Airbus Unveils Half-Plane, Half-Copter In Quest For Speed (reuters.com) 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Airbus Helicopters showcased an experimental half-plane, half-helicopter on Wednesday in a quest for speed as competition heats up to define the rotorcraft of the future. The $217 million Racer is a one-off demonstrator model combining traditional overhead rotors with two forward-facing propellors in a bid to combine stability and speed, shortening response times for critical missions like search-and-rescue. "There are missions where the quickest possible access to the zone is vital. We often talk about the 'golden hour'," Airbus Helicopters CEO Bruno Even told Reuters, referring to the window considered most critical for providing medical attention. Such designs could also be offered for military developments as NATO conducts a major study into next-generation helicraft, though much depends on how its planners define future needs. [...]
Racer's public debut came months after Italy's Leonardo and U.S. manufacturer Bell agreed to co-operate on the next generation of tilt-rotor technology, which replaces a helicopter's trademark overhead blades altogether. Leonardo is also leading a separate project to develop the next generation of tilt-rotors for civil use. Its AW609 is the sole existing civil design, but has yet to be certified. Proponents of the tilt-rotor, which relies on swiveling side-mounted rotors 90 degrees to go up and then forwards, say it permits higher speed and range that are suited to military missions. Critics say the tilt mechanism reaches higher speeds only at the expense of higher complexity and maintenance costs. Airbus said the Racer will fly at 220 knots (400 km/hour) compared with traditional helicopter speeds closer to 140 knots. Bell says its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor design, recently picked by the Pentagon, will reach a cruise speed of 280 knots. Watch: Racer - Inside the high speed demonstrator (YouTube)
Racer's public debut came months after Italy's Leonardo and U.S. manufacturer Bell agreed to co-operate on the next generation of tilt-rotor technology, which replaces a helicopter's trademark overhead blades altogether. Leonardo is also leading a separate project to develop the next generation of tilt-rotors for civil use. Its AW609 is the sole existing civil design, but has yet to be certified. Proponents of the tilt-rotor, which relies on swiveling side-mounted rotors 90 degrees to go up and then forwards, say it permits higher speed and range that are suited to military missions. Critics say the tilt mechanism reaches higher speeds only at the expense of higher complexity and maintenance costs. Airbus said the Racer will fly at 220 knots (400 km/hour) compared with traditional helicopter speeds closer to 140 knots. Bell says its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor design, recently picked by the Pentagon, will reach a cruise speed of 280 knots. Watch: Racer - Inside the high speed demonstrator (YouTube)
Fast helicopter, you say? (Score:4, Informative)
But it seems somewhat familiar. From almost 60 year ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
With almost identical performance specifications. This idea of what is called a "compound helicopter" which combines mostly-helicopter design with wings and forward propulsion of a conventional airplane . Helicopters tend to be limited in speed because with forward speed, one blade it swinging forward and getting the forward speed + the speed of the rotor on one side, and forward speed - speed of the rotor on the other. This means that it gets way more lift on the forward0travelling side and way less on the trailing side. This would roll it to one side, and requires the blade pitch angle to be driven up and down as the blade rotates.
Putting on a small wing and conventional propellor (or two) allows some roll control and some lift and unloads the demands on the rotor to something practical. 220 knots (about 250 mph) is going to be about the limit.
Beyond that, the entire idea becomes impractical and other deigns like tiltrotors (V-22 Osprey) and dual mode/vectord thrust jets (Harrier, F-35B) are required.
Whats old is new again (Score:2)
At least for Marketing purposes. Sikorsky also did something similar in 2019.
Given many prototypes of this sort of thing have been done in the past and none went to production it seems fairly obvious to me that the minor 50 or so knot gains in max speed weren't worth the extra expense, complexity and weight. Bear in mind those extra props and wing structure arn't light and will reduce the max hovering load considerably.
Obviously the extra 100+ knots extra speed with a V22 are worth the money for the militar
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bad solution for this particular case, and the fact that it is in no way a new idea doesn't change the utility of it very much.
It turns out the range of applications for which you need this sort of capability is very limited. The Cheyenne was fast - but conventional helicopters were fast enough for an attack helicopter (like the Huey Cobra). It was too slow for most airplane purposes. So there is a very small niche where this sort of slightly-faster-than-normal helic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whats old is new again (Score:2)
Autogyros have no advantage other than short take off. You might as well use a fix wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and if the engine fails in flight, the rotor still has enough lift to let you land smoothly and safely.
That is not how it works. The rotor has an inner area close to the axis, that is the area that makes the rotor spin, from airflow that goes upwards through the rotor. The outer part has its blades twisted/bend into the opposite direction. That is the part that generates lift.
If you look at videos, you see a flying autogyro (which are not forgotten at all, there are hundreds of brands/models) which are til
Re: (Score:2)
And this is what I was trying to say, but in more technical terms. You know the subject, and I have little knowledge of the subject except for what's in the Wikipedia article.
Re: Whats old is new again (Score:2)
Obviously the extra 100+ knots extra speed with a V22 are worth the money for the military.
The ghosts of a number of marines would like a word with you.
That said, the Airbus concept may be the way to go. No failure-prone tilt mechanisms. And some redundancy berween the vertical lift and horizontal thrust systems. If you can't land vertically, this thing appears to be able to use a runway. Unlike the V-22.
Re:Fast helicopter, you say? (Score:4, Interesting)
And from the 1950s, the Fairey Rotodyne [wikipedia.org] was a very similar craft.
Re: (Score:2)
And from the 1950s, the Fairey Rotodyne [wikipedia.org] was a very similar craft.
Aren't all of these examples largely an extension of the the autogyro concept which goes back to the 1920s.
I agree the Airbus' design is nothing ground breaking and looks like a rather expensive modification an existing Eurocopter (EC155 at a guess). It's also not the first one Airbus Helicopters has done, the Eurocopter X3 [wikipedia.org] was a similar prototype from 2010 which never went into production so I doubt this one will either.
I believe the Soviets had a plane/helicopter hybrid as well, but for the life of
Raider, Defiant, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi, I'm an FAA certificated commercial helicopter pilot.
There is a huge difference between tilt-rotor systems that trade lift for thrust. This is not a half-plane nor a half-copter, so I'm sorry for the misleading title BeauHD put on it, but you know, new slashdot and all that.
It has none of the particulars that make a fixed-wing aircraft ("a plane") a plane. To be exact it lacks fixed-wings. It uses a rotating set of blades to create a plane of a lifting system, and one that can also provide thrust in 360 of rotation. (In case that's not clear, your $30 "drone" can go forward, back, right, and left. A real rotorcraft can translate in any direction).
Yet it has a prop. Two even. It doesn't matter if they're pusher props or puller props -- they are efficient at getting horizontal translation (thrust or airspeed if you prefer) without removing power from the main rotor assembly which is providing lift. This means the typical tradeoff of "well we could increase our forward airspeed but we'd lose some altitude" doesn't have to happen.
Is this new? No. The Raider, Defiant, and the H160 (formerly X-4) are all the same concept. Is it a bad concept? No. If you can keep people from walking into the prop then it makes no difference if the airframe is that of a helicopter (this one is) or a fixed-wing model.
So... WHY OH WHY would you put a prop on a helicopter instead of putting a rotor on a fixed-wing? The answer is a tradeoff of flexibility vs airspeed. The fixed-wing would do well at higher speeds because it has no retreating blade stall (one half of the rotor is always going "backward" "with" the airflow over the airframe). The rotary wing would be able to hover, land in very very short airfield conditions, and use a crapton more fuel.
This is news. Airbus is releasing yet another X-4 variant. Military services will buy these. Air ambulance services and fire retardant dropping companies and search and rescue (SAR) groups will not... because the value of the prop to get to a higher airspeed just has so much less value than helicopters vs fixed-wing ops.
But hey, it's Thursday, so enjoy the news. Also the next time you hate on helicopters, remember that when your neighbor has a heart attack or your kid is injured on the freeway, helicopters is how they get to trauma medicine in real time. Fixed wing on a freeway means a doctor didn't bother to fill up fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it wasn't so much a tradeoff making choppers go faster as a hard limit when the blade tips start to go supersonic, the airflow breaks up and there are suddenly a load of unhappy people on the ground looking at their broken windows.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA did an experiment some decades ago with a rotary wing wherein the wing could, after a certain speed, lock into position as an x shaped wing. At that point the jet engines in the fuselage would be providing the forw
Re: (Score:3)
You should check out an outfit called Beta [beta.team]. They have an operational
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, I'm an FAA certificated commercial helicopter pilot.
There is a huge difference between tilt-rotor systems that trade lift for thrust. This is not a half-plane nor a half-copter, so I'm sorry for the misleading title BeauHD put on it, but you know, new slashdot and all that.
It has none of the particulars that make a fixed-wing aircraft ("a plane") a plane. To be exact it lacks fixed-wings.
It literally has wings and movable, aerodynamic control surfaces [youtu.be], and uses its pusher props for both yaw control and propulsion. Calling it a hybrid between a pure rotorcraft and a fixed-wing aircraft seems... not dumb? Yes, it looks like it operates as a pure rotorcraft at takeoff and landing; at cruise speed it would have significantly different flight characteristics and mechanics.
Also... I don't think the summary or article hates on helicopters? Who doesn't like helicopters? Rotorcraft are neat. But one
Re: (Score:2)
Good! You may be able to tell me if an idea of mine is any good. Earlier in this discussion, I suggested using an autogyro [wikipedia.org] instead of a helicopter because it doesn't have to trade airspeed for lift and still has enough lift to land if there's an engine failure. What do you think of the idea? Does it seem practical or am I all wet?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who's hating on helicopters when they're being used in suitable roles. I can see them operate routinely at the hospital a few miles from here. We're small and don't have advanced trauma, so sometimes they fly people to the next county and I'm sure it saves lives. Who would hate on that?
Re: (Score:2)
This is news. Airbus is releasing yet another X-4 variant. Military services will buy these. Air ambulance services and fire retardant dropping companies and search and rescue (SAR) groups will not... because the value of the prop to get to a higher airspeed just has so much less value than helicopters vs fixed-wing ops.
Thanks for confirming what I already suspected the instant I read the summary.
MIL-INDUSTRIAL CORP. PRESS RELEASE: "These new flying machines / robot dogs / propulsion systems / stealth wings could provide us with safe, fast, and efficient ways to protect lives / deliver emergency supplies / transport medical personnel / rescue puppies that climbed up a tree and got stuck!"
EMS / FEMA / RED CROSS / MEDICINS SANS FRONTIER / NGOs: "Um, no thank you. These don't do what we need and they cost 47 million dollars
Why not a quad copter with tilt rotors? (Score:2)
You want wings for more efficient flight, you want forward-facing rotors at speed for better performance.
Seems to me they want a quad copter with above-cabin tilt rotors (bonus points if they don't just tilt but lower as they're aimed forward, to align center of thrust with center of mass). Add some folding or telescoping wings.
It won't be the best plane or the best helicopter, but for a fast response emergency VTOL craft it might be worth the engineering effort.
Re:Why not a quad copter with tilt rotors? (Score:4, Insightful)
The last thing I want in a helicopter is a horrendous potential failure mode that guarantees a flip and crash during a malfunction. A helicopter's autorotation gives people a chance of surviving when things go wrong, you can land a helicopter with a failed engine. And things *do* go wrong quite often which is why you need to perform such an emergency landing during your pilot certification.
A quad copter on the other hand would not only guarantee a deadly crash on failure, it also increases the chance of failure by a factor of at least 4 across prop related failure modes.
This is the opposite of the Boeing 737MAX. At the end of that fiasco flying on a 737MAX is still an order of magnitude more safer than driving a car. On the other hand flying a helicopter is just shy of two orders of magnitude *more dangerous* than driving a car. As it stands I am not allowed to fly in a helicopter for work without wearing a life vest, that's how likely industry considers them to crash in water, more likely to sink in water while flying over water than actual boats already in the water.
Hard pass on the quadcopter idea. Leave that to unmanned drones.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing I want in a helicopter is a horrendous potential failure mode that guarantees a flip and crash during a malfunction. A helicopter's autorotation gives people a chance of surviving when things go wrong, you can land a helicopter with a failed engine. And things *do* go wrong quite often which is why you need to perform such an emergency landing during your pilot certification.
Hasn't the auto-rotation component been removed from a helicopter pilots license because it was killing more trainees than were being saved by the technique?
A quad copter on the other hand would not only guarantee a deadly crash on failure, it also increases the chance of failure by a factor of at least 4 across prop related failure modes.
This is the opposite of the Boeing 737MAX. At the end of that fiasco flying on a 737MAX is still an order of magnitude more safer than driving a car. On the other hand flying a helicopter is just shy of two orders of magnitude *more dangerous* than driving a car. As it stands I am not allowed to fly in a helicopter for work without wearing a life vest, that's how likely industry considers them to crash in water, more likely to sink in water while flying over water than actual boats already in the water.
Hard pass on the quadcopter idea. Leave that to unmanned drones.
I largely agree here, however it's not really being aimed at civil aviation. Also it's not new, it's just a rehash of the Eurocopter X3 [wikipedia.org] from 2010. It's really something that Airbus are trying to find a military buyer who'll accept an increase in risk for an advantage in speed/payload. With the V280 Valor being selected by the US military, I guess Airbus
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in some places it has been lifted. This kind of stuff does vary between countries. The point is you can land a helicopter with a failed engine. You can't land a quad copter with a failed engine.
For military I agree. If you're already doing something inherently risky with people who signed up with their lives then the equation changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming soon... (Score:2)
"Airbus" rebrands itself to "Airwolf" to cash in on that sweet 80's nostalgia...