paparazzi-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M


From: Reto Büttner
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] Quad Tilt Rotor using Lisa/M
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:20:56 +0100

Hi Mark

You need restart capability. That disqualifies paragliders and
gyrocopters. Interesting pictures on facebook. I like both the folding
an the inflatable wing.

Efficiency will not be easy to achieve. The folding wing has limits in
possible airfoil design, as only thin profiles seem possible. The
inflatable wing also has limits in possible airfoil design as a low
profile and high aspect ratio wing will not be possible. Additionally
it will have difficulties in airfoil precision. You have additional
weight and drag by the integrated quadrocopter.

I am still thinking of a traditional helicopter. They are reliable and
mass-produced. They store small, probably quite a bit smaller than
both folding and inflatable wing design. I think with transition
technology you will achieve max. 200%, rather 150% range of a
traditional helicopter. Is the additional 50% range worth the effort
of transition technology?

Why not just use a Quadshot or an Atmos? Being tailless they store
pretty small, maybe just a little bit bigger than a folding or
inflatable wing design. Their design could be further optimized for
minimal storage space. They should meet all your other needs.

Cheers, Reto

2014/1/17 Richardson, Mark E C1C USAF USAFA CW/CS13
<address@hidden>:
> Hey Reto,
>
>  We came up with our prototype requirement based on a combination of
> customer needs and what we believed we could develop in the time frame. I
> must mention that the mission profile is almost exactly how you've said; but
> instead of just landing and being done, having the capability to take off
> again to go to different areas. Our customer has asked not to publish the
> requirements on line so I cannot go into too much detail on this setting but
> I can discuss them with you in a private setting.
>
> We have considered the motorized parachute (powered paraglider) but as you
> have said, flying with a paraglider wing is inefficient. Also, since we
> would like the ability to move after landing, getting the wing to inflate
> just right for a takeoff would be a big challenge.
>
> We have not considered a gyrocopter, this is basically for the same reason
> we couldn't go with just a deployable quad, it is not capable of sustaining
> a glide. I did see one video of a copter/plane that some company developed
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfW4mbrodA which would almost fit our entire
> profile; however, just like the VERTI4 it cannot fit in a small space.
>
> Helicopter was the same way... range is insufficient.
>
> So I described this prototype to be launched and deployed with the help of a
> drag chute, for our prototype purpose, that is just fine. However, once
> perfected and having the ability to inflate the wings in fractions of a
> second we would it could to autodeploy without a chute.
>
> Thanks for the tip on the Vtail, I will incorporate that onto our final
> prototype.
>
> David,
>
> The landing requirements are anywhere from an open/deserted environment full
> of whatever nature has to an urban environment - atop houses/buildings.
>
> And this thing?
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152152603155874&set=a.101521526029
> 05874.1073741834.590205873&type=3&theater
> we are actually considering building a carbon wing like the one on it for
> out prototype. Its pro/s compared to the inflatable wing are :
>
> no need for CO2/inflating mechanism
> lower possibility of damage if props strike wing
> lighter than inflatable wing
>
> however, as you can see on the second image, in order for the wing to fold
> it is made up of a couple of layers on a mold of the airfoil without an
> internal structure -- although this is doable, I doubt we can get as much
> efficiency as with the inflatable wing, even in a final model.
>
> I would like to clarify that although we are attempting to have a flying
> prototype by may, it does not mean it has to be perfect; in fact, our only
> job is to really present this tour customer and for them to decide wether or
> not the idea is worth developing further.
>
>
> Thanks to all!
> --Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]