[img]http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/_EXP/flaviir/flaviir_header.jpg[/img]
[release]
Engineers at BAE Systems in Lancashire have developed the world's first ''flapless'' plane, which uses jets of air to control its movements rather than the flaps on its wings.
The revolutionary prototype of the new Demon plane has just made its maiden flight on Walney Island, off the Cumbrian Coast.[/release]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11431662[/url]
Cool
Na... Flaps are much easier, Just pull the switches and the plane slows down, Quite easier.
Ailerons on the main wing coupled with the rudder and elevator on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer respectively, are control surfaces for an aircraft.
It is extremely common for an aircraft not to have flaps. Flaps are used to decrease the stall speed of the aircraft.
[QUOTE=Best4bond;34458272]Na... Flaps are much easier, Just pull the switches and the plane slows down, Quite easier.[/QUOTE]
i think this is a nice idea, moving on from the old.
Why would you fix what isn't broken?
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34458340]Why would you fix what isn't broken?[/QUOTE]
Why this negative attitude to trying new things? That's how technology moves forward.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34458340]Why would you fix what isn't broken?[/QUOTE]
Watch the video, some good points are mentioned.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34458285]Ailerons on the main wing coupled with the rudder and elevator on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer respectively, are control surfaces for an aircraft.
[B]It is extremely common for an aircraft not to have flaps. Flaps are used to decrease the stall speed of the aircraft.[/B][/QUOTE]
Or to increase lift on take-off
So basically like a plane in gmod except in real life?
Neat.
Misleading. It doesn't not have flaps, it actually can fly without mechanical ailerons/rudder by using vented air.
You're fucked if the engine cuts out.
[QUOTE=areolop;34458382]Or to increase lift on take-off[/QUOTE]
You are right, I should be less specific. They are for increasing the surface area of the wing in order to generate more lift. In doing so they also generally produce drag and thereby are used primarily in both takeoff (in some aircraft) and landing due to the speed reduction caused by the drag.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BradB;34458445]Misleading. It doesn't not have flaps, it actually can fly without mechanical ailerons/rudder by using vented air.
You're fucked if the engine cuts out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was a little curious about that.
I don't really see the point in using an RCS method of control on an atmospheric craft though. Isn't it a lot less efficient?
[QUOTE=BradB;34458445]Misleading.[/QUOTE]
'flapless'
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34458340]Why would you fix what isn't broken?[/QUOTE]
less room for failure with less moving parts
[QUOTE=StickyNade;34458496]I don't really see the point in using an RCS method of control on an atmospheric craft though. Isn't it a lot less efficient?[/QUOTE]
I guess there is the bonus of once you perfect a single stage to orbit aircraft, or an aircraft which requires a minimal first stage, the ability to use the same control system both inside and outside the atmosphere would be handy.
Though my money is still on a swing wing design being the best.
[img]http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3738/vf1a1024x768tu6.jpg[/img]
(Perhaps minus the battleroid and GERWALK modes though. :P)
Uh yeah Super Dimensional Fortress Macross
Was just watching that
Dude Gunfox what are you talking about we can't have a future where jets aren't walking upright.
[img]http://gigazine.jp/img/2009/05/28/coolest_anime_robot/valkyrie_m.jpg[/img]
Nigga please I can be whatever the fuck I want
The Harrier does something like this in a hover, directing some bleed air out of controllable nozzles to control attitude.
[img]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4124/5039522239_2ba68088f9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4127/5039522255_f6a04a3a1a_z.jpg[/img]
There is one [B][h2]HUGE[/h2][/B] reason why this is a massive step forward in the aviation industry is this is successful.
Transitional flight paths from the lower to upper atmosphere. There is a specific point within the mesosphere that, when reached, allows an aircraft to reach any point on Earth in under two hours. The only this that doesn't work well is control surfaces and of course air-fuel engines. If this test is highly successful, within five to ten years we could start seeing airliner companies begin to seriously work with the idea of upper-atmospheric flights.
This story is well over a year old. I remember reading about it at the time.
Pretty interesting design.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;34458340]Why would you fix what isn't broken?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, these propellers are working fine, why bother with those new-fangled "jet" engines.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34458810]There is one [B][h2]HUGE[/h2][/B] reason why this is a massive step forward in the aviation industry is this is successful.
Transitional flight paths from the lower to upper atmosphere. There is a specific point within the mesosphere that, when reached, allows an aircraft to reach any point on Earth in under two hours. The only this that doesn't work well is control surfaces and of course air-fuel engines. If this test is highly successful, within five to ten years we could start seeing airliner companies begin to seriously work with the idea of upper-atmospheric flights.[/QUOTE]
And the continued development of this technology will further the development of dual-purpose craft... Craft that can operate both within the atmosphere and in [I][B]SPAAAACE![/B][/I]
Looks like a pretty snazzy new tech for military and research aircraft. I'm not sure I'd want to fly on one for transport though, nothing wrong with retaining current control surfaces for things that don't necessarily need the added maneuverability. [QUOTE=st0rmforce;34459131]
Yeah, these propellers are working fine, why bother with those new-fangled "jet" engines.[/QUOTE]
They do work just fine. There's a reason they're still used on the smaller stuff. Piston engines turning props are more fuel efficient, simpler, easier to work on, and cheaper to manufacture.
Both types have their place. Piston engines work great for small stuff, up to ten passengers or so, aircraft that operate below 18,000 feet, aircraft that need to be stone-age simple due to operating where repair facilities are few and far between, where they may need to operate in extremely cold environments(Gasoline will remain useful far colder than Jet 1A will), and where speed isn't crucial. Hence, things like Cessnas still primarily use piston engines and propellers. Jet engines work great in large stuff, stuff that has to fly at higher altitudes, stuff that has to carry a fuckton of shit/passengers, stuff that has to go really fucking fast, stuff that has to take off from an extremely short runway, and they lend themselves to military uses because they support thrust vectoring FAR easier than any piston engine could. That's why militaries and commercial pilots use jet powered aircraft.
No need to fix what ain't broke.
[QUOTE=TestECull;34461177]No need to fix what ain't broke.[/QUOTE]
But... [I][B]SPAAAACE![/B][/I]
Why would you not want flaps? They can be extremely useful in certain conditions.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
Ah, it's a UAV. That would be why.
And it also doesn't have horizontal control surfaces, so more than just flapless.
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
[quote]The demonstrator has been built under a project to explore technologies destined for use on future unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Known as Demon, the aircraft is the outcome of a project called FLAVIIR (Flapless Air Vehicle Integrated Industrial Research). This is a five-year, £6.5 million programme jointly funded by BAE Systems and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).
FLAVIIR brings together 10 universities, led by Cranfield University and BAE Systems. Its major focus is to develop the technologies needed to build a low-cost, low maintenance UAS with no conventional control surfaces, such as wing flaps and without losing any performance compared to conventional aircraft.
Matt Pearson, Demon Delivery Manager, said the aircraft is an 80kg, jet-powered UAS with a wing span of 2.7 metres. It was designed at Cranfield University, with the support of the other partner institutions, and manufacture and assembly has been carried out jointly by Cranfield's Composite Manufacturing Centre and BAE Systems apprentices.
Matt described the apprentices working on Demon as the "engineers of the future, working on the products of the future". He said they had taken the air frame, fitted it out, and added all the wiring and electrical systems needed to create a working, functioning aircraft. Now in the final stages of assembly, Demon will make its first test flights later this year. The project has developed a number of ways of doing away with flaps and the flight tests will evaluate which of these is best.
Richard Williams, Programme Director Future Capability, is delighted with the Demon's progress: "Projects such as Demon have several advantages for BAE Systems.
"They help to ensure we get the greatest benefit from our invested research money and offer continued benefit from the increase in the capability and competencies of the universities involved."[/quote]
Puff ports make sense on an aircraft that doesn't go very fast, like a helicopter. I don't think it will prove as useful at higher speeds because it'll need a longer, stronger burst of air to noticeably change the aircraft's orientation.
On a slightly related note, I hope that the standardization of remote-control fighter jets allows taller people (like me) a better chance at becoming a fighter pilot, given that fighter pilots are generally short as hell.
[QUOTE=Neat!;34461343]On a slightly related note, I hope that the standardization of remote-control fighter jets allows taller people (like me) a better chance at becoming a fighter pilot, given that fighter pilots are generally short as hell.[/QUOTE]
You mean fighter pilots are generally of average height being that manufacturers designed fighters to accommodate the bell curve of American males' height?
[QUOTE=Contag;34461392]You mean fighter pilots are generally of average height being that manufacturers designed fighters to accommodate the bell curve of American males' height?[/QUOTE]
All I know is the cockpit is too small. That, and the pilots I've met have been short. I put two and two together.
Just let me call in some drone strikes.
[QUOTE=Contag;34461392]You mean fighter pilots are generally of average height being that manufacturers designed fighters to accommodate the bell curve of American males' height?[/QUOTE]
I wonder what time this bell-curve was made. AFAIK average heights have fluctuated due to changes in standard of living.
Also keep in mind that if you design your plane to accommodate an average, then the only people able to fly it will be average or shorter, so the average height of pilots would still be below the regular average.
[QUOTE=iFail;34461538]
Also keep in mind that if you design your plane to accommodate an average, then the only people able to fly it will be average or shorter, so the average height of pilots would still be below the regular average.[/QUOTE]
Obviously as it's based on a bell curve they'd deviate an equal amount of percentiles from the average
[editline]31st January 2012[/editline]
The average has gone up about four inches since the invention of flight. It's not a significant factor.
Though ethnicity might be.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
