BAE MAGMA Stealth UAV

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 April 2009
Messages
13,092
Reaction score
5,871
https://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/12/14/bae039s_revolutionary_magma_stealth_uav_298955.html
 
A detailed article with first flight video can be found here:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16980/bae-systems-wants-its-magma-drone-to-maneuver-using-only-supersonic-blasts-of-air
 
I guess this is the ultimate development of the jet flap.
Single-engine reliability is probably the biggest stumbling block but its certainly an interesting development for LO UCAV design.
 
Brilliant, actually surprised no one came with the idea before.
Apart from flaps, as there never been "blowed" ailerons or elevators on fast jets, the Buccaneer maybe ?
Wonder if some blow-pipes at the wing trailing edge blowing hi pressure hot air 90° to the flight direction , up or down, could be used as controls. It's been done on VSTOLs , but wouldn't it work at hi speed ?
 
galgot said:
Brilliant, actually surprised no one came with the idea before.

The idea has undoubtedly come up before. It's just never been worth the trouble. Fluidic thrust vectoring is decades old but has yet to be implemented (as far as we know) because it's not worth the trouble. I seem to recall the X-36/45/and Phantom Ray possibly using it but it might have just been speculation.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16112&sid=b578e12a4cc9de2548f40234adc98fef&start=13
 
I always had trouble seeing how Taranis would work without vectoring in yaw. So I'm not sure that this is entirely the first rodeo for the principle at least.
 
And surprise surprise, what would you do with the 3rd stream of a future jet engine?

Let's be clear, fluidic ctrl, actuator, differential camber ctrl and variable circulation has been in the line for years. Some aircraft field some of the tech, some other are rumoring doing so. BAE discloses here some of its portfolio of advanced aero tech to generate public interest and foster a new generation of engineer (real ones). This is all public communication, democratic talk around public finance and future budget etc...

Interestingly, Boeing Phantom works did push out their own Test mule the same day ;)


http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/foundry/image/?q=70&w=1440&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F12%2Fhhahah4251.jpg%3Fquality%3D85
 
It's been my experience in a non-compressible fluid (water) that a right angle jet force, used to achieve pitch and yaw forces diminishes with speed. Does the same happen in high velocity air?

David
 
in water, you've only momentum until you reach cavitation. So, the mixed momentum (the ratio of perpendicular to the direction of flows) will drive the resulting component.
In air, viscosity became the dominating factor depending of the regime of flight and geometry of the vehicle (see Reynolds number).

Here, it's not about having perpendicular flow, but a perfectly linear one in line with the wing chord (the Kutta condition)

Circulation
image614.jpg


Lift
800px-Airfoil_Kutta_condition.jpg


By expelling air deferentially along the semi wing span, you affect the circulation, hence, the apparent camber. This create a differential in lift and yaw that once played against the distribution on the other wing, give you a total contribution of Lift, roll and yaw (notice that the test model still bears a pair of rudder what indicated that either the yaw components needs some work or is not efficient in the the range of speed of the model).

Taranis use wing flaps (oscillating deferentially) to create the same effect (actuators).

Notice how their precedent test-model used rotating cylinder in the trailing edge to boost the circulation deferentially from each wing.
 
Fluidic area control and TV was part of the original COPE concept in the 1990s, that led to Advent and ACE.
 
Hood said:
I guess this is the ultimate development of the jet flap.
Single-engine reliability is probably the biggest stumbling block but its certainly an interesting development for LO UCAV design.

One could integrate a micro-turbojet to produce enough pressure for effective control though? Right?
 
LowObservable said:
I always had trouble seeing how Taranis would work without vectoring in yaw. So I'm not sure that this is entirely the first rodeo for the principle at least.

I thought it was well known it used it?

http://www.uasvision.com/2014/02/25/taranis-uses-thrust-vectoring-for-flight-control/
 
sferrin said:
The idea has undoubtedly come up before. It's just never been worth the trouble. Fluidic thrust vectoring is decades old but has yet to be implemented (as far as we know) because it's not worth the trouble.

It's just grossly inferior to mechanical forms of TVC.
 
But for a small drone fluidic thrust vectoring would save weight over mechanical methods of thrust vectoring and any loss of efficiency is going to be less critical.
I don't see a full-scale FCAS using all the elements of this system, but for smaller stealthy reconnaissance drones it will be an ideal system to save weight and space and at slow speeds it will provide adequate enough control forces.
 
"Grossly inferior"?

Maybe more of an 'orses for courses issue. If you want hyper-agility you may want mechanical. But if you're providing three-axis control for a VLO...
 
LowObservable said:
"Grossly inferior"?

Maybe more of an 'orses for courses issue. If you want hyper-agility you may want mechanical. But if you're providing three-axis control for a VLO...

Yes grossly inferior in bandwidth and moment generation i.e. the things that matter for effectors.

The 3D case is even worse for fluidic thrust vectoring because even at subsonic conditions its ability to
generate sufficient yaw moment to arrest a side gust is too slow to prevent the aircraft from departing.

The putative weight savings are largely illusory since they have to be made up by the
weight devoted to control effectors to supplement fluidic TVC, particularly in engine-out
conditions. However, collectively, they may be cheaper than mechanical TVC.
 
So if that is indeed the case, do you think BAE have been developing it just for small UAVs?

They have stuck with it for over a decade now, so must be seeing some benefits surely?
 
mrmalaya said:
So if that is indeed the case, do you think BAE have been developing it just for small UAVs?

They have stuck with it for over a decade now, so must be seeing some benefits surely?

Cynically, it's easier for grad students to implement and it can overawe non-technical audiences like
journalists, shareholders and politicians.
 
Really, you should take the words in your profile to heart.

I don't think the average politician takes much interest in fluidic thrust vectoring. Shareholders? Doubt it. Journalists? A very few.

Getting ventilated in a technical discussion about such topics is a little excessive.
 
LowObservable said:
I don't think the average politician takes much interest in fluidic thrust vectoring. Shareholders? Doubt it. Journalists? A very few.

The grad students are the victims here but I'm glad you chose to comfort the truly afflicted.
 
Its just a research project, that's why universities are involved. BAE Systems is probably interested in the potential of a developed system but not enough to devote its own resources fully to developing a testbed. Its a win-win for all sides. Manchester University is a close collaborator with BAE Systems, it cements that and gives both parties some hardware to show. It shares the costs, proves that universities are engaged with business (pleases the government), showcases wider investment into the aviation industry (again government pleased) and not least some PG students and research assistants have gained solid experience and BAE can look at them as potential employees when they graduate.
 
The grad students are being victimized by having a large company pay for them to carry out a challenging project?
 
BAE ignites unmanned interest with Magma

BAE Systems completed initial flight trials late last year with an innovative unmanned air vehicle which is intended to prove its ability to operate future platforms using their propulsion systems, rather than moving control surfaces.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-ignites-unmanned-interest-with-magma-444720/
 
BAE research project promises stealth advance

Most of the magic in stealth aircraft design is created by geometry. By shaping an aircraft surface to reflect transmitted radio waves away from their source, the radar is effectively blinded. This works fine as long the stealthy aircraft has no need to manoeuvre. Any change in direction or altitude involves geometry-spoiling movements of control surfaces. The slightest switch can illuminate the aircraft on a radar screen.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-bae-research-project-promises-stealth-advan-444848/
 
http://m.aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/magma-blows-farnborough
 

Attachments

  • magmaconventionalinflight.jpg
    magmaconventionalinflight.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 298
  • Magma_fluidic_control.JPG
    Magma_fluidic_control.JPG
    308.1 KB · Views: 304
  • Magma_pair.jpg
    Magma_pair.jpg
    455.7 KB · Views: 294
Are there any published dimensions for MAGMA or even ga type drawings ? B)
 

Attachments

  • RS68841_MAGMA-Inforgaphic-20-Nov-17-FINAL-scr.jpg
    RS68841_MAGMA-Inforgaphic-20-Nov-17-FINAL-scr.jpg
    84.6 KB · Views: 91

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom