Proposal of a new VTOL: Based on real-life counterparts

[wari]

Please lets not get bogged down by semantics, whether such a fighter is a true vtol or not doesn't really have much to do with the models Black Project is making.

[Olrox]

The F-35 is VTOL in the same way the Harrier is VTOL.
It is capable of Vertical take off or landing, but in practice, it is expected to perform a short takeoff with full ordinance load from a small "carrier"/assault ship/heli-carrier, and return later, sans ordinance and a lot of fuel, and land vertically. (they need less space to takeoff "horizontally", than they do to land "horizontally")

In normal use, they do not take off vertically, but both aircraft *can* take off vertically and transition to forward flight, it saves fuel and increases payload if they do a short takeoff instead.

Harriers do vertical TOs and transition to horizontal flight all the time in airshow, but when operated by the military, almost never (unless doing a demonstration, such as an airshow)

That's why they're STOVL. Is that really important since WZ2100 VTOLS need to be VTOLS only, and not STOVL or any other design?
Also, is a hammer a can opener only because it can be used to open a can but it's never used like that in practice?

Please lets not get bogged down by semantics, whether such a fighter is a true vtol or not doesn't really have much to do with the models Black Project is making.

IMO, BP should use true "VTOL aircraft" instead of an aircraft that is capable of but isn't used like that in practice, for inspiration. We shouldn't get "bogged down by semantics" (which won't happen hopefully), I agree we shouldn't. But we need to clarify the practical qualities of our sources of inspiration. If you don't agree, call a hammer a can opene instead, you're welcome.
No offense, I'm just into metaphoric talk in the last days.

~Olrox

[Rman Virgil]

.
This all brings to mind the agonizing slow flight path of Vtol Bomb Bay Bombers in WZ even using bodies with the highest Power Plant out-put.

Speaking along those spec lines, based on current VTOL and STOVL rationales, WZ Bomb Bay Bombers would more likely fit the STOVL Tech profile than the VTOL Tech Profile because pure Bomber payloads are way greater than mostly Fighters with some bombs. At least, that's how I'm understanding all this.

- RV
.

[Black Project]

Finished my Osprey-Style VTOL, if you think that something is missing and should be added or a part that need to be changed to the model, then ask me.

VTOL-Osprey-01.PNG

VTOL-Osprey-02.PNG

[Olrox]

Finished my Osprey-Style VTOL, if you think that something is missing and should be added or a part that need to be changed to the model, then ask me.

VTOL-Osprey-01.PNG

VTOL-Osprey-02.PNG

Hey BP, those look very nice - especially for bombers, IMO.
However, I'm stuck with the incapability to like the textures (actually, parts missing textures). I know that you use the original textures to compose your models, but those would really kick-ass with some nice textures.

BTW, if you want & can, feel free to send me a 3ds, I could make some very nice textures for that. And make a little modification I think would be nice (I'll write in our good 'n' old portuguese so that it's easier to explain)

Acho que a conexão das asas da frente com o corpo poderiam ser um pouco mais largas, verticalmente. A altura da parte de cima tá ok, acho que ia ficar bem estranho se aumentasse, o que eu to imaginando é deixar elas mais largas abaixando os vértices da parte de baixo da conexão com o corpo. talvez precise adicionar dois vértices no meio da linha, pra parte de baixo da asa ficar "curva", e não reta como ficaria - acho que ficaria bem massa.


Espero que vc goste da idéia de dar uma olhada nas texturas q eu posso fazer, iriam deixar o modelo mais atraente, eu acho.

Falou!
~Olrox

[Black Project]

BTW, if you want & can, feel free to send me a 3ds, I could make some very nice textures for that. And make a little modification I think would be nice

i'll be thankful if you can make some nice textures, since i'm can't make better textures.

I don't know how to convert ".pie" format to ".3ds" and don't know a program that can do this task

However, i'll send to you the GFX in .pie format and the texture file in a .zip archive to make these improvements

There is:

New-VTOL+High-Res Texture.zip

[Olrox]

Okay, I've got it. I'll get a plugin to import it to 3ds.
Thank you!

~Olrox

[DarkCheetah]

nice! i like them

[KenAlcock]

The F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) comes in three variations, one of which is indeed a VTOL. Doors open up both above and below the center of the main fuselage, exposing a horizontally aligned turbine lift fan and the rear jet duct can also be redirected 90 degrees downward. However, when the jet is in the air, it looks very much like the third image the OP linked to.

JSF makes landmark STOVL test flight

Red is a lie and blue proves that.

It is not at all a lie. There was a Nova episode that aired on PBS (or it may have been some other such show on History channel) that documented the whole competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the contract to produce the F-35 JSF. The X-35B test aircraft from Lockheed Martin (who won the contract to produce the F-35) could both take off and land vertically, which is the very definition of VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing). It could also hover in-place and rotate 360 degrees in either direction. All of this is documented on film. So I don't really care whether the official designation of the F-35B is STOVL or VTOL, the properties and performance of the aircraft don't lie. As I understand things, the production version (F-35B) is still under development, so it's performance may differ due to design constraints.

In practice, Marine Corps aircraft are most commonly used in a STOVL manner (and are usually designated as such), but they are also usually capable of VTOL as well. Any aircraft that can generate enough thrust to land vertically can also generate enough thrust to take off vertically, since the exact same physics apply. I spent 7 months aboard the LHA-5 USS Belleau Wood watching Harrier AV8Bs practice both types of take offs. However, when flying actual missions they usually take off in a STOVL manner. The Marines always want to be able to turn something as small as a parking lot into a forward airbase, since we are usually well out in front of the military supply chain.

[Olrox]

I spent 7 months aboard the LHA-5 USS Belleau Wood watching Harrier AV8Bs practice both types of take offs.

Great.
But I will not be the one to continue this talk.

I mean, if you want to prove something to me, I'm sorry to have mentioned fluff, but this isn't the right place to convince each other of such things. I am working on the textures for the propulsion model right now... You are welcome to comment on my model given your life experience on those 7 months, but you didn't mention if you've seen a V-22 osprey (which is the adopted design reference right now). Would be great if you did, maybe you could give some hints on how it went in operations.

~Olrox

[Olrox]

I'm having the following error in Blender while trying to import the vtol model:

File "C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Blender Foundation\Blender\.blender\scripts\pie_import.py", line 466, in model_process
ValueError: expected 2 to 4 MVerts per sequence

There are other entries in the console as well, regarding the "pie_common.py" script, but no value errors.

Anyone had that error before? It's something with your custom model, BP, as the Retribution model was imported just fine.

I deeply appreciate any help on this. Thanks in advance.

~Olrox

[Black Project]

There's again the same VTOL GFX, but with some changes to fix your problem.

- I founded 4 pentagons on the GFX and sliced them to triangles
- Included two identical GFX, but with some differences: one saved in PIE Slicer V1.6.0.082 and another one saved with PIE Slicer V1.7.0.112
- There's also it's textures, but with different formats: .PNG and .PCX (You can also convert it to other formats )

VTOL-GFX.zip

I hope it can solve your problem

Regards BP

[Olrox]

There's again the same VTOL GFX, but with some changes to fix your problem.

- I founded 4 pentagons on the GFX and sliced them to triangles
- Included two identical GFX, but with some differences: one saved in PIE Slicer V1.6.0.082 and another one saved with PIE Slicer V1.7.0.112
- There's also it's textures, but with different formats: .PNG and .PCX (You can also convert it to other formats )

VTOL-GFX.zip

I hope it can solve your problem

Regards BP

Yeah, it worked! Thanks. Probably it was due to the pentagons.
I'll work on it tomorrow!

Regards,

~Olrox

[3drts]

Any aircraft that can generate enough thrust to land vertically can also generate enough thrust to take off vertically, since the exact same physics apply.

Actually, for a vertical take-off, they need more thrust, as they need to be able to accelerate forward within a reasonable time span as well.
In practice, a VTOL aircraft needs about a 1.2:1 thrust to weight ratio, whereas a STOVL needs only just above 1:1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV
^ The engine planned for it was never made, so they tested it with a weaker engine, and only did vertical landings.

STOVL and VTOL designs are basically the same, you can use one as inspiration for the other.
Its just a matter of different thrust to weights.
A VTOL, if capable of forward takeoffs, is always better off doing so.
Even the Mi-24 hind, does rolling "fixed wing" style takeoffs (given its stubb wings).

Helicopters are more efficient when traveling forward, than hovering, and when takeing off will often accelerate forward before leaving ground effect.

The harrier and F-35B are S/VTOL craft.
If they only need to takeoff with a pair of sidewinders or AMRAAMs, or do a recon flight, then they can do so vertically.
If on a strike mission, laden with JDAMs and such, they will need a short takeoff.
If they need to be scrambled, and the delay arranging the small flight deck fore STOs is unnacceptable to the commander, they could takeoff vertically with limited ordinance- A2A missiles are much lighter than Anti ship missiles and such, so this would be viable for scrambling fighters for fleet air defense.

Enemy ships would be spotted far enough away there would be time to arrange the flight deck and give each fighter a full anti-ship weapon loadout (rather than carrying just 1 missile per aircraft to allow VTOL).

VTOL just isn't practical for strike fighters (note, a JSF can carry a LOT more ordinance than an AH-64 Apache), if space for a short takeoff is available, and its often more "space efficient" to clear a short area of aircraft, and load more ordinance onto the aircraft in the remaining space (then bring up aircraft from below deck) as the ones above deck launch- besides a deck full of fighters taking off vertically all at once would be a turbulent mess- a catastrophe of midairs and crashes, one fighter at a time would launch, so you might as well wait in a line for a short takeoff ramp.

Besides, in WZ, we have VTOLs that can lift heavy bomb loads, but somehow can barely move forward, when the hardest part of the flight regime is the vertical takeoff.
Such slow VTOLs shouldn't even get off the ground, it takes less power to generate lift by going fast, then by direct downward thrust, so when lifting a heavy weight, the VTOL should be going fast...

With this break from reality, do you really care if the fighter looks like a STOVL rather than a VTOL?
Also, incorporating a lift fan, as the topic starter did, makes its vertical capabilities better, than direct turbine thrust, as VTOLs appear use now... Its better than what we got.

I imagine it would take a lot of coding to prevent certain vtol designs from being able to takeoff or be undesignable/produceable until appropriate engine upgrades (if those UGs can get the thrust:weight to an acceptable level)

[Olrox]

I imagine it would take a lot of coding to prevent certain vtol designs from being able to takeoff or be undesignable/produceable until appropriate engine upgrades (if those UGs can get the thrust:weight to an acceptable level)

You kidding? It would be as simple as making certain engine upgrades Prereqs for certain VTOL weapons: Larger bodies have more space for turbines/fans, and their weapon deal the exact same ammount of damage as smaller versions (usually in bigger aircraft you get bigger payloads and thus, higher firepower), so that makes up for larger aircraft with the same engines.

I think that VTOL propulsions should always look like they're capable of lifting the highest weapons. That's mainly why I like the adapted V-22 Osprey design - it works as cargo and troop transporter, and looks powerful.

Anyway, if anyone agrees with the "moves so slowly, takes off too fast" problem, it might be worthy taking a look if there's a way of making the lifting speed propotional to weight.

But hell, I can't remember a single topic where discussing physics brought a solution and wasn't more a waste of time than anything. Laws of physics can be misinterpreted and some people undeniably have the skill of doing that awfully often - so I think we'd better off stopping doing that here (where we're seeig some development right now) before that "little stones" we throw on each other turn into boulders and we don't even see them.

Posts are already growing to a boring size if you analise the productive content.

~Olrox