Ailerons, elevators, rudders..........are such a thing of the past!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.../pictures.html

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxI_s89qZuI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

That should be a huge help for the next generation of RC modelers who have no idea of how to install hinges or control linkages in this age of ARF's and RTF's.

Also less room for failure for chinese ARF's, but then again a bigger possible area for failure too.

What happens when it goes deadstick?

Here is another article / video on the same UAV called 'Demon' developed by engineers at BAE Systems in Lancashire, United Kingdom. Test flight was made on Walney Island, off the Cumbrian Coast.

Notice that it still has a rudder. Maybe a later development will use vectored thrust for yaw control?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11431662

Ya know, when I read this, I laughed so hard. It's so true, if the airflow is being generated by the turbine (and I don't know if it is for sure but I would assume it is), then something so totally simple becomes a catastrophic problem. I'm sure the engineers have thought of that, I noticed that in the literature about this airplane they said the control surfaces remained fixed for flights, that tells me they have a backup for the prototype/proof of concept, but sometimes something so simple as a flame out could be overlooked.
I just loved the simplicity of the question and really, the simplicity of such a major potential problem haha

The aircraft is equipped with an explosive charge that will go off just a second or 2 after the turbine quits. That way you won't have to worry about it very long.

Common guys, this is the US military. Of course there is a classified solution for this, a parchute just like those Diamond light planes.

Gary, your suggestion reminds me of the time that U2 pilots had to carry a Nitroclgycerin pill under the tongue.

The question is, if the engine quits where are you going to land it? it will crash anyway... there is also not a pilot inside so it is not a big deal.


(of course, this is thinking under the perspective of cruise missiles, wich are as expensive as this one and they only fly once).



Enrique

Perhaps with the exception of this one.. found it this days and it is a fascinating story. Probably the first r/c turbine jet powered aiplane in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShZJWwKT3ts

With this particular airframe, if the engine quits, you have a $9.4 million dollar lawn dart.

Roy

Sounds like another useless idea just like wing warping on fighter jet .

A 9.4 million dollar model jet.... lol.

Flapless UAVs have been designed and flight tested for a long time on both sides of the Atlantic, say for years.
This airframe is certainly not a "world's first".

Vector thrust control is also an old technology. Everyone is working on boundary layer control at this stage. Once again there are prototypes flying on this technology on both sides of the Atlantic. No mechanical flight control, no vector thrust, no rudders, pneumatic backup so that the plane can be controllable for a certain period of time in case of engine failure...
So the airframe shown on the video is not only obsolete, but amazingly expensive redarding the technology used.

P.S: If you look carefuly, you'll see some of these prototypes here ( completely in-house designed ):
http://www.adjets.com/

And I love the statement from the chief designer of the project:
"I feel sure I have witnessed a significant moment in aviation history,"

Wake up guys, you are 10 years late...

old news these days young party animals use this nitro for party,s (poppers)
and i need it some time if my tikker goes bazurk...

The Demon is boundry layer control technology but also much more in colaborating and bringing together Cranfield and other universities, developing the next generation of students/designers, exploring/developing new composite production techniques and control/control laws.....surely these are good things to encourage?

It is way more than it seems on the surface, it's easy to criticise from the outside.

Rob.

Rob ,I am not criticizing the project but the media crap around it. There is no question that the guys who are working on it are doing a good job. And I am pretty sure that the project manager never said:
"I feel sure I have witnessed a significant moment in aviation history"
simply because he knows that this technology exists and has been proven for more than 10 years. But the journalists like to make things sensational...

Also if the governemnt allowed some media coverage on this project, it means that it is outdated anyway...

Yes Oli and as you know it is what is not said that is the important part, major global companies like BAE or Dasault do not waste investments like this. I saw the Demon, inside and out, and had consersations with some of the graduates and development engineers as part of an exhibition showcasing new technologies and the spin-offs last year.

The blown surfaces use a seperate Wren gas gen and thrust is from an AMT Titan so they are even indirectly investing money in our own hobby.

Rob.

Who cares if it is new or old technology, that's not the point. The point is that is being used right now on a concept model.

This is not 1956. The technology being tested here (not developed), if found adequate, will be incorporated into a full scale UAV within the next 2-5 years.
And for my European friends, companies like BAE and Dassault (along with many Joint Ventures) are deffinetely leading the way in the use of alternate technology such as this. I don't doubt that an airplane similar to the one in the video will make it to Kandahar within the next few years. Afghanistan is like Frank Tiano's Top Gun for UAV's.

And if you don't believe me, google Flying Jeep. Gotta love DARPA. You can now see that the my generation that played with Gi Joe are the boss now.