What will future vtol jet transport aircraft look like? When will troop dropships become a thing?

Why do you have to derail good threads faggot

Because he's a faggot?

he`s got the big guey

Pretty much. God damn I'd love to see a discussion on the future of military transport aircraft

Attached: 1543763866529.png (600x506, 522K)

This is kind of like last night's thread

Attached: adrian-marc-amarc-dropship-v5-final.jpg (1920x913, 404K)

Didn't we just have this thread?

They won't be "jet" VTOLs. Generating lift with a rotary wing requires far, far less energy than generating the same amount of thrust. Then, there are the effects of said thrust on the local environment (FOD, brownout, danger to troops, heat/fire issues if using thrust directly from a jet engine, etc.). Finally, the main reason to use jet VTOL is to reach high-subsonic or supersonic speeds. There is no requirement for this, nor is one expected.

Therefore, the modern rotary wing is sufficient for most current uses. Compound/Advancing Blade Concept rotors offer higher speeds, while retaining the same ground footprint as existing helos. Tilts offer speeds up to (and eventually above) M0.5, major increases in fuel efficiencies at cruise speeds (due to the fixed wing) and concomitant range increases, but at the cost of a larger footprint (possibly an issue in urban environments). With a quad-tilt, you can get up to C-130J/A-400M payload/speed/range, which is probably going to be sufficient for all realistic military requirements for the next several decades.

X-Wing (no, the other one--see: S-72, or the more recent X-50) is probably the closest thing to what you're asking for, but nobody's figured out how to design a rotary wing that generates enough lift to haul a heavy turbofan around as dead weight in VTOL mode, that doesn't also produce ridiculous amounts of parasitic drag while operating in forward flight mode. The X-50 tried to solve the issue by using a 2-blade rotor that *became* the wing in forward flight, but it never worked right, and both airframes crashed.

>that feel when America actually had real Orca VTOLs decades ago, but abandoned the design in favor of conventional helicopters

Attached: XV-5 Vertifan.webm (523x348, 1M)

>FOD, brownout, danger to troops, heat/fire issues if using thrust directly from a jet engine, etc
How does the f35 negate this?

>Finally, the main reason to use jet VTOL is to reach high-subsonic or supersonic speeds.
This is the hole in your argument, the main reason for vtol jet cargo aircraft would be their ability to carry heavier loads than rotor aircraft without needing a runway. Which means there will be a demand for it in the future.

hey fuck fags wer had this thread yesternight just like said an we aint havin it again here by banning all take off toalk from now on NO MOR EUP DOWN PLANE

And the only thing we discussed was near future tilt rotor aircraft.

>one turbine spooling a generator / alternator
>electricity runs gimbled ducted fans
Solved

Instead of the awesomeness of jet vtol we get this shitbird

Attached: 1556572319401m.jpg (1024x683, 96K)

Drugs are bad user

>probably the closest thing to what you're asking for, but nobody's figured out how to design a rotary wing that generates enough lift to haul a heavy turbofan around as dead weight in VTOL mode,
Why not ducted rotors?

Hopefully the Pelican. Especially since some aerospace engineers have said that the original design actually would fly.

Attached: download (22).jpg (256x197, 5K)

By barely ever hovering.

You dont need to hover if you cant make it off the tarmac without crashing user.

Could you imagine

Attached: PelicanWarthog3.jpg (640x480, 78K)

>I dont know
Got it

Do not bully her she is nice

Seems unnecessary to me

Plz gib

S P A C E
S U P E R
H I N D

The answer is legitimately barely ever hovering. Additionally, less heat is generated by the lift fan compared to the Harrier's lift jet system which required active water cooling. I'm not aware of STOVL jets being any more susceptible to FOD than normal ones.

Did somebody say space HIND?

Attached: BadKitty-LaPR.jpg (640x248, 57K)

Imagine a quadcopter but with helicopter rotors on every arm and a cockpit hanging from the center and a group of five marines and one sailor missing at sea off the coast of San Diego

So why cant that be done with this?

Plz

No

imagine the coolest looking evolution of the sea knight with big sexy jet engines providing lift and also a dozen marines and sailors missing at sea off the coast next to camp pendleton

I love this thing. It's like the pentagon decided that the starfighter just wasn't killing enough pilots and ordered the DOD eggheads to get the fatality rate up past 95% and their solution was vtol in the 50s.

Didn't we just have this thread?

These will always be the best dropships

The real question is when are we getting dudes with frisbee grenades?

Because it would be incredibly ineffecient and there wouldn’t be many advantages

It doesn't.

That's why the F-35B does not take off or land from grass, dirt, or any environment that isn't a) a runway or b) a LHA/D deck that has been reinforced to take the heat and thrust (and regularly inspected for FOD like all runways are).

Which is fine; the purpose of the F-35B is most assuredly not to deliver troops to the field; its purpose is to take off from a well-prepared position, perform ISTA/attack, and return to a well-prepared position. The downsides of vertical thrust are therefore mitigated; something that a tactical transport could, by its very mission requirements, never do.

>What will future vtol jet transport aircraft look like?
Very much like the F-35 but with an AI to complement the pilot and ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL in case pilot passes out from G forces.

But that's wrong; quad-tilt designs have been validated to 20+ tons already, and probably have some upside beyond that, especially if you angle the rotors and use STOL methods. That's C-130 loads right there.

And if you want to lift a C-17 load vertically... do you remember what I said about the effects of that kind of heat and thrust to the LZ? It's not pretty.

Yes, I've loved dropships ever since Aliens came out; but, without some sort of sci-fi lift technology, that design approach simply isn't practical.

Vtol in the 50s is probably the most interesting thing ever

The C-5 level of cargo in vtol would be worth the landing pad research. Also it doesn't need to be a tilt turbine. Going away from needing airstrips will most likely be very important in a near peer war.

The duct would still produce considerable drag, maybe even worse than just the locked rotor by itself.

This stuff got studied extensively in the mid-late Cold War; out of the dozens of concepts tested, tilt and ABC (which looks like the traditional stacked rotors that the Russians love, but has some very important differences) were the only ones that have proved useful enough to pursue so far.

There was a fair bit of hype around the X-Wing concept back in the '80s, but nothing ever came from it. I was really rooting for X-50--conceptually, it solved a *lot* of problems by using a 2-blade rotor/wing--but, both planes crashed, and they never once performed the transition from rotor to wing.

There's also the Harrier

The problem isn't that they're more susceptible, the problem is that the mission requirement for a tactical VTOL transport involves performing VTOL operations over terrain that is chock full of FOD.

And if you just want to go from runway to runway, where there is no FOD risk, then you don't really need VTOL.

Of course

Attached: hqdefault (1).jpg (480x360, 9K)

O.K., let's go through your design requirements.

You want:
*50-80 tons of cargo
*several hundred miles of range
*VTOL capability over unprepared surfaces (grass, dirt, dust, rocks, snow, urban environments full of man-made debris, etc.)
*no rotors, thrust only, final answer

You're going to injure and kill a lot of infantrymen. And lose a lot of very, very expensive planes.

The reason why helicopters dominate VTOL today, despite the ridiculous number of things that we tried in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and to a lesser extent '80s, '90s, and early 2000s, is because generating lift has serious advantages over generating thrust. Go to a planet with little or no atmosphere, and the balance changes. But here on Earth, without some form of gravity modification, the drawbacks of directed thrust over unprepared terrain are just too great.

Unless it was concealed by movable parts. The turbine improvements in the last 20 years has made me believe vtol needs to be reinvestigated. I believe it will within the next 50 years.

Attached: F3ADCF2C-2684-4926-A568-AB88DD18FBD5.gif (624x351, 966K)

>You're going to injure and kill a lot of infantrymen. And lose a lot of very, very expensive planes.
Depends how you design it

>despite the ridiculous number of things that we tried in the '50s, '60s, '70s,
This isn't particularly fair considering how much time has passed and how much tech has improved. I'd also argue that the F35 being vtol and the v280 is proof of the desire , improvements and goals for future vtol aircraft.

I'm listening...

...

Those are vtol engines?
I thought they were missile silos. Would be a cool enemy plane in some games

Unfortunately wingtip jet engines are never going to be a thing because it's just too dangerous. One engine going down means entire thing goes down. With propellers both engines can power both propellers, you simply can't do that with jets.

The problem with vtol jet transports isnt that they arent possible to make, they are, it´s that their intended use conflicts with the inherent drawbacks of jets.

Could use a central engine and direct the thrust like the x-50.

I like how you skipped everything right after 70s.
Also, VTOL jets are for carriers and other small airfields. They have no loiter time, a necessary requirement for a troop transport.

Everyone saw True Lies as a kid and thinks that's how Harriers fight.

Are VTOLs the new mechs?

>Children who don't know how physics or combat actually work trying to justify something that is for all intents and purposes impossible for what they want

Mexican Navy is developing a VTOL drone. Skip to 6:32.
youtu.be/G1e895FEDOM

Attached: RYAN XV-5A Vertifan.webm (640x480, 1.16M)

Neat
I imagine it’s for their ships? No aircraft carriers, but need a fixed-wing patrol aircraft (faster, longer range) that they can use at sea. That’s an elegant solution.

Attached: bell x-22a.jpg (550x427, 31K)

Neither can do that with a full combat load of fuel and weapons.

Attached: Dassault_Mirage_IIIV.jpg (900x600, 332K)

You’re the reason EA fucked cnc in the ass like it did, fuck you you cock gobbling faggot go fall over or something

>When will troop dropships become a thing?
Are you implying we dont use Chinooks to drop troops into combat zones you literal fucking idiot?

Definitely vtol

Unless your third engine can continue with forward thrust

>f35
>v280
>skipped everything after the 70s
What?

Also maybe not for troop transport but for cargo aircraft they would be fine

>for all intents and purposes impossible
What is the f-35, v-22, V-280, harrier, and helicopters then?

Because they are designed as fighter aircraft

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he means fixed wing with longer range.
>osprey
Never mind he’s a retard

Helicopters are rotor aircraft user dropships are not

The problem is not making a dropship but making a dropship a stopped ship.

Really what they need to make is a carrier plane and a container that drops from it with rockets or parachutes to halt it's descent. A bonus is that this way any troops dropped like that are forced to hold their ground and physically incapable of retreating until the ground they are assaulting is captured, whcih is one hell of a motivator.

Point being?

What's the difference in this case

So try to put together a decent starting post to such a discussion then, instead of blabbering about dropshits to go along with a video game screenshot and specifying that the whole thing needs to be VTOL without specifying or discussing why.
When your question sounds like a shitposting fifteen year old, the answer will be shitposting fifteen year olds.

That's not going to help with the fact that the plane went into a death roll when one wingtip suddenly lost lift but the other kept having it. Your third engine is also dead weight as you try to hover. And it is apparently somehow capable of getting the aircraft up past stall speed fast enough for the pilot to take control and avoid the ground (hovering at twenty meters you'd have about two seconds to do all of this).

So fuck that.

We aren't talking about helicopters and other rotor based aircraft and you know it.

As has been stated before, those jet aircraft are able to hover fort short periods of time to land on short runways (small carriers). None of the current thrust powered VTOLs have any sort of practical dwell time like a helicopter and the energy consumption would be insane. You're using energy in the literal least efficient way possible by doing it that way.

Jets/turbofans can be linked like turbo props, the reason props are usually used in win engine designs is that turbo props change thrust via changing the angle of the prop blades, so they can effectively go from maximum thrust to minimum thrust immediately which is useful in hovering modes.

Harriers and F-35s are deadly because when doing hover landings their jet engines have to be put on a low setting but if it's too low or atmospheric conditions make the engine less powerful than factory conditions a landing becomes a crash and the engine can't suddenly increase it's thrust fast enough to prevent a crash like a turbo prop can.

Attached: 58_rotodyne.jpg (467x344, 96K)

How about these mini ospreys from Halo Reach

Attached: IMG_4784.jpg (1814x871, 101K)

>your military will never design something this batshit insane

Attached: IMG_4785.jpg (460x325, 37K)

Thank you, someone who speaks sense.

Friggin' Azzies.

See some of the earlier posts. Rotary wings, which generate lift, are far, far more efficient than jets or fans, which produce thrust. The only thing rotors *can't* do is go really fast, which is why the Harrier and F-35B are worth paying the penalties of directed thrust for; they can go high-subsonic (and the latter, supersonic).

The one or two guys keep insisting that rotors are un-cool, or something, and that we need directed-thrust heavy-lift transports, despite the fact that that's about the *worst* place to use directed thrust (because rotors can do it, and rotors are so much better at anything other than high speed...).

Most Chinese aircraft can already Virtually Take Off and Land.

Heck, when I was a kid, I loved the GI Joe Skyhawk, and wanted to know why we didn't have something like that in real life.

I grew up, though, and learned what was and wasn't practical given our existing level of technology.

Will we ever see these types of VTOL's like from Edge of Tomorrow

Attached: c5802eb5c14501791b208c0fa5291379.jpg (750x315, 30K)

Look up "quad tilt-rotor".