• Remember the Hoverbike? They're now partnered with the US military.
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gjsdeath;48034045]Well. A few industries, including military use hovercrafts; [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/LCAC_19970620.jpg[/t] [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Zapad-2009_military_exercises.jpg[/t] So there's probably some strategic niche for this thing. I'm also curious, since this doesn't create lift like a hovercraft. But more like a helicopter, that means it can go as high as a helicopter. Although it might not be able to overcome the out of ground effect. I guess we'll just have to see.[/QUOTE] Ground effect isn't significant in helicopters. It only comes into effect about 1/4 of the affected wings length from the ground and since this thing has such small rotors that won't be very far at all. I'm guessing an operational ceiling of a few hundred feet. More if the pilot has an oxygen mask.
I propose reinvigorating the British motor industry and giving it a more military design. [t]http://i.imgur.com/WfPu2Yh.jpg[/t] Slap a gun, tracks and outboard engine on it, and we have the Rugged Robin 2/3 track. :v:
Tracks are great until you come across heavy mud or a body of water. a hoverbike will just say fuck it.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;48033219] Sure, it'd be better in excessively muddy or sandy terrain, but one of these does that too. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-725-0184-22,_Russland,_Soldaten_auf_Kettenkrad.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] The thing about tracks, and [I]especially[/I] about WWII German interlocked tracks, is that they attract mud like a bitch in heat.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;48033275]You wouldn't say it's maneuverable? Not just sand and mud, but rocky or otherwise downright unfavorable terrain can be easily glided over. A lot of work is definitely needed, but I think it's a pretty cool project. That is, until something sucks into one of the propellers and fucks up absolutely everything.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=WoodenSpoon;48033361]New concepts like this develop over time [t]http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/eu/uploads/monthly_02_2014/post-2230519-0-12875500-1391940676.jpg[/t] [t]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/Chall206.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=willtheoct;48033522]Why would it be less maneuverable or slower? It's an aircraft, isn't restricted to roads, and has all the turning space in the world. Plus it's a smaller target for rockets than a helicopter is, and due to the small body and complete enclosure of blades, you can probably have the bikes fly between buildings or even accidentally sideswipe them, and still keep flying. Good for recon at a low level instead of having a helicopter hundreds of meters over the area.[/QUOTE] This concept hardly fixes any of the fundamental problems of this type of design which have been around for around 60 years, though. First of all, if your drive system fails, you're boned. It's a quadcopter, so the best you can do with [I]one[/I] engine out is try to make your landing as comfortable as possible (and if your power fails, goodbye). With an octo- or hexcopter, you can have some engine out capability (as well as with redundant systems), but that comes with weight and loss of efficiency for a system already struggling with efficiency. Second, manuevering around something that hovers is difficult. You could argue that computers have vastly increased the handling capabilities for this kind of use, but you're still going to need to train a very skilled pilot or operator because flying is hard as is without flying an inherently unstable small craft that's boned if any of its drive system fails (much less flying in wooded or urban environments with obstacles). Sure, it's a smaller target for rockets, but so is something behind cover. You couldn't put armor on this that could resist even small arms fire without drastically reducing its utility, because armor is weight. I see the capability that something like this that's remotely controlled can bring, but honestly I don't see how this is any of an improvement over the fundamental reasons we never really continued with the Hiller Flying Platform. It just seems excessively hard to control and dangerous for the operator for being what it is.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;48033219]Hoverbikes are undoubtedly cool, but what's the military application of a vehicle that's louder, has far less fuel economy, carries less, is less maneuverable, slower, and less reliable than a motorcycle while not carrying any armament? Sure, it'd be better in excessively muddy or sandy terrain, but one of these does that too. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-725-0184-22,_Russland,_Soldaten_auf_Kettenkrad.jpg[/t] Furthermore, hasn't this sort of concept already been tested before anyway? [t]https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-large/19610070000b_lg.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I get that youre baiting here, but this thing has one real thing going for it. Speed. It has the potential to he extremely fast, so it can cover a lot of ground very quickly. It's also pretty easily storable, and hard to see. If you get a couple of these to transport guys instead of... Idk, an osprey, they become a much smaller target that can split up if need be.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;48034122]I propose reinvigorating the British motor industry and giving it a more military design. [t]http://i.imgur.com/WfPu2Yh.jpg[/t] Slap a gun, tracks and outboard engine on it, and we have the Rugged Robin 2/3 track. :v:[/QUOTE] Its biggest weapon its self rolling targeting systems that injure everyone inside but miss the target completely!
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;48035700]I get that youre baiting here, but this thing has one real thing going for it. Speed. It has the potential to he extremely fast, so it can cover a lot of ground very quickly. It's also pretty easily storable, and hard to see. If you get a couple of these to transport guys instead of... Idk, an osprey, they become a much smaller target that can split up if need be.[/QUOTE] I'm not doubting the cross-country capabilities of something like this, but is it really a good idea to let someone on a craft that [I]can[/I] attain those speeds but has questionable reliability where if one drivetrain part breaks then they're sent into the ground at 60mph? (or sent into a wild computer-controlled spin) At least ultralight helicopters have the [I]possibility[/I] of autorotation.
I wonder if these will end up like Zeppelins did for military use. It will probably be very specific and niche.
I wonder how long one of these can last on a single charge/tank/whatever its energy source is
I imagine this thing is loud as fuck.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48033323]everything starts as a shitty concept but some things grow into actually useful shit[/QUOTE] Except this is a concept we've seen before, not something brand new. And it doesn't fill any tactical or strategic niche- the ideas they proposed for SAR, cargo delivery, and surveillance are much better filled by actual aircraft, ground vehicles that can carry more of a payload (or airdrops), and drones. The Army was working on this concept back in the 1960s under the 'Flying Jeep' concept, and eventually determined that there was nothing strapping one or two guys to a ducted fan could do that a helicopter couldn't do faster, farther, cheaper, with better crew survivability, and bringing a bigger payload. It wasn't the technology that was the problem, it was that there was nothing it could do better than the alternatives as a matter of principle. Since then helicopter technology has matured tremendously, the development of drones has taken over the long-loiter, low-footprint surveillance/interdiction role, and tiltrotor aircraft are becoming the vehicle of choice for high-speed troop delivery. They've got a pretty cool technology demonstrator but as far as actual military use goes, they're grasping at straws. Comparisons to tanks or aircraft from WW1 are entirely spurious because those were designed to meet specific battlefield needs and gradually developed into the vehicles they are today. Precious few successful military technologies start as pure tech with no clear military application.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48035996]Except this is a concept we've seen before, not something brand new. And it doesn't fill any tactical or strategic niche- the ideas they proposed for SAR, cargo delivery, and surveillance are much better filled by actual aircraft, ground vehicles that can carry more of a payload (or airdrops), and drones. The Army was working on this concept back in the 1960s under the 'Flying Jeep' concept, and eventually determined that there was nothing strapping one or two guys to a ducted fan could do that a helicopter couldn't do faster, farther, cheaper, with better crew survivability, and bringing a bigger payload. It wasn't the technology that was the problem, it was that there was nothing it could do better than the alternatives as a matter of principle. Since then helicopter technology has matured tremendously, the development of drones has taken over the long-loiter, low-footprint surveillance/interdiction role, and tiltrotor aircraft are becoming the vehicle of choice for high-speed troop delivery. They've got a pretty cool technology demonstrator but as far as actual military use goes, they're grasping at straws. Comparisons to tanks or aircraft from WW1 are entirely spurious because those were designed to meet specific battlefield needs and gradually developed into the vehicles they are today. Precious few successful military technologies start as pure tech with no clear military application.[/QUOTE] Its 2015. Not the 1960s.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48036464]Its 2015. Not the 1960s.[/QUOTE] And now we have drones, tiltrotor aircraft, helicopters far more sophisticated than what the Flying Jeep had to compete with, and a model of warfare that has no need for a surface-skimming scout to stay under the Soviet radar. So in other words, the direct competition that rendered the Flying Jeep ineffective are even better, and the intended role for it no longer exists. What's your point?
hoverbike with 27mm turrets please
I was actually reminded of this: [t]http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/pixar/images/c/c2/Incredibles-Velocipod.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150103014902[/t]
[QUOTE=catbarf;48036557]And now we have drones, tiltrotor aircraft, helicopters far more sophisticated than what the Flying Jeep had to compete with, and a model of warfare that has no need for a surface-skimming scout to stay under the Soviet radar. So in other words, the direct competition that rendered the Flying Jeep ineffective are even better, and the intended role for it no longer exists. What's your point?[/QUOTE] Except helicopters can't fill every roll and they never should fill every roll. Its called mission creep and its one of the reasons why the F-35 ballooned in costs. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] Also drones can also only fit specific roles. Having a hover car that fits its own role is fine.
[QUOTE=Orkel;48033094]This is the new engine placement design that has better stability [img]http://horobox.reager.org/u/orkel_1435118986.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I feel like all new technology has to go through a point of some silly/impractical looking designs to progress [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3c/c1/33/3cc13374fc7262dcc3cfb69815daa912.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Swilly;48036637]Except helicopters can't fill every roll and they never should fill every roll. Its called mission creep and its one of the reasons why the F-35 ballooned in costs. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] Also drones can also only fit specific roles. Having a hover car that fits its own role is fine.[/QUOTE] What role would an expensive hover car fill that couldn't be filled by a similarly expensive small (automated) helicopter or tiltwing / tiltrotor more efficiently?
That's cool and all, but a drone can do the exact same thing [I]without[/I] putting a pilot at risk. He'd be even more exposed than being on a motorcycle, because now he's on a motorcycle but up in the air where he's easy to shoot. I still want them to make it, I just don't see any military potential other than [I]maybe[/I] replacing light helicopters for special forces raids, still you'd need one for every team member and have no way to evacuate wounded or dead.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;48033219]Hoverbikes are undoubtedly cool, but what's the military application of a vehicle that's louder, has far less fuel economy, carries less, is less maneuverable, of debatable benefit in speed, and less reliable than a motorcycle while not carrying any armament?[/QUOTE] i might be *sorta* talking outta my ass here but wouldn't it be unnaffected by landmines, have no issues with bad terrain (i can't imagine a tank easily making it through every rocky hill or ruined building) and be harder to hit? of course the current thing is pretty useless but there's some obvious upsides to the idea
How is this practical at all? I thought multirotors didn't scale well because: - They're really unstable. They need a complex flight computer to stay stable. - They're inefficient due to the instability. Having to adjust the speed of the motors constantly wastes energy. - They aren't as safe. Helicopters have auto rotation, these don't. So all of these work well in small scale when you have cheap drone parts that you want to replace quickly. A swash plate can't really be fixed in the field but a few props can. When you scale up the cost and inefficiency catches up and standard helicopters are way better. Gyrocopter would work too.
landspeeder when?
If those fan bikes became available to purchase and also legal to use on the roads, I would get one. Wouldnt have to worry about traction in the winter... just glide right over it [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=thrawn2787;48037739]How is this practical at all? I thought multirotors didn't scale well because: - They're really unstable. They need a complex flight computer to stay stable. - They're inefficient due to the instability. Having to adjust the speed of the motors constantly wastes energy. - They aren't as safe. Helicopters have auto rotation, these don't. So all of these work well in small scale when you have cheap drone parts that you want to replace quickly. A swash plate can't really be fixed in the field but a few props can. When you scale up the cost and inefficiency catches up and standard helicopters are way better. Gyrocopter would work too.[/QUOTE] F16's dont fly without a computer. We can balance it.
Right but if the computer died the F16 wouldn't fall the to ground and kill the pilot. The thing is still stable without the assist. Same with helicopters.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48037920]Right but if the computer died the F16 wouldn't fall the to ground and kill the pilot. The thing is still stable without the assist. Same with helicopters.[/QUOTE] Modern fighters have a center of lift in the same area as their center of mass, making them both super maneuverable and super unstable, computers are nearly essential to keep them flying well.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48036557]And now we have drones, tiltrotor aircraft, helicopters far more sophisticated than what the Flying Jeep had to compete with, and a model of warfare that has no need for a surface-skimming scout to stay under the Soviet radar. So in other words, the direct competition that rendered the Flying Jeep ineffective are even better, and the intended role for it no longer exists. What's your point?[/QUOTE] Drones are fragile and can't handle rough weather. Tilrotor aircraft are expensive and loud. Helicopters are even more louder. The hoverbike is [B]not[/B] designed for frontline combat. Like, at all. You give it additional armor and guns, and you'll have to also give it a new power plant and better engines, and at that point you're better off just building an IFV. [B]But[/B], it can find a place as a recon vehicle, or as a light transport for ammunition and other equipment in remote areas (For situations where an air drop would attract too much attention, or it's simply not feasible)
This would be huge because it'll be another means of transportation that is unaffected by landmines. Granted it'll need a lot of improvements the final product leaves you with something capable of going over any terrain and avoiding any distruptance. It'll be loud but for recon you can take a much rougher and remote path to offset that
This is basically a drone with a guy riding it. I can see this being useful for either transporting one or two people over a large area quickly and fuel efficiently, or maybe an Amazon drone type thing except you've got a guy to make people sign for packages or some shit. This probably won't get much military usage as small drones are better and if you need to move cargo or a lot of people you'd use a chopper, and search & rescue could have the finding part done by drones or the rescuing part done by a helicopter that can have somebody lying down in it.
Can't wait to see the first of these loud, unarmored vehicles with an exposed crew that costs 2 million in tax dollars get blown up by a goat herder with a gun from the 60s.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.