Author Topic: Wierdest Plane Ever (Read 1549 times)

AdmRose · « **on:** August 29, 2005, 04:02:10 PM »

Anyone ever hear of a German project called the Triflugel? Its basically a VTOL plane with three jet engines on rotors that spin around the axis of the plane giving it its lift and thrust. I wish I had a picture of it to post but information on Google is almost non-existant. It probably never made it out of the design stage.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2005, 04:20:29 PM »

Check out Luft46. http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwtrieb.html

FalconSix · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:02:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AdmRose
It probably never made it out of the design stage.

It made it to wind tunnel testing.

AdmRose · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:06:10 PM »

yep thats the one, thanks

FalconSix · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:13:36 PM »

The design is sound, it should work just fine.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2005, 10:54:56 PM »

Until you landed. In a combat situation that plane would almost be impossible to land safely. US Navy had a similiar plane in the late '50s or early '60s that was going through a design process. In fact, it was based on that German plane but it was too difficult to land and in combat would virtually be impossible.

ack-ack

FalconSix · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2005, 12:09:40 AM »

What plane would that be? If you're thinking of the Vertijet, then it is a completely different concept.

kevykev56 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2005, 01:36:36 AM »

This is the plane I will assume Ack Ack is refering to

The Lockheed XFV-1

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Lockheed-XFV/info/lock3.jpg

If not it is one that had problems that are being discussed here

FalconSix · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2005, 02:25:03 AM »

That's more like it yes, but it is still not a rotorcraft like the German fighter. The German craft is actually a torqueless helicopter, not some sort of jumpjet or turboprop, and unless I'm mistaken helicopters fly and land just fine now.

justin_g · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2005, 04:06:33 AM »

Not on their tail, they don't! Pilot position in such an aircraft makes vertical landing a very challenging exercise.

PS: I think this thing was by far the most wacky tail-sitter design ever built though: http://jpcolliat.free.fr/xfv1/xfv1-8.htm

MiloMorai · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2005, 04:57:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
That's more like it yes, but it is still not a rotorcraft like the German fighter. The German craft is actually a torqueless helicopter, not some sort of jumpjet or turboprop, and unless I'm mistaken helicopters fly and land just fine now.

Agh?

Ever seen what happens to a 'copter that has lost its tail rotor? Spin like a top they do. The Fw a/c still has drag friction between the rotor and the fuselage > no 'frictionless' bearings it had.

The Lockheed XFV-1 has contra props > no torque.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #11 on:** August 30, 2005, 05:29:06 AM »

the small levels of tourque can be countered by the ailerons. the tip-jet rotor system has been used successfully on several helo designs. the only reason they failed is because the ramjets that were used gobbled fuel as fast as a rocket engine.

FalconSix · « **Reply #12 on:** August 30, 2005, 10:55:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Agh?

Ever seen what happens to a 'copter that has lost its tail rotor? Spin like a top they do. The Fw a/c still has drag friction between the rotor and the fuselage > no 'frictionless' bearings it had.

A conventional Sikorsky type helicopter has engine torque, the Fw does not. Like SMIDSY says whatever friction torque there might be would easily be compensated for with the tail controls being directly in the rotor wash like that.

This thing flew:

So did this:

And this:

You'll notice MiloMorai that neither of these helicopters have tail rotors or any other obvious way of countering friction torque.

FalconSix · « **Reply #13 on:** August 30, 2005, 11:02:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by justin_g
Not on their tail, they don't! Pilot position in such an aircraft makes vertical landing a very challenging exercise.

None of the other "tail sitters" were stable in a hover like this Fw would (could) be. The Fw is simply a helicopter with the cockpit mounted on top of the rotor mast. All the other tail sitters had to be balanced on a column of jet or prop thrust much like the Harrier jump jet. The Fw otoh hangs from a rotor like a helicopter, and is therefore much more stable, like helicopters are.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2005, 12:31:49 PM »

Gee Falcon6, if those copters were so great, then why don't we 100s of them? Must have been great fliers.?

Quote

You'll notice MiloMorai that neither of these helicopters have tail rotors or any other obvious way of countering friction torque.

Did you miss the exhaust pointing to the rear in the last 2 photos?

What if the Hiller looses rudder control? hello top.

"Though the concepts pioneered by Hiller in the US and Sud-Ouest in Europe offered promise in simplifying helicopter design, they never proved to be very successful. In addition to autorotation problems, the tip-jet design required rotor blades to be made stronger and heavier than conventional blades in order to support the heavy engines mounted on the tips. Both the hot-cycle and cold-jet techniques also proved to be less efficient than more typical helicopter designs. As a result, tip-jets have not resulted in good enough performance to justify replacing the tail rotor, so the idea has never become a truly commercial success in production helicopters"

And you want us to believe the Fw was a viable design.