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

Next C130 will be a Vertical Lift Cargo plane

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
@Archibald : push-pull configuration on the nacelles (but not tandem engine mount) with meshed rotors. The wing and engines don't rotate. Only the rotor systems.
Inrermeshed rotors need active blade control.

Since any transitioned flight is done at controlled accelerations and slow speed, meshed rotors aren't compromising any meaningful performances.

My 2 cents.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
430
Always liked the X-19, seemed like a simple method to do the job. But I'm sure (will have to check) that I read that Curtiss discovered that above a certain size and weight, less than a C-130, articulated propellers were needed, which destroyed any adavntage . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
1,067
Another factor is where you expect to operate the aircraft. 100,000lbs aircraft you need at least 100,001lbs for the "V" part of VTOL. Smaller the thrust providing component the higher the velocity. So while Mr. Musk's rocket might be a interesting approach, you are not going to land it in a farmers field more than once. Another consideration that most don't consider is that many of the aircraft concepts (Tilt Rotor, Tilt Wing, etc.) make mighty fine ESTOL or SSTOL platforms as well. So 1000 feet of straight (mostly) level road would be an acceptable operating location for many of the difficult environmental conditions. Also you don't burn near as much fuel. I am not saying VTOL is not the best answer, but some of the benefits of these types are not always considered.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
743
Reaction score
378
Another factor is where you expect to operate the aircraft. 100,000lbs aircraft you need at least 100,001lbs for the "V" part of VTOL. Smaller the thrust providing component the higher the velocity. So while Mr. Musk's rocket might be a interesting approach, you are not going to land it in a farmers field more than once. Another consideration that most don't consider is that many of the aircraft concepts (Tilt Rotor, Tilt Wing, etc.) make mighty fine ESTOL or SSTOL platforms as well. So 1000 feet of straight (mostly) level road would be an acceptable operating location for many of the difficult environmental conditions. Also you don't burn near as much fuel. I am not saying VTOL is not the best answer, but some of the benefits of these types are not always considered.
ESTOL/SSTOL may indeed be the better choice for an aircraft in that weight category. I wonder if interchangeable electric lift-fan-pods (with integrated batteries) attached to the wings and/or fuselage would be a viable solution for that purpose.
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
A slight tangent on Mr Musk, is that he has proposed 'rockets' to add to his already ludicrous speed EV's, to further improve their acceleration.

But if he can control 'small' rockets in numbers, then a part of your VT , when needed could be some smaller RATO units, but distributed around the airframe, perhaps.

Combined with some electric propulsion, hybrid batteries and engines generating a lot of electrical power, maybe this is becoming closer....
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
Hybrid VSTOLs then ? I mean, which classic aircraft turbines somewhere on the fuselage or wings, providing electrical power to small and powerful electric engines driving the propellers ? a bit like an APU or a RAT supplying emergency power when the main engines are gone ?

"Flying Toyota Prius" - how about that. Never thought it would be a viable option.

Needs to read about "hybrid aircraft" - mixing batteries, electric engines, and turbines.
Where to start ?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
Hybrid VSTOLs then ? I mean, which classic aircraft turbines somewhere on the fuselage or wings, providing electrical power to small and powerful electric engines driving the propellers ? a bit like an APU or a RAT supplying emergency power when the main engines are gone ?

"Flying Toyota Prius" - how about that. Never thought it would be a viable option.

Needs to read about "hybrid aircraft" - mixing batteries, electric engines, and turbines.
Where to start ?
yes, and there are now some cars, that are electric drive to the wheels, but no storage battery, the petrol engine just runs a generator Nissan Quashqui will have this option. Note this is different from a range extender.

Its an interesting discussion.

How about a new C130 STOL, with multiple attachment points, for VTOL drones, so wingtips, tail, side of fuselage, and the drones attach when needed i.e. in flight at the landing area, hence your not carting around weight you will only use in action, or specific training days. if the structure is designed in, it shouldnt be too much of a burden. Building in even electric lift fans, say in the wings, is just going to add weight and cost all day every day.

And your drones can then be used on other aircraft that are compatible, and with an added module, turned into recon or suicide drones, if things arent going well, at our farmers drop zone.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
Well, there is evtols here~:

I'd think lift cruise configuration can easily be adapted to a hybrid configuration. One can simply replace old lift engine concepts (there is one in the C-130 thread) with electric.

The thing to figure out:
1. Does it need to hover at all? If not, peak power can be battery powered with downsizing of combusting engines combined with very small electrical capability.
2. What is the lowest weight/drag (but weight is drag) configuration at different performance regimes

I was asking about gyrodynes on the last page because I was thinking that separating the lift device with thrust/control is relatively easy with distributed electrical architecture, compared to the hell that is gearboxes. Folding rotors in flight would make this much better.

There is scaling electric multirotor mothership supported VTOL operations of the scaneagle. Aerial docking does seems like a powerful technology to pursue in the long run: not sure how to do it relably.

--------
Though ultimately I think those heavy vertical lift is without a meaningful mission. The technical problem (add in development cost) means they are unlikely to offer much more economical logistics over smaller vehicles with in-flight refueling, while bringing a host of other problems operationally.

The desire is to move a heavy vehicle: armor is simply inefficient for something that flies, even if only once. The only thing left is figuring out missile technology with sufficient performance, with the biggest piece in the system lighter than a few tons: I'd think this is a easier problem than giant aircraft that have to beat the air into submission.
 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
Well, there is evtols here~:

I'd think lift cruise configuration can easily be adapted to a hybrid configuration. One can simply replace old lift engine concepts (there is one in the C-130 thread) with electric.

The thing to figure out:
1. Does it need to hover at all? If not, peak power can be battery powered with downsizing of combusting engines combined with very small electrical capability.
2. What is the lowest weight/drag (but weight is drag) configuration at different performance regimes

I was asking about gyrodynes on the last page because I was thinking that separating the lift device with thrust/control is relatively easy with distributed electrical architecture, compared to the hell that is gearboxes. Folding rotors in flight would make this much better.

There is scaling electric multirotor mothership supported VTOL operations of the scaneagle. Aerial docking does seems like a powerful technology to pursue in the long run: not sure how to do it relably.

--------
Though ultimately I think those heavy vertical lift is without a meaningful mission. The technical problem (add in development cost) means they are unlikely to offer much more economical logistics over smaller vehicles with in-flight refueling, while bringing a host of other problems operationally.

The desire is to move a heavy vehicle: armor is simply inefficient for something that flies, even if only once. The only thing left is figuring out missile technology with sufficient performance, that does can be moved in a single multi-ton package: I'd think this is a easier problem than giant aircraft that have to beat the air into submission.
Given the plethora of designs from the 50's onwards, its likely we have seen most of the possible designs, the only 'new' design could be the multi-engine electric, such as the personal VTOL people are using, but these dont cruise at 300kts or more.

Here's another idea, and again it needs tech, but what if you built your APC in a modular form, so it arrives in 200kg loads, which slot together.

Again I dont see the mission, someone mentioned 1000 feet of road, which country doesnt have this, even if its mud/sand, within 10 miles of most places you would need to be. Add in, who is going to deploy people into enemy territory, with what purpose, that cant be achieved by drones/missiles/bribery/spying?

I didnt do groundpounding, but if you need an APC, or god forbid a tank, wouldnt a trench be a better idea, plus you can take 50 ATGM's and SAMs with you.

I come back to special forces, and personally come back to either Osprey related with 'low speed' or smaller faster, based on F35 'people carrier'. Both starting aircraft are in production, and ideas already will have been sketched out, by someone.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
You don't need an giant VTOL aircraft to get an APC from the air to the ground, just ask the Russians.

You only really need one to get it off the ground again.

At this point..... really?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
538
Reaction score
304
You don't need an giant VTOL aircraft to get an APC from the air to the ground, just ask the Russians.

You only really need one to get it off the ground again.

At this point..... really?
True....but no-one mentions the crew......which didnt survive the early experiments.....or is that just an urban legend?
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
126
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,960
Main problem I see, the F135+shaft+lift-fan (even without a F-35 around it !) must be a rather "voluminous" propulsion system.

I mean, even chopping out the aircraft around it, I can't see four F-35 "fuselages" hanging below a transport wing...

(may be fun to try and hack something like that with MS Paint... !)

Or maybe: back to square one: design a monster transport aircraft with tandem wings like the X-19, except with one F-35 propulsion system at the tip of each wing.
A X-19 with 4*F135s, shaft-lift-fan included.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
270
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw

Besides the YC-14, there was also the YC-15.

1623534890887.png

USAF dropped the program when all the problems associated with super STOL operations (still need a clear zone at approach and departure ends, lots of jostling of cargo and people, the short field you want to use may not be aligned with the wind very much, extra heavy structure to withstand the shock of very STOL landings, etc.). Plus, there wasn't enough improvement over the C-130 to justify the cost. They may be looking at VTOL because those problems are markedly reduced and our newer technology makes it more practical. technology makes it more practical. As has been said, it's much easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop.

One other consideration as to why those prototypes went nowhere (although some things researched for the YC-15 found their way into the C-17) was that USAF realized they needed more transports with longer range rather than extreme STOL. Hence the C-17. Better field performance than the C-5, but nothing as extreme as the YC-15.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
126
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw

Besides the YC-14, there was also the YC-15.

View attachment 658878

USAF dropped the program when all the problems associated with super STOL operations (still need a clear zone at approach and departure ends, lots of jostling of cargo and people, the short field you want to use may not be aligned with the wind very much, extra heavy structure to withstand the shock of very STOL landings, etc.). Plus, there wasn't enough improvement over the C-130 to justify the cost. They may be looking at VTOL because those problems are markedly reduced and our newer technology makes it more practical. technology makes it more practical. As has been said, it's much easier to stop and land than it is to land and stop.

One other consideration as to why those prototypes went nowhere (although some things researched for the YC-15 found their way into the C-17) was that USAF realized they needed more transports with longer range rather than extreme STOL. Hence the C-17. Better field performance than the C-5, but nothing as extreme as the YC-15.

Yah I chose to post the YC-14 mainly because I like it more, but also because I think it has more potential for what they want to do than the YC15. However you're totally right to share a complete picture by including the YC-15.

Some of the problems of SSTOL will never go away and should be accepted as an operational hazard. I wonder if this application could also be put in to the 'fast cycle' approach of combat aircraft having max 10 year life spans constantly being updated and improved - this would help with design for long fatigue lives etc.

I should think the lessons learnt on projects like the ACCA (X-55) would be right at the forefront of a project like this.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
This problem is like the oldest in the book

From: Introduction to Autogyros, Helicopters and Other V/STOL Aircraft
Table 3-11. Lockheed’s Cost Estimate for Three Levels of V/STOL Aircraft Performance [527] (Costs Normalized to a 1960’s Production C-130); Production Materials Appear to be a Major Cost Driver

PerformanceSTOL C-130BLC C-130VTOL C-130
Production addition to C-130E (Cost at 100)
Tooling3.485.499.55
Material2.7124.57123.05
Labor6.6511.8915.52
Unit Cost 100 aircraft117.23155.34268.63
The VTOL option is designed with 11 10,000pound removable turbofan lift engines pods, with one under each wing.

Modern tech changes will change the numbers, but VTOL just isn't free.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
The desire for size, VTOL performance, long range, and speed makes this problem hard.

A lot of missions can be done already if one just couple a heavy helicopter with inflight refueling.

Given the plethora of designs from the 50's onwards, its likely we have seen most of the possible designs, the only 'new' design could be the multi-engine electric, such as the personal VTOL people are using, but these dont cruise at 300kts or more.
Having thought about this a bit more, actually the new technology in question is advanced computing and control software. We are at the point that it is feasible to operationalize a VTOL vehicle in which the minimum thrust is more than of the vehicle mass with fuel flow from turbopumps. (imagine the turbo lag......)

While the guys back in the 60s don't have modern batteries, rigging up a hybrid electric configuration would still have been trivial. Flight control with dials and relay switches on a dozen engines would have been completely another matter.

2 Axis flying machine~
View: https://youtu.be/w2itwFJCgFQ?t=414


My take away with this is that the STOL landing maneuver can be insane.... up to the "flat spin and fly backwards" insane.

The problem with lifting power for a VTOL has hardly budged in comparison.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
658
Reaction score
981
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw
would this kind of design using COANDA be useful for those ski jump ships that need some awacs or tanker capability?
IRC, they thought about an An-72/74 with the dish being put on the tail.

but with todays technologies, it can be a balance beam, or side cheeks like what Israel and Singapore uses
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
126
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw
would this kind of design using COANDA be useful for those ski jump ships that need some awacs or tanker capability?
IRC, they thought about an An-72/74 with the dish being put on the tail.

but with todays technologies, it can be a balance beam, or side cheeks like what Israel and Singapore uses
So long as sizing for an engine failure doesn't create a monster then I don't see why not. Comes down to appetite for it really. Pretty sure we'll see the AWACS and Tanker capabilities being fully autonomous soon, with the operators located elsewhere. This could mean we can consider airframe designs that we might not have previously when they had to accomodate humans.

Shin is right though - ultimately a VTOL aircraft is more complex and therefore more expensive and likely riskier overall. Risk reduction is a big job with these kinds of things. All operational Jet VTOL designs have had ejector seats so far (I think...) did the ejector seat form a major part of the risk reduction process?
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
323
Reaction score
307
However, by the end of all the studies, while it was recognized that having an ability to introduce a mechanized force into any farmers fields (or any golf course) in enemy territory was a wonderful thing, the ability of the same aircraft to deliver bulk logistics directly to combat forces without all the tail-to-tail logistics was of far more value. This is what got ground commanders excited.
That said, in reference to the financial question above, once the Army recovered from their fainting spell at the cost of the proposed program, they elected not to pursue the concept.

Now its been a long time since I read the thing, but my rough memories of it involve thinking that the army just want to magic teleport device, since if the enemy is not defeated landing is extremely hazardous, while if the enemy is already defeated....

would this kind of design using COANDA be useful for those ski jump ships that need some awacs or tanker capability?
IRC, they thought about an An-72/74 with the dish being put on the tail.
So long as sizing for an engine failure doesn't create a monster then I don't see why not. Comes down to appetite for it really. Pretty sure we'll see the AWACS and Tanker capabilities being fully autonomous soon, with the operators located elsewhere. This could mean we can consider airframe designs that we might not have previously when they had to accomodate humans.
Even with high performance STOL, I don't think it'd be deemed safe to operate on helicopter/VTOL carriers as a bowling event can cost billions. STOBAR carriers are uncommon and building CATs is likely cheaper and safer than starting an new aircraft program. The niche is just too small.

With Chinese plan for fixed winged drones operating off Amphibs, improved STOL performance would indeed enable larger aircraft. It really depends on Chinese doctrine on whether such a thing would be useful and get developed.
----
Though just staring at the YC-14, I do wonder if you can build a stealth STOL with COANDA effect.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
Chinese Armies have amphibians because they can't have tilt rotors.
Let's just not mix things.

Nice read by the way (had a couple of Pdf read until now and most are good).

But acoustic mine to shoot down Marines helos... That sounds like a joke (if the author can ear that). Think at the mission and the noise of an amphibian assault...
 
Last edited:

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
1,067
I have always been frustrated with RAND Fellows. They show up for interviews with preconceived notions which render the interview irrelevant. I suspect they do them only to be able to say that they did interview people. I find their expertise to be limited.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,026
Reaction score
4,761
But acoustic mine to shoot down Marines helos... That sounds like a joke (if the author can ear that). Think at the mission and the noise of an amphibian assault...
You might be surprised. One can pull off a lot of tricky stuff with Digital Signal Processing for example. Indeed, the only reason why anti-helicopter mines with accoustic target detection & discrimination didn't enter service in the 1990s was the sudden end of the Cold War.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
126
Even with high performance STOL, I don't think it'd be deemed safe to operate on helicopter/VTOL carriers as a bowling event can cost billions. STOBAR carriers are uncommon and building CATs is likely cheaper and safer than starting an new aircraft program. The niche is just too small.

With Chinese plan for fixed winged drones operating off Amphibs, improved STOL performance would indeed enable larger aircraft. It really depends on Chinese doctrine on whether such a thing would be useful and get developed.
----
Though just staring at the YC-14, I do wonder if you can build a stealth STOL with COANDA effect.
I snipped for brevity...

Well, as we all know, you can get a C130 and a U2 on to and off an aircraft carrier if you want to so we know that's possible. I propose we put aside for a moment all the logistical nightmares and one off deck preparations for such things in the interests of continuing the thought experiment.

It seems to me that there is a potential for the next set of battlegrounds to be in and around the many small islands and coastal areas threatened by a continuing Chinese expansion as well as engagements in remote areas surrounded by unfriendly land at some distance from your own lines. This leads to a requirement to quickly infiltrate a self sufficient force to go do the job and then exfil from the same or similar areas. STOL or VSTOL is a minimum requirement for this kind of action.

We clearly have a great deal of work done in the YC-14 to accommodate that kind of mission set. What can we do to expand or improve upon that?

Upper Surface Blowing alongside blown LE devices seem essential (and this could also be considered for the horizontal stabiliser too).

I still don't think that LE suction using porous materials works in the real world so would suggest that is out.

We can hopefully improve on the CF6 engines used on the YC-14 (CF6 used was 50k lbf class) but it could also be the case that the YC14 was 'over engined' for the USB system. We could split that requirement out and use an independent method of creating the USB air flow. This could also act as the APU. Plusses and minuses to this.

Large turbofans don't play well with RCS reduction, so you might need that oversized engine anyway to deal with losses from a weird installation (imagining a top surface intake like TACIT Blue and the MQ-25.

Very briefly we would update the systems to a modern 'more electric' airplane so look to move all actuators to electric and so on to remove hydraulics etc from the airframe. We'd use modern structural techniques to create a light weight airframe with as few components as possible. Imagine having to integrate the jet blowing system if you want best distribution of USB across the span - you might need some pretty interesting geometries exiting on the upper surface just in front of the rear spar.

Just some food for thought.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
658
Reaction score
981
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw
would this kind of design using COANDA be useful for those ski jump ships that need some awacs or tanker capability?
IRC, they thought about an An-72/74 with the dish being put on the tail.

but with todays technologies, it can be a balance beam, or side cheeks like what Israel and Singapore uses
So long as sizing for an engine failure doesn't create a monster then I don't see why not. Comes down to appetite for it really. Pretty sure we'll see the AWACS and Tanker capabilities being fully autonomous soon, with the operators located elsewhere. This could mean we can consider airframe designs that we might not have previously when they had to accomodate humans.

Shin is right though - ultimately a VTOL aircraft is more complex and therefore more expensive and likely riskier overall. Risk reduction is a big job with these kinds of things. All operational Jet VTOL designs have had ejector seats so far (I think...) did the ejector seat form a major part of the risk reduction process?

how far are we from UAV AWACS or AEW?
i know we are experimenting with UAV Tankers at least
Navys-tanker-drone-makes-history-by-refueling-manned-aircraft-for.jpg
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
1,067
One of the great challenges for any lifter will be the bearing ratio of the terrain (U.S. military uses the California Bearing Ratio) that is being used for an operational landing area. What you find is that the aircraft landing impact, weight on wheels, breaking force, and soil erosion from thrust limit the life of unimproved landing areas. We used to argue that VTOL platforms could extend the usefulness of landing areas because it limited most of the effects, although the down/out flow from large VTOL was an unknown quantity.
I agree that the YC-14 would be a solid option, but would highly recommend that high floatation landing gear (think Alaskan bush plane), to mitigate as much as possible the effects mentioned above.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
218
Reaction score
126
So how about resurrecting the Pegasus VTOL transport proposals but swapping the Pegasus out for F-35C F-135 and SDLF units?

Two units might lift a C-27J sized airframe (F-35B Max Takeoff weight approx 27000Kg, C-27J Max takeoff weight approx 32000kg) or at the least give it some impressive STOL capability.

Just a thought...

I see Archibald got there before me, but I might have a play wit this idea.

We're probably best off just building the YC14 using todays computing power, systems, engines and manufacturing capabilities.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8Hl9REDqw
would this kind of design using COANDA be useful for those ski jump ships that need some awacs or tanker capability?
IRC, they thought about an An-72/74 with the dish being put on the tail.

but with todays technologies, it can be a balance beam, or side cheeks like what Israel and Singapore uses
So long as sizing for an engine failure doesn't create a monster then I don't see why not. Comes down to appetite for it really. Pretty sure we'll see the AWACS and Tanker capabilities being fully autonomous soon, with the operators located elsewhere. This could mean we can consider airframe designs that we might not have previously when they had to accomodate humans.

Shin is right though - ultimately a VTOL aircraft is more complex and therefore more expensive and likely riskier overall. Risk reduction is a big job with these kinds of things. All operational Jet VTOL designs have had ejector seats so far (I think...) did the ejector seat form a major part of the risk reduction process?

how far are we from UAV AWACS or AEW?
i know we are experimenting with UAV Tankers at least
Navys-tanker-drone-makes-history-by-refueling-manned-aircraft-for.jpg

Looks like the MQ-25 solves the tanker issue. The question is, could it be adapted for EW to support the strike package?

I think you'd need to have a larger airframe than the MQ-25 to support an AEW mission, both to carry the equipment and to stay up longer than the strike package - the AEW is usually first out and last home. Added to that, you have to make sure you have secure comms and good datalinks to the aew platform whilst the platform is emitting lots of high energy RF. This could drive minimum size just by having to space out antennas etc. EW platforms would potentially have the same issue.
 

Rhinocrates

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
452
Reaction score
660
There was a proposal to build a tandem-wing version of Bell-Boeing's CV-22 Osprey. Basically, it was going to have two compete sets of (CV-22) rotors and wings attached to a longer fuselage. Hopefully it would be able to lift double the cargo of an Osprey: (10,000 pounds). Ideally the new VTOL tiltwing would be able to carry 20,000 pounds of payload.
Compare this with a C-130h payload of 75,000 pounds.
This?
Found another.
IMG_5040.JPG
 

Similar threads

Top