The Next X-Plane
By Richard Whittle, Air & Space Magazine, October 2015

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/15_on2015-x-plane-vtol-dream-machine-180956609/?no-ist

Most interesting, first pic and description of Aurora's Lightning Strike!


John Langford’s company is developing the most unconventional entry: a hybrid electric tilt-wing aircraft using an avant-garde form of thrust called distributed electric propulsion, something NASA is also experimenting with. The thrust for LightningStrike, as Aurora calls its design, will be produced by 24 ducted fans, 18 embedded in the tilting wing and another six in a tilting canard. The fans are to be driven by three megawatts of electricity, equivalent to 4,023 horsepower, produced by three generators powered by a single Rolls-Royce AE 1107 turbine engine, the one used on the V-22 Osprey. No batteries required.

“It is a strange-looking airplane,” Langford allows, but “one of the things distributed electric propulsion gives you is this incredible freedom to integrate the aerodynamics and propulsion together.” The amount of power sent to each of the 18 wing fans (31 inches in diameter), and to the canard fans (21 inches in diameter), can be varied according to complex algorithms executed by triply redundant flight control computers. “There’s essentially a nozzle at the back of each of these, and you can change the thrust of each of these individually, so you can change the lift distribution and you can get very powerful controls,” Langford says. The configuration, he adds, “allows you to operate each piece of that wing at its maximum performance condition throughout the hover and the transition and the forward flight regime,” so you avoid losing lift because, say, a rotor is blowing down on the wing.

For the VXP competition, the LightningStrike is unmanned and fully autonomous; no remote control pilot, as is used with the Predator and many other unmanned aircraft. But add a cockpit and the LightningStrike can be manned. It can also accommodate a cabin between the wing and canard, able to carry six troops or passengers. Langford adds that the design can be easily scaled up or down; the individual lift fans “almost become like Legos. You can add or subtract them.”

Unlike the other entrants, Aurora built a one-fifth-scale model demonstrator—made largely with 3D printing—and as of press time planned test flights in September at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, to validate data collected in wind tunnel tests. The LightningStrike will be “as maneuverable and agile as a helicopter, certainly,” says Carl Schaefer, Aurora’s program manager, “but I think where you’ll see it most maneuverable and agile is in its forward flight regime. It’s got tremendous roll rates, very good pitch rates. It’s a sports car, frankly.”

:eek: Three Megawatts!

I wonder if these ducted fans can be operated efficiently at hover and high speed (up to 350kt?). Assumeing they are fixed pitch and thrust is controlled by a mix of speedcontrol and the variable nozzles.

BR Michael
 

Attachments

  • aurora_flight_sciences_vtol_x-plane_lightningstrike_concept.jpg
    aurora_flight_sciences_vtol_x-plane_lightningstrike_concept.jpg
    338.9 KB · Views: 379
Nice piece of artwork for the Aurora Flight Sciences concept - you don't often see illustrations with that kind of style and emotion these days.


Off-the-cuff, I-am-not-a-lawyer etc, noting the rep saying that there is a fusion of wing and propulsion and the the configuration with fans in the canard recalls an Ekranoplan, I wonder if they've considered that mode of flight for the concept?
 
It's a bit of a throwback to early VTOL concepts with dozens of lift engines so that even if one or two fail, you can still fly safely. But it has the advantage that the engines are just electric motors so more reliable and easier to interconnect. NASA's take on the concept uses unducted rotors and seems to work OK. I'd worry about drag from the cowls around all the motors in horizontal flight, but it's not inherently absurd.
 
wonder how maneuverable it is? Especially in the yaw axis.
 
It seems to be a feasible concept, but is it efficient?

Remember, the task is to increase hover efficiency and provide high speed capability +350kt. It's not about creating the most fancy VTOL-aircraft ever ;)

I'm no electrical engineer, but I guess a 1000kW generator would weigh about 200kg (3x). And if each fan is driven by a individual motor you can add about 40kg for each motor, 15kg for each speed controller(24x) and another 440kg for the main engine.

...that is about 2360kg (5200lb) just for those components without anything else!

A lot of weight :eek: ...please correct me if you think my guesstimation is too pessimistic.
 
I think they are likely defining efficiency as the rotor figure of merit, ideal power/actual power in hover.
 
Northrop Grumman reveals their concept - though pictures are verboten. It's a tailsitter flying wing, approx 9.14/30 ft span, contra-rotating props about two thirds that in diameter at the nose, weapons and sensors carried as stores under the wing.

It occurs to me that if it's a four bladed contraprop, the blades could be stopped in line with the plane of the wing and it could avoid the weight and complexity of folding designs and need only a narrow storage space, which would be an advantage for deployment on smaller ships.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flying-wing-tailsitter-emerges-as-last-proposal-for-420005/
 
interesting, but this is for TERN, a distinct program from VTOL X-plane ;)
 
The Phase II winner hasn't been officially announced yet. It has been picked but now they're ironing out the contractual details.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_T-z_EkHVY&feature=player_embedded
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-auroras-lightningstrike-wins-darpa-vtol-x-pl-422720/​
 
There is an old definition of a perfect machine being one with no moving parts. I guess distributed electric motors must have some kind of efficiency advantage over a smaller number of turboprops. Well if they can make an air car this way I wouldn't complain.
 
Great news for Aurora.

Keen to see this thing flying!

The purpose of the X-plane experiment is to create a highly agile vertical-lift aircraft that can achieve speeds in the range of 300kts to 400kts.

Its hover efficiency must be in the 60% to 70% range, with a cruise lift-to-drag ratio of "at least 10, up from 5-6" in today’s VTOL platforms.

It must be capable of carrying a “useful payload” of 40% of its projected gross weight, which is between 4,535kg (10,000lbs) and 5,443kg (12,000lbs).

...and proof the predicted high efficiency in both hover and high speed forward flight.
 

Attachments

  • yourfile.hr.jpg
    yourfile.hr.jpg
    123.5 KB · Views: 322
  • yourfile.hr-a.jpg
    yourfile.hr-a.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 319
Indeed. 24 fans buried in the wings seems to present an awful lot of drag.
 
VTOLicious said:
For the VXP competition, the LightningStrike is unmanned and fully autonomous; no remote control pilot, as is used with the Predator and many other unmanned aircraft. But add a cockpit and the LightningStrike can be manned. It can also accommodate a cabin between the wing and canard, able to carry six troops or passengers. Langford adds that the design can be easily scaled up or down; the individual lift fans “almost become like Legos. You can add or subtract them.”

Ah... it'd be terribly amusing if this monster could compete with the S-97 raider... does anyone have a good sense of how what the shortfalls would be?

Another plus of the hybrid arrangement is that some of the power could be diverted to a fairly powerful laser weapon during forward flight (when power requirements are lower). I also wonder how RCS would fair compared to a conventional helicopter (i.e. a few large blades compared to multiple distributed fans). It might be stealthier from many angles? Could this be the rotorcraft of the future (the FVL successor?)
 
This vehicle has a higher discloading, so it's not competitive for missions involving substantial amounts of hovering. It is substantially faster than an S-97 and has better L/D, operating in wingborne mode. Right now all DARPA asked for in this prototype vehicle is about 1,500 lbs of payload, so it's far from having an operational utility.
You are correct in pointing out that it is already equipped to generate more than enough power for a large laser. Assuming it uses only one third of the max available hover power while in loiter, there are 2MW available for a laser. At 20% efficiency, that's a 400kW laser...
An operational vehicle with this architecture could serve as an armed V-22 escort.
 
AeroFranz said:
This vehicle has a higher discloading, so it's not competitive for missions involving substantial amounts of hovering. It is substantially faster than an S-97 and has better L/D, operating in wingborne mode. Right now all DARPA asked for in this prototype vehicle is about 1,500 lbs of payload, so it's far from having an operational utility.
You are correct in pointing out that it is already equipped to generate more than enough power for a large laser. Assuming it uses only one third of the max available hover power while in loiter, there are 2MW available for a laser. At 20% efficiency, that's a 400kW laser...
An operational vehicle with this architecture could serve as an armed V-22 escort.

AeroFranz, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the projected gross weight is 10,000-12,000 lb and it should carry a useful load of at least 40%.
 
Btw, the Piaggio P.180 Avanti might be a good comparison in terms of max speed (398 kn) and max gross weight (11,550 lb). And they've made a UAV-derivative recently, the P.1HH Hammerhead.

It is powered by 2x PT6A-66 turboprops, 634 kW (850 shp) each.

BR Michael
 

Attachments

  • p1hh.jpg
    p1hh.jpg
    233.2 KB · Views: 201
VTOLicious said:
AeroFranz said:
This vehicle has a higher discloading, so it's not competitive for missions involving substantial amounts of hovering. It is substantially faster than an S-97 and has better L/D, operating in wingborne mode. Right now all DARPA asked for in this prototype vehicle is about 1,500 lbs of payload, so it's far from having an operational utility.
You are correct in pointing out that it is already equipped to generate more than enough power for a large laser. Assuming it uses only one third of the max available hover power while in loiter, there are 2MW available for a laser. At 20% efficiency, that's a 400kW laser...
An operational vehicle with this architecture could serve as an armed V-22 escort.

AeroFranz, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the projected gross weight is 10,000-12,000 lb and it should carry a useful load of at least 40%.

The payload plus the fuel add-up to 40% of TOGW. When i mentioned payload i intended mission equipment, but yeah, you can argue that fuel is part of the useful load. Depends how you book keep masses.
 
VTOLicious said:
Btw, the Piaggio P.180 Avanti might be a good comparison in terms of max speed (398 kn) and max gross weight (11,550 lb). And they've made a UAV-derivative recently, the P.1HH Hammerhead.

It is powered by 2x PT6A-66 turboprops, 634 kW (850 shp) each.

BR Michael

So the VTOL capability requires about 3.6 times the available power?

AeroFranz said:
This vehicle has a higher discloading, so it's not competitive for missions involving substantial amounts of hovering. It is substantially faster than an S-97 and has better L/D, operating in wingborne mode. Right now all DARPA asked for in this prototype vehicle is about 1,500 lbs of payload, so it's far from having an operational utility.
You are correct in pointing out that it is already equipped to generate more than enough power for a large laser. Assuming it uses only one third of the max available hover power while in loiter, there are 2MW available for a laser. At 20% efficiency, that's a 400kW laser...
An operational vehicle with this architecture could serve as an armed V-22 escort.

You're quite right. Someone should check my numbers but I came out with a disk loading of 263 kg per square metre - so about twice that of the V-22 Osprey.
 
Disc loading twice a V-22 will not be popular with the ground forces. Navy maybe, but they are more interested in hover endurance. If it does not have good low speed agility it will have a tough time with the Army.
 
I don't think there was ever a transition customer in mind...depending on the mission profile something like this may or may not make sense. BTW, the limit DARPA specified on discloading was 120 psf...
 
Rainy days...I couldn't resist and designed a CAD-model of a fictional UCAV based on Auroras design concept, basically ;D
 

Attachments

  • BG_LS_1-a.jpg
    BG_LS_1-a.jpg
    227.2 KB · Views: 722
  • BG_LS_2-a.jpg
    BG_LS_2-a.jpg
    143.8 KB · Views: 693
  • BG_LS_3-a.jpg
    BG_LS_3-a.jpg
    114.8 KB · Views: 651
I am soo envious of talented people who can do this sort of thing overnight. Very nice work and it appears a very practical layout as well.
 
Somehow overlooked:

DARPA's VTOL X-Plane Designs In Detail
Jun 27, 2016 Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://aviationweek.com/technology/darpas-vtol-x-plane-designs-detail

DARPA’s Vertical Takeoff and Landing Experimental Plane (VTOL X-Plane) program is the latest attempt to combine the versatility of vertical flight with the efficiency of forward flight by pushing beyond the long-standing speed limit on conventional helicopters of about 160 kt.

By setting performance goals but no mission objectives, DARPA sought to attract novel and diverse approaches to the challenge. In Phase 1, four teams were funded to take four quite different concepts to a preliminary design review. DARPA then selected Aurora Flight Sciences to build and fly its LightningStrike hybrid-electric distributed propulsion design.

Now that Aurora has begun detail design of its demonstrator—its single Rolls-Royce AE1107 turboshaft engine generating 3 megawatts of electricity to power 24 variable-pitch ducted fans mounted on a tilting canard foreplane and main wing—details of the other designs have emerged.

Goals of the VTOL X-Plane (VXP) program are a cruise speed of 300-400 kt. and lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio of at least 10, hover efficiency of at least 80% and a useful load of at least 40% of the vehicle’s gross weight. By comparison, Sikorsky’s UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter cruises at 155 kt. with an L/D of 3.5-4.6 and hovers with an efficiency of 62%.

The Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin offering for VXP, the Rotor Blown Wing (RBW), uses the rotors to blow the wing and increase lift. The DXP300 design proposed to DARPA was an unmanned tailsitter, but the team has produced concepts for manned tiltwing VTOL attack and transport aircraft using the RBW technology.

As proposed, a 12,000-lb.-gross-weight vehicle powered by a single 6,150-shp AE1107C turboshaft (the V-22’s engine) driving two five-blade rotors, the RWB has a cruise speed of 360 kt. and L/D of 14, hover efficiency of 80% and useful load of 40%.

To provide a comparison, Sikorsky’s 11,400-lb. S-97 Raider which is now in flight test—a high-speed compound helicopter with coaxial rigid rotors and pusher propulsor—is designed to cruise at 238 kt. with an L/D of 3.5-5.5, a 72% hover efficiency and a 31% useful load.

A characteristic of the RBW configuration is simplicity. The semi-articulated rotors provide vertical lift and forward thrust. They also provide flight control in helicopter and airplane mode. Aerodynamic surfaces are not required, although the X-plane would have had elevons for precision control and flaps for high lift in flight testing.

Differential cyclic pitch on the rotors controls heading in hover and bank in cruise, while symmetric cyclic controls longitudinal ground speed and climb angle, respectively. Differential collective pitch controls lateral ground speed in hover and sideslip in cruise, symmetric collective controlling vertical and forward speed, respectively.

The tailsitter RBW takes off vertically and tips over to transition to wingborne flight between 35 and 175 kt. , the rotors slowing from 100% rpm in vertical flight to 80% in forward flight. To recover, the vehicle tips up into rotorborne flight and lands vertically.

Sikorsky has developed configurations for unmanned tailsitters ranging from a 700-lb. surveillance aircraft with a single engine cross-shafted to power both rotors, to a 2,300-lb. surveillance/strike aircraft with two engines cross-shafted for redundancy.

But RBW is not limited to unmanned tailsitters, the company maintains, developing two tiltwing configurations to show how the technology could be used for larger manned VTOL aircraft. One of these is the AH-TW, a two-seat attack design with the rotors mounted on tilting outer wing sections, powered by 3,000-shp-class engines mounted fixed in the fuselage.

Sikorsky says the AH-TW would meet or exceed the requirement for a Future Vertical Lift Capability Set 2 rotorcraft to replace the AH-1Z and AH-64E attack helicopters. The larger CH-TW is a tactical VTOL transport configuration with four rotors mounted on a tilting wing, but using the RBW technology for flight control and efficient lift in hover and cruise.

To Boeing, DARPA’s speed goal of up to 400 kt. suggested axial thrusters were needed for propulsion, while hover efficiency demanded a configuration that avoided the helicopter’s anti-torque requirement and the tiltrotor’s rotor download on the wing. Cruise efficiency required a clean configuration with high-aspect-ratio wing for low drag, while useful load pointed to a multimode aero-propulsion system.

The result was the PhantomSwift, a winged vehicle with shaft-driven ducted fans in the fuselage for lift and tilting ducted fans on the wingtips for vertical lift and forward thrust. This provided four lift posts for hover and low-speed control, but limited excess cruise thrust by shutting down and covering over the body fans and using only the wing thruster fans in cruise flight.

The design proposed to DARPA is a 12,000-lb.-gross-weight unmanned vehicle. Two General Electric CT7-8B turboshafts mounted in fuselage sponsons drive the body fans via shafts to a gearbox in the center of each duct, and the thrusters via a shaft and spindle in the wing leading edge.

The 6.5-ft.-dia. body fans provide 60% of the lift in hover, and the smaller wing fans 40%. Louvers under the body fans vector the thrust for flight control in hover. For forward flight, the louvers close and upper doors slide over the ducts, while wing flaperons and ruddervators on the V-tail provide flight control.

Although the PhantomSwift proposed for VXP was AH-64-sized and in theory capable of housing Hellfire missiles in a center-fuselage weapons bay, Boeing thinks the way ahead for the configuration may be to go smaller, with a future tactical unmanned aircraft for the U.S. Army as one potential avenue.

With single-minded efficiency of purpose, Karem Aircraft Inc. adapted its existing Optimum Speed Tiltrotor design to bid for DARPA’s VTOL X-Plane. This has stiff lightweight rotor blades mounted rigidly to hingeless hubs that are driven via two-speed gearboxes, allowing high propeller efficiency over a wide rpm range (up to 50%) in both helicopter and airplane modes.

The rotors have redundant electric individual blade control actuators in the hubs, eliminating swashplates. Hub loads go direct to the nacelle, the gearbox carrying torque only. The outboard sections of the high-aspect-ratio wing tilt with the nacelles to reduce rotor download. Full-span flaps increase lift, with the outer sections also acting to deswirl the rotor downwash.

The wing of the TR36XP proposed for VXP, with its 36-ft.-dia. rotors, is modular and the same as that used on the UTR36 offered for the Army’s Joint Multi Role technology demonstration. Karem was not selected to build a demonstrator, but has been funded to build a full-scale ground test article for the rotor, nacelle and drive system.

At 360-kt., powered by a pair of Safran (formerly Turbomeca) RTM322 turboshafts modified for multiattitude operation, the TR36XP is 85 kt. faster than the Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotor, says Karem. The proposed unmanned demonstrator mates the modular wing to a large-volume fuselage about the size of a Piaggio Avanti, providing volume for up to 4,800 lb. of fuel for long-range operations.
 

Attachments

  • DF-TECH-VTOL_1_AuroraFlightSciences.jpg
    DF-TECH-VTOL_1_AuroraFlightSciences.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 71
  • DF-TECH-VTOL_2_Sikorsky.jpg
    DF-TECH-VTOL_2_Sikorsky.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 91
  • DF-TECH-VTOL_3_Boeing.jpg
    DF-TECH-VTOL_3_Boeing.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 86
  • DF-TECH-VTOL_4_KaremAircraft.jpg
    DF-TECH-VTOL_4_KaremAircraft.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 86
The Week In Technology, May 23-27, 2016
May 23, 2016 Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://aviationweek.com/defense/week-technology-may-23-27-2016

A Future for Boeing’s VTOL Phantom Swift?

Although Boeing’s Phantom Swift may have narrowly missed being chosen to be a Darpa’s VTOL X-Plane, the company believes its ducted-fan vertical-takeoff-and-landing concept could find application as an unmanned aircraft.

One potential outlet is the U.S. Army’s emerging Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (FTUAS) requirement, for which a request for information (RFI) was released in March. The RFI emphasized the Army’s desire for a runway-independent system.

Aurora Flight Sciences’ LightningStrike hybrid-electric distributed propulsion concept was selected by Darpa in March to be built and flown under the VTOL X-Plane program to demonstrate high speed combined with efficient hover and significant useful load.

But all four contenders were taken to a preliminary design review in Phase 1 of the program, and Boeing displayed a 12%-scale model of its Phantom Swift, used for stability-and-control wind tunnel testing, at the AHS Forum 72 conference in West Palm Beach, Florida, on May 17-19.

VTOL X-Plane is seeking an aircraft that can fly at up to 400 kt. but hover with the same efficiency as a helicopter. In addition to Aurora and Boeing, Karem Aircraft Inc. offered a variable-speed tiltrotor and Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin a tailsitter design.

The Phantom Swift has four shaft-driven ducted fans, two embedded in the fuselage and two on the wingtips. All four are used in vertical flight, vanes under the fuselage fans and the pivoting wingtip fans providing flight control.

In forward flight, the fuselage fans are disengaged, upper doors and lower vanes closing over the ducts to reduce provide forward thrust. A novel variable-area nozzle optimizes the duct for vertical and forward flight.

Boeing’s proposed VTOL X-Plane was an unmanned vehicle about the size of an AH-64 Apache, powered by two General Electric YT706 (CT7-8) turboshafts in fuselage sponsons. A payload bay in the center fuselage was large enough to house four Hellfire missiles.

Compared with the wind-tunnel model, the fuselage fans were increased, and wingtip fans reduced, in size to improve hover efficiency, but Boeing says the wingtip fans could be made larger, enabling the vehicle to hover without using its fuselage fans, significantly reducing downwash under the vehicle.

The Phantom Swift proposed to Darpa was a 12,000-lb. vehicle, but Boeing believes its high-speed VTOL concept could work better at smaller scale, down to the size of a tactical UAS. Such a vehicle would need only one fuselage fan, simplifying the design.
 

Attachments

  • TECHWEEK22_1_GrahamWarwick-AWST.jpg
    TECHWEEK22_1_GrahamWarwick-AWST.jpg
    41.5 KB · Views: 66
  • TECHWEEK22_2_GrahamWarwick-AWST.jpg
    TECHWEEK22_2_GrahamWarwick-AWST.jpg
    61 KB · Views: 74
A recent Russian exercise near the Baltic states boasted of the activation of 200 air defense units. If your 'prize' is an expensive crash site then these non stealth, low dynamic maneuver/performance designs are for you.
 
jsport said:
A recent Russian exercise near the Baltic states boasted of the activation of 200 air defense units. If your 'prize' is an expensive crash site then these non stealth, low dynamic maneuver/performance designs are for you.

X = Experimental ;)
 
VTOLicious said:
jsport said:
A recent Russian exercise near the Baltic states boasted of the activation of 200 air defense units. If your 'prize' is an expensive crash site then these non stealth, low dynamic maneuver/performance designs are for you.

X = Experimental ;)
The basis of these craft have little defense application. It is Defense ARPA after all. Tiltrotors have large radar cross sections for instance. Infinite fans defies basic simplicity based engineering let alone robust defense engineering. More corporate welfare.
 
jsport said:
VTOLicious said:
jsport said:
A recent Russian exercise near the Baltic states boasted of the activation of 200 air defense units. If your 'prize' is an expensive crash site then these non stealth, low dynamic maneuver/performance designs are for you.

X = Experimental ;)
The basis of these craft have little defense application. It is Defense ARPA after all. Tiltrotors have large radar cross sections for instance. Infinite fans defies basic simplicity based engineering let alone robust defense engineering. More corporate welfare.
So no non-stealthy platforms will ever be useful for any Defense Department use ever again?
 
i'll grant you the lack of LO on this design. I will also point out, however, that when you have 3MW of installed ELECTRICAL power, there are pretty lights that can be generated to make fist sized holes in anything being thrown at you.

As rightly pointed out, this is an experimental vehicle with no military applications as is. A bunch of the technologies developed will be very interesting for whatever follows up.
We can make LO designs today. But we don't know how to solve thermal management problems (just to mention one) on high power electric systems. This will teach DARPA how to do it.
 
UCRAV need all the power they can carry for offensive DE not defense and not a VTOL mission at all. Absurd.

There hasn't been time or resource for not-military designs nor is there now. This is basic.

Time has been up for non-fan designs..(BTW all ruddered fans induce drag/loss).

DARPA has had a half a century to learn what appears to be very little.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom