Will, if you can't provide a reference - then you really shouldn't be so positive should you? If you are thinking of the Aerodyne, it did not 'fail miserably' - Dornier built a functioning prototype that flew fine - but it was wingless and provided very short range capability.
And what specific concept would this be? In my description I specifically state that this concept is derived from a mixture of Lippsich' Aerodyne and Custer's Channel Wing. Lippsich was a great German aerodynamicist - although almost all of his designs were never realized in flight. So if this infringes on your design - then I think you are failing to attribute authorship to the original work by Lippisch and Custer
This is another 100% clone of german ww2 plane designs by nasa. Which is no surprise since NASA was ran by german aeronautics specialists.... Pathetic copyright infringement. I Report it for infringing my copyright!
Do the calculations - optimum wing span for a 600 lb aircraft flying at 130 mph is about 15 ft. Which is what it is. Now, that means you have to build the aircraft to have a 300 lb empty weight. But look at the Rutan Quickie aircraft. About a 15 ft span, and about 250 lb empty weight. That's the idea - but this specific version of the concept is challenged with excessive wetted area (which turns into weight!)
Interesting design--it looks like you could drive it on roads and highways with the outer wings folded. Perhaps this concept could make the dream of a roadable aircraft a reality.
And in this hours traffic report we had 72 planes down on Skyway 8,3 were rear end accidents,49 involved drink flying and the 30 through drug abuse thought they were still in the simulators.
I get the duct effect on the rear control surfaces at low airspeeds but this looks like a lot of wing/lift-surface loading for any craft able to carry engine, pilot and landing gear.
hmmm not bagging on the person who made this but it looks like a smaller version of "Rick Hunter's aerial acrobatics plane" used in the very 1st episode of Robotech series 1 (also known as super dimensional Fortress: Macross")
Reversing the pitch, basically flipping the duct, makes a positive angle of attack. Force is created at the front and top of the aircraft. A rear, lower control surface uses ducted air to vary pitch. Probably unstable though, so a tail would need to be added. Just imagine what you've now, with a slight negative pitch, in a wind tunnel.
Secondly, piddling all over my quotation of the KISS Principle, is/could the thrust be powerful enough to enable vertical flight, if the capsule could pivot?
All this is beside the point? Where can I order one from????? :-))
I like the design and concept. My questions are firstly, couldn't the duct provide enough lift, without the side winglets? Follow on question, wouldn't all the hardware (read; mass) needed to stow them be counterproductive in response to P/WR? Still on same subject, the KISS Principle would also be effective here, what with adding mechanisms to break down.
And secondly, piddling all over my quotation on the KISS Principle, could/is the thrust be powerful enough to provide a pivot for the cap
Sorry.. very tired of seeing computer mock ups... you could have painted a rock with chicken wings, and it means NOTHING.
At the very least, build a small proof of concept model with fiberglass, a lawn mower engine, and some remote control actuators.... otherwise, nobody you are attempting to show off to has ANY reason to believe this thing would fly.
If you are tired of looking at computer animations - then don't. But just about anything can fly, youtube is proof of that, lawnmowers can fly, snoppy dog houses can fly. Unless dynamic scaling is used, that also is meaningless. The animations are not meant to prove flight, they are conveying a new approach to achieving an objective where visualization helps to understand what is going on. Alone it is meaningless, but in combination with the analysis it is useful.
@NASAPAV who cares that right now its only a concept. if people never made concepts they would never make the real thing. keep thinks of cool shit nasa and can u guys make a jetpack already
@NASAPAV Well, he had a point. Use some foam or fiberglass - or wood - buy an RC A/C motor, build a scale model about a foot long, and see if it works in the real world. Cost ya a couple hundred bucks, tops - plus your time. Science: Propose a model. Test your hypothesis in the real world. Make adjustments to your hypothesis, if needed. Test again. If a small scale model works, scale up - and test, again.
@NASAPAV Check out the "Whirwing glide tests" on my channel. As you say, any shape will fly (as long as it can act as a plane wing) but c of g is the key to making it fly. Vtol pavs need c of g in center of craft (for vtol c of g). So the challenge is to have both vtol and plane c of g in the same place (which is essential). The canard plane design solves this problem easily. My glide tests prove that it would work as a plane!
@silentthunderstorm are you aware of simulation software? because it is very possible to show that something can work in the computer. most vehicles are tested extensively in the computer before being tested IRL. So, in actuality, this MAY be the result of a lot of work and MAY prove a lot more than someone with your limited experience can understand.
@silentthunderstorm yet, you still manage to miss the point of this. I didn't claim it was simulation software... buuuuuut, any 3d model in the right formats can be shuffled among any number of simulation and animation or rendering or whatever type of software so it CAN be tested. for someone who doesn't like being talked down to, you sure jumped the gun with your expectations and gave this guy hard time over your own ignorance. "concept"- look it up. no one owes you a flying anything.
I like the design. The torque issue could be resolved with a counter rotating prop system. A quick deploy chute also could be an answer to a major failure situation, all on command from a computer or manually. Any luck with me finding a job somewhere in your company? HA!
Hi- the lift and thrust is ok -the torque (unless you have counter rotating props!)and small or lack of control surfaces is a concern -RcSuperhero (dot) com
2 counter rotating props would solve the torque problem, but i know squat about the aerodynamics... and with redundency on both props weight might start to go up. love the idea though...
This design is really interesting. Custer would have loved this.
My question...Air is drawn over the leading edge by the prop, in order to create a low pressure on its inner surface and hence lots of lift. Is the reverse true of the rear of the duct? The prop would surely create high pressure on the inside of the rear part of the duct, meaning that essentially the whole duct is creating lift?
1. if the majority of the lift comes from the rotor-accelerated airflow (ala channel wing) wont an engine failure mean there's a huge "unsurvivability window" when too low and/or slow to achieve a power-off glide speed?
2. how do you counteract the torque from this combination of huge prop, small wing/tail, and how does the small tail provide lateral stability with so much side area fwd of the CG?
Excellent observations, you are right on the money with your concerns. The power must be redundant as the vehicle can not tolerate a complete power loss. This is accomplished with multiple electric motors with overrun clutch - however, if the prop fails during slow approach - ouch! The stability of this specific approach was highly problemmatic - this concept is now about 10 years old and we are working a new version of the spiral duct that alleviates these issues - soon to be revealed!
Comparative to what - a helicopter with an aero efficiency of 4 to 5 (L/D). This vehicle can easily get twice that. So it depends what the mission is, and what is trying to be achieved.
Doesn't this need a bigger Fuel Tank? If it is a PAV. Would that not increase live load or whatchamacallit? Add a little luggage and I winder how heavy it would be. Can a ESTOL PAV then still be made? Or would it end up being a helicopter essentially?
We are working on the next concept, that pushes electric propulsion technologies further and addresses some of the shortfalls of the Puffin. We hope to have that ready by the end of summer, including some sub-scale testing.
Yes, that is one of the deficiencies in this configuration. The torque would have to be taken out with a rear vane, which would cause increased noise in close proximity to the prop. This was merely an exploratory concept looking at super STOL, with specifically shaped ducts to provide extreme lift - so the configuration was just one step towards advancing new duct technologies.
@NASAPAV ok but why do americans and europeans refuse to use the coaxial aproach i dont understand it is such a common sence solution .....do the russians have a pattent on this or whats the big obstruction??? or is it just american stubbornes to change systems because russians use coaxial aircraft??? if i recall corectly the father of the american helicopter is a russian igor sikorsky (ukranian)
Good point, co-axials offer a lot, but require quite a bit of separation or the noise can be very problematic(I don't think the Russians care much about noise).
Sure, but the fact is - I am the first one to agree that this is not the ideal concept. There are some new technologies on it that are promising, but that should be integrated onto more promising configurations. I particularly remain intrigued with the ability of free-wing wingtips that can help resolve the low speed gust stall issues, and the ability of the channel-wing/aerodyne duct to generate very high lift up to very high angles of attack.
You couldn't be more wrong! The fact the propeller is incorporated within the wing means a much higher airspeed is realised over the inner surface of the wing, meaning high lift can be generated at very slow speeds, hence VSTOL capability :)
@alvaradokids Yes, you see, what you've go to do here is add another engine and place the cockpit between them. Then get rid of the tube part, since its hard to manufacture and serves no purpose. For better lift you can then put the props in front instead of behind and lower the cockpit for better stability. Finally lengthen the tail and youve got something that can actually be built, and makes sense.
An Interesting Design. The round annular wing is not new. The wing produces great stability. The problem is NOISE. With world limits set at 85db there is not a hope in hell of achieving this with a ducted wing as that is there problem and that is NOISE.
With a bird strike and engine out the drag is a killer.Propeller tip blade stalling is the other problem.
Ah i should have read the description first. I wondered if you had realised, that its a channel wing aircraft and had the capability of VTOL (yet no hovering capability). First i thought you were one of those Guys who upload CAD studies :)
@NASAPAV m srry i did'nt mean that design is bad infact its magnificent, wt i mean is that u may have trouble using this design in public. fr example any stupid can touch those blades from back while its running which u can stop by putting net over both faces of the duct, there is problem to birds also.
as opposed to most of GA using propellers without enclosement you mean? seems to me this is safer than conventional props, and upcoming unducted fan engines.
Bird strike is not a significant issues for ducted props - much less so than turbofan engines. The gradients are less strong, to permit a bird to move out of the way, and even if it does go through, the contact area is less than 20% of the disk area - while a turbofan is 100% capture area with the bird having to be chewed up in the compressor, combustor, and turbine. I would much rather face a bird strike in this, than a turbofan bizjet.
If a bird does hit a propeller, most likely the propeller will simply chop the bird in half or bounce off. Show me cases of birds taking out propellers (not turbofan engines - props). I have looked and there are very few cases (with far more for turbofan engines). But if for some reason the prop is not spinning, it will glide, but not be able to land in a very short distance. This is why the powertrain system is fully redundnat with a small cruise IC and electric system.
You should look into "rand cam" type technology for the motors of these vehicles.
Standard car engines produce 1 horse power for every 5 pound of weight. The "rand cam" motors produce roughly 1 horsepower for a single pound of weight.
They can run on many different fuels, and have few moving parts.
Yes, I have followed Rand cam and Dyna cam engines for years. I won't spend funds on engine development any more, as it is a bottomless pit. There are some small IC engines that will work fine as a bybrid electric solution, that will provide redundancy, with good cruise efficiency. But thanks for the tip.
But I wouldnt want to be dangling in that super light carbon shell at the mercy of the prevailing winds and not having any control in influencing the outcome of the crash.
I don't understand, the propeller is completely shielded by the wing - which is one of the key features of this concept. How would you possible be hit by the propeller unless you crawled into the propeller? Besides, you wouldn't even get in or out of the vehicle with the propeller turning.
Not even close - the French Coleopter (as well as the Hiller) was just a large flying duct with a TERRIBLE lift distribution and drag. Look up the Custer Channel wing and Lippisch Aerodyne - it is a cross-coupling of those two pioneering aircraft - but certainly NOT the Coleopter.
I see where the Custer channel wing comes in, but I'm not seeing a large influence from the Aerodyne. Are their resources through NASA where I could learn more about this design or resources you would recommend for learning more about the Lippisch Aerodyne?
Also how does the aerofoil change shape in the design? Is it more like a connected biplane with low pressure regions both above and inside the duct or is it a circular wing with the only low pressure region being inside the duct?
A great reference for all of Lippisch's work is the book by Henry Borst, The Aerodynamics of the Unconventional Air Vehicles of A. Lippisch -one of my favorite books. Also, NASA did a wind tunnel test of the Aerodyne way back in the 60's. This geometry is only representative of the concept, and not quite what is required to get the necessary flow turning.
I like it very much; I think it is an " unconventional conventional" design. I would like to have more info about it. I hope NASAPAV will give me a reply.
Takes too long to move anyWEAR. If they get it to move a bit faster, like a race car, then it may have a place in some geeks garage, or with John Travolta.
Will, if you can't provide a reference - then you really shouldn't be so positive should you? If you are thinking of the Aerodyne, it did not 'fail miserably' - Dornier built a functioning prototype that flew fine - but it was wingless and provided very short range capability.
NASAPAV 2 days ago
im almost positive the nazis tried to do this and failed horribly
SuperConfederateMan 2 days ago
And what specific concept would this be? In my description I specifically state that this concept is derived from a mixture of Lippsich' Aerodyne and Custer's Channel Wing. Lippsich was a great German aerodynamicist - although almost all of his designs were never realized in flight. So if this infringes on your design - then I think you are failing to attribute authorship to the original work by Lippisch and Custer
NASAPAV 2 days ago
This is another 100% clone of german ww2 plane designs by nasa. Which is no surprise since NASA was ran by german aeronautics specialists.... Pathetic copyright infringement. I Report it for infringing my copyright!
Himmler620 2 days ago
wont the cockpit disttrupt the inflow? how much?
leviterande 3 days ago
and.....what exactly would this be used for?
MantuaSkater64 3 days ago
For something like that I would use counter-rotating props to stay on the safe side.
RCHobbyist463 2 weeks ago
NASA = America, try squeezing an average sized American into that blender.
craigberry007 3 weeks ago
Good basis for a flying car concept!
Justwantahover 3 weeks ago
Hoew would that fly with such a short wing span ?
hipstarchild 3 weeks ago
Do the calculations - optimum wing span for a 600 lb aircraft flying at 130 mph is about 15 ft. Which is what it is. Now, that means you have to build the aircraft to have a 300 lb empty weight. But look at the Rutan Quickie aircraft. About a 15 ft span, and about 250 lb empty weight. That's the idea - but this specific version of the concept is challenged with excessive wetted area (which turns into weight!)
NASAPAV 3 weeks ago
Heinkel Lerche.
Zvesda 4 weeks ago
Interesting design--it looks like you could drive it on roads and highways with the outer wings folded. Perhaps this concept could make the dream of a roadable aircraft a reality.
wcw43921 1 month ago
And in this hours traffic report we had 72 planes down on Skyway 8,3 were rear end accidents,49 involved drink flying and the 30 through drug abuse thought they were still in the simulators.
MrCriticOfAll 1 month ago
Is this patented?
kko0219 1 month ago
So this is why funds got cut.
ZacharySchroeder 1 month ago
looks cool.... MUST FLY LIKE A GOD.
elijahvivio1996 1 month ago
хорошая графическая модель )
Kalibpi 2 months ago
THIS SHIT RELL BAD!!
KRAYSLiCK999 2 months ago
how do you steer it?
saj5435 2 months ago
that needs an ejection seat!
PanzerBuyer 2 months ago
and This is useful how exactly?
gabesw8gmail 2 months ago
that is so cool
backseatsmen360 2 months ago
its like you're riding in an actual jet engine.
karakuraable 2 months ago
I get the duct effect on the rear control surfaces at low airspeeds but this looks like a lot of wing/lift-surface loading for any craft able to carry engine, pilot and landing gear.
CI9TK 3 months ago
hmmm not bagging on the person who made this but it looks like a smaller version of "Rick Hunter's aerial acrobatics plane" used in the very 1st episode of Robotech series 1 (also known as super dimensional Fortress: Macross")
TheDh0ffryn 3 months ago
2 words.. Death Trap. :D
NeKoShinn666 3 months ago
Reversing the pitch, basically flipping the duct, makes a positive angle of attack. Force is created at the front and top of the aircraft. A rear, lower control surface uses ducted air to vary pitch. Probably unstable though, so a tail would need to be added. Just imagine what you've now, with a slight negative pitch, in a wind tunnel.
kokopelli314 3 months ago
WHEN ARE THEY GOEING TO MACKE IT!
thedevinworld 3 months ago
WHEN ARE THEY GOEING TO MACK IT!
thedevinworld 3 months ago
The pitch of the duct is backwards
kokopelli314 3 months ago
What do you mean? Do you mean the angle of attack, or are you talking about the scant angle?
NASAPAV 3 months ago
I THINK WITH A FEW TWEEKS THIS WOULD WORK. POSSIBLY HAVING THE TAIL ABOVE THE TURBULANCE CAUSED BY THE PROP, AND AN AUTO PARACHUTE INCASE OF STALL.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 3 months ago
this sisisi UGLY?
Liquidazot 3 months ago
it would be even cooler if it was able to dive into the water after it flies
and still be going by it's blades
10skydrive10 3 months ago 2
Sorry, original post did not include all of Q2:
Secondly, piddling all over my quotation of the KISS Principle, is/could the thrust be powerful enough to enable vertical flight, if the capsule could pivot?
All this is beside the point? Where can I order one from????? :-))
TheCaracatusPotts 4 months ago
Search Flying Doghouse here on Youtube - you'll see. Unless dynamic scaling laws are used, anything can fly.
NASAPAV 4 months ago 4
@NASAPAV
I dig your channel, I have a flying lawnmower & Snoopys doghouse on my channel (and some NASA stuff ;-)
wcolbyHD 3 months ago
I like the design and concept. My questions are firstly, couldn't the duct provide enough lift, without the side winglets? Follow on question, wouldn't all the hardware (read; mass) needed to stow them be counterproductive in response to P/WR? Still on same subject, the KISS Principle would also be effective here, what with adding mechanisms to break down.
And secondly, piddling all over my quotation on the KISS Principle, could/is the thrust be powerful enough to provide a pivot for the cap
TheCaracatusPotts 4 months ago
Sorry.. very tired of seeing computer mock ups... you could have painted a rock with chicken wings, and it means NOTHING.
At the very least, build a small proof of concept model with fiberglass, a lawn mower engine, and some remote control actuators.... otherwise, nobody you are attempting to show off to has ANY reason to believe this thing would fly.
silentthunderstorm 4 months ago 10
If you are tired of looking at computer animations - then don't. But just about anything can fly, youtube is proof of that, lawnmowers can fly, snoppy dog houses can fly. Unless dynamic scaling is used, that also is meaningless. The animations are not meant to prove flight, they are conveying a new approach to achieving an objective where visualization helps to understand what is going on. Alone it is meaningless, but in combination with the analysis it is useful.
NASAPAV 4 months ago 15
@NASAPAV who cares that right now its only a concept. if people never made concepts they would never make the real thing. keep thinks of cool shit nasa and can u guys make a jetpack already
2153515 2 months ago
@NASAPAV Well, he had a point. Use some foam or fiberglass - or wood - buy an RC A/C motor, build a scale model about a foot long, and see if it works in the real world. Cost ya a couple hundred bucks, tops - plus your time. Science: Propose a model. Test your hypothesis in the real world. Make adjustments to your hypothesis, if needed. Test again. If a small scale model works, scale up - and test, again.
MrRedNeckParadise 2 months ago
@NASAPAV Check out the "Whirwing glide tests" on my channel. As you say, any shape will fly (as long as it can act as a plane wing) but c of g is the key to making it fly. Vtol pavs need c of g in center of craft (for vtol c of g). So the challenge is to have both vtol and plane c of g in the same place (which is essential). The canard plane design solves this problem easily. My glide tests prove that it would work as a plane!
Justwantahover 3 weeks ago
@silentthunderstorm The govenmint doesn't need an excuse to spend your money. This video is FULL of hot air...what more could you ask for?
FourDollaRacing 2 months ago
@silentthunderstorm are you aware of simulation software? because it is very possible to show that something can work in the computer. most vehicles are tested extensively in the computer before being tested IRL. So, in actuality, this MAY be the result of a lot of work and MAY prove a lot more than someone with your limited experience can understand.
leloodallasmultipass 2 months ago
@leloodallasmultipass
Yes, I am aware of software simulation; this is obviously *not* that.
How can I tell?
Easy... *it only rolls across the floor*. No aerofoil movement, no simulated air flow, no explanation of any aeronautical benefits. Nothing.
I could mock this crap up in Blender (for free), and, again, it means *nothing*.
Again, show *anything* that shows that this thing *might* fly.
And stop being condescending, its childish and self-righteous; you don't know my background.
silentthunderstorm 2 months ago
@silentthunderstorm yet, you still manage to miss the point of this. I didn't claim it was simulation software... buuuuuut, any 3d model in the right formats can be shuffled among any number of simulation and animation or rendering or whatever type of software so it CAN be tested. for someone who doesn't like being talked down to, you sure jumped the gun with your expectations and gave this guy hard time over your own ignorance. "concept"- look it up. no one owes you a flying anything.
leloodallasmultipass 2 months ago
This looks like the future to me, can I add a jet engine and some better looking wings?
MGkings 4 months ago
Muy buen diseño. Habría que ver si vuela y como vuela..., pero es un diseño interesante.
calejatti 4 months ago
ah ¿que no mola ahora el avioncito de la nasa no?
jjmr97 5 months ago
I like the design. The torque issue could be resolved with a counter rotating prop system. A quick deploy chute also could be an answer to a major failure situation, all on command from a computer or manually. Any luck with me finding a job somewhere in your company? HA!
jessewhamilton 5 months ago
how does it gather lift with those is wings there tiny
noobonspeed9091 5 months ago
Hi- the lift and thrust is ok -the torque (unless you have counter rotating props!)and small or lack of control surfaces is a concern -RcSuperhero (dot) com
borntafly 5 months ago
2 counter rotating props would solve the torque problem, but i know squat about the aerodynamics... and with redundency on both props weight might start to go up. love the idea though...
chammerton 5 months ago
This design is really interesting. Custer would have loved this.
My question...Air is drawn over the leading edge by the prop, in order to create a low pressure on its inner surface and hence lots of lift. Is the reverse true of the rear of the duct? The prop would surely create high pressure on the inside of the rear part of the duct, meaning that essentially the whole duct is creating lift?
Look forward to your answers :)
dunners2004 5 months ago
Nice, looks like a friggin penguin. I like it though.
Diddleshot 6 months ago
Is a copy of the Rick Hunter`s plane at ROBOTECH..... Don`t invent nothing.....
cristiangalonso 6 months ago
Ma le ali?! Non sembrano capaci di reggere il peso.. e poi in atterraggio?! Ma il motore?!
sciamanotolteco 6 months ago
Awesome concept. I have a couple questions.
1. if the majority of the lift comes from the rotor-accelerated airflow (ala channel wing) wont an engine failure mean there's a huge "unsurvivability window" when too low and/or slow to achieve a power-off glide speed?
2. how do you counteract the torque from this combination of huge prop, small wing/tail, and how does the small tail provide lateral stability with so much side area fwd of the CG?
3. will flight stability rely on computers?
femanvate 6 months ago 9
Excellent observations, you are right on the money with your concerns. The power must be redundant as the vehicle can not tolerate a complete power loss. This is accomplished with multiple electric motors with overrun clutch - however, if the prop fails during slow approach - ouch! The stability of this specific approach was highly problemmatic - this concept is now about 10 years old and we are working a new version of the spiral duct that alleviates these issues - soon to be revealed!
NASAPAV 6 months ago 3
Cool concept, looks like pilot visibility would be an issue but I like it.
morrielarsen 6 months ago
Interesting. Could it glide safely if the engine/motor fails?
ForViewingOnly 6 months ago
That thing is as aerodynamic as a sofa! How do you expect it to fly?
ColinTheAwesomest 6 months ago
Comparative to what - a helicopter with an aero efficiency of 4 to 5 (L/D). This vehicle can easily get twice that. So it depends what the mission is, and what is trying to be achieved.
NASAPAV 6 months ago
my knob is enormous
rbnsc1 6 months ago
Doesn't this need a bigger Fuel Tank? If it is a PAV. Would that not increase live load or whatchamacallit? Add a little luggage and I winder how heavy it would be. Can a ESTOL PAV then still be made? Or would it end up being a helicopter essentially?
1lllllllll1 8 months ago
We are working on the next concept, that pushes electric propulsion technologies further and addresses some of the shortfalls of the Puffin. We hope to have that ready by the end of summer, including some sub-scale testing.
NASAPAV 8 months ago
what happened to the puffin lol..
maplestorywater 8 months ago
The Jetsons!
AnninoDomina 9 months ago
opposing mini-thrusters for pitch, drag flap for attitude, a full box of depends for the sudden stop
Abnermoon 11 months ago
Yup, even as a consept it didnt leave the ground.
MrRayne33 11 months ago
THIS NEEDS BIGGER WHEELS. IT NEEDS TO BE A CAR.
halcyon0830 1 year ago
what about torque......isnt a single rotor going to create torque twist shouldnt it be a coaxial design???
alvaradokids 1 year ago 15
Yes, that is one of the deficiencies in this configuration. The torque would have to be taken out with a rear vane, which would cause increased noise in close proximity to the prop. This was merely an exploratory concept looking at super STOL, with specifically shaped ducts to provide extreme lift - so the configuration was just one step towards advancing new duct technologies.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV ok but why do americans and europeans refuse to use the coaxial aproach i dont understand it is such a common sence solution .....do the russians have a pattent on this or whats the big obstruction??? or is it just american stubbornes to change systems because russians use coaxial aircraft??? if i recall corectly the father of the american helicopter is a russian igor sikorsky (ukranian)
alvaradokids 1 year ago
Good point, co-axials offer a lot, but require quite a bit of separation or the noise can be very problematic(I don't think the Russians care much about noise).
There are lots of other solutions as well...
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV ok something like the NOTAR system mcdonell duglas useson their helicopters........
alvaradokids 1 year ago
Sure, but the fact is - I am the first one to agree that this is not the ideal concept. There are some new technologies on it that are promising, but that should be integrated onto more promising configurations. I particularly remain intrigued with the ability of free-wing wingtips that can help resolve the low speed gust stall issues, and the ability of the channel-wing/aerodyne duct to generate very high lift up to very high angles of attack.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV
I dont understand, what for those small ugly shaped wings ? They help to achieve something, that I can not comprehend?
charums 7 months ago
@charums just like all other wings, they provide lift and control.
morrielarsen 6 months ago
@morrielarsen
You couldn't be more wrong! The fact the propeller is incorporated within the wing means a much higher airspeed is realised over the inner surface of the wing, meaning high lift can be generated at very slow speeds, hence VSTOL capability :)
dunners2004 5 months ago
@alvaradokids Yes, you see, what you've go to do here is add another engine and place the cockpit between them. Then get rid of the tube part, since its hard to manufacture and serves no purpose. For better lift you can then put the props in front instead of behind and lower the cockpit for better stability. Finally lengthen the tail and youve got something that can actually be built, and makes sense.
htomerif 1 month ago
GIVE. ME. ONE. OF. THOSE.
MegaPandamusic 1 year ago
An Interesting Design. The round annular wing is not new. The wing produces great stability. The problem is NOISE. With world limits set at 85db there is not a hope in hell of achieving this with a ducted wing as that is there problem and that is NOISE.
With a bird strike and engine out the drag is a killer.Propeller tip blade stalling is the other problem.
ophir37 1 year ago
I like that mid engine look sweet! Reminds me of robotech
GreenAce92 1 year ago
Ah i should have read the description first. I wondered if you had realised, that its a channel wing aircraft and had the capability of VTOL (yet no hovering capability). First i thought you were one of those Guys who upload CAD studies :)
Very nice design.
Greetings, Andi
piffpaffff 1 year ago
Very good design but not good for use in public places (open rotating blades)
ezhavapanicker 1 year ago
I'm not sure I understand your comment, the blades are enclosed in a duct, so they are not exposed.
NASAPAV 1 year ago 14
@NASAPAV m srry i did'nt mean that design is bad infact its magnificent, wt i mean is that u may have trouble using this design in public. fr example any stupid can touch those blades from back while its running which u can stop by putting net over both faces of the duct, there is problem to birds also.
ezhavapanicker 1 year ago
your both right but the are exsposed from the front and back but great design
dogmullstudios 1 year ago
@ezhavapanicker
as opposed to most of GA using propellers without enclosement you mean? seems to me this is safer than conventional props, and upcoming unducted fan engines.
Croopskate 1 year ago
@ezhavapanicker Imagine a pedestrian crash, Clipped at the shin then shredded in the blades, doh.... Looks cool....
geekfish 1 year ago
Like a vacuum cleaner for seagulls.
2bornot2b1984 2 years ago
Bird strike is not a significant issues for ducted props - much less so than turbofan engines. The gradients are less strong, to permit a bird to move out of the way, and even if it does go through, the contact area is less than 20% of the disk area - while a turbofan is 100% capture area with the bird having to be chewed up in the compressor, combustor, and turbine. I would much rather face a bird strike in this, than a turbofan bizjet.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
But if a bird does hit the blades there is no other thrust force.
How well does the machine glide and maneuver with no power?
2bornot2b1984 2 years ago
If a bird does hit a propeller, most likely the propeller will simply chop the bird in half or bounce off. Show me cases of birds taking out propellers (not turbofan engines - props). I have looked and there are very few cases (with far more for turbofan engines). But if for some reason the prop is not spinning, it will glide, but not be able to land in a very short distance. This is why the powertrain system is fully redundnat with a small cruise IC and electric system.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
You should look into "rand cam" type technology for the motors of these vehicles.
Standard car engines produce 1 horse power for every 5 pound of weight. The "rand cam" motors produce roughly 1 horsepower for a single pound of weight.
They can run on many different fuels, and have few moving parts.
They were designed for unmanned aerial vehicles.
2bornot2b1984 2 years ago
Yes, I have followed Rand cam and Dyna cam engines for years. I won't spend funds on engine development any more, as it is a bottomless pit. There are some small IC engines that will work fine as a bybrid electric solution, that will provide redundancy, with good cruise efficiency. But thanks for the tip.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
I think for such a small plane a properly sized parachute would do the job in case of emergency landing. Just my 2 cents...
Felhasznalonev 1 year ago
Probably true under ideal conditions.
But I wouldnt want to be dangling in that super light carbon shell at the mercy of the prevailing winds and not having any control in influencing the outcome of the crash.
2bornot2b1984 1 year ago
how do you stop a person from getting chopped up by those fins?
sugercoatedvenom 2 years ago
I don't understand, the propeller is completely shielded by the wing - which is one of the key features of this concept. How would you possible be hit by the propeller unless you crawled into the propeller? Besides, you wouldn't even get in or out of the vehicle with the propeller turning.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
@NASAPAV He's so dumb he probably would crawl in.
TheGreatSteve 2 years ago
This concept is just a STOL version of the french Coleoptere C 450 SNECMA (1959).
StuartEddie 2 years ago
Not even close - the French Coleopter (as well as the Hiller) was just a large flying duct with a TERRIBLE lift distribution and drag. Look up the Custer Channel wing and Lippisch Aerodyne - it is a cross-coupling of those two pioneering aircraft - but certainly NOT the Coleopter.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
I see where the Custer channel wing comes in, but I'm not seeing a large influence from the Aerodyne. Are their resources through NASA where I could learn more about this design or resources you would recommend for learning more about the Lippisch Aerodyne?
Also how does the aerofoil change shape in the design? Is it more like a connected biplane with low pressure regions both above and inside the duct or is it a circular wing with the only low pressure region being inside the duct?
quaffman10 2 years ago
A great reference for all of Lippisch's work is the book by Henry Borst, The Aerodynamics of the Unconventional Air Vehicles of A. Lippisch -one of my favorite books. Also, NASA did a wind tunnel test of the Aerodyne way back in the 60's. This geometry is only representative of the concept, and not quite what is required to get the necessary flow turning.
NASAPAV 2 years ago
I like it very much; I think it is an " unconventional conventional" design. I would like to have more info about it. I hope NASAPAV will give me a reply.
Tecnobingo 2 years ago
Takes too long to move anyWEAR. If they get it to move a bit faster, like a race car, then it may have a place in some geeks garage, or with John Travolta.
PacManJulie 2 years ago
nice
yumyumsashimi 2 years ago
I want a 2 seater. More intriguing possibilities that way.
mowgli2071 2 years ago
That's very nice. Saw this one in a magazine 5 years ago, but i haven't found it on the net. Good design!
skorpen2 2 years ago
cool i want one but in red
dejon1231 2 years ago