4 ms·

Wow. In hindsight, this idea seems so obvious and incredibly useful. I can't believe we haven't seen anything like this before. I would imagine that the abilit

Wow. In hindsight, this idea seems so obvious and incredibly useful. I can't believe we haven't seen anything like this before. I would imagine that the ability to land on a hillside would be incredibly useful for military operations and rescue.

tenken 11y ago
> Wow. In hindsight, this idea seems so obvious and incredibly useful. I can't believe we haven't seen anything like this before. Because the track record for "cool ways to land and take off" simply aren't that great. Eg, see the track record of the Osprey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Contro... Another simple point is that current rigid landing skids provide a simple surface to land with. With "legs" you know have the problem of "landing gear" which can malfunction, rigid landing skids can hardly malfunction .... oh crap 1 leg is stuck in the "out" position -- how should I land now sir? :) > I would imagine that the ability to land on a hillside would be incredibly useful for military operations and rescue. Perhaps, but rarely are hill sides flat, nor void of tall obstacles such as trees. Typically in hot LZ it's in your best interest to not land. By which I mean being airborne is 1 problem, having landed -- you now have 2 problems (your static and now need to take-off). This is also true typically in rescue attempts.
- samstave 11y ago
  I don't think this is comparable to the Osprey for the following reasons: * the osprey's idea intent was VTOL to horizontal thrust via an adjustable wing+rotor.... --- This has NOTHING to do with feedback to external terrain * The osprey began dev WAY before pretty much ALL the tech that would be needed to accomplish this (in scale and at low cost) even existed * the problem the osprey was solving was NOT this.... I am note refuting your point: "Typically in hot LZ it's in your best interest to not land." -- as this is valid... But that does not discount the desired functionality of being able to land on non-flat surfaces in a manner which doesn't require the pilot to have gobs of flight experience and training for such a landing. ------ Let me propose a thought experiment (which I can be sure the military has already explored): Imagine a craft that is a replacement of a helicopter in ~45 years. It should be an airframe/device that has a set range of capabilities: it is robotic enough to land on uneven surfaces to a given angle. It can autonomously land in level or non-level surfaces... it can be sent away/recalled as a drone (drop me here - go to 25K feet and hover for an hour, then land at spot X and retrieve me - unless given further orders), it should be able to work as a swarm from fewer pilots (i.e. one pilot driving N units - either in a trailing, above, or remote vehicle/cockpit) It should be able to have smaller advance, trailing or escorting drones tied to its safety. it should have a body-unit (like a shipping crate) that it can either detach and leave - or come back and pickup... the smaller escorts can swarm in groups of 6 or 4 to pickup and carry off said body-units should the main lifter be compromised.... /speculation
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  My understanding is that the Osprey's early issues were mechanical and training issues and not issues with the concept (propshaft issues, pilots not trained properly, poorly engineering wiring harnesses, etc) . Those things were fixed and now the Osprey is used quite a bit. I even saw one fly over my home the last time Obama visited. Most of the current and next gen fighters have some level of V/STOL built-in as well. I think we're pretty far from what you're describing, which was maybe 15-20 years ago. Lets remember that the design team for the Osprey started in the early 80s and the original prototypes are from the 70s. The Bell XV-15 prototype first flew in '77 and then the larger version as part of this proposal flew in '83. Aircraft engineer has gone a long way since. We're able to do much more today.
LoSboccacc 11y ago
speaking of which wouldn't a solid axle with central mounting and hydraulic controlled suspension stiffness work the same and be more reliable? somethign like this > http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/14536367/129_0903_01_z+dana_60_dana_70_axles+jeep_articulation.jpg http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/14536367/129_0903_01_z+dana_6... but without torsion bar and the suspension stiffening after both axle are in ground contact maintaining contact orientation

tenken 11y ago

> Wow. In hindsight, this idea seems so obvious and incredibly useful. I can't believe we haven't seen anything like this before. Because the track record for "cool ways to land and take off" simply aren't that great. Eg, see the track record of the Osprey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Contro... Another simple point is that current rigid landing skids provide a simple surface to land with. With "legs" you know have the problem of "landing gear" which can malfunction, rigid landing skids can hardly malfunction .... oh crap 1 leg is stuck in the "out" position -- how should I land now sir? :) > I would imagine that the ability to land on a hillside would be incredibly useful for military operations and rescue. Perhaps, but rarely are hill sides flat, nor void of tall obstacles such as trees. Typically in hot LZ it's in your best interest to not land. By which I mean being airborne is 1 problem, having landed -- you now have 2 problems (your static and now need to take-off). This is also true typically in rescue attempts.

samstave 11y ago
I don't think this is comparable to the Osprey for the following reasons: * the osprey's idea intent was VTOL to horizontal thrust via an adjustable wing+rotor.... --- This has NOTHING to do with feedback to external terrain * The osprey began dev WAY before pretty much ALL the tech that would be needed to accomplish this (in scale and at low cost) even existed * the problem the osprey was solving was NOT this.... I am note refuting your point: "Typically in hot LZ it's in your best interest to not land." -- as this is valid... But that does not discount the desired functionality of being able to land on non-flat surfaces in a manner which doesn't require the pilot to have gobs of flight experience and training for such a landing. ------ Let me propose a thought experiment (which I can be sure the military has already explored): Imagine a craft that is a replacement of a helicopter in ~45 years. It should be an airframe/device that has a set range of capabilities: it is robotic enough to land on uneven surfaces to a given angle. It can autonomously land in level or non-level surfaces... it can be sent away/recalled as a drone (drop me here - go to 25K feet and hover for an hour, then land at spot X and retrieve me - unless given further orders), it should be able to work as a swarm from fewer pilots (i.e. one pilot driving N units - either in a trailing, above, or remote vehicle/cockpit) It should be able to have smaller advance, trailing or escorting drones tied to its safety. it should have a body-unit (like a shipping crate) that it can either detach and leave - or come back and pickup... the smaller escorts can swarm in groups of 6 or 4 to pickup and carry off said body-units should the main lifter be compromised.... /speculation
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
My understanding is that the Osprey's early issues were mechanical and training issues and not issues with the concept (propshaft issues, pilots not trained properly, poorly engineering wiring harnesses, etc) . Those things were fixed and now the Osprey is used quite a bit. I even saw one fly over my home the last time Obama visited. Most of the current and next gen fighters have some level of V/STOL built-in as well. I think we're pretty far from what you're describing, which was maybe 15-20 years ago. Lets remember that the design team for the Osprey started in the early 80s and the original prototypes are from the 70s. The Bell XV-15 prototype first flew in '77 and then the larger version as part of this proposal flew in '83. Aircraft engineer has gone a long way since. We're able to do much more today.

LoSboccacc 11y ago

speaking of which wouldn't a solid axle with central mounting and hydraulic controlled suspension stiffness work the same and be more reliable? somethign like this > http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/14536367/129_0903_01_z+dana_60_dana_70_axles+jeep_articulation.jpg http://image.fourwheeler.com/f/14536367/129_0903_01_z+dana_6... but without torsion bar and the suspension stiffening after both axle are in ground contact maintaining contact orientation