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."
I seem to remember a report of the first successful real-world use of a emergency parachute for light aircraft. A cessna-like plane had its engines cut own and the pilot was able to parachute his entire plane to safety.
Perhaps that is a valid solution for this fanwing bird.
Incidentally, where they mention "ballistic recovery system"...that is a parachute. The "ballistic" part refers to a parachute which an explosive launches from a mortar tube, for faster deployment.
Because it's an easy target, I guess. Big money, ambitious project, several setbacks, no supporters anymore. It just happens to be the perfect tool for what it needs to do... that's all.
Give designers a contradictory set of specs (long range/endurance, high speed, VTOL, high capacity) and you get a vehicle that's a bit odd and a bit difficult to build and maintain.
OTOH, I'd trust my life to an osprey ANY DAY over something that can't glide when the engines quit.
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
From the bits of the website I've been able to see, it's not much at all like the Kyosho DF (I had the electric F-16 and the glow-powered F-86). Kyosho uses the fan to produce thrust, lift is generated by the wings.
The Fanwing is producing both lift and thrust from the same device.
It's /.'d already so I have no idea what the application for this plane is but I suspect military based on the secrecy of the project. That said, most new govt built planes have a few shared characteristics. The most relevant here is they are fly by wire since they posses the aerodynamics of rocks. The F177a stealth F/B is a great example of a plane that could not fly without the intervention of a computer to make thousands of adjustments a second. In this case the design was for the stealth capabilities but also the F16/18's are not terribly aerodynamic either and have low wing thickness. As a result of these aerodynamic features the stall speed is very high and requires thrust in most circumstances. I do not pretend to understand this fully but apparently these aerodynamic "features" (in this case not a codeword for bug...) allow for amazing manuevuers such as the Mig29's 45 angle of attack. see here and here
and it's ability to do a tail-slide (when the nose is actually behind the tail while the plane is moving forward or graphically like this \ moving > slightly) This was performed at a show in 1998 (see here)
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Entirely new? I think not - especially given that the date on the main page says the site was last updated in early 2001(!). Additionally, Radio Control Modeler (RCM) and Model Airplane News (MAN), arguably the two most popular magazines covering model aircraft of all types, had an article about this back in 1999.....
This effect is easy to see yourself:
Allow me to introduce myself. I am the president of removing safety features for the good of mankind. Including but not limited to rails on bridges, railroad crossing, speed limits, etc. Crazy? Not really. After a period of time, the idiots will weed themselves out. Sure, sometimes the idiot will take out one (or a couple) of the intelligent people, but, given that this could and does happen without my movement, it is a non-issue. Eventually, people will learn not put their hands around moving saw blades and will know Jackass is not a "brilliant" thing.
I think flying cars is an excellent idea IF the common person could afford it.
One day, our society (the intelligent ones) will become tired of carrying idiots around and trying to make everyone "equal"... Welcome to the Monkey House comes to mind.
Yea, off topic overall, but on-topic for the reply.
Its the *lift* that is being generated that is interesting, not the forward thrust. In the ducted fan you point to for example, lift is generated by the wing shape. In the fanwing, its from the rotation of the fan (the Magnus effect).
Note that in airscrews and turbines, thrust is generated in the direction of the axis of rotation. In the fanwing, both thrust and lift are perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Seems to me I've seen this before: from 1931. I guess having one actually working is an accomplishment, though.
Another aircraft that combined many of the advantages of helicopters and airplanes was the Fairey Rotodyne. It was an autogyro that converted temporarily to helicopter mode for vertical takeoff and landing.
This was back in the 1950s.
An autogyro generates lift using an unpowered rotor that rotates in the airstream. It is probably the safest type of aircraft because it can land by autorotation. Some helicopters can also do that but they are much more difficult to control. An autogyro can fly faster than a helicopter, though not as fast as an airplane. Autogyros are also more fuel-efficient than helicopters.
The big drawback of autogyros is that they can't take off and land vertically. They need a short runway.
The Rotodyne overcame this limitation by using small jets at the tips of the rotor blades that converted it to a helicopter for the duration of
the takeoff and landing.
See this page if you want to know more about the history of the Rotodyne and why we don't have regular Rotodyne passenger flights between city hubs today.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Imagine a Wankel engine in one of these! That would provide an awesome power to wieght ratio.
Stick Men
It's only downfall (he he) is that it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage
Last time I checked, helicopters didn't tend to glide all that well either (sometimes akin to rocks). I'm guessing that something more planelike would also do easier in the "ejection" or other escape issues in case of a breakdown.
If it's cheap or fast, probably a good method for low-capicity aircraft. From the working models, the plane seems to be mostly (a huge) tail anyhow, so probably not a lot of passenger capacity - although the theoretical pictures show it as a normal plane with fan-wings.
Very true. However, while flying a helicopter (not the fancy new ones *cough*blackhawk*cough* that fly themselves way too mch) one is constantly working, thus not bored. When I got to fly airplanes I had to work to stay awake!
Yea, I prefer things to go along as planned (never really happens) without any of the wrong lights coming on and with all the instruments "in the green", etc. but the feeling that an airplane does not "need" a person inside to keep going where it was pointed vs. the feeling of commanding the aircraft that will crash if you do not pay constant attention just seems too "steady state" for me.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Nonsense. You can bring a light airplane down on any flat surface that is a couple hundred feet long. I have personally landed Cessnas in muddy fields during flight test practice. It's bumpy, and not ideal, but it can be done. In emergency situations, all you care about is walking away, not saving the airplane.
Incidentally, landing into trees is preferable to landing on water. Skimming the tops of trees cushions the landing and provides gradual slowing. And if you're knocked unconcious, you'll hang in the trees till rescuers arrive. If you pile into the water, on the other hand, you might as well be hitting concrete at those speeds. Sure, there won't be a fire, but if you're knocked unconcious, you're as good as dead (drowning).
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
A reconnaissance platform needs survivability. A design such as this does not appear to offer any sort of low-observabilty, or alternatively, high speed for defensive requirements. This particular design could be brought down with the lowest-tech of weaponry. That said, it might serve well as a surveillance platform for peacetime uses
For the reasons he already stated, this design would alos be unsuitable for peacetime recon. It may be even more important during peacetime than war for the plane to survive. If the plane goes down, its an international incident that may lead to war. Becuase of the instant implications, the plane needs to survive a few hits from the enemy. If they shoot at you but dont get you, most governments wont broadcast the info to the rest of the world, essentialy saying to others "See? They did it and so can you?" IF OTOH, they get the spy plane/drone, they broadcast it instantly as evidence of imperalism by the offender.
Secondly our current "peacetime" activities aint so peaceful. Iraq, Israel, Afganistan to some extent are all peacetime activities, but we get shot at quite a bit.
PFC Gruhn
Fort Lewis, Wa
I Corps, U.S. Army
The sprag clutch is a one way clutch. If power is applied it engages and drives the shaft to the rotor mast (if I remember correctly where it is located. for this discussion it is just important that it is in tthe drivetrain). When power is removed it disengages and allows the system to turn without the friction of the "dead" or reduced RPM engine dragging it down.
;-) The main thing you are looking for when you loose power is a clear place to land and you don't need much room since you can land, safely and reliably, no power, within the dimensions of the aircraft and without a "slide" or runout.
A sprag clutch failure does result in rotor RPM being coupled to engine RPM. An engine failure at this time would be catastrophic.
Yes, landing with no power is reliable, since you WILL land if you loose power
We would usually practice autorotations in conjunction with a simulated forced landing, with the instructor chopping the throttle while announcing "forced landing" and the response is to call for the governer switch to be set to emergency as you drop the collective and setup an approach to your selected landing spot. During the process, the engine is providing no power to the rotor system, but it is sitting at idle waiting to be "run up" again in case of an emergency or completion of the maneuver.
The only time that I "banged one up" was practicing night low-level (50') autos and I was landing hard on an asphault strip. Cracked a skid shoe (metal part under the skid for flight school aircraft because of the extra wear the maneuvers put on the aircraft) in the process.
Some time before I stopped flying the Army stopped doing auto's to the ground outside of flight school and unit instructors since the statistics were lining up that we were breaking more aircraft on landing than the number of engine failures were producing, or something like that.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL