Looks awesome. But, will they ever even build a prototype? Read @ http://www.popsci.com/article/techn...e-design-flies-three-times-faster-helicopters
DARPA might fund one. If there is one thing the military needs, it's VTOL aircraft that can operate in remote areas without airfields. That's why we have the Osprey, as flawed as it is. There is a real need for this type of aircraft.
It's a bit little, it would have limited capabilities of transport [the Osprey is very useful also for that purpose, it can substitute a transport helicopter]. With those dimensions it could be suitable for special operations [if silent, of course], with a group of 4 - 6 units on board [if there is the room, of course, I cannot evaluate the volume occupied by engines, fuel tanks, systems ...
I assume a DARPA funded craft would be built to the scale that would be useful for military operations.
You know what? I suspect at DARPA they could develop an amphibious version [a plane able to "fly" into the water and navigate underwater ... with those nice screws]. Such a helicopter - plane - sub would be a perfect all purposes vehicle. But it's only an educated guess.
Although I personally would love such a craft, I think DARPA needs to figure out how to make the Headquarters-inside-a-volcano first.
US Air Force tends to put bases near to volcanoes [not only in Philippines, also in Italy, to say all], we cannot exclude they tried to go even more near than that ...
I wonder how maneuverable that thing would be. The reason helicopters are so useful is because they have maneuverability unlike any other aircraft. I don't know much about the V-22's capabilities. Does anyone know if aircraft like that can do all of the things normal helicopters do or is it pretty much just a normal plane that can hover down to land and takeoff?
The tilt-rotor concept is based on 1950s technology. It took 50 years for the onboard computer systems to catch up to the technology. Without sophisticated avionics making constant corrections, the tilt-rotor would shake itself apart. Have you seen some of the crash videos of the V-22 prototypes? How inherently unstable they are...clearly there's a better design out there than literally tilting everything. I'll stick with the fixed wing concept, thank you very much. If the engine/wing tilts, rotates or spins you can count on one thing, it's going to crash more frequently.
To have two lateral rotating wings is not the best solution ever for vertical flight, but those engines rotate to give linear horizontal propulsion once the plane is in air and wants to go straight ahead. About 30 persons [military and civil personnel] have lost their life during the development of the V22 program. A part this, thinking to the real capabilities of the vehicles, we have to compare it with a big transport helicopter and not a black hawk, but a Chinook. In this case the horizontal velocity is in favor of the V22, even if the operative radius is not that different. An other advantage is about the maximum reachable altitude [about 2,000mt more than the Chinook]. About cargo, there are 5 tons of difference as max weight in favor of the V22 [actually it's not a great thing].
Taxcutter says: It is one of the annoying truths of engineering that performance comes at a price. VTOL performance comes at a steep price. There is a niche for VTOL aircraft, but I think it is over-emphasized by the military.
