The "Whirl": More Efficient Rotary Craft?

[sanman]

Here's something I was reading:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380


So beyond the mere claim of being more efficient, why would it actually be so?

The claim of hovering for 4 days is quite a jump, when compared to Global Hawk.

Is this even vaguely realistic?

[Bob Fry]

> Here's something I was reading:

> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380

"Raytheon researcher, John Liebsch, described it as a 'cross between a
ceiling fan and a sailboat'"

Kinda hard to imagine. I'd like to see a picture.

[Dave Jackson]

An interesting concept. Large chord and relatively slow turning wings
(rotor blades) may work, but it's maximum forward speed is probably very
slow.

Perhaps an unmanned modern airship, particularly if it is filled with
hydrogen, might do just as good. In fact, in a no-wind or low-wind situation
the airship should offer a better loiter time.


"sanman" > wrote in message
om...
> Here's something I was reading:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380
>
>
> So beyond the mere claim of being more efficient, why would it actually be
so?
>
> The claim of hovering for 4 days is quite a jump, when compared to Global
Hawk.
>
> Is this even vaguely realistic?

[smjmitchell]

If anyone has a picture I would like to see it too.

There was a report in Aviation Week (I think) a few years back of a similar
long duration rotorcraft UAV being developed by the designers of the
Predator drone (General Atomics ?). There were pictures in this article. The
pictures were artists impressions because the aircraft had yet to fly at the
time of the article. I have heard nothing more about this aircraft since the
article appeared. Anyone know more ?


"Dave Jackson" > wrote in message
news:rM60d.355688$M95.84109@pd7tw1no...
> An interesting concept. Large chord and relatively slow turning wings
> (rotor blades) may work, but it's maximum forward speed is probably very
> slow.
>
> Perhaps an unmanned modern airship, particularly if it is filled with
> hydrogen, might do just as good. In fact, in a no-wind or low-wind
situation
> the airship should offer a better loiter time.
>
>
> "sanman" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Here's something I was reading:
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380
> >
> >
> > So beyond the mere claim of being more efficient, why would it actually
be
> so?
> >
> > The claim of hovering for 4 days is quite a jump, when compared to
Global
> Hawk.
> >
> > Is this even vaguely realistic?
>
>

[nafod40]

sanman wrote:
> Here's something I was reading:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380
>
>
> So beyond the mere claim of being more efficient, why would it actually be so?
>
> The claim of hovering for 4 days is quite a jump, when compared to Global Hawk.
>
> Is this even vaguely realistic?

Don't know, but you can buy a controllable model helicopter that
operates kind of on this principle. One plus is that you don't waste any
BTUs countering the rotation with a tail rotor or similar.

http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/snh/snh36859.htm

My son has one, and it's a blast to fly. i let him have the controls
occasionally.

[Peter Seddon]

Try http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001098.html

Regards Peter


"sanman" > wrote in message
om...
> Here's something I was reading:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996380
>
>
> So beyond the mere claim of being more efficient, why would it actually be
so?
>
> The claim of hovering for 4 days is quite a jump, when compared to Global
Hawk.
>
> Is this even vaguely realistic?