UAV rescue helicopter

[Head Turner]

If you climb Mount Everest and need to be rescued then read this before you go.
<http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/6793/>

A very ambitious project.

[rotorrookie]

using ultra-modern composite technologies, [B]a revolutionary diesel helicopter engine and rotor blades designed especially for maximum performance in thin air

Is it DeltaHawk or what??

[Head Turner]

If this is a realistic project and this UAV can operate at those altitudes, who is going to control it and from where. I cant see how this would work in a practical way.

[topendtorque]

There's people in OZ who cannot fly kites and reckon they could use them for mustering. We say to them bring them on, but nowhere near us.

This Everest project can't be too smart or else we would have heard from Dave Jackson by now. either that or he's off on holidays with his corkscrew.

[NickLappos]

The development of a new certified helicopter in the 6000 lb class (my guess based on the cartoon provided) costs perhaps $300Million. The market size for helos that can hover at 30,000 feet is perhaps 3. Makes it a pretty hefty price tag when you charge $100Million each.

Diesel is the worst engine for the mission, heaviest, and most affected by the thin air. If it is a twin, the losses are even worse. Turbines shine in that environment.

Also, the decision to build a man-rated UAV for this mission makes me wonder what the design team left off of the high-risk equation. A person/seat and such add 800 lbs to the design, leaving a pilot out for a mountain rescue mission seems risky. Since the loss rate for UAV's at this time is about 20% per year of operations, the safety for the passenger would be very questionable.

[Graviman]

I'm a high boost turbodiesel fanatic (for cost reasons) but agree completely about choice of turbine for such an edge of envelope application, Nick.

On obscure projects: I thought the vaccum buoyancy (http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/3060/) project was interesting, albeit requiring >1m^3 per kg MAUW :uhoh: . Not convinced about the no fuel claim either, unless he is going nuclear to pump in/out the buoyancy tanks ;) . I also wonder about the weight of the composite structure required to avoid tank collapse compared to that volume of hydrogen at say 500 mbar :hmm: . Still, in theory it could hover and land - albeit much more subject to the whim of the wind than a helicopter. Ever seen a blimp do an airfield beat up? :}

Edit: $300M development seems a tad high, but i don't know heli project costs. I'm guessing S-92 was a $3Bn development project? What sort of concept development time goes on to kick off this sort of project?

Mart

[slowrotor]

Top,
I think Dave may have been banned from this forum for a while after a rather obcene post from Dave on another heated thread about the war.

[Dave_Jackson]

topendtorque, This Everest project can't be too smart or else we would have heard from Dave Jackson by now. either that or he's off on holidays with his corkscrew.
No holiday. Just been contemplating the perversity of a Don Knotts site that changes the linked picture in a PPRuNe posting from a humorous one to a very grotesque one.



Site owner;The Army of Steve315 West Hamilton Ave, Apt B State College, PA 16801 US