NASA Spiral Duct ESTOL Concept

Extremely Short Takeoff and Landing advanced vehicle concept based upon the coupling of the Lippisch Aerodyne and Custer Channel Wing. Designed to takeoff of at a speed of just 30 mph, with ground distances of less than 150 ft. The outer panels are freewings (able to freely pivot) so that the vehicle is less gust sensitive (which is a major ESTOL problem). Developed as part of the NASA Personal AIr Vehicle project under Mark Moore.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• NASA
• ESTOL
• VTOL
• Low
• Noise
• Advanced
• Concept
• PAV
• Personal
• Air
• Vehicle
• General
• Aviation

[NASAPAV]

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]

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

[hipstarchild]

Hoew would that fly with such a short wing span ?

[NASAPAV]

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!)

[kokopelli314]

The pitch of the duct is backwards

[NASAPAV]

What do you mean? Do you mean the angle of attack, or are you talking about the scant angle?

[NASAPAV]

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.

[silentthunderstorm]

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.

[SuperConfederateMan]

im almost positive the nazis tried to do this and failed horribly



[Himmler620]

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!

[leviterande]

wont the cockpit disttrupt the inflow? how much?

[MantuaSkater64]

and.....what exactly would this be used for?

[RCHobbyist463]

For something like that I would use counter-rotating props to stay on the safe side.

[craigberry007]

NASA = America, try squeezing an average sized American into that blender.

[Justwantahover]

Good basis for a flying car concept!

[Justwantahover]

@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!