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

That was fast

[teklob]

The poll predicted flying cars within our lifetime.
That sure was fast...

Deathtrap?

[The Snowman]

So far, our attempts at bridging the gaps between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have met with disaster. Take the Osprey, for example. I don't know who it was but he said that it took the worst features of both types of aircraft and mashed them together with poor engineering. Hopefully this new aircraft does not suffer the fate of the Osprey... and her pilots.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Clever Pun]

certainly seems safer than the Harrier's technology - I can recall at least six separate Harrier accidents within the last few years, and I'm not even trying that hard. I'm sure a google would turn up more.

But yeah, let's try having the pilot not be IN the plane when it's first learning to fly, eh?

Re:Deathtrap?

[thebigmacd]

And HOW many Harriers are there compared to Ospreys?

Re:Deathtrap?

[bellers]

Incidentally, the Osprey program this week just surpassed 1000 flight hours for the program. It's racked up lots more flight time since the grounding and reengineering interval from 18 months ago.

Did you know that in the 50's the Army almost decided not to use helicopters at all after about a hundred soldiers were killed during trials of the Piasecki helicopters? There were people in the Army who were screaming that it was criminal to keep putting men into helicopters.

While I think that the Osprey getting grounded for a year and a half while they fixed the safety-critical problems was appropriate and justified, I'm glad that it's back in the air, and I think that it can really change the face of airmobile combat.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Clever Pun]

Honestly? I couldn't tell you. I don't think I've even heard of the Osprey prior to this, but then, I'm not much of an aviation buff. Should the name be ringing a bell for a 19-year-old college sophomore?

(hey, if I don't ask, how can I get answers? :)

Re:Deathtrap?

[Hal-9001]

Depends. I went to college in Tucson, Arizona, which is where all the Ospreys crashed.

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=

Re:Deathtrap?

[Clever Pun]

When abouts did all this happen?

Re:Deathtrap?

[Clever Pun]

could just be that i'm misremembering - heck, i have trouble remembering what i had for dinner last night, let alone a news story from a couple years back... :-\

Re:Deathtrap?

[sllim]

Can I assume you are a 19 year old AMERICAN college Sophmore?

Yeah, actually I do think you should at least have heard of this.

The Osprey is supposed to be a replacement for the very aged Chinook helicopters.
If ever the military had a vehicle that outlived its usefulness it was the Chinook.
My father was in 'Nam and he tells me that he couldn't get out of those things fast enough. They were flying bullseyes as far as he was concerned.

The Osprey has the range and speed of a propeller aircraft but the VTOL capability, and the hover ability of a helicpoter.
This is acomplished by putting extremely large propeller (turboprop) engines on the end of the wings. The largest damn propellers you are ever going to see. The ends of the wings actually rotate 90 degrees to facilitate take off and landings.

When they first started testing this thing they found a lot of flaws. Some where engineering problems, but there is one nasty one they have been working on.

The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes.

Is it a bad aircraft that we need to give up on?

I don't really know.

John Glenn seems to think the Shuttle's are flying death traps and we were better off putting capsules on top of rockets.

The Hubble was a real mess when it was first put in orbit as well. There was an enormous public outcry after the press labeled it 'a failure'.
Hmmmm some failure.

The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing.

Aviation is HARD and DANGEROUS. Someone else already said it for me, it is about time we took the 'pilot' out of test pilot. I can only imagine what the difference in public perception would be if the Osprey had gone through an unmanned testing phase.

The Osprey does hold tremendous promise though. If we can iron out the problems in it, it really would be a new category of aircraft. Something that can economicaly provide city to city air service, something that can bridge the gap between helicopter and airplane.

While I am not yet convinced that they can get a grip on the vortex problem, I am very far away from saying they need to give up.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Clever Pun]

This is acomplished by putting extremely large propeller (turboprop) engines on the end of the wings. The largest damn propellers you are ever going to see. The ends of the wings actually rotate 90 degrees to facilitate take off and landings.

OHHHHH...yeah, I remember some of it now. Guess I'm more of a visual thinker than I thought :-\

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?

[Wyatt Earp]

The Harrier has a high rate of failure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/la- ha rrier-day1.story

"Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents."

"If the Harrier had been decisive many times in battle, we would all still regret horribly the tragedies of the pilots who have been killed, but at least you'd be able to say that the Harrier made a difference," said Philip E. Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester from 1994 to 2001.

"What makes this situation so difficult is that we just don't have that kind of battlefield record to support the accidental deaths."

In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.

"It's the most vulnerable plane that's in service now," said Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, who evaluates tactical aircraft for the Pentagon. "You can't hit that thing without hitting something important."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.c fm ?Id=303

"The AV-8B Harrier--a single-engine attack jet that can take off vertically and hover--has a mishap rate of 12 per 100,000 flight hours, among the highest in the U.S. military aviation community. But only one-third of Harrier mishaps are caused by human error, Dirren said. "Two-thirds [of the mishaps] are related to the aircraft failures."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/a ir craft/av-8-variants.htm
"In 1982, after eleven years of AV-8A operational flying, including 55 peacetime aircraft losses, the Commandant of the time (Gen Robert Barrow) asked the Harrier community to address the serious problem of flight safety. The impetus for his concern was "a high mishap rate within the AV-8A community... anticipated continuing turbulence... and a pressing requirement to reduce the mishap rate in order to provide the assets needed for successful transition to the AV-8B." At the time, the community had a cumulative Class A rate of 39 per 100,000 flight hours."

"By 1998, USMC Harrier operations (including Naval Air Systems Command) had resulted in 17 fatalities, one permanent disability and 68 AV-8B aircraft lost. With a cumulative Class A mishap rate of 12.1 per 100,000 flight hours, the AV-8B has consistently outpaced all USMC aircraft types in this statistic."

The FAS website estimates 815 Harriers built in all models all the way from the Kestrel and P.1127 test planes
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav83.html

Re:Deathtrap?

[Tailhook]

Did you know that in the 50's the Army almost decided not to use helicopters at all after about a hundred soldiers were killed during trials of the Piasecki helicopters? There were people in the Army who were screaming that it was criminal to keep putting men into helicopters.

It doesn't seem to have gotten much better. There is a reason the A-10 is in the US inventory; helicopters are flaky. Their slow at low altitude, big and soft. Rifle bullets will break things and make a mission very unpleasant.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Schaffner]

You really can't compare the number of people killed in a Harrier crash and the number of people killed in an Osprey crash. The reason is that the Osprey can carry more people. The Osprey is a transport, the Harrier's main role is ground attack, though it can also be used as a light fighter. (It can carry infrared guided missiles, but not radar guided. And it has a gun.) Most Harriers only carry one person, the pilot, though there are some that carry two. The Osprey can carry its crew and a bunch of passengers. Using your logic the 747 is very unsafe because when one of them crash it can kill around 400 people! The way to look at the safety of an aircraft is the casualties per 1000 flight hours. Using this measurement the Harrier record is not very good.

Re:Deathtrap?

[surfimp]

It's a UAV. Nobody flies inside of it. Presumably, before they make a human carrying model they'll get the bugs worked out. Presumably.

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?

[M1FCJ]

They lost a lot of choppers in vieatnam... Quite a lot...

Re:Deathtrap?

[bm_luethke]

Great post.

Too much we focus on the nay sayers, sometimes they are correct, but many times they are not. How many times were people told you couldn't fly, dive beneath the ocean, or go to the moon. All of which were wrong. Not only that, but the amount of injuries and deaths to get to those points is absolutely stagering and would not be tolerated in todays society.

Yet those things are what we define as great moments in our history.

Just because those things are decried by some people doesn't mean they are, in fact, impossible.

*shrug* we need to keep a balance in things, spending 3 trillion on a perpetual motion machine isn't exactly good money spent, but there are a myriad of projects that get a bad rep because a few (or even more than a few) names say it is impossible.

Re:Deathtrap?

[boaworm]

--has a mishap rate of 12 per 100,000 flight hours

Just curious, anyone knows how this compares to a regular automobile ? If it is a wartime machine, combination between helicopter and airplane, and it is a lot safer than riding your average car, then it seems quite fair to me.

Re:Deathtrap?

[mnemonic_]

I agree. The amount of lives saved by the Osprey when it's put into service will be a great help, especially compared to the UH-60s being shot down.

Re:Deathtrap?

[mnemonic_]

"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."

And how is this different from current helicopters? On the other hand, the V-22's much higher cruising speed and altitude will make it far less vulnerable to MANPADS and other anti-air weaponry than current helos.

Sure, the Osprey is not a step-forward in all areas of rotary wing performance, but it definitely is in the areas that count.

And give me a fixed-wing aircraft that can land anywhere (no, the Harrier requires at least prepared area covered in steel mats), that can fly slow and low enough to conduct detailed reconnaissance, that can turn a company of tanks into smoldering wreckage in seconds. Helos are here to stay.

Re:Deathtrap?

[arickster]

The Osprey is a joke. It is yet another weapon program is search of a mission and funds. If the Marines were serious, they would purchase the H-60 Blackhawk at a fraction of the cost. See the following excellent article for a detailed explaination. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/h-60.htm

Re:Deathtrap?

[Smidge204]

Actually, my logic would prove a 747 to be extremely safe. Number in service * number of passengers that ever flew in one / total fatalites in accidents.

I think the other reply was much mre interesting. (About the total number of accidental failures & other problems). Although I'm sure most people wouldn't consider anything designed to fly through a war zone to be "safe" by most standards. Had the Osprey seen real service, something tells me it would be even more fragile and the accident rate would be much higher than for Harriers.
=Smidge=+

Re:Deathtrap?

[xnn]

From the above link:

While the details remain unclear eight months after the fact, the only major battle in the Iraq war centered on U.S. attack helicopters ended in mission failure. The raid involved 40 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters that attacked Iraqi Republican Guard units south of Baghdad on March 24. One was shot down (the two crewmen taken prisoner) and 30 returned to base having sustained severe damage.The Washington Post subsequently reported:

"In attacking a formation of about 40 Apache Longbows on Monday, the Iraqis staged a classic helicopter ambush first perfected by the North Vietnamese in the 1960s. As the lethal, tank-killing aircraft approached on a mission to destroy the Medina Division's dispersed armor, troops dispersed throughout a palm-lined residential area and opened fire with antiaircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenades and a wall of fire from rifles and other small arms. ...

"The Iraqi fire was so intense that the Apaches had to break off their mission and return to base."

I'm not saying that the Osprey (or the combat Helo) is not a very neat thing, but 68 million dollars! (Blackhawks ain't cheap either.)

"Rugged and reliable" and "flying pork-barrel" are seldom used in the same sentence.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Moofie]

Uh, so how many Marines can you deliver into hostile territory with an A-10?

I'm pretty sure the number is awfully close to zero.

There are NO armored airborne personnel carrying vehicles. Zero. That means, if you're flying in a C-130 or a Sea Stallion, that there is pretty well nothing between you and fiery death at the hands of bad guys.

It's a problem that is solved by tactics. The Osprey permits a larger variety of tactics (because it's faster and longer-ranged than other heavy lift helicopters).

Being in the Army is dangerous. That's what soldiers sign up for. It's up to the engineers (that's me) to provide them with the best possible hardware to complete their missions, but there is no such thing as a "safe" combat insertion vehicle.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Moofie]

Uh huh. And you can also dust off that story about the CSAR pilot who had three helicopters shot out from under him in a single day. He was still out there rescuing people.

How do you do SAR with a fixed-wing aircraft? Search, sure. But the rescue part is tricky.

And don't even try to pretend that Fulton STARS would have worked in Vietnam.

Re:Deathtrap?

[The Snowman]

Just curious, anyone knows how this compares to a regular automobile ?

If your car has a problem with the steering, you put on the brakes, and maybe have enough steering capability to get out of traffic. If something jiggles loose in the engine, even in the worst case if a piston were to stick, a rod thrown or timing belt cracked, timing got out of wack and you busted the valves and cracked the block, etc, you stick it in neutral and coast to the side of the road.

The Harrier has had "steering" and engine problems similar to these over its life. Almost all the time, it crashes and the pilots die. Mechanical failure in a car means you pull over to the side of the road in the majority of cases. Even in an airplane you can usually glide to a relatively safe crash-landing, although commercial jets aren't exactly graceful in air. But the Harrier? No way. If you have problems it will probably tip on the side or upside down, making it problematic even to eject and safely observe the wreckage. Assuming the eject mechanism works, of course.

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.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Moofie]

Well, since it's about six times worse than the next-most-dangerous combat aircraft, I think that comparing it to automobiles is pretty silly.

Re:Deathtrap?

[PPGMD]

Thats because the Osprey wasn't designed for that mission profile, thats a mission profile better served by a traditional helos. The VH-22, at least what I am told from my USMC rotorhead friends, is going to replace their older CH-53's, but is keeping the newer CH-53E's, along with their UH-1Z's.

Also the Navy actually has an extensive fleet of fixed wing aircraft. Quite a few are for transport
C-2A
C-9B
C-20G
C-40

They also have quite a large collection of Cargo Rotary wing aircraft:
CH-53
UH-60

fas.org the best source of US Military information if you don't have a library near by for Janes.

Re:Deathtrap?

[RayBender]

The Harrier is hard to fly in hover because it lacks computerized stabilization - think balancing a telephone pole on your nose.

But ask any British Falklands vet what he thinks of the Harrier and I bet you he'll love 'em. So they have their uses.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Keebler71]

Actually, the Osprey is a fantastic aircraft and I would argue that they took the best features of both types of aircraft when the tilt rotor craft was created (btw, the Osprey is not even close to being the first tilt-rotor... they date back about 30 years, it is just the first military application). Anyway, there have been two mishaps in the V-22 program. One was due to vortex-ring state, a phenomena that was not an engineering issue, but rather a poorly understood aerodynamically phenomena that is more critical in the new field of tilt-rotors compared with helicopters. The second was a combination of a hydraulic failure and a software glitch (which failed to compensate). This type of problem could have affected any aircraft and was by no means unique to a tilt-rotor. When you break new ground, researching a new corner of the aerodynamics, you will undoubtably discover new phenomena.

Re:Deathtrap?

[willtsmith]

The need for a high speed vertical takeoff aircraft is real and has been real for a VERY long time.

The Osprey has had some problems. Most aircraft go through "problem" stages. The history of fixed wing aircraft has far more deaths on it's account than the Osprey.

Re:Deathtrap?

[arickster]

The Osprey is too complicated and too expensive. When it is perfected and operates perfectly it will still be vunerable to dirt and one bullet. Also, what is the point of these heinously expensive weapons systems? The cold war is over and these systems will do little in the war against terrorism. The money will go further invested in people.

Re:Deathtrap?

[PierceLabs]

Death rate doesn't determine what's safer - failure rate does - and the failure rate of the harrier is reported to be higher than that of the osprey.

Re:Deathtrap?

[ErikZ]

How about the C-130 gunship?

I almost snagged of the empty casings from the artillery it carries (This is not hyperbole, it literally carries a artillery cannon.), but the sucker was three feet high, no room for it in my luggage.

I saw a video from one of their missions. The plane laid waste to a terrorist holdout and runners, but left the mosque that was in the middle of things, untouched.

Re:Deathtrap?

[bbaskin]

The biggest problem here was a question of tactics. Army doctrine (now being adjusted) still called for coming to a hover before firing weapons. This obviously exposes the aircraft to high risk small arms fire. Marine doctrine on the other hand has helo pilots firing on the run, not slowing below 60 knots in combat. This difference accounts for much of the combat robustness of the Cobra over the Apache. In fact, before the war, I believe the Marines upped their minimum combat speed.

That said, landing involves stopping, and is always risky. The V-22 has the ability to enter and egress an LZ faster and quiter than any other current rotary wing aircraft. I doubt many on /. have seen/heard a V-22 approach an LZ at 100 feet AGL in airplane mode. It is nearly silent until a 100 or so yards away. Transition can be quick (15s) land, dump cargo, and transition to forward flight again. Because of this reduced exposure/announcement time, the V-22 is more survivable than an old CH-47 or CH-46.

Re:Deathtrap?

[bbaskin]

What the hell are you talking about? Tiltrotors have been flying for 50 years. Bell and/or Boeing has now designed and flown 6 tiltrotor aircraft, 4 of them fly-by-wire, ranging from the small Pointer and Eagle Eye UAVS, to the midsized XV-15 and BA609, and the larger V-22. The single piston engine XV-3 was the first in this line of aircraft, flown in the 1950s. The technical challenges of tiltrotors are well understood by Bell.

The modern twin engine tiltrotors have two engines and a drive shaft connecting the two so that either engine can power both rotors. The engines are widely (!) spaced which against some threats actually increases survivability. They are no more vulnerable to "dirt and one bullet" than any other aircraft, and more robust than most.

The point is simple: helicopters are good for hovering, bad for distance or speed. This is a solution that trancends the limitation of helicopters. Twice the speed at 2-3 times the range. Tiltrotors are more efficient for transport/business missions and will be very effective in search and rescue. They also make good UAVs for ship board use since they can have the long range of a fixed wing without having to land in a net.

Just because the cold war is over doesn't mean that troops don't need to get from point A to point B quickly, and doesn't mean that people don't need to get to far offshore wells, find people in danger in ocean, patrol our shores, fly from city center to city center or in general provide another option for the aviation industry

Re:Deathtrap?

[CrowScape]

There's a reason for that. The British has almost completely gutted their carrier fleet, leaving only Invincible class carriers left. These aren't the behemoth's the US's Nimitz class carriers are, these are small carriers that can only handle short take-off and landing aircraft, so you'll see them packed to the gills with Harriers and helicopters (mostly helicopters). This is why those Falkland pilots will say that they loved the Harrier, because they had no other choice! For the US armed forces, which does have massive carriers from which to launch a variety of aircraft, the rate of failure of the jet does not justify it's landing flexibility.

Re:Deathtrap?

[RayBender]

Perhaps, but try telling the Corps they don't need a V/STOL aircraft... They seem pretty convinced they do. The argument is that they can operate from unprepared fields - they're thinking back to Guadalcanal.

Give the Harrier a break - it's a useful aircraft with a very challenging design requirement, that is almost 30 years old.

Re:Deathtrap?

[instarx]

When you push the bounderies of any technology, as with the Osprey, it is more dangerous than using an established technology. During development and early years of the Harrier many, many pilots were killed and aircraft lost - partly due to new skills needed to fly them and partly to problems with the planes themselves - an identical situation with the Osprey. The same argument you make about a failed application of a new technology could have been applied to the airplane itself, helicopters, the steam train, steamships, or even the automobile. In all cases they frequently crashed, exploded, burned and killed people regularly until the bugs were worked out. Even the first of the jet-powered airliners crashed frequently simply because they made the windows too big.

Thankfully we didn't abandon any of those technologies because of early accidents. True, there are some truly bad wacky-fringe ideas such as rocket-powered cars and nuclear-powered aircraft that deserved to be abandoned, but the Osprey doesn't fall into the wacky category.

We shouldn't immediately blame the technology as faulty and proclaim failure when things go wrong with new technologies - we always learn as we go and that is the price of progress.

Re:Deathtrap?

[willtsmith]

Your right that it will do little in the war for terrorism. But money must be spent on SOME type of weapon system ;-)

It WILL allow marines to quickly deploy in large numbers and quickly evacuate.

Re:Deathtrap?

[Moofie]

Well, for the soldiers going into harm's way, the people shooting at them are "the bad guys".

Any other stupid politically-correct notions you'd like me to correct for you?

Re:Deathtrap?

[arickster]

1. The Marines should be seaborne. 2. The services have great big transport aircraft which work quite well. 3. Helicopters are best at short distances. 4. Stealth would be a good thing in a helicopter. 5. The Pentagon cannot account for something like 1-Trillion dollars. 6. No other branch of the service seems to want this Osprey turkey. 7 The Osprey is a weapons program in search of funding and a mission.

Re:Deathtrap?

[willtsmith]

Planes are best for medium distances. This is what they are trying to accomplish with the Osprey. Nothing says that the Marines shouldn't be naval based. Rather, you create a capability for rapid medium/long distance arial deployment via troop ship.

This is exact capability would have been VERY handy in Afghanistan. It also comes in handy when one wants to move large numbers of Marines to an area RAPIDLY and make them less vulnerable on route. Speed is a great ally against missles. The less time in range, the less time to target and fire.

Futhermore, I think that most people would agree that planes have an inherently more stealth potential than helicopters. Especially the kind you would put 50 marines onto. The big Chinooks with two massive counter rotating blades. The need for a cargo version of such a plane is also VERY evident.

Don't get me wrong. I like helicopters. They are great short trips, but they have inherint speed and range issues.

The purpose of the Osprey is VERY evident. It's certainly debateable whether that purpose has merit. The miliatary as a whole has said YES.

Every effort at creating new aircraft has resulted in DEATH. In lamentable that some of the Osprey bugs were found in operational testing.

Typically it's just test pilots who bite it, not soldiers. But every tranport system for soldiers has killed ten times more. A squad of Marines were killed in an accident 10 time that number were killed on American highways the SAME day. Let's keep things in perspective.

Re:Deathtrap?

[arickster]

Afghanistan? Check out a book called "The hunt for Bin Laden" By Robin Moore. It is the story of how Special Forces took over Afghanistan. I think that the mission of the Marines has grown too large. The Army does this stuff all the time and they have passed on the Osprey program. The Army studied the Osprey and then decided not to pursue it. The Osprey is such a esoteric machine, all sorts of helicopters exist, all sorts of fixed wing aircraft with short runway requirements exist. The Marines should stick to their traditional roles, shipboard security and amphibious warfare. Leave the flying to the major services.

Can you say Osprey

[Biff98]

Hrmmm -- maybe they actually figured it out this time. They certainly have less weight worries than with the Osprey...

I used to live on the east coast and remember hearing about all of the ill-fated Osprey test flights.

Re:Can you say Osprey

[PakProtector]

I live on the east coast too, and I dreaded all those osprey crashes, too.

Nothing like a brown-grey bird of prey slamming into you freshly cleaned window at 60 mph because a kitten ran across the floor to make you spill all that 150degree McDonald's coffee on yourself.

Realistic commercial uses?

[MikeDawg]

If/When this aircraft gets to the final stages of development, when it is actually ready for the "military/commercial" market; I can't imagine it's pricetag being real affordable to the commercial market. I can't really think of many applications where this aircraft would be so much more viable as an option as opposed to what a helicopter can be for commercial uses. Why would any company buy one of these unmanned vehicles that makes it so much more practical than a manned helicopter?

On the other hand, I can see quite extensive military uses for this aircraft, and I could see it as being a very important part of the military.

Re:Realistic commercial uses?

[The Snowman]

On the other hand, I can see quite extensive military uses for this aircraft, and I could see it as being a very important part of the military.

Maybe that is why DARPA is helping to develop it ;-)

Could be good for general aviation...

[NightWulf]

They don't need as much speed as was quoted in the article. (500 kts) It would be intresting as a cheap, sub 200K range private general aviation plane. I'm surprised Boeing is taking a risk though with such a strange new craft, especially with their current financial troubles.

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[bellers]

This vehicle isnt designed for the civil market. at all. The FCC would never approve this vehicle in its current form. It has no pilot, no redundancy, and no business case for civil aviation. It is a technology demonstrator for a warcraft, developed in response to DARPA and DoD requests.

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[pbug]

>>I'm surprised Boeing is taking a risk though with such a strange new craft
Well when you have you have a 24 million dollar contract to develop a plane for the US Governemnt you can take that risk to develop two concept planes for them.

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:Could be good for general aviation...

[bradtes]

The FCC would never approve this vehicle in its current form.

I agree. The Federal Communications Commission would never grant approval to this vehicle. Perhaps you meant the FAA.

But, yes. I agree that the vehicle, in its current form, isn't overly suitable for civillain use.

--

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[mandolin]

Moderated 'interesting'? More like 'funny' -- FCC != FAA.

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[transient]

Yeah, I don't get it either. Whatever...

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

[mnemonic_]

Your confusion of FCC with FAA pretty much makes any possible credibility of yours evaporate.

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:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[SupaMegaBuffalo]

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

A bit of both.
Conventional helicopters need a tailrotor because main rotor is spun by a mechanism that is fixed to the body of the aircraft which tends to spin the body around too. This thing seems to use a tip-jet mechanism to spin the main rotor, ie the tips of the blades contain little jet nozzles to spin it around and since it isn't mechanically fixed to the body it won't tend to spin the body around too.

Sorry if that didn't as much sense as i wanted it to, i haven't slept in 2 days.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[bellers]

It means that the reaction gases generated by the turbine engine are routed out through the rotors and to the rotor tips, making them move.

It means that there's nothing inside the vehicle, cranking the rotor around, so the vehicle never tries to crank itself the other way.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Drakin]

I think that it doesn't need a anti torque system because the rotor's driven by diverting the thrust to the blade tips, with the rotor being free wheeling... or that's what it sounds like.

They may also have it designed so that the same divertion system also provides an anti torque system, by dirececting the thrust to one side.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[errittus]

Doesn't make sense...Newtons law.. I've heard about helicopters that use the directed-vented exhaust from the tail section to compensate for counter-rotation. Maybe http://www.kulikovair.com/CTBLCSTestRig.jpg

--e

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Captain Nitpick]

Doesn't make sense...Newtons law..

Ah, but that's exactly why it does make sense.

In a conventional helicopter, the rotor is spun by a driveshaft coming up into the center of the rotor. This creates a torque on the rotor, spinning it. By Newton's third law, there is an equal but opposite torque applied to the rest of the helicopter, causing it to rotate in the opposite direction. Thus, the tail rotor.

In the Dragonfly, hot gas is exhausted at the rotor tips, in a direction perpendicular to the rotor's axis. Since the gas is travelling down the rotor axis, a force must be applied to cause it to change direction, and Newton's third law again says that a complementary force will exist on the exhaust housing, and thus the rotor tip. This force produces the torque to spin the rotor.

Since no torque is applied to the rotor by the helicopter, no torque is applied to the helicopter by the rotor.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[mandolin]

the vehicle never tries to crank itself the other way.

Yes, but wouldn't the friction between the spinning rotor and the rest of the aircraft still tend to spin the thing? Or is that friction negligible enough not to care?

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Spy Hunter]

It may be not enough to care, but if it is non-negligable, a small amount of the turbine's air output could be routed to a little nozzle on the back of the plane pointing sideways (in addition to the nozzles on the tips of the rotors and). You still wouldn't need a complex series of mechanical linkages to drive a secondary propeller.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Izmunuti]

I'm guessing: The thing has no mechanical drive, just a thrust vectoring system which is used for everything. So perhaps it has a nozle pointing sideways that it vectors some of the flow to instead of having a mechanical linkage to a tail rotor. Maybe some contraption like a thrust reverser (a thrust sidewayser?) snaps over the rear when it's in vertical flight?

Just looking at the pic in the article, there's what could be a vent on its side, torward the rear.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Oggust]

There was also the Hiller HOE-1. It was designed to be a volkschopper, sell at $5k and essentially be the flying car that everybody could afford.

It had some problems, too small, too slow, WAY too noisy (being a ramjet helicopter) too little fuel capacity, etc.

/August

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[PPGMD]

Actually it pretty much works in the same say that the CH-47, and CH-46 work, counter rotating propellers.

The CRW I assume refers to their gearing system and how they control the aircraft in hover.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[drinkypoo]

The use of ducted thrust to counteract rotation, or indeed to bring about rotation, is called NOTAR and it has been around for some time now.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[PPGMD]

That's called bleed air. It's a real pain in the butt to control. The F-4's used bleed air to lower the landing speed (don't ask me how it lowered the landing speed, that would take a wind tunnel), during combat the bleed air feed would come loose occasionally, ripping out the insides of the wing.

Bleed air is hard to use in combat aircraft for this reason. Please see my post here for how the VH-22 actually works.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[thered]

In a conventional helicopter, the torque on the rotor has to be equal and opposite the torque on the helicopter body (via the transmission, and engine, etc.) - thanks to Newton's Third Law(TM).

In this application the rotor is free to spin and therefore does not impart a torque on the helicopter.

There are many other things that need to be considered - I'm an engineer, but rotorcraft isn't my niche, so I'll stop here, before I get myself in trouble.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[Spy Hunter]

Sounds to me like the F-4's bleed air feed was badly designed. I don't see how you can generalize that to saying "bleed air is always hard to use". Especially when it is the foundation for this aircraft's entire propulsion system already. The amount of bleed air needed to counteract the very small amount of spin is tiny in comparison to the amount it would take to lower the landing speed of an aircraft. And what does the VH-22 have to do with this? We're talking about the X-50A here.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[TheSync]

The torque is balanced because the amount of momentum due to the air exhaust from the tips of the rotors is equivalent to the momentum that the air exhaust transfers to the rotors.

In a "normal" helicopter, momentum is applied to the rotors from the engine without any balancing counter-momentum. Thus the need for the tail rotor.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

[vortexau]

Torque-reaction occurs as a consequence of a motor (or gearbox) attempting to rotate contary to the axle (or axis) direction.

Since THIS is Rotor Tip-driven, rather than axle-driven, it doesn't suffer from torque-reaction.
.

Re:no faith whatsoever

[Emugamer]

you think they got this contract after the second of december and already had the first flight tests? hmmm now that would be something

The "Dragonfly?"

[Bloody Twit]

I'm awaiting the announcement of the copyright-infringement lawsuit that Hasbro will file any day now...

Re:The "Dragonfly?"

[Clever Pun]

...so, might Boeing's list of nicknames for future projects include "Fruit fly", "Cardinal", "Mayfly", or "Cockroach"?

Which of course

[ProfessionalCookie]

Is not the same thing as Draganfly Which has four rotors that do not rotate into the shape of a fixed wing aircraft. and no, sadly there's no X-50A Drive.

Alternatively, of course, the XGP has Sub-Ether drive and some fancy grappler arms.

spoke too soon

[segment]

oops should have looked faster

Pentagon halts $18bn Boeing deal
( 2003-12-03 10:06) (Agencies)

The Pentagon has postponed action on $18 billion in contracts for 100 Boeing 767 tankers until the deal is investigated after Boeing fired two officials for ethical violations, U.S. Defense Department officials said Tuesday.

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told leaders of the Senate Armed Service Committee in a letter dated December 1 that he was ordering a "pause in the execution'' of the Air Force contracts to lease and buy the mid-air refueling tankers, a major setback in Boeing's two-year effort to sell the planes.

Following the law to the last T, Boeing should not get any defense contract for some time, so if all holds true (which I doubt) this plane should never fly for the US military... Then again money talks

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:spoke too soon

[afidel]

Dude, the contract was never going to Airbus to begin with. The bid info was given to Boing so their own bid wouldn't seem out whack. The DoD has determined that keeping Boing and LM solvent is a matter of national security so they will get the majority of contracts depsite any appearance of an open bidding process. If they have to they will do the same thing IT companies do with H1B workers, design the specs so only the American company can meet all the points (the obvious one is say asking for a domestic passenger jet to be converted to an air tanker rather than just a passenger jet to be converted). And frankly I thik they are 100% justified in doing this, keeping the knowledge and technology to build these kinds of important national assets around is well worth whatever the cost. Plus if we are going to spend the kind of money we do on national defense it should at least be spent where it will go back into the economy.

6th day come to mind ??

[ThomasFlip]

Isn't this aircraft basically the same thing as in the movie "6th day" ?

Re:6th day come to mind ??

[ericspinder]

That's the first thing that came to my mind too. I think that the 6th day (like Minority Report) did a lot of "fishing" (if you will) for technologies which we might see in our lifetimes, cars that drive themselves, holographic girlfriends, that airplane, in addition to the story driven tech (cloning).

This technology has the potential to beat the pants off of the previous VTOL aircraft. I don't believe that it would replace the large fix-winged planes, due to the higher fuel consumption of vertical fight, but helicopters may become a thing of the past. It's good to see Boeing doing the hard research to get it going.

Re:Great technology

[still cynical]

I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson.

That lesson being not to make sweeping judgements and generalizations based on publicity-driven artist's conceptions? Funny, I thought that (one of) the lesson(s) of the atomic bomb was that overwhelming force (when not guided by an idiot, not that I'm referring to a sitting politician or anything) can be used to end wars started by others.

X-50 half helicopter half plane

[pbug]

It's intended to float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. I guess but what I enjoy about this new type of airship is the fact it is combining the best of different technologies. To create an interesting new. A supersonic helicopter anyone?

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Gunfighter]

I doubt we'll see any supersonic helicopters any time soon. Harriers can't even go supersonic. It would be one hell of an engineering feet to build a rotary-to-fixed aircraft like the X-50 and work supersonic flight into it's capabilities.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[SWTP_OS9]

Saw on Nova this summer that the Joint Attack Fighter in one version did do from zero to supersonic.

This thing reminded me of a old Tom Swift story.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Have Blue]

I don't think there's anything that makes a supersonic Harrier impossible; it just doesn't have the engine power for it.

Helicopters have a completely different problem, which is entirely due to their rotating lift surfaces. A fixed-wing aircraft has no fundamental block to going supersonic.

Plus, it's not like this craft needs great performance in VTOL mode. It would only be used for getting it off the ground and putting it back down.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[afidel]

What I can't figure out is WHY the Harrier's max speed is so slow. It's got about 80% (22K lbs vs 27K lbs) of the thrust of an F-16 and it's max weight configuration is almost 50% lighter (10K Kilos vs 16K Kilos) yet it's max speed is around 1/3rd (550 knots vs 1,500). What is the factor limiting the Harrier to such slow speeds?

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[mandolin]

IANAaerospace engineer, but I'd guess it's the mostly the aerodynamic profile -> drag; the Harrier is many things but sleek it is not.

I would have also guessed the way the exhaust is vectored even in jet mode might have something to do with it.. certainly that can't be efficient? although if the thrust figures you quote is what's coming out of the nozzle, rather than the raw engine output, your guess is as good as mine.

Lastly, you probably want to be judging based on empty weight, not max weight.

FWIW I read that the Harrier II has approx. 20-22K lbs of thrust (depending on installed engine) and will do Mach 0.98. I understand the F-16 only hits Mach 2. So that's 1/2 as fast, not 1/3.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Anonymous Coward]

The air pressure on the turbofan.

The harrier is designed to produce lots of thrust at zero-speed. F-16's are designed to produce lots of thrust at high speed. While the F-16's produce a pretty good amount of thrust at low speeds (20kts), it's nowhere near that of the harrier.

It's an aerodynamic dichotomy. You can't have both (easily at any rate), unless you go the JSF route and use a big ol' fan that hides itself away. It's like trying to get a semi to do a 13 second mile.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[mnemonic_]

Um, it's not an airship. And a supersonic helo at this point is ridiculous to say the least.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Moofie]

The F-35C can go supersonic, and I think the Yak-141 can as well.

Just a couple data points.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Gunfighter]

Elementary, my dear Have Blue. In order for a turbine engine to work, you have to compress the air prior to combustion. It is impossible to compress air at the speed of sound. As such, the Harrier can go right up to the speed of sound (I think), but not beyond. If you look at supersonic planes, you'll see that the intakes have small flaps on them that actually slow down the air intake to allow combustion.

Re:X-50 half helicopter half plane

[Gunfighter]

err... compression... not combustion.

The slashdot link:

[ProfessionalCookie]

If you're paranoid you might think this link is safer:
DraganFly III.

oh so simple

[segment]

calculate Thrust Coefficient from lift and drag coefficient :

dT = dL*cos(phi) - dD*sin(phi)

where (phi), is induced angle of Attack. also follow equation calculate Torque coefficient:

dQ = (dL*sin(phi) + dD*cos(phi))*r

and CT , CQ are :

CT = T / ((Vtip)^2*A*density)

CQ = Q / ((Vtip)^2 * A * R* density)

http://aero.sharif.edu/~moayyedi/HeliA ero.html

A baby could have figured that out... um yea

Re:Great technology

[Total_Wimp]

"I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson."

Umm.... It's a military project. Maybe it's time we come to grips with the grim fact that military projects sometimes include missles.

TW

Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

The most brain-damaged aircraft I've ever seen.

Sure, it may make some sense to get the Navy and the Air Force to jointly develop a plane, although some compromises would have to be made and problems are sure to develop.

But to add as a requirement VTOL for the Marines? Oh my God! This is just so stupid! And the way that they're doing it only makes matters worse! Lockheed-Martin won the contract with what can only be described as a truly regretable approach to vertical takeoff that involves generating enormous amounts of mechanical stress. The Boeing design was much simpler, although apparently more prone to exhaust finding its way into the engine (which is bad, but is a flaw shared to some degree by LM's version as well.)

That said, air superiority in the future isn't something I'm terribly concerned about. Look at what we do with the air superiority we have now... bomb this shit out of people who can't defend themselves.

Go Congress!

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Hallowed]

"Look at what we do with the air superiority we have now... bomb this shit out of people who can't defend themselves."

Hmmmm, seems to me that is the point of calling it air superiority!

I agree on the JSF tho, it is a swiss-army plane, like a swiss-army knife, and it will be expected to do multiple jobs, by replacing dedicated platforms that were designed specifically for certain combat roles. Despite it's versatility, I really doubt it will be as good at any single job as the planes it is replacing were. I imagine it will be a good replacement for the Harriers (seeing as how they are pretty much first-generation VTOL planes) but there is no way it is going to replace a A-10 for the close air support role.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Wyatt Earp]

You do realize that there are 3 models of the JSF that will be produced right? While alot of the aircraft will be similar, the F-35 isn't one plane for 3 roles.

The USAF version is different than the USN version which is different from the V/STOL version.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/a ir craft/x-35-tech.htm
"The exhaust from the engine flows through the 3 Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN). The 3BSN nozzle, developed by Rolls-Royce, was patterned along the lines of the exhaust system on the Yakovlev Yak-141 STOVL prototype that flew at the 1992 Farnborough air show."

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[afidel]

I don't think anything will ever replace the titanium bathtub for close air support. Those things are amazing. They can take a beating, kill a tank, yet can fly slow enough to kill infantry with the vulcan cannon.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Laur]

You do know that there are three different versions of the JSF don't you, a conventinal one for the AF, a carrier version for the Navy and the Marine STOVL version. They will share many common parts, making them cheaper than three separate planes, but will still be very individualistic.

I have no idea what you think is so bad about the lift fan design, what "enourmous mechanical stresses" are you talking about which aren't present in a traditional STOVL aircraft? Harriers and the Boeing JSF entry both create lift with exhust nozzles from the engine. This design is on the ragged edge of stability, it barely creates enough lift to lift the aircraft and has the inherrent danger that if the engine inhales its own exhaust it can stall, which is a very bad thing when you're trying to take off or land! The lift fan is a revolutionary design which creates a cushion of cooler air below the aircraft, eliminating the intake threat and has an excess of lift capacity. The initial test was amazing, the plane literally shot up 20 feet! The design has won numerous awards as well, you are the first I have heard to disparage it.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

Yes, I do, but the different derivations notwithstanding I still believe it is wrong to compromise the design of something like this for reasons that have nothing to do with engineering or flight dynamics.

Besides, what role do the Marines have for a fighter aircraft? If they want VTOL, they've got their helicopters. Why the desire to deploy from smaller boats when we've got the concession on big boats?

The plane is designed by Congress.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

The lift fan works well in a brand new unit that has seen at best a few hours of flight time. Just think about this thing being deployed overseas, going through hundreds of missions, in the baking heat, in the bitter cold, exposed to sea air with its humidity and high salt content.

Then think about that gear shaft assembly they've crafted to make this thing work. What was it again, something like 50,000RPM? Translating torgue generated from the engines along the Z-axis into lift along the Y-axis? The plane has so many obvious points of failure it astonishes me that mine is the first voice you've heard be critical. And what worries me is that once failure has occurred, at these speeds it will almost always be fatal.

There are ways they could have addressed the flaws in the Boeing. Why not equip the planes with a pod or something that could be dropped that would give the pilot an accurate read on wind direction? Once he knows which way the wind is blowing, he can orient the craft so as to minimize dirty air intake. Another idea would be to extend the air intake forward to further minimize the intake threat.

A lot of my criticsm is also due to my inability to appreciate the role for this kind of craft. Where does it fit? Why do the Marines need a fighter aircraft? Are they not on speaking terms with the Navy/Air Force? I can appreciate that VTOL capability means you don't have to build big-ass aircraft carriers to launch planes from, but hey! We *have* big-ass aircraft carriers? Why spend money to engineer our assets into obsolescence?

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[A nonymous Coward]

There was one in the first gulf war that got hit by a cheap surface to air missle, lost 2 out of 3 wing spars and half the wing skin, yet made it back to base and was repaired and bombing again 48 hours later.

Or so I remember reading.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Laur]

The design of the USAF and USN versions are not being compromised for the STOVL version. The other versions won't even have a lift fan, or anything related to the STOVL aspect. Further, the STOVL version is a relatively small piece of the program, only about 300 or so will be bought by the Marines. In contrast, several thousand of the conventionl version will be bought by the USAF, with a similar number for the Navy version. There are uses for jump jets, for example for taking off and landing in places where you don't have a runway. However, as you can see by the purchase numbers in no way are STOVL aircraft going to replace conventional ones.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

No, I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. STOVL/VTOL/whatever is a major departure from fighter aircraft design, and merely accommodating the possibility of this functionality is enough of a compromise to cause worry.

Besides, as you have just said yourself, only 300 or so will be bought by the Marines. So why compromise the thousands that will be built by USAF/USN?

I don't know the first thing about building airplanes. But I understand design principles. The process by which the design for this plane was pursued is ass-backwards.

If Congress wants to save money, they can start by finding all those trillions the Pentagon has somehow "misplaced." Leave engineering to the engineers.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Hallowed]

I do understand that there are 3 versions (basically 3 different planes sharing common parts, and the cost of 3 different flight test and tweak programs while trying to keep those common parts common) that are intended for the different roles. I think the marine version will be a great replacement for the Harrier. The Navy version will be a handy stealth penetration platform, but isn't it going to be doing basically the same job as the F18 super hornets we are building now? Why spend money on both while our F14's are running up more and more airframe hours with no replacement in sight for their fleet air defense role...still nothing in the world that I know of that compares to the F14 and phoenix missiles.

It is the air force version that I really have an issue with....the F16's supposedly were going to replace the A10's years ago and look where we are today...In Vienam, obsolete A1 Skyraiders were brought in for the ground attack role because the high speed jets did a very poor job. The marines have been pissed for years about losing the navy A1's and A4's because of their close support excellence. A-10's are a flying tank, they were specifically designed to take ground fire, and be devastating against ground targets. Dropping JDAMS from high altitude is all good and well, but when the guys on the ground are getting torn up and you need to put accurate cannon fire on the battle field, while taking ground fire, the JSF's are going to be an expensive target. Right now A10's are pretty vulnerable to the shoulder-fired sams...and part of that is because of how we are using them to suppress ground targets before our ground forces roll in. Aren't they basically just a flying tank? Hasn't modern tank warfare evolved into infantry supporting armor and vice versa? Why not extend that into the third demension, and use our fast movers and jdams on forward targets and keep the A10's close to our armor and ground pounders? With all the world spooked about shoulder-fired missiles right now, I imagine there will be a serious advance in countermeasure tech in the near future....

My basic point is that when you want to eat soup you don't grab a fork, and that I think the F-35 is an overblown flying spork that is going to cost a whole lot more in the long term than we can even guess right now.

Well anyway, this is all way off-topic from the original post...The Boeing chopper-planes are nifty, a lot more elegant solution to a helicopter requiring a whole lot less brute force!

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[mnemonic_]

They won't be able to take a beating from modern AAA and SAMs. The A-10's reliance on "absorbing" damage is not something that will work against modern and next-generation weapons such as the S-300 and S-400. Weapons that the A-10 has yet to be used against, and in a potential WW3, very well may have to deal with.

P.S. The main feature of the A-10 is its GAU-8A Avenger cannon, which is much more powerful than an M61 Vulcan (50% larger caliber, much higher muzzle velocity, DU warheads, discarding sabot rounds, etc.).

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Rip!ey]

"Look at what we do with the air superiority we have now... bomb this shit out of people who can't defend themselves."

Hmmmm, seems to me that is the point of calling it air superiority!

Air superiority generally requires that the enemy has an air force worth speaking of, such that one can compare the effectiveness of each to determine who has the same said superiority.

Afganistan had none.

Iraq had some, or a least what was left over from last time, which wasn't really much. Hell, they didn't even have the weapons of mass political distraction they were supposed to have. And either way, using the principle of first strike as the Americans did to remove what was left before it became a danger really can't count for a demonstration of air superiority.

More like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yeah, yeah, mod me down -10 unAmerican.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

Gosh. I think the Hog drivers from Desert Storm would like to disagree with you.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

You musta not read any of my posts, then.

The "ragged edge of stability" isn't so ragged when you have a full-authority digital flight control system. The inverted pendulum problem is trivial anymore. I can think of half a dozen combat aircraft that wouldn't know to keep the pointy end into the wind without digital flight controls, and many more whose performance and survivability are dramatically improved by same.

The clutch on the lift fan is a huge failure point. The Boeing design was far superior. Someday, I'll get a good explanation why LMCO won.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

The Marines need close air support, because historically the Air Force and Navy haven't been willing to give it to them. One might argue that the current joint doctrine will get rid of this objection, but one also might argue that a Marine Expeditionary Unit is a very handy self-contained air and land fighting force.

Different problems require different solutions.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Azghoul]

Boy, you just don't like anything the U.S. does, do you?

The JSF is a good program (granted there are many that are not). I have some friends and a particularly close relative working inside the project, and your "concerns" are way out there.

First, the current generation of planes must be replaced.

Second, the grandparent is right: There is no compromise between the conventional and carrier versions and the STOVL.

Third, the lift fan is a new technology. It demonstrably gives the STOVL version much better stability on both takeoff and landing than the single thrust point versions (Harrier and Boeing).

Fourth, the JSF is meant to be more of a "platform", like x86, because there are 8 other nations in the mix. They are providing development money for the thing, and getting aircraft from us in the end (and there will be many versions of the aircraft for those other nations, none of which will have the full capabilities of the American versions).

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be a little more "in the know" before you can declare anything ass-backwards. You say you don't know anything about building planes. This one not only has the pressure of building a new state-of-the-art plane, but also accounting for YEARS of diplomacy.

There is a reason the JSF isn't being delivered until 2012 (scheduled)...

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

The Royal Navy is also buying a bunch. 500, if I remember correctly.

I know a lot about building airplanes, and a lot about design principles. I'm telling you that there's no reason that you can't have a good design that is capable (in one variant) of conventional takeoff, and another variant that does STOVL. (Boeing did a great job. Lockheed, not so much.) Aircraft design is far more malleable than you seem to believe.

"Leave engineering to the engineers." Part of engineering is to come up with solutions within the domain of the mission. In this case, the mission was to develop a radical multi-role aircraft. The engineers (for the most part) did a great job.

The politicians who have never blown a clutch, and chose the LMCO design, not so much. (Note: The reason LMCO got the nod is because nobody cares about the Marine Corps.)

The cost savings of developing one set of common airframe parts (particularly since many of those parts will be wacky-shaped composite formings whose tooling costs border on the surreal) will be dramatic. This is a problem we can solve with modern design tools. Our design envelope is simply much larger than it was in 1965 when the F-111 was an utter cock-up.

While we're at it, let's look for the trillions Congress misplaced. At least with the Pentagon, I'm pretty confident those monies went into technology development instead of pork belly futures price supports, or something equially ludicrous.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Azghoul]

You're clueless about how the whole JSF project works, aren't you?

It makes a LOT of sense to get many forces to agree on the same basic plane design, and includes 8 member nations in addition to our own forces.

The STOVL version isn't only for the Marines. The UK wants it as well.

Lockheed's design was better in a great many ways. If you've seen the report on the contest and the decision-making process, you'd change your tune (if you didn't hate America so much).

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Lars T.]

The initial test was amazing, the plane literally shot up 20 feet!

Great! Now bring the rotor to a full stop and lock it in flight position, while giving the plane enough vertical speed so that the then fixed wing will carry it, and don't forgett not to drop down those 20 feet in the meantime.

If you made it that far, sooner or later you will want to land. Slow the plane enough the wing won't get dammaged when unlocking it, make the wing rotate fast enough so you get enough lift to control descend - all that before you hit the ground.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Not to mention the Harrier must carry water to cool it self during hover. Most people don't realize that you can only hover something like 2-minutes MAX (don't hold me to that number...it may be smaller) before you must refill the water container. Once the water is used up, the Harrier will destroy it self should it attempt to hover again. Furthermore, it uses a large amount of water which could otherwise be used for weapons or even more fuel. Something like 50 or 100 gallons of water means you could be carrying something else, fairly heavy. Speaking of fuel, the Harrier has a rather short range compared to most modern fighters. Clearly, that space for water could be better used.

The Harrier is a crappy airplane. Because of it's design, it's a heat-seekers dream. Worse yet, because of where the engine is located, it's almost certain death to it's pilot should a heat-seeker find its mark. With most other planes, the engine is blown off and away from the pilot who may still stand a chance of ejecting. In a Harrier, the pilot is pretty much married to the fate of its engine. Still worse, for missiles that use proximity to detonate, on a Harrier, it missile will detonate right next to the pilot. On traditional aft-engine planes, the missile is apt to detonate near the rear of the aircraft, greatly increasing survivability of the pilot.

The JSF rocks. It has a strong design. It has the ability to save the US tax payers lots of money, assuming it's managed properly. Best of all many engineers have publically expressed their awe of the design. You are the first I've heard which seems to say it's a bad design. The fact that you seem to be in love with a proven-crappy design and seem hate a good design indicates that you may want to go learn more before you comment again.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Then think about that gear shaft assembly they've crafted to make this thing work. What was it again, something like 50,000RPM? Translating torgue generated from the engines along the Z-axis into lift along the Y-axis?

Shshhhhh...don't tell anyone about this problem. Otherwise, millions of turbine helicopters will start falling out of the air. Sheshhhhh.

Something tells me they have enough experience at understanding the strains and stresses of transmissions in helicopters that they fundimentally have this probelm licked. Care to provide any information as to why, for even a second, we should think you've pointed out a valid flaw?

Do I think this is the best possible design? I have no idea. Do I think it's a good design? Yes. Sometimes, good enough really is, good enough.

Why do the Marines need a fighter aircraft?

That's a great question, however, I think it's somewhat outside the boundries of the topic at hand. Just the same, I personally don't think they need attack copters (bye-bye inferior cobra) nor jet fighters. Most Marines are stationed on aircraft carriers (Guess Jar-heads haven't figured out what the Navy exists for) or are close enough for Army support when on the ground. Again, I guess the Marines are too stupid to figure out they can call on the Navy, Airforce or Army for close air support. But, I guess most would never accuse the Marines of being the brightest bunch.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Wyatt Earp]

Ther USMC has a need for a fighter because the USMC has an organic fighter/bomber requirement in addition to the V/STOL.

The USMC has it's own C-130 transports and operates fighters off aircraft carriers and from land bases.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Porquemada]

The lift fan works well in a brand new unit that has seen at best a few hours of flight time. Just think about this thing being deployed overseas, going through hundreds of missions, in the baking heat, in the bitter cold, exposed to sea air with its humidity and high salt content.

Hey, don't forget the powder-grade sand in desert environments. The Apache Helecoptors and Abrams tanks got more than was expected in Operation Desert Storm and our current invasion of Iraq

The plane has so many obvious points of failure it astonishes me that mine is the first voice you've heard be critical. And what worries me is that once failure has occurred, at these speeds it will almost always be fatal.

What worries me also, is the financial cost. The cost of maintenance and upgrades. Congress is once again serving their constituents - you know, the corporations and special (funded) interest that pay for their election campaigns

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Lars T.]

RTFA - actually, that should should be: RTF Boeing promo. And something about the Osprey. At least that concept makes some sense.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

I must've beat you up pretty bad to see you stalking me from topic-to-topic.

Hee-hee.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

Shshhhhh...don't tell anyone about this problem. Otherwise, millions of turbine helicopters will start falling out of the air. Sheshhhhh.

The stresses aren't even remotely similar. It's like comparing an ox cart with a Ferrari.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

So tell me then, how many aircraft designs have met or exceeded their expectations when deployed? It seems to me that the history is that most develop significant problems that are discovered only after actual use.

If you know a lot about design, then you should understand the essential role diversity plays in all things, including warfare. Having all our tactical aircraft share so many common characteristics means that when flaws are discovered, they will apply to all our tactical aircraft. Not a good thing.

The compromises that this design imposes provide an adversary with the opportunity to employ a more diversified approach yielding best-of-breed aircraft for specific missions.

In any event, thank you for your reply.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

B-29
C-130
707
747 (Actually, ALL the Boeing airliners, but these are the most conspicuously versatile ones)
B-52
C-141
F-16

Each of these aircraft have been modified, some radically, to perform some really weird missions.

Gosh. That's just off the top of my head. Do problems develop? Of course. That's why there are engineers.

When those flaws are discovered, they can be fixed rapidly, and the fix deployed cheaply to the whole fleet. Having a different airplane, and having to figure out a whole different set of quirks, is not a better alternative.

Is it a compromise? Absolutely. It's a compromise to improve the price/performance ratio.

Frankly, I think the LMCO design's flaw is the clutch that runs the lift fan. I think the Marines and the Royal Navy got hosed on this deal. However, that flaw is not due to the design specs, but due to the design decision made by the selectors.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[AGMW]

The Harrier is a crappy airplane. Because of it's design, it's a heat-seekers dream.

Not sure that is true. Sure, it's an old design, but it's actually a pretty neat solution to the problem. Certainly previous designs for VTOL failed due to trying to use multiple engines.

The Harrier succeeded because it only used one engine. I heard, during the Falklands conflict, that because the hot exhaust was split between three major jet streams (the main and two tiltable ones) that it was actually harder for a heat-seeking missile to get a lock.

I had also heard about many accidents in the US, and it has to be said that, by all accounts, it's a bit of a bastard to fly one!

I've heard about a new VTOL being built in the US on the same principle as the Harrier (so much for the bad design!), but with fly-by-wire making it V. difficult for pilot error to dump one. As I recall from the TV program, it showed a mock-up of a pilot pulling alongside a carrier (in the normal Harrier mode), and an Auto-Lander taking over and sliding the plane over the carrier for a perfect landing!

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

All but one of those aircraft are not fighter aircraft though. Surely you can appreciate the enormous difference in roles good design plays between something like an F-15 and a C-130.

And what exactly is the radical modification that the F-16 has undergone?

What happens if I'm right, and an unforeseen problem occurs in this design, and the rest of our aircraft have aged into obsolescence?

The F-4 as I recall wasn't everything everyone hoped it to be, but it still proved useful because there were other craft to supplement it, to assume those missions the F-4 proved ill-equipped to handle. I think the F-111 is another candidate there.

That the latest generation of aircraft, planes like the F-15, have proven themselves to the degree in which they have is encouraging. But to now assume that we've made fighter aircraft design and construction an exact science, where every possible contigency can be predicted in advance? No, I don't believe it.

It's a kind of complacency borne of arrogance. And from a purely military point-of-view, nothing is so dangerous as over-estimating your abilities, and underestimating those of your opponent's.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

Check out the conformal fuel tank mods, and the bewildering variety of engine and avionics packages that go on the F-16's sold around the world.

What if an unforseen problem happens? Well, gee, I guess some smart engineers will have to solve it.

I never contended that fighter design is an exact science. It is, however, a very well refined art. The design tools we have right now enable truly phenomenal prediction and modeling of aircraft behavior.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

I don't consider those things to be "radical modifications." For purposes of this discussion, that should be restricted to mods like take a plane that is designed to do one thing and make it do something completely different, a la, 707->AWACS, or DC-10->tanker, 747->"fly the blooming Space Shuttle* from one coast to the other."

My point is that you are very limited in what you can do with these fighter craft once the paint goes on. It's akin to writing a program in a language like Python vs. hand-crafting it in optimized assembler language. You necessarily sacrifice versatility in the pursuit of performance.

(*I bet you like the Space Shuttle too.)

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

You are making a lot of assumptions there, bucko.

The Space Shuttle is a useless spacecraft.

How many aircraft have you designed? I've got a dollar that says I've designed more than you have. Aircraft design is my chosen field of expertise. I know more about it than I can easily explain on this freakin' web board.

If you think conformal fuel tanks aren't a big deal, go compare the performance specs of the F-15C vs the F-15E. Check out the differences between the F-18C and the F-18F. You might also note that each JSF variant will be built, from the wheels up, as a dedicated example of each service's requirements. The mods will not be interchangeable.

Modern aircraft are designed with flexibility in mind. It is folly to conclude that since multi-role aircraft didn't work well in the 60's that they don't work well today.

Our modern, multi-role aircraft (the F-16 and F-18) outperform every "pure fighter" on Earth (with the possible exception of the MiG-29, which is a superb aircraft hobbled by terrible avionics).

The Joint Strike Fighter program is the next step in the evolution of the multi-role fighter concept, a concept that our engineers and pilots have proven decisively in combat.

I've got issues with the JSF design. The clutch is going to be a nightmare. The Navy likes two-engined aircraft. This idea of putting a laser in the fuselage bay seems pretty far fetched. However, I personally know very smart people whose LIFE is going to be fixing these problems. Trust me: It's in good hands.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

I have designed exactly zero aircraft. I had thought I made that point earlier on, but perhaps that was another thread.

However, I have spent a majority of my life designing software. Sometimes very complex software. One of the great things about designing software is that you get to see where your assumptions were wrong, and in fairly quick order. If you stay on a project long enough, you go through many successive cycles of designing something, seeing where it doesn't work, designing version 2, seeing what that doesn't work, and so on. Over time, you develop a sense about what is a good design ethic and what is not.

And from my point-of-view, the JSF project violates so many of these ethics as to give me confidence that the project is doomed, even though I know next-to-nothing about the specifics.

For instance, you point out that the Navy likes two-engined aircraft. From that I presume that the air force would prefer only one? Will this be a mod? Is this an example of what you were talking about when you said that from the wheels up each aircraft will be a dedicated example of each service's requirements?

I have no doubt that the engineers will solve many of the problems they encounter. In this respect though, it's rather like the Space Shuttle. It is less a testament to the design of the shuttle than the girth of our economy that the thing keeps on flying (when it does.) If it were a matter of national pride, I'm sure we could put a school bus into orbit by slapping on a couple of rockets, if we really had to. Our engineers will make almost anything work.

The thing is, so will the engineers employed by our future adversaries. What happens if their designers don't have a bunch of GS-9 accountants looking over their shoulders as they put their pencils to the board?

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

Do you have any idea how many iterations this aircraft design went through before it flew, and successfully exceeded all of its design criteria?

Hint: More versions than all the software products you've ever seen since the day you were born.

Trying to compare the state of the art in software design to the state of the art in aerospace engineering is utter folly. Aircraft design is a mature, well understood art form. Good software design? Well, I'll let you know if I ever find any.

Aircraft can prove themselves. You fly them, and see if they do what they are expected to do. You fly them in all sorts of weird ways, and you find problems, and you fix them. That's why the only Joint Strike Fighters that have flown are called PROTOTYPES. They prove that the basic design is sound, and they serve as testbeds for the continuing refinement (typically followed by several more prototype aircraft, before the first production aircraft sees the light of day).

Your assumptions simply aren't valid. The fact that the Air Force has an empty bay where the Marine Corps has a lift fan simply doesn't compromise the aircraft's performance in any substantial way. Would it be theoretically better if there were purpose-built aircraft for each service? Sure. But the services know that Congress will never pay for them, particularly since the real cost both of development and production of combat aircraft has been growing dramatically since World War II.

The Space Shuttle is terrible engineering, driven by broken mission requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter is really impressive engineering, driven by reasonable and realistic mission requirements.

The Air Force likes single engine aircraft because they're simpler to maintain. The Navy likes two-engine aircraft because if you lose one engine, the aircraft can still land on the carrier. The Marines REQUIRE a V/STOL aircraft because their charter requires them to operate, either independently or jointly with other US forces, from small carriers. Jointly, the Pentagon took all those requirements and synthesized a design spec that would give the services the most bang for the buck.

There is no other country on Earth who can field a superior fighter to our current state of the art. Now, whether Congress kills the F-22 and/or the JSF is, of course, a separate issue. Aerospace is littered with great planes that, either by mismanagement or politics, died on the vine. Today's engineers are conscious of those failures, and we've learned from our mistakes.

Building great fighters is really hard and really expensive, and we're the best. That might not always be true (particularly if we lose one of our two remaining aerospace contractors), but fortunately the JSF is likely to be the last manned combat aircraft. UAVs are going to be much smaller and less expensive, so it's easy to justify producing lots of different designs as we explore the tactical utility of these aircraft.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[corebreech]

A really good reply, one which deserves to stand as the last word.

G'night.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Azghoul]

I thought it was rather ironic too, but then I realized that I'd posted quite a few times before and after your little temper tantrum.

This time, you happen to hit on something I hear about on a daily basis. Just luck I guess.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[identity0]

More like shooting fish in a barrel.

Actually, the Air Force has a term for that; it's called "Air Dominance". It's become a part of their war-fighting doctrine, actually. It denotes when they have overwhelming superiority in the air and total coverage of the skies such that the enemy can't use any of his air assets, and the US can choose targets with godlike impunity. That, btw, is why the new F-22 is called an "air dominance fighter" - it is expected to deliver total dominance over the enemy in battle.

Remember, it's not the military's job to "fight fair" - it's mission is to win as decisively as possible.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[default luser]

Right, the idea is that there are several things in the basic design that you can probably reuse between different services without compromising usability.

You've mentioned all the changes each service is going to get in their version of the plane, but how about all the things that aren't gonna change?

I just happen to work for the company building the Radar and EW system for JSF. When we design something new, we always derrive the product from previous designs, but because our previous design is usually outdated (compared to customer requirements), we often end up building something new at great expense.

Building one system for 3 lines of service at the same time just makes sense, instead of building something completely new for every customer who gets a case of feature envy. Sure, it's not the answer to everything, but it's cheaper than designing 3 different planes from the ground up, and it was key to convincing Congress to replace some of our aging fighter fleet.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

I heard, during the Falklands conflict, that because the hot exhaust was split between three major jet streams (the main and two tiltable ones) that it was actually harder for a heat-seeking missile to get a lock.

I think you've been mislead. The multiple streams of hot air cause multiple places to heat and become easy targets for heat-seekers to lock onto. Furthermore, because the areas that heat up is basically the plane it self, it becomes a very visible heat-target. Worse, it becomes a criticle hit for the pilot. Basically, the plane begs to be shot down and it usually takes the pilot with it. This is fact as offered by pilots, the US government, and statistical record. I would assume that the UK government is in parity with such facts.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Care to follow up with a lot more detail? You have a low RPM, yet long and heavy rotor (depleated uranium on the tips) versus a much smaller yet much higher rpm ducted fan. Keep in mind, the schnook has something like five transmissions/gear boxes which convert and synchronize the power from the turbines to both rotors. Not to mention, two head units. That's a fairly complex and high stress arrangement. Yet, it's fairly safe and reliable (I know a sh!thook mechanic and have riden on one). Furthermore, it's basically 50s and 60s technology.

Care to explain why a fan, which is higher rpm and lower vibration, is going to cause more stresses and complexity than a complex setup like the hook? Any proof other than your opinion? Care to account for modern technology and construction materials in your assessment?

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Hey, don't forget the powder-grade sand in desert environments. The Apache Helecoptors and Abrams tanks got more than was expected in Operation Desert Storm and our current invasion of Iraq

My brother is an Apache Longbow pilot in Iraq right now. He's part of the 101st. From what I gather, their uptime for the Apaches, in spite of the sand, is actually higher than when they are stateside; oddly enough, the same thing happened with almost all air vehicles during the first Gulf War too. Furthermore, the planes are staying in such good shape, they are litterally flying the birds like crazy. He tells me some days they have eight and ten hour sit down sessions in those things. Basically, the sand is not stopping them from meeting, and in many cases exceeding, their operational requirements.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Ahh. Had forgotten about that. I think that raises a valid point. Just the same, I know it's hard to get foot soldiers to properly use air support sometimes too...especially if it's cross force. My brother, which is an Apache pilot, tells me that they periodically spend time with other units and branches to teach proper use of close air support. During training, many guys get gung-ho and try to do everything by themselves (even Army guys). The pilots then have to come in and educate these guys on how it could of been done better, safer and with less ammunition, where it's needed most. My point being, it seemingly really needs to be hammered home that these guys can trust, ask for, and get close air support when they needed it. As such, since ego and bravado seems to be key to preventing it (atleast during training, from what I've heard), I guess I can see even worse problems with Marines having to ask for the Army Apache guys for close air support. Still, I think that needs to be bred out of the military ego. I know Army guys couldn't care less who they are supporting as long as they get to blow enemy stuff up. ;)

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Porquemada]

Furthermore, the planes are staying in such good shape, they are litterally flying the birds like crazy. He tells me some days they have eight and ten hour sit down sessions in those things. Basically, the sand is not stopping them from meeting, and in many cases exceeding, their operational requirements.

Always glad to hear positive operational news. Do you have information on the maintennence/performance of the abrams tanks - specifically their treads? I did hear negative performance accounts on BBC and NPR. The stories reported that the sand was having more of an impact on the tranks than expected.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[Moofie]

ALL the services work together better now than they ever have. The next generation of close air support will be a soldier with a GPS-equipped laser, who can upload the coordinates of his target to whatever JDAM Small-Diameter Bombs might happen to be overhead right now. That'll make it like a 250 lb hand grenade.

The Marines are also supposed to be pretty self-sufficient. If I remember correctly, they tried Apaches but decided that the AH-1W Super Cobra was a better system for the missions they were called on to perform. It's also way less expensive.

Re:Joint Strike Fighter

[GooberToo]

Sorry, no. I do recall hearing that the turbines in the Abrams, in both the past and current Gulf Wars exceeded expections, however, I *think* I do recall hearing problems about excessive wear on the rubber treads. Again, I *think* I heard that the tread compounds were changed to address it, however, I fairly sure I never heard anything on the results. Sorry.

Wait a second....

[freeze128]

Didn't the Fantastic Four have a jet like this?

This rings a bell...

[Theatetus]

...isn't this the same kind of technology the Marine Corps uses to kill off excess 1st Lieutenants?

Re:Great technology

[Clever Pun]

That's a rather odd viewpoint to have - it sounds about the same as "I love how the recruitment posters just have to include one of these soldiers shooting a rifle" to me. The plane is being designed for MILITARY use. This means that people are going to be taking potshots at it whether its manned or not. That picture, in particular, depicts the manned version of the Dragonfly. Would you really want to send a soldier into hostile territory without some kind of defense? I don't think that's the kind of move the government wants to try. Nor would the government want to lose a multi-million dollar drone if it could avoid doing so by giving it something to hit back with, eh?

Not as cool as this one

[YoungBonzi]

Nuclear Flying Saucer.

Re:Great technology

[Clever Pun]

Curse you and your ability to get to the point quickly and concisly! (see here and compare post times ;)

Re:Great technology

[dema]

Granted. I suppose I can just hope it ends up like the internet. No missles attached (so far) (:

flight testing in 2002

[kaan]

After completing load testing of the rotor, the CRW will be ready for first flight, which is expected to occur by the end of 2002.

Did I miss something? The linked page says the testing was supposed to happen in 2002, yet here we are a few weeks away from 2004. For such a cutting-edge creation, you think they might have updated their web page, perhaps somewhere in the 2003 time-frame...

How do they transition?

[timeOday]

How do they transition from hover to fixed wing? Those rotors must get a lot of momentum, surely it takes time to slow them down and lock them into place, and then to spin them up for landing. I don't suppose they can just let the thing drop like a stone in the meanwhile?

Re:How do they transition?

[KyolFrilander]

There's a lot to be said for dropping like a stone, y'know.

My guess is that the canard and horizontal stab provide sufficient lift at the mid-to-top end of the rotary-winged flight envelope that when the rotor is clutching down and converting to be fixed wing, you still fly, you just can't climb very well. At least I'd want it to work like that if I were to ever get into one.

What this world needs is a jet powered gyrocopter. Yeah!

Re:Great technology

[Lord_Dweomer]

Personally, I think the enemy would be laughing if they saw that thing coming with missiles. I mean...wouldn't you if you saw the Dodo from Grand Theft Auto 3 coming at you with missiles?

canard? dragonfly?

[WormholeFiend]

canard is French for duck.

the dragonfly duck? nice chimera...

A bit behind the times, really

[ehintz]

The CarterCopter has had proven VTOL flight with small canard-style wings for several years now, even a demonstration at Oshkosh. Boeing's a bit behind the ball on this one.

Re:A bit behind the times, really

[Schaffner]

You just looked at the Carter Copter picture and didn't read the details, right. It's not a gyrocopter. Read the details.

Re:A bit behind the times, really

[ehintz]

One finger points, 3 point back.

Go do some research. It's only a gryro until the rotors slow to ~25rpm and it exceeds 400 knots. Dumbass.

Re:A bit behind the times, really

[BriSTO(V)L]

Actually, reading the Carter website, they have so far got to 173mph, and are not as far ahead as other /. posters have implied. Further ahead than Boeing, maybe, but it's not clear if they are attempting exactly the same kind of approach anyway.

Re:no faith whatsoever

[Emugamer]

and how would anything get done if we did that? not saying that I condone boing for what they did but DUH! you think Mcdonald Douglas didn't ever do anything like this?

So, wait a second

[Clever Pun]

As I understand it, a helicopter's main rotor blades are angled so as to produce lift (i.e. you can't pull the helicopter up by just slicing through the air, you have to DO something with it). That part makes sense. It'd look like a ceiling fan.

The plane only has two blades in chopper-mode, from what I can tell. If you look at a ceiling fan with four blades or more, you'll notice an immediate problem with this: While each blade is tilted in the same clockwise/counterclockwise direction as the others, the opposing pairs' tilts oppose each other.

I know I'm not making a lot of sense here, but lemme try and pull this off with some amount of poise - how come the plane isn't continuously doing barrel rolls while flying? Can the rotor blades/wings be rotated independently of each other?

Re:So, wait a second

[KyolFrilander]

Yep. Which is what a collective (? IANAHP) control does on a normal chopper. Basically, when the plane converts to fast forward flight, the rotors lock perpendicular to the body of the plane, and the right hand "wing" adjusts it's angle of attack to be a lifting surface. But this is normal for a helicopter as well - the whole idea is to make one side lift more than the other (independant blade control), the rotor cone angles in the appropriate direction, Newton takes over. The fly in the ointment is precession (?) and that.. I don't get. Something to do with the action needing to start 90 degrees before the intended direction. I mean, yeah, the rotor is a huge gyroscope, but it's hard to picture.

This is significantly more complicated that variable pitch blades in normal fixed wing craft. So much so that I'm tempted to buy an RC heli _just_ to poke at the swashplate assembly.

The part I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the idea that, in FFF, one of the blades is cutting through the air backwards. I mean, I can imagine mechanical linkages that would flip the leading edge around and all, but that seems kinda hackneyed. And in FFF, is the rotorwing a control surface or just a lifting surface? Ow, ow, brane hurty.

(OTOH, I also have a problem with aerobatic symmetrical wings. Does bernoulli's law go out the window there?)

Re:So, wait a second

[Stephen Ma]

The momentum of the rotating wing is precisely cancelled by the gasses exhausted from the wingtips. The net momentum is zero, thus no accidental barrel rolls.

Your ceiling fan example, in contrast, needs a pair of counterrotating blades to balance the momentum of the first pair of blades.

Re:So, wait a second

[Clever Pun]

the wing doesn't rotate when it's not in plane mode, i don't think.

Re:So, wait a second

[Stephen Ma]

the wing doesn't rotate when it's not in plane mode, i don't think.

I think what you want to say is that the wing does not rotate when it is in "plane mode". Which is both true and a nonsequitur. Your original message was about the Dragonfly's chopper mode.

Re:So, wait a second

[Clever Pun]

Well, I'll grant that I certainly didn't ask my question well :)

I was wondering how the plane is able to fly straight in plane mode, given that the blade/wing on the left will be tilted down and the one on the right will be tilted up (or vice versa) - I don't think it'd do barrel rolls as I originally stated, but I think there'd be a definite tendency to fly in circles due to the unaerodynamicness of the improperly tilted wing. :)

Re:So, wait a second

[KyolFrilander]

Or, more succinctly, the wing on the left would have a negative angle of attack and the blade on the right would have a positive angle of attack. That would be pretty close in concept to having your ailerons cranked over and starting a roll in a fixed wing plane. Now that I think about it, helis do this all the time whilst hovering - the AOA should be relatively neutral, rotor head speed and meteorologic conditions aside. When you want to climb you can add more head speed by gunning the throttle (bad!) or you can adjust the angle of attack on the blades (good!) And you still need to give it more juice because the blades are doing more work. (Or do I have causality reversed here? Pilots are welcome to chime in.) But at least you're not simply trying to alter the rotational momentum of a relatively massive chunk of kit. So all you need to do for this is have independant control over the AOA per rotorblade, and I _tend_ to think they already do in current helis.

I'm kinda coming around to being able to picture a wing chord that show no distinct preference for wind direction, though, which was my other mindbending "objection".

Re:So, wait a second

[Stephen Ma]

I considered that you were asking about the rotating wing's angle of attack. But when you threw in that bit about the ceiling fans, I went with Occam's Razor and decided that you wanted something simpler. :)

As for your real question, I think you have basically answered it: the Dragonfly's wing is probably not tilted. You can still get lift from a symmetrical airfoil; this is inefficient compared to a tilted rotor, but the Dragonfly's chopper mode is used so briefly that the waste of fuel in that mode is pretty irrelevant.

Re:Great technology

[ImTwoSlick]

I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson.

Would you rather have them drop Britney Spears CDs on the enemy? ..... Naw... Too Cruel.

dragonfly

[anetic]

For curiosity I did a google on the the dragonfly and found this link http://mil.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper466/2/clas s046600005/hwz1116940.htm Is this a chinese translation of the boeing site or is it their version of the same invention ?

Re:Knowing where it comes from ...

[Frennzy]

Um...has there been a creative use for the internet yet? I mean, other than directing swarms of knee-jerk reactionaries at any website that offends/decries/upsets/annoys/otherwise-is-found-o bjectionable to people? Oh...wait..pr0n. Nevermind. That is all.

Wow...this many responses...

[Frennzy]

..and yet so few /.ers will ever pilot even a simple fixed wing aircraft.

Could this be a case of too many pilots, not enough flight attendants? Or could it simply be the fact that "revolutionary" flight mechanisms capture the fancy of the overworked and underpaid?

Science? Or sociology...you be the judge.

Re:Wow...this many responses...

[KyolFrilander]

Oooh, ooh, I know this one! Sociology!

Time flys...

[Tailhook]

After completing load testing of the rotor, the CRW will be ready for first flight, which is expected to occur by the end of 2002.

The second link points to the above qoute. Page is out of date by almost a year.

Hmmm... ...wish'em luck!

Re:Time flys...

[Geno Z Heinlein]

Page is out of date by almost a year.

Wow. They've had a year to correct the typo "f light test" (first paragraph, second sentence)?

Maybe they should switch their proofreading staff to metric. :-)

Prudent Precautions

[KrackHouse]

Hows about a breathalizer attached to the ignition system. I think cave real estate is about to experience a renaissance.

Re:Prudent Precautions

[Frennzy]

Now THAT sounds like a good idea.

While we're at it, can we get an IQ-a-lizer for politicians, cops, DMV workers, and anyone else who has the potential to rain on my otherwise decent day? Let's set a nominal rejection level at, oh...85. This should let the odd savant through, while eliminating most of the willfully ignorant.

Oh...wait...this was about planes. I'm for 'em. Generally. In fact, just call me a general plane. (damn...was that supposed to go in the 'So You Think Physics Is Funny' section? Someone help me...I get so confused.

Re:Great technology

[afidel]

Since the Predator drones already carry Hellfire missles and have killed targets after positive ID from telecontrolling pilots I don't think the enemy is going to laugh. Hell they don't know what hits em, one second they are driving along the next they are dead.

Re:It's 2 AM in the morning....

[Frennzy]

Y'know...I used to ask *almost* the same question. I used to ask..."what the fsck is an ocelot?" Then, my interior self would say..."much like an ocelittle, only bigger..." And people wonder why I hate myself...

Is this going to kill the Moller sky car ?

[Tex Bravado]

Moller's Sky Car looks pretty cool, and footage of its test flights can be seen in lots of places (e.g. History Channel's big boy's toys.)
Moller says the sky car will be in production
within 4 years and ubiquitous in 10 years.
I'm not sure which I'd trust more :-)

Re:Is this going to kill the Moller sky car ?

[RapaNui]

Aw. for shit's sake.
Don't bring up Moller again.

First flight and production of his machines has been 'imminent' for the last, what? 15 years or so?

Ever heard of the term 'vaporware'?

Airborne!

[core plexus]

Makes me glad I was Airborne-kinda mutes the quips of "Aren't you crazy to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?" Hey, I'm glad I got out before it crashed! So what if I got my face scratched while being dragged for a quarter mile.

But I have to tell you, jumping from a Chinook (one of the fastest choppers, by the way) was like jumping into a pile of matresses compared to the shock of exiting a C-141. Not that anyone ever asked the users of the equipment what we thought. We're just soft cargo.

-cp-

President Bush to Liberate Alaska

Cool

[BadDream]

And I thought this was some new mini-remote camera model that I was gonna start seeing on popup adds.

Cool!

[RefriedBean]

This looks a bit like those planes/choppers in the 6th Day!

Re:Great technology

[Lord_Dweomer]

" Since the Predator drones already carry Hellfire missles and have killed targets after positive ID from telecontrolling pilots I don't think the enemy is going to laugh."

Wow, talk about the ultimate telecommuting job. Sit at home, play "flight sims" and kill real people and GET PAID FOR IT! Sounds like the movie Toys, only real! (Throws out his Bf1942 cd)

deja vu

[soundofthemoon]

I swear I saw something like this almost 20 years ago. I was watching some show on late night TV in Washington state, and the really cool thing on it was an aircraft with a stubby-bladed rotor that could be fixed as a wing for jet-propelled flight. I haven't heard anything like that since. I guess it took them a long time to work out the bugs.

What is old is new again...

[SWTP_OS9]

Just rememberd either a popular science or mechanics issue that had such an item maybe on its front cover around mid 60 I think. The difference was it had the turning wing on both top and bottom.

Ornithopters!

[J_Omega]

... as soon as they can get those things to flap.

Re:Great technology

[bm_luethke]

Noooooooooooooooooo

You have invaded my perfectly laid little strawberry shortcake world where militaries all have a great bakeoff to see who will control the world!

DAMN YOU!!!!!

The airfoil...

[trinitrotoluene]

How are they going to make the airfoil symetrical for fixed-winf flight? Wouldn't one half of the wing be facing in the right direction, and the other half be "backwards"? It didn't mention this in any of the links as far as I can tell. The only solution I can think of is a symetrical airfoil from front to back.

Re:The airfoil...

[Moofie]

You can make a symmetrical airfoil. Stick your hand out a car window and tip it upwards. The cross section of your hand is more or less symmetrical, but you can still generate lift, by increasing the angle of attack.

A teardrop shaped airfoil gives a better lift to drag ratio than one with fore and aft symmetry, but that one wouldn't work too good during the fixed-wing flight evolution. : )

Re:The airfoil...

[trinitrotoluene]

So I assume the symetrical airfoil would be rather inefficient? If so, would the ineffeciency put a cap on the top speed of a design using the symetrical airfoil?

Re:The airfoil...

[Moofie]

Yes, and yes.

You can do clever things like blowing air out the trailing edge of the airfoil, making the surrounding air "think" it's going around a more efficient shape.

Having said that, this design still has a lot of advantages. It's not going to replace the super-efficient wings you see on long-haul airliners, but there are many missions for which it would be well suited.

Fairey Rotodyne

[dubstop]

The Fairey Rotodyne was built nearly fifty years ago. Like the Dragonfly, it used (what was then called) tip-jet rotors, so there was no need for a counter-torque rotor on the tail.

The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians.

Re:Fairey Rotodyne

[mnemonic_]

"The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians."

Just like what Osprey today. I find the Osprey controversy interesting because it is not something divided among party lines, but knowledge lines. That is, people more knowledgable of its technology and capabilities support it, and those who are not aware do not support it.

Slow News Day

[BriSTO(V)L]

C'mon! This is not really big news, is it? I know every project has to start somewhere, but so far all they've done is hover and do vertical stuff with a tip-jet driven rotor (which has been done before in the 60's as others have noted here already). What will be *really* big news is when they transition from rotary winged flight to static wing flight (and back again) - I'm not sure that's ever been demonstrated before?

Re:Slow News Day

[trinitrotoluene]

This may be kind of obvious, but an interesting benefit of the unmanned nature of this project is that the prototypes can be tested in dangerous, risky conditions. (Assuming the prototpyes are cheap or sturdy enough to make it economical.) So, they won't have to be sure the transition will work before they test it in the real world.

Some notes...

[mnemonic_]

"The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes."

Vortex ring states are common to all rotary-wing aircraft. It involves a toroid-shaped volume of air surrounding the rotor disc, in which air pushed downward is recirculated into the top of the rotor disc, instead of pushing against the ground. All helo pilots are trained in how to avoid them and attempt to recover from them. It is a subject of thorough investigation in aerodynamics, and a problem inherent to every helicopter. What makes its presence in the V-22 significant is that even a mild vortex ring state in one of its rotors can cause a drastically sharp roll movement (due to uneven lift on both sides) that is very difficult to recover from.

"The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing."

The B-1B has also proven to be a hangar queen with tremendous operating costs, going against your point of "here are some aircraft which vindicated themselves in actual usage".

I do agree that tilt-rotor technology is the logical evolution of transport helicopters. This isn't just some novel "hey that's neat" offshoot of helos; this is the next generation of rotary-wing tech, something that will eventually replace Chinooks, Sea Knights, Mi-6's and the like.

Re:Some notes...

[bbaskin]

You are correct that VRS is common to all rotorcraft. In fact, when normalized to thrust, rotor geometry, etc. the VRS characteristic of tiltrotors are the same as conventional helos, proving that it is not a unique situation. However, it is not hard to escape from on a tiltrotor. All that is required is a few degrees of tilt on the nacelles and the VRS condition is eliminated. There is a zone of VRS instability that results in vibration and roll rate changes. The computers now detect this, warn the pilot, and the pilot can either slide to the side laterally, increase forward speed, or tilt the nacelles and exit the VRS state. As far as I know, the V-22 is the only rotor craft that warns the pilot of VRS and has so many ways of exiting the condition.

The crash that killed 19 Marines in Arizona was due to flying well outside the approved flight envelope at the time. 800 ft/s at any forward airspeed was approved and the ship was decending at 2100 ft/s at 40knts forward airspeed. This state was later flown and simulated and shown to be around the onset of dangerous VRS conditions. This portion of the flight envolope has been explored and expanded so that now the V-22 and other tiltrotors are capable of quick decent profiles.

Has anyone ever seen an interview with Moller?

[adzoox]

I recently saw a History Channel show where they were showing how sci fi often becomes reality. (I believe it was the show Greatest Movie Gadgets)

They had an interview with Moller, inventor of the skycar. He's thge one that thinks we will all one day fly in car planes that vertically take off and use GPS to fly them safely.

Has anyone ever seen an interview with Moller and thought that you were looking at a con man? He has gotten over 200 billion (YES BILLION) over his lifetime in funding. All interviews with him just remind me of talking to Quixtar (AMway) rep.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think we will NEVER have flight cars? It would be too dangerous. Cars are confined to accidents (for the most part) to the road.

Unless some kind of anti gravity technology that doesn't require fuel and has a 99.9% of not failing (causing falling) I don't believe we will ever have "air cars". I don't see much potential for air cars over helicopters for anything beyond the military.

The 6th Day Whispercraft...

[royles]

Talking about cloning, I stil lthing the design in the 6th day has a lot of promise. If they can nail the technology in this prototype, then craft of this type may become a reality for sooner than we think.

Re:Great technology

[mnemonic_]

"If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery." [Letter to a pacifist, 1941]

-Albert Einstein

they're "flaky"!?

[el_guapo]

whilst it is entirely true that they're FRAGILE (ie: you can shoot most down with a pistol), they are FAR from "flaky". aside from the fragility issue, they are no different from fixed wing aircraft in their "flakiness". they simply trade high speed for the ability to hover, that is ALL. and, incidentally, there is no fix for the speed issue in a conventional chopper, at some "N" speed, the retreating rotor blade stalls and the bird flops over.
most people don't realize that helicopters share EVERY flight characteristic (sans high speed) with a fixed wing aircraft, including the ability to "glide" (they call it autorotation in choppers, the air rushing up through the rotor keeps it spinning, and you flair at the last moment. every helo pilot can do it, and you land without a scratch as long as the surface is apporpriate)

Re:they're "flaky"!?

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, you can't shoot most of them down with a pistol. Even the Jetrangers you see flying around for the evening news.

Now the military ones are much more robust, hardened to 12.7 or 14.5mm hits and resistant to 20-23mm shells.

It's a Nerf missile.

[No Such Agency]

Don't worry, we've learned our lesson, no more war.

Re:Great technology

[Moofie]

Don't worry. The B variant will be equipped with hug-o-trons and kissing beams, so it will be ready to deploy in your FANTASYLAND where there aren't bad guys who sometimes need to get shot at.

How many pacifist societies exist on Earth? (not very many) How many of them have neighbors who compete with them for resources? (zero)

Minor nit

[wowbagger]

The main cannon on an A-10 is not a "vulcan" - that would be an 20MM 6 barrel rotary cannon.

The main cannon on an A-10 is a seven barrel 30MM GAU-8A Avenger.

However, one of the optional weapon systems that can be mounted on an A-10's center hardpoint is an M-61 20MM Vulcan pod - for that "light housekeeping work" that the Avenger is overkill for.

Re:Minor nit

[afidel]

I never said it WAS the main cannon, the incident I was refering to was from Gulf War I, and the A-10 in question was in fact outfitted with the Vulcan weapons pod at the center hardpoint. The pilot slowed to near stall speed and hosed down a small handfull of Republican Guard troops headed towards a light armor brigade.

Re:Great technology

[The Cornishman]

Come on, chaps. I know you *pronounce* it 'missles' that side of the Pond, but it isn't written that way, you know.

Nothing new

[Paradise Pete]

This is nothing new. I don't know why, but the article says it's revolutionary, and so that's a guarantee that someone will post about something vaguely similar if you squint just right, and so claim that this thing is nothing new.

Sorry - Thanks for the clarification

[wowbagger]

OK, then - sorry I thought otherwise.

It is just that too many people call any multi-barrel rotary cannon a "vulcan", and that is just too much of a slight against the Avenger to let pass.

"... hosed down a small handful of Republican Guard troops...."

Like I said, light housekeeping....

Re:Sorry - Thanks for the clarification

[afidel]

Would there even be anything left of personell hit with the Avenger? (I personally doubt it, after seeing what it does to light tanks)

Re:Sorry - Thanks for the clarification

[bar-agent]

All multi-barrel rotary cannons are vulcans, in the same sense that all tissue paper is kleenex. :-)

I'm sure there's a Star Trek joke in here somewhere...

Medical Response

[Moonelf]

I can see a use for this aircraft as an air ambulance. Many of us live out in the sticks far away from a level 1 Trauma facility. Helicopters are wonderful for saving lives. I have seen it make a diffrence many times and we are only a 20 minute flight from a Level 1 trauma center VS a 90 minute drive in traffic. There are places in the world that are much farther away than that. If it can land in a small area like a helicopter and then have a higher speed flight, there is an increased chance of saving lives in the remote corners of our globe.

Seems realistic, useful even.

Could be

[wowbagger]

There could be - I don't know is an APFSDSDU round would notice something as soft as a human body - it might pass right through with minimum energy transfer.

Sure, the human would have a nasty hole from the passage, but the amount of energy transferred from the round wouldn't be nearly as much as when the round hit something hard.

Now, were the unfortunate soldier in question wearing a ceramic trauma plate under his armor....

No Human = No Deathtrap

[karmyk]

Which is what sets it apart from the osprey and the harrier. =P

Re:No Human = No Deathtrap

[The Snowman]

No Human = No Deathtrap

Until they make a manned version, of course. They will if and when it is successful so they can replace the ill-fated Harrier and Osprey.

Airwolf?

[bozoman42]

its rotors work like a helicopter for takeoff, hovering, and slow-speed manouvering [sic], and then lock into place like a fixed-wing aircraft for cruising.

This reminds me of how Airwolf's turbo mode was supposed to work. :-)

yeah, that sounds scary.

[twitter]

I'd hate to be on a craft like that. The thing would have to have enough elevation to make the transition and the transition would have to work every time. The worst case is some kind of mechanical jam in the ductwork on take off or landing. It's a great idea for drones, but not so great for moving people. Everyone is going to want to see this proved out and working as well or better than normal aircraft before getting people on them.

Where are all these crazy ideas coming from?

[PPGMD]

Where is everyone coming up with this crazy idea that the VH-22 has tip jets that power it? That has nothing to do with it, and the rotor will still produce torque and P-factor.

The VH-22 in hover mode operates like the CH-47, and CH-46, it has two propellers that operate counter-routing to each other, that way the P-Factor and torque cancel each other out.

Also the VH-22 each engine sends some power to the mid-wing gear box, so it can drive the other router in case of an engine outage.

Re:Where are all these crazy ideas coming from?

[Soulslayer]

They are not talking about the VH-22, but rather the Boeing UAV Prototype "Firefly" craft which is the actual focus of the /. news post.

Re:Where are all these crazy ideas coming from?

[Soulslayer]

*smacks forehead*

Make that "Dragonfly."

Mental note: When correcting someone else's powers of observation, try not to engage in the same sort of error. Additionally, remember to purchase Firefly TV series on DVD since it is apparently stuck in your head.

Re:Where are all these crazy ideas coming from?

[SEE]

Hey, I've got another question:

Where are you getting the idea that the unmanned X-50A is the same thing as a VH-22? I mean, none of the letters or numbers are the same, and the four-character pattern is different (letter-number-number-letter vs. letter-letter-number-number).

Or are you so obsessed with the off-topic VH-22 discussion you aren't pausing to actually read the on-topic posts you're replying to?

The Mi-24 ain't "fragile"

[smithmc]

whilst it is entirely true that they're FRAGILE (ie: you can shoot most down with a pistol)

Not this one.

In Other News...

[General_Tso]

DARPA has announced new red shirts for test pilots of the X-50A Dragonfly (good for one episode only).

Sikorsky X-Wing

[suitti]

Sikorsky had a program awhile ago. X-Wing