Replacement for the V-22 ?

[Dave_Jackson]

The latest issue of the Journal of the American Helicopter Society has a submission entitled 'Design and Testing of an Autorotative Payload Delivery System' The lightweight device is ejected from a slow flying aircraft, whereupon it ; deploys its rotor blades, enters autorotation and lands; all automatically.

IMHO, there would appear to be no reason why a troop transport aircraft cannot quickly fly to a destination and then discharge its 'paratroopers' with their backpack rotorcrafts.

After completion of the mission the 'paratroopers' would reattach their backpack rotorcrafts and then climb up to the slow flying transport craft. The takeoff, vertical flight and sequential recovery of these 'paratroopers' could be done under fully automated control.

During the transportation portion of the mission the paratrooper is just along for the ride.


The basics already exist;

A lightweight helicopter. (http://www.unicopter.com/1009.html)
A homebuilt backpack helicopter. (http://www.flycastelluccio.at/cms/upload/gallerie/video/hubschraubermann.28.04.05_512.wmv)

[Graviman]

Dave,

I can't comment with any expertise (handful of jumps a few years ago). I gather from conversations i have had is that paratroopers operate at the weight limit of the chute. Parachutes are much easier to learn than rotorcraft, and have fewer considerations. Besides chutes can be relatively easilly packed then stored, and relied upon, but a rotorcraft would surely need to be inspected just prior to each jump. This includes scrubbing the flight if necessary.

It strikes me as impractical, since you need a reliable engine (+ store of inertia). For auto only then the fewer parts the better, so that would be the parachute. Anything more complicated is just an accident waiting to happen...

[Ioan]

I don't know. If I did have to jump out of a plane the KISS principle of parachutes strikes me as being quite comforting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duFV6AS2u7Q is another option.
As for the return flight, I guess it's a possibility. The advantage with a helicopter is it's just one machine, inspected and maintained in the relative comfort of an airfield... the thought of a bunch of soldiers getting their hands on a few backpack helicopters, caching them or carrying them round in the field for maybe a few weeks (with all the abuse that entails), then flying them up into some low flying aircraft does sound a little worrying, but I guess possible! And I'd be up for trying the idea :D
A development of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxc9bX8vkHk might be another possibility

[Dave_Jackson]

Mart & Ioan; Good points for and against.

Some more points (promotion :)).

Consider the light personnel rotorcraft; the Troop Insertion Transporter (TIT)

The novel rotor hub design in the mentioned AHS article uses a neat idea that incorporates negative pitch-flap coupling, negative blade pitch and negative precone, to passively achieve the transition to steady autorotation.
The idea appears to be similar to the Roton (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/roton.htm) project.
The descent of the TITS is silent.
The Rotachute (http://www.unrealaircraft.com/qbranch/rotachute.php) was launched from a plane in the early 40's.
Consider the transport craft; the Airborne Servicing System (ASS).

Total flight-control of the TITS will be handled by the computers and operator on-board the ASS.
The TITs can be returned empty to the ASS, so that they can be reinserted at a different time and location for troop retrieval.
The use of one person, seated in a 2-man helicopter, and simultaneously controlling a number of unmanned helicopters was being consider by the US armed services a couple of years ago.
It is very likely that the attractive TITS and ASS will participate in a growth in the near future.

Dave

[Cyclic Hotline]

There is always the simple DIY jet-pack to consider.

http://mx.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgk7VIhfZgE

In fact I can't believe that it hasn't already been attempted by some of the participants of this thread.:eek: