Table of Contents

What goes up must come down

i.

Introduction
A brief account of my term paper.

ii.

VTOL and STOL

Pros and Cons discussed.

iii.

Major Challenge
Practical problems faced.

iv.

History and Development

The story of V/STOL aircrafts.

v.

Under Development
Aircrafts in development.

56

vi.

Future Concepts
Upcoming V/STOL technologies.

72

vii.

Webography
Websites referred.

82

Introduction
to V/STOL(Vertical or Short Take-Off and Landing)

Conventional aircrafts require long runways for take-off and landing (known as CTOL conventional take-off and landing). The runways required for CTOL can extend up to 3,000 metres. In many situations, long runways are not possible generating need for aircrafts that require small or no runways.

Vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) is a term used to describe aircraft that are able to take-off or land vertically or on short runways. Vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) describes an aircraft which do not require runways at all. Generally, a V/STOL aircraft needs to be able to hover; helicopters are not typically considered under the V/STOL classification.
A Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey aircraft lifting cargo vertically.

Helicopters require no runways at all, but they do not provide the efficiency of an aircraft in terms of speed and range. To overcome this problem, aircrafts with the ability to take-off and land like a helicopter were designed and the term V/STOL was introduced. These types of aircraft are generally classified either as Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) or Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL), and the two categories are often grouped together as V/STOL.

Designing a V/STOL aircraft has many challenges involved, stability and other factors. From the 1950s till today, more than 40 aircrafts have been made and experimented, out of which only three were successful enough to be produced in large quantities with a fourth aircraft to be soon joining the production.

The biggest problem with achieving V/STOL flight is that conventional wings provide a good amount of lift for a relatively low amount of forward thrust. Getting an aircraft off the ground with little or no forward motion requires that engine thrustand not wing liftsupport a significant portion of the aircraft's
Developed by Dassault Aviation, in each aircraft eight Rolls Royce vertical lift engines were installed straddling the main engine.

weightor all of it. This usually requires big engines, lots of fuel, and complicated flight controls, all of which weigh more.

Another problem is that these aircraft are often hard for the pilot to control during transition from horizontal flight to vertical flight and back again. Computerized flight control systems and better cockpit displays have helped with this. Some experimental V/STOL aircraft also simply have had a hard time accelerating in forward flight after lifting off the ground.

Lockheed XFV-1 tailsitter

This "tailsitter" aircraft had two large contra-rotating propellers on its nose. In horizontal flight, the aircraft looked like many piston-engine fighters, although with a large tail. When on the ground, it actually sat on its tail. The plane would rise straight up during takeoff and transition to forward flight. These aircrafts were extremely difficult to control in vertical flight (the pilots had to look over their shoulders to see the ground when landing), and were grounded in 1956.

VTOL and STOL

its advantage and requirement

Even before the dawn of jet aircraft, aeronautical engineers have wanted to reduce the amount of runway required by fast aircraft, preferably eliminating runways completely. They wanted an aircraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter but flies with the efficiency of an airplane.

V/STOL was developed to allow fast jets to be operated from clearings in forests, from very short runways, and from small aircraft carriers that would previously only have been able to carry helicopters. The main advantage of V/STOL aircraft is closer basing to the enemy, which reduces response time and tanker support requirements. In the case of the Falklands War, it also permitted high performance fighter air cover and ground attack without a large aircraft carrier equipped with a catapult.
A helicopter can be operated in small areas, like top of buildings or urban areas.

Fifty years ago, the first ground tests were conducted for what would become a long heritage of Vertical and Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) aircraft. Since then, 43 different types have been built and tested. All these aircrafts built have been tried to combine the vertical flight ability of the helicopter with a high forward speed of fixed wing aircraft. Of all these attempts, so far only three aircrafts, the Harrier, the Forger, and the Osprey have been developed for operational service.

Harrier Jump Jet

Yakovlev Yak-38

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Some aircrafts which were created for the sole purpose of STOL also made their way to production. These are used for transport or as strategic/tactical airlifter.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III This cargo plane is not considered a STOL aircraft but can operate from a shorter-than-usual runway.

Antonov An-72 It was designed as a STOL transport. It has extremely good short field capabilities.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program developed two V/STOL aircrafts which demonstrated their propulsion concepts in 2000; one of these concepts was selected for development as an operational aircraft to replace the Harrier in the next century. The concept which was selected against (Boeings X-32) the other was the Lockheed Martin X35. This prototype has been developed into F-35 Lightning II which is expected to be operational by 2016.

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II hovering over the ground. STOVL is made possible by a lift fan placed ahead of center of gravity connected to the engine through a driveshaft. The rear lift force is controlled by a swivelling exhaust nozzle from the engine.

Major Challenge
why the VTOL aircrafts are not as practical as they sound

The Thrust and Drag forces are usually quite a bit smaller than the Lift and Weight forces. An efficient airplanes thrust might only need to be 1/20 to 1/60 of its weight in order for the airplane to be pulled forward fast enough to stay in the air. (Typically its more like 1/5). This means an airplane that weighs, say, 100 tons might only need 10-20 tons of thrust to stay in the air. But a VTOL airplane that weighs 100 tons obviously needs 100 tons of thrust to get off the ground. Since modern airplanes lift-to-drag ratio is about 5, 20, or up to 60, this means a VTOL airplane needs 5, 20, or 60 times the thrust of an equivalent non-VTOL airplane.

Consider an Airbus A300-600R, if we wanted VTOL in that aircraft, the engines would have to produce a minimum vertical force of 171.7kN, since the aircraft has been developed for CTOL, it only requires a maximum force of 54.4kN which is provided by two Pratt & Whitney PW4158 turbofan aircraft engines. Each engine produces a maximum thrust of 27.2kN.

Getting an aircraft off the ground with little or no forward motion requires that engine thrust and not wing liftsupport a significant portion of the aircraft's weightor all of it. This usually requires big engines, lots of fuel, and complicated flight controls, all of which weigh more. Other complexity comes in designing and stability of the aircraft. While hovering, the aircraft needs to be stable enough to face the winds.

History and Development

of the V/STOL aircrafts

From the 1940s until today, slightly more than 40 vertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft have been tested. However, only three V/STOL aircrafts have actually gone into production. Most of the other aircrafts were highly experimental or proof-of-concept types. The study of the history of this topic will be grouped according to their respective concept of the propulsion system. In V/STOL aircrafts, it is of utmost importance as the entire aircraft stays in the air because of it. If the aircraft is hovering and the system fails then the aircraft is bound to crash as it cannot be operated as a glider because of the low speed. Conventional aircrafts operate at high speed and the pilots have the option to eject themself or land the aircraft. Dividing the history in terms of different concepts of propulsion system will help us recognize the problems faced by each system while getting to know about the different propulsion systems in an orderly manner. This list consists of a broad classification of the four different propulsion concepts:

1. Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight: This class of aircraft uses a single propulsion system that alters the direction of thrust for hover or cruise, or alters the attitude of the aircraft itself. E.g.:- Bell X-22A

2. Separate power plant for hover: This class of aircraft used two separate groups of power plants: one for hover, and one for cruise. E.g.:- Short Brothers Short SC. 1

3. Combined power plant for hover: This class of aircraft used its main propulsion system for both hover and cruise, but also had a separate propulsion system for additional hover thrust. E.g.:- VFW VAK 191B

4. Augmented power plant for hover: This class of aircraft used the power plant(s) to drive an auxiliary device (either ejector augmenters or lift fans) to provide additional vertical thrust in hover. E.g.:- Lockheed Martin X-35

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight |

The Tail Sitters

A tail sitter is a type of VTOL aircraft that launches and lands on its tail. An aircraft that points straight up permits the entire thrust of its propulsion system to be converted directly into vertical lift. Unfortunately, while it may be somewhat easy to take off facing up, it was considerably more difficult to land facing the opposite direction the aircraft was traveling. One of the most famous examples of this type of aircraft is the Ryan X-13 Vertijet. Among the propeller-driven versions were the Lockheed XFV, and the Convair XFY Pogo. Studies and wind tunnel models were made of a tail-sitting version of the F-16 that would be ship based. It had a hinged nose section. The downfall of the tailsitter configuration was the lack of ability to transition the pilot to a comfortable position from which to control his descent.[citation needed] This inability led to the concept being abandoned as soon as the experiments that led to the development of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier in the 1960s began to bear fruit.

Ryan X-13 Vertijet

In 1951, Ryan was awarded an Air Force contract in 1953 to develop an actual flying jet-powered VTOL aircraft, which was given the designation X-13. It was only 24 ft long - just large enough to accommodate a cockpit (with a tilted seat) and the 10,000 lb thrust Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet. Its high mounted delta wing had a wingspan of only 21 ft, capped with flat endplates. At the tip of the nose was a short pole ending in a hook. The hook was used to capture a wire on a vertical trailer bed. Once captured, the trailer was lowered to horizontal and could be transported on the ground. Engine thrust was vectored to provide pitch and yaw control in hover, while roll was provided by puffer jets outboard of the endplates. The first prototype was fitted with a temporary landing gear and made its first horizontal flight on 10 December 1955. It later made full conversions to vertical attitude and back at altitude. The second prototype followed a similar progression; on 11 April 1957, it made a vertical take-off from the raised trailer, transitioned to horizontal flight and back, ending with hooking on the wire "trapeze." On 28-29 July of that year, the X-13 was demonstrated in Washington, hovering across the river to the Pentagon. The Air Force chose not to continue development of the Vertijet because of the lack of an operational requirement.

Convair XFY-1 Pogo

As with the Lockheed XFV-1, the Pogo used the Allison YT40-A-14 engine and Curtiss-Wright counter-rotating propellers, but was somewhat more compact and less conventional in appearance. The Pogo was 31 ft long with a 26 ft wide delta wing. A large vertical stabilizer above the wing was matched by an equally sized ventral fin below which could be jettisoned for an emergency horizontal landing. The seat was inclined 45 toward the instrument panel for vertical flight. Control in hover for the XFY-1 were also the same as for conventional flight, but again this provided only limited control power. Almost 300 tethered tests hanging from the ceiling of Moffett Field's airship hangar were made in April 1954. First free hover was on 1 August 1954. The first double transition to horizontal flight and back to a vertical landing was made on 2 November 1954. The Pogo was flown until November 1956. As with the Lockheed XFV-1, the engine and control systems were considered inadequate.

Lockheed XFV-1
After World War II, the US Navy was looking for ways to improve ship defense by equipping merchant ships with vertical take-off aircraft. A 1950 design competition selected Convair (#24) and Lockheed to each build a single-seat tail sitting fighter aircraft. Each used the Allison YT40-A-14 engine (two coupled T38 power sections mounted side-by-side) driving two 16 ft counterrotating three-bladed Curtiss-Wright propellers with electric pitch control. The engines produced 5,500 eshp with a 7,100 eshp take-off rating, resulting in over 10,000 lb of thrust. The 37 ft fuselage had mid-mounted 30 ft span wings. Control in hover was by the same large aerodynamic surfaces as in level flight, as each was bathed in propeller slipstream; the "X"-shaped tail arrangement minimized downwash masking. An erector trolley was used to stand the XFV-1 in the vertical position; the tips of each tail had a small castoring wheel. A total of 27 conventional flights were made, with the first full transitions made above 1,000 ft that Fall. Control in hover was very weak, and the pilot had difficulty in determining sink, climb, and rotation from normal visual cues. No vertical take-offs or landings were ever attempted. As with the Convair XFY-1 Pogo, the engine and control systems were judged to be insufficient.

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight |

Deflected Slipstream Aircrafts

exploiting flaps for successful STOL
Deflected slipstream is an approach to creating an aircraft that can take off and land vertically (VTOL), or at least with a very short runway (STOL). The basic principle is to deflect the slipstream from one or more propellers approximately 90 degrees, to create an upward thrust for vertical takeoff and a downward air cushion for landing. Once airborne, the flaps are retracted so the airplane can fly horizontally. Three different craft were built in the late 1950s and early 1960s that utilized deflected slipstream as the means of achieving vertical or short take-offs. While no aircraft utilizing deflected slipstream technology ever entered production as a VTOL vehicle, this technology has been used to allow short takeoff and landing (STOL) airplanes. One noted example was the Breguet 941, which did see limited service in production mode.

The Breguet 941 was a French four-engine STOL transport aircraft developed by Breguet in the 1960s. Although widely evaluated, it was not built in large numbers, with only one prototype and four production aircraft being built.

10

Robertson VTOL
Robertson Aircraft Corporation was formed in October 1956 to build a four seated vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft powered by two supercharged 340 hp Lycoming GSO-480 engines. The wing had a sliding flap system with a double-slotted full span trailing edge flap providing all control. The flaps were retracted into the low aspect ratio wing for horizontal flight. All fuel and oil were carried in wing tip tanks which also acted as endplates. This capped the wing "buckets" and should have improved cruise efficiency. The aircraft made a tethered flight on 8 January 1957 but was not pursued.

Fairchild 224 VZ-5 Fledgling

The Fairchild M-224-1 Fledgling was powered by a 1,024 shp General Electric YT58-GE-2 turboshaft engine turning four threebladed Harzell metal propellers. The open cockpit had room for the pilot as well as a jump seat. The aircraft could either sit on its forward tricycle landing gear or rest on its two main wheels and a tail skid, providing the Fledgling with 30 of inherent rotation to enhance the "bucket's" effectiveness. Small rotors at the top of the T-tail controlled pitch during hover. Tethered tests were made in late 1959, but it never flew.

Ryan 92 VZ-3 Vertiplane

The Ryan 92, designated VZ-3 by the Army in June 1956, was intended to be a reconnaissance and liaison aircraft able to operate from unprepared surfaces. It had a 28 ft metal fuselage and was powered by a 1,000 shp Lycoming T53-L-1 turboshaft engine driving a metal three-blade Harzell propeller on each side. The propellers were situated ahead of and below the wing, so the majority of the propeller slipstream flowed directly into the bucket formed by the extended double flaps and were turned downward for vertical lift. Differential propeller pitch was used for roll control. Engine exhaust was used at the tail for pitch and yaw before aerodynamic controls were effective. After extensive wind tunnel tests and aircraft modifications the first flight was made on 21 January 1959. The engines were unable to provide sufficient power to hover without a head wind. It continued flying in 1961, testing low-speed V/STOL handling characteristics.

11

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight |

Convertiplanes
tilting propulsion design The most commonly tested type of V/STOL aircraft has been the various tilting propulsion designs, often collectively called "convertiplanes." These aircraft tilt propellers, rotors, ducted propellers, or even their entire wings from vertical to horizontal. Below are different types of tilting designs:

a.

Tilt Shaft/Rotor These aircraft are convertiplanes using rotating blades that function like rotors in vertical flight and like propellers in forward flight. The rotors are long articulated blades which have cyclic pitch control for hover. The power plants remain stationary with the power shaft pivoting from vertical to horizontal.

b.

Tilt Prop This is basically the same as the tilt shaft/rotor concept, but with propellers instead of rotors. A propeller, with collective but not cyclic pitch control, has short, rigid blades with a high degree of twist.

c. Tilt Duct Putting a propeller inside a duct can produce as great as a 50% thrust increase due to the Bernoullis Effect, and also provide additional lift in forward flight. Propeller pitch as well as deflector vanes in the downwash can control the aircraft in hover and transition.

d. Tilt Wing Tilting the entire wing, instead of just the rotor or propeller, provides the benefit of increasing aerodynamic flow over the lifting and control surfaces during transition, and minimizes the lift loss due to downwash in hover.

Disadvantages, however, are that an additional method of control such as a tail jet or rotor is required for control in hover, and ailerons change from roll control in horizontal flight to yaw control in hover. Control is especially difficult in hover during gusts due to the "barn door effect" of the wings in a vertical position.

e. Tilt Rotor The aircraft tilted the rotors for transition from vertical to horizontal flight. Like the larger Tilt Wings (nos. 9-11), the engines tilted together with the rotors.

12

Transcendental Model 1G
The Transcendental Aircraft Company was formed by former Piasecki workers in 1945 to investigate tilting rotor technology. It built the single-seat open cockpit Model 1G in 1951. The 1G then made its first flight (as a helicopter) on 6 July 1954 and made its first conversion to horizontal flight that December. A single 160 hp Lycoming O-290-A engine powered three-bladed 17 ft rotors at each wingtip. The piston engine had a manual two-speed reduction box that powered shafts down each wing. At the pivot, three concentric shafts supplied input to the rotors for tilt angle, cyclic pitch, and collective pitch. At the maximum engine speed of 3,000 rpm, rotor speed for hover was 240 rpm, while for horizontal flight they rotated at 633 rpm. The rotors required three minutes to transition through 82 of tilt during conversion, including the gear change. The 1,750 lb (fully loaded) 1G had a 26 ft long fuselage and a wingspan of 21 ft. The height was only 7 ft; in fact, the 1G was so small, the pilot's head rose above the windscreen (see photo). The 1G flew over 100 flights and 20 hours before being lost in an accident on 20 July 1955 due to a rotor control mechanical failure. Top speed was about 160 mph. A 4,000 lb Model 2 with a 250 hp engine was tested in 1956-57, but the Air Force decided to not fund it further in order to pursue the competing Bell XV-3.

Bell XV-3
One of the founders of Transcendental left to take the lead on the design of the Bell XV-3, which began under a joint Army-Air Force program in 1951. The XV-3 used the reliable 450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985 radial engine mated to a two-speed manual gearbox, similar in principal to that of the Transcendental 1G. The fuselage was 30 ft long and had a 31 ft wing span. It made its first flight as a helicopter in August 1955, but crashed two months later before completing a full conversion. Extensive wind tunnel and rig tests were conducted after this, with pilots practicing the conversion process and gear changes (which required significant manipulation of the pitch and throttle controls and took about 20 seconds) in the tunnel. Rotor instability concerns led to a change from 23 ft three-bladed full-articulated rotors to 24 ft two-bladed semi-rigid rotors. The second XV-3 made its first flight on 12 December 1958, with a full conversion only 6 days later. Conversions over the full 90 could be conducted in 10 seconds. Inadequate power and high weight growth precluded the XV-3 from hovering out of ground effect. The XV-3 made 110 full conversions and over 250 flights before it was damaged in a wind tunnel test in 1965 when a rotor housing separated from the aircraft. The ejection seats were thankfully never needed: they ejected downward.

13

14

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight | Tilt Prop |

Curtiss-Wright X-19
Using the radial force lift concept proven by the X100, Curtiss-Wright designed a six-passenger civil executive transport, originally designated the X200. As a part of the Army/Navy/Air Force TriService Assault Transport Program, the Air Force contracted for conversion of two prototypes, designated X-19 and extensively modified for military requirements with ejection seats, rescue hoist, mock refueling probe and a fuselage stretch for improved passenger access. The 44 ft long aircraft was powered by two Lycoming T55-L-7 turbo shaft engines producing 2,650 shp each. At the end of each tandem wing was a 13 ft three-bladed wide chord, high twist propeller. In order to eliminate gyroscopic and torque effects, propellers located diagonally rotated in the same direction. Roll, pitch and yaw were all controlled by differential propeller pitch. Empty weight as flown reached 10,000 lb, and gross weight over 12,000 lb. The first aircraft hovered on 20 November 1963, but suffered a hard landing. It was repaired, but problems with the control system and a series of mechanical problems plagued the program. On 25 August 1965 a transmission part failure caused an asymmetric lift situation, which allowed the crew to validate the operation of their ejection seats. When the program was canceled four months later, the first aircraft had made 50 flights, but for a total of only four hours. The second aircraft was never flown. The American armed forces had expressed an interest in this formula for reconnaissance, transport and tactical support, but the X-19's performance in the airplane mode was not brilliant. Despite a maximum cruise speed of 650km/h, its payload capacity was less than 550kg. The first pro-totype was quite badly damaged on its second flight in November 1963 and the second was never flown.

General characteristics
Crew: Two Payload: 544 kg Length: 12.83 m Wingspan: 5.94m (forward) / 6.55m (aft) Height: 5.2 m Max takeoff weight: 6,196 kg Powerplant: 2 Avco Lycoming T55-L-5 turboshaft, 2,200 shp (1,640 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 454 mph (730 km/h) Range: 325 miles (523 km)

15

16

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight | Tilt Duct |

Bell X-22
The X-22A was the Navy contracted and managed portion of the Tri-Service Assault Transport Program. The Bell X-22A was 39 ft long, featured side-by-side pilot seats, and had a gross weight of 17,000, including six passengers or a 1,200 lb payload. It was powered by four 1,250 shp GE YT58-GE-8D turboshaft engines that were cross-linked and had 35% excess power in case one of the engines failed in hover. Span over the canard (including the 7 ft diameter three-bladed ducted propellers) was 23 ft; across the rear wingtip ducts it was 39 ft. The ducts rotated non-differentially from 0 to 95 and had spanwise elevons across the center of the duct. Differential propeller pitch and the elevons were used to control the X-22A in hover. In forward flight, the ducts provided a significant amount of the aerodynamic lift. The first aircraft was rolled out on 25 May 1965. It made its first hovering flight in March 1966, and was tested to transition angles of up to 30 at speeds of up to 100 kt. That August, the first prototype was lost in a hard landing after only three hours of flying time due to a hydraulic failure. The second prototype made its first flight in January 1967 and performed hundreds of complete transitions. It reached a maximum speed in forward flight of 315 mph, and had a range of 450 miles. In early 1968, the X-22A's variable stability and control system was demonstrated, which allowed for research into hover and transition flight characteristics of other possible V/STOL aircraft. On 30 July 1968, it set a record by hovering at an altitude of over 8,000 ft. Flying until 1980, it accrued about 200 hours in the air.

General characteristics
Crew: Two Length: 12.07 m Wingspan: 11.96(rear) / 7.01m(front) Height: 6.31 m Empty weight: 4,763 kg Max takeoff weight: 8,020 kg Powerplant: 4 General Electric-YT58-GE8D turboshafts, 1,267 hp (932 kW) each * Propeller Diameter: 2.13 m

Performance
Maximum speed: 410 km/h / 255 mph Range: 712 km Service ceiling: 8,475 m Hovering Altitude with Wing In Ground: 3,658 m Hovering Altitude without Wing In Ground: 1,829 m

17

Interesting is the fact that with this program there was a research and development period (1958-1963) of a considerable length before the first prototype was constructed. The R&D would produce a design that would incorporate a number of significant innovations. Included were the following features: A large chord wing which was to be immersed in the propeller slipstream Huge propellers on a pair of power plants All engines, rotors, and the tail rotor which were connected together by intricate shafts and gear boxes Conventional-style cockpit controls Stability augmentation system for reduction of pilot workload in low-speed flight conditions

18

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight | Tilt Wing |

Canadair CL-84
The Canadian CL-84, begun in November 1963, was a quarter the size of the XC-142. It weighed 8,100 lb empty, could make a vertical take-off at 12,200 lb, or a short take-off at 14,700 lb. The wings were 33 ft long and housed two 1,450 shp Lycoming T53LTC1K-4A turboprops which powered the cross-linked 14 ft four-bladed propellers. Pitch control was provided by two counter-rotating two-bladed horizontal propellers, which in horizontal flight were stopped and aligned to minimize drag. Roll control was by differential pitch, and yaw was controlled with ailerons. It made its first vertical flight in May 1965, and first conventional flight that December. A total of four aircraft were built, including one which was not flown. US pilots evaluated it extensively, including demonstrations on amphibious ships and the Pentagon helipad. Neither government was sufficiently interested to order production aircraft. Two aircraft were destroyed in non-fatal accidents due to
Aircraft transformation from vertical to horizontal flight.

mechanical failures.

General characteristics
Crew: 2 Capacity: 12 passengers Length: 14.415 m Wingspan: 10.46 m Height: 4.34 m Airfoil: NACA 633-418 Empty weight: 3,818 kg Max takeoff weight: 6,577 kg (STOL), 5,710 kg (VTOL) Powerplant: 2 Lycoming T53 shaftturbines, 1,500 shp (1,100 kW) each Main rotor diameter: 2.13 m Propellers: 4-bladed, 4.27 m diameter Maximum speed: 321 mph (517 km/h; 279 kn) Cruise speed: 301 mph (262 kn; 484 km/h) Never exceed speed: 415 mph (361 kn; 668 km/h) Range: 421 mi (366 nmi; 678 km) with max wing fuel, VTOL, & 10% reserves Rate of climb: 4,200 ft/min (21 m/s)

Performance

19

20

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight | Tilt Wing |

LTV XC-142
_________________________________ The XC-142 aircraft was the third aircraft evaluated in the Tri-Service Assault

Transport Program. It used four crosslinked 3,080 shp General Electric T64GE-1 engines, each driving a 15.5 ft fourbladed propeller. The wing could tilt through 100 allowing the XC-142 to hover in a tailwind. The tail rotor folded to the port side to reduce the stowage length and to protect against accidental damage during loading. This cargo aircraft was 58 ft long, had a wingspan of 67 ft and was capable of transporting 32 troops and gear or 8,000 lb of cargo. It had a rear loading ramp and had a maximum gross weight of 41,000 lb for a vertical take-off, or 45,000 lb for a short take-off. It made its first conventional flight on 29 September 1964, first hover on 29 December 1964, and first transition on 11 January 1965. Air Force trials included cargo flights, cargo and paratrooper drops, and desert, mountain, rescue, and carrier operations. Five aircraft were built, but mechanical failures (primarily the cross-shaft and gear boxes which could be damaged during wing flexing) and operator error caused four of them to be damaged in hard landings. The XC-142 suffered from excessive vibration and noise, resulting in a high pilot workload. During the program, the XC142 accrued 420 hours by 39 different pilots as an operational evaluation aircraft.

General characteristics
Crew: 2 Capacity: 32 fully equipped troops Payload: 8,000 lb (3,336 kg) Length: 58 ft 1 in (17.71 m) Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.60 m) Height: 26 ft 1 in (7.95 m) Empty weight: 22,595 lb (10,270 kg) Max takeoff weight: 44,500 lb (20,227 kg) (STOL) Powerplant: 4 General Electric T64GE-1 turboprop, 2,850 hp (2,126 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 694 km/h at 6,100 m Cruise speed: 463 km/h at sea level Combat radius: 757 km Ferry range: 6,100 km Service ceiling: 7,620 m Rate of climb: 34.5 m/s

21

22

| Same propulsion system for hover and forward flight | Tilt Rotor |

Bell XV-15
Over twenty years after they began work on the XV-3, Bell received a contract to begin work on their 13,000 lb Research Tilt Rotor aircraft, which was designated XV-15. The 42 ft fuselage housed side-byside pilot seats. At each tip of the 35 ft span wings, a 1,550 shp Lycoming T53-LTC1K-4K turboshaft engine powered a 25 ft diameter three-bladed rotor. The engines and rotors tilted through 90 and were cross-linked in the event of engine failure. The rotors were semi-rigid stainless steel with a high twist and no flapping hinges. Control at low speeds was by cyclic and collective blade angle adjustments. The first hover of the joint Army/NASA XV-15 was performed on 3 May 1977. The first aircraft was later tested extensively in the wind tunnel. Aircraft number two made its first hover on 23 April 1979. It made the first conversion to horizontal flight on 24 July 1979. In the next several years, the XV-15 conducted extensive tests, shipboard landings, and achieved a maximum speed (in a dive) of 397 mph. By 1986, it had made 1,500 conversions in 530 flight hours. The aircraft was flight tested aboard the USS Wasp in 1990 to evaluate shipboard compatibility issues of the tilt rotor concept.

General characteristics
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot) Length: 42 ft 1 in (12.83 m Wingspan: 57 ft 2 in (17.42 m) with turning rotors) Rotor diameter: 25 ft (7.62 m) Height: 12 ft 8 in (3.86 m) Airfoil: NACA 64A015 Empty weight: 10,083 lb (4,574 kg) Max takeoff weight: 13,000 lb (6,000 kg) Powerplant: 2 Avco Lycoming LTC1K4K turboshaft engine Engine power ratings: 1,550 shp (1,156 kW) normal takeoff power (10 min max) 1,802 shp (1,354 kW) emergency power (2 min max)

Performance
Maximum speed: 300 knots (345 mph, 557 km/h) Stall speed: 100 knots when in airplane mode () Range: 445 nmi (515 mi, 825 km) Service ceiling: 29,500 ft (8,840 m) Disc loading: 13.2 lb/ft () Hovering altitude: 8,800 ft (2,635 m) out of ground effect

23

Bell Boing V-22 Osprey

The U.S. Navy/Marine Corps was given the lead in 1983. The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy. A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Arospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983. The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by that March the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload. Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls. The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; this was reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV). Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986. On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy. At this point all four U.S. military services had acquisition plans for V22 versions. Unlike a helicopter, the V-22 doesn't have to be disassembled and transported in a transport aircraft. With a single refueling it can fly for upto 3380km. Power for the Osprey, which is about half the size of a C-130, comes from a pair of General Electric T64-GE-717 turboshaft engines, each rated at 6150hp. The power is definitely needed, since the V-22 weighs in at about 24800kg maximum take-off weight in a STOL configuration, and about 19840kg in a pure VTOL mode. Its empty weight is just over 14880kg. The rotor diameter is a large 11.6m, with an overall fuselage length of about 17.4m. With the rotors in the take-off position, the height of the vehicle is just over 6m. The width of the vehicle, with the rotors turning, is almost 26m. Those rotors, by the way, are capable of rotating through 97 degrees and are constructed of graphite/glass fiber. In fact, 33 percent of the weight of the Osprey is fabricated of that high-tech material. The rotors also possess separate cyclic control swashplates for sideways flight and fore-and-aft control during hover. Lateral attitude is maintained by differential rotor thrust. Once the V-22 achieves horizontal flight, the engines have assumed a position parallel to the fuselage.

24

Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

worlds first production tilt-rotor aircraft

25

A V-22 in-flight refuelling in process.

First production Osprey to join the V-22 Navy flight test program since resumption of flight evaluations in May 2002. Aircraft is shown in compact storage configuration.

26

Inside the Osprey

Propulsion As mentioned above, the Osprey has two rotors with three-

bladed, 38-ft (11.6-m) propellers. Each

propeller is driven by an Allison AE 1107C turboshaft engine that is capable of producing over 6,000 horsepower. Each engine drives its own rotor and transfers some power to a mid-wing gear box. This gear box drives the tilting mechanism. In the event of an engine failure, the Osprey is capable of running on only one engine. In this case, power from the remaining engine is distributed to the two rotors through an interconnecting drive shaft.

Fuel The Osprey has 16 fuel tanks, 10 integrated into the wings and six in the fuselage. The feed tanks directly supply the engines with fuel from the other tanks, and fuel transfer is automatic. As the fuel flows from the tanks, pressurized nitrogen gas fills the tanks to reduce the possibility of fire. Depending upon the configuration of the Osprey, it can hold from 1,450 to 3,640 gallons (5,489 to 13,779 liters) of fuel.

Cockpit Controls The cockpit of the Osprey holds a pilot and co-pilot. In addition, there is a fold-down seat in the center behind the pilots for a flight engineer. The instrument panels have multi-functional displays, similar to the new glass cockpit of the space shuttle. The displays hold information

27

about the engines (such as oil pressure, temperatures and hydraulic pressures) and flight (such as fuel data, attitude and engine performance). There are also keypads used to interact with the flight computer and sticks used to control the flight maneuvers.

Communications The Osprey is equipped with multi-band radios (AM, FM, UHF, VHF) for voice transmission and radio reception. It also has navigational beacons and radios, radar altimeters and an internal intercom/radio system for communications among the crew and troops onboard.

Payload The Osprey can hold up to 24 troops and carry up to 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) in its cargo bay, which is 5.7 ft wide by 5.5 ft high by 20.8 ft long (1.72 x 1.68 x 6.35 m). The cargo bay has fold-down seats along the walls and a ramp that is used to load or deploy cargo and troops. Deployment can also take place in the air by parachute. In addition to the 20,000-lb load in the cargo bay, the Osprey has an external hook-and-winch system that allows it to carry up to 15,000 lbs (6,803 kg) of cargo in tow.

Stowage When the Osprey lands on the deck of a ship, it can be folded up for down-time. The blades and the wings are both foldable.

28

Recent development
On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22. The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per aircraft, including development costs. The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of $67 million per aircraft in 2008, but the Navy hopes to shave about $10 million off that cost after a five-year production contract in 2013. On 15 April 2010, the Naval Air Systems Command awarded Bell-Boeing a $42.1 million contract to design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities Mission improvements have been developed for the "Block C" version. A contract for the Block C upgrade and other improvements was awarded to Bell-Boeing in late 2009. Deliveries of Block C upgrades are ongoing in 2010. U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance. On 18 February 2011, Marine Commandant General James Amos indicated Marine MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan surpassed 100,000 flight hours and were noted as having become "the safest airplane, or close to the safest airplane in the Marine Corps inventory. The average V-22 mishap rate based on flight hours over the past 10 years, has been approximately half the accident rate for the USMC aircraft fleet. The V-22's accident rate is the lowest of any Marine rotorcraft.

Picture showing the body structure of V-22.

29

General characteristics
Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers) Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded), or 9,070 kg of internal cargo, or up to 6,800 kg of external cargo 1 Growler light internally transportable ground vehicle Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m) Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m) Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m) Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m) Height: 6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (5.5 m; at top of tailfins) Wing area: 301.4 ft (28 m) Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg) Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg) Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg) Powerplant: 2 Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107CLiberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 250 knots (463 km/h, 288 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m) Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km) Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km) Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary internal fuel tanks Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m) Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s) Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m) Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

Armament
1 7.62 mm (.308 in) M240 machine gun or 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun on ramp, removable 1 7.62 mm (.308 in) GAU-17 minigun, belly-mounted, retractable, video remote control in the Remote Guardian System

Rolls-Royce Allison AE 1107C-Liberty turboshaft engine

30

Nassau Amphibious Ready Group, showing four V-22s in 2010. Two V-22s are in compact storage configuration.

31

The Harrier Jump Jet Family

worlds only truly successful VTOL jet aircraft

32

The Story of Harrier

vectored thrust at its best The Harrier was developed from the Hawker P.1127/Kestrel aircrafts. The Hawker/Bristol funded P.1127 development began in 1957. The Bristol Pegasus engine (originally with only 11,000 lb thrust) was developed for the aircraft with heavy US funding support. It was based on the earlier Orpheus engine, and had a bifurcated jet pipe and vectoring front and rear nozzles. The P.1127 made its first hover on 21 October 1960 on tethers, but this was not considered to be beneficial to feel out the aircraft

response, so the first untethered hover was made less than a month later, on 19 November 1960. First conventional flight was made on 7 July 1961 and first double transition on 12 September 1961. Control power was low about all axes, which, combined with suck-down and limited height control power, resulted in a high pilot workload in hover. Hot gas ingestion was overcome with a low forward speed in takeoff and landing. One of the two initial test aircraft crashed, with the pilot ejecting safely. The British
The Bristol Pegasus Engine. Hawker Siddeley P.1127 hovering mid-air.

government

began

supporting

the

development before the first flight, funding the first two prototypes, and later four more. Pegasus 3

power was increased to 13,500 lb thrust. In 1962, the UK, US and Germany initiated a tripartite program, funding nine

improved P.1127 Kestrels for use by a UK-led tri-national squadron which conducted

operational trials. These used Pegasus 5 engines, with thrust increased to 15,500 lb. The Kestrel paved the way for the Harrier GR.1 in 1966.
Hawker Siddeley Kestrel FGA.1

33

Development
First-generation Harriers The Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR.1/GR.3 and the AV-8A Harrier were the first generation of the Harrier series, the first operational closesupport and reconnaissance attack aircraft with vertical/short takeoff and landing

(V/STOL) capabilities. These were developed directly from the Hawker P.1127 prototype and the Kestrel evaluation aircraft. The British Aerospace Sea Harrier is a naval V/STOL jet fighter, reconnaissance and attack aircraft, a development of the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. The first version entered service with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm in April 1980 as the Sea Harrier FRS.1, and was informally known as the Shar. The upgraded Sea Harrier FA2 entered service in 1993. It was withdrawn from Royal Navy service in March 2006. The Sea Harrier FRS Mk.51 is in active service with the Indian Navy, which operates the jet from its aircraft carrier INS Viraat. While Harriers have taken part in various conflicts, both the Sea

Harrier and Harrier GR.3 cut their teeth during the Falklands War,
A Sea Harrier lands on the flight deck of the Indian aircraft carrier INS Viraat

flying an astounding six sorties per aircraft per day on average and destroying an impressive 20 enemy The Harriers vectored thrust gave it a

aircraft without suffering a single air-to-air loss.

significant advantage over opposing Argentinian jets, and gave rise to reporter Brian Hanrahans famous line: I am not allowed to say how many planes joined the raid, but I counted them all out and I counted them all back.

34

Second-generation Harriers The Harrier was extensively redeveloped by McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace, leading to the AV-8B Harrier II.[2] Both were built by companies that are now parts of Boeing and BAE Systems. The Boeing/ BAE

Systems AV-8B Harrier II is a family of secondgeneration V/STOL jet multi-role aircraft of the late 20th century. British Aerospace license-built the Harrier

GR5/GR7/GR9. The AV8B is primarily used for light attack or multi-role tasks, typically operated from small aircraft
British Aerospace Harrier (II) GR9 taxis at RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo) 2008 in UK.

carriers. Versions are used by several NATO countries, including Spain, Italy, and the United States. The BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II is a modified version of the AV-8B Harrier II that was used by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the Royal Navy until 2010. Between 1969 and 2003, 824 Harrier variants were delivered. While manufacture of new Harriers concluded in 1997, the last remanufactured aircraft (Harrier II Plus configuration) was delivered in December 2003 which ended the Harrier production line.[3

US Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier

35

Kestrel FGA.1

Harrier GR3/AV-8A

Sea Harrier FA2

Harrier GR9

AV-8B+ Harrier

Crew

One (Two for trainer versions)

Length

13.0 m

14.4 m

14.2 m

14.1 m

14.5 m

Wingspan

6.99 m

7.70 m

7.70 m

9.25 m

9.25 m

Height

3.28 m

3.45 m

3.76 m

3.56 m

3.56 m

Empty Weight

4,540 kg

5,530 kg

6,370 kg

5,670 kg

6,340 kg

Maximum takeoff weight (short takeoff)

7,710 kg

11,800 kg

11,900 kg

14,100 kg

14,100 kg

Max speed

877 km/h

1,180 km/h

1,180 km/h

1,070 km/h

1,070 km/h

Combat radius

370 km

556 km

556 km

Engine

Pegasus 6

Pegasus 11 Mk 101

Pegasus 11 Mk Pegasus 11 Mk Pegasus 11 Mk 106 107 105

Thrust

15,000 lbf (66.7 kN)

21,800 lbf (97.0 kN)

21,800 lbf (97.0 kN)

24,750 lbf (110 kN)

23,500 lbf (105 kN)

Radar

None

None

Blue Vixen

None

AN/APG-65

36

37

| Separate Power Plant for Hover |

The Flying Bedstead

using jet engines for vertical flight

Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig in flight.

Otherwise known as the Rolls-Royce Thrust-Measuring Rig (TMR), an experimental aircraft that was first flown on Aug. 2, 1954 and used in the early development of VTOL (vertical takeoffand-landing) aircraft. The TMR was fitted with two MK4 Nene jet engines, which were standard Sea Hawk engines modified only by an air bleed system that allowed 10% of the engine compressor air to bleed off for the control systems of the rig. The efflux from the jet pipes a central one and a bifurcated one from the other engine was turned downward through 90. Two 95-gallon fuel tanks were fitted under the engines and the whole rig supported by four hydraulic oleo legs. A platform across the structure above the engines had a seat bolted to it together with a conventional type control column and pedals. The TMR was controlled by bleeding air from the engine through the control valves to diametrically opposed pipes, each equipped with a nozzle that could swivel 30 in either direction for turning the rig left or right The thrust-to-weight ratio of the rig was critical: any vertical takeoff (VTO) aircraft must have an engine thrust that's greater than the total weight. The latter was minimized so as to keep within a 25% thrust advantage. Each engine provided a thrust of 3,850 lbs, which, added to the 325 lbs thrust from each of the bleed nozzles, gave a total available thrust of 8,350lbs. This compared with a total weight for the rig, complete with pilot and full fuel tanks, of 7,196lbs. Handling improved as fuel was consumed; total running time was about 15 minutes.

38

The first rig, called XA314, made an initial ground run on Jul. 3, 1953 before first attempting to lift off the ground on Jul. 6, piloted by wing-commander Harvey Hayworth, Rolls Royce chief test pilot. During these early days of testing, it was felt that for safety's sake the rig should be tethered; consequently, a large gantry was built and cables attached to either side and above the rig from cable drums built into the gantry. After several months in the workshops the rig was rolled out again, put under the gantry, and a tethered flight carried out to test the new modifications. These were so successful that preparations were made for the first free flight. This took place on Aug. 3, 1954, and was piloted by Capt. Ron Shepherd before a distinguished audience. The rig rose slowly into the air and was held steady in a hover attitude. During the next four months a number of free flights were made, all at a height of 13-15 ft. but one flight was made up to 50ft. to ensure that there was no ground effect influencing the rig. The purpose of the rig was, as the name suggests, to test turbojet engines for
The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), of the early 1960s, was also referred to as the "Flying Bedstead."

lifting purposes and to develop techniques for controlling such an aircraft.

Following successful trials of the TMR, Rolls-Royce began development of the Rolls-Royce RB.108 direct-lift turbojet. Of squat, compact design for mounting vertically, the RB.108 differed from conventional turbojet engines in having its bearings and oil system designed for prolonged operation in the vertical attitude. First bench-tested in 1955 by Alan A. Griffith, who had conceived the idea of a specialised lift jet in 1941, thrust was 2,130 lbf (966.15 kg) from a weight of 269 lb (122 kg), giving a thrust/weight ratio of 8:1. The RB.108 was used in the Short SC.1, which used four for lift with an additional one mounted at an angle at the rear for propulsion, and the Mirage Balzac, which used eight vertically-mounted RB.108s for lift. The Vereinigte
Preserved RB.108 at the Royal Air Force Museum

Flugtechnische Werke (VFW) SG 1262 used five RB.108s, three mounted in tandem on the centreline, with one RB.108 on either side.

39

40

| Separate Power Plant for Hover |

Short SC.1
________________________________ Work began in 1954 to design a test aircraft that could demonstrate the utility of the recently developed Rolls-Royce RB.108 lift engine, producing 2,130 lb thrust each (a thrust to weight of 8:1). The Short Brothers SC.1 was powered by four RB.108 lift engines vertically mounted on gimbals in the center fuselage and one RB.108 cruise engine in the rear for forward flight. Gross weight was 7,700 lb, with a total vertical thrust 8,600 lb. Overall length was 30 ft; the wingspan was 23.5 ft. Bleeds from the four lift engines powered nose, tail and wing tip reaction jets for control at low speeds. First CTOL flight was made on 2 April 1957, first tethered vertical flight was on 26 May 1958, first free vertical flight was on 25 October 1958; first transition was on 6 April 1960. The SC.1 experienced the typical suck-down and hot-gas ingestion problems discovered during V/STOL development programs. It appeared at the Farnborough air show in 1960 and Paris air show in 1961 (for the latter it flew the English Channel both ways). Maximum speed was only about 250 mph due to the low thrust of the single cruise engine. Pilot workload was very high during landing, just when pilot attention was most important. The lift engines had to be started as late as possible, due to the high combined fuel consumption of the five engines. The ignition procedure was very labor intensive, as was transition from wing-borne to jet-borne flight. The second test aircraft crashed on 2 October 1963 due to a controls malfunction, killing the pilot. It was rebuilt and the two aircraft continued to fly until 1967.

General characteristics
Crew: 1 Length: 25 feet 6 inches (7.77 m) Wingspan: 23 feet 6 inches (7.16 m) Height: 10 ft 8 in
[6]

Performance
Maximum speed: 246 mph (214 knots, 396 km/h) Range: 150 miles (130 NM, 240 km) [6] Service ceiling: 8,000 ft (2,440 m) [6] Rate of climb: 700 ft/min (3.6 m/s) 2 Wing loading: 38.1 lb/ft (186.0 2 kg/m ) Thrust/weight: (CTOL): 0.265 (VTOL): 1.11

(3.25 m)
[6]

Airfoil: NACA 0010

Empty weight: 6,260 pounds (2,839 kg Loaded weight (VTOL): 7,700 lb (3,490 kg)) * Powerplant: Lift: 4 Rolls-Royce RB108 turbojets, 2,130 lbf (9.47 kN) each Forward flight: 1 Rolls-Royce RB108 turbojet, 2,130 lbf

41

Dassault Mirage III V

The III V (V for "vertical") was a Mirage III airframe, modified with eight RB.162-31 lift engines (generating 5,400 lb thrust each, or 16:1 thrust to weight!), long-stroke landing gears, and various doors to minimize the undesirable effects of the lift engine exhausts. It was 59 ft long, with a 29 ft wingspan, and weighed about 30,000 lb. It was powered by a SNECMA TF-104 (12,000 lb thrust dry, 20,000 lb in afterburner). Control power was improved over the Balzac, with similarly located control jets at the nose, tail and wingtips. First hover was achieved on 12 February 1965. The TF-104 was upgraded to a TF-106 for the first supersonic flight. First transition was conducted in March 1966. The second aircraft was fitted with a 10,750 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney TF30. It is the fastest V/STOL aircraft on record, achieving Mach 2.04 on 12 September 1966. The eight engines didn't leave much room for fuel and a visiting US Air Force pilot had to eject, destroying one of the two aircraft when he ran out of fuel during low-speed and hover operations. The other III-V was also lost. With the entire fuselage filled with lift engines, the Balzac and the III V seemed to prove that with enough lift engines, any aircraft could be converted to V/STOL. The problem, however, was that there was no room for anything else. The Mirage III V weighed about 3,000 lb over the basic Mirage III, which cost about half the payload and fuel.

General characteristics
Crew: 1 Length: 18 m (59 ft 5 in) Wingspan: 8.72 m (28 ft 7 in) Height: 5.55 m (18 ft 2 in) Loaded weight: 12,000 kg Powerplant: 1 Snecma TF104B turbofan, 4,725 kg (19,842 lb) 8 Rolls-Royce RB162 lift turbojet, 2,000 kg each

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.04

42

Dassault Balzac V

Although there was no British requirement for the RB.108 lift engine, Dassault in France was interested in developing a supersonic vertical take-off and landing fighter. The first step was to take eight of the existing RB.108 lift engines and install them in the Mirage III prototype airframe 001. The rebuilt aircraft, nicknamed Balzac, weighed about 13,500 lbs. It had a fattened and stretched fuselage (43 ft), but the same 24 ft span wings. The inlet duct for the cruise engine, the 4,850 lb thrust Bristol Orpheus, ran down the center of the lift engine collection. The front four engines were also separated from their rear counterparts by the main landing gear to balance the center of gravity. Each lift engine pair shared an inlet door and an exhaust door. First tethered hover was performed on 12 October 1962, with the first free hover made 6 days later. First conventional flight was made on 1 March 1963. During transition, all the lift engine doors created quite a bit of drag. On 27 January 1964, during one of the first transition attempts, it crashed in a "falling leaf" accident, killing the pilot. It was rebuilt and killed another pilot on 8 September 1965; this time it was beyond repair.

General characteristics
Crew: 1 Length: 13.1 m (42 ft 11.75 in) Wingspan: 7.3 m (23 ft 11.25 in) Height: 4.6 (m 15 ft) Empty weight: 6,124 kg (13,500 lb) Loaded weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb) Powerplant: 1 Bristol Siddeley Orpheus BOr 3 Cruise turbojet, 21.57 kN 8 Rolls-Royce RB1081A lift turbojet, 9.6 kN each

Performance
Maximum speed: 1,104 km/h (686 mph) at sea level Wing loading: 257.3 kg/m (52.7 lb/ft) Thrust/weight (jet): 1.12:1 in vertical flight Endurance: 15 minutes

43

| Combined power plant for hover |

The Tip Jets

catherine wheel in play Tip jet refers to the jet nozzles located at the tip of some helicopter rotor blades. The objective is to spin the rotor, much like a Catherine wheel firework.

Some tipjets rely solely on compressed air, provided by a separate engine, to create jet thrust. Others use an afterburner type system to burn fuel in the compressed air at the tip (tip-burners) to enhance the thrust. Some are ramjets or even a complete turbojet engine. Some are rocket tip jets that run off stored propellant such as hydrogen peroxide. Tipjets replace the normal shaft drive and have the advantage of placing no torque on the airframe, so no tail rotor is required. In engine-out scenarios the presence of tipjets on the rotor increases the moment of inertia, hence permitting it to store energy, which makes doing a successful autorotation landing somewhat easier, however the tipjet also very typically generates significant extra air drag, which demands a higher sink rate and means that a very sudden transition to the landing flare must occur for survival, with
The Sud-Ouest S.O.1221 Djinn is a French two-seat light helicopter. The helicopter rotors were driven by compressed-air jets at the end of each blade. It was the only tip jet helicopter to enter production A Catherine Wheel firework. Fireworks are placed at the ends of the wheel and rotate the same.

little room for error. In the field of VTOL aircrafts, only two aircrafts were built comprising of the tip jets, namely, Fairy Rotodyne and McDonnell XV-1.

Rotor Mast and Blade The picture shows one of the two tip jet blades of the French Sud-Ouest helicopter. Note the nozzle at the mast of the blade.

44

McDonnell XV-1
McDonnell's tip jet autogyro, the XV-1, was powered by a single 550 hp Continental R975-19 nine-cylinder radial piston engine. It drove two air compressors to power the 31 ft three-bladed rotor for vertical lift, and powered a 6 ft diameter two-bladed propeller mounted at the rear of the fuselage for forward flight. A small rotor at the end of each tail boom provided yaw control. Overall length was 50 ft, with a 26 ft wingspan. Empty weight was 4,300 lb which increased to a maximum gross weight of 5,500 lb. First tether test was in 1954, with the first free flight on 11 February of that year. First transition to horizontal flight was on 29 April 1954. The second of the two aircraft was damaged in autorotation testing in December 1954. On 10 October 1955, the XV-1 exceeded contemporary rotor-wing speed records by hitting 200 mph. With conventional helicopters improving their cruise speeds, however, the program was canceled in 1957.

Fairey Rotodyne
The British company Fairey had built several compound helicopters in the 1940s. One of these was modified with tip jets as the Jet Gyrodyne in 1953. Based on this data, Fairey designed the 33,000 lb Rotodyne, a 40 passenger transport powered by two 2,800 shp Napier Eland 3 turbine engines. The fuselage was 59 ft long with nearly 3,300 cubic feet of internal volume, ending in rear clamshell loading doors. The 60 ft diameter four-bladed rotor was rotated by tip-jets in vertical flight and autorotated in cruise, providing about half of the aerodynamic lift. During transition, the engine power was transferred by hydraulic clutches to two four-bladed tractor propellers mid-mounted on the 46 ft wide wings. In hover and forward flight, yaw was controlled by differential propeller pitch, while pitch and roll were produced by the cyclic rotor pitch. Aerodynamic surfaces augmented control in forward flight. First flight in helicopter mode was on 6 November 1957. The first transitions were begun in April 1958, with problems making satisfactory tip jet relights at altitude being solved by that October. Tip jet noise was extremely unpleasant, driving a significantly modified production version with lower pressure tip jets. Despite apparent commercial interest, Fairey was taken over by Westland, causing the program to fizzle out in about 1962.

45

46

| Combined power plant for hover |

EWR VJ 101C
The supersonic VJ 101C, built by the German EWR ("Consortium") of

Messerschmitt, Heinkel and Blkow, employed a lift plus lift/cruise propulsion concept, powered by six Rolls-Royce/MTU RB.145 turbojet engines. Two of these engines were mounted in tandem aft of the cockpit; the other four engines were in pairs in wingtip swivelling nacelles. On the second of the two experimental aircraft, the VJ 101C X2, the wingtip mounted engines were equipped with afterburners which increased their available thrust from 2,750 to 3,650 pounds each. The first VJ 101C hovering flight occurred on 10 April 1963, and the first horizontal takeoff was accomplished on 31 August 1963. A double transition (vertical takeoff through conventional flight followed by a vertical landing) was achieved on the sixth flight on 20 September 1963. The non-afterburning X1 became the world's first supersonic V/STOL aircraft in July 1964 when it broke the sound barrier in a shallow dive. This aircraft was lost in an accident on 14 September 1964. This occurred when the aircraft became uncontrollable immediately after a horizontal takeoff. The pilot ejected at an altitude of ten feet during an uncommanded roll. He survived but suffered crushed vertebrae. The accident was found to have been caused by a roll-rate gyro which had been installed with reversed polarity. Prior to its loss, the VJ 101C X1 had completed 40 aerodynamic flights, 14 full transition flights and the Hannover Air Show presentation on 3 May 1964. The VJ 101C X2 flew its first hovering free flights on 12 June but did not attempt to use its afterburning capabilities for vertical takeoffs until 10 October 1964; within two weeks, the VJ 101C X2 demonstrated complete transitions from vertical to horizontal flight and back to a vertical landing using afterburning. It suffered from high temperature and erosion issues, and crashed when it ingested hot exhaust gases and suffered a significant thrust loss while attempting to land on an elevated platform. The rotating nacelle design was abandoned, and the proposed follow-on, the VJ 101D, dispensed with the wingtip-mounted engines but retained the lift plus lift/cruise propulsion concept. Its use of RB.162 five lift engines and two aft fuselage RB.153 lift/cruise engines (with internal thrust deflectors) was very complex and the VJ 101D was canceled after engine testing had begun.

47

Yakovlev Yak-38
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: -38, NATO reporting name: Forger) was Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served exclusively on the Kiev class aircraft carriers.

The Yak-38 Forger used two in-line Rybinsk RD-36-35FVR lift engines (6,722 lb thrust each) immediately behind the cockpit inclined with the engine exhaust at 13 rearward. One Soyuz Tumanskiy/Khatchaturov R-27V-300 turbojet (13,444 lb thrust) was mounted in the center fuselage and exhausted through two hydraulically actuated vectoring nozzles (connected by a transverse shaft), one on each side of the fuselage just aft of the trailing edge of the wing. The first prototype flew in 1971 and the Yak-38 (originally designated the Yak-36M) first appeared to the West in July 1976 when the Kiev deployed with a developmental squadron of Forger-As and traveled through the Mediterranean. The normal complement for the Kiev-class through deck aircraft carrier was a dozen single-seat Forger-As and one or two twin-seat trainer Yak-38U Forger-Bs. The primary roles were fleet defense (particularly against shadowing maritime surveillance aircraft), reconnaissance, and anti-ship strike, but was never used in combat. The Forger was removed from front line service in 1992-93, although a few remained in the inventory for another year as limited proficiency training aircraft. A total of 231 aircraft had been built by the time production ended in 1988.

48

Design The first drawings showed a supersonic aircraft strongly resembling the Hawker P.1154 in study in the United Kingdom but with two R27-300 engines. Supersonic performances would have implied many difficulties of development, and it was decided to initially develop a relatively simple aircraft limited to Mach 0.95. Although the Yak-38 and Yak-38M were developed from the land-based Yakovlev Yak-36, the aircraft had almost nothing in common.

A diagram showing the lift forces on a Yak-38 in VTOL mode

The prototype VM-01 was finished on 14 April 1970. Though outwardly similar to the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier, it followed a completely different configuration. Together with a vectorable thrust engine in the rear used during flight, two smaller, and less powerful, engines were housed in the front portion of the fuselage and used purely for take-off and landing.[note 1] The aircraft used a similar layout to the German experimental VTOL strike fighter, the VFW VAK 191B, which began development in 1961, and the contemporary Dassault Mirage IIIV. The Yak 36 was sent for tests in May and June 1970. Mikhail Deksbakh carried out the first flight of the VM-02 in conventional flight mode on 15 January 1971. The VM-03 made its first flight in short take-off mode on 25 May 1971. Sea trials aboard the aircraft carrier ("aviation cruiser") Kiev were observed in 1975. A total of 231 Yak-38 aircraft were produced, including 38 two-seat trainers (Yak-38U). These were based on the four Kievs. The Yak-38 used a hands-free landing system. The aircraft could negotiate a telemetry/telecommand link with a computer system in the aircraft carrier which would allow it to be guided onto the deck with no interaction from the pilot. Another advanced feature that Yak-38 possessed was an automatic ejection seat. When one of the take-off engines failed, once the aircraft rolled past 60 degrees the pilot was automatically ejected from the aircraft. The take-off engines did suffer some reliability problems while in service and this system saved the lives of a few Russian naval aviators.

49

Two Yak-38M aircraft parked at the stern of the Minsk. The Yak-38M had better engines, a slightly altered and better aerodynamic shape and was therefore slightly faster and had a better range than the original Yak-38. The initial colour scheme worn by the AV-MF Yak-38 consisted of dark green anti-corrosion paint on the undersides of the aircraft, with dark blue upper surfaces. This was later replaced by a light grey over dark grey scheme, frequently associated with the Yak-38M. An unusual green-over-silver tiger camouflage scheme, reportedly seen on an aircraft onboard Leningrad in 1986, was probably applied for one cruise only. Special camouflage schemes may also have been applied to aircraft involved in the Romb-1 trials in Afghanistan in 1980.

Powerplant Supersonic performance was considered for the VM during the design phase (an early concept proposed an aircraft with two 64.7-kN Tumanskii R-27VM-300 engines and theoretically capable of a speed of 2000 km/h at altitude), but this was rejected in favour of a more easily attainable Mach 0.95 capability. For lift and cruise modes, a single R-27V-300 engine equipped with a plenum chamber directed thrust through two rotating exhaust nozzles, these being arranged as one each on either side of the rear fuselage, each with a rotational arc of 95. The production R-27V-300 was certified at a thrust rating of 66.7 kN in late 1976; the initial rating of this unit had been 57.9 kN. The engine was essentially a vectored-thrust, non-afterburning version of the turbojet used in the MiG-23 and had previously been employed (in a twin installation) by the experimental Yak-36. The main engine alone did not develop enough power or provide the required stability for vertical flight modes, and was therefore supplemented by two 28.4-kN thrust Kolesov RD-3635FV lightweight lift engines. The basic version of this turbojet, the RD-36-35, had previously been used to reduce the take-off run of experimental versions of the MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-15 and Tu-22R; two pairs of RD-36-35s were also installed in the prototype Su-24 tactical bomber.

50

The RD-36-35FVs were simple, single-shaft units arranged in vertical tandem configuration within the forward fuselage immediately aft of the cockpit, and angled aft at 10 from the vertical. In order to ensure a smooth transition from vertical to horizontal flight or vice versa the lift engines were ultimately fitted with deflector vanes that directed the thrust over a range of 30 fore and aft. A rear-hinged door incorporating 24 spring-loaded louvres covered the intakes for the lift engines during horizontal flight. Additional control for the low-speed and VTOL flight regimes was provided by main-engine bleed air, dispensed from reaction-control valves located above and below the wingtips, and below the nose and tailcone.

General characteristics
Crew: One Length: 16.37 m (50 ft 1 in) Wingspan: 7.32 m (24 ft 0 in) Height: 4.25 m (14 ft 5 in) Wing area: 18.5 m (199 ft) Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb) Loaded weight: kg (lb) Max takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb) Powerplant: 1 x Tumansky R-28 V-300 turbojet, 66.7 kN (15,000 lbf) Powerplant: 2 Rybinsk RD38 turbojets, 31.9 kN (7,870 lbf) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 1 280 km/h (795 mph) Range: 1,300 km (807 miles) Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,089 ft) Rate of climb: 4,500 m/min (14,760 ft/min) Wing loading: kg/m (lb/ft) Thrust/weight: 1+

Armament
Guns: GSh-23L 23mm gun pod (GP-9). Hardpoints: 4 with a capacity of 4,400 lb and provisions to carry combinations of: Rockets: various types of rockets (up to 240 mm). Missiles: 2 anti-ship or air-to-surface Kh23 (AS-7 Kerry). The Kh-23 required a guidance pod on one of the pylons. R-60 or R60M (AA-8 Aphid) air-to-air missiles could be carried under the external pylons. Bombs: two FAB-500 or four FAB-250 general purpose bombs under pylons, two incendiary ZB-500, or two nuclear RN-28 bombs. Other: external tanks.

51

52

| Combined power plant for hover |

Yakovlev Yak-141
________________________________ The Yak-41 program was initiated in 1975, about the same time that the Yak38 was first being deployed. The

supersonic Freestyle was optimized for air defense with an attack capability as a secondary role. The first conventional flight was made on 9 March 1987 and the first hover on 29 December 1989. The first official details were not released by the Soviet Union until the 1991 Paris Air Show (re-designated as the Yak-141) by which time the two flying prototypes had accumulated about 210 hours in the air. A dozen FAI-recognized Class H. III records for V/STOL were set in April 1991, consisting of altitudes and times to altitudes with loads. In flight testing, the Freestyle achieved a maximum speed of 1.7 Mach, and maneuverability was repeatedly claimed to be almost as good as that of the MiG-29 Fulcrum (although the small wings of the Freestyle make this extremely doubtful). Flight testing was originally intended to continue until 1995, but development was stopped in August 1991 due to the shrinking Soviet military budget. Yakovlev funded the development from its own resources for a while, in the hopes of attracting a foreign investor. The second flight prototype was destroyed after a hard landing on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier on 5 October 1991. The following year, the surviving prototype was demonstrated at the Farnborough Air Show, but the design bureau was still unable to find a market for the design.

General characteristics
Crew: 1 Length: 18.36 m (60 ft 2 in) Wingspan: 10.105 m (33 ft 1 in) Height: 5.00 m (16 ft 5 in) Empty weight: 11,650 kg (25,683 lb) Max takeoff weight: 19,500 kg (42,989 lb) Powerplant: 1 MNPK Soyuz R-79V300 lift/cruise turbofan Dry thrust: 108 kN (24,300 lbf) Wet Thrust: 152 kN (34,170 lbf)

Performance
Maximum speed: 1,800 km/h (Mach 1.4+) Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi) Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi) Rate of climb: 15,000 m/min (49,213 ft/min)

Armament
Guns: 1 30 mm GSh301 cannon with 120 rounds Hardpoints: 4 underwing and 1 fuselage and provisions to carry different combinations

Lift engines: 2x RKBM RD-41 turbojets 41.7 kN (9,300 lbf) thrust each)

53

| Augmented power plant for hover | Rotor |

Kamov Ka-22
The Ka-22 Vintokryl ('Screw Wing') was a large twin-turboshaft powered

convertiplane that debuted at the Soviet National Aviation Day display on 9 July 1961 in Tushino. At each end of the high, straight wing, was a 6,500 shp Soloviev D-25VK engine which powered a four-bladed rotor for vertical flight and a four-bladed propeller for cruise. Each engine was progressively clutched between the two systems to transition between the two modes of flight. The engine was a ninestage single spool turboshaft modified from the 5,500 shp D-25V engine used on the Mil Mi-6, Mi-10, and V-12 helicopters. The final turbine stage was a free-wheel that drove the gearbox. The fuselage housed a loading ramp that could be used for freight or vehicles, and could carry 36,400 lb of cargo or 80 seats (although this was never done). The tricycle landing gear was fixed and the entire nose area was glazed for good visibility, especially in landing. The high flight deck accommodated two pilots, a radio operator and engineer. Flight testing began on 20 April 1960. On 7 October 1961, the Vintokryl set a Class E. II speed record of 221.4 mph over a 15/25 km course. On 24 November 1961, it lifted a record payload of 36,343 lb to a height of 6,562 ft (2 km), as well as several other payload to altitude records. The Ka-22 was abandoned after a crash in 1964.

General characteristics
Crew: 5 Capacity: 16,500 kg Length: 27 m (102 ft 10 in) Diameter: 22.5 m (85 ft 9 in) Height: (inside cargo hold) 2.8 m (10 ft 8 in) Gross weight: 42,500 kg (93,700 lb) Powerplant: 2 D25VK turboshafts, 4,045 kW (5,500 hp) each each

Performance
Maximum speed: 350 km/h (220 mph) Range: 450 km (280 miles) Service ceiling: 5,500 m (21,000 ft)

54

| Augmented power plant for hover | Rotor |

Piasecki 16H-1
The 37 ft long privately developed Piasecki 16H-1 weighed 11,000 lb and had a wingspan of 20 ft. The five-seat Pathfinder was originally powered by a 550 hp Pratt & Whitney PT6B-2 turboshaft engine. The engine powered a 41 ft fully articulated three-bladed rotor and a 5.5 ft three-bladed ducted propeller in the tail (called a "ring-tail") to provide forward thrust and directional and anti-torque control with four vertical vanes in the duct. Gross weight was 2,611 lb and fuselage length was 25 ft. The 16H-1 made its first flight on 21 February 1962. Overall, the Pathfinder had the handling qualities of a conventional helicopter, but used its wings and pusher propeller to off-load the rotor and increase its maximum forward velocity to 148 kt. 185 flight hours were accumulated before May 1964, when Piasecki was contracted to test a high speed modification, the 16H-1A Pathfinder II. It was equipped with a 1,250 shp T58 turboshaft engine, a new drive system and propeller to handle the increased power. The rotor size was increased to 44 ft diameter, and the fuselage was stretched to accommodate eight seats. Flight testing resumed on 15 November 1965 and it accrued over 40 hours in the air by May 1966, reaching speeds of 195 kt. Later, it was redesignated the 16H-1C when the engine was upgraded to a 1,500 shp T58-GE-5.

General characteristics
Crew: two pilots Capacity: up to six passengers Length: 11.4 m Wingspan: 10.0 m Main rotor diameter: 44 ft 0 in (13.4 m) Height: 11 ft 4 in (3,45 m) Empty weight: 4,800 lb (2,165 kg) Gross weight: (4,870 kg Powerplant: 1 General Electric T58-GE-8 turboshaft, 1,250 hp (930 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 230 mph (370 km/h) Cruise speed: 175 mph (280 km/h) Range: 950 miles (1,530 km) Service ceiling: 18,700 ft (5,700 m)

55

The Future of VTOL

under development

F-35B Lightning II
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multirole fighters under development to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability. The F-35 has three main models; one is a conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is a short take off and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant.

F-35A CTOL

F-35 STOVL

F-35 CV

A conventional take-off and landing aircraft (CTOL) for the (US) Air Force; A carrier based variant (CV) for the US Navy; A short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy.

The F-35 is descended from the X-35, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. JSF development is being principally funded by the United States, with the United Kingdom and other partner governments providing additional funding. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin. The F-35 took its first flight on 15 December 2006. The F-35B will replace U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B STOVL fighters, F/A-18 strike fighters and EA6B electronic attack aircraft. The United Kingdoms Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, as well as the Italian Air Force and Navy, also will employ the F-35B. With its short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities, the F-35B will enable allied forces to conduct operations from small ships and unprepared fields, enabling expeditionary operations around the globe. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

56

F-35B Lightning II

The future of VTOL

57

History Behind the F-35B Vertical Lift Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is the aerodynamicist who designed the F-35B shaft-driven lift fan years ago at Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin's advanced technology program. His invention changed short-take off and vertical-landing (STVOL) planes forever, making the Lightning II the first supersonic aircraft with this capability. According to Bevilaqua, the best way to create power from the engine is by using a turbine. That power then gets moved forward using a shaft that connects to a fan, providing the vertical lift on the front of the planeand all while the turbine exhaust is redirected to the ground to lift the back of the plane. The result is a supersonic plane with great manoeuvrability. The idea, he says, came at the very end of a ninemonth study to see if it was possible to do a supersonic successor to the Harrier for the Marine Corp. "I had to come up with a way to increase the thrust of a jet engine so that you could take off vertically, but yet not make it impossible for the airplane to go supersonic." Dr. Bevilaquawho started working with Hans von Ohain, the German engineer who invented the jet engine with the Heinkel He 178, and encouraged him to think not about math but about engineeringsketched his first idea on a napkin, which was a turbine with a drive shaft sticking out the front of the engine. He got it to a propulsion expert at Skunk Works to see if it was feasible or not. From there it was transformed from paper dream to reality: Lockheed Martin applied for the patent in 1990, which ended up being one of the factors that landed them the massive $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter against Boeing's X-32.
View of the swiveling nozzle and exhaust of lift fan.

View of the lift fan and the auxiliary inlet

58

From Supersonic to Hover

how the F-35 Flies No other aircraft has ever achieved level supersonic flight and landed vertically, and so the X35B and its descendant the F-35B will hold a unique place in history.

Extra thrust for hovering

For hovering, the F-35B can rely on 40,000 pounds of thrust without having to use reheat. The F135's full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) software runs the engine at a higher temperature for hover flight than it does during conventional flight, producing more "dry" thrust than the engine normally develops without activating its afterburner. When the F-35B is hovering, all 40,000 pounds of thrust is directed downwards, not backwards. It also can be directed anywhere in between, and even slightly forwards. How the F-35B achieves all this involves a complex fusion of software, precision engineering and materials technology. The F135 is designed to be completely interchangeable with any other F135 or F136 in any of the three versions of the F-35 Lightning II, two of which won't land vertically. However, in the STOVL F-35B, the engine's design also allows for a forward-leading shaft to be coupled to the spool driven by the F135's low-pressure turbine.

59

The Pratt & Whitney F135 powers all currently planned versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The F135 is an evolution of the Pratt & Whitney F119, a technologically advanced turbofan that powers the Air Force's Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Pratt & Whitney is responsible for the engine and system integration. Rolls-Royce provides modules for the STOVL version and Hamilton-Sundstrand supplies control- and gearbox systems.

The F135 engine integrates the proven F119 core, a high-performance six-stage compressor and single-stage turbine unit with a new low-pressure spool. In addition, the propulsion system features advanced prognostic and on-condition management systems that provide maintenance awareness, autonomic logistic support, and automatic field data and test systems. It has approximately 40 percent fewer parts, which also improves reliability. All line-replaceable components (LRCs) can be removed and replaced with a set of six common hand tools. And, the F135 has a 50 percent lower infrastructure support requirement compared to current engines. The F135 STOVL engine delivers 78.3 kN, the LiftFan 82.3 kN cold thrust and the roll posts 16.5 kN for a sum of 177 kN for the entire system. This compares with the a maximum thrust of 106 kN for the latest model Harrier's Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine. All early F-35s were to be powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 but it was planned that engine contracts would be competitively tendered from Lot 6 onward. The engines selected would be either the F135 or an engine produced by the GE/RR Fighter Engine Team and designated the F136. The GE/RR Fighter Engine Team was a co-operation between GE Aviation in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States (60% share) and Rolls-Royce in Bristol, United Kingdom and Indianapolis, Indiana, USA (40% share). The F136 STOVL engine is being developed, jointly by Rolls-Royce and Philips Enabling Technology Group (ETG), as one of two propulsion systems for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Two alternative propulsion systems are required to power the F-35 as it was in the case of the highly successful F-16 fighter. General Electric Aircraft Engines will develop the core compressor and coupled high-pressure/low-pressure turbine system components, controls and accessories, and the augmentor. Rolls Royce will take care of the front fan, combustor, stages 2 and 3 of the low-pressure turbine, and gearboxes. Other international participant countries will develop and manufacture F136 components.

60

The F-35B's lift fan The spool drives the main fan that pulls air into the engine to allow combustion to take place. But when the spool is coupled (near the main fan) to the shaft, the spool/shaft arrangement also drives a two-stage,

vertically mounted "lift fan" situated just behind the pilot's cockpit. In hover mode, the F135's low-pressure spool imparts 28,000 shaft horsepower to the shaft. This is then converted to vertical thrust in a 90-degree gearbox located behind the cockpit. In this gearbox, a clutch engages a horizontally

mounted pinion gear on the shaft to drive two vertically mounted bevel gears, one above and one below the pinion gear. The two bevel gears rotate in opposite directions, each gear driving a short vertical shaft. These shafts power the two counter-rotating fan stages of the lift fan, Tennant explained. Doors in the fuselage above the lift fan open to provide an auxiliary air inlet and the fan forces air downwards to produce 20,000 pounds of vertical thrust. The air exits through a "variable area vane box nozzle" (VAVN) situated in the bottom of the fuselage directly underneath the lift fan. "It allows us to control (vertical) thrust ? magnitude and direction," said Tennant. The VAVN "looks like a set of Venetian blinds. When it's somewhat closed, thrust can point somewhat aft to somewhat forward, or straight down."
Rolls Royce Lift Fan system on display at the Paris Air Show

61

Pitch and roll control while hovering While the lift fan is providing downward thrust near the front of the aircraft, an amazing assembly called the "threebearing swivel duct" produces another 20,000 pounds of downward thrust from the engine's exhaust at the rear of the aircraft, and controls the aircraft's pitch attitude. The swivel duct is composed of several attached, overlapping pieces that swivel at angles to each other with the aid of ball bearings. It can direct the engine's exhaust air anywhere in a 105-degree continuous range from straight back through directly down to slightly forward, said Tennant. Pointed downwards, the duct looks like a stubby elephant's trunk. When hovering, the F-35B also relies on two "roll post ducts," downward-pointing nozzles located in the root of each wing. The F135 is a low-bypass turbofan engine: Some of the air pulled in by the fan at the front doesnt go into the engine core to be

mixed with fuel and burned, but bypasses it to flow outside the casing. During hover, some bypass air is directed into the roll post ducts to give the F35B roll control stability while performing a vertical take-off or landing. (Although the F-35B needs a short take-off run when fully loaded, it produces enough vertical thrust to take off vertically when lightly loaded.) FADEC software varies the thrust through each roll post duct independently to ensure the pilot has complete roll control over the aircraft while hovering.

62

Four FADEC systems In its F-35B partnerships, Rolls-Royce is responsible for the lift fan and its associated drive shafts, gearbox and clutch, as well as the swivel duct and the roll post ducts. In the F135equipped F-35B, Pratt & Whitney provides the engine itself, its stealth-optimized exhaust nozzle and, most importantly, the FADEC software. Uniquely, the F-35 features not one but four FADEC systems -- two for the main engine, to ensure complete redundancy of operation, and, likewise, two for the lift-fan system. "The software is a big piece of the technology that makes the STOVL work," said Tennant. The FADEC software is so complex that it runs through a high-speed databus that P&W developed specifically for the F-35's propulsion system. This databus is linked by means of a firewire-like system to the high-speed databus developed by Lockheed Martin to control the aircraft's other systems.

63

64

General characteristics
Crew: 1 Length: 15.6 m Wingspan: 10.7 m Height: 4.33 m Wing area: 460 ft (42.7 m) Empty weight: 14,500 kg Loaded weight: 22,470 kg Max takeoff weight: 27,000 kg Powerplant: 1 Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf (125 kN) Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lb f (191 kN) Internal fuel capacity: 6,030 kg

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+ (1,200 mph, 1,930 km/h) Tested to Mach 1.53. Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel Combat radius: 1,090 km on internal fuel Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,288 m) Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft (446 kg/m) Thrust/weight: **With full fuel: 0.87 With 50% fuel: 1.07

g-Limits: 9 g

Armament
Guns: 1 General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds Hardpoints: 6 external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)
[76]

and provisions to carry different

weapons combination.

65

The Agusta Westland AW609, formerly the Bell/Agusta BA609, is a civil twin-engined tiltrotor VTOL aircraft with a configuration similar to the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

General characteristics
Crew: 1 or 2 Capacity: 6 to 9 passengers/5,500 pounds (2,500 kg) payload Length: 44 ft (13.3 m) Height: 16 ft 3 in (5.1 m) nacelles vertical; (21 ft 10 in (6.6 m) nacelles horizontal Wingspan: 38 ft 5 in (11.7 m) Width with rotors: 60 ft 5 in (14.1 m) Rotor diameter: 25 ft 10 in (7.92 m)) Empty weight: 10,483 lb (4,765 kg) Useful load: 5,500 lb (2,500 kg) Max takeoff weight: 16,800 lb (7,600 kg) Powerplant: 2 Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67A turboshaft, 1,940 hp (1,447 kW) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 275 knots (315 mph, 510 km/h) Cruise speed: 260 knots (299 mph, 465 km/h) Range: 750 nmi (852 mi, 1,390 km) Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m) Rate of climb: 1,500 ft/min (7.62 m/s) Disc loading: 15.8 lb/sq ft (77 kg/m)

66

Agusta Westland AW609

_____________________________________________ The aircraft was developed from the experimental similar tiltrotor Bell XV-15, by Bell/Boeing in 1996, but Boeing pulled out in March 1998, and Agusta came in during September 1998. As of 2011, it is still being developed by Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company (BAAC), a joint venture between Bell Helicopter and Agusta Westland. Although the BA609 shares many features with the V-22 twice its size, they share practically no parts. The AW609 has a pressurized cabin, unlike the V-22. The first ground tests of the BA609 prototype began December 6, 2002 and the first flight took place on March 6, 2003 in Arlington, Texas, with Roy Hopkins and Dwayne Williams as test pilots. After 14 hours of helicopter-mode flight testing, the prototype was moved to a ground testing rig for ground-based testing of conversion modes. On June 3, 2005, having completed the ground-based testing, the prototype resumed flight testing and expansion of its flight envelope. This led to the first conversion to airplane mode while in flight on July 22, 2005. As of October 2008, the two flying aircraft have logged 365 flight-hours. Certification of the aircraft was projected for 2011. BAAC has received orders for nearly 80 aircraft. On 21 September 2009, Agusta Westland chief executive Giuseppe Orsi said that corporate parent Finmeccanica had authorised buying Bell Helicopter out of the program in order to speed it up. In 2011 negotiations centered on the full transfer of technologies shared with the V-22.

Uses Bell/Agusta aims the aircraft "at the government and military markets". In 2007, Bell/Agusta sought to let the BA609 compete with corporate business jets and helicopters. It can fly where jets cannot, such as heliports or smaller airports, yet it has twice the range of a helicopter, and can fly almost twice as fast. Specifically, the company has stated that the BA609 would be of interest to any operator that has a mixed fleet of fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, USMC deputy commandant for aviation, asked Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. to study arming the AW609 so that it could be used to escort V-22s.

67

Bell Boeing Quad Tilt Rotor

future transported rotorcraft

The Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor (QTR) is a proposed four-rotor derivative of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor being developed jointly by Bell Helicopter and Boeing. The concept is a contender in the U.S. Army's Joint Heavy Lift program. It would have a cargo capacity roughly equivalent to the C-130 Hercules, cruise at 250 knots, and land at unimproved sites vertically like a helicopter.

The FTR will provide a capability that does not exist anywhere in the world today--and perhaps will replace the helicopter for military operations. The concept for the aerial assault platform comes from Bell Helicopter Textron. Having teamed with Boeing on the twin-engine V-22 Osprey tiltrotor program, Bell has developed the concept for a larger fuselage. Envisioned to be about the size of a stretched C-130 Hercules, the FTR would feature two V-22-type wings, each having an engine and a combination rotor-propeller mounted at the outboard tips. The exact configuration has yet to be determined. Some versions show a tailless aircraft, others have an airframe more along the lines of a C-130. There is no disagreement about the interior. The V-44 is designed to be a heavy hauler. "Imagine this aircraft with a cabin large enough to internally carry an 8 x 8 x 40-ft. container, several helicopters, all types of high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, eight standard loading pallets, or 70 [medivac] litters," reads an industry analysis describing the concept. "Imagine an aircraft that could transport 80 to 100 troops or 10 to 20 tons of equipment and supplies at speeds greater than 300 mph over distances from 1000 to 2000 miles and then safely land vertically, without the need for runways or airports."

68

History and Specifications

The FTR concept can be traced back as far as the early 1960s when the Curtiss-Wright Corp. built the X-19, a small quad-rotor testbed. After 50 successful test flights, it was destroyed in an accident. A second X-19 was scrapped. Enthusiasm for the FTR, however, is based on the technical success of the V-22 Osprey. These aircraft can be configured to carry 24 combat troops or up to 20,000 pounds of internal or external cargo at twice the speed of a helicopter. Avatarian procurement plans call for 360 Marine Corps MV-22 aircraft and 50 Aerial Force CV22 aircraft as of AA 121. Using parts common with the Marine MV-22, the Air Force CV-22 modification includes the addition of internal-wing fuel tanks and terrain-avoidance and terrainfollowing radars. It also has been given an enhanced electronic warfare suite, additional cockpit seating for a flight engineer, an aerial refueling probe and an internally mounted rescue hoist. The FTR will use a pair of V-22 propulsion systems. Each is based on two Rolls-Royce Allison AE 1107C 6150-shp engines and a computer-controlled rotor coordination system that permits a safe landing if one engine loses power. An obvious question is whether the four rotors could operate in such close proximity without creating turbulence that would shake apart the aircraft or make it impossible to control. To answer this question, Bell draws on data reaching back to its X-22 ducted propeller quad tiltrotor, which flew 500 flights between 1966 and 1988. The results encouraged Bell to test a pair of V-22s at a distance approximating the spacing between the fore and aft wings of a V-44. According to Dick Spivey, Bell's director of advanced concepts, the test was a success. Water tunnel tests showed that the rotor wakes from the front engines flowed down and inboard-below and inboard of the rear rotors. Technically, there is no reason this bird shouldn't fly. Thus configured, it could carry twice the payload and eight times the internal volume of cargo transported by the V-22. A true multiservice aircraft, it would reportedly meet the expanded needs of the Marine Corps' Ship-To-Objective Maneuver operations, support Air Force Aerospace Expeditionary Force units and meet many Army requirements for a future Joint Transport Rotorcraft (JTR). In the Army's case, officials envision a JTR that will replace some of the aging CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The Navy has its eye on the quad tiltrotor to make deliveries to its oceangoing fleet, much as the C-2A Greyhound now services carriers. Early requirements issued by the Defense Department call for the ability to transport 8 to 12 tons of cargo over 600 miles with return at cruise speeds of 300 knots. Bell Helicopter engineers believe that their FTR concept would come very close to meeting these criteria.

69

70

Joint Heavy Lift studies In September 2005, Bell and Boeing received a cost-sharing contract worth US$3.45 million from the U.S. Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate for an 18-month conceptual design and analysis study lasting through March 2007, in conjunction with the Joint Heavy Lift program. The contract was awarded to Bell Helicopter, which is teaming with Boeing's Phantom Works. The QTR study is one of five designs; another of the five is also a Boeing program, an advanced version of the CH-47 Chinook. During the initial baseline design study, Bell's engineers are designing the wing, engine and rotor, while the Boeing team is designing the fuselage and internal systems. A similar arrangement is used on the V-22. A one-fifth-scale wind tunnel model has undergone testing in the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (a unique transonic wind tunnel) at NASA's Langley

Research Center during summer 2006. The "semi-span" model (representing the right half of the aircraft) measured 213 inches in length, and had powered 91-inch rotors, operational nacelles, "dynamically representative" wings. The primary test objective was to study the aeroelastic effects on the aft wing of the forward wing's rotors and establish a baseline aircraft configuration. Alan Ewing, Bell's QTR program manager, reported that "Testing showed those loads from that vortex on the rear rotor [are the] same as the loads we see on the front [rotors]," and "Aeroelastic stability of the wing looks exactly the same as the conventional tiltrotor". These tests used a model with a three-bladed rotor, future tests will explore the effects of using a four-bladed system. Besides the research performed jointly under the contract, Bell has funded additional research and wind tunnel testing in cooperation with NASA and the Army. After submission of initial concept study reports, testing of full-scale components and possibly a sub-scale vehicle test program was expected to begin. Pending approval, first flight of a full-scale prototype aircraft was slated for 2012. The study was completed in May 2007, with the Quad TiltRotor selected for further development. However, additional armor on Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles caused their weight to increase from 20 tons to 27 tons, requiring a larger aircraft. In mid-2008, the Army continued the Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) studies with new contracts to the Bell-Boeing and Karem Aircraft/Lockheed Martin teams. The teams were to modify their designs to reach new JHL specifications. JHL became part of the new US Air Force/Army Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program in 2008.

71

Concepts
a glance of the future technologies

Cruise-efficient, short take-off and landing (CESTOL)

The odd engine placement is part of a cruise-efficient, short take-off and landing (CESTOL) aircraft concept from the Georgia Tech Research Institute which also sees mechanical wingflaps replaced by high-speed blasts of air to generate extra lift. It's hoped that the development of such craft will make more airports available to fixed-wing jet aircraft by enabling take off and landing at steep angles on short runways, as well as reducing engine noise. The research at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) as part of NASA's Hybrid WingBody Low-Noise ESTOL Program focuses on developing a CESTOL aircraft similar in size to a Boeing 737 which can carry 100 passengers and travel at 600mph. "To take off or land on a short runway, an aircraft needs to be able to fly very slowly near the runway," said GTRI principal research engineer Robert J. Englar. "The problem is that flying slowly decreases the lift available for taking off and landing. What's needed is a powered-lift approach that combines low air speed with the increased lift capability required for successful CESTOL operation."

72

Flipped design The GTRI team placed turbo-fan engines above the wing of the conceptual CESTOL aircraft, rather than below it. Over-the-wing placement enables very high lift while still providing the necessary engine thrust for take-off and high-speed level flight. As an added bonus it also reduces engine noise. The powered-lift design relies on a circulation control wing or "blown-wing" which sends highspeed blasts of air over the upper surface of the wings during take-off and landing to generate extra lift. In most fixed-wing aircraft, Englar explains, mechanical flaps are used at take off and landing to increase the size of the curved wing and augment lift. But the lift generated by conventional wings isn't sufficient for the low flight speeds and steep ascents and descents required by CESTOL aircraft. The blown wing in the GTRI design uses only one small flap. The key is a narrow slot running along the entire trailing edge of each wing through which compressed air is blown. The wing flap rotates downward on take-off and landing to form a highly curved aft surface; then air from the slot can be blown over that curved surface to generate high lift two to four times higher than a conventional mechanical flap. The GTRI design also uses the interaction between the air coming from the wing slot and the exhaust of the plane's over-the-wing jet engines to achieve even greater lift. "This strategy allows an aircraft to be flying at a very low speed, while the wing is seeing much higher relative wind speeds on its curved upper surface," Englar said. "We have measured lift coefficients between 8.0 and 10.0 on these pneumatic powered-lift wings at a level flight condition during testing. The normal lift coefficient on a conventional wing at a similar flight condition is less than 1.0." "Our design has to incorporate several trade-offs, yet the entire wingengine powered-lift system has to perform all of its functions well," said Englar, who leads the aerodynamics portion of GTRI's work. NASA's Hybrid Wing-Body Low-Noise ESTOL Program is a four-year program led by California Polytechnic State University which includes GTRI.

73

D-Dalus
an entirely new genre of aircraft arrives

Austrian research company IAT21 has presented a new type of aircraft at the Paris Air Show which has the potential to become aviation's first disruptive technology since the jet engine. The D-Dalus (a play on Daedalus from Greek mythology) is neither fixed wing or rotor craft and uses four, mechanically-linked, contra-rotating cylindrical turbines, each running at the same 2200 rpm, for its propulsion. The key to the D-Dalus' extreme maneuverability is the facility to alter the angle of the blades (using servos) to vector the forces, meaning that the thrust can be delivered in your choice of 360 degrees around any of the three axes. Hence D-Dalus can launch vertically, hover perfectly still and move in any direction, and that's just the start of the story. Like most cars and aircraft these days, it sounds very complex but it's all controlled by computer algorithms, so it's simple joystick control for the user, and far less exacting than a helicopter to fly. D-Dalus is particularly suited for rough conditions and can thrust upwards and hence "glue down" on landing, which it can also do on a moving vehicle. Indeed, landing on a moving vehicle is one of the D-Dalus' many party tricks, and it's a natural for landing on watercraft. Not surprisingly, since it initially broke cover at the Royal Aeronautical Society conference a few days ago, it has already attracted a lot of interest from military quarters.

74

The D-Dalus is also near-silent, and has the dynamic stability to enter buildings and handle rough weather with ease - things which existing rotorcraft simply cannot achieve. The aircraft also has a sense-and-avoid system which, in conjunction with its complete lack of vulnerable external parts (such as rotors), means it can hover in very close proximity to vertical rock faces and walls, making it suitable for search-and-rescue operations, as a surveillance drone with hover-and-stare capabilities and as a proactive tool for urban battlefield situational awareness. The lack of vulnerable external moving parts will give a small DDalus-type drone the ability to fly into buildings through windows, and its unique capabilities also offer 360 degree vision, another aspect lacking in traditional rotor craft which have blind spots due to the rotors, and nowhere near the same maneuverability as the DDalus. As it can lift heavy loads, and becomes even more efficient in doing so as it scales upwards in size, it is also envisaged as a platform for loading and unloading ships when cranes are not available. The D-Dalus is also so simple mechanically that it needs little maintenance and requires no more maintenance expertise than an auto mechanic. It should be noted that all VTOL aircraft capable of carrying large payloads are complex and very costly to maintain. Currently, tests are being conducted using a 120 bhp KTM engine and turbines around five feet long - and the capability of lifting a payload of 70 kg. More tests are planned over the coming weeks. IAT21 is now also working with Cranfield University in the U.K. on a larger, more powerful motor, a new hull shape for the craft, and advanced guidance and control systems. The forces on the blade pivots are understandably huge, and in initial testing it was found that all available bearings failed, so inventor Meinhard Schwaiger, who already has more than 150 patents to his name, knuckled down and invented (and patented) his own, near-frictionless swivel-bearing to cope with the stresses. The D-Dalus is constructed of carbon fiber, and appears to be scalable for a range of potential applications including maritime search and rescue, freight transport, operating alongside and within buildings during fires - the long term hopes for the platform include a passenger version for public transit.

75

SiMiCon Rotor Craft (SRC)

best of two worlds

A small Norwegian company is developing an aircraft that aims to take advantage of the "best of two worlds": the Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) properties of a helicopter and the high-speed potential of a fixed-wing plane. The SiMiCon Rotor Craft (SRC) concept utilises a circular fuselage shaped like an aerofoil blades containing that extend

retractable

rotor

telescopically from the disc as they spin up to speed for vertical take-off and landing. When in the air, the SRC's jet engine takes over and the rotor blades retract into the circular wing cavity for fixed wing flight. The rotor blades can be extended mid-flight if the craft needs to hover and sideways thrust from the jet engine or a small tail rotor is being integrated into the design to prevent the entire place "spinning like a top". SiMiCon has recently performed tests of the aerodynamic characteristics of circular disc-shaped wings in cooperation with the Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Research is still in its early stages and the concept is not expected to fly for several years.

76

Canard Rotor Wing (CRW)

helicopter-plane hybrid

Since Britain's Harrier jump jet first flew in 1960, engineers have not had much luck trying to build more fuel-efficient aircraft that can take off vertically and then fly like a plane. Now Boeing hopes to change all that with a radical new rotor craft that will make its first test flight in the next few weeks. Called the Canard Rotor Wing (CRW), it is a combination of a fixed-wing plane and a helicopter. It uses a two-bladed rotor to get off the ground, but once airborne it locks the rotor into place to act as a fixed wing, allowing it to cruise at far higher speeds than any chopper. The rotor is driven by jet exhaust channelled through nozzles in the tips of the blades. This means that the CRW has no "torque reaction" that in a conventional helicopter tries to spin the fuselage in the opposite direction to its main rotor. As a result, the CRW will not need the tail rotor that helicopters use to counteract the torque. Tail rotors add weight and make helicopters show up strongly on radar, so being able to do without one is a big plus, says Boeing spokesman Erik Simonsen. But the need to stop the rotor blade in mid-flight and lock it into a wing-like position inevitably leads to compromises in both modes. "The rotor is not that great a rotor and not much better at being a wing," says Wally Acree, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Ames Research Center in

77

California, who carried out early wind tunnel tests on the CRW. But overall, it should be more efficient and have a longer range than a Harrier, which has to burn a lot of fuel to hover. The CRW is being developed jointly by Boeing and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with each paying half the $24 million development cost. In the maiden flight, a scaled-down and uncrewed version will try to hover. For it to have any chance of making it into service, the CRW will quickly have to show that it can safely make the tricky transition from rotor to fixed-wing flight. To do this, the aircraft relies on lift from a tailplane and from stubby aerofoils called canards mounted on its nose. Once airborne the helicopter pitches forwards to gain speed, and when it has enough lift, the rotor is stopped and locked into place. But it is likely to be touch and go. "The canard and tail give it just barely enough lift to get it through the transition," says Acree.

If the CRW makes it into service, it will have a crew of one or two. It has been designed mainly for reconnaissance missions by the US Navy or the Marines. The combination of wing and rotor sets the CRW apart from other hybrid aircraft such as Boeing's controversial MV-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" machine. The Osprey has enormous propellers fitted on two swivelling wings. In cruising flight, the propellers drive the plane through the air in the usual way, but for take-off and landing the wings swivel upwards and the propellers act like helicopter rotors.

78

Transformer (TX)
VTOL flying car

The company behind the first FAA approved "roadable aircraft" the Terrafugia Transition has been selected to contribute to DARPA's Transformer (TX) Project, a program that aims to bring flying car technology to the battlefield. Terrafugia will subcontract to one of two winning teams under phase one of the program which focuses on creating a conceptual design for a four person cross between a Humvee and a helicopter for use in insurgency, reconnaissance, medical evacuation and logistical supply. DARPAs US$65M Transformer (TX) program calls for a vertical-takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle that can travel 280 miles by land or air, carry up to 1,000 pounds and offer control to non-pilots through the use of semi-automated flight-control systems. The first phase of the program will run over the next 12 months with the aim of creating a design for both a prototype and a production vehicle. A working prototype is expected to materialize as early as 2015. DARPA has selected AAI Corporation and Lockheed Martin as the prime system integrators, while Carnegie Mellon University and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne will look at critical enabling technology.

79

Terrafugia's role is as a sub-contractor to AAI (an operating unit of Textron Systems). The company's design incorporates Slowed Rotor/Compound (SR/C) technology originally developed by Carter Aviation Technologies which uses a rotor for vertical takeoff and landing and a small wing for high speed cruising.

Terrafugia will contribute expertise in "drive and flight integration, deployable flight surfaces, and automotive crash safety for an aircraft." "This DARPA program effectively leverages Terrafugia's core competencies and enables us to grow from a pure GA company to an emerging aerospace company with both general aviation and defense development programs," said Chief Executive Officer Carl Dietrich. "Our strong team of Terrafugia engineers with recent experience designing and building a dual purpose vehicle will bring a unique perspective to the TX program that is highly valued by DARPA and the other contractors on our TX team."

80

81

Webography
list of websites

(www.google.co.in)

(www.en.wikipedia.org)

(www.aviastar.org)

(www.vstol.org)

(www.lockheedmartin.com)

(www.space.com)

(www.nasa.gov)

(www.jsf.mil)

(www.gizmag.com)

82