seeder Posted March 9, 2016 #1 Share Posted March 9, 2016 DARPA's Revolutionary New VTOL X-Plane Design Looks Out Of This WorldDARPA’s VTOL X-plane initiative takes a cocktail of totally innovative technologies and puts them together in one aircraft design that could very well solve some of the chronic limitations of vertical takeoff and landing capable aircraft. Oh, and it’s a design so radical it looks like something that may not be from this planet. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/dapras-revolutionary-new-vtol-x-plane-design-looks-out-1762948914 video/simulation http://www.livescience.com/53943-darpa-funds-new-x-plane-with-hybrid-electric-propulsion-system-animation.html 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redefining Success Posted March 9, 2016 #2 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The original thunderbirds are go film springs to mind. They have a plane/rocket called zero x and it doesn't look too far off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted March 9, 2016 #3 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I'm no aerodynamicist (as may be obvious from the content of this post to those who are..), but I just don't 'get' that design. I thought one of the reasons we keep engine nacelles separated from the wings was that you want your wings to provide 'free' lift by their design, which causes the low pressure effect above the wing. If you embed the engines in the wings and make them narrow, aren't you going to lose most of that effect? Which then means those battery-driven props will have to work even harder to provide thrust and lift... Like I said, that is probably an ignorant response, but it just doesn't look right to me... And as the previous poster hinted - will we be able to get Thunderbird 2 up to it quickly enough, when the low battery light inevitably comes on while it is over the ocean? I mean, this is almost zackerly the same tech as used on a Prius, and don't they have a battery range of about 7 miles? Edited March 9, 2016 by ChrLzs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDZ Posted March 9, 2016 #4 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I think I see what is happening. The motors aren't sandwiched between a top and bottom half of a single wing, each is a separate wing with the top wing inverted - upside down. The fans in the middle provide thrust plus instant low pressure in the sandwich over the top of both foils at once. The top foil is less effective than the bottom but still adds lift, as shown by planes ability to fly upside down. Look starting at 3:48 of this video, imagine the motors between these two air foils. edit, video didn't embed, typo. Edited March 9, 2016 by AZDZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Grey Posted March 9, 2016 #5 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Looks very, very, very expensive. Congrats on securing such a big contract, DARPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKarateKid Posted March 9, 2016 #6 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Could extra terrestrials assisted in the design of this? Not a statement but a question Edited March 9, 2016 by TheKarateKid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 10, 2016 #7 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Could extra terrestrials assisted in the design of this? Not a statement but a question No. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chibadiba Posted March 10, 2016 #8 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Looks like it's flying backwards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted March 10, 2016 Author #9 Share Posted March 10, 2016 and to those people who think we have secret underground bases where we back engineer ufo tech... just look at what we design... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 10, 2016 #10 Share Posted March 10, 2016 and to those people who think we have secret underground bases where we back engineer ufo tech... just look at what we design... Excellent point. This design seems so blatantly "mechanical" as to exclude any notion of ET influence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FateAmeniableToChange Posted March 10, 2016 #11 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Cant say im much impressed if this is our cutting edge aerial concepts! vertical takeoff etc has been around for years, and aircraft like the harrier jump jet were seen as obsolete, conspiracy theorists will love the name of the company though, Aurora lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibeliever Posted March 10, 2016 #12 Share Posted March 10, 2016 The biggest challenge with VTOL aircraft is range. It looks like this is the major innovation they're shooting for but I haven't found any mention of projections in any of the press releases I could see. Range is largely dependent on payload of course which is up to 40% of the gross weight of the craft. Also impressive for VTOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 11, 2016 #13 Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) I think I see what is happening. The motors aren't sandwiched between a top and bottom half of a single wing, each is a separate wing with the top wing inverted - upside down. The fans in the middle provide thrust plus instant low pressure in the sandwich over the top of both foils at once. The top foil is less effective than the bottom but still adds lift, as shown by planes ability to fly upside down. Look starting at 3:48 of this video, imagine the motors between these two air foils. edit, video didn't embed, typo. I think the ducted wing is actually two wings like a biplane uses with a fan inbetween as an upside down wing would provide lift in the wrong direction, working in the same fashion as the "wings" on a formula 1 car that pushes the car into the ground. Edited March 11, 2016 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pallidin Posted March 11, 2016 #14 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I wonder if this design is "battle viable" Seems like so much could go wrong. So many mechanical parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted March 11, 2016 #15 Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) I wonder if this design is "battle viable" Seems like so much could go wrong. So many mechanical parts. It has one jet engine powering a generator and everything else is electrical, I think. Maybe hydraulics at the core for landing gear and wing tilt, so armor up the engine and fuel area and itcould take some hits. Edited March 11, 2016 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now