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.

 

In the future, is it possible to introduce the STOVL capabilities in large transport aicraft?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I'm not saying we should try to put that type of propulsion system on the current C-5 Galaxy aircraft. However I would like to see such technology in the future aircraft that could replace the C-5 aircraft or the C-17, etc. Such aircraft with that type of capability helps being independent of the need of a short or long runways when an aircraft just needs a small opening area to land vertical with a large capacity capable of carrying a large amount of troops or vehicles. I don't mean that an aircraft with large rotors like the ones on the Osprey that gives its vertical landing capability but the system used on the Harriers as well as the coming F-35 that should be introduced on the future transport aircraft. I think its got lots of potential.





Those aircraft looks cool and all. The V-44 looks like it has potential but so far nothing has been happening since. And the the second pic showing helo like aircraft don't look like it could work from my point of view.

Edited to shorten the title.

[edit on 28-3-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 28-3-2006 by deltaboy]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
There are some very serious proposals to make large transport Gyroplanes:



For more info on this concept, look up Groan Brothers Aviation, based in Salt Lake City, or go to their website: www.gbagyros.com...

I'll leave the lecture on Rotodyne to Waynos

[edit on 28-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   


I'll leave the lecture on Rotodyne to Waynos


Ouch! Thing is, such a post was already forming in my mind as I read this thread. I'm too predictable


See also this thread I made last year about VTOL transports which have actually flown;
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Possible? Yes. Practical? Well.... likely not. There are several things against VTOL large transports:
1) The VTOL systems add weight (substracting from cargo)
2) The VTOL systems add drag (subtracting from top speed and fuel economy)
3) There are already runways all over everywhere.
4) The VTOL systems add complexity

So if you had a VTOL C-130, say, it would carry less at greater cost (development/purchase, fuel, maintenance) and lower speed, and would have relatively few operational advantages. The military would go ga-ga for such things if they were available, but the civilian market would be extremely limited, especially as fuel prices go up.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Airships...

and anyway, Gyroplanes look like they will take-off... (sorry)



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The AV-8B requires something like 60 gallons of distilled water to hover. If you were to try to do a Vtol on the size of the C-17, or even C-130 you'd get next to no cargo, because you'd have to carry so much water for the engines to go vertical. The C-17 and C-130 already have a Stol capability.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy




Those aircraft looks cool and all. The V-44 looks like it has potential but so far nothing has been happening since. And the the second pic showing helo like aircraft don't look like it could work from my point of view.



The problem with VTOL is that taking off vertically can sometimes require 10x or more horsepower which means that the engines need to be significantly larger than than is needed 99% of the time.

The advantage is that if your runway has obstructed or damaged you can still take-off.

Since there is virtually no chance we will ever engage an enemy in conventional warfare that is capable of causing significant degradation of our runway capacity or availability, both domestic and international, a heavy lift VTOL would probably be a poor value.

The soviets designed and tested a variety of over-sized VTOL aircraft but the only one that could be considered a success is the huge conventional helicopter, the Mi-26.

en.wikipedia.org...


Here's one that didnt make the cut:

en.wikipedia.org...:701_v12.jpg





[edit on 29-3-2006 by orca71]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The AV-8B requires something like 60 gallons of distilled water to hover. If you were to try to do a Vtol on the size of the C-17, or even C-130 you'd get next to no cargo, because you'd have to carry so much water for the engines to go vertical. The C-17 and C-130 already have a Stol capability.


Why distilled water...or water at all for that matter?

Those pictures featuring the gyro-jets or whatever the offical name is for them, are from a great Popular Science article. I believe it was published about a year and half ago. The gyro-jets were the cover story so if anyone wants to look into the archives for a good read, it shouldn't be too hard to fine.

Also in the first picture...are those sheep running away from explosions in that first picture. Hmm the military's secret agenda..sheep extermination



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
You inject water into the engine to get more power. If you watch the B-52A-G and the KC-135A takeoff when they were super heavy, they left huge smoke trails behind them. That's because they were injecting water into the engines for more power.

They use distilled water because you don't get the mineral deposits, and because from what I've heard it doesn't boil when it gets hot like regular water does, so it won't boil away.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orionblamblam
Possible? Yes. Practical? Well.... likely not. There are several things against VTOL large transports:
1) The VTOL systems add weight (substracting from cargo)
2) The VTOL systems add drag (subtracting from top speed and fuel economy)
3) There are already runways all over everywhere.
4) The VTOL systems add complexity


1, 2, and 4 can be minimized or even completely eliminated by replacing tilt rotor with tilt wing. 3 is not a knock against VTOL, it's a plus as it means that Airports can land many more planes per sq. km.

Also we're talking about SVTOL, not VTOL. They are similiar but different. You still need a runway for SVTOL.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by sardion2000]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join