Perhaps I wasn?t clear
?The nacelles are on the wingtips because it's the best place for them. If you put them midwing, then the whole wing has to swivel--a tiltwing, not a tiltrotor.?
What I had already said:
?I'd keep the engines where they are and put the rotors at the wing tips of course.?
What I meant was that the swash plate and rotors and pitch change links etc, etc, etc? would be at the end of the wing while the engines would remain in the twin nacelles (or twin booms if you prefer) of the Bronco type aircraft. The engines would not contribute to the inertial mass that has to swing through 90&s30; and this would unclutter the rotor pod area and simplify maintenance I believe the clutter in the rotor pods in the Osprey was a contributing factor at Marana and if you read some of the accident reports at the other accident sites. The engines IMHO in the Osprey should be placed over the wing swivel point. The engines would be connected to the end of wing rotor pods through a drive shaft that would not only connect the rotor wing pods to their respective engines in the twin booms but serve as a link between engines and rotor pods in case you lose one engine and have to run on one engine. The drive shaft would run parallel to the main wing spar, a similar arrangement already exists in the Osprey. The drive shaft would connect the engines in the booms to the rotor pods on the wing tips.
One of the things that I find the most disturbing in regard to your last post is your statement:
?Basically, start at your requirements and work backwards to the best solution, which may be a compromise or a mixture of others. ?
To me this statement represents one of the most egregious errors in reasoning in present day military engineering project management. This encourages the bureaucracy, politicians, contractor marketers, and the lobbyist to look to the horizon and sell as practical solution sets distant, sketchy, and unclear high risk projects as answers to practical requirements. It?s easy while looking at the horizon to miss a technical Grand Canyon between you and your objective. IMHO one only has to look at some recent high profile flop programs to see the problems with trying to look backwards from an end point where you haven?t even been to yet. Usually this entails seeing something in a civilian environment and trying to extrapolate that onto a military mission area. I have been able over the years to place civilian technology into very specific military niches but you have to be very selective in doing this by studying the environments and seeing if there is a true physical fit. Some of the recent flops have been nothing more IMHO than people trying to reverse engineer Star Trek episodes. Its much better to see where you are technically then see where you would like to go and then you can set a valid course. Then you can make valid estimates of wher
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 -