Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: troop-carrying VTOLs....?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
n Gill wrote:
> Based on what's gone forwards so far for aircraft, podded segments are
VERY unusual. Perhaps the strength leaves something to be desired.
It's more a matter of weight, I think. The pod has to be a 
self-contained structure for the times it's on the ground by itself, and

the lift vehicle has to be a complete structure for when it's not 
carrying a pod. So at the connection between them, there's twice as much

structure as there needs to be if it's a non-podded design, which is
heavy.
> But cargo versions of attack helicopters generally have entirely
separate airframes with common components (not really a help for your
purposes I know).
>   
Oh, I dunno... As someone suggested earlier, why not use the "dynamics" 
of the Mantis -- engines, tail, even the cockpit if you think in-line 
seating is appropriate (though most transports have side-by-side 
seating; not all, though -- look at the Mi-24 /Hind/ which, though famed

as a gunship, could also carry troops) -- and add a custom-built 
fuselage for the transport mission. To take another example from the 
real world, think H-1 "Huey". The original Huey gunships were converted 
transports used to cover "slicks" (unarmed troop transports) on 
insertion and retrieval missions; later, the AH-1 HueyCobra was 
designed, replacing the UH-1 fuselage with a specialist body for the 
gunship role. Why not do something similar for the Mantis, only in
reverse?

I like the idea of using pods/modules, but I also have to admit that it 
will have its drawbacks.

Phil