 |
|
Topic started on 19-9-2004 @ 03:40 PM by MooMix3
|
Doesnt anyone have any ideas on how many X Planes there are?  I tried searching but everything is out of date.  I cant stand all these out of
date sites
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 03:42 PM by RATT
|
We will never know, since X planes are top secret projects. Sure 1 or 2 might leak out into the public.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 03:44 PM by MooMix3
|
What is the last one know to exist? X-50? X-49? Thats what I mean. The top secret ones I dont care about.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 03:58 PM by waynos
|
The latest one I'm aware of is the X-47 series of UCAV demonstrators.
Anyone else noticed the apparent explosion in X-planes over the last few years? The X-1 flew in 1947 and the X-31 in about 1994, 47 apart, yet in the
ten years since we have rocketed up to the X-47 and almost certainly beyond.
[edit on 19-9-2004 by waynos]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 04:16 PM by PARALYZ
|
Here's something that might help....
www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 06:09 PM by Murcielago
|
yeah the highest I know of is the X-50 by Boeing.
external image
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 11:26 PM by masterofpuppets
|
lol that x-50 is something else. i wonder what it could be practically used for???
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-9-2004 @ 11:52 PM by Verdis Quo
|
I really like this site. All about X-planes!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-9-2004 @ 01:23 AM by Murcielago
|
Originally posted by masterofpuppets
lol that x-50 is something else. i wonder what it could be practically used for??? 
Everything.
There trying to combine a plane with a helicopter.
It takes of verticaly like a helicopter then its starts picking up speed then around 150 mph - 200 mph it would change the jet engines thrust from the
rotor blade to be a normal jet aircraft, and the rotor blade would stop spinning and lock into place to become the wing. The propulsion for the rotor
blade is the vectored thrust coming out of the ends of the blade. If they can get this down right with it working good it would put other private jet
companies out of business, and there are countless ways the military could use it.
Heres a pic of the civilian version
[edit on 20-9-2004 by Murcielago]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-9-2004 @ 11:56 AM by waynos
|
That X-50 and those designs based on it look interesting. This may be the result of a project called the X-wing from 1982 which was the same except it
was a four blade rotor that when stopped for horizontal flight acted like the 'X-wing' from which it got its name. It was never built as far as I
know and the X-50 looks like a far more practical solution.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-9-2004 @ 02:01 PM by MooMix3
|
Isnt that kind of small? How big is it?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-9-2004 @ 04:00 PM by Murcielago
|
MooMix3 - Theres 2 of them and there 17 feet 8 inches. Height is 6 in a half feet tall.
other pics
external image
external image
external image
external image
It first flew in December 2003 but they havn't yet did the conversion of thrust in flight.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-9-2004 @ 04:16 PM by Murcielago
|
Waynos - I see why you think that, but there VERY different.
The Boeing X-50 is trying to do something revolutionary, while the X-Wing had normal wings and normal jet engines.
external image
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 01:39 AM by rvfried
|
The X-Wing was a Sikorsky Aircraft project also known as RSRA.
I will see if I have any official Sikorsky pics or literature around..
he RSRA was a unique pure research aircraft developed to fill the void between design analysis, wind tunnel testing, and flight results of rotor
aircraft. The joint NASA/Army project began in December of 1970, with the first of two aircraft arriving from Sikorsky on February 11, 1979. The
aircraft was designed to investigate the concepts involved with stopping the main rotor in flight, with the large blades then providing aerodynamic
lift assistance to the stubby conventional wings extending from the

A Rotor Systems Research Aircraft (RSRA) underwent limited ground and flight tests at the Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, in
spring of 1984. The purpose of the tests were to train pilots and to verify and develop the design flight envelope established by the Sikorsky
Aircraft Company.

|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 01:41 AM by et is dead
|
Theres about 60 or so. Alot are very secret.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 12:05 PM by waynos
|
Originally posted by Murcielago
Waynos - I see why you think that, but there VERY different.
The Boeing X-50 is trying to do something revolutionary, while the X-Wing had normal wings and normal jet engines.
external image 
I believe that test bed represented only an interim stage with the wings providing a 'safety net' but the intended final design had no wings as it
was to work in excatly the same way as the X-50, with the rotor stopped to act as a wing instead. Wasn't that test bed made out of a converted S-72?
Here is an image of what the X-wing was intended to lead to.
external image
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 03:45 PM by Murcielago
|
I'm sure the X-50 was a spin off of the X-Wing, But They are very different, other then just the number or blades, the main thing is the thrust, its
just wouldn't be economicaly feasible to have 2 totaly different means of propulsion.
The X-wing took off verticaly then once it got speed it kicked on the two jet engines then the X rotar blades slowed down and locked into there "two
wings look".
While the X-50 takes of vertical also but it doesn't do it the normal way, It uses the 1 jet engine inside of it to vector the thrust into tubes in
the blades, the holes in the blades are on opposite sides to they make the blades move, then once its in the air moving forward around 100 - 150 mph,
the thrust gets moved so it comes out the back of the aircraft instead of the blades, then the blades slow down quickly and lock in place to then be a
wing. Which enables it to reach high sub sonic speeds.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 04:41 PM by waynos
|
Yes, but aren't you describing flight method the S-72 derived demonstrator, whos real function was the basic first step of proving that the idea of
stopping the rotor in flight was sound, rather than the design in the drawing?
This drawing shows a single jet pipe to the rear which sounds the same as X-50 to me. Don't get me wrong, I know they are very different in final
execution as you say, but I reckon that what we see in the X-50 is where the X-wing designers realised they were going wrong
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 09:05 PM by Murcielago
|
 Waynos
Yes, but aren't you describing flight method the S-72 derived demonstrator, whos real function was the basic first step of proving that the idea of
stopping the rotor in flight was sound

Well if you also have jet engines straped on to it also of course when you shut off the rotors it will still fly, I really hope that Nasa didn't put
money into this for that reason alone.
That drawing looks like the rotors cant move, unless I guess that after there shut down they lower to make it more aerodynamic.
 Waynos
what we see in the X-50 is where the X-wing designers realised they were going wrong

Agreed.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-9-2004 @ 09:19 PM by rvfried
|
There was a S-72 was Sikorsky's internal indentification for the RSRA project. The first couple of flights did not have the 'final' configuration
for the rotor system.
The envisioned revised rotor almost looked like an 'X" on its side. The rotos were thicker...
Here is a link to a page about the S-72.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |