DARPA Lift Challenge: The search for alternative heavy lift designs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEGWvve7rls
The do you even lift challenge
>>65391627Obviously a blimp wins since it has negative weight but positive payload.
>>65391627>deliver Pizza MREs to the italian carabineri guy who gave you C4
>>65391635What if you put the scale upside down
>>65391761The scale will read its own weight.
>>65391627That DARPA Drone better allow users to kidnap Enemy combatants like those UFO Claw machines.
>>65391761Then the smart DARPA people will laugh at you, and everyone (including that girl you keep looking at when you think no one will notice) will know what an utter failure you are.
>>65391635
>>65391652>Those fucking Americans put a de pineapple on a de pizza>Ten boxes of de pizza with a de pineapple >
>>65391767Russian man points to the sky>Da claw
>>65392139>pineapple on pizzaWar crime!!!
>>65391627haha i was following this for weeks, if someone can do it i will be impressed and can change drone warfare. but i doubt it. there is already a lot of pressure in east europe for this kind of things and a lot of money going around , no hobbist will be better than that.
>>65391635Wait, hold on....carry the negativeDammit, he's right.
where's this guy?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImDGGLNTfx0yeah there's a bunch of well funded engineering companies entered into this, but I find the solo dude with an idea pretty interesting
>>65392141
>>65391635imagine getting a blumpkin on a blimp, a blimp blumpkin if you will
>>65391627Kinda shit compared to the DARPA Robotics challenge, NGL.
>>65391627Ducted fans?? are these niggers retarded?
>>65392530
>>65392142every week i eat a war crime
>>65392530go show them darpa boys how to do it better
>>65391627aight darpa can you just lend me the ag-core from the tr-3 for a while
>>65392722NTA. DARPA challenges are open to anyone that fills out the paperwork, no qualifications or experience required. I know of at least 2 youtubers that are entering with designs that minimize cost because they are fully self funded.
>>65391761Blimps work in Australia just fine.
>>65392840Why don't we, the highly trained professionals of /k/, submit our own entry?
>>65393072Wrong website, can't have anonymity and enough organization to submit to the DoD.
An ICE helicopter design with a large efficient propeller is probably the optimal design for generating the crazy amount of lift at the minimum weight.This is because one propeller is more efficient than multiple like on a quadcopter and because ICE still has the edge for energy density. Though modern battery electric designs might still have a chance due to the short flight distance ie. the energy requirements arent crazy.
>>65393196I like this design, I don't know how it did.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tohImHa4f5Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImDGGLNTfx0
>>65392961Maybe they have positive mass down there so they couldn't lift anything other than local negative mass objects. I have seen australians where I'm from and their mass seems normal and positive although I didn't measure it. This may cause trouble as the airship industry there might not be able to diversify in the civilian transportation sector
>>65391635serious response, I had an idea about using blimps/zepplins for cheap air freight and looked into it only to discover that their payload capacity (depsite the technically infinite weight to payload ratio) is impractically smallTo match the carrying capacity of a single B-double truck would require a craft the size of the Hindenburg
>>65393958what if you compress the gas really good and hybridize with quadrotor designs
>>65393958spin it as "green" air travel
>>65394203you can make a drone frame out of ballons filled with helium and someone did
>>65393390It's okay, being able to use all off the shelf parts is excellent.However, such a small propeller seriously limits efficiency.
>>65395127I'm 100% sure they're loosing more in aerodynamic efficiency than whatever they could gain in frame weight.
>>65391627this is the best one so far with a payload to weight ratio of 2.5 to 1they invented the helicopter, amazingly boring
>>65397445Makes sense, the optimum design is probably a coaxial chopper because then you aren't losing weight and energy to a tail rotor.
>>65397477No. A two rotor design looses bigly in efficiency. A single rotor is much more efficient.Two 1000hp motors is not equivalent to a single 2000hp motor, more like equivalent to one 1500hp rotor.There's a reason why WW2 airplane development focused mainly on bigger and stronger engines instead of just making more P-38's.
>>65397529What is the efficency lost on coaxials? They are only passing eachother like 5% of the time.
>>65397477Problem with a coaxial is that your rotors need to be the same size and mass, and you either need complex gearing to vary the speed differential between them or you're adding a tailrotor anyway. It's much less weight to put a tiny drone motor way out on a carbon fiber tube.
>>65397445>even helicopters only have 1:1 payload ratio>remove methul bawks>payload ratio now 2.5:1I still like how this challenge shows all electronics nerd students that nothing still beats a single rotor turbine helicopter
This shit is a joke.Electric systems can be spec'd such that they put out impressive performance, for the whole entirety of the test cycle, and have nothing left in the batteries.Oh wow you proved 2:1'ing the payload ratio is possible for a whole 3 minutes by stuffing a 5kw motor set in a 1kw frame wow so useful nobody ever figured that out.
>>65397893you anon are a retarcded faggot, it needs to haul the weight several nautical miles at least read the test parameters
>>65397893The payload ratio is 4:1 you mouthbreathing faggot
>>65397445That type of helicopter already exists too. It's called the Sikorsky Skycrane
>>65397925>several nautical miles!wow so 3 minutes wow
>>65398091enough to be used to resupply frontline in a modern battelfield
>>65392139>>65392142>>65392711The Italian warfighters are a joke that lost to the Greeks. They deserve pineapple on pizza. Especially if they hate it.Personally, I happen to like pineapple on pizza; especially with ham.
Man, I want to be involved in cutting edge projects, but I'm too retarded.
>>65393196A helicopter is obviously the most optimal design for vertical lift, the challenge comes from the horizontal portion of the course, which may favor a tiltrotor or similar.>>65397529He said coaxial, contrarotating props are actually slightly more efficient propulsively (~91% vs ~87%) but aren't usually worth the extra weight and complexity.
>>65397770>complex gearing to vary the speed differential between themYou can just lower collective on one while raising it on the other which is how they actually work.
>>65392711And you don't invite me even once. You fargin arsehole.
My favorite candidatehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXRpFM55eQg
>>65400101I also do like the idea but I don't see it being a practical lift vehicle. I think my favourite so far is this
>>65398788Which is also extremely complex. >>65392191 with his monorotor for lift and and quadrotor for attitude control is much simpler and potentially lighter. It could be mechanically simplified even further by removing one of the electric motors, although this increases the complexity of the control programming.
>>65392191He posted yesterdayhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5-BYP1K1UU
>>65398256You can learn, it's fun if you have the required income to crash stuff until it works
>HOBBYWING banner in the backgroundSubtle soft power move
>>65400101Absolute shitpost of a vehicle. Delightful.
>>65400210>>65392191Also interviewed by Josh on the main broadcast 40 minutes ago
>>65391627>Orca Carryall>The largest of all the Orcas, this transport aircraft has the critical job of rescuing or delivering units to any destination on the battlefield. Using a large grappling device, the Carry-All is capable of picking up any vehicle found on the battlefield.
This flight window has been pretty fucking boring compared to the previous one. >>65400101>>65400152These didn't fly so good
Why are they using pilots? Imagine failing because a shitter can't stick to an altitude range.
>>65400909Yeah, kinda baffling in the age of ardupilot
>>65400909>>65400919It's just easier to implement and possibly safer.
>>65400983>easier to implementDebatable>and possibly saferAbsolutely notThey should be able to fly FPV with autopilot. Drone regulations are strangling progress in the US.
>>65400989Case in point the first McGuiver run in this round, the pilot clearly had trouble judging his height and didn't use any yaw control. If he had been flying FPV with a good HUD he would have been able to keep his altitude while also taking smoother turns to save some energy.
>>65394203>compress the gasI think that would make it dense again, denser than atmosphere
>>65401147Yes, the whole point of using a light gas is to displace air inside. Adding more gas without displacing more air would reduce the amount of lift.
>>65401147I suppose I'm a just a retard
>>65401162believe in yourself anon, half of the cool innovations were preceded by 100 retards throwing shit into the wall, only what sticked is remembered
>>65393180then have the DoD post here
>>65400152Reminds me of this goofy thing. Yes, those are ramjets in the blade tips.
>>65401435This would probably be the optimal solution for the challenge, assuming you're allowed to use an external pony engine to start it and not forced to start it remotely.
>>65401446There's been two tipjet designs here that route turbojet exhaust through the blades. One chrashed yesterday because it was uncontrollable and the othes has had serious vibe issues today
>>65401502>tipjet designsabsolute retardation, how do you manage the sound barrier?
>>65401533still cool but thats such a complicated concept and feels wrong, cool to see in a photo but i wouldnt want my life to depend on that shit
>>65401533Why would you break the sound barrier? You just need to spin the rotor fast enough to lift off, then you let it autorotate in flight.
>>65401540i thinks its too complicated unless you need mach+ speeds , but its only feelings and intuition. i believe that a conventional motor is more efficient at that because thats what its used by commercial companies, buts just a feeling
>>65401597Efficiency isn't necessarily a goal here, minimizing weight is. Efficiency is only valuable to the extent that it lets you reduce your fuel load.
>>65401533>>65401602You don't need or want to break the sound barrier, but ramjets aren't very good below the speed of sound, so it wasn't a good idea. You could do it with a conventional turbojet, but then you have the issue of needing much stronger and heavier blades, which isn't good for this challenge.Note how despite all the exotic designs, the one currently in the lead is a totally conventional lightweight helicopter lol.
