X-Jet and Gyros

The rotating turbine elements would constitute a de facto gyroscope, wouldn't they?

As I recall, a gyroscope precesses perpendicularly to applied forces. It might take quite a learning curve to make this be second nature, similar I guess to being a helicopter pilot. I would imagine the accident possibilities are significant. Fuel payload can't be very high.

But cool, though! Too bad I never saw any at Sarg Hubbard's surplus store....

As in Tornado's reply, there is inherent gyroscopic effect. Personally, I would take one of these over a single-seat chopper any day. More visibility and not enclosed. Reminds me of those hovercraft thingies on Johnny Quest!

I think that the short answer is "pretty much"....strictly thrust manipulation.

As others have indicated the vertically oriented spinning elements in the gas turbine will provide some gyroscopic support, but the principal forces will be/are the upward thrust being through, or not through, the centre of mass of the system.

In some ways the system is a little analogous to riding a bicycle where a turn is initiated by causing the riders mass (plus that of the bicycle) to be on what will be the inside for a turn.

In the case of the X-Jet this idea is effected in two dimensions - forward/backward and left/right.

The gyroscopic element while giving some stability in one direction will actually cause precision in the perpendicualt direction. Leaning (say) to the left will cause the whole machine to pitch forward or rearward depending on the direction of rotation of the turbine. Don't know if the pilot or controls have anything built in to accommodate this, but it wouldn't be too hard to do some rough calculations, but the main point being that gyro stabilisation effect is not a simple all gain no pain.

As for which I'd prefer to be in......mmm.... enclosed is not so bad because it can give protection and absorb energy in a crash PLUS if the gas turbine in the X-jet fails you get to fall like a stone. As long as you are not in the death zone in a helicopter (i.e. too low, low speed) it is standard to be able to auto-gyro into a slow and hopefully safe landing.

I'd say; range, payload, limited attack, limited defense, pilot vulnerability, low speed, high fuel consumption, high pilot skills, and of course falling like a stone due to a longish list of mechanical, maintenance, or fuel problems (or a bullet hit about anywhere).

Far from a field combat practical device.

Compared to a Huey, mini gun and door gunner, and/or whatever payload wise, it loses.

UH-1 Iroquois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like the Segue, a gyro is used as a reference, but not to stabilize the vehicle via direct gyroscopic forces. For stability and control, it uses thrust vectoring. The gyroscopic effects of the engine would be as much a hindrance as an aid in this, I'd think: in other words, when the vehicle pitches forward, you do not typically want it to also roll.

Given that we have come to accept that many of today's fighters are inherently unstable and nearly unflyable manually, perhaps this concept should be revisited. Traditional pilots (like me) really like the ability to glide and maintain control if an engine quits. Traditional pilots used to say things like this: "An autopilot is a device that will place the aircraft wreckage in close proximity to a runway." But today's fighter pilots must have more faith in complex control systems, and the X plane is not much different than a Harrier in its vertical takeoff mode.

The overwhelming problems are, of course, that if the engine quits, you loose both the ability to fly and the ability to control your descent and landing. Even a helicopter (an assemblage of parts bent on self-destruction, according to fixed wing pilots) can be brought to a safe landing if the engine quits. (Good luck, however, if the tail rotor fails.)

Redundancies, whole vehicle parachute system... perhaps it could be made sufficiently safe. In urban warfare or police use, this could be a great way to get very quickly from point to point that no other vehicle could match.

Interesting, Blink

We could redesign it

Doing something with the frontal area would be helpful.

Tear drop the fuselage, enclose the pilot - seat or recline - motorcycle style? - body mass steering assist?

Give it a stubby over-wing with folding extensions (downward I think, rather than "carrier style" - so it had some lift and when extended, some reasonable glide.

And I imagine with lift happening more forward thrust is available, so faster.

So add in some Harrier thrust and control principals

Then there is just the noise.

I wonder what Chris is up to?

I have to go out for a bit.. but this sounds exciting. give me the dimensions and specs/materials and references you wish to see.

perhaps you guys know the basics of hovercraft and give some guidance here.

Chris

PS> just for fun, here is a design I made a long time ago..the basic idea is that the counterrotating head is tiltable. Fuel is all in the base. pilot gets a twist grip for throttle.. up-down on the stick gives forward/backward.. and push right/left turns the tilted rotor in the chosen direction. rotors on top is a stable configuration. outside frame connected to hub.. anyway.

A lot of those would be mustering and similar "difficult in a fixed-wing" operations. (I wonder if the figures include ultra-lite 'incidents')

In a rotary wing tail rotor failure, the trick is to get off the power quick enough and take your chances as a somewhat heavy gyro-copter. Difficult and anti-intuitive at the hover.

But gentlemen - both are wings - both are a decided improvement on engine failure with no wing at all.

Thank you Gentlemen for all of your excellent answers. One further point -- the wobble. How do they overcome this? Is this part of what tears up bearings, or is that strictly heavy weights and high rpms?

Grazzi!