You guys really have most likely, the best VTOL drone. You got all the numbers to really stay balanced (speed, lift, simplicity, range, stability, cost, etc). After watching them all for years, I really think you guys have it!
The simplicity of the wing conversion design here is really smart. The less complexity, the better the reliability in the field and the cheaper the cost. Nice work, guys.
This concept is better than the Bell V280 Valour, and a full size demonstrator will prove it, and at a fraction of the development time and cost! this is the future !Come on US Navy, you know you want a full size one, for manned operations!
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on this great success. Transwing seems to be a very successful and efficient UAV, but what advantage do you have if we compare the same MTOW values with China's CH-10 tilt-rotor UAV? Tilt-rotor systems have proven themselves in large-scale systems. Instead of changing the orientation of the wing, isn't it simpler to just change the orientation of the engines, as in tilt-rotor systems? Based on the same MTOW values, does CH-10 or X-P4 provide better performance?
Disagree, the Transwing is less complex, and thus potentially less cost to develop and maintain, plus its transition from hover to forward flight and visa versa , is much quicker!
If I were to make a full size version, I would have just 2 turbo-prop jet engines located between each via a common gearbox, driving the 2 propellers on each wing, this will reduce the overall mass of the craft. The only downsize of this layout, is redundancy, if one engine should fail. However if both the engines were couple by hydraulic systems, then if one engine on one wing should fail, the other with still provide power . Thus the 4 propellers are actually rotated/powered by hydraulic motors, which gets its power by just 2 gas turbine engines,, one in each wing, that share the power. Alternatively a single gas turbine engine in the rear of the plane could remotely power the 4 propellers plus add some extra forward thrust, but that might screw the hover mode! This concept could be engineered to be most reliable with low operational maintenance costs
No that would not work for Military levels of redundancy. There would need to be a mechanical link between both powerplants and all the rotors, this is why the V-22 has so many issues because of the pod mounted moving powerplants that need to be connected by a common gearbox incase there is an engine failure. You would be better off using a central power generation unit to turn an alternator and generate current into a dual redundant bus that goes across all electrical propulsors.
@@Crosbie85 most do not know human transportation is legalized for these... in asia and a few other pacific island nations... we are very much behind now, except this team and amazon's
❓Why???❓ Certainly traditional tiltwing/rotor architectures are simpler and sturdier so this is not going to be used in crewed apps. Unfortunately the relative location of CG and CL are changing dynamically. The vortex ring state would seem to be more of a challenge. Just a 10 second evaluation. But, to be fair, we/I have an non-traditional approach in our/my VTOL but it is absolutely required [can't say why/application]
It looks cool, but I don't think there's a specific niche for that as of now. You can't really scale it up with this design, and with current frame the object to deliver from point alpha to bravo is probably a munition or a small supply crate. But loitering munitions with one way design are more efficient and cost-effective, while fixed-wing heavier platforms are better for what they were specifically designed for. I'm not really sure it can find a place within USAF Q line-up. Unless you discover a very specific role this design excels at. Navy seems to be a reasonable place to try, but again it either fills an existing niche doing better at or you think of a new specific niche with little competition.
as long as, there are four motors runs in fixed wing configuration, the endurance is not that good comparing to single fifth motor VTOL! ,,, it's better than multicopter but it worse than VTOL fixed wing in the market.
❓Why???❓ Certainly traditional tiltwing/rotor architectures are simpler and sturdier so this is not going to be used in crewed apps. Unfortunately the relative location of CG and CL are changing dynamically. The vortex ring state would seem to be more of a challenge. Just a 10 second evaluation. But, to be fair, we/I have an non-traditional approach in our/my VTOL but it is absolutely required [can't say why/application]
For the endurance, 2 outboard are switched off in standard flight and for the c.g. The battery pack for each motor are located in the nacelle of each so this VTOL have a moveable c.g. following the flight mode and for the weight, it is mostly in the wing so the hinge mechanism support only the fuselage.
