I was taking a peek at Lockheed Martin big defense contractors’ recent patent filings the other day when I came accross this whopper. A patent for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft with three wings and six tilting engines, notice I didn’t say tiltrotors.
Richard Oliver recently told Aviation Week that a DoD customer was interested in his six-engined Hexplane design (an unmanned version of which is shown above).
Yup, the patent filing, which lists Oliver as the inventor, calls for a six-engined craft that would eliminate the safety concerns associated with world’s only tiltrotor, the twin-engined Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey.
The patent filing claims the Osprey isn’t ideal for high-risk combat scenarios due to the fact that it cannot operate if one of its engines fails (kinda like a conventional chopper):
The current technology twin tilt rotor V22 Osprey’s recent performance is used as the best example of twin tilt rotor problems.
The failure of either propulsion unit to produce thrust, results in the loss of the aircraft and occupants. The cross coupled shaft system provides a marginal performance backup limited to engine failure, not gearbox or rotor failures. The loss of 50% of this aircraft’s power results in its’ inability to continue its’ mission and in many circumstances requires immediate landing. The present invention solves this problem with its’ fundamental design, providing for continued flight following the complete loss of thrust by any propulsion unit, no matter what the cause.
Inability to use evasive maneuvering tactics to avoid hostile fire, similar to that found in high threat landing zones. Quick maneuvering has resulted in the cracking and breaking of rotor root components which may result in the loss of a blade, and therefore the aircraft. The 38 foot rotors are limited to about 10 degree flapping angles. Quick maneuvering can (and has) easily exceed this angle resulting in the failure of a rotor and the potential loss of the aircraft. This limited maneuverability might be acceptable for commercial operations, but not for the intended applications of the military.
The document goes on to point out other shortcomings with the Osprey’s design, including a limited ability to allow troops to fast rope off the back of the aircraft due to the location of the Osprey’s center of gravity and rotor wash as well as the way the tiltrotor reacts to a vortex ring sate (the potentially deadly scenario where choppers and tiltrotors basically run out of air to lift them). In all of these cases, the patent filing says six propeller or jet engines, not rotors, would dramatically improve performance by providing increased stability, backup engines and better maneuverability. Props would be ideal for a medium-size transport while jet engines would be necessary for a faster, larger aircraft.
“While in vertical flight, the six propulsion units are arranged around the aircraft producing thrust. Imagine a round table with six legs,” reads the filing. “Remove one leg and the table remains standing! The center of gravity of this aircraft is generally located about its’ center. The propulsion units are placed such that the remaining thrust following the loss of thrust from one propulsion unit will maintain longitudinal and lateral static stability, therefore supporting the aircraft.”
As Oliver told AvWeek:
it has the unusual ability to survive the complete failure of any propulsion unit and remain statically stable. If you remove any one unit and wing in flight it will still fly safely, even a maximum gross weight and HOGE [hover out of ground effect].” The six engines are completely independent, with none of the cross-shafting you would see in a two– or four-prop tiltrotor.
The Hexplane design is all about survivability, he says, and about being able to continue the mission and not having to return and land after a failure. “I don’t see it as complex. There are not six throttles, just a single go lever and six-channel fly-by-wire,” Oliver says.
Click through the jump to read the patent filing’s detailed description of the design.
The term “Propulsion Unit” as used within this document refers to any method of producing thrust. The example of an engine driven propeller is chosen solely for illustration purposes and is not intended to limit the scope of this invention. The invention is valid for alternate means of propulsion including jet engines. When the propulsion units consist of jet engines this VTOL configuration is known as a “Tilt Jet” since the jets are tilted forward for forward flight and tilted vertically for vertical flight. The invention is valid for alternate propulsion unit tilting implementations. The engine (piston, turbine, rotary, electric or other power source) may be mounted on the wing and transfer power through a gearbox into its tilt-able propeller or rotor. This design allows the engine or motor to remain relatively fixed in a single position without having to operate in multiple positions of the propeller.
[0060] The aircraft configuration consists of a conventional aircraft fuselage, with a nose, with or without pilot and/or co-pilot crew stations in the case of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) applications, a central cabin or payload area, and a tapering empennage. The aircraft has three wings, the front wing, middle wing, and the rear wing. Two propulsion units are mounted above, below, or on each of the three wings, yielding six propulsion units. The wings are fixed to the fuselage and the propulsion units rotate in unison to either of two (not including intermediate) positions, vertical or horizontal.
[0061] For electric motor, rotary, piston or turbine driven propeller or rotor embodiments, the propulsion units on opposite sides of the aircraft turn in opposite directions to cancel rotational moments about the yaw axis due to propeller or rotor torque. Small flapped wing panels are fixed outboard of the forward and rearward propulsion units. These wing panels are located within the propulsion units’ propeller slipstream. They provide yaw control during vertical flight. Their flaps are disabled in the neutral position once the propulsion units advance toward the horizontal position.
[0062] The main landing wheels are located at the rear end of the forward propulsion units. A retractable and steerable tail wheel is located on the center line of the fuselage near the rear of the aircraft and retracts rearward and upwards into the normally unused space in the tail cone or alternatively for applications which require rear doors or a ramp the tail wheel may retract forward into the bottom of the fuselage. This eliminates the normally complex and heavy landing gear retraction and extension system increasing payload capacity. When the engines or motors rotate with the propellers or rotors the main wheels are mounted to the aft end of the forward propulsion unit engine support structures. This takes advantage of the existing structural load path which already exists for the engine support. When the engines or motors are mounted in a fixed position with the propellers or rotors tilting, the main wheels may be attached to the aft end of the tilting assembly. The propulsion units are spaced further apart than typical main gear designs increasing ground stability. Gear up landings are not possible with this invention as the landing gear is always down when the aircraft is in vertical flight mode. Separate landing gear controls and systems are not required. Proper placement of the main gear below the nacelle center line and clam shell gear doors can enable partial conventional takeoff and landings (CTOL) to enable additional payload capability when a runway is available. This is accomplished by placing the propulsion units in an intermediate position considering ground clearance is provided for the propeller or rotor tips. With jet propulsion units this would not be a problem.
Click here to read the entire filing.
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
How about EMP shielding, what with everybody saying that those weapons are coming or are already here.
Who is saying that?
Weapons that generate Electro-Magnetic Pulses have been available for 60 years in the form of nuclear bombs, so they are not even remotely new. And the only practical non-nuclear methods for producing an EMP still require huge quantities of conventional explosives. (and have miniscule effective ranges)
The only "new" weapon concept I can think of that would be even remotely similar would be the electro-laser. Which is essentially a Lightning gun, that guides the electron beam with a laser that Ionizes a channel in the air. And the vast majority of aircraft are already protected against lightning strikes.
You forgot to add that electro-lasers don't really, you know, work. At least, not remotely like they're promised to.
HPMs or High Powered Microwaves are expensive and kind of power hungry but allow for enduing magneto-electrical fields at range. This is a great example of very workable (Although I don't know that it's been done) EM weapon.
EPFCG or 'Explosively pumped flux compression generator' bombs are essentially a very strong magnetic field quickly compressed with explosives turning it into a pulse. They are nothing new, used for high pressure science, having first been created in the 1950s for nuclear research. While any likely 'bomb' made out of this would have fairly short range, a few hundred feet might be all you need to penetrate a bunker or at least it's electrical systems.
Excuse me for not knowing the latest and greatest about non-nuclear EMP bombs, but when I mentioned EMP bombs I wasn't thinking of nukes (yes I knew they fryed electronics).
And as for where my info about EMP bombs came from; I havn't been keeping up on it but most was gradualy found through the random reading of various tech mags over 8+ years, keep in mind I'm not even looking for this info, and when you factor in how fast tech is advancing these days and how useful an easily deployable localized anti-electronics bomb/missile would be, I'm pretty confident that the R + D depts. of lots governments are working on it.
they have been doing so… and so far it hasn't gone much in terms of practical battlefield weapon.
directed microwave emitter for example already exist as a functional tool since cold war but using it as a weapon to fry electronics at acceptable range requires so much energy that it's practical use as a battlefield weapon is questionable at best.
Assuming they put EMP shielding on it u can't tell anyway from outside since the EMP shielding generally means hardening/protecting the internal avionics and wiring, and designing the fuselage or chassis of the vehicle to act as a faraday cage.
The US have an EMP testing facility to do this and some of the important vehicles that are expected to survive nuclear scenario were tested against it.
Rather than designing EMP weapons to knock out vehicles or aircrafts (which in general cost too much energy to be worth it), weapon designers do the more sensible thing and focused their effort in designing electromagnetic weapons to knock out sensitive hardware like radar (which can't be shielded against EMP for obvious reason).
An ejection seat wouldn't be very useful would it…
helicopter ejections seats been around since at least 1995. The rotors are jettisoned along with the canopy.
It's a drone you doof… look at the pic.
What the hell do you need with an ejection seat.
The darn thing looks weird…..
Please tell me the services are not even considering funding that.
That thing makes the F-35 look like a dime-store deal….
Six instead of 2 engines. That must be expensive to build and maintain, and eats up fuel fairly quickly too. Suppose it can turn off some of them at cruise speed, blades on inactive engines must cause a huge drag. It looks cool though.
It's certainly harder to design a more complex system, and may require more time consuming maintenance, but the number of engines only has an indirect effect on the cost of the aircraft (taking slightly longer to build each unit = more wages spent), and has no bearing at all on the fuel efficiency of the result. (which is entirely dependent on the thermal efficiency of the engines, and the mechanical efficiency of the transmission (in this case the propellers))
Six 1000kg thrust engines producing that have 40% thermal efficiency are more fuel efficient than one 6000kg thrust engine that has 35% thermal efficiency.
more engines greatly multiplies rate of failiures as in VTOL one engine fail normaly means a crash so the odds of one failing is now increased by at least five
That is why Lindberg had a singe engine
The point of having 6 engines is redundancy, so that a single failure does not lead to a crash.
As for the point of fuel efficiency and costs: the idea is to have six smaller engines, as are commonly used for prop planes, instead of 2 much larger engines on the osprey. The use of smaller blades has additional advantages.
on the other hand, 6 engines equals 6 possible failures and 6 engine to be maintained along with control system that will have to handle all 6 engine.
redundancy is great and all… but something tells me the maintenance for this thing isn't exactly gonna be pleasant for the ground crew.
> Six 1000kg thrust engines producing that have 40% thermal efficiency are more
> fuel efficient than one 6000kg thrust engine that has 35% thermal efficiency.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks!
Haha it slices! It dices! It juliennes! It transforms into the world's largest weed whacker!
All kidding aside though this is an interesting concept. I wonder if it could be applied to the C-130 platform? 2 engines on the tail, 2 on the wings, and add 2 more on a forward canard. Add the versatility of a helo to a tried and true platform with proven lift capabilities.
You'd better get your patent on that idea before the DOD goes ahead with it. Especially with the new budget cuts. It'd be easier to try the idea on an equipment that is already in the inventory. Upgrades cost less than trying to push a new aircraft though all the avenues of approval. Hurry-up, Joe! They're going to steal your intellectual property.
Hey check this out http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_wee…
Their website, linked to in the article, has a mockup of exactly what you're talking about, a C-130 with 6 tiltroters.
Is it just me, or is Lockheed making ugly planes nowadays? The F-16 was awesome…comparable to the A-4, and P-51 in sleekness and popularity. The F-35…nice, but the stubby wings are a little distracting. Now this?
LMT did not design the F16.
Furthermore – and this is where someone with mechanical or design knowledge of the V-22 should chime in – my understanding was that if an engine quit on the V-22, the vehicle could still function (albeit with a great reduction in performance). Not like boom goes the nacelle, mind you.
Well yeah, you can fly a V-22 OEI and get home safely. The RR 1107Cs are pretty powerful. Now if you crap a gear box or something your going to get on the deck a little bit faster, just like any other multi-engine rotory-winged A/C.
OMG its the Moller skycar all over again ….
Perhaps US goverment is very loosie giving patents. They are going to do a good model for a good computer to make a good Computer Fly Control. Maybe Chinese chips have software to keep a plate above six sticks. Absurd patent, only "in case" one. Tilt-rotor its a dammed good idea on blueprint but awfuly in reality. Engineers make years of test before declare operational a plane for that reason. Some times althought.
It's just a patent application. No patent has been granted. I agree that the grant of a patent seems unlikely.
To me it appears to fail the bar of non-obviousness. On the other hand I have come across a patent for a rain gauge which used a scale to measure the mass of the water. He didn't invent using a scale to determine the mass of water and hence its volume. He didn't event strain gauges not the use of strain gauges to make accurate scales.
Sorry Lockheed, but this just doesn't look tacti-cool. That being said further development of this and others like it shall be interesting.
That has to be the ugliest and worthless idea ever. The props would cut air off from the rear props and would make it slow and unmaneuverable. Stick with the V-22 or a regular helicopter.
Looks wierd. Looks like alot of technical problems. Think about all the problems that osprey had, now add 4 more engines to it.
Probably they are forgetting to adopt to the harrier or F-35 jets jets.
i had no idea how big a turkey the osprey was….
Well this is not new, at least not from the 1966 point of view – X-22.
Then XC-142A,, and finally, the design Olivier made.
What is interesting is just how many weak points this design has, in weight distribution, as well as maneuverability, and lack of resistance to ground fire.
Let's face it though Chinook can transport howitzers it is slow and vulnerable, this 6 blade thingy you could shoot at wildly and not miss a blade.
If it was a UAV helo like six Rotor RC Helicopter a guy made, then it is very stable and all good, however this, reminds me of the stormbird c-130 adaptation for a ps3 game : http://www.unseen64.net/wp-content/gallery/stormb…
So what is it that this guy’s supposed to have invented?
All he’s done is take an existing idea, and then say that if you stuck three times as many engines on it, it would have increased engine redundancy (and three times the engine maintenance costs).
Surely the principle of tilt-prop/rotor aircraft isn’t a patentable idea – anyone can design a new one, just like anyone can go and design a new helicopter; and the same goes for the number of engines. I’m confused.
I could see it being feasible if it was nuclear-powered and could also operate while submerged. And adding the turret and 120mm main gun from M-1 would make it really kickass!
Don't forget about 16 inch guns!
But seriously, heavily armored nuclear helicopter is an interesting idea.
Siege Helicopter from Yuri's Revenge. Hah.
Beat me to it :)…..
Reminds me of a unit from one of the Red Alert games: a Russian helicopter that could land and roll out an integral heavy artillery cannon…..
Needs Moar Engines!
ben, you can’t say that the number of engines is only an indirect cost – they are pretty fundamental to the thing getting off the ground. And it’s not just a bit more time consuming to bolt them on – someone has to pay for design and build; someone has to pay for maintenance, parts and labour, throughout the aircraft’s life. There’s also all the gubbins associated with each engine – alternators, starter/generators, control runs, fuel lines. Then there are all the prop components, controls, etc. And while your thermal efficiency point applies on an engine test-bed, an aircraft engine in airflow creates drag and increases fuel consumption – as will a malfunctioning prop, even if feathered.
Agreed Brian
After all- if engine costs didn't matter- everything would be multiengine, wouldn't it?
The more complex a system the more people who work on it
Say each engine requires 10hrs of maintanence time per flight hr. That means that you lose atleast 6 if not 12 people just to doing checks and general maintanence each hour of light time which means YOUR PAYING SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE TROOPS IN THE WORLD to work on a engine.
Thats just the engines. Its how that airforce has almost as many people as the army and has so few actucally going into combat. And why Super carriers have half their crew as part of the flight crew.
well…. if looking at this picture doesnt nail the coffin shut on a more efficient VTOL aircraft then the plain old "helicopter"….. nothing will
i have a bad feeling that we're gonna be abused with these "MONEY PITS" for the next 30 years.
if that "conceptual graphic" doesnt insult your intelligence…? nothing will.
not really. in order to make this stable, all engines have to spin at the same RPM, same pitch and provide same lift. So if you have all six engines running seperate, that means you have to have a contol system for each motor, thats six computer/controls that need to be sync together to provide equal lift and torque which means thats 6 computer/controls that could fail. Its an interesting design, but i bet this doesnt make it. I do alot RC helicopter stuff, and even though this aircraft is more complex then any RC helicopter i have. the same still applies, the more engines you have that are providing verticle lift the more controls you need to sync together, the more controls and electronics you have the more chance there is of a failure.
OK… If that thing can lift 200 tons or more, then may be it could be good for something. Otherwise, just the number of engines along, multiply that by multiple squadrons, then it could be a nightmare for the maintenance crew.
not only that but the fuel consumption. this thing has 4 more engines then the osprey. thats like a 200% increase in fuel usage
"thats like a 200% increase in fuel usage" – that's by no means a given. See ben's comment above.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Talk about a solution without a problem. The article seriously mentions FAST-roping as an issue with the Osprey? It's NOT A PROBLEM. An engine failure as a limitation of the V-22? Unless that monstrosity has 3 sets of interconnecting driveshafts, it'd still be an issue. If it does, that's a whole lot of complexity and weight.
It does get redundancy, maybe. That's at the cost of huge complexity, expense, and maintenance time. Operating efficiency goes WAY down. One big engine is always more efficient than two smaller ones. This magnifies that by a factor of three. A lot of multi-engine platforms are criticized for carrying what are basically "flying spares," like the EH-101. There's a reason the B-52 was the last 8-engine bomber, as another example.
In the end, there're just more opportunities for this thing to break.
IT LOOKS LIKE AN AIRPLANE DESIGNED BY A COMMITTEE OF TIME WASTING POLITICIANS.
Pretty picture. How much?
The above design is what you get when you You do Meth & have access to AutoCAD. Even the Nazi's did not have anything this wacky on the drawing boards.
I love the aerospace industry taking risks and all of that, but lets stick with the quad tilt-rotor concept instead, okay?
I rather bet on a Sikorsky_S-97_Raider but a transport version. Can fly as fast as the osprey for a helicopter
OooooooO Big waste of our tax payer money.
Multiple engines on sticks. LOL…What a concept.
The really last great aircraft with LOTS of engines was the old Peacekeeper the B36.
Now, there was a really great bird. Wing span so long you could do laps on it.
Multiple props, and jets, 6 turning 4 burning, A maintenance nightmare.
Flew out of SAC bases around the world, keeping the Atomic Peace for some 10 years.
A few old geezers will recall that bird.
Semper FI
end
After all the R&D that went into the V-22 and the money already spent on them, I don't see Uncle Sam jumping out to embrace another platform. I personally hate the V-22 it has killed far too many already and as a maintainer of 37 years know a little bit about aircraft design and know a safe aircraft from from one that is unsafe. The V-22 is unsafe loose an engine your down lose a gear box or have major hydraulic or electrical failure you are a smoking hole. How many have survived Osprey crashes in the past? AFSOC has bought into this lock stock and barrel. There will be more crashes and they will be shot down, how many can survive?
I don't see this platform having any future. Your criticisms of the V-22 are not the reasons why, though. The Osprey is far more crash survivable than most other aircraft. That USAF crew in OEF ran one right into the ground and nearly everyone lived. Any help is a smoking hole if it loses a main gearbox. The V-22 has a better SE capability than most other rotorcraft.
At the same time, the V-22 is a Gucci system when the military is going to a K-Mart budget. There aren't going to be more like her for a long time.
help=helo. Damn you OS X!
Thanks so much for the article.
when you say the osprey has an "Inability to use evasive maneuvering tactics to avoid hostile fire, similar to that found in high threat landing zones." how is this six engined design any better