SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the next-up:-a-very-long-and-lightweight-extension-cord dept.
NASA has tested the Greased Lightning GL-10, a 10-motor drone which can take off vertically like a helicopter and fly efficiently like an airplane. They also envision a scaled-up version which could carry 1-4 people:
The GL-10 is currently in the design and testing phase. The initial thought was to develop a 20-foot wingspan (6.1 meters) aircraft powered by hybrid diesel/electric engines, but the team started with smaller versions for testing, built by rapid prototyping.
"We built 12 prototypes, starting with simple five-pound (2.3 kilograms) foam models and then 25-pound (11.3 kilograms), highly modified fiberglass hobby airplane kits all leading up to the 55-pound (24.9 kilograms), high quality, carbon fiber GL-10 built in our model shop by expert technicians, " said aerospace engineer David North.
"Each prototype helped us answer technical questions while keeping costs down. We did lose some of the early prototypes to 'hard landings' as we learned how to configure the flight control system. But we discovered something from each loss and were able to keep moving forward."
During a recent spring day the engineers took the GL-10 to test its wings at a military base about two hours away from NASA Langley. The remotely piloted plane has a 10-foot wingspan (3.05 meters), eight electric motors on the wings, two electric motors on the tail and weighs a maximum of 62 pounds (28.1 kilograms) at take off.
"During the flight tests we successfully transitioned from hover to wing-borne flight like a conventional airplane then back to hover again. So far we have done this on five flights," said Fredericks. "We were ecstatic. Now we're working on our second goal — to demonstrate that this concept is four times more aerodynamically efficient in cruise than a helicopter."
Here is a 4m45s video of a test flight.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday May 11 2015, @10:26PM
Jesus, what's with the attitude?
Your first post adopted a sneering attitude towards this design simply - as far as I can tell - because you couldn't determine the reasoning behind the ten props, and also because, for some reason, you decided they were "advertising" this feature as if it was some great advance in aviation design. Which they are not doing. It's merely factually descriptive.
Yes, my "maybe" was an uninformed guess. I didn't claim it to be anything but. deadstick [soylentnews.org] ("This arrangement will reduce the bending load at the wing root, allowing a lighter structure.") seemed to think I might have a point, but maybe he's not an engineer either. If I'm wrong, couldn't you just calmly explain why instead of going apeshit?
What are the ten engines for
I still don't know, and neither, it seems, do you. So why are you adopting such a condescending attitude towards them for doing so?
other than cheap, ease-of-scaling for a prototype?
What's wrong with that as a reason? How does it in any way conflict with the way they have presented their information?
You may be able to get away with your pseudo-science bullshit here, but when you walk into a engineering forum we're going to tell you to shut your bitch mouth.
I'd be far more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you'd at least attempt to be civil. Being rude just makes you people think you're stupid, even when you're not.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk