Our boy Bob Cox at the Ft. Worth Star Telegram sent me a hilarious blurb he wrote for his paper on an embarrassing admission by one of Bell’s top officials recently.
Bob spotted an interesting little vehicle prototype a few years ago at the international air show in Farnborough and wrote about the thing, which looks a bit like Luke Skywalker’s land speeder from Star Wars IV, and it sort of ended there…
Tuesday,July 18, 2006
Edition: Tarrant, Section: Business, Page C1FARNBOROUGH, England George Jetson would have loved this one. If only hed been a space cop, not a sprocket-company employee.
On Monday at the Farnborough International Airshow, Bell Helicopter announced that it will team with an Israeli company to develop a futuristic aircraft that would allow soldiers and police far greater mobility in cities.
The X-Hawk, as envisioned by Bell, could hold a pilot and up to 11 troops. It could navigate congested urban areas by flying above narrow streets and between closely spaced buildings.
Propelled by two jet turbine engines that would drive pusher propellers and downward-thrust lift fans, similar to those on the short-takeoff-vertical-landing version of the F-35 Lightning II, the X-Hawk could operate in spaces far more confined than a helicopter can.
Mark Gibson, Bells vice president of advanced concept development, said the X-Hawk is not something out of a science fiction film.
“People look at this and say Star Wars, but theyve been building these since the 1950s,” Gibson said.
That is until a little luncheon last week with the Fort Worth chamber of commerce where a curious attendee asked Bell CEO Richard Millman what that weird thing in the corner of the hanger was…
The prototype, a sort of airborne hovercraft, is still sitting in a hangar at Bells Alliance Airport facility. And CEO Richard Millman apparently has no intention of pursuing the project.
At a Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce luncheon hosted by Bell at the Alliance hangar Thursday, Millman was asked what the odd-looking object in the corner was.
“How embarrassing,” Millman said sheepishly, as if asked about a daffy relative wandering loose.
“That was a mistake. Built before I got here. I wish wed never done it.“
…writes Cox in his May 17 update.
And Millman is right. Too vulnerable, too slow, too rickety. But kind of a cool idea. I’ve got to admit, I wouldn’t mind giving one a test drive over the crowded commuter routes of the DC area. And hey, the Jetsons know it’s inevitable, right?
(Kudos to Bob Cox)
– Christian
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey! This is a job of Phantom and Skunk Works would like. Mistakes are milestones for success. Why be embarrassed? Being too conservative in technology will halt a continuous military revolution. In reality, many many weird ideas gain progress for the Iraq War.
I agree, necessity is truly the mother of invention.
Just look at tank and fighter development entering WWII. Most nations were still using their leftovers from WWI.
By the end of the war we saw jet fighters and lower profile tanks with sloping armor and high power guns. In just 6 years we saw radical changes in our weapon systems.
I heard the other day that the US is planning on using the F-18 Super Hornet for decades to come. The Super Hornet is already more than 10 years old. I believe that we need to encourage our engineers to think out of the box and support the creation of next generation technology.
If he’s embarassed it’s because Bell never developed this. The technology was developed by an Israeli company that is getting ready to flight test an unmanned prototype. Bell just tagged along for awhile.
Hah. Bell should be ashamed for not taking risks and sticking to their chopper business.
I mean, the first tank was total crap and broke down…nothing like the Abrams.
The first chopper was equally bad, and so was the first airplane. Does the Wright Brothers airplane look ANYTHING like a B-52, capable of doing intercontinental bombing missions? Could the Wrights dream that their aircraft could fly across the ocean and drop 30+ tons of bombs on America’s enemies?
Shame on Bell for not taking risks. Maybe the Russians will do it first, and to compensate we will buy more F-22s instead of adapting to new technological developments.
I mean in the cities, a chopper is equally vulnerable. So is a Humvee. You can RPG a helicopter, you can throw a hand grenade into a humvee.
“…we need to encourage our engineers to think out of the box and support the creation of next generation technology.” (Ptsfp)
Indeed. I still get 98% negative reactions when bringing up airships…..People always think “blimp”.
Not so. Today’s materials and tech can create lighter-than-air airships that are as fast as some airplanes, all weather, with VTOL capability to operate from land, or WATER, can be constructed to have both “survivability” and STEALTH, carry several hundred tons of materials and/or persons,and use solar power. the resulting aircraft have immense military potential.
Alas, gotta get out of that “box” (blimp) thinking first…but it’s coming.
(by the way, cool video of the X-Hawk on Google)
Good point Charles – you need a baseline to work from and improve.
Lets compare a Model T Ford with a Bugatti Veyron, shall we? That was over a period of 80 years (ish) so who knows what this technology could be in 50, 60 100 tears time?
Plus, how would it be too vulnerable for police work – I mean, I know gun crime is high in the US, but I doubt they have to contend with RPG’s and the like. Would make a pretty good Patrol cruiser for American, European etc Police Forces
There’s a fellow in Davis, CA who’s been trying to perfect & sell a similar aircraft for many years.
http://www.moller.com/skycar.htm
Whether or not the Skycar succeeds, the Rotapower engine looks like it’s a winner.
“…announced today that it has received letters of intent and conditional orders for over 900,000 ($1 Billion) of its Rotapower
Shall I be the first to flame the Moller Skycar nonsense? Wankle engines are crap. Moller is a hoax. Skycar is quite dead. It was only ever alive in the minds of the people selling Moller stock (how’d that SEC lawsuit turn out?).
The Solotrek XFV looked like it might actually work. Last I heard, DARPA had bought it. Google “Golden Butterfly”… that might be as close to a flying car as you ever see. Not exactly built for the urban conflict, but I’d buy one.
I imagine a few scenarios:
-Riverine patrol. Just skim along the waterline, then when attacked, assault the target. You have “hover mode”; use it!
-Ambulances. Fly over traffic jams. This is a big problem in places like LA, where every time there’s a traffic jam and I see a forlorn ambulance trying to get through, a little part of me dies inside. I mean, someone could be dying, and we’re all stuck in traffic!
-Patrol vehicles. Combine the aerial overwatch of a helicopter with the ability to go down and catch people on the ground.
-As scouting vehicles there may be a few niche applications, but in the desert sand it’d probably blow up enough sand to be a giveaway…but then again I’m sure most AFV’s do it too.
I can see most applications being to “amphibians” allowing amphibians to more effectively operate on land. Imagine EFV that hovered…you could get excellent mobility without having to deal with the fuss and bother of shoehorning a boat into an AFV.
But the technology is quite a ways away from full development. Perhaps the military needs to invest in the “next tank” instead of continuously going with new aircraft.
I’m sure someone in the ’30s thought the next war would involve tanks dropping fascines into steel-lined trenches as infantry advanced with bayonets…we give a lot of ado to “digital networking” and the like, but we’re still using the same old tracks and wheels. Should we keep our eyes open to the “next tank”?
The Piasecki vehicle referred to is the VZ-8 Airgeep. The wiki article on it refers to a book called “Flying Jeeps”…so it’d be a good place to start for advanced debate. Says they chose helicopters over the flying geep as well.
Original airgeep provisioned with a recoiless.
TOW or Javelin airgeep anyone?
It’d be difficult to justify a “high altitude” capable airgeep. Flying over treetops may not be a requirement. If it can fly over most obstacles that a traditional wheeled vehicle cannot simply climb over then it is ahead. But ideally you want to exceed it.
Reminds me of the Invader drop platforms from Killzone 2.. doesn’t seem ideal for military use, but it could certainly revolutionize police operations. Can’t imagine what the cost for the infrastructure to keep them in the air would be.. low-altitude ATC?
Yeah, folks who are imagining these things flying over traffic and buildings need to ask themselves why helicopters need those giant, long blades, and whether you’d really want the local cops and ambulances blasting around your neighborhood with the jet-turbine engines needed to make enough power to keep that sort of contraption aloft.
I’m with the first two posters in that it was pathetic for the Bell CEO to feign embarrassment over a prototype or research product. Good thing this guy wasn’t CEO in the 60s… “Semiconductor? How absurd! We need better conductors, not worse!” But all this fantasizing about how great it’ll be is pointless at this stage.
Temporarily, I would wonder if we could do something with ground-effect hovercraft, for at least the amphibious requirements. I was thinking of Hammer’s Slammers; but this may be too ambitious.
Flying over rooftops may be too much, but if so there are other avenues to explore to put something into particular niches.
Reminds me more of the flying cop cars in Bladerunner. But when it comes right down to it, isn’t the downwash or whatever the term is, really the problem with flying this sort of thing willy-nilly over developed areas? “Hey! My landscaping! Mildred, bring me the twelve gauge!”
(now watch me not, repeat not, post this twice by clicking inappropriately.)
hey,if Orbits.com can fly one of these……”Why didn’t you just mail it(refund check) to me?”
“Because we have the ‘hovercraft.’”
Moller has nothing but a scam operation. He has been hawking VTOL that don’t (won’t) fly for 40 years. He has ni viable engine technology. he has never had one of his scratch-designed engined run for more than a few hours. All of his running engines (maybe 10, total) are made from old OMC 530 cc snowmobile engine parts he bought from OMC when they shut down the rotary program there. This is why you don’t see any real pictures of complete engines, either installed in vehicles, or running on a dyno. He trots out a new or old version of something every few years, and tries to whore it for more money. He’s 40 mil in debt, with virtually nothing to show for it. The few times the Skycar has flown, have been with single rotor OMC-based engines, running on methanol. Remote piloted, with just enough fuel on-board for a brief hover flight. This is very far from a complete aircraft with the specs he’s promising. For the engines, don’t belive this guy once he’s passed the endurance tests required by FAR 33.49 the 150 hour endurance test. For the aircraft, believe it when it flies carrying full payload, full range.