First Hover Flight Test of X-50A Dragonfly

kbielefe writes "On Wednesday, flight testing began on the X-50A dragonfly canard rotor wing unmanned aircraft. For those of you not familiar with the dragonfly, its rotors work like a helicopter for takeoff, hovering, and slow-speed manouvering, and then lock into place like a fixed-wing aircraft for cruising. The X-50A's reaction drive makes it "much lighter, simpler and more affordable to operate and support than traditional rotorcraft." And the technology is scalable to larger, manned vehicles. Truly a revolutionary aircraft, with a multitude of potential military and commercial applications." There are some more photos and artwork.

That was fast

The poll predicted flying cars within our lifetime.
That sure was fast...

Deathtrap?

So far, our attempts at bridging the gaps between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft have met with disaster. Take the Osprey, for example. I don't know who it was but he said that it took the worst features of both types of aircraft and mashed them together with poor engineering. Hopefully this new aircraft does not suffer the fate of the Osprey... and her pilots.

Re:Deathtrap?

Here's a hint:

There are (thousands?) of Harriers in service, and surprizingly few incidents compared to the number in use (and how they are used - eg in an actual conflict).

They built 10 Osprey V-22 aircraft for testing. In April of 2000, one V-22 crashed during a test flight and killed 19 marines. That alone is nearly two people dead for every craft ever built. (Note: Check date, might be wrong!)

Which do you suppose is the safer technology?
=Smidge=

Re:Deathtrap?

The Harrier has a high rate of failure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/la- ha rrier-day1.story

"Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents."

"If the Harrier had been decisive many times in battle, we would all still regret horribly the tragedies of the pilots who have been killed, but at least you'd be able to say that the Harrier made a difference," said Philip E. Coyle, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester from 1994 to 2001.

"What makes this situation so difficult is that we just don't have that kind of battlefield record to support the accidental deaths."

In the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the hot thrust-producing nozzles in the heart of the fuselage -- the devices that allow the Harrier to rise and balance in the air -- made the plane a magnet for heat-seeking missiles. Its loss rate was more than double that of the war's other leading U.S. combat jets. Five Harriers were shot down and two pilots died.

"It's the most vulnerable plane that's in service now," said Franklin C. "Chuck" Spinney, who evaluates tactical aircraft for the Pentagon. "You can't hit that thing without hitting something important."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.c fm ?Id=303

"The AV-8B Harrier--a single-engine attack jet that can take off vertically and hover--has a mishap rate of 12 per 100,000 flight hours, among the highest in the U.S. military aviation community. But only one-third of Harrier mishaps are caused by human error, Dirren said. "Two-thirds [of the mishaps] are related to the aircraft failures."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/a ir craft/av-8-variants.htm
"In 1982, after eleven years of AV-8A operational flying, including 55 peacetime aircraft losses, the Commandant of the time (Gen Robert Barrow) asked the Harrier community to address the serious problem of flight safety. The impetus for his concern was "a high mishap rate within the AV-8A community... anticipated continuing turbulence... and a pressing requirement to reduce the mishap rate in order to provide the assets needed for successful transition to the AV-8B." At the time, the community had a cumulative Class A rate of 39 per 100,000 flight hours."

"By 1998, USMC Harrier operations (including Naval Air Systems Command) had resulted in 17 fatalities, one permanent disability and 68 AV-8B aircraft lost. With a cumulative Class A mishap rate of 12.1 per 100,000 flight hours, the AV-8B has consistently outpaced all USMC aircraft types in this statistic."

The FAS website estimates 815 Harriers built in all models all the way from the Kestrel and P.1127 test planes
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav83.html

Re:Deathtrap?

Can I assume you are a 19 year old AMERICAN college Sophmore?

Yeah, actually I do think you should at least have heard of this.

The Osprey is supposed to be a replacement for the very aged Chinook helicopters.
If ever the military had a vehicle that outlived its usefulness it was the Chinook.
My father was in 'Nam and he tells me that he couldn't get out of those things fast enough. They were flying bullseyes as far as he was concerned.

The Osprey has the range and speed of a propeller aircraft but the VTOL capability, and the hover ability of a helicpoter.
This is acomplished by putting extremely large propeller (turboprop) engines on the end of the wings. The largest damn propellers you are ever going to see. The ends of the wings actually rotate 90 degrees to facilitate take off and landings.

When they first started testing this thing they found a lot of flaws. Some where engineering problems, but there is one nasty one they have been working on.

The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes.

Is it a bad aircraft that we need to give up on?

I don't really know.

John Glenn seems to think the Shuttle's are flying death traps and we were better off putting capsules on top of rockets.

The Hubble was a real mess when it was first put in orbit as well. There was an enormous public outcry after the press labeled it 'a failure'.
Hmmmm some failure.

The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing.

Aviation is HARD and DANGEROUS. Someone else already said it for me, it is about time we took the 'pilot' out of test pilot. I can only imagine what the difference in public perception would be if the Osprey had gone through an unmanned testing phase.

The Osprey does hold tremendous promise though. If we can iron out the problems in it, it really would be a new category of aircraft. Something that can economicaly provide city to city air service, something that can bridge the gap between helicopter and airplane.

While I am not yet convinced that they can get a grip on the vortex problem, I am very far away from saying they need to give up.

Re:Deathtrap?

The biggest problem here was a question of tactics. Army doctrine (now being adjusted) still called for coming to a hover before firing weapons. This obviously exposes the aircraft to high risk small arms fire. Marine doctrine on the other hand has helo pilots firing on the run, not slowing below 60 knots in combat. This difference accounts for much of the combat robustness of the Cobra over the Apache. In fact, before the war, I believe the Marines upped their minimum combat speed.

That said, landing involves stopping, and is always risky. The V-22 has the ability to enter and egress an LZ faster and quiter than any other current rotary wing aircraft. I doubt many on /. have seen/heard a V-22 approach an LZ at 100 feet AGL in airplane mode. It is nearly silent until a 100 or so yards away. Transition can be quick (15s) land, dump cargo, and transition to forward flight again. Because of this reduced exposure/announcement time, the V-22 is more survivable than an old CH-47 or CH-46.

Some notes...

"The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes."

Vortex ring states are common to all rotary-wing aircraft. It involves a toroid-shaped volume of air surrounding the rotor disc, in which air pushed downward is recirculated into the top of the rotor disc, instead of pushing against the ground. All helo pilots are trained in how to avoid them and attempt to recover from them. It is a subject of thorough investigation in aerodynamics, and a problem inherent to every helicopter. What makes its presence in the V-22 significant is that even a mild vortex ring state in one of its rotors can cause a drastically sharp roll movement (due to uneven lift on both sides) that is very difficult to recover from.

"The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing."

The B-1B has also proven to be a hangar queen with tremendous operating costs, going against your point of "here are some aircraft which vindicated themselves in actual usage".

I do agree that tilt-rotor technology is the logical evolution of transport helicopters. This isn't just some novel "hey that's neat" offshoot of helos; this is the next generation of rotary-wing tech, something that will eventually replace Chinooks, Sea Knights, Mi-6's and the like.

Re:Deathtrap?

Incidentally, the Osprey program this week just surpassed 1000 flight hours for the program. It's racked up lots more flight time since the grounding and reengineering interval from 18 months ago.

Did you know that in the 50's the Army almost decided not to use helicopters at all after about a hundred soldiers were killed during trials of the Piasecki helicopters? There were people in the Army who were screaming that it was criminal to keep putting men into helicopters.

While I think that the Osprey getting grounded for a year and a half while they fixed the safety-critical problems was appropriate and justified, I'm glad that it's back in the air, and I think that it can really change the face of airmobile combat.

they're "flaky"!?

whilst it is entirely true that they're FRAGILE (ie: you can shoot most down with a pistol), they are FAR from "flaky". aside from the fragility issue, they are no different from fixed wing aircraft in their "flakiness". they simply trade high speed for the ability to hover, that is ALL. and, incidentally, there is no fix for the speed issue in a conventional chopper, at some "N" speed, the retreating rotor blade stalls and the bird flops over.
most people don't realize that helicopters share EVERY flight characteristic (sans high speed) with a fixed wing aircraft, including the ability to "glide" (they call it autorotation in choppers, the air rushing up through the rotor keeps it spinning, and you flair at the last moment. every helo pilot can do it, and you land without a scratch as long as the surface is apporpriate)

Re:Deathtrap?

Uh, so how many Marines can you deliver into hostile territory with an A-10?

I'm pretty sure the number is awfully close to zero.

There are NO armored airborne personnel carrying vehicles. Zero. That means, if you're flying in a C-130 or a Sea Stallion, that there is pretty well nothing between you and fiery death at the hands of bad guys.

It's a problem that is solved by tactics. The Osprey permits a larger variety of tactics (because it's faster and longer-ranged than other heavy lift helicopters).

Being in the Army is dangerous. That's what soldiers sign up for. It's up to the engineers (that's me) to provide them with the best possible hardware to complete their missions, but there is no such thing as a "safe" combat insertion vehicle.

Re:Deathtrap?

I guess you never heard of Viatnam where helicopters saved so many lives that they literally can't be counted. Just because a handfull of helo's have been taken down by barages of light arms fire doesn't mean the tech should be abandoned. Heck fewer people probably died from crashes then from a single convoy trying to escape by road vs similar circumstances.

Can you say Osprey

Hrmmm -- maybe they actually figured it out this time. They certainly have less weight worries than with the Osprey...

I used to live on the east coast and remember hearing about all of the ill-fated Osprey test flights.

Realistic commercial uses?

If/When this aircraft gets to the final stages of development, when it is actually ready for the "military/commercial" market; I can't imagine it's pricetag being real affordable to the commercial market. I can't really think of many applications where this aircraft would be so much more viable as an option as opposed to what a helicopter can be for commercial uses. Why would any company buy one of these unmanned vehicles that makes it so much more practical than a manned helicopter?

On the other hand, I can see quite extensive military uses for this aircraft, and I could see it as being a very important part of the military.

Could be good for general aviation...

They don't need as much speed as was quoted in the article. (500 kts) It would be intresting as a cheap, sub 200K range private general aviation plane. I'm surprised Boeing is taking a risk though with such a strange new craft, especially with their current financial troubles.

Re:Could be good for general aviation...

The FCC would never approve this vehicle

Then it's a good thing the FCC has nothing to do with airworthiness certificates. ;-)

Damn those Aerospace Engineers

I'm must be technically challeneged when it comes to understanding aerospace terms. But can somone please explain to me why this thing doesn't need an anti-torque mechanism (tail rotor). The advanced terms Boeing uses on the website make no sense to me.

By using a unique reaction-drive rotor system, the CRW concept eliminates the need for a heavier and more complex mechanical drive train and transmission, as well as the need for an anti-torque system.

Does this actually mean something, or is it just a bunch of big words to confuse the general public?

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

Does this actually mean something, or is it just a bunch of big words to confuse the general public?

A bit of both.
Conventional helicopters need a tailrotor because main rotor is spun by a mechanism that is fixed to the body of the aircraft which tends to spin the body around too. This thing seems to use a tip-jet mechanism to spin the main rotor, ie the tips of the blades contain little jet nozzles to spin it around and since it isn't mechanically fixed to the body it won't tend to spin the body around too.

Sorry if that didn't as much sense as i wanted it to, i haven't slept in 2 days.

Re:Damn those Aerospace Engineers

It means that the reaction gases generated by the turbine engine are routed out through the rotors and to the rotor tips, making them move.

It means that there's nothing inside the vehicle, cranking the rotor around, so the vehicle never tries to crank itself the other way.

The "Dragonfly?"

I'm awaiting the announcement of the copyright-infringement lawsuit that Hasbro will file any day now...

Which of course

Is not the same thing as Draganfly [reallycooltoys.com] Which has four rotors that do not rotate into the shape of a fixed wing aircraft. and no, sadly there's no X-50A Drive.

Alternatively, of course, the XGP [amazon.com] has Sub-Ether drive and some fancy grappler arms.

6th day come to mind ??

Isn't this aircraft basically the same thing as in the movie "6th day" ?

Hmmm. Deja vu...

Doesn't that looks like the helicopter Arnold is a pilot of in The 6th day [imdb.com]??? Specifically, the rotor stops and locks into a fixed wing.

X-50 half helicopter half plane

It's intended to float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. I guess but what I enjoy about this new type of airship is the fact it is combining the best of different technologies. To create an interesting new. A supersonic helicopter anyone?

Wait a second....

Didn't the Fantastic Four have a jet like this?

This rings a bell...

...isn't this the same kind of technology the Marine Corps uses to kill off excess 1st Lieutenants?

Not as cool as this one

Nuclear Flying Saucer [popularmechanics.com].

flight testing in 2002

After completing load testing of the rotor, the CRW will be ready for first flight, which is expected to occur by the end of 2002.

Did I miss something? The linked page says the testing was supposed to happen in 2002, yet here we are a few weeks away from 2004. For such a cutting-edge creation, you think they might have updated their web page, perhaps somewhere in the 2003 time-frame...

How do they transition?

How do they transition from hover to fixed wing? Those rotors must get a lot of momentum, surely it takes time to slow them down and lock them into place, and then to spin them up for landing. I don't suppose they can just let the thing drop like a stone in the meanwhile?

canard? dragonfly?

canard is French for duck.

the dragonfly duck? nice chimera...

A bit behind the times, really

The CarterCopter [cartercopters.com] has had proven VTOL flight with small canard-style wings for several years now, even a demonstration at Oshkosh. Boeing's a bit behind the ball on this one.

dragonfly

For curiosity I did a google on the the dragonfly and found this link http://mil.eastday.com/epublish/gb/paper466/2/clas s046600005/hwz1116940.htm Is this a chinese translation of the boeing site or is it their version of the same invention ?

Wow...this many responses...

..and yet so few /.ers will ever pilot even a simple fixed wing aircraft.

Could this be a case of too many pilots, not enough flight attendants? Or could it simply be the fact that "revolutionary" flight mechanisms capture the fancy of the overworked and underpaid?

Science? Or sociology...you be the judge.

Time flys...

After completing load testing of the rotor, the CRW will be ready for first flight, which is expected to occur by the end of 2002.

The second link points to the above qoute. Page is out of date by almost a year.

Hmmm... ...wish'em luck!

Prudent Precautions

Hows about a breathalizer attached to the ignition system. I think cave real estate is about to experience a renaissance.

Is this going to kill the Moller sky car ?

Moller's Sky Car looks pretty cool, and footage of its test flights can be seen in lots of places (e.g. History Channel's big boy's toys.)
Moller says the sky car will be in production
within 4 years and ubiquitous in 10 years.
I'm not sure which I'd trust more :-)

Cool

And I thought this was some new mini-remote camera model that I was gonna start seeing on popup adds.

Cool!

This looks a bit like those planes/choppers in the 6th Day [imdb.com]!

deja vu

I swear I saw something like this almost 20 years ago. I was watching some show on late night TV in Washington state, and the really cool thing on it was an aircraft with a stubby-bladed rotor that could be fixed as a wing for jet-propelled flight. I haven't heard anything like that since. I guess it took them a long time to work out the bugs.

What is old is new again...

Just rememberd either a popular science or mechanics issue that had such an item maybe on its front cover around mid 60 I think. The difference was it had the turning wing on both top and bottom.

Ornithopters!

... as soon as they can get those things to flap.

The airfoil...

How are they going to make the airfoil symetrical for fixed-winf flight? Wouldn't one half of the wing be facing in the right direction, and the other half be "backwards"? It didn't mention this in any of the links as far as I can tell. The only solution I can think of is a symetrical airfoil from front to back.

Fairey Rotodyne

The Fairey Rotodyne [russian.ee] was built nearly fifty years ago. Like the Dragonfly, it used (what was then called) tip-jet rotors, so there was no need for a counter-torque rotor on the tail.

The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians.

Slow News Day

C'mon! This is not really big news, is it? I know every project has to start somewhere, but so far all they've done is hover and do vertical stuff with a tip-jet driven rotor (which has been done before in the 60's as others have noted here already). What will be *really* big news is when they transition from rotary winged flight to static wing flight (and back again) - I'm not sure that's ever been demonstrated before?

Has anyone ever seen an interview with Moller?

I recently saw a History Channel show where they were showing how sci fi often becomes reality. (I believe it was the show Greatest Movie Gadgets)

They had an interview with Moller, inventor of the skycar. He's thge one that thinks we will all one day fly in car planes that vertically take off and use GPS to fly them safely.

Has anyone ever seen an interview with Moller and thought that you were looking at a con man? He has gotten over 200 billion (YES BILLION) over his lifetime in funding. All interviews with him just remind me of talking to Quixtar (AMway) rep.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think we will NEVER have flight cars? It would be too dangerous. Cars are confined to accidents (for the most part) to the road.

Unless some kind of anti gravity technology that doesn't require fuel and has a 99.9% of not failing (causing falling) I don't believe we will ever have "air cars". I don't see much potential for air cars over helicopters for anything beyond the military.

Nothing new

This is nothing new. I don't know why, but the article says it's revolutionary, and so that's a guarantee that someone will post about something vaguely similar if you squint just right, and so claim that this thing is nothing new.

Airwolf?

its rotors work like a helicopter for takeoff, hovering, and slow-speed manouvering [sic], and then lock into place like a fixed-wing aircraft for cruising.

This reminds me of how Airwolf's turbo mode was supposed to work. :-)

In Other News...

DARPA has announced new red shirts for test pilots of the X-50A Dragonfly (good for one episode only).

Sikorsky X-Wing

Sikorsky had a program awhile ago. X-Wing [wikipedia.org]

Re:no faith whatsoever

you think they got this contract after the second of december and already had the first flight tests? hmmm now that would be something

spoke too soon

oops should have looked faster

Pentagon halts $18bn Boeing deal
( 2003-12-03 10:06) (Agencies)

The Pentagon has postponed action on $18 billion in contracts for 100 Boeing 767 tankers until the deal is investigated after Boeing fired two officials for ethical violations, U.S. Defense Department officials said Tuesday.

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told leaders of the Senate Armed Service Committee in a letter dated December 1 that he was ordering a "pause in the execution'' of the Air Force contracts to lease and buy the mid-air refueling tankers, a major setback in Boeing's two-year effort to sell the planes.

[chinadaily.com.cn]

Following the law to the last T, Boeing should not get any defense contract for some time, so if all holds true (which I doubt) this plane should never fly for the US military... Then again money talks

Re:Great technology

I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson.

That lesson being not to make sweeping judgements and generalizations based on publicity-driven artist's conceptions? Funny, I thought that (one of) the lesson(s) of the atomic bomb was that overwhelming force (when not guided by an idiot, not that I'm referring to a sitting politician or anything) can be used to end wars started by others.

Re:Great technology

"I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson."

Umm.... It's a military project. Maybe it's time we come to grips with the grim fact that military projects sometimes include missles.

TW

Re:Great technology

That's a rather odd viewpoint to have - it sounds about the same as "I love how the recruitment posters just have to include one of these soldiers shooting a rifle" to me. The plane is being designed for MILITARY use. This means that people are going to be taking potshots at it whether its manned or not. That picture, in particular, depicts the manned version of the Dragonfly. Would you really want to send a soldier into hostile territory without some kind of defense? I don't think that's the kind of move the government wants to try. Nor would the government want to lose a multi-million dollar drone if it could avoid doing so by giving it something to hit back with, eh?

Re:Great technology

Personally, I think the enemy would be laughing if they saw that thing coming with missiles. I mean...wouldn't you if you saw the Dodo from Grand Theft Auto 3 coming at you with missiles?

Re:Great technology

I love how the pictures just have to include one of these plans shooting a missle. You'd think the atomic bomb would've taught us all a lesson.

Would you rather have them drop Britney Spears CDs on the enemy? ..... Naw... Too Cruel.

Re:Knowing where it comes from ...

Um...has there been a creative use for the internet yet? I mean, other than directing swarms of knee-jerk reactionaries at any website that offends/decries/upsets/annoys/otherwise-is-found-o bjectionable to people? Oh...wait..pr0n. Nevermind. That is all.

Re:It's 2 AM in the morning....

Y'know...I used to ask *almost* the same question. I used to ask..."what the fsck is an ocelot?" Then, my interior self would say..."much like an ocelittle, only bigger..." And people wonder why I hate myself...

The 6th Day Whispercraft...

Talking about cloning, I stil lthing the design in the 6th day has a lot of promise. If they can nail the technology in this prototype, then craft of this type may become a reality for sooner than we think.

Re:Great technology

"If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery." [Letter to a pacifist, 1941]

-Albert Einstein

It's a Nerf missile.

Don't worry, we've learned our lesson, no more war.

Re:Great technology

Don't worry. The B variant will be equipped with hug-o-trons and kissing beams, so it will be ready to deploy in your FANTASYLAND where there aren't bad guys who sometimes need to get shot at.

How many pacifist societies exist on Earth? (not very many) How many of them have neighbors who compete with them for resources? (zero)