What is the Launch Mechanisms?
Damn, they still want that C-130 float plane? Reading about that project here pushed me to create a membership, and now it’s almost been a decade!
"make more sense" + DoD policy = nullDamn, they still want that C-130 float plane? Reading about that project here pushed me to create a membership, and now it’s almost been a decade!
I remember picking up the LM info card about it at Sea-Air-Space around 1996, which is nearly 25 years now.
I can't help but wonder whether just buying a small squadron of US-2s wouldn't make more sense. Same engines already and you could probably integrate a bunch of the MC-130 avionics without too much trouble. Whether that would be cheaper than the MC-130 float plane is anyone's guess.
Purchase price alone is twice as much as a J model. Then you have associated logistics train. By contrast, if you had a kit you could fit to any Herk as needed, or a more permanent kit that could be added to aircraft while still on the line, then...Damn, they still want that C-130 float plane? Reading about that project here pushed me to create a membership, and now it’s almost been a decade!
I remember picking up the LM info card about it at Sea-Air-Space around 1996, which is nearly 25 years now.
I can't help but wonder whether just buying a small squadron of US-2s wouldn't make more sense. Same engines already and you could probably integrate a bunch of the MC-130 avionics without too much trouble. Whether that would be cheaper than the MC-130 float plane is anyone's guess.
From IDR 2/98.
In another one-of-a-kind effort, Lockheed Martin is still working on one of the strangest C-130 derivatives yet: a floatplane version, under study since 1996. A small contract is supporting wind-tunnel and water tank tests.
The initial interest in this version came from the Navy SEAL (Sea, Air, Land) special-operations force, because of its potential to deliver SEAL teams in small watercraft to off-shore drop-off points, and recover them complete with their equipment.
The current concept features two 21 m pontoons, joined by faired struts which are attached to the C-130’s nose and main landing gear mounts. The estimated weight of the floats is 5900 kg and their drag is significant, but the better performance of the C-130J makes the modification more attractive: a C-130J with floats can carry a 9 t payload on a 2700 km un-refuelled mission, which exceeds the performance of any other runway-free vehicle. The floatplane can carry many SEAL craft, including swimmer delivery vehicles on launching pallets. Lockheed is confident that the aircraft will be able to operate in Sea State 2 and is aiming for Sea State 3 (2 m swells).
Lockheed Martin estimates that the floatplane could be built and tested in a 2.5-year program for about $20 million, and that a set of floats would cost about $7.5 million.
Purchase price alone is twice as much as a J model. Then you have associated logistics train. By contrast, if you had a kit you could fit to any Herk as needed, or a more permanent kit that could be added to aircraft while still on the line, then...
If they're talking "amphibian," then a flying boat Hull definitely makes more sense than floats. Wheels on floatplanes certainly exist, but they're pretty limited.Purchase price alone is twice as much as a J model. Then you have associated logistics train. By contrast, if you had a kit you could fit to any Herk as needed, or a more permanent kit that could be added to aircraft while still on the line, then...
Didn't realize the US-2 is that expensive. Ouch. Still, at least it's already developed.
If they could adopt something more like that flying boat hull on a C-130J airframe, that would be impressive, but I wonder how expensive the development would end up being.
If they're talking "amphibian," then a flying boat Hull definitely makes more sense than floats. Wheels on floatplanes certainly exist, but they're pretty limited.Purchase price alone is twice as much as a J model. Then you have associated logistics train. By contrast, if you had a kit you could fit to any Herk as needed, or a more permanent kit that could be added to aircraft while still on the line, then...
Didn't realize the US-2 is that expensive. Ouch. Still, at least it's already developed.
If they could adopt something more like that flying boat hull on a C-130J airframe, that would be impressive, but I wonder how expensive the development would end up being.
Along with cost, my big hit against the US-2 is the lack of a ramp. They don't just want a seaplane the size of C-130, they want the versatility of the C-130's cargo box and ramp.
Japan was set to sell US-2s to India and to Greece, IIRC. And to sell attack submarines to Australia. The rules seem to be changing.The other issue with US-2 would be Japanese export restrictions.
Interesting to see them looking at "shaft-driven lift-fans" when consensus seems to be that the cross-linking shaft in V-22 added more complexity and vulnerability than it was worth.
A guess, but perhaps shaft driven lift-fans are being proposed to be electrically driven, vice shaft. Same logic I think as the tilt-fold that the electrical power need only be generated for the TO and landing efforts, unless of course they are thinking of hovering around for extended periods. The XV-5 in its day seemed to function satisfactorily I believe. Think Northrup-Grumman has done some work on this in the past as well.Japan was set to sell US-2s to India and to Greece, IIRC. And to sell attack submarines to Australia. The rules seem to be changing.The other issue with US-2 would be Japanese export restrictions.
Interesting to see them looking at "shaft-driven lift-fans" when consensus seems to be that the cross-linking shaft in V-22 added more complexity and vulnerability than it was worth.
I thought the issue was just in how the V-22 does the cross-connection, thanks to the forward-swept wing. The V-280 has a cross-connect shaft as well, but IIRC the connection is much simpler because the wing is dead straight.
Looks like it's definitely a glider, probably a production one being used as a testbed, note what looks like the usual deep nose pod, narrow tail boom and single wheel under the pod to match the high aspect ratio wings. So some sort of motor-glider - maybe just an engine testbed, or possibl an unmanned long-endurance comms relay or sensor platform?Sorry to be dim but what's the sailplane like thing in the top right of the slide and what's above its centre section? Ducted fan?
The bit from their site says similar efficiency to turbofans. Seems very optimistic, but perhaps I'm just a big cynic.I'm yet to see any comparison against other types of propulsion regarding SFC etc
It actually is a large RC model airplaneLooks like it's definitely a glider, probably a production one being used as a testbed, note what looks like the usual deep nose pod, narrow tail boom and single wheel under the pod to match the high aspect ratio wings. So some sort of motor-glider - maybe just an engine testbed, or possibl an unmanned long-endurance comms relay or sensor platform?Sorry to be dim but what's the sailplane like thing in the top right of the slide and what's above its centre section? Ducted fan?
See, I said it was a production gliderIt actually is a large RC model airplaneLooks like it's definitely a glider, probably a production one being used as a testbed, note what looks like the usual deep nose pod, narrow tail boom and single wheel under the pod to match the high aspect ratio wings. So some sort of motor-glider - maybe just an engine testbed, or possibl an unmanned long-endurance comms relay or sensor platform?Sorry to be dim but what's the sailplane like thing in the top right of the slide and what's above its centre section? Ducted fan?
Like I said yesterday, I have my doubts on how well this scales, but I am something of a cynic. I've seen SBIR and STTR money go to worse things.These things are always worth investigating. The turbine that is used to push air out of the ducts can be buried within the fuselage with plenty of sound deadening and the flow leaving the ducts will create very little noise.When I browsed their site yesterday, they had two DOD contracts (Army and USAF) looking at the acoustics in depth. One of the selling points was noise level and the type of noise. No "chop" associated with large rotors beating the air into submission.
Also had a small model successfully transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight.
So VTOL and quiet relative to rotary-wing flight. Explains why it's got some funding behind it and appears on that particular slide.
There was a coanda effect saucer-like UAV doing the rounds of the UK UAV shows a few years back (Aesir?) - they also sought to gain such an advantage. Not sure what happened to them - they seemed to disappear.The idea is, entrainment makes up for those losses and more. Whether that actually happens in real life is a different matter however. You can see the design of jetopteras vehicles specifically look to induce and promote entrainment.Ah! Now all becomes clear Thank you VTOLicious. The aeroplane is a scale 'Fox' (an aerobatic sailplane) and the tubes are the propulsion. They would appear to work in the same way that workshop 'air multipliers' do (entrained airflow).
I suppose there's an advantage in no moving external fan faces / props but logic dictates there's a loss of efficiency (flow losses). Maybe swapping the high speed efflux of the turbine for a larger volume of lower speed air entrained through the tubes offsets some of these losses? Interesting nonetheless.
It's not just volume, but also the type of noise. When you hear a helicopter, it's pretty distinctive. You know what it is. Other noises might be more easily buried in background noise...Regarding the sound emitted, the sound will be a factor of the compressed air ejection speed. Also, the mass flow quantity of accelerated air (the ejector effect), at equal geometry, is a function of the speed of the compressed blown air.
Hence, you'll have to increase the speed and emits noise to get the most efficient regime of the system.
But obviously that does not take into effect any noise canceling means.
Ah! Now all becomes clear Thank you VTOLicious. The aeroplane is a scale 'Fox' (an aerobatic sailplane) and the tubes are the propulsion. They would appear to work in the same way that workshop 'air multipliers' do (entrained airflow).
I suppose there's an advantage in no moving external fan faces / props but logic dictates there's a loss of efficiency (flow losses). Maybe swapping the high speed efflux of the turbine for a larger volume of lower speed air entrained through the tubes offsets some of these losses? Interesting nonetheless.
Boatcules ? Boatules ? Hercloat ? Floatules ? (sounds like botulism and flatulence, so pretty unfortunate sounding)
Like I said yesterday, I have my doubts on how well this scales, but I am something of a cynic. I've seen SBIR and STTR money go to worse things.These things are always worth investigating. The turbine that is used to push air out of the ducts can be buried within the fuselage with plenty of sound deadening and the flow leaving the ducts will create very little noise.When I browsed their site yesterday, they had two DOD contracts (Army and USAF) looking at the acoustics in depth. One of the selling points was noise level and the type of noise. No "chop" associated with large rotors beating the air into submission.
Also had a small model successfully transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight.
So VTOL and quiet relative to rotary-wing flight. Explains why it's got some funding behind it and appears on that particular slide.
Anyone noticed "antigravity" in the category of design listed for open submission?Now we are talking...
https://afwerxchallenge.com/page/188