Posted on 07/12/2007 11:51:00 AM PDT by Freeport
The fact remains - at this stage of its development, the V-22 has killed fewer people and had fewer problems than the aircraft it is replacing (the CH-46) had at the same stage.
At least the Osprey has never broken up in flight for no apparent reason (the CH-46’s infamous Station 410 failure, where the thing would just break in half).
As for alternatives? Other than something like the Moller SkyCar, there are none. In addition, it should be noted that an Osprey can actually back right up to the middle of a skyscraper or other tall building to load or offload people. You can’t do that with *any* chopper.
Dr Metreveli and I came up with the same basic idea about 5-6 years ago : 4 rotors in a solid plate. See DM aerosafe eagle on the web. His impetus was the people jumping out of the towers on 911, mine was a safer logging helicopter.
Yes, in calm conditions the V22 COULD back right up to a high rise tower for rescue but that is not its primary mission, nor do you really ever have “calm” wind conditions in and around high rise urban buildings.
With my SATUJT design : central sphere w/annular transfer ring and outer plate containing 4 or 6 rotors(or nanotech mini-rotors), thus U joint action; you get automatic control to counter those capricious vortices around high rise buildings, electric towers, cliffs, etc.
As to the air-worthiness of a 4 rotor design the Dragan Flyer II has been flying as an RC helicopter for many years now, it’s made in saskatoon. They have a hard time keeping up with back orders.
You can call me and Dr Metreveli all the names you want to but when your V22s get swatted like flies out of the skies, who are you going to blame then, hmmm? It pains me to think that if the V22 is the BEST we can do, how can we maintain our technological edge over our enemies, today’s and tomorrow’s hostile armies. It is a TURKEY, we HAVE to be able to come up with something better than this.
The USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) is the last conventional powered carrier in service, but the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was the last built.
Thailand?
And the top *forward* speed of your design is.....
Check out post 82 - there’s the real reason for his complaining about the Osprey, he’s got a “competing” design.
Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Good question. As the outer plate would be tilted forward at about 45 deg(1/2 lift and 1/2 thrust)it would be a matter of propeller pitch at higher velocities. Essentially the whole area of the outer plate is rotor area with smaller and smaller rotors. J.S.Hall’s idea of nano-rotors was first thought of because of the loud NOISE of helicopter blades, esp in urban areas.
He’s thinking that what you want is to JUMP the aircar up to 30+ ft with the mild WHOOSH of the tiny propellers, then kick in your main propulsion system(that IS noisy). And yet with this SATUJT concept, you just tilt the outer plate any way you want to go. With the c.g. of the cabin below the center of sphere, it stays level(except for possible pendulum action on starting/stopping)no matter how the U joint transfer ring/outer plate are oriented.
To wit, the journal bearing/joints between the cabin and TR is at 0 deg and 180 deg, the journal bearing/joints between the TR and OP are at 90 deg and 270 deg : U joint action. The OP can be swung almost vertical for high speed flight, the constraint being the necessary lift component. Essentally the cabin/TR are surrounded by one BIG propeller split into many, many tiny propellers all acting in concert.
Thus you can be pointed WEST in the cabin, and sitting level, while flying EAST(or N or S)at anything up to 300 mph, just as fast as your V22. Another plus : by swinging the outer plate completely over you can DIVE at a very high speed, invaluable with incoming missiles.
With the most advanced avionics, similar to what’s available now, you could play hide and seek in mountainous terrain until the other guys simply run out of RPGs/missiles. The central cabin is well armored, both against projectiles and thermally insulated; the outer plate can have holes shot thru it but with thousands, if not millions, of tiny rotors redundantly wired you still have a flyable machine. Take out just ONE V22 rotor and you’re toast.
The energy source for such a craft? We have answers for that too. Also there are possible design variations of this concept that I’ve thought of, sitting in little boxes in a shed, moldering away.
My point in explaining this to you : if the V22 is the best we can do, to fulfill the mission of inserting troops into hostile areas...sigh....I can see them getting shot out of the sky at a depressing rate. Stand back and look at it, it REALLY isn’t all that great of an advance over the prior art, and just as vulnerable as past aircraft.
What you need is an apache helicopter with its advanced avionics but even more nimble, to take on the RPG guy behind the rock, to slug it out toe to toe with them and still come back home, battered and bruised, but still flying.
Imagine : they are throwing RPG after RPG at this seemingly big fat target, and it keeps coming right after them, taking blow after blow like a heavy weight boxer boring in for the kill. This is exactly what’s needed in the frontier areas of pakistan right now, an american helicopter that just won’t quit; nowhere to run, nowhere to hide...bringing 911 HOME to THEM...
USS Peleliu is LHA-5, Tarawa Class.
In this thread: Amateur Aeronautical Engineers who know more about aircraft than the Department of Defense.
Report from someone who was actually on the flight.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46816
So is the Space Shuttle. They still fly it anyway
Not quite sure that was their point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.