First Hover Flight Test of X-50A Dragonfly

kbielefe writes "On Wednesday, flight testing began on the X-50A dragonfly canard rotor wing unmanned aircraft. For those of you not familiar with the dragonfly, its rotors work like a helicopter for takeoff, hovering, and slow-speed manouvering, and then lock into place like a fixed-wing aircraft for cruising. The X-50A's reaction drive makes it "much lighter, simpler and more affordable to operate and support than traditional rotorcraft." And the technology is scalable to larger, manned vehicles. Truly a revolutionary aircraft, with a multitude of potential military and commercial applications." There are some more photos and artwork.

Comments

Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[MikeDawg]

I'm must be technically challeneged when it comes to understanding aerospace terms. But can somone please explain to me why this thing doesn't need an anti-torque mechanism (tail rotor). The advanced terms Boeing uses on the website make no sense to me.

By using a unique reaction-drive rotor system, the CRW concept eliminates the need for a heavier and more complex mechanical drive train and transmission, as well as the need for an anti-torque system.

Does this actually mean something, or is it just a bunch of big words to confuse the general public?

Re:spoke too soon

[DAldredge]

Well, that 18,000,000,000 USD contract was a POS to begin with. It worked like this: The US leases 100 jets from Boeing, THe US pays to have them converted to tankers, The Us pays for all upkeep and replacement in the event of a crash/shootdown, the US pays to have them reconverted to normal aircraft and then Boeing gets the planes back.

It was about 25-50% more expensive then just buying the planes to begin with.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Smidge204]

Here's a hint:

There are (thousands?) of Harriers in service, and surprizingly few incidents compared to the number in use (and how they are used - eg in an actual conflict).

They built 10 Osprey V-22 aircraft for testing. In April of 2000, one V-22 crashed during a test flight and killed 19 marines. That alone is nearly two people dead for every craft ever built. (Note: Check date, might be wrong!)

Which do you suppose is the safer technology?
=Smidge=

Not as cool as this one

[YoungBonzi]

Nuclear Flying Saucer.

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[transient]

The FCC would never approve this vehicle

Then it's a good thing the FCC has nothing to do with airworthiness certificates. ;-)

Re:Deathtrap?

[afidel]

I guess you never heard of Viatnam where helicopters saved so many lives that they literally can't be counted. Just because a handfull of helo's have been taken down by barages of light arms fire doesn't mean the tech should be abandoned. Heck fewer people probably died from crashes then from a single convoy trying to escape by road vs similar circumstances.

Re:Deathtrap?

[xnn]

Apart from unintentionally dropping out of the sky, the Osprey has some very serious problems, from a tactical point of view.

In short, it can't land quick enough to avoid a 15 year-old kid with an RPG blowing a $68 million dollar hole in the taxpayer's wallet. Those who will have to ride in it view it as a death trap. The descent rate is slow enough to make even rifle fire a serious problem.

I heard that the osprey started out due to a delineation of service problem. That is, the Navy is not allowed fixed wing transport aircraft, as that is the sole domain of the Airforce. Any info on this?

Re:Deathtrap?

[The Snowman]

Although I'm sure most people wouldn't consider anything designed to fly through a war zone to be "safe" by most standards.

I would feel much safer in an F-15 or B-1B than I would in a Harrier or Osprey. But these planes generally fly higher than 50 feet. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that you don't consider any aircraft designed for close combat support (think helicopter hovering at low altitude) safe.