Read the forum code of contact
By: - 11th November 2015 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
straight from Avatar back to Earth
By: - 11th November 2015 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks fine.
Though i think open rotor should works fine.
By: - 11th November 2015 at 14:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no that is a lot of load that require corresponding structural strength & weight for no good reason,
russians got it right with their coaxial design,
yanks got it right with osprey.
i would like to see a design that revolve around a single of them propellers, with the cargo right beneath it in a gyro
By: - 11th November 2015 at 14:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would it be radio controlled ?
By: - 11th November 2015 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The important thing is the mission, not the platform.
It looks very complex. Complex systems often break, making them unable to keep up with the flying schedule and a headache for maintainers, logisticians and financial folks. Mission failure.
By: - 11th November 2015 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The design of the platform is equally important. According to DARPA these are the features they are looking for in any Future VTOL:
(1) Achieve a top sustained flight speed of 300 knots to 400 knots.(2) Raise aircraft hover efficiency from 60 percent to at least 75 percent.
(3) Present a more favorable cruise lift-to-drag ratio of at least 10, up from 5 to 6, to improve cruise efficiency.
(4) Carry a useful load of at least 40 percent of the vehicle’s projected gross weight of 10,000 to 12,000 pounds.
In the picture above it seems all these features can be integrated
By: - 11th November 2015 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks inefficient... will probably lead to lower payload capacity and not meet your point 4 above.
By: - 11th November 2015 at 19:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not too sure about the design overall. For instance how will they protect the rotors from FOD damage?
By: - 11th November 2015 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The design of the platform is equally important. According to DARPA these are the features they are looking for in any Future VTOL:In the picture above it seems all these features can be integrated
No 1 is kinda doubtful as i don't see any means for forward thrust. nor it doesn't seem that those "ducted fan" behave like one on 1960's X-22
No 2 Well rotor size matter, which the structure around that rotor does not support. I
No 3 Wings maybe :3 ? which doesn't exist
No 4 no objection for this.
By: - 11th November 2015 at 20:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would it be radio controlled ?
Yes I am pretty sure the pilot has 4 channel Futabas in his hands while he flies.
By: - 11th November 2015 at 21:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Without wings, its an illogical design;
Small rotors in place of large ones = you are trading off mass flow for thrust velocity; this is much more inefficent for hover. (compare lift fan of F-35 to a helicopter for example). It could have been efficient for normal/fast flight, but without wings, it cannot do horizontal flight anyway.
So if the design can't do horizontal flight, logical chocies are single rotor (most efficient in terms of lift, but require countertorque), or dual rotor (lift not as efficient, but as no power is wasted to countertorque it can be more efficient than single rotors).
Plus; Using multiple rotors = more mechanical linkages/shafts or smaller motors. Both result in increased cost, and decreased reliability and decreased efficiency.
I think its more of a "what would happen if we apply quadrotor drone dynamics to a chinook helicopter" type design.
For model sizes, quadrotors are simple enough to be assemled by an ape, and they are much more simpler to fly. Lack of servos swashplate linkagecs etc makes them much simpler and reliable than a model helicopter. For a quadrotor, there is no maintanence, if they crash, you replace a propeller or a motor, because they are cheap (compared to battery etc). If you crash your helicopter, it will be a true headache before it flies as well as new. There is no maintanence, if they crash, you replace a propeller or a motor, because they are cheap (compared to battery etc).
So there is a logical trade-off for radio-controlled aircraft ; If you want simplicity, reliability, ease of maintenence/repair, ease of flight and flight safety you get quadrotor; In terms of flight time, speed or maneuvering performance, they are no match for a good 3d helicopter of same cost.
Unfortunately, for larger real world applications, such quadrotor ideas are much less useful; simplicity disappear as additional turbine engines and/or gearboxes are much more complex, expensive and maintenence intensive than a swashplate mechanism of an helicopter. They won't be easier to fly, as quadrotor's each rotor RPM will not be as responsive because of the increase in rotational inertia of the rotors. If a 5+ ton hunk of metal crashes, a quadrotor is not any safer to people around, or more salvegable than a helicopter. So it would be complex, costly, unreliable, inefficient and offers nothing positive.
Posts: 130
By: A and D - 11th November 2015 at 13:23
Generally speaking from an aerodynamic point of view is this a good design?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241888[/ATTACH]