Boeing is at it again
- Thread starter phavoc
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I don't recall if it was Boeing, but the concept came up a while back when the army wanted to explore how to resupply as fast as possible in an airstrip in hostile territory.
Condottiere said:
Are you thinking of their proposed C-130esque tilt-rotor? It was to have 4 tilt-rotors, and some images had it looking somewhat squat and fat. Kind of like a fatter and longer chinook with stubby wings and V-22 style engines. As far as I know it's never gone further than a proposal.
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
I forgot about that one, I thought he meant the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion, or Sustain Program.phavoc said:
Yeah, some interesting designs that never made it out of prototyping. Ever see the manned rotor during the jetpack heydays? It was basically an engine with a stand for the pilot. It was nuts, and cool, all at the same time!
The C-130 version I was referencing can be found at the link below, along with a short write-up. I think most of the military likes the gee-whiz aspects of new technology, except it's all pretty much terrible for the taxpayer since none of the services seems to know how to effectively manage a project that is on time and no budget (and the contractors aren't always the ones to blame). Who thought putting an officer in charge of some of these procurements was a smart idea??
http://defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/
The C-130 version I was referencing can be found at the link below, along with a short write-up. I think most of the military likes the gee-whiz aspects of new technology, except it's all pretty much terrible for the taxpayer since none of the services seems to know how to effectively manage a project that is on time and no budget (and the contractors aren't always the ones to blame). Who thought putting an officer in charge of some of these procurements was a smart idea??
http://defensetech.org/2010/10/25/so-the-air-force-wants-a-c-130-replacement-by-2024/
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I think they were looking at a C-17 as the basis.
Dunno, could be. The models have a heavy C-130 feel to them, and they didn't seem to expect to bring a tank into an LZ via them. Lighter vehicles and weapons and supplies yes, just not a 60ton MBT. But who knows, those guys in the Pentagon have big dreams (and taxpayers pay BIG bills...)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Are we even sure the Osprey is out of prototyping? The president has one but he isn't allowed to use it in case they have to find a new president. They have no problem putting White House staffers in though 
Moppy said:Are we even sure the Osprey is out of prototyping? The president has one but he isn't allowed to use it in case they have to find a new president. They have no problem putting White House staffers in though
The Ospreys record is on par for any first generation aircraft. wile most aircraft are third, fourth, or even fifth generation, the Osprey is the first generation of its type.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hmm, the fifth generation F22 has what excuse for it's spotty record?
Now granted I'm just repeating what I've read on the interweb so it must be right and I don't know this from personal experience but...
Now granted I'm just repeating what I've read on the interweb so it must be right and I don't know this from personal experience but...
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
The F-22 is a victim of bad forecasting, I think evolving it through a series of batches would have been a better solution all around, and it might have prevented Lockheed becoming hubraic.
And navalizing it, of course.
The tilt-rotor concept is something that you need both militarily and commercially, though the zeppelin can't seem to be made to work out economically, and militarily it's a sitting duck. I think it's the Osprey's successor that will be the real breakthrough.
And navalizing it, of course.
The tilt-rotor concept is something that you need both militarily and commercially, though the zeppelin can't seem to be made to work out economically, and militarily it's a sitting duck. I think it's the Osprey's successor that will be the real breakthrough.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Condottiere said:
I'm looking forward to that. I'm hoping ducted fan technology will be taking leaps and bounds and we'll have reliable lift with enough thrust for a decent forward speed and load, cargo or weapons.
the f-22 is Fifth generation Fighter, second generation Stealth/fly by wire/vector thrust system. And fighters are a special category. They are intentionally designed to be at the razors edge for flyability. Most aircraft are designed to be inherently stable. For a fighter that is a detriment.
the next generation of Tilt rotor aircraft will build on the first to deal with various issues. the stability, durability, and safety issues will be addressed, and improved...like every other type of aircraft. First generation fighters were prone to shedding their wings at the worst time possible, engines caught fire at the drop of a hat, pilots got doused in hot motor oil if there was a problem etc...
first generation airliners were horrible, they fell out of the sky,had carbon monoxide issues, had airborne fires, and were just plain unlivable for long flights. people arrived cold, exhausted, and deaf from engine noise.
The Zeppplins had an altogether different problem. The idea was too advanced for the materials of the day. the light metals and fabrics needed to make them work efficiently were too weak to do the job, and the materials used to gas proof the fabrics were highly flammable. The British attempt at a passenger Zep used gas bladders made fro cow parts...
Using modern modern materials and Helium which is now viable since the materials are lighter, stronger and less likely to leak gases. Unfortunately they were permanently marred by several spectacular crashes which killed nearly everyone on board.
The new Boeing plane has a lot easier road to travel since most of the trial and error can be done in virtual simulation. the materials have been tested on previous aircraft, and the engines will be built using several more generations of development than the aircraft itself.
the next generation of Tilt rotor aircraft will build on the first to deal with various issues. the stability, durability, and safety issues will be addressed, and improved...like every other type of aircraft. First generation fighters were prone to shedding their wings at the worst time possible, engines caught fire at the drop of a hat, pilots got doused in hot motor oil if there was a problem etc...
first generation airliners were horrible, they fell out of the sky,had carbon monoxide issues, had airborne fires, and were just plain unlivable for long flights. people arrived cold, exhausted, and deaf from engine noise.
The Zeppplins had an altogether different problem. The idea was too advanced for the materials of the day. the light metals and fabrics needed to make them work efficiently were too weak to do the job, and the materials used to gas proof the fabrics were highly flammable. The British attempt at a passenger Zep used gas bladders made fro cow parts...
Using modern modern materials and Helium which is now viable since the materials are lighter, stronger and less likely to leak gases. Unfortunately they were permanently marred by several spectacular crashes which killed nearly everyone on board.
The new Boeing plane has a lot easier road to travel since most of the trial and error can be done in virtual simulation. the materials have been tested on previous aircraft, and the engines will be built using several more generations of development than the aircraft itself.
A
Anonymous
Guest
hiro said:
The problem is what you do when one engine fails (and one engine will fail, one day). Aviation regulations require the craft to still be flyable. If it happens in level flight and the thing has wings, it can glide down. If it happens in vertical thrust, there is a problem, and it has it worse than the Osprey, since an Osprey can, if you believe the propaganda, actually auto-rotate (use the stored momentum in the rotors to land without power; not possible with ducted fans).
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
We get around it in this game since grav technology gets developed at eighth or ninth, depending on how you plan to view it.
A grav zeppelin would be something slow moving that makes it economically worthwhile to employ it, while tilt rotors couldn't compete militarily with even an enlarged air/raft, commercially probably not either. You want to minimize moving parts.
A grav zeppelin would be something slow moving that makes it economically worthwhile to employ it, while tilt rotors couldn't compete militarily with even an enlarged air/raft, commercially probably not either. You want to minimize moving parts.
Condottiere said:
I think the Lighter than air craft have a tremendously long lifespan as a viable concept, even with Anti-grav. Once it's in the air, you don't have to pay for lift.while an anti-grav has o be powered at all times. a Zep only has to use fairly small powerplants to propel itself, and if yo coat them with solar cells you plug into the worlds largest battery....and if a grav vehicle looses power it glides like a lawn dart.....
The combat arean aould definately be grav vehicle heavy due to flexibility and speed. But I can also see more traditional systems lingering a very long time..on reason is "Resource to Kill" you can field one grav lifter or ten cargo Ospreys...the less you pay for logistics support, the more you can spend on guns, tanks and bombs.
now if there is a physical limit on using aerodynamic lift vehicles, then yep, anti-grav...but in any environment where their is an atmosphere a human can operate in aircraft can operate.
That is true, but all vehicles have their limitations. But on any world where humans can breath the air, aircraft are viable. even if the air is tainted, or not breathable due to gas content, or high levels of noxious gasses aircraft can operate with proper power sources.dragoner said:
Lighter than air craft can operate in an even broader range of atmospheres, even in air as thin as mars. they would need to be built to suit but, they do not need nearly the tech infrastructure to build as grav vehicles,,or the highly complex power sytems needed to allow grav flight. All of this makes them cheaper alternatives, where they are able to operate...
None says you have to operate with just one type of vehicle, especially when your military spans huge stretches of space and many different environmental and technological variations. Being able to substitute a fairly economical system in place of more resource demanding systems would give an interstellar military options...Military planners love options. And bean counters love cheaper options.
A
Anonymous
Guest
wbnc said:
A lot of helicopters are unable to operate at altitudes where mountain climbers can get to without carrying oxygen. So on worlds with atmospheres similar to high altitude regions of Earth, they may be competely unable to take off vertically (or would function as hovercraft, LOL!). As with all things, a lot of designs are going to have to be changed. While aircraft will be viable as a concept, you can't expect one made for one world to work on another.
Similar threads
