Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Moves Ahead With Radical Vertical Take-Off Aircraft (networkworld.com)
coondoggie writes: DARPA took one step further in building a radically different VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft that can fly fast and carry a big load. Specifically, DARPA awarded Aurora Flight Sciences the $89 million prime contract for Phase 2 of the agency's VTOL X-Plane program which looks to: achieve a top sustained flight speed of 300-400 kt, raise aircraft hover efficiency from 60% to at least 75%, present a more favorable cruise lift-to-drag ratio of at least 10, up from 5-6, and carry a useful load of at least 40% of the vehicle's projected gross weight of 10,000-12,000 lbs. DARPA said Aurora's Phase 2 design for the VTOL X-Plane envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. "A turboshaft engine -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power, the equivalent of an average commercial wind turbine. The engine would drive 24 ducted fans, nine integrated into each wing and three inside each canard. Both the wings and the canards would rotate to direct fan thrust as needed: rearward for forward flight, downward for hovering and at angles during transition between the two," DARPA stated.
From the blurb:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards -- one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft -- mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts"
Huh?
From TFA:
"envisions an unmanned aircraft with two large rear wings and two smaller front canards—short winglets mounted near the nose of the aircraft. “A turboshaft engine—one used in V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft—mounted in the fuselage would provide 3 megawatts (4,000 horsepower) of electrical power"
Oh.
I don't even know what else I would say here.
DARPA does not exist to make sensible, practical things. They are there to throw spaghetti on the wall and see if it sticks. I think they actually get in trouble if too many of their projects succeed: it means they weren't pushing the envelope enough.
Some fun numbers:
DARPA has a budget of $3bn.
NASA has a budget of $19bn.
The 2012 elections cost about $7bn.
The annual market for soft drinks in the USA is $98bn.
Can we dismantle all this crap and recycle it into something that doesn't sound as if it was written by a schizophrenic? :)
I'll save you $89 million: go buy some helicopters.
Good to see some people still remember the 14-bis. I thought everyone had forgotten about it by now.
Fuel and range are the real problems. VTOLs are the wrong idea to extend range and conserve fuel. Why not let a drone lift the jets straight up 500 feet or so and then lighting up the jet engine as it detaches from the drone? That same drone can carry fuel, weapons and even troops closer to the area of conflict as well as remove the injured.
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/n...
Sounds like an interesting progression of the many-small-propellers concept.
Did anyone else picture "The Bus" from Agents of Shield after reading the summary?
What's with the negative dihedral on the wings? Are they trying to be unstable?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
shhhh, at least it's cool pork
Table-ized A.I.
Yep, I'm imagining it. And it won't be using ducted fans if it wants to be quiet. Anyone who's actually used ducted fans knows they are much, much louder than either turbines or turbo props. And due to their relatively small size they're not particularly efficient either.
Ducted fans, huh? That's not flying, that's just beating the air into submission.
Huh?
The A-10 Warthog is thrilled to lose the title!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What kind of runway has 2 displaced thresholds on one end of one runway????
The democrats have plenty of welfare themselves. The fact is we aren't automated enough for socialism to work and we're too automated for pure capitalism to work. Frankly, the republican corporate welfare does more for sci/tech and society as a whole than the democratic form of welfare so if you don't like it you should at the very least not be on a site for nerds. "Corporate welfare" as you put it funds the bulk of science, hence feeding most of the people here.
Money could be spent on things other than making new ways to kill people.
This was phase 1 and the results so bad they just quit testing it anymore; there are 3 more phases (including phase 2) it must go through before being accepted.
Thought not. Anybody know why?
Could it possibly be to do with their lower IQ? Say it ain't so!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar
Well, that's the first prototype for the HKs sorted then.
It was shaking on takeoff in the video. Whoever designed this thing needs to have their head checked.
...the British Harrier?
...was the Fairey Rotodyne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne
But that was from the 1950s. And British...
The power is from a conventional petroleum engine. It is hard to believe that is where they would want it to be: converting fuel into electricity at low efficiency and output.
How about putting the Lockheed Martin "fusion that fits in a truck" inside there. That is the kind electrical power output and range you want for heavy and fast VTOL.
It seems pointless to have two tilting wings. tail sitters are kind of inconvenient when there are people on-board, in something like an Osprey but un-manned? probably a lot lighter to replace the wing tilting with landing legs like a SpaceX booster, a really long nose wheel that pushes the whole plane into a vertical position, a lot less moving parts, and the ones that move deal with a lot less strength and mass. Stick the camera in a bulb under the tail instead of the nose, and you can hover with it just the same, as with the tilt wing... doesnt matter much because these things spend most of their time orbiting anyways. you could get away with just a little thrust vectoring, and completely fixed engines.
This isn't an attack craft like a fighter or bomber, and it perfectly suitable to search and rescue operations. Would you prefer the firefighters not get any new toys to use in their work?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?