The idea is a static body VTOL design that can hover stable in the air, and also go at high speeds very efficiently with wings. Could modify dimensions as needed, but general idea, I’m unsure if there’s a major design issue?
You must log in or register to comment.
- BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish2 months
You don’t really gain anything from putting the props in the wings, and you lose a lot of wing strength.
Take a look at https://elroyair.com/ for a real-world vtol drone with fixed wings.
- 2 months
Yea but don’t the flat rotors cause drag? The point being, the rotor inside the wing is not causing drag.
- Not a newt@piefed.caEnglish2 months
The point being, the rotor inside the wing is not causing drag.
It would absolutely cause drag, just not from the wing’s leading edge but from wake turbulence added to the air flow that’s still going over the wing.
- 2 months
Probably not as much as having an exposed rotor, also maybe you could angle the edge of the hole so the air flows over it like a ramp.
- 2 months
Probably, maybe, possibly, perhaps. All fun words. Having a hole in the wing is probably way worse than some windage. It cuts the balls out of the laminar flow and pressure differential. I’m no pilot, but as a sailor I can tell you that sails do not perform very well with holes in them.
Why not make the little ramp at the front of the wing so the air flows over it like a ramp and then you can do away with the entire rest of the wing?
- 2 months
Indeed, you clearly know what you’re talking about. A little ramp at the front of the wing would help, with a divet on the other side of the hole to smooth the air flowing down into the other side.
- 2 months
Without going into the aerodynamics, which plenty of others have gone into, the main problems I see are:
- The structural integrity of the wings is effectively kneecapped by those 2 rotors. There’s almost no material remaining where the wings meet the body and there’s a lot of force that needs to transfer through that area.
- Unless the center of gravity is within the triangle defined by the rotors, you’re going to have a really bad time trying to control that thing during vertical flight.
- Where would all the fuel and drivetrain for 4 props (which all take up significant space) live? There is almost certainly minimal room for any sort of cargo or payload.
- Why would you want a “thick unitary” frame (I’m assuming you mean unibody here)? We put thin skin with a supporting skeleton on aircraft to reduce the weight of the craft itself without sacrificing too much rigidity, which makes more weight available for fuel and/or cargo.
Is this a generated image? In addition to the font being the one that generated images tend to use, there’s some callouts here that also just don’t make sense: the double “pure one-piece static frame” and “thick, unitary body frame” callouts are, I think, saying the same thing in two unintuitive ways, and along with the “long clean wings” callout, none of them really have anything to do with the design concept here. Additionally, you’ve repeated the “maximum efficiency winged vtol configuration” and “cheapest minimalist one-piece construction” notes on the side, neither of which are necessarily true or provable from first principles based on the design- quite the opposite, if anything.
- 2 months
Great constructive feedback, thank you. Would you want to try to create a better design with this concept in mind? I think you have a clear understanding of what the idea is.
- 2 months
Are you incapable of seeing my post history or just stupid?
