BAE Systems Mantis

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
19,228
Reaction score
35,668
Farnborough 2008 mockup
 

Attachments

  • Farnborough 2008 020.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 020.jpg
    152.7 KB · Views: 544
  • Farnborough 2008 027.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 027.jpg
    109.7 KB · Views: 30
  • Farnborough 2008 026.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 026.jpg
    145.2 KB · Views: 45
  • Farnborough 2008 025.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 025.jpg
    178.6 KB · Views: 42
  • Farnborough 2008 024.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 024.jpg
    107.7 KB · Views: 396
  • Farnborough 2008 023.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 023.jpg
    149.8 KB · Views: 426
  • Farnborough 2008 022.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 022.jpg
    148.8 KB · Views: 454
  • Farnborough 2008 021.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 021.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 463
more
 

Attachments

  • Farnborough 2008 028.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 028.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 37
  • Farnborough 2008 029.jpg
    Farnborough 2008 029.jpg
    218 KB · Views: 38
Very interesting, I take it it's a turbo-prop? in which case the choice for two pusher props over a single jet turbine (ala Global Hawk) is very interesting.
 
i've been looking closely at this one...very interesting design indeed. I read that the RR250 engines are temporary, the final engine will be some other turboprop. The engine location was chosen because (supposedly) they should be able to shut down one engine in flight to maximize endurance. The near-centerline location helps with that.

Just call me Ray said:
Very interesting, I take it it's a turbo-prop? in which case the choice for two pusher props over a single jet turbine (ala Global Hawk) is very interesting.
Click to expand...

I think Mantis and RQ-4 have very different flight envelopes (Mantis slower and lower altitude), hence the powerplant choices.
 
AeroFranz said:
I think Mantis and RQ-4 have very different flight envelopes (Mantis slower and lower altitude), hence the powerplant choices.
Click to expand...

That would make sense, especially since it seems like the Mantis will have a larger offensive emphasis than either the Reaper or GH. It's certainly the second largest medium-altitude long-endurance UAV I've seen (first being an Israeli machine that's an absolute monster).

I actually kinda wish they would make UAVs stealthier though - in my mind, stealth is one of the strongest assets UAVs have.
 
Mention the S-word and your unit cost goes up by an order of magnitude, if you're lucky. Internal weapons, conformal sensors, treated apertures, inlet and exhaust inefficiencies.

Interesting point about shutting down one engine. There might be times (low altitude, passive sensors, end-of-mission weight) where that might be quite helpful. But another advantage might be operations in controlled airspace - a single-engine UAV is not the same as a single-engine manned airplane in that case, because it can't revert to manual controls. It needs power for controls and comms - and I don't think that such aircraft carry the equivalent of a UPS to run the flight controls.
 
LowObservable said:
Mention the S-word and your unit cost goes up by an order of magnitude, if you're lucky. Internal weapons, conformal sensors, treated apertures, inlet and exhaust inefficiencies.
Click to expand...

That's true, but think there are some basic stealth measure that can be done fairly cheaply, and if nothing else I guess I'm one of those guys who believe the future is to make everything stealth :p
 
AeroFranz said:
i've been looking closely at this one...very interesting design indeed. I read that the RR250 engines are temporary, the final engine will be some other turboprop. The engine location was chosen because (supposedly) they should be able to shut down one engine in flight to maximize endurance. The near-centerline location helps with that.

Just call me Ray said:
Very interesting, I take it it's a turbo-prop? in which case the choice for two pusher props over a single jet turbine (ala Global Hawk) is very interesting.
Click to expand...

I think Mantis and RQ-4 have very different flight envelopes (Mantis slower and lower altitude), hence the powerplant choices.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that the Mantis is in the same class as the MQ-9 rather than the RQ-4.

Regards,

Greg
 
GTX said:
I think you will find that the Mantis is in the same class as the MQ-9 rather than the RQ-4.
Click to expand...

That's probably accurate to say. MQ-9 has a 750 hp turboprop, Mantis has two 400hp-class engines.
External payload for MQ-9 is 3,000 lbs, while Mantis' might be upwards to 4,000 lbs, so Reaper might be just a tad smaller. I don't know endurance figures, but I bet they're pretty close.
 
I looks like it has a cockpit that's just faired over. (Was it flown over by a pilot?)
 
Hi all,

Recently I came to know that the Rolls-Royce RB2023 engine is going to be fitted on BAE UAV MANTIS MALE. Is anybody having any clue or some details on the principle functionality of this engine ( I have attached the MANTIS picture for your reference) The propeller has been fitted to the rear of the engine. I want somebody to explain simple function of this engine RB2023.

I also heard that this is an upgraded version of Rolls-Royce Model 250 engine which is a typical 'Trombone' design.

Hope the members of the forum will throw some light on this.

Thanks
MAnju
 

Attachments

  • bae_mantis.jpg
    bae_mantis.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 83
Well if it is a development of the 250 (which would make sense), try here: http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/uav/model_250_turboshaft.jsp or here http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/tactical_aircraft/model_250_turboprop.jsp.

Regards,

Greg
 
Mantis first flight http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/13/334804/picture-uks-mantis-uav-demonstrator-makes-first-flights.html
 
...no Mantis, no Talarion :(

...but Neuron and Tanaris are still alive! ???
 
I wonder why a contra-prop twin engine (a'la Gannet) wasn't considered? It would have made flying on one engine easier. The Gannet used to shut down one half of the Double Mamba turboprop when cruising.
 
Maybe the problem would be the location of the contraprop. The nose is occupied by the sensor package,
and if located in the tail, as in the Reaper, it would need a much longer landing gear to get enough ground
clearance for take-off/landing. With around doubled the MTOW of the Reaper, maybe this would add too
much extra weight ?
 

Attachments

  • Mantis.gif
    60.7 KB · Views: 138
Jemiba said:
Maybe the problem would be the location of the contraprop. The nose is occupied by the sensor package,
and if located in the tail, as in the Reaper, it would need a much longer landing gear to get enough ground
clearance for take-off/landing. With around doubled the MTOW of the Reaper, maybe this would add too
much extra weight ?
Click to expand...

There would also be C.M. problems, unless they added long drive shafts, which would add more weight and maintenance issues. The current design keeps the propulsion system simple and relatively easy to maintain, though it does add some weight and definitely drag due to the increased surface area.

The other thing to note is that the props could also give it some STOL ability with regard to their position to the wing.
 
It's worth noting that the RR250 engines on the demonstrator were just used because they were available. A proper version would use more powerful engines, and the nacelle option meant that engine swaps were relatively easy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom