Strange flying (more or less) objects

[nikorc]

Hi all

I'm new here. first post.

Also new to RC and model designing ( more interested in design than in flying, in fact)

English is not my mother tongue so please excuse any incorrections

OK. Probably i get the "Most stupid question of the year" for this, but....

It's is posibly to make something fly WITHOUT wings, ailerons, elvators and rudder ?

I'm thinking on two differnt things. One of them is to use two bi-dimensional verctor thrusting engines ( and associated propellers) mounted on servo controled surfaces to simulate elevators ,rudders, ailerons and so on. so pointing them right/left for simulating rudder, up/down to simulate elevatros and up/down againin the oposite way to simulate ailerons

Is that possible ? Or is the stupid question number 2?

Second one is a kind of "proppeler farm" concept. If you remember the "Nebucannezzer" from the film "Matrix". It will be clear. Some kind of fuselage
surrounded by propllers pointing in up to 8 different directions, so carefully manipulating the power of engines it should be posible to control the movement of vehicle. In this case obviusly it should behavior like some kind of sliding hover unless you are inside a cave or a tube ( which is in fact the natural land for the vehicle)

Doable? or is it the stupid question number 3?

Thanks for your patience....

[slipstick]

Things that fly without wings etc are generally called helicopters or a variant of them.

Your first idea seems to describe how controls might work but first you need to get some real lift and some thrust. I.e. your vehicle needs to get off the ground otherwise it doesn't really count as flying.

I don't understand the second idea at all. Pictures would probably help.

Steve

[nikorc]

Ok. Here comes some schematic images

First one is the aeroslider/hoover concept: probably engine/propellers should be movable and also need maybe two more will be needed

The rest are for the "no wings" concept. From left to right: cruising, rudder right, pitching down, rolling left, pitching up, rolling right and rudder left

[slipstick]

I still don't see where you get any lift. What you've got is a twin pusher with vectored thrust. In what you call "cruising" all the thrust is forward, there's nothing creating any lift. It's just going to fall out of the sky unless the white blob is a wing creating lift the conventional way from forward movement.

That would make it just a flying wing with vectored thrust...sort of interesting but not particularly unusual ;).

Steve

[eflightray]

Nikorc

I would suggest having a look in the Blimps forum (http://www.rcgroups.com/blimps-62/) for the 'lighter than air' type flying machines.

and the VTOLS forum (http://www.rcgroups.com/vtols-360/), both use vector thrust for steering and power, both have been done without any sort of wings, elevators or ailerons.

[nikorc]

I still don't see where you get any lift. What you've got is a twin pusher with vectored thrust. In what you call "cruising" all the thrust is forward, there's nothing creating any lift. It's just going to fall out of the sky unless the white blob is a wing creating lift the conventional way from forward movement.

That would make it just a flying wing with vectored thrust...sort of interesting but not particularly unusual ;).

Steve
Steve:
Thanks for your opinion. But maybe i' don't clarified enough what i'm trying

Take a stone. Nothing specific, anyone is ok. Launch it into the air. I moves on the air for certain amount of atime in a more or less parabolic travel and finally hits the floor. In some way, the stone has become a "flying object", true?

Now imagine that you can keep adding speed to this stone "in the middle of the air" for like 10 minutes. And imagine that you could add it in a very specific and controlable way, using this speed to modify the movement in any direction you desire..

Well that's all. What i'm trying to design is a "Flying stone" with no aerodynamics, only engines.

eflightray:

Thanks for your suggestion aabout VTOL Forum. I'll check. Anyway, to clarify again. If you are refering to my second question ( the AeroSlider/Hoover) ,No real takeoff is need it . Think on it more like a "car that doesn't touch the ground", so constant 10/20 cm elevation is enough for my idea. using the downside Engines more to "repel the earth" than for real "Flying"

[BMatthews]

No, the stone is responding to a ballistic curve. There's no "flight" about it. You've got a rock that is subject to the accelerative force of gravity acting on it's vertical travel coupled with some horizontal velocity that is subject to air drag which will play a small part in shortening the horizontal distance travelled. This is not what anyone would call "flying". Nothing you can do to the stone other than making it look like a helicopter with a big rotor on top will make it fly in any way, shape or form.

There are some multi rotor helicopters that are often called hover cars or heli cars or similar. There is also a 3 or 4 rotor model. If you apply such a concept to your "flying rock" it may work but by the time you have the rotors out and clear from the main body and oriented in a plane that provides you with enough vertical thrust it will not look at all like the flying rock Nebecanezzar you're trying to model.

From watching the movie I got the impression that the Nebecanezzar craft didn't fly due to propellers but rather from some sort of field effect it had that repelled it away from the walls. In any event it is a craft that could only fly in a science fiction movie. Replacing the repellor discs with propellors would not produce a model that would fly at all unless MAYBE (and that's a rather doubtfull maybe) vast amounts of power were used so that the angled "fans" would still produce enough vertical componet to lift the craft. But good luck on that since you'd need such powerful motors and huge battery pack for power that it would become just silly to try.

Sorry but this is one concept best left in the movies......

[slipstick]

If you really want no "aerodynamics" then propellers and jets are out...they work by aerodynamics. A propeller is basically a rotating wing ;).

And if you just want a flying stone then helicopters have already been invented. A helicopter is essentially a brick with a vectoring thrust propeller on the top. Works pretty well ;).

BTW if you think through your "flying stone" analogy you'll see that one problem is going to be how it gets into the air travelling at speed in the first place. Vectored thrust might stop it falling to earth quite so quickly but to count as a flying machine to most people it has to be able get up there first ;).

Good luck with your designs but I think you may need a universe where physics works differently before any of them fly, at least in any sense that I'd think of as flying.

Steve

[eflightray]

Here's a simulation of what looks a bit like a 'flying stone' though it still has some 'wings'.


Mammoth flight sim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVcpbmpBsbg&NR=1)


There are plenty of models around, (even toys), that use the three or four prop/fan method of 'vtol flight' - Snelflight Jump Jet (http://www.snelflight.co.uk/jumpjet.htm), The Jump Jet without the 'wing and tail' would probably still fly reasonably well using vectored thrust.

[JaRaMW]

Steve:Well that's all. What i'm trying to design is a "Flying stone" with no aerodynamics, only engines.

Unless that stone has a spherical shape, chances are good that it will create at least some bit of lift. A flat stone may fly further than a less appropriately shaped one. Any asymmetric shape (asymmetric relative to the incoming air) can generally create lift - some special shapes are imaginable which create no net lift though, just drag. People got all sorts of anti-aerodynamic stuff to fly, lawnmowers, F-117s etc.
The fuselage of a plane also creates lift in knife-edge flight, but with a rather poor lift/drag-ratio. If that plane is sufficiently powered, the engine thrust can further help to compensate gravity and thus allow serious knife-edge flights.

I see no problems with any of your ideas. You need a force to counteract gravity, no matter if this is thrust or what little lift the model's body shape may create. Just fly fast to get more lift. Be aware though that this may mean very fast in some cases. And you need a layout that guarantees some dynamic stability unless you love to give a lot of dramatic input and only get a lot of frantic mess in return (in this case ask a married man to maiden your model - he's used to such behaviour).

[Texas Buzzard]

You may call your device most anything BUT IT SHOULD BE CALLED A "LIFTING BODY". It has no wings so what provides LIFT? A lifting body would do the trick. NASA has experimented for years with LIFTING BODIES.

One amature built and flew a lifting body from California to Wisconsin several years ago.

I have built two RC Lifting Bodies and they have ELVONS and a RUDDER.
The motor is on the front end. These lifting bodies have a large amount to area and can be built to a light weight which is very good for slow flight.I will attempt to show a photo on one of my lifting bodies. Keep on working, it can be done BUT you need Elvons and a rudder at minimum.

Some are talking about a STONE. You don't say a thing about its shape.

If you really are interested in such a device that does develop LIFT then Talk about the DISCUS used in a Field event. A discus may leave the hand at 60 feet per second and it's angle of attack might be 10 degrees. IT DEVELOPS LIFT. BUT IT IS SPINNING SEVERAL REVS PER SECOND.