Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi China Government The Military

China's Helicopter Prototype Looks Like a UFO (cnn.com) 60

Posted by BeauHD from the where-have-I-seen-this-before dept.
CNN has a story about a Chinese prototype helicopter that looks like a UFO. Slashdot reader ClickOnThis shares the report: China has been unveiling a lot of new weaponry lately, but one of their latest reveals looks really, well, out of this world. Called the "Super Great White Shark" by Chinese media, the aircraft conjures up images of 1950s sci-fi movies more than 21st century technology. But China says the "armed helicopter" was designed for the "future digital information battlefield." State-tabloid the Global Times published an image gallery of the aircraft, calling it a fusion of modern, proven helicopter designs -- such as the American AH-64 Apache and CH-53 Sea Stallion as well as the Russian Ka-52 and Mi-26 copters. It also has the blended-wing design employed by stealth aircraft, including the US B-2 bomber. [...] The prototype was displayed last week at the China Helicopter Exposition in Tianjin. It was a static display only. The aircraft is landbound -- at least for now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China's Helicopter Prototype Looks Like a UFO More

China's Helicopter Prototype Looks Like a UFO

Comments Filter:

  • Intergalactic Technology Theft (Score:5, Funny)

    by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday October 17, 2019 @05:11AM (#59317770)

    Americans always complain that China is stealing their technology.

    Well, now we'll hear the same from UFO Aliens!

  • this looks very much like those concept cars, made to whoo people at shows, but they don't actually work.
    and even in those few cases the concept makes it to production, it's hardly the same thing as so many things changed and functionality removed/dropped.

  • for an aircraft called: "Super Great White Shark".
  • Maybe they're going to paint it later.
    I'm sure central planning is going to work out great and this is actually a really good design.

  • No (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday October 17, 2019 @07:18AM (#59318014)
    It looks like a hoax. They couldn't even manage to put landing gear on it so I'm guessing it was put there with a crane and didn't fly there under its own power. Plus it would be interesting to see how they deal with the torque from the rotating vanes. I don't think just sticking a jet engine on the side will do it, especially when you want to change speeds.

    • It looks like a hoax. They couldn't even manage to put landing gear on it...

      It did have gears but they parked it in the wrong side of town so now it's up on bricks.

    • I'm guessing it was put there with a crane and didn't fly there under its own power.

      Gee; ya think?!

      Plus it would be interesting to see how they deal with the torque from the rotating vanes.

      "Coaxial" means counter-rotating.

      • Re: No (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Thursday October 17, 2019 @09:13AM (#59318388) Homepage

        Coaxial isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Its just another one of many chinese military "look at our advanced tech" mock ups or publicity releases that never see the light of day because they're all just bullshit propaganda.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        Where do you see coaxial? The Russians love their coaxial helicopters and they can be made to work with impressive results. But this thing doesn't mention or show coaxial anywhere in the text/schematic.

      • No, it does not, but probably in this case they are counterrotating too.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      Plus it would be interesting to see how they deal with the torque from the rotating vanes. I don't think just sticking a jet engine on the side will do it, especially when you want to change speeds.

      How is this a different problem to solve than the one conventional helicopters have to solve in order to fly?

      • How is this a different problem to solve than the one conventional helicopters have to solve in order to fly?

        Because they're not shaped like a cow pat, so they can have a tail boom.

        You might be able to solve it with ducted exhausts, though, counter to the direction of rotation, since the diameter of the craft is large enough.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ls671 ( 1122017 )

          How is this a different problem to solve than the one conventional helicopters have to solve in order to fly?

          Because they're not shaped like a cow pat, so they can have a tail boom.

          You might be able to solve it with ducted exhausts, though, counter to the direction of rotation, since the diameter of the craft is large enough.

          Look at this picture:
          https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da... [cnn.com]

          See that little turbine on the side? There you go, this is your tail boom! As you can see, same physical concept.

          • That's a terrible idea. Turbines don't change speed rapidly. That's why NOTAR systems use a duct with a shutter. Guess there's no need to be concerned about this POS, which won't be stealthy anyway because of the turbine spewing heat. It'll show up like a flare on thermal.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ls671 ( 1122017 )

              Well, we don't really know what it is! Maybe what looks like a turbine is an electric motor, LOL! I agree the design looks suspicious but I wouldn't say for sure it is never going to work. Like another poster has mentioned, things have changed drastically since the 50s when similar design was tried. For example, I don't think our American stealth bomber would have flown in the 50s because the computerized assistance it needs to fly wasn't available back then.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Moike ( 986142 )
      There are many similar clues indicating that this is not a real prototype. The pilot's view is too obstructed by the body of the "spaceship" to be useful. The aerodynamics of the cockpit are abysmal. The body's molding is in no way "stealthy", looking like it was molded by hand from clay or Bondo by someone who has never worked in the medium before. For design and practicality, I would rank this prototype well below the police "Hoversurf" hoverbikes in Dubai.
  • Makes sense. AI and self-balancing technology is a lot better than it was in the 1950s. They wouldn't have even been able to fit a computer in the American version. China leads the way when it comes to that sort of tech.

    • AI... is a lot better than it was in the 1950s

      Are you referring to neural net computing (which obviously didn't exist then) or "Artificial Intelligence" which still doesn't??

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      "China leads the way when it comes to that sort of tech."

      Since when? I've not noticed any major advances in anything coming out of china - as opposed to what their propaganda media claims - , just minor improvements on tech invented elsewhere.

      • China is definitely a leader when it comes to quadcopter drones, including passenger-carrying ones in development. You can make the case that the concept was originally "invented" somewhere else but currently the Chinese are more active in the field than anyone else. DJI alone is like 80% of the market. Presumably some of that knowledge would translate to this monstrosity - although from the looks of it they're far from a flying model.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          A drone is hardly advanced tech. They're just 4 prop helicopters with some simple horizontal balancing systems and the DJI ones are just toys.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bob4u2c ( 73467 )
      Balancing tech may have gotten better but the physics just aren't on your side. Looking at the design, the lift of the craft will be coming from the center of gravity or lower.

      Think of it this way, try balancing a pencil on your finger. It's possible but it takes a lot of shifting to keep it upright and it always wants to fall. Now trying to run while balancing said pencil would be a sight to behold (as in comedic).

      Now look at a helicopter, they overcome this by moving the lift to being as far above

      • The fact that helicopters have their rotor blades at the top doesn't make them stable, any more than Goddard's "motor on top" rockets did. Helicopters are inherently unstable and require active control at all times, just like this craft would (if actually built). Helicopter rotors are placed up high so they don't accidentally hit the ground or passengers. A rotor below the fuselage would work just as well in-flight.

        This design will fail for practical reasons, like thrust-to-weight ratio. It looks very heavy

  • helicopter helicopter helicopter (Score:4, Funny)

    by jdharm ( 1667825 ) on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:23AM (#59318170)
    They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

  • stick figures (Score:3)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Thursday October 17, 2019 @08:52AM (#59318288)

    the line-drawings of the two operators look remarkably calm in their spacious cockpit as they, presumably, fly the thing. As if it is likely to be anything short of terrifying with its lumpy outer shell and, presumably, hugely powerful multiple engines and massive whirling blades inches away from them. As a war plane it looks as if it could definitely kill two people before the 20 gallon fuel capacity is exhausted.

    I've seen more convincing looking things made out of chicken wire and plaster. Are the chinese public really buying into this ?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Moike ( 986142 )
      I think this might actually be made of chicken wire and plaster. Also, the pilots aren't meant to look calm. I believe they were trying to capture the stunned silence of the bewildered pilots realizing that they can't see anything below them, which is a bit of a problem for engaging a ground-based enemy, spotting a would-be attacker, or even just landing the craft. "Hey, are we airborne yet?"
  • This signals China is now in a position to start designing and thinking about experimental aircraft. Just as other countries have. Regardless if it works or doesn't, this is more of an external international signal to other countries that China will be investing more into its military programs.

    Thanks global capitalism. Turns out capitalism doesn't spread democracy, rather it funds military build up in other countries.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      "China will be investing more into its military programs"

      Hardly news. Unfortunately the chinese are starting to drink their own Kool Aid and have started believing their own BS. The only people they're kidding is themselves.

  • Going on the photo, looks like someone stole the wheels already and left it up on blocks!! :D
  • I don't know sh*t about helicopters, but I'd swear this new China hover-copter-thing looks a LOT like experiments that were carried out in the US and USSR during the 1960's and that were discontinued for being unproductive.

    I will concede that it is possible that the current China effort has something new involved...?
    • You recall the same thing that I recall, the US and USSR tried this very sort of thing in the postwar 50s era; indeed the alleged plans look almost exactly like those I saw in a Popular Mechanics or Popular Science magazine back in the late 60s when these were being disclosed to the public.
  • As has been pointed out it is an ugly version of the Avrocar. They could make it work now with modern flight control systems they have stolen from the US, European Union, and Russia but for what reason? If it worked and showed real promise then they would have continued with it back in the 50's and 60's and we would see them all over the sky and roads... But we don't!

  • <pedantic>
    Dammit people.. much like the recent post "Navy confirms existence of UFOs" UFO != Aliens. (That article very specifically only confirmed 'Yes we've seen things we can't identify') It *could mean aliens and maybe sometimes it actually is but UFO != Alien or more specifically in the case UFO != "Flying Saucer" either. We identified that.. it's a flying saucer, from China! No 'U' about it. (Heck from the picture we can't even confirm it's an FO)
    </pedantic>

  • Or perhaps a weather balloon

  • If we haven't identified them, how do we know what they look like?

Slashdot Top Deals

PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the solution set. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5

Close