You know what Aircraft would make a good ISR drone?

Sub-scale and Full-Scale Aerial Targets and RPAs - Remotely-Piloted Aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post30 Nov 2016, 22:38

The Rutan Voyager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

That thing had a 9 day round the world endurance record.

Now imagine modifying the propellers to use the next generation Electric Motors

Add in a Fuel to Electricity generator for night time power generation

Add in some Solar panels for day electricity generation

Add in a reasonable amount of batteries, not too much

And you would have a decent ISR platform for long endurance

And with two outter pylons, you can mount your standard Optical Sensor Turret underneath, one on each outter pylon

In the center, you can probably have enough room to mount a single modernized ARGUS-IS module:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS
This would allow wide area Persistent Stare

Add in a IR version of ARGUS-IS, and you'd have your self a giant ISR unit with super endurance

While MQ-9 Reapers are nice with their 14 hours endurance and weapons

Don't we need a more Longer Range and Endurance, persistent platform for ISR?
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 07:36

KamenRiderBlade wrote:The Rutan Voyager


IIRC the way Rutan did the Voyager was by reducing the safety factors, g-limits, etc., so I don't think it would be feasible to add all of that extra equipment to it.

Not to mention most of the MTOW is fuel, so you have about 450 lb of payload.

KamenRiderBlade wrote:While MQ-9 Reapers are nice with their 14 hours endurance and weapons


I think the actual numbers are classified, but I'm pretty sure the Reaper can fly for longer than 14 hours. GA-ASI lists 27 hr endurance for the base Reaper, 34 for the Reaper ER. Another configuration has 42 hours of endurance. Actual perf is probably higher (too lazy to do the Breguet equation).
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 08:53

Have a signed copy of "Voyager" by Jeana Yeager somehwhere, a fascinating account of an incredible flighht into the unknown.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 08:58

This would be more feasible. A production could probably exceed the 4-day endurance limit.
http://www.boeing.com/defense/phantom-eye/
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 09:01

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 18:20

popcorn wrote:This would be more feasible. A production could probably exceed the 4-day endurance limit.
http://www.boeing.com/defense/phantom-eye/


I'd only ever seen in-flight pictures or renders of this thing before, but finally saw a picture with it next to ground equipment at SciTech last week. That thing is huge!
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 18:33

rheonomic wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:The Rutan Voyager


IIRC the way Rutan did the Voyager was by reducing the safety factors, g-limits, etc., so I don't think it would be feasible to add all of that extra equipment to it.


It was built so close to the margins that after they sanded off one winglet on the runway from the wings dragging on takeoff, they were able to snap the other one off inflight with a gentle side-slip.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post14 Jan 2017, 18:54

sferrin wrote:It was built so close to the margins that after they sanded off one winglet on the runway from the wings dragging on takeoff, they were able to snap the other one off inflight with a gentle side-slip.


Hadn't heard that story. Interesting--and terrifying!
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."

Return to Drones

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest