It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crazy looking aircraft

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Talk about a f**ked up design. Why the hell do you put tilt-a-rotors on the wings of an aircraft? The MV-22 Osprey. Why ruin a perfectly good airplane?

Click for info and pics





posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Ah, the Osprey.... the US military's greatest modern aircraft disappointment. It had such a huge promotional campaign right up until the actual flight tests. Poor thing. I honestly think they just gave up on it too soon.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Lippisch Li P.13b



Damn this plane was crazy - not just in design either.
www.luft46.com...



Because of the fuel shortage in Germany at this stage in the war, an ingenious plan to use coal (or paraffin coated lignite dust) for fuel was to be tried



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
They still didn't give up on the V-22...



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Airbus Super Transport. Newer version of the old GUPPY.




I would hate to be caught in a severe cross-wind in this monster!



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
They still didn't give up on the V-22...


No they haven't really. In fact I know they have proposed increased spending from $1.69 billion to $1.77 billion in 2006. It's just beyond me how they can continue to support a project that has been in "flight testing" since 1989 and now costs $80 million each versus $35 mil in 1989 when it was cancelled. I just don't see why this project is such a big deal when you could just use knowledge gained from it to develop something that will last well into the next few decades and incorporate new technology. I would propose using it in a limited role for border and customs missions.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have to go with the X-3S.




Looks like a stretched out lawn dart.


Funniest fact about the X-3? It could not go supersonic....lol



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Do you think that they will one day adapt the A380 like they adapted the A300 to make the Beluga? Imagine the size of that! Pump out the sides even more
.

If you go to the airbus comparison page and compare the A380 with the Beluga there is not much in it so imagine widening the A380 so it looked larger:

www.airbus.com...

[edit on 26/7/05 by Infidellic]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
CyberianHusky,

>>
No they haven't really. In fact I know they have proposed increased spending from $1.69 billion to $1.77 billion in 2006. It's just beyond me how they can continue to support a project that has been in "flight testing" since 1989 and now costs $80 million each versus $35 mil in 1989 when it was cancelled. I just don't see why this project is such a big deal when you could just use knowledge gained from it to develop something that will last well into the next few decades and incorporate new technology. I would propose using it in a limited role for border and customs missions.
>>

There is nothing inherently wrong with the V-22 so long as you _do_ acknowledge the fact that it is an airplane, not a helicopter.

In particular, no helicopter can fly up to 15-20,000ft and make 500nm at 250-270 knots. Topping out the trashfire floor and getting to the mission end of the radius in about 1:30 instead of a more typical 3-4 for a helo.

And /few/ helicopters can carry vehicles internally that far. The RSTV (Shadow) is specifically designed to be Osprey carriageable and the Gator and UGV variants of same can also go aboard.

This is the key to understanding the difference between Vietnam styled 'air mobile' activities in which you have the stereotype image of a bunch of Huey's coming into a hot LZ and dropping troops like sonobuoys.

Vs. the more modern emphasis of 'Air Mech' by which you land and _drive_ off the airplane towards 'the sound of gunfire' that may well be 20-60km away.

You try and hump your war to the enemy and you will be dead tired when he lets you catch up with him and kills you with heavy weapons you can't grunt in.

You drive to battle and you can bring the survivability inherent to armor and a fast getaway at the very least. And _heavy weapons_ like Netfires and UAVs under optimum conditions.

The latter effectively letting you have what is called a Contempt Of Engagement doctrine whereby you sit in the boonies and watch the guerilla/insurgent/main battle forces try and use the highway system to maneuver around in. Only to discover that just because you ain't there in person, doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable to eating missiles from over the horizon.

Again, no helicopter can support this mode of deep-independent ops by 'RAPS' or Recce Attack Platoons. Because they need a specialist (KC/HC-130 or similar) tanker to go any depth inland (after coming upwards of 200nm offshore in 'STOM' or Ship To Objective Maneuver over the horizon protective mode on the MAGTF ships) and the Marines don't like to rely on things they can't bring with them.

There is also the consideration of a typical 9-11 hour 'air day' in which you can stage missions before having to cycle down for maintenance and the like.

The fastest that a conventional penny-farthing layout on a helo will go is about 170 knots sustained before the rotor starts to undergo RBS or Retreating Blade Stall whose outcome is inevitably a roll to the retreating side of the disk. And 170 knots is just pathetic, particularly if you not only have to come out, refuel and then go back on a 'normal' basis of insertion/retrieval. But particularly so if your team is in need of a hurry-your-ass-up or "Hooyau!" extraction because the bad guys are hot on their backtrail.

Under these conditions and considering what large helos due to the normal LHA/LHD deck and hangar loads, you may well have to _shift_ assets to get a timely pickup (vehicle or otherwise) and again, the faster you go, the more you are able to exploit USAF tanking at higher levels. And/or simply stop at a covert bladder station for a gas'n'go quick return and pickup.

Things like rigid rotor compound helos with VFDP or Variable Thrust Ducted Propellors (ring-fenestrons like on a Gazelle or Eurocopter, only turned 90` to face backwards), even fullup X-Wings may someday improve matters for conventional helos. But the fact remains that by the time you develop /that/ capability, you will be looking at replacing the Stallion and Chinook heavy lift as well as the Frog and MH-60 in the penetrating medium transport roles.

And then the trainwreck pileup of competing requirements and not enough money to buy all we need will /really/ be bad.

CONCLUSION:
The V-22 has problems with pressurization, electricals and a bunch of other stuff connected to the hydraulics systems. Unfortunately, real fixes for these likely won't be found except by introducing the initial blocks to the fleet and then modifying later versions if not model-designators to get towards a really acceptable platform.

Yet problems like the Arizona night assault landing crash that killed all those Marines are basically acts of stupidity on the part of the operators and a lack of a driving doctrine to make things work the /right way/ (more motorized, fewer legs). So that you can land as gently as needed in some far back of beyond and then _drive_ to the fight.

Once we get that down, much of the V-22's perceived vulnerabilities will go away and the thought of losing /either/ a 35 million dollar system OR an 80 million dollar one will not be seen in the same light as a Huey approaching that contested LZ back in SEA.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
i would wager they got the idea of the V22 from that pic of the nazi prototype i posted lol
a design from the 40's
very very old idea it seems

now my question is this

Why not make a Harrier type VSTOL w/ a cargo bay???
i think using jets instead of the big props on the V22 is better but i didnt test this out in a wind tunnel so i dunno

has anyone tried to make a VSTOL w/jets w/cargo bay area??
it would 3 times bigger than a harrier tho

just wondering



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Here you go. It's a start anyway. Look half way down the page and find a small passenger VTOL concept.
rosaerosystems.pbo.ru...

Otherwise, I don't know how feasbile a larger VTOL would be. The C-17 has amazing STOL capabilities, and I think that's probably all they require right now. A large VTOL cargo jet would be nice though.

Boeing and Lockheed are working on the Advanced Theater Transport. The Boeing has four turbo-props on wings that angle 45 degreees. The Lockheed has jets, but I don't know what kind of takeoff capabilities it will have.

[edit on 7/26/2005 by CyberianHusky]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It has been tried before. In the 1960's there were several projects to build a V/STOL transport like you describe.

Fiat (Aeritalia) actually designed the G.222 (C-27J in its latest version) to be a VTOL transport but built it as a conventional twin turbo prop instead.

In the UK Armstrong Whitworth designed the AW 681 as a C-130 sized VTOL with four Pegasus engines plus lift jets but in the end the RAF got the C-130 in its place.


Although Dornier actually got as far as flying this twin Pegasus prototype, the Do 31.




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Oh wait, duh! I forgot about the Bell X-22a.
aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu... (pictures at the bottom)

Here are a few more, including the Do 231 which looks fairly large.
www.strange-mecha.com...

And the Grumman 698: www.kulikovair.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The V-22 is almost ready for production. It is coming and the Marine Corps will use it in large numbers. This pic is recent and from the US Navy website





050618-N-8154G-026 Atlantic Ocean (June 18, 2005) – The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5) shown underway with all eight MV-22 Osprey assigned to Marine Tlitrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22), “turning” and ready for takeoff. VMX-22 is conducting the final operational test phase of the tiltrotor aircraft. The MV-22 is an advanced technology, vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) multipurpose tactical aircraft, and is scheduled to replace aging CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters currently in service. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Jeremy L. Grisham (RELEASED)


[edit on 7/26/05 by jetsetter]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberianHusky

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
They still didn't give up on the V-22...


No they haven't really. In fact I know they have proposed increased spending from $1.69 billion to $1.77 billion in 2006. It's just beyond me how they can continue to support a project that has been in "flight testing" since 1989 and now costs $80 million each versus $35 mil in 1989 when it was cancelled. I just don't see why this project is such a big deal...


Because there is no other aircraft that can replace the ability of the DHC 4 Caribou's short/rough-strip cargo ability. Osprey is it.
It also combines much of the Herc's and Chinook's abilities into a single package.

It's the cargo equivalent of JSF. The problem is that it's turning out more like the original JSF, the F111, at the moment.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
HOLY SMOKES!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BABY!

THIS BEAUTY WILL LITERALLY CUT THE GRASS RIGHT OFF YOUR LAND!!

mach 9.7




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by evanfitz
HOLY SMOKES!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BABY!

THIS BEAUTY WILL LITERALLY CUT THE GRASS RIGHT OFF YOUR LAND!!

mach 9.7


Lol, yea it's not a real lawn mower, it's made from light plastic materials and has a light motor at the front, I forgot the website for the people who make it, but it's basically 2 guys who like building stuff that flies, they have carts, planes, even flying tanks!

Very cool though.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by evanfitz
HOLY SMOKES!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BABY!

THIS BEAUTY WILL LITERALLY CUT THE GRASS RIGHT OFF YOUR LAND!!

mach 9.7


Lol, yea it's not a real lawn mower, it's made from light plastic materials and has a light motor at the front, I forgot the website for the people who make it, but it's basically 2 guys who like building stuff that flies, they have carts, planes, even flying tanks!

Very cool though.

Shattered OUT...


I was wondering how that thing lifts off



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Here is Snoopy's doghouse.




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by evanfitz
HOLY SMOKES!!!

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS BABY!

THIS BEAUTY WILL LITERALLY CUT THE GRASS RIGHT OFF YOUR LAND!!

mach 9.7


Lol, yea it's not a real lawn mower, it's made from light plastic materials and has a light motor at the front, I forgot the website for the people who make it, but it's basically 2 guys who like building stuff that flies, they have carts, planes, even flying tanks!

Very cool though.

Shattered OUT...


There is not blades on the bottom, it is smooth. There is also a RC aircraft engine on the front.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join