The faculty of Aerospace Engineering at TU Delft is one of the largest, most multifaceted scientific communities focusing on aerospace and related areas (such as wind energy) in the world. Our mission: ‘We aim to be a world-class faculty of Aerospace Engineering, renowned for modern teaching practices, high-profile research, hyper-modern laboratories and facilities, and pioneering innovations’. With these we aim to make an optimum contribution to society at a time when everything is increasingly revolving around connections.
The only issue I see is that they should be using turbo engines instead of those electric 80mm EDF ones. They would get a better feel of what the air pressure would be like with fuel tanks in it with real fuel.
Agree. You can make Snoopy's dog house fly with EDFs. They are great for lightweight models of almost any shape, but do very little to demonstrate that a concept is actually viable
Tegen het team zou ik zeggen: The next step, weg uit de model-vliegtuig arena. Dat is hetzelfde model met ca 12-15 meter spanwijdte. Je gaat als testvlieger liggend in de romp, en monteert een klein koepeltje op de romp om naar buiten te kijken. Net als de Nuna. Uiteraard is een grote parachute voor het hele systeem ingebouwd. Je bouwt een soort avant-garde Horten 229. 1000 km/h is het doel met de laagste Cd0 ooit. Dan komen de flight tests. Haalt die zijn L/D? Zijn startlengte, landingssnelheid? Als de hoofdwielen ver achter het zwaartepunt zitten, is dat landbaar? Wat is de flutter snelheid zonder zware massa's (de motoren) ver voor de elastisch as van de vleugel? Is er kans op transsone flutter, zoals de DH-108 dat had? Kunnen meetsensoren en het systeem erachter wat de roeren aanstuurt, juist die flutter versterken? Is de stroming gehinderd door de pijl-stelling nog laminair of helemaal turbulent in het middengebied van de vleugel, zoals de Beech Starship dat had? Vele vragen komen op, die het systeem moet gaan bewijzen. Het is in de praktijk allemaal veel moeilijker dan initieel wordt ingeschat.
It would be better to extend the center-body aft and put normal fins on it. See the older Tu-404, the possibly derived Airbus "VELA" studies, the X-48-C. As for study, study, study, and maybe a prototype in 2041, see also the Burnelli simple chunky lifting fuselage. As per the '70s Boeing model 754/759 studies and publicity back then, with the same engines and fuel load as a normal plane they'd get x1.5 the payload and range compared to a normal plane. Something like the Lock-Mart "hybrid wing/body" design also could proceed any time with conventional materials and techniques and no need for advanced stabilization, just flying like a normal plane, and gain similar benefits to fuel savings. Aerospace is not at all serious about gaining efficiency. "If it looks right, it'll fly right" rules, and and we see only intolerance to "funny-looking" lifting-fuselage or all-wing planes. "Tradition" and "my grandpappy didn't design planes like that!" dictates that we spend another 60 years burning too much fuel in tube & wing conventional planes because some marketing execs think that "passenger acceptance" will stop the planes.
Thanks for your question; please see the response from the DelfiPQ team: Delfi-PQ does not include a propulsion system but our group is working on a micropropulsion prototype based on MEMS microthrusters which we hope to fly in a future pocketqube.
Seriously though. It needs someone with a pair of tentacles (you know what I meant) to just do it and force the rest of aerospace to do it also. As Musk forced auto makers to build EVs and he is forcing aerospace to reduce the cost. Note that SpaceX was underselling all launch services competitors before they'd landed a booster. Aside from little test hoppers, all their advances and "testing" has been done with paying customer launches. Nothing of what Tesla or SpaceX does is patented. Radically new engineering or engines or materials or advanced stabilization & control systems are _NOT_ necessary, it you put a tail on it. See the X-48-C or the Tu-404 if you like pretty, swept "flying wings". See the '70s Boeing model 754, similar to the very much earlier Burnelli designs. No new materials, no issues about control, and 150% the range and payload of a normal plane. Ignored by aerospace for decades. We've just got to get aerospace past the intransigence by Boeing who has stated that they will never build a civil or large transport plane to lifting fuselage or any sort of "all-wing" planform. Everybody else including apparently Airbus and TU Delft and the Russians and the Chinese just slavishly follows Boeing, so we're going on decade after decade flying inferior, vastly inefficient planes because some exec at Boeing says "if it looks right, it'll fly right".
@@JFrazer4303 Aerospace doesn't work like that. For example, it needs different designs of the airfield and certain safety features wich you cannot provide without many many years of experiences
@@johannes21e6 None of which applies to the Boeing 754 or Burnelli designs. Standard materials and processes and avionics, same airport infrastructure. Yes, it takes a few years to get it past safety protocols. It's taken a few years since the 1940s.
WOW that pitch up on takeoff though. And that's with engines above axis and at takeoff power? Oh my. Very dramatic video for an RC model flight. Means practically nothing, you can get an RC lawn mower to fly almost as well as this.
You could make a styrofoam mock-up and cover it was strapping tape and simply throwing it off a cliff or some slope soaring and got the same are the Namek results $45
Bij noodlandingen of neerstorten raken de motoren minder snel het oppervlak of de obstakels.. En het is aerodynamischer.. Jammer wel dat het model niet flexibel is zodat net als een vogel elke beweging gevolgen heeft voor de richting.. Dit is misschien toekomstmuziek.. wie weet.. Net zoals drones nu snel veel beter worden..
Oh FFS, the _DRAMA!!_ The dude shaking his head in relief, the music. Video production cost so much they couldn't show it land. This is far from heroic. RC-ers invent and fly different shapes all the time with success and less fanfare and cost. I bet the mandatory yellow bulletproof vests took up half the budget, but for unknown reasons are the only thing that make people visible on a deserted airfield. Such a level of importance. 2 years? Bet the EDF engines cut construction by half. Ugh.
@@koborkutya7338 - " _I guess you produce a design study with physical modeling every second week right. What a jerk._ ". I stand by what I said. Rocket science isn't particularly difficult and this doesn't come close. It's obvious propaganda masquerading as an excuse for their financial waste and tardiness for what someone could produce in a week.
@@revolution3395 They did not produce a flyable model. They use a model to validate calculations and computer modeling. How it takes off or lands is secondary to the data they measure and compare to calculations. It does not matter how it looks because the scaled model is not the end product here. What matters is how much they can or cannot improve the calculation models they use to design an aircraft. Further, in case of an university, it is of minor importance if the aircraft they practice on gets to be a commercial product. What matters is that they are practicing design and development of aircraft, studying aerodynamic phenomena. Making flyable models is just step n in studying a possible configurations, still a bunch of smartasses act like they can perform all that development in a weekend. Of course Airbus wants propaganda, of course! That's one reason they are dumping money into a University instead of an ad campaign! I much rather have them dumping money into educational institutes than marketing agencies. In aeronautical development it takes a hell of a lot of work to find out if a configuration in current technical environment and materials, technology etc can become a feasible product or not. I absolutely like the idea that a university team explores different solutions than current mainstream, that takes them far closer to understand their craft than repeating the solutions that were worked out 60 years ago. If you think about it, the entire human aviation was realized against the prevailing opinion of commenters way back then.
With all the drama and budget to make CEO's gasp in awe so their expensive time-wasting would seem worth it. Homer Simpson's concept car springs to mind.
I was surprised that you didn’t have a chase drone taking aerial video. I don’t know the final power configuration but what is it like to fly with one engine out?
