First Hover Flight Test of X-50A Dragonfly 301
kbielefe writes "On Wednesday, flight testing began on the X-50A dragonfly canard rotor wing unmanned aircraft. For those of you not familiar with the dragonfly, its rotors work like a helicopter for takeoff, hovering, and slow-speed manouvering, and then lock into place like a fixed-wing aircraft for cruising. The X-50A's reaction drive makes it "much lighter, simpler and more affordable to operate and support than traditional rotorcraft." And the technology is scalable to larger, manned vehicles. Truly a revolutionary aircraft, with a multitude of potential military and commercial applications." There are some more photos and artwork.
Damn those Aerospace Engineers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm must be technically challeneged when it comes to understanding aerospace terms. But can somone please explain to me why this thing doesn't need an anti-torque mechanism (tail rotor). The advanced terms Boeing uses on the website make no sense to me.
By using a unique reaction-drive rotor system, the CRW concept eliminates the need for a heavier and more complex mechanical drive train and transmission, as well as the need for an anti-torque system.
Does this actually mean something, or is it just a bunch of big words to confuse the general public?
Re:spoke too soon (Score:3, Interesting)
It was about 25-50% more expensive then just buying the planes to begin with.
Re:Deathtrap? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are (thousands?) of Harriers in service, and surprizingly few incidents compared to the number in use (and how they are used - eg in an actual conflict).
They built 10 Osprey V-22 aircraft for testing. In April of 2000, one V-22 crashed during a test flight and killed 19 marines. That alone is nearly two people dead for every craft ever built. (Note: Check date, might be wrong!)
Which do you suppose is the safer technology?
=Smidge=
Not as cool as this one (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Could be good for general aviation... (Score:4, Interesting)
Then it's a good thing the FCC has nothing to do with airworthiness certificates. ;-)
Re:Deathtrap? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Deathtrap? (Score:2, Interesting)
In short, it can't land quick enough to avoid a 15 year-old kid with an RPG blowing a $68 million dollar hole in the taxpayer's wallet. Those who will have to ride in it view it as a death trap. The descent rate is slow enough to make even rifle fire a serious problem.
I heard that the osprey started out due to a delineation of service problem. That is, the Navy is not allowed fixed wing transport aircraft, as that is the sole domain of the Airforce. Any info on this?
Re:Deathtrap? (Score:3, Interesting)
Although I'm sure most people wouldn't consider anything designed to fly through a war zone to be "safe" by most standards.
I would feel much safer in an F-15 or B-1B than I would in a Harrier or Osprey. But these planes generally fly higher than 50 feet. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that you don't consider any aircraft designed for close combat support (think helicopter hovering at low altitude) safe.