An Entirely New Class of Aircraft Arrives 289
fergus07 writes "Austrian research company IAT21 has presented a new type of aircraft at the Paris Air Show, which has the potential to become aviation's first disruptive technology since the jet engine. Neither fixed wing nor rotor craft, the D-Dalus uses four mechanically-linked, contra-rotating, cylindrical turbines for its propulsion, and by altering the angle of the blades, it can launch vertically, hover perfectly still, move in any direction, and thrust upwards and hence 'glue down' upon landing, which it can easily do on the deck of a ship, or even a moving vehicle. It's also almost silent, has the dynamic stability to enter buildings, handles rough weather with ease, flies very long distances very quickly and can lift very heavy loads. It accordingly holds immense promise as a platform for personal flight, for military usage, search and rescue, and much more."
Video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that that the article seems to be describing the second coming, not any realistic plane. If it can do what the article says, you could at least show it moving, no ? It is quite hard to believe that nobody tried putting a movable wing directly behind the propellor before.
But that's quite typical of these kinds of articles of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Video (Score:4, Interesting)
No, no hoax. In the water, this kind of propulsion works fine. [wikipedia.org] In the air, however, the rotating speed needed to push against sufficient amounts of air to yield usable lift is insane, and so is the stress on the blades- so it is a question of fabricating it from the right material.
I can assure you; the very instant the right material for constructing this becomes accessible, it goes to mass production.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you; the very instant the right material for constructing this becomes accessible, it goes to mass production.
Transparent aluminum, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Well that already exists...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the article, you'll note they had to build the thing out of carbon fiber -and- invent a new type of swivel bearing. 5 foot turbine lengths even with these advancements can only lift about 70kg (interesting combination of units, but that's what the article states)
There's nothing to move apparently... (Score:3)
At least not yet. All they have is a proof of concept laboratory prototype.
The current status of D-DALUS
D-DALUS is currently in prototype stage. Over recent weeks IAT21 have conducted extensive constrained flight tests in a specially prepared laboratory near Salzburg, including the transition from vertical to forward flight, and are now ready to move to an open test range for free flight tests. In trials to date D-DALUS has met the performance criteria placed upon it and appears to be scalable, becoming more efficient and less complex as it increases in size. It will therefore be ideally suited for applications that range from maritime search and rescue, through the carriage of freight, to operating alongside and within buildings during fires or, for example, nuclear accidents.
They could probably do a CG presentation, but for those satisfied with that, those couple of images on their site should suffice. [d-dalus.at]
They are apparently also planning "an autonomous pallet-transportation-system" and a small roof-sized power plant based on the underlying technology.
These last two apparently only existing in text form so far. [iat21.at]
Re: (Score:3)
More like wouldn't I guess... (Score:2)
An engine attached to wires lifting of ground and maybe moving a meter or two left-right and ahead and back, probably with not that much stability...
Not really something one would want to "present".
And I'm guessing here, but I assume that they are in it for the money - not so they could "do some crappy low res video" and "get clicks" and "likes" on their fan-book thingamajig.
In fact, something like that might prove detrimental to their long-term plans.
Cause there sure as fuck exists such a thing as "bad pub
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm sure high-tech labratories working on possibly-classified-definetly-trade-secret technologies would allow all sorts of cameras to do that with.
Re:Video (Score:4, Interesting)
It also sounds like a fuel hog. Helicopters are fuel hogs because the rotation of the blade is necessary to provide the lift as well as the thrust. Fixed wing setups have the advantage of getting the lift for cheap. I think if it has any potential it may be at replacing rotor aircraft. Not fixed wings. I don't foresee fuel prices going down in the future.
Re:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Video (Score:5, Funny)
Parachute?
Re: (Score:3)
This is modded funny, but I think it's actually closer to insightful.
Parachutes work pretty well as far as I know. Probably the best system we have when you need to protect something from hitting the ground too hard. The big problem with them is that you need to me heading relatively straight down. Airplanes and helicopters have the problem that they don't fall straight down when an engine fails. Wings and rotors make it go all willy-nilly.
This thing would probably fall straight down, and from the looks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't they already toss everything up to and including tanks out of airplanes today, with nothing but a chute to slow it?
Re:Video (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't have to dig very hard -- at all -- to find this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ [youtube.com]
4 Sheridan tanks airdropped by parachute from way, way more than 10 feet up.
Not a very heavy tank by the looks of things, but still . . .
Re:Video (Score:4, Informative)
There's still a lot of debate over effectiveness. There aren't that many plane crashes, and even fewer crash that have ballistic parachutes, so data is limited. Also, a large number of general aviation accidents happen at low speed and low altitude, such as take off and landing. Unfortunately, this is exactly the place where ballistic parachutes are least effective. So, the jury is still out, but I'd personally rather have the chute, rather than not have it and be in a situation where it would have helped...
Re: (Score:2)
complete (light) aircrafts are no problem - the technique is working, see ballistic rescue parachutes [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Parachutes are great when you're at altitude. If things fail near the ground (which they usually do, as it's when the aircraft is under the most stress), then you'll just end up with a brick with a silk streamer behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, sooner or later our energy sources will have to get smaller, lighter, and more plentiful if we plan to survive as a species and make a devic
Re: (Score:2)
hovering robot with a cable
+
mine fields
= boom?!?
It's an entirely different kind of flying. (Score:4, Funny)
It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an entirely different kind of flying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an entirely different kind of flying.
Re: (Score:2)
...and don't call me Shirley!
Anything else? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it will bring us world peace, end hunger and cure cancer.
This shows the value of issuing press releases.
Re: (Score:2)
"And it will bring us world peace, end hunger and cure cancer."
LOL, I had the same thought, does it do the dishes?
Perhaps it also adjusts subluxations.
Re:Anything else? (Score:5, Insightful)
This shows the value of issuing press releases.
The company's web site [iat21.at] is a small self-consciously slick flash site. It contains only a few short press releases about this and several other technologies, each with similarly outlandish world-changing claims and supposedly already built and working.
According to Google Maps, the corporate address on the web site points to what appears to be a private home in a fancy neighborhood in Linz [google.com].
Sounds like a great engine (Score:2)
I'll wait to see how it scales up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't a helicopter thrust upwards?
Re: (Score:2)
Because its thrust direction depends on the shape of the rotor blades. You'd have to flip the rotor blades upside down to get upwards thrust.
Re: (Score:3)
No, just change the AOA of the blades sufficiently. However, you run the risk of the rotors contacting the tail rotor or the boom. They are not designed to flex in that direction.
There are some vids around of R/C helicopters hovering upside down.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that they are like a wing of a plane. We all know that planes can not fly inverted correct? And that maneuvers like an outside loop are impossible.
Actually helicopter rotors tend to use symmetrical airfoils. What stops them from trusting upwards is that the blades flex and would hit the structure of the helicopter. Plus there really is almost no need to ever thrust down. Just setting the rotor to zero pitch would be good enough but the tend to want to keep a little lift on the rotors on la
Re: (Score:2)
It can if you're talking physics, it's done all the time with RC helicopters which can hover inverted just fine. If you're talking about any aircraft that the FAA would certify, there's no way that would ever happen. The idea of this aircraft being used as drones would provide lots of real world experience in unexpected failure modes without people getting killed.
Re: (Score:3)
a. It isn't a new kind of engine. It is using a standard piston engine. It is a new kind of impeller, rotor,
b. Propeller engines can't hover? What? I guess you have never seen a helicopter? Or any 3d model aircraft? Or ever been to an air show and seen a and Extra hang on it's prop? With a high enough power to weight ratio yes they can and do. And of course the V-22 Osprey does it on a regular basis.
c. Trusting up? Talk about being of very limited value. Just going to zero lift on landing is usually good en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Zenith CH750 with an O200D, that is a bit heavier with a bit less HP, and I don't feel it is particularly lacking.
But then it has wings...
Voith Schneider Propeller (Score:5, Informative)
The wikipedia page also has an animation showing how it works.
Flettner rotor, not Voith Schneider Propeller? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a marvellous 1930's ref. from Wikipedia...
http://books.google.com/books?id=xSgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&dq=Popular+Science+1931+plane&hl=en&ei=5r8JTaa6Ismr8AaNmb2iAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q&f=true [google.com]
So... not exactly new but probably controllable with modern computer avionics.
Re:Flettner rotor, not Voith Schneider Propeller? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it might be something like this, but then it couldn't really fly on any angle as it says - to move forward and backward (since the "drums" are longitudinally mounted) it would have to tilt forward first, just like a quadcopter.
Re: (Score:3)
A modified Voith Schneider design makes sense to me (more than a Flettner design). I can see how it might be more silent than a normal rotor or turbine, since it doesn't move as much air, but relies on lift created by moving wing-shaped blades through the air. In water it's really efficient. In air, who knows?
But I wonder at their claims of a super-strong nearly frictionless bearing... they obviously need it, since the blades 'flap' around with each rotation of the rotor. If they can make the bearings last,
prior art.... (Score:2)
uh, rotating cylinders generating lift? similar described in this 1925 paper [flightglobal.com]? or a concept drawing in a 1950 Mechanix Illustrated [modernmechanix.com]?
nice engineering (if it works/flies) but nothing exceptionally new...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be more closely related to the Voith Schneider Propeller [wikipedia.org] than a rotating drum.
Manned flight (Score:3)
The issue I see here is this:
Helicopter: engine quits, it can glide (autorotate) to a landing that most of the time is successful, and nearly all of the time doesn't kill anyone.
Fixed wing: engine quits, it can glide to a landing that most of the time is successful and nearly all of the time doesn't kill anyone.
Both small fixed wing and helicopters have simple mechanical controls that are very reliable, and quite often the failure of one of these controls results in a brown-pants moment for the pilot but the aircraft can still be controlled to a landing.
This doesn't look like it has that capability, and in addition requires electronic controls, so any failure = fall out of the sky. Of course, for small aircraft based on this concept, a ballistic full-airframe parachute may be used so in most cases the landing can be survived without serious injury, but ballistic chutes don't really scale all that well. With that it doesn't seem like a disruptive technology - perhaps a disruptive technology for small aircraft that can carry a ballistic chute or unmanned aircraft that don't fly over populated areas, but that's pretty restrictive compared to the different kinds of helicopter you can make, so I don't see helicopters nor fixed wing going away any time soon. That's not to say that if this turns out to be practical it won't be very useful, just that it's not really a disruptive technology if it requires a ballistic chute to not kill anyone if there's a computer or engine failure because this seriously limits the chances of it ever being a certified aircraft by any aviation authority in the world.
OT: your signature (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Manned flight (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. Assuming this is a variation on the Voith Schneider Propeller [wikipedia.org], consider a configuration of the cylinder of propellers with all the airfoils parallel, and pointed in the direction of flight (so the direction of flight is perpendicular to the cylinder's axis). That's essentially just six stacked wings in an odd configuration, kind of like a triplane. If you have enough forward velocity to maintain lift, all you need to do is lock the airfoils in place. By changing the angle of attack on some of them you can emulate flaps, and increase the lift. The compact configuration of wings would have lots of drag, but you could add fixed wings on the outside to help.
I think this thing can glide.
Disruptive? (Score:2)
It looks like my vacuum cleaner. And I'm not trying to be funny. It has fixed spinny things, which kinda reminds me of a rotor. Forget it, too early.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, there's only one "o" in hover.
Still not quite there... (Score:5, Interesting)
"I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds"
"You should not be at all surprised, if some day you see me fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove and weigh as much. ... and could, if necessary enter and depart through a window."
"The flying machine of the future -- my flying machine -- will be heavier than air, but it will not be an airplane. It will have no wings. It will be substantial, solid, stable. You cannot have a stable airplane. The gyroscope can never be successfully applied to the airplane, for it would give a stability that would result in the machine being torn to pieces by the wind, just as the unprotected airplane on the ground is torn to pieces by a high wind. My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety, at higher speeds than have yet been reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of 'holes in the air' or downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can remain absolutely stationary in the air even in a wind for great length of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action."
-Nikola Tesla
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. So that's why they thought he was crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
I kinda wish someone had just given Tesla his own well-funded lab and told him to go wild.
Even if he never came up with anything, the stories would have been worth it.
This plane has four mechanically-linked turbines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's an entirely different kind of flying. .
Quite please (Score:2)
My house, being in the approach lane for Dusseldorf international airport, I pray for the quite part.
It is shocking how loud an old 747 is on final. The hope has always been for tech like this to come around and silence these old POS planes.
Computerized flight controls. (Score:2)
Great if you have error-free computer system to run it on. Not so good if you do not.
Mid flight rebooting not a good idea.
Looks like it unpowered, it'll fly like bricked i-phone
"Immense Promise" requires Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like a modification of VSP, which is not known to have a particularly high thrust-to-weight ratio.
lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it April 1st, or just slashdot mods got bored?
As a pilot and an engineer... the sheer amount of bs in one article stymies the ability to say anything else!
Silent turbines? Do you know how a turbine works? Definitionally it moves amazing amounts of air (and fuel). Air movement = sound. It can't be silent.
It can "hover" into a building? Do you know how the threshold between "Hey we're just outside the window" and "oh now we're 2ft above the 3rd floor" and "yeah now our exhaust has nowhere to go" works?
It can "glue itself down to a deck of a ship"? How many aircraft have been swept off a deck of a carrier after landing? NONE! Gravity keeps them there. Sure, the engines can generate more than 1G of lift ... but if you need 2G to stick the aircraft to the ground... get a nice tether because you have one really expensive balloon!
Ridiculous.
Is it April 1?
E
Full disclosure: I am a licensed rotorcraft pilot. That means I fly helicopters. They don't have silent counter-rotating turbines (lol) and don't "stick to the deck."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
>How many aircraft have been swept off a deck of a carrier after landing? NONE! Gravity keeps them there.
Sorry to argue but the answer is not "NONE", it's PLENTY. Gravity's great, but have you ever really watched a ship move in heavy seas? 30+ degree rolls are not uncommon, and when big pitching motion is encountered, the deck can actually move out from underneath you at nearly 0g.
I work around a bunch of guys who test carrier-based rotorcraft for the US Navy, and I can tell you (from having watched more than a few of the horror-story videos from testing) that this is a very real risk.
Here's a prime example from real life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZSc5T-iUO4 [youtube.com]
Sorry, but gravity didn't really do much to help here.
More short clips of ugly sea conditions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4MbCu_YRM4 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Mwd-3Kf-4 [youtube.com] (0:33 and on)
Sticking a helo to the deck in rolling seas is NOT a trivial business, and downthrust or some mechanical hold-down is essential. It's not such a big deal for a carrier which doesn't move all that much, but every US Navy destroyer which hosts helos includes a winch-down system of some kind. Some are employed at great personal risk to the sailor who must run out under a hovering helo on a deck that's rolling over 10 deg back and forth every few seconds, hook up a cable (with a huge static shock risk), and run back out of harm's way while the cable literally pulls the helo down to the deck into the right position and holds it there. Some are lock-down systems that grab a probe sticking down from the bottom of the helo. You can see that probe and lock system here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWF9hDgl7E [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It can "hover" into a building? Do you know how the threshold between "Hey we're just outside the window" and "oh now we're 2ft above the 3rd floor" and "yeah now our exhaust has nowhere to go" works?
I think they're referring to scaling the design down to micro-UAV size.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Austrian, not Australian.
footage please (Score:2)
Where's the eye rolling button (Score:2)
From the article:
The D-Dalus (a play on Daedalus from Greek mythology) is neither fixed wing or rotor craft and uses four, mechanically-linked, contra-rotating cylindrical turbines, each running at the same 2200 rpm, for its propulsion.
Also known as a rotor wing aircraft. Its not rocket science. You can take one look at it and easily deduce its a rotor wing design.
What exactly is disruptive about it?
Safety? (Score:2)
I'm no aerospace engineer...
But I'm imagining what happens if an engine quits during take-off/landing. In a fixed wing aircraft, you're probably still screwed depending on your altitude, but at least you have a chance at restarting and/or ditching in a field. With something that hovers, you have no more lift once the engine quits, you're just a rock. Heck, not even only during take-off/landing, just during cruise, what do you do?
Helicopters can auto-rotate by storing energy in the main rotor and then "re-en
parachute? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no aerospace engineer...
and obviously not a student pilot
But I'm imagining what happens if an engine quits during take-off/landing. In a fixed wing aircraft, you're probably still screwed depending on your altitude, but at least you have a chance at restarting and/or ditching in a field
Its not that bad, or it shouldn't be. Early on in training they make you run the math. In summary, with a "long enough" runway there is no dangerous zone at all... Fail early in takeoff and land on the remaining runway in front of you. Fail late in takeoff and you're so high up you can turn around before landing on the runway. If you insist on operating a "2000 foot minimum" aircraft on a 2001 foot long runway then you could be in trouble. Another way to get in trouble
Another earth-shattering technology (Score:3)
Tom Swift (Score:2)
Patent (Score:3)
The patent for the device is covered in US patent 7735773 [google.com]. It does indeed appear to be a variant of a Voith Schneider Propeller. The claim for autorotation is interesting, and possibly quite valid, as is the claim about flying close to buildings or vertical surfaces, based on the proposed flow mechanics of the 'turbines' (quotes on purpose). My biggest issue is with the "additional power units" to support high speed cruise, which are not shown, and not well described.
Basically, I'll believe it when I see it fly. Until then, it's a Voith Schneider quadcopter demonstration mule. I'm waiting for a person to be transported.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
actually one more dimension ought to decrease the possibility of collisions. I see no reason why most of the travel could not be on autopilot on one way routes. I'd trade a no asphalt world for a reasonably low risk of getting a flying car crashing in from the roof.
Re:Ban It Immediately (Score:5, Interesting)
Different Technology (Score:3)
There is a reason that less than 1/5 of one percent of the US population are pilots. It's not easy...
But that is because of the nature of fixed wing aircraft: they have to be moving forward at considerable speed to maintain their lift hence landing is hard because you cannot take it nice and slow. This is what makes poor visibility very difficult to cope with too: you would not drive a car at 100 km/h if you can only see 20m ahead of you but with an aircraft you have no choice because if you slow down you fall out of the sky.
This technology will not make all of the problems magically disappear but it w
Re: (Score:3)
If you go the less formal route, and if a new shiny plane isn't important for your training, you can actually find planes in the $60-$80/hr range with instructors running around $30. Keep in mind, most instructors are lucky to make $20-$25/hr through a company.
Also, with the advent of the light sport category, you can significantly reduce the number of hours to obtain your license. Private pilot requires an average of 70 hours. Light sport requires an average of mid 30-ish hours. After which, once proficien
Re: (Score:3)
Don't ban it, just declare it an "airplane" and require a pilots license.
Not a fake, but seriously overhyped (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it run on fossil fuel? If so, then this tech will only last until we run out of this fuel.
I think we need something that can fly on electricity.
You can run airplanes on biodiesel or alcohol if necessary.
See also:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/worlds_first_100_percent_biodiesel_jet_flight.php [treehugger.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_202_Ipanema [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah if this is real I'm really impressed. I have absolutely no idea how this thing works. The weird drum-shaped whirlydoodles on this thing look like no propulsion mechanism I've ever seen before.
Re: (Score:2)
You. Stop talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't like Dr. Seuss as a child?
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no idea how this thing works.
It is a scaled-up (power-wise) version of this [wikipedia.org].
What you colloquially refer to as "whirlydoodles" is a rotor that carries blades, which in turn can differentiate their angle on attack against the fluid yielding variable amounts of thrust.
Re: (Score:2)
As I wrote down here, [slashdot.org] I considered that it might be something like those omnidirectional tugboat props, but that wouldn't make it capable of everything that was described.
Re: (Score:3)
This is seriously unimpressive. Assuming this is a even a novel design, and not just an aero-adapted Voith Schneider propeller, they are missing a key design constraint of thrust-based aircraft. Thrust is produced through air volume and velocity. Traditional helicopter use very large rotors to produce high air volume. Ducted fans and other small propellers rely on air velocity, and energy needs are proportional to energy squared. As such, the power requirements for such propulsion systems go through th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, you can do really cool things with it if you have a bunch of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WNcjkZ6d0w [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The techniques use to sucker geeks and redneck farmers are different, but rely on their blind spots.
Farmers are often experts at farming, but know little of other subjects.
Geeks are often experts at computers, but often don't know shit about aircraft.
There are some multidisciplinary geeks, farmers, and combinations thereof I'm sure. Just not many.
Both crave certain things. Use that to manipulate them. :)