Dornier DO 31
interesting on wiki - clearly at 113db it was insanely loud, but they seemed on track to hit 95db at 200ft - which is massively quieter.
at these lower levels, was it still to be a dead duck?
PS is it right that a single pegasus engine failure (not unheard of in the harrier), would have been catastrophic in any non-conventional flight modes of the Do-31, and maybe in any regime? Did it ever fly with someone not in an ejector seat?
at these lower levels, was it still to be a dead duck?
PS is it right that a single pegasus engine failure (not unheard of in the harrier), would have been catastrophic in any non-conventional flight modes of the Do-31, and maybe in any regime? Did it ever fly with someone not in an ejector seat?
I think Rotordyne should be revisited
Nowadays you'd have to find a 'killer application' for the Rotodyne to be resurrected and there simply doesn't seem to be one.
JF - you've lost me there.
V/STOL Wheel
JF - you've lost me there.
The V/STOL Wheel is a graphic diagram of all 45 types of vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft that had been built and tested through 1996. It was updated from the McDonnell Douglas Wheel of the 1960s for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program Office.
Ahh okay.
I suppose that Heath-Robinson-esque contraption recently built and flown by the Australian husband-and-wife team doesn't really count, as it is not an 'official' project. According to the NASA Dryden web site, the X-wing did fly but without the rotor attached.
I suppose that Heath-Robinson-esque contraption recently built and flown by the Australian husband-and-wife team doesn't really count, as it is not an 'official' project. According to the NASA Dryden web site, the X-wing did fly but without the rotor attached.
It's actually quite a good looking aircraft, with shades of Flash Gordon's War Rocket Ajax in its appearance (google it). The flexing of the wings on landing was impressive, and makes you wonder at what point the engine pods would come off.
The question I have is with regard to later Pegasus variants, which could have substituted the RB162 batteries and turned the Do 31 into a four Pegasus design, making it even more useful by not having to cart around the batteries when they were not doing anything useful. Four Mk.103s would have given over 80,000lb of thrust, as opposed to the Pegasus 5/RB162 combination as used, which gave a combined 66,000lb.
The question I have is with regard to later Pegasus variants, which could have substituted the RB162 batteries and turned the Do 31 into a four Pegasus design, making it even more useful by not having to cart around the batteries when they were not doing anything useful. Four Mk.103s would have given over 80,000lb of thrust, as opposed to the Pegasus 5/RB162 combination as used, which gave a combined 66,000lb.
It's actually quite a good looking aircraft, with shades of Flash Gordon's War Rocket Ajax in its appearance (google it). The flexing of the wings on landing was impressive, and makes you wonder at what point the engine pods would come off.
The question I have is with regard to later Pegasus variants, which could have substituted the RB162 batteries and turned the Do 31 into a four Pegasus design, making it even more useful by not having to cart around the batteries when they were not doing anything useful. Four Mk.103s would have given over 80,000lb of thrust, as opposed to the Pegasus 5/RB162 combination as used, which gave a combined 66,000lb.
The question I have is with regard to later Pegasus variants, which could have substituted the RB162 batteries and turned the Do 31 into a four Pegasus design, making it even more useful by not having to cart around the batteries when they were not doing anything useful. Four Mk.103s would have given over 80,000lb of thrust, as opposed to the Pegasus 5/RB162 combination as used, which gave a combined 66,000lb.
First, this would be horribly inefficient compared to alternatives. Compromises acceptable in a fighter/attack vehicle won't do for a transport, which is what Do-31 kind of was. If FVL-Heavy or Ultra comes about, a large Tilt-Rotor would meet the cargo craft need much easier.
Second, any engine power loss would result in an instant and uncontrollable roll unless there was a very fast acting system to reduce power on the other side which would allow you to crash inn a level attitude instead. On VTOL jets that have more than one lift source (Yak-38, F-35B, etc.) if one of the lift sources goes down, the aircraft autoejects you almost instantly. Not a viable option in this type of craft.
