US military interested in six-screw convertoplane

22
The original design, patented by inventor Richard Oliver, attracted the attention of the US Department of Defense. According to Richard, the military evaluated the Hexplane aircraft that he proposed, which was equipped with six screws.



Hexplane is a type of convertible, similar to the V-22 Osprey. But unlike the V-22, which is equipped with two rotary nacelles, the Hexplane has as many as six, which can significantly improve flight safety.

The convertoplane V-22 Osprey has many advantages over helicopters and airplanes. He has the possibility of vertical landing and take-off, but his speed is much higher compared with helicopters. However, there are drawbacks: if any of the two engines of the convertoplane fails, a catastrophe is inevitable, since the device loses stability almost instantly. At the same time, the loss of all 50% power of one of the engines also makes it impossible to continue flying, and in some cases it is required to land the device immediately. Also, V-22 Osprey is contraindicated for fast maneuvers, as the blades crack and collapse because of them, which makes it impossible to dodge enemy fire. All this does not allow the effective use of V-22 in combat conditions.

On the contrary, Hexplane can continue the flight after losing one or reducing the power of several engines at once. With the help of six engines creates a kind of ring thrust, the center of gravity of which is located near the center of the fuselage. Due to this, in case of unexpected loss of thrust from one of the engines or damage to its blades, the tiltrotor retains its stability.

Flight range and high speed, coupled with the high survivability of the Hexplane, make it an ideal, although quite expensive military vehicles. The calculations of Richard Oliver suggest that a six-screw tiltrotor that weighs 5.6 tons can be used to deliver about 450 kg of cargo to a distance of 1600 km, with a flight speed of 640 km / h.

It is worth noting that the presented characteristics fully meet the high speed requirements put forward by the defense research agency DARPA for an aircraft with vertical landing and take-off: speed around 700 km / h at 7.6 km altitude.
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor
    +1
    17 January 2012 09: 02
    Better MI-26 pieces 70 were bought from us, than to engage in such garbage.
    1. +1
      17 January 2012 09: 48
      Igor,
      And then depend on the supply of spare parts from us, a potential enemy? And then, it is more profitable for them to prevent the money from leaving the United States, because Northrop Grumman, Boeing and others are there, if the government stutters that it will buy aircraft in another country, these corporations will devour them with giblets.
    2. mishan
      +1
      17 January 2012 17: 14
      They just saw enough of "Avatar", it is full of such crap, and imagined themselves heroes wink
      A toy model, by the way, with 4 engines is quite simple to control. Over time, and this thing will be put on the wing. It’s possible to shoe a flea, but will it be economically viable? It is possible the project will be abandoned halfway.
  2. Igor
    +2
    17 January 2012 11: 03
    Quote: Nova
    And then, it is more profitable for them to prevent the money from leaving the United States, because Northrop Grumman, Boeing and others are there, if the government stutters that it will buy aircraft in another country, these corporations will devour them with giblets.

    So it will cost like a Raptor, and the thermal radiation from six engines will be such that it will be possible not to shoot accurately from MANPADS, the rocket itself will find this sperm whale, and in my article, a typo about 450 kg. cargo, maybe 4.500kg.?
  3. +4
    17 January 2012 12: 43
    Another expensive wunderwafer. If only the sheikhs will then be transported by a harem and measured with steepness
  4. Capt.stryker
    +8
    17 January 2012 12: 47
    in case of failure of any of the two convertiplane engines, disaster is inevitable, since the device almost instantly loses stability

    But this is not true, - both engines are connected to each other through a common gearbox by a shaft, precisely to prevent an article made up by the author of the situation, - in case of failure of one engine, the second is automatically put into emergency mode and the gearbox transfers half the power of one engine to the failed screw, and time engine operation in the Czech Republic will be enough to return to the base, or in extreme cases to make an emergency but safe landing.

    Also, V-22 Osprey is contraindicated in quick maneuvers, since because of them the blades crack and collapse, which leads to the impossibility of evading enemy fire.


    The same is not true statement. At one of the Farnborough or Le Bourget air shows, the tiltrotor demonstrated very good maneuverability; you can even find a video on the u-tube.

    All this does not allow the effective use of the V-22 in combat conditions.
    And here the author is mistaken - "Osprey" is quite successfully used in combat conditions in Afghanistan.

    Quote: Nova
    if the government stutters that it will buy aircraft in another country, these corporations will devour them with giblets.
    Not your prada. The United States has never disdained the purchase of foreign aircraft, and not only it.
  5. 0
    17 January 2012 12: 57
    Capt.stryker,

    Give me at least one combat aircraft that the United States has purchased for its army over the past 20 years.
    1. -1
      17 January 2012 17: 01
      MI17 helicopters in RUSSIA and Brazil have some kind of aircraft.
      1. mishan
        0
        17 January 2012 17: 08
        Mi-17 helicopters were purchased to transfer them to Afghanistan, so to speak for eternal use, but our apparts did not go to the American army!
    2. 0
      20 January 2012 03: 16
      The United States is still negotiating the purchase of the Harriers written off by England for its Marine Corps (perhaps they have already agreed), in addition, these vehicles have been in the US arsenal for a long time. There are a lot of such examples, look.
  6. Capt.stryker
    +4
    17 January 2012 13: 07
    Quote: Nova
    Tell me at least one combat aircraft that the United States has purchased for its army over the past 20 years.

    The freshest example is Harrier-GR. 9. Before that, we purchased an Anglo-Italian helicopter ЕН-101, even earlier a French helicopter "Dauphin", which is used by the Coast Guard ... and this can continue until the 40-50s.
  7. coast
    -1
    17 January 2012 14: 47
    this crap does not take off with screws how to control, they barely figured it out with two
    1. gor
      gor
      -1
      17 January 2012 19: 25
      but how to manage?)))))))))))))))) Yes, just like two. Yes, just like in helicopters
  8. +1
    17 January 2012 15: 17
    Any technology has the right to life and development, a tiltrotor is not the most exotic solution, like ekranoplans or airships, the shortcomings will be removed, new opportunities will be revealed
  9. 755962
    +3
    17 January 2012 16: 37
    Experience, experience, and again experience! No one talks about the immediate introduction of this unit into the troops, but experience is that priceless thing without which there is no progress!
  10. Argentum
    +1
    17 January 2012 17: 05
    In any case, if the Pindos do this, then this will be a big step forward
    1. Darn
      -1
      18 January 2012 17: 31
      I doubt it seems that they wanted to be the first but turned the wrong way. Soon it will reach them.
      1. Darn
        0
        20 January 2012 21: 44
        Yeah, they’re minus me, so I’m right.
  11. Capt.stryker
    +2
    17 January 2012 18: 56
    Quote: core
    Brazil has some kind of aircraft.

    Counter-guerrilla attack aircraft A-29 Super Tusano, recently discussed it on this site.
  12. +1
    17 January 2012 19: 27
    The ugly design ... Still, it all looks too complicated and bulky. Yes, and the cost ... - six engines for a transporter with very mediocre performance is clearly an inadmissible luxury for the US Department of Defense. Although they are spent on development, they also consider money.
  13. +2
    18 January 2012 08: 24
    goryuchki probably eats not measured
  14. Nbus
    0
    18 January 2012 09: 22
    and what if turbojet engines put
    1. 0
      18 January 2012 19: 53
      Turbojet? You can))) And complete with each such transporter a personal air tanker!)))
    2. soldier of fortune
      0
      31 January 2012 10: 50
      Then in case of failure of 2 turbojet engines on the one hand ......... you will kill!

      See the comment
      Capt.stryker
      Very competently!
  15. 0
    20 January 2012 15: 55
    Dreamers, it’s easier to be, and they will reach flying saucers. In general, a cool thing to hunt for deer. winked
  16. soldier of fortune
    +1
    31 January 2012 12: 11
    Interesting topic ......... if not for the author of the article.
    Some fictions and conjectures from beginning to end.
    When will your distribution end?

    Go deep and think:

    1. A theater of operations is six instead of two, not because of flight safety, but because of an increase in carrying capacity. Compare the performance characteristics and dimensions of the Osprey and this monster.

    2. Absolutely all aircraft are designed taking into account flight safety requirements, including all aircraft with one engine (of which there are a huge number).

    3. The tiltrotor has both a lot of advantages and a lot of disadvantages: much lower speed than airplanes, and much larger dimensions than helicopters and especially cost. And this is with equal payload.

    4. The failure of one theater of operation does not lead to an instant disaster (such as the failure of any of the 2 gearboxes or the destruction of an explosive by helicopter). The theater of the opposite sides are connected by a rigid synchronization shaft with an overrunning clutch, which ensures the autorotation mode in case of failure of even both of the theater of operations

    5. Blades at which fast maneuvers are contraindicated in aviation are not needed for nothing. Do not consider US designers to be idiots! Moreover, the Osprey blades are much shorter and stronger than any helicopter.

    And show me a helicopter that is able to effectively evade the fire of the pivot, especially on take-off and landing in the war zone.

    6. The load capacity in general ass! 450kg (4 fighters with weapons) is able to lift the Robinson piston. What for 6 TVD? Such characteristics cannot satisfy any customers, especially military ones.

    Judging by the picture, this pipelac is at least 2-2,5 times larger than Osprey.
  17. 0
    9 January 2015 16: 23
    It’s interesting whether this miracle of technology will go into series. It should cost a lot of money. 6 engines - it’s like on a huge transport plane.