Videos


NASA Spiral Duct ESTOL Concept



Extremely Short Takeoff and Landing advanced vehicle concept based upon the coupling of the Lippisch Aerodyne and Custer Channel Wing. Designed to takeoff of at a speed of just 30 mph, with ground distances of less than 150 ft. The outer panels are freewings (able to freely pivot) so that the vehicle is less gust sensitive (which is a major ESTOL problem). Developed as part of the NASA Personal AIr Vehicle project under Mark Moore.

Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating 
Views: 616,522
Added: 4 years
Runtime: 0:58
Comments: 164

Tags for this video:  



Find more videos in the: "Tech"
Uploaded by: NASAPAV
See more videos uploaded by NASAPAV


Comments:

Author romain legall (5 months)


Author TECHNICS (1 year)

*NASA Spiral Duct ESTOL Concept* by Mark Moore. Extremely Short Takeoff
and Landing advanced vehicle concept based upon the coupling of the
Lippisch Aerodyne and Custer Channel Wing. Designed to takeoff of at a
speed of just 30 mph, with ground distances of less than 150 ft. The outer
panels are freewings (able to freely pivot) so that the vehicle is less
gust sensitive. 

Author NASAPAV (4 years)
If a bird does hit a propeller, most likely the propeller will simply chop
the bird in half or bounce off. Show me cases of birds taking out
propellers (not turbofan engines - props). I have looked and there are very
few cases (with far more for turbofan engines). But if for some reason the
prop is not spinning, it will glide, but not be able to land in a very
short distance. This is why the powertrain system is fully redundnat with a
small cruise IC and electric system.

Author NASAPAV (4 years)
I'm not sure I understand your comment, the blades are enclosed in a duct,
so they are not exposed.

Author noobonspeed9091 (2 years)
how does it gather lift with those is wings there tiny

Author vaxiawval (1 year)
Looks like a 1932 Stipa-Caproni duct aircraft, it flew quite well.

Author Abnermoon (3 years)
opposing mini-thrusters for pitch, drag flap for attitude, a full box of
depends for the sudden stop

Author SilentThunderStorm (2 years)
@leloodallasmultipass Yes, I am aware of software simulation; this is
obviously *not* that. How can I tell? Easy... *it only rolls across the
floor*. No aerofoil movement, no simulated air flow, no explanation of any
aeronautical benefits. Nothing. I could mock this crap up in Blender (for
free), and, again, it means *nothing*. Again, show *anything* that shows
that this thing *might* fly. And stop being condescending, its childish and
self-righteous; you don't know my background.

Author Morrie Larsen (2 years)
@charums just like all other wings, they provide lift and control.

Author Justwantahover (2 years)
Good basis for a flying car concept!

Author Tony Kollar (2 years)
This looks like the future to me, can I add a jet engine and some better
looking wings?

Author Jose Alvarado (3 years)
what about torque......isnt a single rotor going to create torque twist
shouldnt it be a coaxial design???

Author Sandro Fortini (1 year)
Wonder if Dyson or more of it type of wind manipulation for a mini Ramjet
with a train launcher would work in reality .... maybe , maybe not for
everyday people

Author The Great Steve (4 years)
@NASAPAV He's so dumb he probably would crawl in.

Author halcyon0830 (3 years)
THIS NEEDS BIGGER WHEELS. IT NEEDS TO BE A CAR.

Author Zvesda (2 years)
Heinkel Lerche.

Author MrRayne33 (3 years)
Yup, even as a consept it didnt leave the ground.

Author HouseFallenDragon (8 months)
They could become something of a "lifeboat" for large bombers, & could
actually be launched in the same way as the bombs themselves. They could
also become lifeboats on a re-created airship industry, so events like the
Hindenberg wouldn't have such a high death-toll if they happened again.
There are a large number of uses for a small aircraft with deployable
wings, the ability to lift at only 30mph, & not needing a long runway to
get into or out of the air.

Author 10skydrive10 (2 years)
it would be even cooler if it was able to dive into the water after it
flies and still be going by it's blades

Author TheCaracatusPotts (2 years)
I like the design and concept. My questions are firstly, couldn't the duct
provide enough lift, without the side winglets? Follow on question,
wouldn't all the hardware (read; mass) needed to stow them be
counterproductive in response to P/WR? Still on same subject, the KISS
Principle would also be effective here, what with adding mechanisms to
break down. And secondly, piddling all over my quotation on the KISS
Principle, could/is the thrust be powerful enough to provide a pivot for
the cap

Author NASAPAV (3 years)
Good point, co-axials offer a lot, but require quite a bit of separation or
the noise can be very problematic(I don't think the Russians care much
about noise). There are lots of other solutions as well...

Author TheJetcruiser007 (2 years)
put counter rotating prop; add swing wing and elongate fuselage !

Author quaffman10 (4 years)
I see where the Custer channel wing comes in, but I'm not seeing a large
influence from the Aerodyne. Are their resources through NASA where I could
learn more about this design or resources you would recommend for learning
more about the Lippisch Aerodyne? Also how does the aerofoil change shape
in the design? Is it more like a connected biplane with low pressure
regions both above and inside the duct or is it a circular wing with the
only low pressure region being inside the duct?

Author wcolbyHD (2 years)
@NASAPAV I dig your channel, I have a flying lawnmower & Snoopys doghouse
on my channel (and some NASA stuff ;-)

Author DRICE (2 years)
how do you steer it?

Author alejandro (2 years)
Muy buen diseño. Habría que ver si vuela y como vuela..., pero es un diseño
interesante.

Author NASAPAV (4 years)
I don't understand, the propeller is completely shielded by the wing -
which is one of the key features of this concept. How would you possible be
hit by the propeller unless you crawled into the propeller? Besides, you
wouldn't even get in or out of the vehicle with the propeller turning.

Author TheCaracatusPotts (2 years)
Sorry, original post did not include all of Q2: Secondly, piddling all over
my quotation of the KISS Principle, is/could the thrust be powerful enough
to enable vertical flight, if the capsule could pivot? All this is beside
the point? Where can I order one from????? :-))

Author CI9TK (2 years)
I get the duct effect on the rear control surfaces at low airspeeds but
this looks like a lot of wing/lift-surface loading for any craft able to
carry engine, pilot and landing gear.

Author ColinTheAwesomest (2 years)
That thing is as aerodynamic as a sofa! How do you expect it to fly?

Author Gabriel Shye-White (2 years)
and This is useful how exactly?

Author Cristian Alonso (2 years)
Is a copy of the Rick Hunter`s plane at ROBOTECH..... Don`t invent
nothing.....

Author Lord Xantosh i (2 years)
hmmm not bagging on the person who made this but it looks like a smaller
version of "Rick Hunter's aerial acrobatics plane" used in the very 1st
episode of Robotech series 1 (also known as super dimensional Fortress:
Macross")

Author NASAPAV (4 years)
Bird strike is not a significant issues for ducted props - much less so
than turbofan engines. The gradients are less strong, to permit a bird to
move out of the way, and even if it does go through, the contact area is
less than 20% of the disk area - while a turbofan is 100% capture area with
the bird having to be chewed up in the compressor, combustor, and turbine.
I would much rather face a bird strike in this, than a turbofan bizjet.

Author MrRedNeckParadise (2 years)
@NASAPAV Well, he had a point. Use some foam or fiberglass - or wood - buy
an RC A/C motor, build a scale model about a foot long, and see if it works
in the real world. Cost ya a couple hundred bucks, tops - plus your time.
Science: Propose a model. Test your hypothesis in the real world. Make
adjustments to your hypothesis, if needed. Test again. If a small scale
model works, scale up - and test, again.

Author SilentThunderStorm (2 years)
Sorry.. very tired of seeing computer mock ups... you could have painted a
rock with chicken wings, and it means NOTHING. At the very least, build a
small proof of concept model with fiberglass, a lawn mower engine, and some
remote control actuators.... otherwise, nobody you are attempting to show
off to has ANY reason to believe this thing would fly.

Author andee singh (4 years)
how do you stop a person from getting chopped up by those fins?

Author StuartEddie (4 years)
This concept is just a STOL version of the french Coleoptere C 450 SNECMA
(1959).

Author Rob T (1 year)
That would just spin the opposite way to the propeller as soon as it took
off..

Author NASAPAV (2 years)
Search Flying Doghouse here on Youtube - you'll see. Unless dynamic scaling
laws are used, anything can fly.

Author NASAPAV (2 years)
Do the calculations - optimum wing span for a 600 lb aircraft flying at 130
mph is about 15 ft. Which is what it is. Now, that means you have to build
the aircraft to have a 300 lb empty weight. But look at the Rutan Quickie
aircraft. About a 15 ft span, and about 250 lb empty weight. That's the
idea - but this specific version of the concept is challenged with
excessive wetted area (which turns into weight!)

Author 1lllllllll1 (2 years)
Doesn't this need a bigger Fuel Tank? If it is a PAV. Would that not
increase live load or whatchamacallit? Add a little luggage and I winder
how heavy it would be. Can a ESTOL PAV then still be made? Or would it end
up being a helicopter essentially?

Author Diddleshot (2 years)
Nice, looks like a friggin penguin. I like it though.

Author holy-terrorist platinium (8 months)
Holy-Terrorist:>*=* Super!

Author Bob Furr (1 year)
Might be interesting to do this as an ultralight... but honestly they take
off and land at about 30mph already. Now power off what would the glide be
for this thing? Honestly that would be my greatest fear. Engine off the
glide would be something like the shuttle....

Author NeKoShinn666 (2 years)
2 words.. Death Trap. :D

Author ezhavapanicker (4 years)
@NASAPAV m srry i did'nt mean that design is bad infact its magnificent, wt
i mean is that u may have trouble using this design in public. fr example
any stupid can touch those blades from back while its running which u can
stop by putting net over both faces of the duct, there is problem to birds
also.

Author femanvate (2 years)
Awesome concept. I have a couple questions. 1. if the majority of the lift
comes from the rotor-accelerated airflow (ala channel wing) wont an engine
failure mean there's a huge "unsurvivability window" when too low and/or
slow to achieve a power-off glide speed? 2. how do you counteract the
torque from this combination of huge prop, small wing/tail, and how does
the small tail provide lateral stability with so much side area fwd of the
CG? 3. will flight stability rely on computers?

Author Justwantahover (2 years)
@NASAPAV Check out the "Whirwing glide tests" on my channel. As you say,
any shape will fly (as long as it can act as a plane wing) but c of g is
the key to making it fly. Vtol pavs need c of g in center of craft (for
vtol c of g). So the challenge is to have both vtol and plane c of g in the
same place (which is essential). The canard plane design solves this
problem easily. My glide tests prove that it would work as a plane!

Author dunners2004 (2 years)
@morrielarsen You couldn't be more wrong! The fact the propeller is
incorporated within the wing means a much higher airspeed is realised over
the inner surface of the wing, meaning high lift can be generated at very
slow speeds, hence VSTOL capability :)

Embed Video:

URL 
Link 

Search Video

Top Videos

Top 100 >>>

Videos

Analyse website