VTOL transitioning drone...sweet one.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I love the simplicity of the control system. In hover, yaw is controlled by adjusting the L/R wing motor power (All 4 on each side are slaved together), while adusting pitch with tail motors also slaved together...easy peasy!

 

 

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/langley/ten-engine-electric-plane-completes-successful-flight-test

 

"https://www.youtube.com/embed/kXql26sF5uc"

[mutley 4,488]

> Easy peasy!

 

Wasn't he also controlling something with his pinkies at the same time?

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

great... only NASA gets to play with this beast

and this is why this belongs on the seriously uncool wall

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

You could make your own Chris...

 

This style of drone wont be Unavailable long...once a good idea is out, it stays out and gets ripped off thoroughly. Look for something similar at your local Toy/Electronics store this Xmas.

 

Pinky was probably to control the transition tilt Joe...just my guess.

I meant Easy Peasy while in verticle mode. Seems like that could be programed very easily to  fly with a dual stick RC transmitter...the tricky bit would be transitioning from those stick inputs controlling Power while in vertical mode, and Control Surface motions while in Horizontal mode...bit of computer programming magic happened there no doubt.

[MartinW 0]

Different designs, but the stores are already replete with all manner of drones to buy. I was looking at a quad copter in Selfridges the other week.

Not sure why the NASA design is any better than the multitude of quad copter drones available. The only advantage I can see is range. Tilt rotor, so you gain the advantage of lift from the wings in the cruise.

They range from 30 quid up to a few thousand in the shops as I'm sure you know.

The 30 quid version I was looking at would have been deemed imposable a few years ago. Amazing little thing. Utterly stable and only a few centimetres across.

[J G 927]

I am interested to see if this design has any impact on mainstream aviation.

 

The nearest thing to this drone's design in manned aircraft is the Osprey.  The Osprey's engines tilt, not the wing, and there are only two of them. This means that the rotor/props have to be very large and dictates that the aircraft cant land conventionally as the rotors/prop would strike the ground.

 

This design, if it is possible to scale upward, would enable a large aircraft to have a conventional/VTOL/STOL capability, and possibly, indeed probably, with a higher payload than existing VTOL/STOL designs.   

 

I think it is a very exciting development.

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I agree John, for drones and for regular aircraft.

 

The advantage over Quad Drones, MartinV, is top speed in Horizontal mode. This should be blazing faster than a regular quad drone thanks to most of that power being used for thrust instead of lift/assisting translational lift while flying horizontal.

And it feels like the technology should scale up easier due to the points John mentioned above. Small quad rotors are no doubt fairly maintenance light thanks to the small masses involved (they don't bash the crap out of themselves), but scale up to four quad rotors on a Hauling People Scale, and the extra mass of all the components would make quad engineering on large scales more fiddly...and you end up with basically the limitations of helicopters...low speed and poor high altitude performance as a trade off for V-utility.

[MartinW 0]

I am interested to see if this design has any impact on mainstream aviation.

 

The nearest thing to this drone's design in manned aircraft is the Osprey.  The Osprey's engines tilt, not the wing, and there are only two of them. This means that the rotor/props have to be very large and dictates that the aircraft cant land conventionally as the rotors/prop would strike the ground.

 

This design, if it is possible to scale upward, would enable a large aircraft to have a conventional/VTOL/STOL capability, and possibly, indeed probably, with a higher payload than existing VTOL/STOL designs.   

 

I think it is a very exciting development.

The Osprey can "almost" land and take-off in a conventional fashion. The engines are tilted but not all the way. In this mode it can take-off and land with higher payload. Thus the fact that the rotors are big isn't an issue.

 

Tilt wing isn't new of course. In fact it was one of the first designs. I refer to the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A. The design was abandoned!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_aircraft#/media/File:Ling-Temco-Vought_XC-142A.jpg

 

 

[MartinW 0]

I agree John, for drones and for regular aircraft.

 

The advantage over Quad Drones, MartinV, is top speed in Horizontal mode. This should be blazing faster than a regular quad drone thanks to most of that power being used for thrust instead of lift/assisting translational lift while flying horizontal.

And it feels like the technology should scale up easier due to the points John mentioned above. Small quad rotors are no doubt fairly maintenance light thanks to the small masses involved (they don't bash the crap out of themselves), but scale up to four quad rotors on a Hauling People Scale, and the extra mass of all the components would make quad engineering on large scales more fiddly...and you end up with basically the limitations of helicopters...low speed and poor high altitude performance as a trade off for V-utility.

Top speed yes. And economy. Lift for free as a result of forward velocity rather than engine power.

Not a tilt wing, but don't forget that the V44 is in development. Clearly tilt rotor is preferred rather than tilt wing. Possibly because in a tilt engine configuration, the aircraft can fly with engines partially tilted for extended periods. Try that with a tilt wing, and the drag is phenomenal.

 

This is a Bell video from 2006, demonstrating the Quad Tilt Rotor. As I say, it's still in development as far as I know. I recall that the Quad Tilt Rotor, if it comes to fruition, will have the capacity of a C-130.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_Quad_TiltRotor

[MartinW 0]

In case you're interested, this is the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A in action.As I say, the tilt wing concept was abandoned. Apparently there were issues with the aircraft's cross-linked drive shaft, and in addition wing flexing. So who knows, with modern technology and materials maybe one day this is a concept that will be looked at again.

 

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Re: drag while wings tilted. I can't really see a tilt wing machine like this tilting except while in the transition phase. The advantage of the VTOL drone subject to this post is that it has Tail Engines that provide the pitch control necessary for slow maneuvering while in hover mode...the wings don't need to tilt, and the drag caused by the tipped up wings at less than 20 MPH would be negligible for simple positioning, take offs, and Vlandings...and of course it can land conventionally like a regular airplane.

I see this kind of thing being used Primarily as an airplane/drone that can land on the back of a flat bed truck, small ship helipad, or any small clearing it will fit. I DON'T see these being used for low speed camera/traffic copters or Amazon Delivery Drones... or that sort of thing...for that use, yes, a quad rotor drone would be far preferable as the larger rotors would be more efficient (I assume) at hovering/slow speeds.

 

It seems almost as if you are sayingt this is not needed? Because Quads are better? Whu?

 

There is NO one "Better" machine in a world of specialized purposes. This kind of thing will have a place, and quads will have a place.

 

I think it's a very clever design and control configuration, and that is the reason I posted this, not to ring the bell of doom for quad rotors

[MartinW 0]

Re: drag while wings tilted. I can't really see a tilt wing machine like this tilting except while in the transition phase.

 

 

My comment regarding drag actually came from an aeronautical engineer. It was made in in a documentary on the history of VTOL. He made this comment in regard to the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A. It was a few years ago now, on Discovery channel, so I can't really elaborate further. 

 

The advantage of the VTOL drone subject to this post is that it has Tail Engines that provide the pitch control necessary for slow maneuvering while in hover mode...the wings don't need to tilt, and

 

 

Yes, great for the drone. But my response was in regard to JG commenting that the design may be "scaled up" to full sized aircraft. He then compared it to the V22 Osprey. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the wings don't need to tilt" but presume you mean in order to provide pitch control for slow manoeuvring ... in which case neither does the V22 Osprey. In hover mode, in slow flight, the Osprey functions in the same way as helicopter. Pitch of the blades [collective] for up and down, and rotor discs tilt forward or back for backward and forward flight [cyclic]. In addition of course, the Osprey can tilt the engines for higher speeds and to transition into full forward flight mode.

 

The disadvantage of the drone design when scaled up to a full sized aircraft as JG suggested it might be, is that maintenance would be incredibly expensive with so many engines. Fine for a drone, not fine for a full sized aircraft!

 

the drag caused by the tipped up wings at less than 20 MPH would be negligible for simple positioning, take offs, and Vlandings...and of course it can land conventionally like a regular airplane.

I should remind you that my response is in regard to the suggestion that the design might be adopted for full sized aircraft, not in regard to the use of this technology for a drone. As I say, I can't recall exactly what was said in the Discovery documentary, but drag was mentioned in regard to the tilt wing concept. Of course, a full sized aircraft would spend far longer in the transition phase than a drone, and in addition, the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A was intended for slow speed cargo drops with the wings spending considerable time in the tilted position. I'm only speculating of course. The main reason the design was abandoned was mentioned above, wing vibration and issues with the aircraft's cross-linked drive shaft.

 

It seems almost as if you are sayingt this is not needed? Because Quads are better? Whu?

 

 

No, I didn't say or imply anything like that. My response is  in regard to the design being scaled up to a full sized, aircraft as JG suggested.  In regard to a scaled up full sized vehicle, we now have not only the V22 Osprey twin rotor, but also in development the Quad rotor. So clearly the aviation industry is heading in that direction, adopting the tilt engine design rather than tilt wing.  That was why I mentioned the Osprey V44 quad rotor. So therefore, I would say don't expect a full sized aircraft with a tilt wing any time soon!

 

There is NO one "Better" machine in a world of specialized purposes. This kind of thing will have a place, and quads will have a place.

 

 

I didn't say or imply there was. Drones come in all shapes and sizes. Whether this tilt wing design "will have a place" is too early to state with any authority. It's a NASA experimental concept I believe. Like all concepts it may be adopted and it may be abandoned.

 

I think it's a very clever design and control configuration,

 

 

I agree! But as I said previously, apart from a couple of engines on the tail, "for full sized aircraft", it's not new, it's a concept that was abandoned in the 1960's. Don't think I'm saying a full sized tilt wing aircraft will never come to fruition, I don't believe that at all. With modern materials and technology you can never rule anything out... just that that's not the way the aviation industry is headed in regard to VTOL now. 

 

[ddavid 149]

Here's an interesting thread, which include discussion of model and full size tilt-rotor quad designs:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2166752%23post28579162

Personally, I think the main problem is assuming VTOL capability includes manouevre in the hover. For sure, straight up and down - making the aircraft a very short STOL, which is what the military would like, but not in the hover. Control on single axis rotorcraft is difficult - twins more so. How those chinook pilots 'back in' to LZ's is amazing. 4 rotors? Can't see it unless it's FBW and the stresses on the engine mounts would be enormous requiring nacelles adding to transition and forward flight drag.

And, anyway, with the availability of large single rotor lifters, why bother? A bit of cross wind and your quad design will be all over the place - FBW or not!

Just my sixpenn'rth, as usual!

Cheers - Dai.

[jaydor 345]

Don't want to keep droning on in this topic, but the Augusta B109 will be available soon and has a massive order book..

[MartinW 0]

Personally, I think the main problem is assuming VTOL capability includes manouevre in the hover. For sure, straight up and down - making the aircraft a very short STOL, which is what the military would like, but not in the hover. Control on single axis rotorcraft is difficult - twins more so. How those chinook pilots 'back in' to LZ's is amazing. 4 rotors? Can't see it unless it's FBW and the stresses on the engine mounts would be enormous requiring nacelles adding to transition and forward flight drag.

And, anyway, with the availability of large single rotor lifters, why bother? A bit of cross wind and your quad design will be all over the place - FBW or not!

Just my sixpenn'rth, as usual!

Cheers - Dai.

Bell Boeing wouldn't be continuing with the V44 Quad Rotor design for a second, if it was unstable. I don't see any reason why it should be. Yes, the V22 Osprey is fly-by-wire and the V44 Quad will be too.

Not sure what you mean by "requiring Nacelles". The V22 Osprey has nacelles, as will the V44 Quad. Drag isn't sufficient enough to be an issue.

The V22 does have the capability to manoeuvre in the hover, and the V44 Quad will too. As I said, the V22 functions like a helicopter in the hover, in regard to collective and cyclic, same for the V44.

The V22 has a VTOL and a STOVL/STOL capability. In the STOL configuration greater payload can be carried. The V44 Quad will have that capability too.

In regard to the V22, and the proposed V44 Quad, no, the military don't want just STOL. They want an aircraft that can take off either vertical, or with a short run up and thus carry more payload, and then land on a sixpence without the requirement for a runway.

Regarding the V44, large single rotor lifters cant carry the payload of a C130, and then land without a runway. They also don't have the range or spped of the proposed V44 Quad, or the current V22 Osprey.

 

A bit of cross wind and your quad design will be all over the place - FBW or not!

 

 

No it wont. Bell Boeing wouldn't be bothering with the development of the V44 if that were so. That's why they are experts, they know what they are doing.

 

 

[MartinW 0]

Don't want to keep droning on in this topic, but the Augusta B109 will be available soon and has a massive order book..

 

Did you mean the the AW-609? It's  been in development for years. Last I heard it was waiting for certification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609

Lots of other fascinating prototype and concept demonstrator VTOL aircraft around. Which one do you like best?

Sikorsky X2. Conventional helicopter design, but with a prop pusher at the rear. Goes like a rocket!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_X2

Eurocopter X3. Conventional helicopter design, but with small wings and two props for forward thrust. 255 Knots in a helicopter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_X3

[Quickmarch 488]

The control system is likely to be no more sophisticated than this one: http://www.toysrus.ca/product/index.jsp?productId=33257796- throttle controls height, coaxial rotors cancel torque, flybar adjusts roll and a little prop on the end of the tailboom controls pitch. All operated by (usually) a two-stick hand held box. You can even get an app for your iPhone to do the work.

 

The controller the (pilot) is holding in the video is a conventional, likely an eight channel, unit made by (it looks like Futaba - a major manufacturer of this stuff). The sticks control pitch, roll and yaw through mixing software. The mixing software is quite sophisticated. There could, for instance, be a set of power curves for hover as well as a separate set for "flight" mode. All aspects related to motor rpm and thus torque effect will be infinitely and independently adjustable.

 

The other switches that he has his pinkies around can be programmed to do an amazing number of things - not the least of which is switching programs in mid flight from tame to aggressive pitch and power curves. It is possible that two of the switches control the tilt of the (wing?), my bet would be a N.O. toggle(s) that adjust(s) the angle infinitely through 90 degrees. One of the other switches will be a throttle cutout.

 

I fly conventional helicopter (single main rotor and tail rotor) models on a regular basis. I've been doing this since the late seventies when the controls resembled the ones used to fly the toy referenced at the beginning of this post. Of interest; in the beginning I experimented with a single-stick controller where the X and Y axes controlled pitch and roll with a rotating knob on the top of the stick for yaw. A slide switch on the side of the box fell comfortably under the fingers of my left hand for throttle control. I did not have collective in those days so it was quite a dance to juggle throttle and tailrotor.