Project Zero

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Project Zero

Post by DeltaV »


GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Project Zero

Post by GIThruster »

Very nice! I take it this is a tilt rotor? This is a two person general aviation aircraft? Would be hard to qualify in a single seater. . .

Hmm. . .disappointing reading at the link. It's more about the company who built it for just $8M comparing itself to Skunkworks than it is about the plane. Not much like Skunkworks. . .that kind of budget. Too, it's electric, which means it can fly from one end of the airfield to the other then sit and recharge for 8 hours.

Nothing like Skunkworks.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Project Zero

Post by zapkitty »

GIThruster wrote:Very nice! I take it this is a tilt rotor?
Tiltrotors in a blended wing body. Cool. Looks like a precise cross between Gerry Anderson and anime :)
GIThruster wrote:This is a two person general aviation aircraft? Would be hard to qualify in a single seater. . .
Drone.
GIThruster wrote:Hmm. . .disappointing reading at the link. It's more about the company who built it for just $8M comparing itself to Skunkworks than it is about the plane. Not much like Skunkworks. . .that kind of budget.
Perhaps they mean an agile and fairly autonomous group within an organization insulated from that organization's bureaucracy and tasked with working on advanced/secret projects?

... you know, something like the dictionary definition of a skunk works?
GIThruster wrote:Too, it's electric, which means it can fly from one end of the airfield to the other then sit and recharge for 8 hours.
Can't even get that far hovering on batteries but that was not the goal.

Next stage is where it gets interesting: adding a hybrid module.

... at which point very sharp looks will be rained down upon the V-22 program.

And of course even current electric vehicle battery packs can be recharged within minutes. The "8 hours" meme is due to antiquated domestic power infrastructure.
GIThruster wrote:Nothing like Skunkworks.
... until they walk off with Boeing's lunch.

If they can.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Project Zero

Post by DeltaV »

zapkitty wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Very nice! I take it this is a tilt rotor?
Tiltrotors in a blended wing body. Cool. Looks like a precise cross between Gerry Anderson and anime :)
Thunderbirds producer?

So that's where Skylon comes from (just knock off most of the Y tail):

Image

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Project Zero

Post by zapkitty »

DeltaV wrote:Thunderbirds producer?

So that's where Skylon comes from (just knock off most of the Y tail):
Yep, and such series as UFO as well. The Anderson miniatures and effects team headed by Derek Meddings are some of the unsung heroes of modern aerospace design :)

... but what I like about the Project Zero layout, aside from shedding the weight and clunkiness of V-22 style mechanical transmission gear, is that it's designed to use the tiltrotor ducts as additional lift surfaces when the rotors are tilted forward.

This recovers a portion of the lift surface lost due to the rotors being set into the wing in the first place and makes it a.... what do you call that?... not a triplane, right?

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Project Zero

Post by DeltaV »

A combination/variation of the joined-wing and rotor-in-wing concepts, perhaps.

Image

Image


Now, with more, smaller fans (say at least 8) there would be less of an empty-area penalty (in the sense that the holes are distributed, though the total hole area would be similar), and you could think about quasi-spherical propulsors arrayed along a duct, pivoting ball-valve style to near-vertical for VTOL, then back into duct-axis alignment to seal the blended-wing-body surfaces for forward flight --

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2317&p=60161&sid=23 ... 7d1#p60161

(BTW, I've protected this idea in perpetuity by placing it into the public domain.)

<Edit - fixed dead link.>
Last edited by DeltaV on Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Project Zero

Post by ladajo »

I wonder how well it does with rolling take-off or landing? Or the loss of a rotor?

I also wonder about fan efficiency in forward flight with the airfoil across the center of the fan rotor?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2488
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Project Zero

Post by paperburn1 »

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it.: "someones" corollary of aircraft design
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Project Zero

Post by hanelyp »

ladajo wrote:I wonder how well it does with rolling take-off or landing? Or the loss of a rotor?

I also wonder about fan efficiency in forward flight with the airfoil across the center of the fan rotor?
Rolling takeoff looks like it would be severely limited by rotor tilt before liftoff. A liftoff then acceleration in ground effect before climbing looks more likely.
Loss of a single rotor looks fatal in hovering flight, nearly so in horizontal flight.
I don't see the wing as a problem for the fan in full forward flight, but could give pitch difficulties in transition.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Project Zero

Post by DeltaV »

hanelyp wrote:Rolling takeoff looks like it would be severely limited by rotor tilt before liftoff. A liftoff then acceleration in ground effect before climbing looks more likely.
Agreed. Rotor tilt angle/limit for takeoffs/landings would best be automated, driven by several redundant, voted radar & laser altimeters. The small wing surface area also means that rotor thrust (rpm) should have an automatic lower limit near the ground.
hanelyp wrote:Loss of a single rotor looks fatal in hovering flight, nearly so in horizontal flight.
Agreed.
hanelyp wrote:I don't see the wing as a problem for the fan in full forward flight, but could give pitch difficulties in transition.
Also agreed. Burble coming off of the front airfoil at high AoA could cut fan lift roughly in half. Automatic limits, again.


A lot of these issues would be reduced with more, smaller fans, at least up to the point where the total mass flow/watt starts to drop off with decreasing intake areas. Wish I knew enough CFD to find the optimum fan number and diameters. Considering only redundancy, I'd like at least 8.

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: Project Zero

Post by zapkitty »

DeltaV wrote: A lot of these issues would be reduced with more, smaller fans...
Well, this particular item is just a one-off testbed for some concepts at this stage :)

Further iterations will undoubtedly get deeper into the hypothetical weeds.

I'd go with 4-6 fans as a balance between redundancy and weight+complexity+drag.

Post Reply