Fanwing Planes? 384
waimate writes "Up until now, there's been fixed wing, or there's been rotating wing, and that's it. But now thanks to Patrick Peebles, there's an entirely new principle of flight called the Fanwing. Initially developed in secrecy and flown only at night, as reported in this Bulletin article this machine combines the many of the attributes of helicopters and conventional aircraft, but not by combining the worst aspects of both like the V-22 Osprey. The FanWing is a whole new way of getting off the ground, particularly suited to inner city applications. It's only downfall (he he) is that it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage. Includes videos of the prototype in action."
Now, with wings! (Score:4, Funny)
Website should be back up Thur Nov 21 2002 (Score:4, Informative)
multi-purpose (Score:2, Funny)
Baz
What a great idea (Score:3, Funny)
My Granddad had one of these (Score:5, Funny)
There's an amusing but morbid story of how he connected a B&O engine to the mower, and ended up flying over two counties and setting a new altitude record before running out of gas and thereby learning that the thing simply does not and, rather terminally, will not autorotate.
Ol' Ms. Winslow's petunias were crushed when he hit the ground, and she went rather catatonic for several months, what with having been working on the begonias a few feet away when the old man splattered, but the story goes that they were prize-winners the following year.
Within my own family, it led to an everlasting fear of lawnmowers. My grannie had her yard turned into a gravel Zen garden, and my father took it even a step further when he married and moved out of the home, choosing to encase the yard in a foot-thick pad of reinforced concrete painted a nasty, hinky green.
I'm the renegade of the family, though, what with being several generations removed from this early air disaster, and have planted my own yard with low-growing, never-needs-mowing golf green fescue. It doesn't need trimming, and I've every opportunity to practice my putting.
True story, all of it, I swear.
Re:BIGOT! (Score:3)
And that, of course, is the end of the discussion [tuxedo.org].
A video? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dirk
Re:A video? (Score:2, Funny)
this server
flies
no more
Hold the phone (Score:5, Funny)
Jeeves, buy me a dozen!
Re:Hold the phone (Score:4, Funny)
------------
Human Experimentation [humanexperimentation.com] musical experiments, just not as we know it.
Flying Cars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Flying Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flying Cars (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Flying Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flying Cars (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Flying Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, humans don't appear to have any innate flocking instinct. You can get a million flamingos to fly in various flock patterns and paths without colliding with each other, but try get humans to do that.
So I personally think consumer level flying cars are a bad idea. Even masses of above average humans won't be able to fly and maintain them safely amongst other masses. I doubt you can get masses of people to do it safely.
It's not like slowly getting people used to flying- e.g. performance envelope of flying chickens - that won't sell. It's like a jump to eagle speeds and altitudes with 1 ton inertias - no stopping on a dime. Eagles and other birds have had a long time to slowly get things right.
I don't trust computers to get it right either - especially since computers and sensors still have to be maintained.
Also if you look at the passenger airplane safety - despite all the training, equipment and controls, they're often worse than cars on a _per_trip_ basis. They win in safety just because of distance travelled.
In the typical "rose tinted view" of free flight in cities, when you have consumer grade flying cars and pilots you get the worse safety of both worlds - many short-medium trips, low level flight, no open air space - lots of cables wires and obstacles around, and lots of other unpredictable flying vehicles around.
So I argue that they'll remove too much more than just the plain idiots.
Re:Flying Cars (Score:3, Funny)
Tell that to the people who invested in Boo.com or Dan Kamen's Segway Human Transporter.
Re:Flying Cars (Score:5, Informative)
That's the nearest thing to a flying car I know of right now- unlike the other systems, this one seems to have fewer drawbacks.
Re:Flying Cars (Score:3, Insightful)
The great thing about AG's is the simplicity of the drive train. The probem that plagues all choppers is where to put the engine and how to get the power to the rotors. Probably the most common solution is to put the engine on the roof (like most of Bell's [textron.com] line, which minimizes the drive train length, but then, well, you have an engine on the roof, creating a lot of drag and looking stupid. Some put it behind the cabin (a la MD helicopters [mdhelicopters.com] , which is great drag-wise and looks groovy, but then you get a gear box about 4 inches from the back passengers ear plus a long drive shaft from behind the passengers up to the roof. Its nightmarish.
Wow... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
There are many applications for this innovation for the military. Think Recon/Surv drones. They need no excessive payload as they are filled with electronics and cameras. The payload/power ratio would allow for more fuel as opposed to payload thus allowing longer flight times.
On a non-military tangent I am interested in its flight ceiling. This could be of use to researchers studing the upper reaches of the atmosphere. With extended flight capabilities and remote operation it could be far more useful than precurring a retrofitted commercial airliner or military aircraft.
Hate to see this thing flying through a hurricane though...
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
A reconnaissance platform needs survivability. A design such as this does not appear to offer any sort of low-observabilty, or alternatively, high speed for defensive requirements. This particular design could be brought down with the lowest-tech of weaponry. That said, it might serve well as a surveillance platform for peacetime uses, if it had loiter time that made the development effort worthwhile - if such a wing/propeller design could handle heavy weather well, and hold together for long periods of time (you are rotating a large mass at a high speed in this design). A development effort for a large passenger-carrying aircraft such as depicted in the google cache of the photos can be a several hundred million dollar process to meet FAA certification requirements to have people on board.
Because of the design expense, an aircraft needs to be focused to a particular market segment. However, paraphrasing Bill Lear, who designed the Lear jet, the trick is to discern that market before others. This particular aircraft has a unique wing and lift-engine design, but that doesn't mean at endgame that it'd be a worthwhile development effort, since the technology in use now has made great strides in efficieny and cost. But it's certainly worth studying at a certain level of investment (of time and money), since who knows what will turn out to be the better mousetrap.
Capitalizing on such technological improvements in design approach, material availability, market desire for a particular platform, etc, is hard work and a lot of luck to make it a cost-effective endeavor considering the (necessary for safety) expense of certification.
Disclosure: I work in the business - www.avtechgroup.com [avtechgroup.com]
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
Easily maintained is likely to be an issue for a military aircraft, speed might not be, depending on the intended application. Wonder what its radar cross section is like though.
But is it scalable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But is it scalable? (Score:4, Funny)
The site sure isn't (Score:2)
Re:The site sure isn't (Score:5, Informative)
Google's caching of the primary pages wasn't very helpful. Too many frames and redirects to go through to get to a page that had any real information.
Try Google's Images [google.com] to get at least an idea of what we're talking about.
Lacks any ability to glide (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lacks any ability to glide (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lacks any ability to glide (Score:3, Informative)
But they could use an emergancy parachute [duluthsuperior.com] system in case of failure.
Re:Lacks any ability to glide (Score:5, Informative)
</KARMA>
Wankel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lacks any ability to glide (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lacks any ability to glide (Score:2)
(Hm. A quick Google search indicates that Cirrus is actually manufacturing their planes. Good for them, innovation in any field is welcome.)
Use (Score:2)
Anyone know what the planned uses of this type of plane are?
Re:Use (Score:3, Informative)
HP/lift: fanwing vs. cessna (Score:5, Informative)
Does the 2 tons that the fanwing can lift include the weight of the craft, fuel, etc. or is that 2 tons of cargo? The site is down...
Their website was hosted at U. Twente (Score:4, Funny)
As a former Rotary Wing Aviator... (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise it sounds cool, might get one for my ex-wife
autoratation (Score:2)
As a former rotary wing aviator, can you explain autorotation for us? Also, have you ever been in a situation where that was necessary? And last, how well to helicopters autorotate compared to winged aircraft gliding?
Thanks
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Funny)
Autorotaion is *much* hairier than gliding a plane, because you have to time things much more precisely, killing your descent at the right moment. But it is *much* better than the alternative (plummetting).
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry that I missed answering part of Ender Ryan's question. Yes, I have autorotated meny times, it is something we practiced in flight school and throughout the time I was flying. Since I began flying helicopters and then learned to fly airplanes much later, autorotation seems "normal" to me and gliding an airplane seems "boring". Just a perspective thing.
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Insightful)
Just gotta say that in anything that flies, boring is considered a good thing. Excitement can mean something is going very wrong.
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Funny)
What most people do not understand about light aircraft is that the propellor does not actually provide any thrust; it is there to cool the pilot. This is easy to prove -- just watch how much the pilot starts to sweat if it stops.
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Informative)
There's two basic flavors of autorotation; from a hover and from forward flight. There's a whole range of the flight envelope that is unrecoverable, basically anything low and slow. Autorotation from a hover is simple. You let the thing settle towards the ground and just pull up before you collide with it. From forward flight is when you have to declutch and "glide" down with a flare at the end.
The TH-55's were light enough that we could pretty much stop our forward momentum before touching down, but the Hueys, being a bit heavier, would land with a fair amount of forward momentum left. They strapped these inch-thick steel bars to the bottoms of the skids for us students to grind off on the landing strips. Hours of fun!
Re:autoratation (Score:5, Interesting)
A sprag clutch failure does result in rotor RPM being coupled to engine RPM. An engine failure at this time would be catastrophic.
Yes, landing with no power is reliable, since you WILL land if you loose power
We would usually practice autorotations in conjunction with a simulated forced landing, with the instructor chopping the throttle while announcing "forced landing" and the response is to call for the governer switch to be set to emergency as you drop the collective and setup an approach to your selected landing spot. During the process, the engine is providing no power to the rotor system, but it is sitting at idle waiting to be "run up" again in case of an emergency or completion of the maneuver.
The only time that I "banged one up" was practicing night low-level (50') autos and I was landing hard on an asphault strip. Cracked a skid shoe (metal part under the skid for flight school aircraft because of the extra wear the maneuvers put on the aircraft) in the process.
Some time before I stopped flying the Army stopped doing auto's to the ground outside of flight school and unit instructors since the statistics were lining up that we were breaking more aircraft on landing than the number of engine failures were producing, or something like that.
Re:autoratation (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. You can bring a light airplane down on any flat surface that is a couple hundred feet long. I have personally landed Cessnas in muddy fields during flight test practice. It's bumpy, and not ideal, but it can be done. In emergency situations, all you care about is walking away, not saving the airplane.
Incidentally, landing into trees is preferable to landing on water. Skimming the tops of trees cushions the landing and provides gradual slowing. And if you're knocked unconcious, you'll hang in the trees till rescuers arrive. If you pile into the water, on the other hand, you might as well be hitting concrete at those speeds. Sure, there won't be a fire, but if you're knocked unconcious, you're as good as dead (drowning).
It's only downfall... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure they could add some kind of parachute system, like what is being developed for the ISS lifeboat!
Re:It's only downfall... (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, where they mention "ballistic recovery system"...that is a parachute. The "ballistic" part refers to a parachute which an explosive launches from a mortar tube, for faster deployment.
Glide ratio comparisons (Score:5, Informative)
In sum, with a glide ratio of 2:1 or 3:1, you don't want to lose power in a fanwing. Let's hope they're successful in increasing it.
Re:Glide ratio comparisons (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e. if it gets a 2:1 glide ratio but is still has airspeed less than 60mph when it hits the ground I'd take that any day.
Who cares if your landing spot has to be within a mile or so if you can land on a side street or in a Walmart parking lot?
ornothopters. (Score:2, Funny)
(Been a while since I read Dune, so don't whine about the spelling).
Re:ornothopters. (Score:2)
Paddleboat? (Score:5, Funny)
Anton Flettner buys a lawn mower! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, the scary part is that I wrote a report on this maniac/genius back in high school and I remembered his name so I could google for it...
Re:Anton Flettner buys a lawn mower! (Score:5, Interesting)
This effect is easy to see yourself:
Re:Anton Flettner buys a lawn mower! (Score:3, Funny)
Eight fingers?!?? You have eight fingers?
Bart?
Re:Anton Flettner buys a lawn mower! (Score:3, Funny)
Application #12 : Flying Combine Harvester (Score:2)
I've got a flying combine harvester [lycos.co.uk]
nope! (Score:4, Insightful)
"...particularly suited to inner city applications ... it lacks any ability to glide in the event of an engine outage"
No way, bad idea! I've seen more people that I need to running out of gas to recognize this as a *bad* idea. The ability to glide is *important* and very useful when things seriously seizes to function
Parachutes possible (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps that is a valid solution for this fanwing bird.
Re:Parachutes possible (Score:3, Informative)
Re:nope! (Score:2, Interesting)
google cache for images... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:google cache for images... (Score:2, Informative)
Interesting videos, too bad it's ./'ed (Score:2, Informative)
They make buzzing noises, a tad like mosquitoes.
From the article title, I thought this was about the "rotating fans" lifting-body aircraft I had read about a few years ago in specialized press... At least the one in this article does not look like a UFO. [rexresearch.com]
Inner City Applications? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
How is this different from an ornithopter? (Score:4, Informative)
Does that not make it an ornithopter? Do the wings flap? I can't tell from the bullettin article.
The more detailed page is slashdotted, I only read the article, so it is very posible I'm missing something.
Ornothopters flap (Score:4, Informative)
Does that not make it an ornithopter? Do the wings flap?
Ornithopter wings flap. The fan wing does not flap, so it is in no way an ornithopter (nor does it resemble one). It is a fixed wing with a horizontal rotor inside which pulls air across the lifting surface and creates a vortex which lifts the plane. Think of a big combine built into the wing, spinning quickly, and you get a rough idea. The videos are pretty cool
It isn't a new "principle" of aviation by any means, but it is a new and very promising design. Unfortunately the patent will probably limit design improvements by anyone other than the original inventor for the next twenty years or so, but there will be some innovative uses and improvements despite that, and in twenty years, once the patent expires, there will doubtless by quite a hayday of new designs.
Too Light? (Score:2, Insightful)
It sure is a radical design [virtualflybox.com], but I can't imagine it could carry much of a payload.
Check your toy store for even later versions (Score:2)
Same for the SR-71, and many others over the years. These guys have really good contacts inside the military and/or contractors.
Of course I'm sure thats all illegal now and will get you permanently detained and/or dissappeared here in the US.
Mirror with picture (Score:5, Informative)
Another Osprey Detractor (Score:4, Interesting)
Give designers a contradictory set of specs (long range/endurance, high speed, VTOL, high capacity) and you get a vehicle that's a bit odd and a bit difficult to build and maintain.
OTOH, I'd trust my life to an osprey ANY DAY over something that can't glide when the engines quit.
Strictly speaking not a new principle (Score:5, Informative)
A new principle would exclude fanning, flapping or any kind of turning of wheels (circular motion) to create thrust. This is a beautiful project, but it is really a derivative of Leonardos helicopter, which was an Archimedes screw for air.
When there is propulsion generated without circular motion (props, turbines, ducted fans), or without shooting something out of a tube like rocketry, then we will be talking about something that is really new.
Re:Strictly speaking not a new principle (Score:2, Interesting)
The Fanwing is producing both lift and thrust from the same device.
Re:Strictly speaking not a new principle (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that in airscrews and turbines, thrust is generated in the direction of the axis of rotation. In the fanwing, both thrust and lift are perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Re:Strictly speaking not a new principle (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the CycloProp coscept only looks similar. Mechanically, it's very different, in that it's rotors are a true cycloidal drive (meaning their angle of attack is controllably varied in a cyclical fashion as the rotor makes a complete turn), while the FanWing uses static blades/vanes to produce a similar effect.
The cycloidal drive is much more mechanically complex, but has been used in marine applications for around a century, and is now favored as a marine drive for some types of tugboats and ferries, due to its ability to instantly provide thrust in any direction. One advantage this approach would have over a FanWing, is that a CycloProp-type aircraft could conceivably be a true VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) craft, while the FanWing would likely be an STOL (Short Take-off and Landing) craft at best.
you missed one (Score:2, Informative)
What about ornithopters? None are in production, but several are in development, as has been reported on
... and thanks for linking to the videos. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a Tom Swift invention (Score:2, Insightful)
-asb
How It Works (Score:5, Informative)
It's a squirrel-cage fan along the leading edge of a wing.
The fan throws air over the top of the wing, rather than the air passively flowing over the leading edge. This produces much more lift at slow speeds.
Apparently it operates at slow speeds (100 kph, about 60 mph, is mentioned). I expect that at high speeds, when the forward motion exceeds the speed of the fan rotation, the fanwing behaves like a wing with ridges along the leading edge -- but air can leak through these ridges. A fanwing which starts moving too fast probably begins to lose lift from the leading edge, although it might gain some lift from the rest of the wing. But if a fanwing does not have thrust engines and only gets its forward motion from the fanwing, it can't move faster than the fanwing can push it.
I can see many shreaded pets from this. (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone notice the site's last updated date? (Score:4, Interesting)
Spaghetti twirler (Score:5, Funny)
I think that's sort of a "Hello World" for inventors.
The Fairey Rotodyne (Score:4, Interesting)
This was back in the 1950s.
An autogyro generates lift using an unpowered rotor that rotates in the airstream. It is probably the safest type of aircraft because it can land by autorotation. Some helicopters can also do that but they are much more difficult to control. An autogyro can fly faster than a helicopter, though not as fast as an airplane. Autogyros are also more fuel-efficient than helicopters.
The big drawback of autogyros is that they can't take off and land vertically. They need a short runway.
The Rotodyne overcame this limitation by using small jets at the tips of the rotor blades that converted it to a helicopter for the duration of
the takeoff and landing.
See this page [internetage.com.au] if you want to know more about the history of the Rotodyne and why we don't have regular Rotodyne passenger flights between city hubs today.
Gyroplane (Score:4, Informative)
Most regular helicopters can land quite well by autorotation, in fact emergency autorotation is 75% of helicopter flight training if one already knows how to fly. Autorotating is basically diving to build up momentum in the rotor after a power failure, then increasing the pitch of the blades to slow descent into, one hopes, a half-decent landing. I tried this once with an instructor in a doorless Robinson, and as a fixed-wing pilot I admit it scared the heck out of me.
I glimpsed a gyroplane in flight for the first time the other night watching the classic It Happened One Night [netflix.com] (1934; Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert). Highly recommended -- the movie, not the flying contraption.
Build one of your own RIGHT NOW! (Score:5, Informative)
I am not responsible for any severed arteries, eyes gouged out, or for you getting fired for doing this at work. It's all you baby!
1) Get the materials.
Go get one of those plastic Bic ball point pens. The kind with the white tube. Then get a pair of scissors, a pocket knife, or a pair of needle nose pliers.
2) Remove cap from pen. Remove the black plastic cone from the "writing" end of the pen. This also pulls out the ink tube.
3) You now have a white plastic tube with a little black cap in the end. Get that cap out. Use the pocket knife, scissors, or the pliers to get the thing out. If you destroy the end of the white plastic tube, just cut it off clean again.
4)Now you have just a white plastic tube. Wee! This is your fanwing plane. You're about to make it fly using the same principle.
5) Clean off a table so there's nothing on top. Face one side of it. Put the pen tube near and parallel to the edge. Lock your thumbs under the edge of the table and place all 8 fingertips on the white tube.
6) Pressing down as hard as you can, roll your fingers back towards you.
7) If all goes well, the tube will spin very fast and fly through the air, doing loops and such.
I've actually got the things to fly twenty yards. And the do all kinds of twists and loops.
The principle that keeps the fanwing plane in the article in the air works here too - only with no control or stability.
Enjoy, and don't get in trouble.
Future insurance accident report (Score:5, Funny)
Glide ability (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I checked, helicopters didn't tend to glide all that well either (sometimes akin to rocks). I'm guessing that something more planelike would also do easier in the "ejection" or other escape issues in case of a breakdown.
If it's cheap or fast, probably a good method for low-capicity aircraft. From the working models, the plane seems to be mostly (a huge) tail anyhow, so probably not a lot of passenger capacity - although the theoretical pictures show it as a normal plane with fan-wings.
Re:Glide ability (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of helicopters have the ability to decouple the blades from the engine in the case of an engine failure, alowing a much more controlled landing than would be possible if the blades simply stopped. The momentum of the blades allows the helicopter to stay in the air a lot longer, in a sort of glide. You're more committed to an immediate landing than in some planes, but it's still a lot better than simply plummeting to the ground...
Autorotation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news for nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news for nerds? (Score:2)
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended) (Score:2)
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended) (Score:2, Insightful)
not exactly (Score:2)
I can't get to the site, but someone who did mentioned that this new "bird" can autorotate, and they're working on making improving it's autoratation ability.
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended) (Score:2)
A helicoptor can auto-rotate it's main rotor. Which makes emergency landing (or even survivable crash landing) possible.
Besides, I think the military has enough aircraft in its arsenal as it is, we don't need another one to maintain.
Maybe they are interested in the design for drone usage, rather than manned aircraft.
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended) (Score:2, Insightful)
With no ability to glide after engine failure, I cannot see the military putting forth much effort (or $$) in an aircraft of this nature
That depends on the use. For unmanned drones not gliding is an advantage, since there would be nothing useful left if it fails (or is shot down) over enemy territory
Re:Major downfall (no pun intended) (Score:3, Informative)
Performing an autorotation consists of:
1. Reversing the pitch on the main rotor blades. This causes them to build up speed and continues to provide drag to slow the helicopter down. It also causes a forward motion in the helicopter which helps to provide control and allows you to get to a safe landing space.
2. At the last second, the pilot will pull the control yoke backwards arresting the forward motion of the helicopter and adding more momentum to the spinning blades. At the same time, the pilot will reverse the pitch on main rotor blades again. The momentum of the blades will cause them to keep spinning forward, and the now positive angle of attack on the blades will generate significant lift arresting the downward motion.
In fact, the biggest problem is making sure that you do not over correct otherwise you can actually jump back into the air with no momentum left in the blades to stop you the second time.
Hope that helps.
-sirket