What do you think of this?

[Shawn Coyle]

Here's the latest entry into the wonderful, whacky world of new aviation concepts.

Verticopter: an innovative and realistic approach to VTOL. (http://www.verticopter.com)

Look at the performance section - the smallest manned (sorry - peopled) version has two 250-C20R engines, and carries 2 people. Twice the power as a Jet Ranger for the less than half the payload. But it goes fast!

Note that there is quite a lot of discussion to CG management - no wonder!

Anyone care to rate it's chances of ever getting to the full sized prototype???

[Graviman]

This is neatly filed under "general methods to beat the air into submission"! ;)

Like all of these ideas it makes a great CAD rendering, but suffers from very high disk loading. There may be a market for fixed wing with VTOL capability - clearly no autorotational capability forces a Cat A machine though...

[FH1100 Pilot]

The idea of an aircraft that could hover like a helicopter yet fly fast like an airplane is evergreen. Numerous attempts have been tried already - a quick look back through the history books shows us all of the various ways people have approached the daunting task. None have gotten past the prototype stage save one. Bell has spent nearly fifty years trying to force their flawed concept to work. A military version has been jammed down our throats, but the civilian version languishes and, in my opinion will never be brought to market because it is simply not the right answer to the question.

The Verticopter is merely another attempt. A novel and interesting one though. Will a human-size prototype ever be built? I hope so! Just for the sake of curiosity, to see if the designers really believe that two small, unshrouded counter-rotating proprotors can lift the craft like a helicopter (we already know they can be made to make the thing fly fast). Perhaps...perhaps...

Oh, and Shawn, one slight correction: The 2-seat Verticopter doesn't have twice the power of a JetRanger...it has twice the power of a 206L-3 LongRanger! The specs for the 2-seater specifiy using the 650 h.p. C30R/1 (although they confusingly claim that it only puts out 450 h.p.). Then again, isn't that the engine in the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior? And isn't that basically a four-blade "JetRanger?" Maybe you're right after all. Maybe they meant C20R

By comparison, the Partenavia P.68 actually does have twice the power of a JetRanger, and carries two more people than a 206B, but can only do 199 mph, and that only in a high-speed power-dive. And it can't hover.

[ShyTorque]

My thoughts?

It wouldn't be practical or economic in UK.

To reach its proposed cruise speed it would need to fly in controlled airspace, i.e. on airways and would therefore usually need to operate on slot times.

So it may as well operate from an airport. In which case it will get the benefit of the runway (and would in fact probably be restricted to use of the runway, as helicopter movements often are).

In which case the vertical takeoff capability would be unnecessary and go to waste.

So it would be uneconomic to buy or operate and most folk would not buy one and would simply opt for a bizjet instead.

Unfortunately, hybrid vehicles seldom work better than a more thoroughbred type.

I'll bet this one is stillborn, like many before it.

[MrEdd]

I hope they´ll manage to build a prototype and fly it. Just to see how far they can take it, you just never know.
The Bumblebee is not suppoused to be able to fly according to humans, but the bumblebee fly anywhay co´s it dosen´t care what the humans think is impossible.;)

[what next]

Hello!

> The Bumblebee is not suppoused to be able to fly according to humans...

Not true. This urban legend (dating back to the 1930s!) has long been proven wrong, see here for an abstract: Aerodynamic Secrets of Insect Flight - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E1DF1131F937A15751C1A960958260) or here for the full paper in pdf format (download is not free!): The Aerodynamics of Flapping Animal Flight -- ELLINGTON 24 (1): 95 -- American Zoologist (http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/95).

Regarding this aeroplane/rotorplane: I really like x-plane as a (toy) flight simulator and toy aircraft construction kit, but like any other software it has its limitations. I very much doubt that this thing is going to meet the performance figures quoted, especially the cruise speed and range figures. When one compares it to existing turboprop aeroplanes with similar gross weight and engine power that are much more "streamlined" and yet 100kt slower the figures are ridiculous.

A big problem is going to be the very strong air jet in hovering mode that is more similar to a Harrier's blast than to a usual helicopter rotor downwash. Clean, hard surface operation only, no people allowed in the vicinity.
No autorotation capabiliy whatsoever. Lose any of the two engines during hover or transition and die.

With today's fuel prices, nobody is going to invest money into the development of a 900-horsepower-two-seater anyway - so pay the 4,99$ he asks for his x-plane model and fly it on your Macintosh or PC :)

Greetings, Max

[MrEdd]

Whats next...... it was more a figure of speach.
What i mean is that eventhou an idea seems doomed to fail and most likely will so is there alwayes something to learn.
And being curious and wishing to test new things is what gives us new ideas how to do things.

It´s greate that we take existing technics and make them better.
But we also need to come up with new technics, that´s what got us flying this far.

To fly is godly, to hover divine.;)

[Plinky]

They've already built one. Seems to work fine.

YouTube - Verticopter Prototype (http://youtube.com/watch?v=BEfKngSuJyw)

This seems to be a 1:5 scale variant.

Disk loading may be high, but wouldn't the pay-off be worth it?

X-Plane is a relatively precise sim. If one designs any plane according to its blueprint specs, the attained flight data is amazingly accurate. Unlike other "toy" sims like MSFS, which require designs to have data punched in for flight behavior AND looks, X-Plane derives flight behavior FROM design. Numerous prototypes have been tested in X-Plane first. Of course, X-Plane designs allow you to enter unrealistic figures, that could not be attained in real life, such as over-the-top power-to-weight ratios, but given realistic input, realistic flight models can be expected.

"No people allowed in the vicinity" seems like a valid rule... but the blast of any aircraft is a force to be reckoned with. This design seems to actually shield bystanders from the dangerous props.

My $0.02

[mickjoebill]

"New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

"The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.


The video suggests that combination of freewheeling props, large wing and undercarriage has similar safe landing to a auto.


Specs say it can loiter for 15hrs? If so surely this is a wonderfull survellance machine? Would it be noisier than say a EC 135?


Mickjoebill

[ShyTorque]

Hey, it flies!

Just like............. an aeroplane

[Dave_Jackson]

Split the counter-rotating proprotors apart for hover and it will be more efficient.

http://www.unicopter.com/1642_Animation.gif

Dave