NASA Testing Leaptech Wing

Not really much of as an aerodynamic wing, is it? It really stays up by turning thrust into lift, so if there's a wide scale electrical short, the airplane pretty much turns into a rock, doesn't it?
 
I bet it glides well, just at higher speeds than you would normally use.
 
bflynn said:
Not really much of as an aerodynamic wing, is it? It really stays up by turning thrust into lift, so if there's a wide scale electrical short, the airplane pretty much turns into a rock, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It's not too hard to design independent electrical systems.

Which is exactly how NASA thinks in its designs.

Now, it may add too much weight, but I'll suspect most of the weight is the 18 electric motors.

I would think it would be a better idea to use ducts to shape the wind over the wing and keep it laminar, but that's based on speculation.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's not too hard to design independent electrical systems.

Which is exactly how NASA thinks in its designs.

Now, it may add too much weight, but I'll suspect most of the weight is the 18 electric motors.

I would think it would be a better idea to use ducts to shape the wind over the wing and keep it laminar, but that's based on speculation.
Click to expand...

You think the extra drag would be worth it?
 
Hook it to the truck and drive it around? I guess wind tunnel time is too expensive with a cut budget? Sounds like something I'd do.
 
So, a tiny wing area is ok because you have all those engines blowing air over it.... and when you power back? I hope they find a way to overcome that.
And I can't help but think such a critter will be draggy and slow because of the frontal drag provided by so many fans.
Truly wish them success however.
 
MAKG1 said:
I would think it would be a better idea to use ducts to shape the wind over the wing...
Click to expand...

What kind? Mallards, Mergansers? I'd think Canada geese would give you more power. :crazy:

dtuuri
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So, a tiny wing area is ok because you have all those engines blowing air over it.... and when you power back? I hope they find a way to overcome that.
And I can't help but think such a critter will be draggy and slow because of the frontal drag provided by so many fans.
Truly wish them success however.
Click to expand...

With all electric motors power back can be completely computer controlled and maintain enough lift while allowing the performance you seek.

I'm not fond of complete computer control myself, but wow! some of the things we can do with today are really amazing!

John
 
Until they come up with a serviceable battery that doesn't weigh a ton (or more), I think this is just a waste of tax dollars.

Rich
 
Hmmm, I wonder how draggy those suckers are freewheeling with no load?

If they aren't too bad, you could potentially use them for an extended range, self launching glider. Loitering in lift using the motors to recharge the batteries to cover a longer gap between zones of lift.
 
Henning said:
Hmmm, I wonder how draggy those suckers are freewheeling with no load?

If they aren't too bad, you could potentially use them for an extended range, self launching glider. Loitering in lift using the motors to recharge the batteries to cover a longer gap between zones of lift.
Click to expand...

Umm, if you use them to charge, you're making drag. It ain't free. You will lose at least enough height to correspond to the charge energy. It's gonna suck. And you will use more charge than you got trying to get your height back, so you would have been better off not doing anything.

Free-wheeling drag is irrelevant. Almost all the drag will come from the generators.
 
MAKG1 said:
Umm, if you use them to charge, you're making drag. It ain't free. You will lose at least enough height to correspond to the charge energy. It's gonna suck. And you will use more charge than you got trying to get your height back, so you would have been better off not doing anything.

Free-wheeling drag is irrelevant. Almost all the drag will come from the generators.
Click to expand...

I understand that when charging you are adding drag, that's why you charge loitering in lift that will compensate at the same time as keeping you out of a cloud with the added drag. Once you have enough charge to proceed, you cut the field and the load and keep on going, turning electricity back into lift. You don't get it "for free" it's just storing lift as electricity for future use.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I understand that when charging you are adding drag, that's why you charge loitering in lift that will compensate at the same time as keeping you out of a cloud with the added drag. Once you have enough charge to proceed, you cut the field and the load and keep on going, turning electricity back into lift. You don't get it "for free" it's just storing lift as electricity for future use.
Click to expand...

An airplane with "regenerative air brakes." I'm no glider pilot but I would think that there would have to be a fair amount of excess updrafts to be able to regenerate any appreciable amount of electricity.
 
Henning said:
I understand that when charging you are adding drag, that's why you charge loitering in lift that will compensate at the same time as keeping you out of a cloud with the added drag. Once you have enough charge to proceed, you cut the field and the load and keep on going, turning electricity back into lift. You don't get it "for free" it's just storing lift as electricity for future use.
Click to expand...

I don't think those tiny wings are going to be any good for loitering in any lift short of a tornado. And with all the turbulence from the air passing in a negative angle of attack over the propeller blades, the wing will suffer lift losses and the efficiency of the props will be very poor.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
I don't think those tiny wings are going to be any good for loitering in any lift short of a tornado. And with all the turbulence from the air passing in a negative angle of attack over the propeller blades, the wing will suffer lift losses and the efficiency of the props will be very poor.

Dan
Click to expand...

I'm not talking exactly that rig, I'm talking the concept, even if it's scalled down in potential to not be self launching, just enough to get a slight climb in zero lift conditions.:dunno:
 
RJM62 said:
Until they come up with a serviceable battery that doesn't weigh a ton (or more), I think this is just a waste of tax dollars.
Click to expand...
Cart or horse? Until they come up with an electric propulsion configuration that's better than fossil-fueled I think pursuing flight-rated battery technology is a waste of tax dollars. ;)

Y'all do realize that this is a technology demonstration, not a production-ready design...right? Anyone read the papers/review the data that have been published? Anyone?

Nauga,
the peer reviewer
 
nauga said:
Cart or horse? Until they come up with an electric propulsion configuration that's better than fossil-fueled I think pursuing flight-rated battery technology is a waste of tax dollars. ;)

Y'all do realize that this is a technology demonstration, not a production-ready design...right? Anyone read the papers/review the data that have been published? Anyone?

Nauga,
the peer reviewer
Click to expand...

It's applied research without a vital component to make the resulting technology work. The batteries, on the other hand, have other applications.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
It's applied research without a vital component to make the resulting technology work.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Horizon 3. If you wait until all of your enabling technology is mature to start your technology maturation you're too late before you even start.

Nauga,
technically immature
 
nauga said:
Welcome to Horizon 3. If you wait until all of your enabling technology is mature to start your technology maturation you're too late before you even start.

Nauga,
technically immature
Click to expand...

Yep, everything needs to develop in parallel for a good rate of progress across the board.
 
nauga said:
How will the FAA deal with NO engines, just motors? ;)

Nauga,
type-specificated
Click to expand...

Well, I think the point of multiengine ratings is having multiple sources of thrust, not multiple thermal engines.

Does a single engine jet with an APU require a multiengine rating?
 
MAKG1 said:
...I suspect a lot of folks on the board may not know the distinction between an engine and a motor...
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of folks on the board might not get a lot of my jokes. :rolleyes:

Res ipsa loquitur

Nauga,
who cracks himself up.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Yes, I know it's a joke.

Not that good, even engineer to engineer (and I suspect a lot of folks on the board may not know the distinction between an engine and a motor).
Click to expand...

Heat, no heat.
 
nauga said:
I suspect a lot of folks on the board might not get a lot of my jokes. :rolleyes:

QED

Nauga,
who cracks himself up.
Click to expand...

that comes from being a genius beyond your prime....
 
Clark1961 said:
that comes from being a genius beyond your prime....
Click to expand...
I dunno, I think I'm with MAKG on this one, it comes from them not being funny :D

So back to the subject at hand, would it make sense to cert a configuration like this as multi engine (motor) when loss of a single motor is probably not significant in terms of handling or performance; or powered lift, since a high percentage of the lift improvement is due to propulsive effects, or....? Maybe multi-engine powered-lift? IME new concepts like this rarely consider cert minutiae like this but it's fun to think about.

Nauga,
and the head of a pin
 
Clark1961 said:
pinhead perhaps?
Click to expand...

What's with the ad hominem?

Nauga is right. The usual reason for a multiengine cert is to not die when one engine goes out and the handling changes. When one engine out of 18 goes out, it's not likely to do much. Does it really make sense?

Though I think you can say the same thing about inline multiengines like the Cessna 337.

He's also right that pilot certification requirements are not like to be even the slightest factor in the design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top