Slashdot Mirror
Roadable, Vertical-Takeoff Aircraft Is Eager To Hit the Battlefield
Zothecula writes "When someone mentions flying cars, it conjures up images of a sporty little number that takes to the air like something out of the Jetsons. But what about one that's a cross between a 4x4, an octocopter, and a blackhawk helicopter? That's what Advanced Tactics of El Segundo, California is seeing with its ambitions to produce a roadable VTOL aircraft capable of unmanned autonomous operations as a more flexible way to recover casualties, move supplies, and support special forces."
Our enemies may claim disdain for death, but — with our technology — we can beat them to pulp despite being soft-bellied wussies. And some of us aren't quite so soft-bellied either...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Keeping eight engines up to spec per vehicle, sounds like one big headache
This is the first roadable aircraft that looks like it could work. No fancy linkages to have one motor run it all, or spiffy folding wings or anything that hasn't been created yet. This actually has demonstrated technologies behind it and looks like it's much further along that a pretty 3D rendering. Even if the UAV portion doesn't work, this application could be useful in more than just the battlefield. This could be used for civilian medivac or other urgent situation where a suitable landing location is easily accessible.
All the speed, agility and quite of a large, fully-laden truck combined with speed, agility and quiet of a large, fully-laden helio...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
More amazing value from our taxpayer dollars...
No sig today...
I stopped reading not too far in when I encountered this little gem of stupidity; The trouble is, helicopters can only land in nice, big open areas that can be miles from where they're needed..
Um, not quite. Military helicopter pilots are trained to land in spaces much smaller than you might think possible. Military helicopters are also equipped with winches - they don't need to land.
This is an extreme example - but it should give you the general idea. Sadly, the video is missing the most interesting part - the helicopter flying blind and *backwards* out of the narrow part of the canyon.
Doesn't say anything about tax dollars. This looks like it's being privately developed, and all the pictures appear to be 'shopped.
These mish-mash flying cars always offer nothing but the worst of both worlds. This thing, like other similar concepts in the past, is not robust enough to make a proper ground vehicle. This is worse because it's intended to go off-road and needs to be armored. But it's inescapable that those two aspects will be compromised to ensure it can get airborne. And the compromises go in both directions, because as an aircraft it will be slow and clumsy.
What does purpose does this thing even serve that isn't already better filled by a helicopter? If a ground vehicle is necessary for a mission there are already numerous ways to deliver and retrieve them using a variety of aircraft. I also recall reading that someone is working on a sort of airframe that mates up to an armored vehicle for transport and separates upon delivery. That seems like a far smarter idea than this.
And since when is "roadable" a word? It always comes off as a pathetic attempt to legitimize a concept; the idea that something is so new and so awesome they had to make up a new term.
... please stop making words up... AMERICANS...
Leverage is not a verb either.
Roadable has been part of the lexicon since the early 20's.
Leverage has been in common use as a verb since the mid 50's.
This is how language works. It evolves. Get with the program.
You forgot with no Armor. That thing won't stop more than five bullets before it comes crash down to earth.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Just like helicoptors don't generate lift to fly but are actually repelled by the ground because they are so butt ugly.
We have computers these days. A helicopter is barely humanly flyable as it is, this is of course much more complicated, but we don't need people to control it with Bowden wires. If stability were an actual issue, the Nighthawk would never have gotten off the ground!
Ezekiel 23:20
I see 8 turbines on a vehicle about the size of a large pickup truck. I'm guessing its range might be length of a football field...
This is pretty much the future of where helicopter technology is going to go, I think. Eight small propellers are way cheaper and simpler than one huge complex rotor system. The main downside is no autorotation in the case of engine failure (maybe a back-up parachute will be the solution).
Also the eight engines will probably be replaced by a single or pair of turbines driving generators and then eight small motors will used to drive the propellers/rotors. That reduces complexity and allows the rotors to be controlled electrically/electronically for precise control.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.