DARPA Moves Ahead With Radical Vertical Take-Off Aircraft (networkworld.com) 53
coondoggie writes: DARPA took one step further in building a radically different VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft that can fly fast and carry a big load. Specifically, DARPA awarded Aurora Flight Sciences the $89 million prime contract for Phase 2 of the agency's VTOL X-Plane program which looks to: achieve a top sustained flight speed of 300-400 kt, raise aircraft hover efficiency from 60% to at least 75%, present a more favorable cruise lift-to-drag ratio of at least 10, up from 5-6, and carry a useful load of at least 40% of the vehicle's projected gross weight of 10,000-12,000 lbs. DARPA said Aurora's Phase 2 design for the VTOL X-Plane envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. "A turboshaft engine -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power, the equivalent of an average commercial wind turbine. The engine would drive 24 ducted fans, nine integrated into each wing and three inside each canard. Both the wings and the canards would rotate to direct fan thrust as needed: rearward for forward flight, downward for hovering and at angles during transition between the two," DARPA stated.
Bad selective quoting (Score:5, Informative)
From the blurb:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts"
Huh?
From TFA:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards—short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. “A turboshaft engine—one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft—mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power"
Oh.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that is pretty rad (Score:2)
I don't even know what else I would say here.
Re: (Score:1)
shhhh, at least it's cool pork
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Money could be spent on things other than making new ways to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an attack craft like a fighter or bomber, and it perfectly suitable to search and rescue operations. Would you prefer the firefighters not get any new toys to use in their work?
Keep in mind (Score:2, Interesting)
DARPA does not exist to make sensible, practical things. They are there to throw spaghetti on the wall and see if it sticks. I think they actually get in trouble if too many of their projects succeed: it means they weren't pushing the envelope enough.
Some fun numbers:
DARPA has a budget of $3bn.
NASA has a budget of $19bn.
The 2012 elections cost about $7bn.
The annual market for soft drinks in the USA is $98bn.
Re: (Score:2)
With the massive reverse dihedral... including, what the hell is up with those upside down winglets on the carnard???... the natural flying attitude of this abortion is upside down. Ducted fans are great right, so if we just multiply them, wow, zoom! But consider the cross sectional drag of all those ducts you can't see between the biplane style airfoils and those wings are really just massive air brakes. Because all the lift comes form the top surface of the foil, the bottom foils are doing nothing except
Re: rockets red glare babys bursting in air.... (Score:2)
I'll save you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately those require effective air superiority before they can be used. They are easily shot down by ground fire, and even a lucky foot soldier who hits the pilot during a turn can turn one into a fireball.
Uh, that's the story military contractors tell you. OTOH, we're currently bombing enemies with B-52s that are NOT getting shot down. We don't actually need stealth bombers. In fact, if you want to carpet bomb AND PUT THE FEAR OF GOD INTO PEOPLE, you want big loud bombers flying over targets. Similarly, helicopters actually work and they can go fast and haul lots of folks. And if you need to haul more people, build more helicopters. Seems to me aerotech is a solved problem.
War on the other hand, is not a s
Re: I'll save you (Score:3)
Sure. How much for a helicopter that can do 300-400 knots?
Re: (Score:3)
Also show me a helicopter with a 500 mile range.
Helicopters are slow and limited range though useful for what they are.
That is why the marines pushed the osprey so hard. A modern battle field can cover hundreds of miles in a day. An m1 Abrams can do 60 mph but even at 49 mph the front of a battle field can shift farther and faster a than helicopters can setup refueling depots.
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I'll do a whole lot better than that. I'll show you one that set an unrefueled distance record of 1923.08 nautical miles [aerospaceweb.org] 50 years ago. And it was a small, very unimpressive looking helicopter with no edgy experimental or radical qualities, and only cost $19,860 [wikipedia.org] in 1966 dollars. The model is still being produced today, by the way.
Granted, one has to differentiate between useful operating radius and max ferry range (possibly skimping on fuel reserves). But i
Re: (Score:1)
Replying to undo bad mod.
Re: (Score:2)
300 knots, no. But how about 255 knots [wikipedia.org] unofficial record? Other helicopters have reached or approached 250 knots.
Alberto Santos-Dumont - (Score:1)
Good to see some people still remember the 14-bis. I thought everyone had forgotten about it by now.
Not Smart At All (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not let a drone lift the jets straight up 500 feet or so and then lighting up the jet engine as it detaches from the drone?.
Because no drone in existence can lift a jet even an inch? Plus there's that fun race to the ground while the jet attempted to gain enough airspeed to generate the lift required to stay airborne, while not burning more fuel than a VTOL would in the first place (not to mention what the drone would consume). They don't exactly have the same flight characteristics as a sailplane, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
Leading Edge Asynchronous Propeller Technology (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/n... [wired.com]
Sounds like an interesting progression of the many-small-propellers concept.
The Bus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird how we got that in 1967 and nothing better than it since.
Upside-down Dihedral (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the negative dihedral on the wings? Are they trying to be unstable?
Yes, and that's not uncommon for fighter jets already.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the negative dihedral on the wings? Are they trying to be unstable?
No, they're trying to get funding purely on the strength of a cool CG render that has little to do with aeronautical engineering sanity. To hell with stability. The thumping base line is considerably more important in closing this deal, and maybe they threw in a hooker or two.
Ducted fans (Score:2)
Yep, I'm imagining it. And it won't be using ducted fans if it wants to be quiet. Anyone who's actually used ducted fans knows they are much, much louder than either turbines or turbo props. And due to their relatively small size they're not particularly efficient either.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Yep, I'm imagining it. And it won't be using ducted fans if it wants to be quiet. Anyone who's actually used ducted fans knows they are much, much louder than either turbines or turbo props. And due to their relatively small size they're not particularly efficient either.
From the experience of RC modellers, around half as efficient as a free propeller for the same power input. Higher foil loading due to the smaller diameter as you say, increased structural weight and increased drag from the additional wetted surface of the duct. Plus, a duct operates efficiently only at its design airspeed, so either static thrust (for hovering) or operating range at top speed must be sacrificed. Then there is the practical issue that, in order to gain the benefit of reduced fan blade tip l
That's not flying (Score:1)
That is the ugliest aircraft I have ever seen (Score:2)
The A-10 Warthog is thrilled to lose the title!
a submission had a link of how badly it had done (Score:2)
This was phase 1 and the results so bad they just quit testing it anymore; there are 3 more phases (including phase 2) it must go through before being accepted.
Skynet is already taking an interest (Score:3)
Well, that's the first prototype for the HKs sorted then.
This thing is rubbish. (Score:2)
It was shaking on takeoff in the video. Whoever designed this thing needs to have their head checked.
Description, picture not what they are thinking (Score:2)
The power is from a conventional petroleum engine. It is hard to believe that is where they would want it to be: converting fuel into electricity at low efficiency and output.
How about putting the Lockheed Martin "fusion that fits in a truck" inside there. That is the kind electrical power output and range you want for heavy and fast VTOL.
Its unmanned, they should just do a tail-sitter! (Score:2)