• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Astro Kinetics "Aero Kinetic Lift" and "Dynafan" umbrella-shaped VTOL craft

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM


at second 40 it show also air pumping "helicopter"
 

brunobardini

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
39
Reaction score
9
The most simply and interesting project i think.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4836.msg2855.html#msg2855


RC-360 COUZINET


and it flies very well like you can see on the rig model, the phenomenon of aspiration and rejection of the air is clearly observable like an helicopter, that's why after this concluding test (time is money) a biggest model in wood, would be built for integration systems, like all the planes in the world.
 

Attachments

brunobardini

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
39
Reaction score
9
Please in good english your sentence can't be translated!
thank's
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,001
Reaction score
172
Interesting coincidence, as I've found such "umbrella shapes" just today in Hamzalippischhs sketches, too.
Same principle ? (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,15673.msg168244.html#new , #9)
The caption brings up a question to me: Why does a helicopter need more power in the hover, than in
forward flight, as long, as it doesn't feature wings to support the rotor ? Principally, the rotor has to produce
the same amount of lift, either during cruising flight or in the hover, I think. Forward flight then requires additional
power, as long as we aren't considering ground effect or, as said before, lift produced by wings.
For the Astro Kinetics vehicle, hovering in ground effect may have been normal flight regime and when moving forward
this support may have been lessened considerably, but generally principles should be the same, as for a helicopter.
 

Bill Walker

Per Ardua ad Nauseum
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
482
Reaction score
0
Website
rwrwalker.ca
Jembia, here is a great simplification of your helicopter query. Apologies to all the serious helicopter engineers out there, I can't make equations or draw graphs and free body diagrams here ;)

The rotor needs to move as much air, vertically, in the hover or in forward flight, as it takes to support its weight. In the hover, the only source of moving air is the turning blades, which takes engine power. Air with no vertical velocity gets sucked in the top of the disc, and blown out the bottom with some velocity.

Once even a little forward speed is reached, the rotor (which had to be tipped slightly forward to produce the forward speed) also entraps air due to the forward velocity of the tilted disc. The mass flow of air out of the bottom of the disc is now some air moved by the blades (and therefore the engines) and some extra air trapped from the forward motion. This extra air arrives with some velocity, and thus takes less power to be accelerated to the required speed when it comes out of the bottom of the disc. At a very low speed, usually about 3 or 4 knots, this extra air starts to take some portion of the weight of the helicopter, and you need to throttle back if you don't want to climb.

At this very low speed there is very little airframe drag to overcome, so the power required to maintain altitude continues to drop as the forward speed increases. Somewhere around 60 to 80 knots the drag does become significant, and now extra power must be added back to the rotor (from the engines) to keep the total mass of air deflected downwards big enough and fast enough to keep the helicopter from falling AND overcome drag. This continues until you run out of power to add, and you are then at the maximum forward speed of the helicopter - without diving.

WARNING - what is going on with the tail rotor, and the power required to spin a rotor moving at at an angle to the velocity, complicates this simple explanation a bit. But only a bit. ;D

Added in edit: looking at the flying umbrella, the downward moving mass of air is a thin ring coming off the perimeter of the umbrella, while in a helicopter the moving mass of air is a cylinder as big in diameter as the rotor disc. The blades take up a small portion of this disc area, while the umbrella surface area is huge - and heavy. This may explain why the skies are not full of these things today.

Maybe somebody out there with experience in ducted fans can tell us if the same thing happens with a fan buried inside structure?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,001
Reaction score
172
Bill, many thanks for this explanation ! Moving forward probably will bring only a very small amount of additional
air into massflow, as it has to enter via the top opening of the "umbrella". And there the massflow has to be
accelerated to higher speeds, so the gain by forward movement is even smaller.
The "flying umbrella" simply cannot make use of the "pre-accelerated" air in forward flight, so, what is stated
to be an advantage is more a disadvantage !
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
72
Anyone think these concepts would be more viable today with modern composite materials?
 

Dynoman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
774
Reaction score
42
The Airvinci is a concept that uses composites and a single overhead ducted prop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__jhKtitvwk
 
Top