PDA

View Full Version : Quad Tilt-rotar



Cobalt
01-27-2005, 11:54 AM
This is a future, vertical take-off, heavy lift capable aircraft that exceeds the cargo capacity and range of the older C-130 aircraft fleet.

sandman300
01-27-2005, 11:44 PM
Nice design, cool texturing, one thing it seems to be missing is the rudder or something to adjust heading. If you need a reference... http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airplane.html

altogether... dammm cooool. :D

emperorchuck
01-29-2005, 05:31 PM
Why not just use uneven thrust for yaw control? The blades are adjustable pitch, so I assume you could just feather the side you want to turn into.

I like the design; it actually looks like it could lift itself. What do you plan to use the model for?

cgbloke2004
01-29-2005, 06:07 PM
i have the idea that this is based on real technological projects - sort of future plans things, based on existing and near-future tech.
this looks like an extension of the Osprey V-22 vert-tilt project, which doesnt necessarily conform to standard aircraft conventions..
[though the vertical tail addition might still be useful - ala some mathematical convention i cant recall the name of that is responsible for vertical surface area of aircraft versus ..something else i cant recall, that dictates whether a vertical surface fin is bigger, smaller or required at all, depending on what else there is in the design..]

nice cobalt - can we have it in a livery and have it put in a scene? that kind of stuff always looks cool to me.. :)

http://www.vtol.org/vertiflite/IMAGE002.JPG

http://www.vtol.org/vertiflite/BellTiltrotors.htm

sandman300
01-29-2005, 06:57 PM
cgbloke2004
Yeah, there is a really complicated formula that involves the total weight/ lift surface area/ and min. airspeed and some other things to be able to maintain flight.

having actual controle surfaces is in most cases a better idea. They would give better and quicker controle. Also having the engines pull double duty (thrust and guidance) is dangerous. With seperate systems, if the engines fail there is still stearing. If the stearing fails, the engines could be feathered to give at least a little bit of controle (it wont give much but its better than nothing).

I know this whole thing is not about engineering, but to better get the realism, smaller details like these should be given space.

I wonder how it would look with a Harrier style of propultion? :p

cgbloke2004
01-29-2005, 07:06 PM
detail is indeed what gives an image that final 'boost' and makes that object all the more believable [i always thought FI were pretty good at doing this..].
always something to look out for.

as for a harrier style of propulsion, i recall an early lightwave produced tv-movie [circa 1994?], i think it was canadian and ive forgotten the name of the movie, but it was basically a sky bus - a chinook sized aircraft with podded engines that i seem to recall had some kind of vectored thrust capability, for V/STOL.

[edit:]
ha! google is my friend!
the movie was Cyberjack, and heres an image / link!

nice idea i thought at the time!

http://www.aptt79.dsl.pipex.com/StillsGallery/HiresImages/Cyberjack2.jpg

http://www.aptt79.dsl.pipex.com/StillsGallery/HiresHTM/Skybus.htm

apologies for hijacking your thread Cobalt!

edit: looking at it now, i cant see it actually being properly vectored thrusted like how the harrier is.
i recall drawing vectored thrust type vehicles like this as a kid, but the engines, based on the principles of the harrier, and my limited knowledge as a kid[!], always came out with fairly bulky engine pods.. :p and looking like it needed the nano-second control of a super computer to keep it stable..

sandman300
01-29-2005, 07:24 PM
That's pretty much the way I was thinking. Allthough I would angle the front and rear wings differently so the engines are not directly in front of each other.

cgbloke2004
01-29-2005, 07:33 PM
i think i saw a plan view of this once in a some sci-fi magazine.
although its hard to tell, the pods arent directly in front of eachother, although they probably are too close as you say.
i recall the front pods are closer to the fuselage, and the rear pods have greater distance from themselves and the fuselage, and are angled [anhedral?] downwards slightly [but probably not enough to avoid interference from the forward pods realistically]..

Cobalt
01-31-2005, 07:58 AM
I didn't "design" this platform. The smart guys at Bell Helicopter have already done that. I just got to model and animate it for military concept visualizations.

Cobalt

sandman300
01-31-2005, 03:50 PM
I'd imagine they know what their doing. I wonder how it navigates?

Anyway it looks cool. :cool:

sliver
02-02-2005, 06:25 AM
Like the renders and looks like a brilliant concept, bit of history though, I understood the Osprey was withdrawn as it kept crashing and killing lots of people. One of the problems was disturbance over the control surfaces from the rotors, looking at the design, the front rotors would put very large stresses and strange airflow on the rear rotors.

Would love to see something like this in the flesh though.

cgbloke2004
02-02-2005, 08:36 PM
afaik, its currently in an operational pause at the moment following some concerns raised, i think, over its gear.
also, afaik, its still about 450-odd aircraft on the books for the v-22 osprey [usmc has ordered 360, the usn 48 and the usaf 50 for special operations]
so, while it isnt in full service yet, i've certainly never heard of it being shelved and if approved for full production, would replace the role currently filled by the venerable ch-46 sea knight helos.