Slashdot Mirror
Fanwing Planes?
waimate writes "Up until now, there's been fixed wing, or there's been rotating wing, and that's it. But now thanks to Patrick Peebles, there's an entirely new principle of flight called the Fanwing. Initially developed in secrecy and flown only at night, as reported in this Bulletin article this machine combines the many of the attributes of helicopters and conventional aircraft, but not by combining the worst aspects of both like the V-22 Osprey. The FanWing is a whole new way of getting off the ground, particularly suited to inner city applications. It's only downfall (he he) is that it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage. Includes videos of the prototype in action."
Well this site should be /.'d in about 35 seconds for the rest of the day.
Dirk
From a military perspective (and it is always about that in aviation), the payload to power ratio is impressive. I can't imagine it is fast though, or very easily maintained, but hey that is what prototypes are for.
It is a neat concept and works well on the model. But it just feels like scaling it up to the point where it will lift meaningful weight will prove it to be not efficient.
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
Can't autorotate (like a helicopter) either. Ouch.
Best Slashdot Co
Let me suggest that fluid dynamics and related fields of computational fluid dynamics and areodynamics are very nerdy.
This is a boring sig
> It's only downfall (he he) is that it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage
I'm sure they could add some kind of parachute system, like what is being developed for the ISS lifeboat!
I do not want to see flying cars until people learn to drive the ones that don't fly. As dangerous as these "I am the only person on the road" mentality drivers are, imagine them with an "I am the only person in the sky" additiude. Goody, another whole dimension to cut people off in.
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
"...particularly suited to inner city applications ... it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage"
No way, bad idea! I've seen more people that I need to running out of gas to recognize this as a *bad* idea. The ability to glide is *important* and very useful when things seriously seizes to function
There's an entirely new principle of flight called the Fanwing
It sure is a radical design, but I can't imagine it could carry much of a payload.
I am a Karma Library.
Actually, ever since the jet age really got going in military aviation, very few military jets have the capability of gliding very well either (of course, we all know that being able to steer while falling is not the same as gliding, right?). Today's jets are so heavy that without engines they come down awfully fast. I would say, judging by some of the previous statements, the main reason the military might not consider using this craft is the slow speed, which would make it a rather easy target. However, I can't be sure about that since the page is completely /.ed and the google images don't give me much of an indication.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. - Gen George S Patton
Come on, there's no need for a direct link from the articel to the videos hosted on fanwing.com. Perhaps I *too* could have a look at the pictures if the server wasn't slashdotted because everybody's trying to download the videos ...
I say make 'em get pilots' licences, or some modified form thereof. That'll cut down on the soccer moms and grandparents and who(m?)ever else causes all the problems on the roads today.
Synergy is your friend
-asb
With no ability to glide after engine failure, I cannot see the military putting forth much effort (or $$) in an aircraft of this nature
That depends on the use. For unmanned drones not gliding is an advantage, since there would be nothing useful left if it fails (or is shot down) over enemy territory
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
- Unlimited Data Transfers*
Well, at least now we know what that asterisk is for.
We eat the pig and then together we BURN!!!
i.e. if it gets a 2:1 glide ratio but is still has airspeed less than 60mph when it hits the ground I'd take that any day.
Who cares if your landing spot has to be within a mile or so if you can land on a side street or in a Walmart parking lot?
I'm not a mechanic. I'm good friends with two helicpotor mechanics/pilots in the Marine Corps. The Osprey got grounded due to a known flight problem. You know what, so did the F-14, last year! Oh, but a bunch of people didn't die in a crash so no one cares about that fact.
They told me thier entire fleet of Chinooks was grounded for another mechanical problem. Grounding the fleet happens more than most people think.
When 60 Minutes comes in and doesn't leave you alone until you say theres something wrong with the Osprey (16 days of harasment according to "Mike" the pilot) theres something wrong with the story they're making.
Stop saying the Osprey is dangerous. Flying any aircraft can be dangerous.
gliding an airplane seems "boring".
Just gotta say that in anything that flies, boring is considered a good thing. Excitement can mean something is going very wrong.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The great thing about AG's is the simplicity of the drive train. The probem that plagues all choppers is where to put the engine and how to get the power to the rotors. Probably the most common solution is to put the engine on the roof (like most of Bell's line, which minimizes the drive train length, but then, well, you have an engine on the roof, creating a lot of drag and looking stupid. Some put it behind the cabin (a la MD helicopters , which is great drag-wise and looks groovy, but then you get a gear box about 4 inches from the back passengers ear plus a long drive shaft from behind the passengers up to the roof. Its nightmarish.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
OK so they're not as bad as giving nukes to everyone. But a flying car typically can take out far more people and stuff than a normal car - just the potential energy of being much higher up is bad enough. Add in the fact that there's no equivalent of road barriers and emergency lanes for flying vehicles - say you have problems midair in the city you can't really pull-over can you?
Also, humans don't appear to have any innate flocking instinct. You can get a million flamingos to fly in various flock patterns and paths without colliding with each other, but try get humans to do that.
So I personally think consumer level flying cars are a bad idea. Even masses of above average humans won't be able to fly and maintain them safely amongst other masses. I doubt you can get masses of people to do it safely.
It's not like slowly getting people used to flying- e.g. performance envelope of flying chickens - that won't sell. It's like a jump to eagle speeds and altitudes with 1 ton inertias - no stopping on a dime. Eagles and other birds have had a long time to slowly get things right.
I don't trust computers to get it right either - especially since computers and sensors still have to be maintained.
Also if you look at the passenger airplane safety - despite all the training, equipment and controls, they're often worse than cars on a _per_trip_ basis. They win in safety just because of distance travelled.
In the typical "rose tinted view" of free flight in cities, when you have consumer grade flying cars and pilots you get the worse safety of both worlds - many short-medium trips, low level flight, no open air space - lots of cables wires and obstacles around, and lots of other unpredictable flying vehicles around.
So I argue that they'll remove too much more than just the plain idiots.