Gizmodo
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is the aerodynamicist who designed the F-35B shaft-driven lift fan years ago at Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin's advanced technology program. His invention changed short-take off and vertical-landing (STVOL) planes forever, making the Lightning II the first supersonic aircraft with this capability. To honor him, Lockheed Martin has released this new video, in which Dr. Bevilaqua explains how the project went from "napkin to production."
Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is the aerodynamicist who designed the F-35B shaft-driven lift fan years ago at Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin's advanced technology program. His invention changed short-take off and vertical-landing (STVOL) planes forever, making the Lightning II the first supersonic aircraft with this capability. To honor him, Lockheed Martin has released this new video, in which Dr. Bevilaqua explains how the project went from "napkin to production."Watching him explain it, the genius of Dr. Bevilaqua's F-35B Shaft Driven Lift Fan is obvious. After all, the invention is quite simple. According to Bevilaqua, the best way to create power from the engine is by using a turbine. That power then gets moved forward using a shaft that connects to a fan, providing the vertical lift on the front of the plane—and all while the turbine exhaust is redirected to the ground to lift the back of the plane.
The result is a supersonic plane with great maneuverability. Like a car, Bevilaqua explains, the pilot starts the engine, engages the clutch that activates the lift fan, increases power—and off it goes. To make things even better, the bleed air coming off from the top runs over the winds so the F-35B handles smoothly while going vertically, "like if it was mounted on a hydraulic lift."
The idea, he says, came at the very end of a nine-month study to see if it was possible to do a supersonic successor to the Harrier for the Marine Corp. "I had to come up with a way to increase the thrust of a jet engine so that you could take off vertically, but yet not make it impossible for the airplane to go supersonic."
Dr. Bevilaqua—who started working with Hans von Ohain, the German engineer who invented the jet engine with the Heinkel He 178, and encouraged him to think not about math but about engineering—sketched his first idea on a napkin, which was a turbine with a drive shaft sticking out the front of the engine. He got it to a propulsion expert at Skunk Works to see if it was feasible or not. From there it was transformed from paper dream to reality: Lockheed Martin applied for the patent in 1990, which ended up being one of the factors that landed them the massive $200 billion contract for the Joint Strike Fighter against Boeing's X-32.
[Govexec, Global Security, Skunk Works and Wikipedia via The DEW Line]
Comments
Looks like a freaking mac commercial. All he needs is a black mock neck shirt and the ensemble will be complete.
If you send this plane to the british will Prince William use it for visiting his girlfriend?
It's like the moller merlin, only.....
Fuuuuugly.
I saw the making of this on (?) Discovery last year. The biggest obstacle was preventing the lift exhaust from recirculating back into the lift fan and stalling.
I bet they got the tail exhaust mechanism from Home Depot..just look at the 4" ducting elbows ... they bend just like that.
[www.popsci.com]
This one is better!
I can't believe I passed on his resume to be on staff at my EvilSecretVolcano™ laboratory site.
Dammit!
Everyday, crazy sumbitch + Math + OCD = Engineer
I'll just park it in my driveway and on my way to work . . . VVVVRRRRROOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHH !!!!
Yea, but I bet he got paid next to nothing for it even though it has made his employer billions.
THAT my friend is the definition of a first nation sweat shop!
@Darrone:
it's not mean to be pretty it's meant to do the job
@Noobs-R-Us:
I'm pretty sure he's makes his fair share of the dough.
Hold on on getting this Jet, the 2009 model will come with stereo bluetooth and the new XM/Sirius receiver....
i would love to see the cv/u-joints at either end of the drive shaft
gotta be some crazy stuff
not to mention balancing a shaft to turn at turbine speed!!
not to mention balancing a shaft to turn at turbine speed!!
They have these things called gears that probably help with that problem.
@Luuey: That doesn't make it any less fugly. Obviously there not designing war machines to be stylish.
But some of those 90's war planes were baaaaaaaadass. And this, looks like it should have the nickname "hippo"
As good as this idea is, let's not forget that the true "forever changing take off and landing idea" was the British Harrier jet with which VTOL landing was conceived. It was subsonic, I believe, but that's just potatoes, potatos.
John McClain jumped the shark when he slid off the back end of one of these.
I agree with Darrone too. It seems that, while planes are getting more advanced, they sure are hard on the eyes. I realize too that it's not an aesthetics contest like concept cars, but planes like the F-16, F-14 and back to WW2 era planes like the P-51, P-40 and so forth were all beautiful masterpieces to behold. Badass plane though, but I wouldn't get any scale models of it :P
@superbryant88: Not to be Capt Obvious, but you do realize that the picture you posted is of the same plane, only not finished.
@Sergeant JoKer:
OK, that's just funny.
Jesus
"the bleed air coming the bleed air coming off from the top runs over the winds so the F-35B handles smoothly"
You might want to re-read this sentence in your article_
;- )
.
I believe that the Ruskies Yak-141A was supersonic - though the JSF is way cooler.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@Canoehead: Says in the wikipedia article that you posted that it never achieved supersonic flight...
"The Yak-141M was supposed to fly at speeds of Mach 1.7, but it was never able to fly supersonic, and was claimed to have had a maneuverability comparable to the Mikoyan MiG-29."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141
There is a prototype on display at the Smithsonian's Steven S. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia.
I was very surprised at how small it is for it's capabilities.
Pretty little thing too.
@uberfu:
The comments system isn't broken, merely flawed.
It just takes a post to shove the others out some times.
What you are doing there is the equivalent of posting the word "push", which I can assure you is a very bad thing to do.
Allow me take you back to my early days here at Gizmodo...
[CUE FLASHBACK EFFECT]
The year was 2006..6...6...6
[gizmodo.com]
@Kaiser-Machead: "I wouldn't get any scale models of it :P"
Aerodynamic design is liquid and lovely. Marry it to radar deflection and you have one ugly baby.
Bring the YF-23A "Black Widow II" BACK!
Frank Whittle (UK) invented the jet engine, not Hans von Ohain (Germany). Von Ohain started later and didn't have a working engine until after Whittle. What's more, he may well have taken the idea from Whittle's patent.
If he was "sitting at his desk", then why did he use a napkin?
This is just marketing people trying to continue the public stereotype of how science and engineering work. Sure you could say that "napkin" is short hand, but equally you could call BS.
@LittleJon: Napkins don't agree with any of my drafting utensils, so I'm inclined to agree.
@mschipperheyn:
VTOL was conceived by Tesla (among others) in 1928. The Harrier is simply one of the first practical applications of the concept.
@Canoehead:
The Dassault Mirage IIIV was a supersonic capable VTOL aircraft, though it never made production.
"According to Bevilaqua, the best way to create power from the engine is by using a turbine"
Well, that does happen to be the basis for every jet engine.
@LittleJon:
Actually, Frank Whittle did not invent the jet engine -- neither did Hans von Ohain. The idea went as far back as the the first century AD with the aeolipile. The invention of the jet engine simply can't be attributed to any one person.
Hans von Ohain was merely the first person to have his invention turned into the world's first jet airplane. Furthermore, he was likely unaware of Whittle's work in the first place.
Uh. The second set of doors on the upper surface are Auxiliary INLET doors, to allow extra air to be fed to the engine at low speeds. The stuff about "bleed air from the top of the aircraft running over the winds (sic)" and the arrow pointing from the inlets in the second image are absolutely 100% incorrect.
@ninjatales: Who the dickens removed the image of the YF-23A?
@packetsniffer: Yeah, yeah! Of course! But the first functioning jet engine was built by Whittle.
Nothing is invented by one person at one moment in time. As an engineer I understand that better than most! But if Dr. Paul Bevilaqua is going to credit von Ohain with the invention then I'd say that if any one person can lay claim to that it's Whittle.
I think you need to take another look at that headline. Do you means "First supersonic VTOL plane?"
@Sergeant JoKer: Not to be Capt Obvious, but you do realize that the picture you posted is of the same plane, only not finished
Actually, not quite - superbryant88's image is an F-35B, the production model that's currently being built. The images and videos in the original post are the X-35B concept demonstrator. The most obvious differences are the changes to the door covering the top side of the lift fan and the lower side fan exhaust.
The plane is keen....and yeah, kinda fugly. But that's okay too. The A-10 is way beyond fugly, but it's still cool.
And the most beautiful plane ever is the SR-71.
@Cobolman2: I'm gonna have to disagree fully and support the P-51 Mustang. That plane is chock-full of aerial glory.
Where can I place my order to defeat pesky LA traffic?
F-35 is a fugly plane, but I disagree on the comment that they are getting more and more fugly. F-22 for example is a beautiful aircraft.
...Yes, Mr. Bevilaqua.
@Digitalwanderer: Wow. Somebody knows their jet fighters!
@daveNYC:
what kind of gears? a planetary set?
and how do gears cancel out an imbalance in a driveshaft?
inquiring minds want to know. really.
i'm not just bein snarky
i gots to know
@Kaiser-Machead: I wouldn't be able to decide a favorite, quite honestly. During the WW2 I like the Spitfire, the Hurricane, the Mustang and the original Lightning. And the B-29 too. That on the Allied side.
[www.aixtended.com]
Here's the Soviet Yak-38, their response to the Harrier. (Pic is from a Battlefield 2 mod I play).
It uses three engines, not one (the Harrier also had just one and used swivelling ducts to direct thrust), and had all kids of reliability problems so it never went into wide use the way the Harrier did.
Awesome plane!
STVOL and Super Sonic ! It's the Bomb!
Or is that what it drops on your head?
But only a single seat?
How about room for family of four, and a spacious trunk?
@MRP123: That's the upcoming Canyonero model.
@dabub: The F-22 may be nice looking, but the waste of tax payers' money is very ugly. The F-22 was designed to fight the Cold War and a non-existent Soviet Union.
HUH F-35 ugly?
When the fan doors come down it'll look like a F-22.
[url][upload.wikimedia.org]]
@Sergeant JoKer: Why, thank you. Perils of the job...