the assembly line
Innovative engineer: *Exists*
Britain: "I'm about to end this man's whole career."
@@Stealthy_Sloth That's unfortunate. I'm sorry to hear that.
This comment is underrated.
take my upvote mate !
Also dead meme !
It's amazing how the British government seemingly went out of their way to destroy their own aviation industry.
@@Stealthy_Sloth that is a really interesting tale. please continue.
Seems like a good application for an electric prop engine. The main rotor could also be powered to eliminate the tip jets.
@Drew Peacock probably, could be mounted on a clutch I guess
@Drew Peacock main rotor of all helicopters function as an autogyro (to some degree) if power is lost.
@Drew Peacock Yes, though it's not trivial all single-engine helicopters must be capable of autorotation to be certified.
The US Army has an award (the "broken wing") for successful autorotation under emergency conditions (usually engine failure).
@Drew Peacock you mean every helicopter ever?
Well it still has to counter the torque when the main rotor is being spun, and that's why helicopters have tail rotors or counter-rotating second rotors. The tip jets avoid this problem because the tips themselves propel the rotor, and the gas that's shot out creates reactive force.
The 50's innovation will never be rivaled.
Hands down.
Seriously, like there was this massive push for innovation after the war. And rebuilding our economy, But I’m sure a generation like that will come along again
“Oh we aren’t going to be able to build this, let’s destroy millions in R&D instead of putting it in a shelf and trying it with new tech later down the line”
WHY DO COMPANIES DO THIS!?!?!?!?
The company would have been under instructions from the government most likely. The British Government especially had a habit of ordering prototypes and tooling destroyed.
@@ptonpc But why though?
@@Admiral_Jezza Because they are fools.
Same in America, all tooling for the C-17 is gone, same for many of the fighters built in the 80’s and 90’s, deliver the last one and destroy all the tooling, you can’t even make spares to keep planes you still have flying.
A-10 tooling is gone, Boeing is actually having to rebuild wings instead of building new and it costs way more.
Government bureaucrats.
The loss of this aircraft really feels like industrial sabotage.
Лэнгтон Матраверс. Hey now. More and more of us everyday are getting tired of the corruption.
I agree, it has the same air as The Tucker car story.
More like government shortsightedness and total lack of vision.
Alessandro Arcuri But it would still outperform today. just like the airship is still the cheaper way to distribute mass freight.
@Лэнгтон Матраверс. more like the pesky British aviation industry that couldn’t stay afloat without consolidation you dumb russkie.
My grandfather was a part of the production of this aircraft, and despite it not being adopted, he always spoke fondly of it. It was clear he was proud of his and his teams work, as am I.
I've spent my whole life finding awesome ideas that were lost in the past I'm glad I found this channel I don't know where you dug up some of these great relics of the past but thank you they are very interesting.
An old coworker of mine worked on this project as a young man. He told me some of the technical issues. He liked to say that like Concorde it was ahead of the technology of the day. Even without the ear splitting noise he told me about thermal issues regarding the rotor blades and the complications of combustors in the rotor tips was just beyond what they could reliably build.
That man must write everything he remembers. We must save the data that remains.
Yeah that’s the issue with destroying all the research we don’t have any records of all the problems this plane had. It’s possible they destroyed it cuz they were worried it would made them look bad or something. Would be cool to come back see if it’s viable now
My father worked on the Fairy rotodyne at Heaton Chapel in Stockport Cheshire. We a had photo of all the workers in front of the first plane . He worked on Hurricanes during the war and was scathing about spitfires . Damaged spits were scrap whereas hurricanes were repaired and generally flew again the next day .
Any body remember Jindevics ? 😮
One of the coolest aircraft that never went into service.
Canada in the late 1950s had the greatest plane that never was: the Avro Arrow with a top speed of 2,104 km/h which made it the fastest plane in the world and was scraped by Prime Minister Defeinbaker in 1959. Go figure why things are done.
You never saw it fly. I saw it at Farnborough and it was deafeningly loud. There's no way it would have ever have operated commercially.
@@johnevans388 modern jet engines are 100-110 decibels, which are slightly louder than the rotodyne proposed production model (96 decibels). modern jet engines that just happen to be attached to commercial planes that commuters use every single day... :)
sauropod Freaking Arrow cult chimes in of course. Get over it already, shit happens.
Jay Jones Modern jet engines aren’t run at ear level in the middle of cities. The only reason for this to exist was to land in the middle of cities on rooftops. There’s a reason airports aren’t in the middle of office buildings.
Thank god this is story without huge crash tragedy
But this piece of aviation is beautiful and so retrofituristic-ish, looks absolutely amazing
This is one of the most heartbreaking and sad failed projects this channel has covered so far. A genuine bummer.
It depresses me what happened to our aviation heritage 😭
You can buy an autogyro. It's this specific autogyro that failed, there are others for civil aviation.
I know so much great plane that could have changed the world like Concorde; Rotordyne; Mercure; and flying wings
Blame Hitlers war - it drained much money from the UK gov.
@@Alexandre-ul7oy Black Arrow too
Alexandre Moreau Concorde was a toy for the rich and terrible for the environment
next video is gonna be: "the soviet rotodyne you didnt know about"
The Aeroflot livery threw me off.
They had probably had these in Ancient India. The west is so full of itself, thinking it has invented everything, and that history is only 2000 years old.
@@chocomanger6873 lol why you think so? first European country is over 8000 years old, Europe discovered metals and invented forging, West invented wine over 8000 years ago so how the heck it has 2000 year history can you explain?
pharaon gaming the west invented wine over 8000 years? Do you have some information unknown to the world ? Please explain. Last I recall wine wasn't created by the west..
i. rob what ?
The DC-3 is a classic, one of the safest aircraft ever built, and should never have gone out of production. In the early 1950s when I was a small child my mother and I rode in one from Houston to New Orleans, and then we took a TWA Constellation from there to Tampa. Both of those airplanes were/are exceptionally beautiful.
His voice goes so well with the documentaries . I'm now interested in Aviation thanks to this informative channel 👍😀
Mustard: Uploads new video
Me: *Squeals of joy*
I can relate
The one I never miss, or tell myself... il watch it later 😎
@@filipgolonka3758 Literally everyone who subscribes Mustard can relate.
“It all went to shBLEEP”
Me: surprised pikachu
I actually made the face too when I heard it lol almost thought I misheard it. lmao
Ah a man of culture I see
I actually thought he was going to use the classic British engineering term ‘It’s all gone tits-up’. He didn’t, but ironically it had.
I thought that was hilarious.
Same
I saw this for a couple of years at the Farnborough air show, my father used to get tickets when he worked on the Blue Steel so we went often.
A wonderful idea, I see the American v22 doesn't work perfectly either.
This thing looks like when you put bunch of random engines and fans on your car in Bad Piggies.
Love it!
"And it all went to S#$t." That was totally unexpected from this channel and got a big ole LOL from me. XD
*_Alternative Title_* :
_Why The Vertical Takeoff Airliner Never Took off_
It's not VTOL. It's just a big autogyro. It can do short takeoff and vertical landing. Autogyros had jumping takeoff systems when rotor was prespinned to 150% of its usual RPM then angle of rotorblades was changing to high angle and autogyro was making a jump. After jump was done main engine was turned on and craft started to do normal flight.
@@orinpolansky386 smart boi but this was a pun
@@orinpolansky386 This thing literally has jet engines on the tips of the rotor blades to spin up the rotor and vertically take off. It is not a simple autogyro.
@@yeg4k165 thank u
@@orinpolansky386 I mean the creator literally has Vertical takeoff in the title sooo
I just wanna say: Thanks for putting your sponsors in the end that is very nice of you
That "all went to shit" caught me by surprise
Osprey: "Dang, my ancestors were a little funky back then."
🤣🤣
Osprey is a tiltrotor not even close.
@@wenaldy pretty sure it was born outta this idea
wenaldy actually it’s quite similar but in a different way. The rotodyne uses a powered rotor to lift a shortwinged turboprop vertically, the Osprey does the same thing but by tilting its rotors. Cousins at least.
TRXP RFT Similar, but no, entirely different executions but based in similar goals and similar base aircraft.
Mustard: says the S word
Everyone liked that.
What's up with all the comments about mustard?
Angelaine Jarrett that's a joke right?
@@darthsalmon3614 no. I just realized it's the name of the channel. Sorry I've been stuck in the house watching RUclips videos for 2 weeks after an accident. I like I'm losing my mind.
@@angelainejarrett1115 you good?
What about CUM word??
Damn, all this effort to avoid a high speed railway
High speed passenger rail is more expensive.
In the 1960s USA?
@@nicopavvi8494 first bullet trains in Japan were operational in mid 60s. It is just US that fucked up this subject with decades of negligence.
Makes you grateful that we have such differing visions of what might be possible.
So much of what we see from home is often a very limited, confined vista.
Mustard: Most revolutionary helicopter...
Rotodyne: Aight imma head out
youre right it's more an autogire/plane
@@Alexandre-ul7oy *autogyro
It's a gyrocopter
I wander how good one Rotodyne with modern technology would be when compared with current Helicopters...
See: OV22 Osprey
@@finnmurtons8727 That's not really the same thing.
@Vitor Leão that is a good question, the Osprey is similar, but not the same beast as this thing.
The v22 has two turboprop engines, similar to the rotordyne but it lacks one thing
An unpowered rotor
Rotodyne is neither a plane, nor a helicopter. It's an autogyro- completely different type of aircraft.
I remember the Rotodyne from my youth when it used to fly over my house on test flights from the airfield at White Waltham in Berkshire, where Fairey had a factory. The engine test bed was right next to the railway line that I used to travel on to school in Maidenhead and you could hear the noise of an engine test from inside the carriage! I still have an original Fairey Aviation publicity brochure about the Rotodyne and made at least two of the Airfix kits of it but sadly I no longer have them!
I like how the cgi of the models on the desk do actually look like plastic models and not jusy scaled down of the full scal ones. The table looks awesome. Like the desk of an executive
I just looked at this page today and thought ‘hmm they upload every two months, wonder when the next video is out’ and here I am
To be honest, I would love to fly on that thing. It looked really interesting and actually futuristic.
Maybe one with electric engines would solve the noise issue
@@DsantosGE4PA how would you power the tip jet with electric motor?
Someone needs to develop a newer version of this machine. From what I saw of that peaceful glide to the ground, it looks pretty safe to fly in.
How this machine was not grabbed by the military is beyond me......faster than a copter, larger and less complex than the OFSPREY, it was so versatile....
The OFFSprey if it wasn't explicitly engineered to be a death trap.
Dont diasgree, but it has real issues.@@ILovePancakes24
A friend who worked at Fairey back in the late 50's said that
the prototype was deafeningly
loud when the tip jets were used
for take off and landing under load. The Napier gas turbines
and propeller tips combined to
make it almost impossible to
tolerate!
RUclips: New mustard video
Me:I LOVE IT
I think that a video about ford airplane would be cool
I dunno about that, gonna look it up now! Thanks.
Ford Airplane??? ._. ????
@@HirokaAkita I just started a 40 minute documentary on it. Sure nuff.
@@HirokaAkita ford tri-motor like on indiana jones
Ford patented brakes and tail wheels. As well as made the first concrete runway. It's fascinating stuff!
If my memory serves me right I first found this channel through this video specifically about 2 to 3 years ago, I think it was one of the best things I did that year.
you deserve at least 10 times as much subs, great animations, and interesting stories.
Your 3D modelling is spectacular, having been watching for a while it's been great to see the improvement per video
Mustard: planes
Wendover: it's treason then
By far one of my favourite vids by you
5:07 I like how he does the helicopter test flight wearing a suit and a top hat! 👍😁
'And of course it all went to sh*t" well that was lovely and unexpected
If he keeps doing the post WW2 British aircraft industry it could easily become his catchphrase... The avro Vulcan is amazing though.
This higher quality than most tv documentaries
this is actually one of the first (or the first) video(s) i saw in your channel.
I feel like the fundamental design of this aircraft is something an imaginative middle-schooler would come up with. A helicopter and an airplane at the same time, and rather than powered by a motor, the helicopter rotors are powered by jets on the tips? C'mon, that's classic middle-school cool. I love it.
I love everything about your videos :) The amount of research done, the beautiful animations, the vintage footage and your narration! Thank you so much for all the effort you put into your videos!
There's no reason the US military shouldn't have picked this up, as it seems vastly superior and safer to the V-22 Osprey, and the military doesn't care so much about noise.
If they didn't then it wasnt
@@namesurname624 maybe your not aware of how many people have died in the osprey,so dont be so sure about the militaries decision making
@@namesurname624 I don't think you understand how the US military works lol. The whole thing only exists to make money for contractors and to scare people into submission, safety is a tertiary concern
NIH syndrome.
I've only seen a V-22 in flight about a dozen times, and my initial reaction has always been "A flying Osprey! Run! Take cover!"
"the rotor wasn't powered, but wait, actually it was"
Only at takeoff and landing, yeah it's stretching it to say "unpowered" but for like 90% if the flight it is.
...like a conventional helicopter...
It wasn't. The blades are being pushed, but the rotor itself wasn't connected to an engine. It was only "powered" during takeoff and landing and its kind of a stretch to call being pushed the same as being powered.
@@jacobb17 It had jet engines attached to it for crying out loud. I would say that definitely counts as being connected to an engine, or more precisely multiple engines.
@@pauldavis5665 Not engines, boosters. The rotor wasn't connected to an engine like a conventional helicopter. The rotor wasn't powered or connected to an engine, it had boosters on it that pushed it.
What a gorgeous aircraft. It would fit quite well into an episode of Thunderbirds. Noisy transport is something I grew up with on the Isle of Wight when the hovercraft were running.
There was a small sales model of this aircraft on my dad's desk when I was a kid.
I had the Airfix plastic model of it! Sadly I could never learn to use glue in moderation...
good for yiu
6:51 Going from 113 dB to 96 dB is not a 15% decrease in 'noise', but much more than that. Every 3 dB is roughly a 100% difference in sound energy and 23% difference in loudness.
So the decrease of 17 dB was a reduction of loudness by around 130%.
Not sure your math makes sense there. Wouldn’t reducing noise by 130% be physically impossible? If you go from 113dB to 0 that’s by definition a 100% reduction.
Great video ❤ I love the concept
Thx for the video!
6:00 didn't expect that in a mustard video 😂😂
Why isn’t anyone making cool shit like this anymore in the US? We’ve had the same transportation infrastructure for the last 50 years! Travel is virtually no different today than it was in 1970.
M L I think he/she is referring to commercial transport, not military.
A lot of crazy technology like this began in the 1950s, height of cold war paranoia. The US had planned for a state of permanent war, so the government had funded a lot of research in jet propulsion and other technology with potential military applications, and civilians benefited from this, too.
Which is wonderful, but very expensive. Without a scary commie threat off in the distance, people are less willing to fund projects that may not ultimately work. Private sector outfits aren't going to risk too much on on an endeavor that may not pan out. US declined to invest in the Concorde in the early 1970s and AFAIK never seriously pursued supersonic civilian aviation again.
You're right that we're stuck in a rut in air transportation for 50 years now. We have some improvement in creature comforts, but we're actually moving backwards in overall travel time. All his snark aside, Scott Adams (Dilbert Future) had an interesting explanation how airlines are stuck with minor, incremental improvements indefinitely because of the tremendous expense of converting an entire fleet of aeroplanes.
Because we'd rather spend our money bombing brown people in the Middle East.
@@NorthKoreaUncovered The US doesn't even have decent railroad or public transport infrastructure save for maybe cities like New York
Due to the dismantlement of streetcar networks and poor city planning, travel is arguably worse now than it was 50 years ago.
TIP JETS? That is insane technology!. I've never even heard of the Rotodyne. Man I love this channel..
I'm willing to bet that the Rotodyne was too far ahead of it's time and probably no more noisier than any other Helicopter of it's day!
You'd have lost that bet... ! It was truly deafening
"From two miles away it would stop a conversation." John Farley (Test pilot of the Harrier)
However the noise suppression did nearly half that noise and it was only brief ad when it actually required a vtol landing - trouble is that would be in the very places that would be noise sensitive
^ The irony there is that Farley was the test pilot of an infinitely louder aircraft, the Harrier 😂 .
His conclusions on aircraft projects other than those he flew in [and I've read a few] are to be taken with a pinch of salt, as his actual in depth knowledge of them was limited.
Case in point TSR-2. Farley's conclusion is not only incorrect from an aerodynamic perspective, but it also contradicts his former boss at Hawker Siddeley, Sir Sydney Camm.
Given the respective qualifications of the two, I think Camm's verdict wins it by a mile.
Someone needs to revive this. It seems like a great idea. Even if there aren't any existing blueprints or prototypes, it can't be that hard to try and piece it together while updating as necessary.
Damn! Watching the failure of such a promessing and revolutionary machine makes me hella depressed
It could still be useful even if they didn't get the sound down.
Just land it a bit further out than the center of the city.
It will still need less space than an airport.
It would also be perfect for island, Mountain and small town runs.
Locations were they don't make enough for and airport or that an airport would not fit .
don’t worry, you can watch it all over again with Uber Elevate. lol
@@zakofrx I want to know how it compares to modern helicopters. If it is still more fuel efficient, it might be a good way to get humanitarian aid in places that don't have airports or don't have enough airports.
Like from what I can tell it is still simpler and safer than an Osprey.
Sadly this isn't a unique story. British governments have cancelled so many cutting edge projects such as the amazing TSR-2 fighter jet, or going back earlier to 1946 the Megaroc was a converted V2 to take the first man into space. This and more killed off because of lack of vision by governments.
5:07 You just gotta love the test pilot wearing a suit and tie, and a hat.
I had a kind of "Boys Book of Aircraft" when I was a kid. The Rotordyne was in it. With much hype as the newest and best thing around. It was going to revolutionise short haul travel. City centre to city centre.
Would love to see this with today's tech.
People would probably not try to re-invent this, stuff like civilian ospreys will probably exist, it would be cool seeing this aircraft come back though.
@@fekete2730 civlian ospreys would not be as efficient. The rotodyne is just a better design.
@@voidofspaceandtime4684 Plus if one or both engines of rotodyne malfunction, it can slowly glide to a safe landing, if the same happens to osprey then its lights out.
@@mr.normalguy69 The Osprey may land like an fixed wing aircraft but may damage the propellers
@@jestertester69gaming54 Ok what if instead of huge rotors we used a series of small fans that can be tilted to either provide forward or downward thrust so you can land horizontally without damaging them?
This should be revived as many want to avoid traffic.
That's more of a flying car thing, and _that_ is waiting on the FAA to finish their next-generation air traffic control system so that autopilots can hook into it.
Seems like it would be excellent for regional commutes, going the “last mile” from hub airports to the regional one you want, etc.
Then there would be traffic just trying to get to the takeoff location in Manhattan and every other major city. Nowadays it's probably quicker to get to one of the NY airports than it would to get to the rooftop of a midtown Manhattan building. Trust me on this.
yes, like all revolutionary techno, they get squashed
They are check into personal drones there being pushed for the same reasons.
That's an interesting concept. Maybe we could see it live again some day.
Was not expecting the bleep saying it all went to $*it! Ha ha literally laughed out loud
I literally went on Mustard earlier to check if you had any new videos. So glad your back!
Mustard really takes a looong time to upload stuff.
But when he does, OH BOYO!
Quality over quantity, thats for sure.
unlike the infographic show
@@theworldoverheavan560 The Infographics Show is a piece of junk
@@OMundodeGeloeFogo They have the shittest animations out there and they make a lot of money. They'll do some really shitty stuff like using generic airplanes on a vid about airplanes!
Well that was quite an interesting video. Thanks!
What a fascinating concept!