Photo by Stephen Trimble
I don't say this very often, but I'm impressed.It doesn't look like much, I admit. If the airframe looks familiar, then you recognize the CL-10A Snowgoose parafoil. The inventor -- Canadian-based MMist -- has replaced the parachute with a three-bladed gyro-head.
The renamed Sherpa, displayed at the Cansec trade exhibition in Ottawa last week, joins a field of far more sophisticated competitors for the emerging cargo re-supply mission using unmanned aircraft. Its rivals include the Lockheed Martin/Kaman K-Max, Northrop Grumman Fire Scout, Boeing Unmanned Little Bird and Boeing YMQ-18A (formerly A160) Hummingbird.
The Sherpa's lack of sophistication is what impresses me. It's a vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft that lacks a true engine, drive system and gearbox. Yet, the Sherpa might haul a 325-pound load of cargo up to 100km, and return to base. Any of its competitors easily costs $5 million per aircraft, but MMist is offering to sell two Sherpa's for $1.3 million total.
The US Army has been skeptical that the costs and complexity of routinely re-supplying troops using unmanned aircraft could out-weigh the potential benefits. I wonder if the Sherpa might change their minds.
But it's not clear the Sherpa will be a contender for even the US Marine Corps' ongoing competition for an "immediate cargo UAS". The USMC wants to start deploying the aircraft in February. The Naval Research Laboratory is funding MMist's development of the Sherpa, but it won't be ready for a first flight until at least early 2010.
on June 2, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply
US SOF used Snowgoose and then dispensed with it. They tend to be rather no nonsense types who like things that work. If they are inexpensive and work more the better. If they don't work for SOF then I suspect that big Army will not find it of interest either. That said with a rotor on top it might be different. Just don't tell anyone you have to tow it behind a helicopter!
on June 2, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply
Without a "true engine", how does it fly?
on June 2, 2009 6:00 AM | Reply
What will probably be more convincing to the Army is if they get enough capability for the cost incurred.
If we are tallking lift or endurance as a priority, my Dinero is on the Hummingbird or the Kaman. (Do not underestimate the Kaman - the meshed rotor design has some very good advantages and Kaman has experience converting manned helos into aerial 'unmanned' targets.) If filling a need ASAP is the driver, then the FIre Scout has to be considered a favorite given its level of maturity as a system.
on June 10, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply
I am writting in response to some inaccuracies stated above. I am an employee of MMIST.
The system shown above is named the SnowGoose Bravo and is a direct development of the SnowGoose CQ-10Alpha. The Bravo retains the Alpha airframe and propulsion unit (Rotax 924 engine coupled to a 3 blade prop in a pusher configuration) and replaces the parafoil wing with a 3 blade gyro-head coupled to a rotor pre-rotation system. The gyro-head/pre-rotation system combination allows for vertical take off and near vertical landing capability.
The Bravo retains the CQ-10A payload capacity, range and endurance but more than doubles the air speed.
Advantages of this system are;
•Specifically developed as a multi role cargo aircraft
•Rugged design intended as an organic equipment set deployed with troops in the battlefield, no requirement for a fixed operating base/runway behind the wire.
•Extremely low purchase and operating costs. Greatly reduced maintenance requirements when compared to helicopters with turbine engines and rotor gearbox.
•2 person operation
•Auto launch and landing, fully autonomous flight, satellite communications ground station for global control.