Highly Autonomous Excalibur UCAV to take flight in 2009

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Herald12345 GAGH Typos! 6/5/2009 10:26:03 AM

I don't think its inability to fire while hovering is really a valid criticism -- we don't bash the Predator because it can't fire in a hover, do we? The VTOL feature is to allow it to operate from totally unprepared surfaces and confined quarters. Once it's in flight it can apparently dash at over 400kts and loiter as low as 100kts, which are good speeds for the kind of mission it is intended for.

The Predator is not a VTOL, so the question would not apply.

The hover configuration is a three point FAIL and an unnecessary to mission engineering complication. JATO aloft and parachute or net recover. KISS!.

The main engine pivots to. I suspect that the fans provide a limited amount of lift and are mainly to provide pitch, yaw, and roll in a hover. If so, then 2 of them may have to fail to make the craft uncontrollable if the system can compensate correctly.

It only needs one fan to fail even partially to rotate out of plane and crash. Three fans=three fails. The Harrier has one fail point, the jet engine.It uses NOZZLES. The British are NOT stupid. KISS.

Catapult or JATO launch are simpler, but this vehicle may be too large for a truck mounted ramp. And the need to produce and haul JATO units would limit the operations tempo.

Maybe, but you can get a fairly large UAV into the air with a gunpowder powered zero length launcher. The Navy and Air Force hurled whole planes (Sabres for example) much larger than this piece of junk into the air off a rail launch catapult of less than twenty feet for more than eighty years! . .

As for parachute recovery, would it work to recover a this vehicle with a full weapons load in a moderate wind or higher? Parachute recovery may limit when the vehicle can operate, needs more turnaround time, and increases the likelihood of damage on landing.

Its a suggestion. I don't see why a farm pasture and SKID body wouldn't work with a conventional. Why do we want bring back live ordnance here again? Are we going to have bomb specialists traveling with the bird that we will be able to deploy it from mountaintops? (One of the "NEAT" ideas that shows me that these incompetents at Aurora have NOT thought this crazy idea through to completion) Who is going to safe the HELLFIRE at the battalion level again?

Net recovery for a vehicle this big would be a maintenance nightmare because of the stresses it places on the airframe.

Lift body and skid lander. BUILD IT TOUGH

VTOL operation makes sense if you want the vehicle to operate at a high tempo near the front lines.

Then make it a coax halo like this.

Cypher II....

I guess the real question is what roles is this craft supposed to fulfill?

The USMC know what they are doing..

If it is a Predator alternative then the VTOL feature is unnecessary.

Absolutely. KISS.

If it is a alternative for the A-10 the payload looks light and it needs a gun.

True.

If it is alternative to the Apache then it needs to be able to fire from a hover or 'pop-up'.

Which is what Cypher can and will do. But note even Cypher has design troubles and issues?

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/5/2009 12:59:59 PM

Back to the aircraft. Its going to be test flown in the next couple of months (almost 2 years behind schedule).

They've apprently done lots of wind tunnel and CFD software analysis of this thing and the Army has invested in it.

VTOL and 400knots. Sounds like something worth having. One capable of carrying a person is planned. (Personally, I want a 2 person manned version although I might want to still carry my parachute).

Will it fly? I'd bet on it with today's technology. Will it meet all its technical and mission specs and be adopted by the Army is the better question. At least we'll know if it will fly in the next couple of months.

Even if it's not adopted it is an clear sign on the direction of battlefield UAS. THings are moving along quite well and we have benefitted greatly from last decades experience.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/5/2009 1:07:16 PM

Back to the aircraft. Its going to be test flown in the next couple of months (almost 2 years behind schedule).

Ever ask why?

They've apparently done lots of wind tunnel and CFD software analysis of this thing and the Army has invested in it.

Ever ask why they went back to the drawing board TWICE?

VTOL and 400knots. Sounds like something worth having. One capable of carrying a person is planned. (Personally, I want a 2 person manned version although I might want to still carry my parachute).

Promises.

The question is, will it be three axis stable and POINT in REAL air?

Just the technical flaws I'd look at before I start in on CG, trim and thrustline issues. And that is before we look at PAYLOAD and in flight ballast loading. .

Herald.

Quote Reply

FJV Only twice? 6/5/2009 3:19:43 PM

I count at least three versions.

The 3D video version which has weapons mounted. (wouldn't the dust problem also effect the ducted fans?)

The mockup version with no weapons mounted, but with 2 vertical tails. (to fix stability perhaps?)

The 3D airflow picture version without weapons, vertical tails, central 4th engine, sliding wing engines, but with a swept wing. The swept wing somehow "disappears" in the other versions. This would make that 3D airflow analysis irrelevant.

This thread just shows how easy it is to do showbizz / PR nowadays.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/5/2009 8:19:44 PM

I count at least three versions.

One was a paper study.

The 3D video version which has weapons mounted. (wouldn't the dust problem also effect the ducted fans?)

Yep.

The mockup version with no weapons mounted, but with 2 vertical tails. (to fix stability perhaps?)

Yeah; but what about point and roll out of plane? Vertical stabilzers do nothing for you there. That is why you have plane wings for lift. Look where they put theirs in all versions!

Extrapolate into the other CRAP versions. That air flow disruption over the wing/body is a sure lift killer..

This thread just shows how easy it is to do showbizz / PR nowadays.

Yeah! He gets it!

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica FYI- 7/23/2009 1:32:56 AM

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica FYI- 7/23/2009 1:34:08 AM

link background-repeat: repeat-y; background-attachment: scroll; background-color: #c3c3c3; width: 380px; background-position: 0% 50%; ">

Exclusive: Aurora Flies VTOL E...

Posted by Graham Warwick... at 7/17/2009 3:28 PM CDT

Aurora Flight Sciences has flown its Excalibur experimental vertical takeoff and landing unmanned combat aircraft. The subscale proof-of-principle aircraft made its first hover at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland on June 24 and Aviation Week has the story, with exclusive pictures and video (here...).

Photos: Aurora Flight Sciences

The 13ft-long, 10ft-span Excalibur is a half-scale version of a VTOL UCAV designed to carry a 400lb weapons payload - four Hellfires - at speeds up to 400kt. The aircraft is the testbed for a hybrid turbine-electric propulsion system which combines a tilting 700lb thrust-class turbojet and three 12kW battery-powered lift fans.

Full-size UCAV (Concept: Aurora)

Aurora had hoped to fly Excalibur last last year, but diverted resources to completing development of its GoldenEye 80 ducted-fan VTOL tactical UAV. Although AATD and ONR have supported the program, Aurora conducted the first hover flight on its own funds.

The company plans to complete initial hover-phase testing at speeds up 20kt, but is looking for funding to modify the vehicle for medium-speed flights up to 40kt, which will involve making the aerodynamic control surfaces active. If it can secure funds, Aurora plans to build a second demonstrator for high-speed testing - one that can retract the lift fans, retract the gear and tilt the e

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/23/2009 1:40:55 AM

Quote Reply

WarNerd 7/23/2009 3:19:19 AM

Straight up and straight down. No maneuvering. No transition to forward flight.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/23/2009 7:09:48 AM

And no controlled roll or rotate-meaning that the simplest problems they haven't solved.

CRAP concept and an ignorant poster who doesn't see or understand why.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT