Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Combined Hovercraft and Helicopter

Posted by samzenpus on from the m.a.s.k. dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Has British engineer Geoff Hatton brought us the best of two worlds with his UFO-looking machine? The US military thinks so and are investing in it. The design is sturdy (as opposed to a helicopter) and can fly high (as opposed to a hovercraft). It is based on the Coanda Effect."

9 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. sturdy? as opposed to a helicopter? by lecithin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know the Marines still have CH-46 helicopters in service that took battle damage in Vietnam. Some are 40 years + and none are less than 35 years old.

    Saying "The design is sturdy (as opposed to a helicopter)" is really quite a statement since the design is not in service.

    Seems pretty cool though.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:sturdy? as opposed to a helicopter? by localroger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many of those helicopters that are still flying were flown a wall at any point during their service life?

      --
      Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    2. Re:sturdy? as opposed to a helicopter? by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is referring to its ability to handle midair crashes. Of course a larger version would probably handle midair crashes about as well as anything else..

  2. Coand effect by Manhigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aren't pretty much all low-speed aerodynamics based on this? Isn't this pretty similar to the Kutta Condition? (Air tends to leave a sharp edge parallel to that edge).

    If air didn't stick to smooth leading edges, aircraft could never get enough L/D to fly subsonic.

    --
    "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
  3. Re:My one question by RegularFry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Observe the channelling fins around the edge along each side. They aren't quite vertical. My guess is that the angular velocity they impart balances the torque of the rotor.

    --
    Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  4. Re:Why is this a great idea? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This thing has to carry heavy batteries or fuel, limiting its range. And it's ungodly loud. A small dirigible is silent and I imagine you can make one pretty small given how lightweight today's surveillance tech is.
    Sounds like a great argument against helicopters too.
    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  5. Re:DIY rc coanda effect saucer (with plans) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's really amazing is that the company you mentioned that already invented this (gfsprojects) was founded by someone *with the same name* as the person who invented that which is mentioned in the article. What are the odds? Staggering! Staggering I say!

  6. Re:Maintenance? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want to know how to get around the rotor stall problem, you have to look to the masters of rotory wing flight, the Russians. The Russian answer is contra-rotating wing, each side has equal lift and the additional benefit is you get to have two Jesus nuts instead of one. The Jesus nut is the nut that holds the rotor shaft on, if the Jesus nut falls off all you can do is say "Oh Jesus"

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  7. Did the military forget they tried this already? by CXI · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Linked from the Wikipedia article in the summary is the Avrocar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avrocar_(aircraft)

    That's a full scale model of the very same technology! I imagine in this day and age of computer control it will be more successful, especially as a UAV, but how can this guy get a patent on technology from 1958 and claim it as new?