This is such a neat concept. I am really glad Chip got the patent on this tech. He is a real innovator in 103 and LSA development. Can't wait to see these in operation!
Absolutely. Eventually, when I can afford one, I would love to work on one of these. I've sent emails to Chipp and he gives me the impression he just loves every bit of his work.
Wow! Such emotions in the comment section…things that trigger such passionate debate are typically game changers. Keep going Chip! Without folks like you no progress will be made.
About 4 months ago on Dan Gryder's channel I commented on several ideas to make a single engine {engine} failure on takeoff, much less stressful than we currently have. I proposed several ideas, but one was retrofitting each wing with an electric motor {counter rotating} and working with the piston engine. The idea being that the piston engine would only need to go to about 80 to 90% and your electrics are at 100%. {on take off} If the piston engine fails, let's say at 400 feet, the procedure would be to level the nose and just maintain your 400 feet. Then instead of an "impossible" turn, you just simply do a gentle banked turn and fly the pattern at 400 feet AGL just like you would at 1000 feet AGL in a normal pattern. {on your electrics} Of course you STILL declare an emergency because your primary engine is out. But you have ample battery power to circle the airport and do a normal landing. I was thinking having batteries that could provide about 10 minutes of flight, so you could have emergency flight but not get too much dead weight as in a full electric. {which I still think full electric aircraft NEVER will be practical for anything over an hour} But I digress. AND I also talked about increased initial climb with my idea. So I made my comment and boy oh boy did I get blasted !! I was told I was stupid and the idea would never work. {not by Dan, Dan is my HERO !! But the negativity was from other commenters} Now I'm a pretty thick skinned guy. I did not let the negativity get to me. I thought I was the only guy on the planet who thought of such a crazy idea. Remember my goal is if there's a piston engine failure on takeoff, I just want a way to continue the take off, circle the airport, and do a normal landing. Then I watch this video and my jaw dropped !! I feel "vindicated". I had NEVER thought of "hiding" the prop inside the wing. WOW !! There is hope !! Electric propulsion is most definitely the BEST as far as assistance to the primary engine. Electric simply can't be the primary source, but good grief it can do an amazing job in augmentation.
OK crazy Idea Time: The system you described plus, at crusing speed use the electric moters with the gas engine at a lower throttle, then when the batteries get low, throttel up and turn off the electric engines, and then use the propellers and the electric motor like windmills to recharge the batteries. Maybe the math doesn't work but a smarter person than me can probably look into the concept.
@@jtilton5 I think your idea could work if you're flying in lift and have a glide ratio of 15 to 1 or higher and you were to not climb but hold the nose down but maintain the same altitude. And you would have to circle the thermal. So the airplane if it had "feelings" would "feel" like it's descending but the altimeter would stay the same, thus turning the electric motor/generator prop like a ram air turbine on a Boeing 757 supplying power to the aircraft. In the case of the B757 hydraulic pressure, and in the case of our hypothetical airplane electrical power to recharge the batteries. {yes I know a B757 can't ride a thermal, but it CAN glide !!} But man, thanks for your idea - this is how we change the world - we work together and brainstorm. The very fact you took time to speak your idea means you're a GREAT person AND that there is hope for humanity. These concepts of networking are just not limited to aviation. We could apply this to farming, education, design of communities, free market economies ect ect. Thank YOU !!!
@@jtilton5 a crazier idea from a semi-computer geek / ex-electronics tech... computer failure or electrical short and one of your wing props stops and the other keeps going!!... or even just a glitch in the computer program and the wing props start spinning, unplanned and unregulated, at different rates "out of control"... NO MOTOR (gas or electric), and NO Computer are 100% reliable... and wouldn't you also need to be licensed to fly a multi-prop aircraft?
@@t.c.2776not if they are disconnected from power.. And a resetable fuse in case two relays disagree... Can be done analogly safely.. I honestly think that though we may disagree.. Our common ground is that our loss of appetite for analog circuits and moving everything to logic was a terrible idea.. We won't want any firmware around something so critical beyond ESC.
Starters are electric motors, and can also be generators. Generators can also be electric motors. Aircraft have one of each, and they also have batteries. If the prop is connected to the engine shaft with a sprag clutch, it can still be rotated with the engine stopped. Any ideas, folks?
This guy has way, way too much fun at work to the point that his ideas are actually good, beyond good, who’d da thunk it? I’m impressed. Fly your plane while it not flying, at 75 that’s the license I think I could get.
Damn! Chip and I thought about probably the same time, 4+ years ago. Also 2-4kw electric motors in the wheels. These motors will save a lot of lives in an engine out scenario.
Would love to see something like this hidden behind extendable leading edge slats. You would have full slats with blown flaps at low speed, clean wing at cruise.
Starting around 2:30 he addresses this - apparently production models will have a "gap seal" method that will prevent aerodynamic problems when the wing props are not in use.
With an original patent date of 2021 revised 2022, I would have expected to see at least a flying r/c model to prove the concept. If there is a video, I would love to see it.
I've imagined such things most of my life. Add a good generator at the Other end of the main engine crankshaft, charge batteries. Cover the top of everything with solar collectors.
makes me envison a thicc liftbody tailess flying wing, where the prob blades "disapear" on landing approach and it glides in near zero drag from a hundred miles out.
If my memory serves me correctly, this slot-buried propeller was tried on a self-launching sailplane maybe 40 years ago. (In Germany?) Did not work out satisfactorily, very noisy siren effect with the airflow being "chopped" by the props.
You are correct, it was in West Germany sometime before 1979. So noisy that development was halted. Alas there is very little documentation on this, just recollection. There is a saying in German which explains it and translates to "success has many fathers but failure is a complete orphan". We joked that a significant part of the engine output was sound and not force. This new drive should also make a lot of noise, albeit for seconds and when close to the ground. We'll see.
@@peterf2451 The aircraft was likely the Fischer RW3 Aka Rheinflugzeugbau RW3 'Multoplane' with the prop swinging between the fin and rudder of a T tail and stopped in the slot for soaring - it was noisy but still being flown by the designer until a few years ago in his 90s . Hanno Fischer also designed the Fantrainer ducted propeller mid fuselage military trainer - also noisy . Another using a prop in a wing slot was the "Skyjacker" - low aspect ratio homebuilt --it also suffered from noise and low Cl from the huge slot in the wing --the prop efficiency must have been pretty poor in both cases and this one -- just putting the prop at the leading edge and folding forward would be much better. ( Burt Rutan did something like that on his Skigull )
@@rossnolan7283 I'm aware of the RW3, the design of which I'm referring to had twin props buried in the wing but nearer to the wing root. Somewhere I have a magazine with photos.
It took a bit of doing but I found it in a 1974 issue of Motorgliding Magazine. The twin-prop slot-buried design was entered in a German design contest of that year. No notation on how it fared other than flying and climbing well but objectionably noisy as previously mentioned. This was a modification done to the Scheibe Bergfalke IV sailplane by the Flying Training School of the Detmold Aero Club. Sounds like more than one may have been built, also was tried on the Schleicher Ka8B.
They've been doing this same kind of thing in cheap toy-grade RC airplanes for like 20 years now. I still have an RC Starscream that I bought from Radio Shack in like 2007 that uses this concept not just for lift but also control.
I’ve literally been thinking of the concept of supplemental power from electric wing motors for months. Glad some one is doing it! In wing design great idea as well. The thing not mentioned is the redundancy for motor failure which could help in critical phases of flight for main engine failure. Awesome stuff!
Good to cya dan is there an new requirements on part 103 did they up the weight on the plans or allowing more gas also heard they where going to up the weight requirements on light sport love the merlin i want one as well
Sooooo there is a propwash going the length of the wing, increased drag due to the slot's square profile, more complex wing flex pattern and reduced glide ratio, not to mention prep replacement being more complicated. It's going to work in ultralights in which bending forces are far below airframe stiffness, but I don't see it going outside that category. For ease of maintenance I'd still prefer either forward mounted prop, or pusher. At least add set of fences on each side of prop slot...
Love all the multi-prop E-aircraft. It's going to revolutionize general aviation. Tower: are you declaring an emergency? Pilot: no, I only lost 3 of my engines.
Did you use CFD on the wing? CAD? Big deal, GI in GO, I wanna see laminar flow lines, separation zones, drag caused by flow separation, effect of polar shift, etc.
Funny concept. Little far apart if there is a control issue, might force a spin. Couldn't the e props simply be placed on the leading edge instead? even in a high AOA it would still blow along the wing and even in extreme stall it would blow on the underside so seems it should work fine. Simpler than to cut into the wing.
Blowing on the Topside of the Wing produces Lift & some Forward Thrust. Blowing Under the Wing, provides Thrust. Differential thrust could assist Directional/Heading Control (requiring less Banking). {Bill in CA}
I believe Chip already has Contracts with the US Government. That’s why he has a shop in Dayton Ohio, (Wright-Patterson AFM). I believe he has a single seat militarily version of the Merlin PSA with Retractable Slats. I only seen pictures of one. Amazing Aircraft. The Merlin is a great STOL single seat Aircraft for Recon work.
no running demonstration? can you say beat frequency? ever stuck a plank in front of a desk fan? heard an air raid siren? this is going to sound SWEET with that prop passing through a slot...
A good concept. My guess is that NASA’s X57 plane is better since its multiple foldable electric props fully wash its wings and see clean air instead of air cleaved by a wing. Thumbs up
first person ive seen mention the air raid siren design... think they would at least try a scimitar/curved blade prop to lessen the severity. as usual, when i see guys talking, but i see no practical demonstartion... (nice typo!) somethings not right. so thats basically 99% of modern day "revolutionary concepts". old ideas, brushed off and given a coat of paint as the new owner has no clue someone else owned it before, built it before, created it before, shed blood sweat and tears over it before... and wonder why no-one else thinks its the best thing since sliced bread.
I like the imbedded electric motor, was hoping it played a main form of propulsion. using multiple small electric motors instead of one central motor. I know it sounds silly but the early electric RC planes had no flaps but steered by using the out board motors. the aircraft can perform a host of maneuvers without flaps by adding more power to one wing you turn , combining throttle for lift and dissent. Multiple motors also means safer if you lose one. plus your battery needs would be lighter. Look at the research they are doing with battery models that make components of the vehicle are actually batteries. Zero point energy I think. That coupled with solar skin. It may not be a fighter jet but it would be a safe affordable form of flight that would recharge sitting on the tarmat.
They can only do that by slowing the plane and reducing glide distance- literally by functioning as airbrakes. You don't want to be doing that regularly.
There are light electric prototype aircraft that have used regenerative air braking by windmilling, but that basically means a very high descent rate, so yes it’s an interesting trick but it’s not effective. Regeneration works when the alternative braking means more energy loss. So it helps momentarily after touchdown but not on descent.
It will need redundancy as an engine failure on takeoff or landing would produce great instability impossible to correct with the flying surfaces. You need about 1 lb of batteries per each hp due to their maximum current delivery limits called the "C" factor (forget the endurance limitations), so 8 lb of batteries can only supply enough current to about 8 hp of power. Good enough for some improved control but not possible to make it SSTOL and operate out of a helipad as claimed
what happens if you have a computer or battery failure or electrical short and one of the wing props stops and the other keeps going!!... or even just a glitch in the computer program and the wing props start spinning, unplanned and unregulated, at different rates "out of control"... NO MOTOR (gas or electric), and NO Computer are 100% reliable... it once took me 6 months to build a new Windows 11 computer because of 2 defective motherboards, 2 defective graphics cards, and a defective external 8TB hard drive... almost everything that could have gone wrong did... I'm even thinking the power supply also went bad... but one of the graphics cards and the first power supply, I did buy second hand... and even though it seems to be working fine now, I would not put it in charge of a plane I intended to leave the ground with... LOL...
I can see the FAA crash reports now: failure of the secondary propulsion system due to vibration and destruction of the wing resulting in loss of the aircraft. You don't put a propeller in the wind shadow of anything ever for any reason. There have been a lot of crashes of rear prop aircraft for exactly this reason and those just failed from being in the shadow of relatively well designed aerodynamic support structures. It doesn't matter if this only runs for a minute every flight. You get a 5hp motor and a broken prop shredding a wing, its done.
In 1929 at Handley Page Ltd, UK, the Guggenheim Safe Aircraft design competition with the Curtiss Airplane Company, resulted in a single propellor driven light aircraft with a patented leading-edge slat and flapped wing, capable of taking-off in about 240 feet and landing run of only 63 feet! The British competitor, of 40 ft wing-span, was called the GUGNUNC and used a 155 HP Mongoose II engine and had an all-up weight of 2,100 lb. I presume that the Aeromarine design has a better performance than this.
no this is one of these "marketing" videos where you see a slick awesome looking electric drone for people but it never shows anybody sitting inside and fly. i specialy love how they keep interrupting each other by saying nothing useful.
Nope. One motor out would leave a very asymmetric thrust situation. Extreme yaw would follow. And if one is close to the ground, those conditions can be deadly.
It could be done with enough electronics redundancy. 3 to 7 microcontrollers monitoring the thrust of both engines and a lot of good firmware. But God help you if there is a catastrophic electrical event that fries your electronics and only 1 of the motors. It is a solution that requires active stabilization. Generally not a good design choice unless absolutely necessary.
From an Aero Eng of many decades, I can say this is one of the most confused concepts I've ever seen. First, the potential flow field around the wing will ruin the prop performance, second, the prop wash will have high potential of causing problems with the flow over the ailerons, finally, there is some chance that Von Karman vortex streets will set up on the wing causing massive vibration problems. Overall, an idea worthy of the trash bin.
not to be a nay-sayer, but what happens if anything goes out of alignment? You destroy both one propulsion source & potentially one wing (or a portion thereof).
patents are not prizes that are awarded for great ideas. it's protection for a novel idea, even if the novel idea is bogus. Not saying this is bogus, but patents are not prizes that "proves" something works.
Electrics will SAVE general aviation, trust me. The biggest problem with GA are the 1940's engines that are used. Fragile, prone to failure, easily damaged, prone to carburetor icing... This is the problem. Electric motors will solve all the issues with GA and allow it to flourish. That being said, the FAA should STILL require a multi-engine rating for this airplane. Electric motors rarely fail, but they CAN so the training is necessary.
Thank you so much for assuring us all with your expertise and critical opinions. I for one thought GA was dead but now I am so happy you have made it clear that I was worried about nothing. So glad I now know that these electric motors will "Solve all the issues with GA" lets hope they are used on all aircraft immediately because they seem to be perfect in every way with no problems what so ever. I am sure the FAA will be in touch soon for more of your desperately needed opinions to make the whole of GA 100% safe for everyone.
@@Flies2FLL Thank you oh wise one I will do what you say immediately. Please keep sharing your impeccable insights and instructions with us and surely the world will be better.
Duuudes 😂 haters gonna hate, huh? The future of GA will be electric. Absolutely clear. But near future? Far future? Within a decade, two? A century? Depends on how long humen take to find, develop, test and certify an energy source delivering the same range at same power/weight. Once this is achieved anydamnbody will go to fly electric. Think about no more leakage, spilling, icing, ... and almost no damn maintenance like 5 hrs wrenching 1 hr flying. Imagine: once horse, then steam, then gasoline. The old ones think they live the edge of all times but they don't. And those flew electric all their lifes will then question the next step as hard as those avgasers today. Keep in mind: conservatism is the handbreak for any evolution. Nothing will ever stay the same but old people. But they die and world evolves further. Again and again and again. In 1.000 years - if species makes it - they even won't use such things as airfoils, high lift devices, even no concept of lift. Bug hang on to the past. Coffin is waiting... Btw: I consider this plane as a design flaw. Sell it to the Icon guys.
It's really hard to use phrases like “exponential kinetic energy” and continue to sound like you know what you're talking about. You _have_ to be able to get the maths right to do safe and effective engineering, and it's important not to train the public to overlook bullshit. PR flash and folksiness can come second, can't they?
👎🏼i love electric propulsion. i build my own just now. but this has to be the most idiotic waste of money i ever saw. not one but two motors!😂 and you use it just for take off and to give airflow while you still standing on the runway to make the wings wiggle?! 🤯the weight of 24kw worth of extra power plus lipos and ESCs. could have been so much more. and OF COURSE he didnt turn them on for a little demonstration leave alone a flight to show the F16 like performance. such BS
]] TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
😂 right. But eDrives have much better MTBF thyn piston engines and even turbines/turboprops. And they are normally used in multi engine ac. Better attach a huge rudder to it 😂
It was hard to appreciate this man's brilliance with the interviewer constantly interrupting him. Clearly he has trouble waiting for another person finish talking. I suggest instead of having two mics you give the speaker your microphone and let them talk until they hand the mic back that way you can't interrupt them.
This is such a neat concept. I am really glad Chip got the patent on this tech. He is a real innovator in 103 and LSA development. Can't wait to see these in operation!
Absolutely. Eventually, when I can afford one, I would love to work on one of these. I've sent emails to Chipp and he gives me the impression he just loves every bit of his work.
Wow!
Such emotions in the comment section…things that trigger such passionate debate are typically game changers.
Keep going Chip!
Without folks like you no progress will be made.
About 4 months ago on Dan Gryder's channel I commented on several ideas to make a single engine {engine} failure on takeoff, much less stressful than we currently have. I proposed several ideas, but one was retrofitting each wing with an electric motor {counter rotating} and working with the piston engine. The idea being that the piston engine would only need to go to about 80 to 90% and your electrics are at 100%. {on take off} If the piston engine fails, let's say at 400 feet, the procedure would be to level the nose and just maintain your 400 feet. Then instead of an "impossible" turn, you just simply do a gentle banked turn and fly the pattern at 400 feet AGL just like you would at 1000 feet AGL in a normal pattern. {on your electrics} Of course you STILL declare an emergency because your primary engine is out. But you have ample battery power to circle the airport and do a normal landing. I was thinking having batteries that could provide about 10 minutes of flight, so you could have emergency flight but not get too much dead weight as in a full electric. {which I still think full electric aircraft NEVER will be practical for anything over an hour} But I digress. AND I also talked about increased initial climb with my idea. So I made my comment and boy oh boy did I get blasted !! I was told I was stupid and the idea would never work. {not by Dan, Dan is my HERO !! But the negativity was from other commenters} Now I'm a pretty thick skinned guy. I did not let the negativity get to me. I thought I was the only guy on the planet who thought of such a crazy idea. Remember my goal is if there's a piston engine failure on takeoff, I just want a way to continue the take off, circle the airport, and do a normal landing. Then I watch this video and my jaw dropped !! I feel "vindicated". I had NEVER thought of "hiding" the prop inside the wing. WOW !! There is hope !! Electric propulsion is most definitely the BEST as far as assistance to the primary engine. Electric simply can't be the primary source, but good grief it can do an amazing job in augmentation.
OK crazy Idea Time:
The system you described plus, at crusing speed use the electric moters with the gas engine at a lower throttle, then when the batteries get low, throttel up and turn off the electric engines, and then use the propellers and the electric motor like windmills to recharge the batteries.
Maybe the math doesn't work but a smarter person than me can probably look into the concept.
@@jtilton5 I think your idea could work if you're flying in lift and have a glide ratio of 15 to 1 or higher and you were to not climb but hold the nose down but maintain the same altitude. And you would have to circle the thermal. So the airplane if it had "feelings" would "feel" like it's descending but the altimeter would stay the same, thus turning the electric motor/generator prop like a ram air turbine on a Boeing 757 supplying power to the aircraft. In the case of the B757 hydraulic pressure, and in the case of our hypothetical airplane electrical power to recharge the batteries. {yes I know a B757 can't ride a thermal, but it CAN glide !!} But man, thanks for your idea - this is how we change the world - we work together and brainstorm. The very fact you took time to speak your idea means you're a GREAT person AND that there is hope for humanity. These concepts of networking are just not limited to aviation. We could apply this to farming, education, design of communities, free market economies ect ect. Thank YOU !!!
@@jtilton5 a crazier idea from a semi-computer geek / ex-electronics tech... computer failure or electrical short and one of your wing props stops and the other keeps going!!... or even just a glitch in the computer program and the wing props start spinning, unplanned and unregulated, at different rates "out of control"... NO MOTOR (gas or electric), and NO Computer are 100% reliable... and wouldn't you also need to be licensed to fly a multi-prop aircraft?
@@t.c.2776not if they are disconnected from power.. And a resetable fuse in case two relays disagree... Can be done analogly safely..
I honestly think that though we may disagree.. Our common ground is that our loss of appetite for analog circuits and moving everything to logic was a terrible idea.. We won't want any firmware around something so critical beyond ESC.
Starters are electric motors, and can also be generators. Generators can also be electric motors. Aircraft have one of each, and they also have batteries. If the prop is connected to the engine shaft with a sprag clutch, it can still be rotated with the engine stopped. Any ideas, folks?
This is a great use for electric power!
This guy has way, way too much fun at work to the point that his ideas are actually good, beyond good, who’d da thunk it? I’m impressed. Fly your plane while it not flying, at 75 that’s the license I think I could get.
Can’t wait to see Her it fly, thank you!😊
Pure genius, more proof of "thinking out of the box"...true innovations come from radical departure from "old ways"... WOW
Damn! Chip and I thought about probably the same time, 4+ years ago. Also 2-4kw electric motors in the wheels. These motors will save a lot of lives in an engine out scenario.
Awesome - just great to see this innovation - kudos to you.
Wow, great working concept, hope it comes to market...
Fantastic Concept. Want to hear more from this Innovator.
Very keen to see the Flight Envelope in Video. Wish the interviewer gave him more time.
Terrific idea! Good luck for the project.👌👌
Would love to see something like this hidden behind extendable leading edge slats. You would have full slats with blown flaps at low speed, clean wing at cruise.
brilliant! The ghost and
memory of James Raisbeck (inventor of the Robertson STOL and leading and trailing edge drop on Boeing 737s ) salutes you!!!
That is really cool!
This is relatively common on model airplanes. It's extremely noisy because of the close proximity between the blades and wing.
I recall that there was some motorglider with such arrangement. Still, electric boost for takeoff is a great idea.
Surely the slot in the wing where the electric propeller is hidden during cruise effects the aileron effectiveness and creates drag.
personally, i'm more reminded of air raid sirens...
i wonder why they dont have a practical demo?
Starting around 2:30 he addresses this - apparently production models will have a "gap seal" method that will prevent aerodynamic problems when the wing props are not in use.
WOW! That's new! There is video of this airplane in action?
With an original patent date of 2021 revised 2022, I would have expected to see at least a flying r/c model to prove the concept. If there is a video, I would love to see it.
Like the keel of the "In my Head" sailboat, prop in it
I've imagined such things most of my life. Add a good generator at the Other end of the main engine crankshaft, charge batteries. Cover the top of everything with solar collectors.
makes me envison a thicc liftbody tailess flying wing, where the prob blades "disapear" on landing approach and it glides in near zero drag from a hundred miles out.
Keep creating great propulsion than run on fuel cells and hydrogen to make flying possible for a very long future. I love this inventor🍀
Wonderful !!
If my memory serves me correctly, this slot-buried propeller was tried on a self-launching sailplane maybe 40 years ago. (In Germany?) Did not work out satisfactorily, very noisy siren effect with the airflow being "chopped" by the props.
You are correct, it was in West Germany sometime before 1979. So noisy that development was halted. Alas there is very little documentation on this, just recollection. There is a saying in German which explains it and translates to "success has many fathers but failure is a complete orphan". We joked that a significant part of the engine output was sound and not force.
This new drive should also make a lot of noise, albeit for seconds and when close to the ground.
We'll see.
@@peterf2451 The aircraft was likely the Fischer RW3 Aka Rheinflugzeugbau RW3 'Multoplane' with the prop swinging between the fin and rudder of a T tail and stopped in the slot for soaring - it was noisy but still being flown by the designer until a few years ago in his 90s . Hanno Fischer also designed the Fantrainer ducted propeller mid fuselage military trainer - also noisy . Another using a prop in a wing slot was the "Skyjacker" - low aspect ratio homebuilt --it also suffered from noise and low Cl from the huge slot in the wing --the prop efficiency must have been pretty poor in both cases and this one -- just putting the prop at the leading edge and folding forward would be much better. ( Burt Rutan did something like that on his Skigull )
"strike out text is unintentional - a computer glitch .
@@rossnolan7283 I'm aware of the RW3, the design of which I'm referring to had twin props buried in the wing but nearer to the wing root. Somewhere I have a magazine with photos.
It took a bit of doing but I found it in a 1974 issue of Motorgliding Magazine. The twin-prop slot-buried design was entered in a German design contest of that year. No notation on how it fared other than flying and climbing well but objectionably noisy as previously mentioned. This was a modification done to the Scheibe Bergfalke IV sailplane by the Flying Training School of the Detmold Aero Club. Sounds like more than one may have been built, also was tried on the Schleicher Ka8B.
Very good. My dead friend would have loved to see this. What does Mike P think of this?
Brilliant.
how about putting an electric ducted fan instead of prop? great vid THANX!
Sheesh! It seems the USPTO will issue a patent for practically anything these days...
On a different tack, requesting full flight review of Chinook SJ please!
They've been doing this same kind of thing in cheap toy-grade RC airplanes for like 20 years now. I still have an RC Starscream that I bought from Radio Shack in like 2007 that uses this concept not just for lift but also control.
Anywhere we can see it actually flying?
Does it fly?
OK, that's kinda' brilliant.
I’ve literally been thinking of the concept of supplemental power from electric wing motors for months. Glad some one is doing it! In wing design great idea as well. The thing not mentioned is the redundancy for motor failure which could help in critical phases of flight for main engine failure. Awesome stuff!
Good to cya dan is there an new requirements on part 103 did they up the weight on the plans or allowing more gas also heard they where going to up the weight requirements on light sport love the merlin i want one as well
Be like the Grand Theft Auto games where you can just magically move around in the air
Sooooo there is a propwash going the length of the wing, increased drag due to the slot's square profile, more complex wing flex pattern and reduced glide ratio, not to mention prep replacement being more complicated. It's going to work in ultralights in which bending forces are far below airframe stiffness, but I don't see it going outside that category. For ease of maintenance I'd still prefer either forward mounted prop, or pusher. At least add set of fences on each side of prop slot...
Thrust dissymetry must be wild if one of the e-motors has a problem
seems to me that in the 60's(?) some person had a wing with 2 channels (half circle) with twin engines(in channel) that worked on this principal.
Why would you block the prop with the mic for entire video?
Didnt see it fly.?
Love all the multi-prop E-aircraft. It's going to revolutionize general aviation.
Tower: are you declaring an emergency?
Pilot: no, I only lost 3 of my engines.
Did you use CFD on the wing? CAD? Big deal, GI in GO, I wanna see laminar flow lines, separation zones, drag caused by flow separation, effect of polar shift, etc.
Sure would be nice to see that plane take off on 20' of runway.
If you had engine failure at say, 500 feet, is there enough power available to get you around the curcuit.
American GENIUS
will this project ever get to production?
Gliding Along. Heading North. . …flat and level….. pull a 180 …. Instantly…heading south…. Cool. !!!
Funny concept. Little far apart if there is a control issue, might force a spin. Couldn't the e props simply be placed on the leading edge instead? even in a high AOA it would still blow along the wing and even in extreme stall it would blow on the underside so seems it should work fine. Simpler than to cut into the wing.
But more drag when not running.
@@bwyseymail the blades could fold along the wing and no slit so could be less drag.
Blowing on the Topside of the Wing produces Lift & some Forward Thrust.
Blowing Under the Wing, provides Thrust. Differential thrust could assist Directional/Heading Control (requiring less Banking).
{Bill in CA}
Can you put the electric propeller into an all-moving tailplane?
ingenious.
This may open up new improved versions for civilian/ Military airframes, think about it Military quick please.
I believe Chip already has Contracts with the US Government. That’s why he has a shop in Dayton Ohio, (Wright-Patterson AFM). I believe he has a single seat militarily version of the Merlin PSA with Retractable Slats. I only seen pictures of one. Amazing Aircraft. The Merlin is a great STOL single seat Aircraft for Recon work.
Awesome. Actually.
no running demonstration?
can you say beat frequency?
ever stuck a plank in front of a desk fan?
heard an air raid siren?
this is going to sound SWEET with that prop passing through a slot...
Do you need a multi-engine rating to fly this? Its electric but the mechanical failure of one wing motor would be exciting!
It's a Part 103 Ultralight, no such things as ratings or licenses.
A good concept. My guess is that NASA’s X57 plane is better since its multiple foldable electric props fully wash its wings and see clean air instead of air cleaved by a wing.
Thumbs up
I think this will make a lot of noise, not optimal to have a rotating prop close to a solid part.
I consider this as an asumption of design flaws. They should name it TITAN.
Is only for short term use
first person ive seen mention the air raid siren design...
think they would at least try a scimitar/curved blade prop to lessen the severity.
as usual, when i see guys talking, but i see no practical demonstartion... (nice typo!) somethings not right. so thats basically 99% of modern day "revolutionary concepts". old ideas, brushed off and given a coat of paint as the new owner has no clue someone else owned it before, built it before, created it before, shed blood sweat and tears over it before... and wonder why no-one else thinks its the best thing since sliced bread.
I like the imbedded electric motor, was hoping it played a main form of propulsion. using multiple small electric motors instead of one central motor. I know it sounds silly but the early electric RC planes had no flaps but steered by using the out board motors. the aircraft can perform a host of maneuvers without flaps by adding more power to one wing you turn , combining throttle for lift and dissent. Multiple motors also means safer if you lose one. plus your battery needs would be lighter. Look at the research they are doing with battery models that make components of the vehicle are actually batteries. Zero point energy I think. That coupled with solar skin. It may not be a fighter jet but it would be a safe affordable form of flight that would recharge sitting on the tarmat.
A solution in search of a problem. Who is the target customer?
DEP on spanish is Descanse En Paz (basically RIP) hahahaha if it ever comes to Spanish speaking countries, I hope they translate the acronym as well.
Still Part 103?
What about using motors that produce power regeneration?
thinking the same thing, I would see this useful in descending, there's free power right there that's not being gathered.
They can only do that by slowing the plane and reducing glide distance- literally by functioning as airbrakes. You don't want to be doing that regularly.
There are light electric prototype aircraft that have used regenerative air braking by windmilling, but that basically means a very high descent rate, so yes it’s an interesting trick but it’s not effective.
Regeneration works when the alternative braking means more energy loss. So it helps momentarily after touchdown but not on descent.
It will need redundancy as an engine failure on takeoff or landing would produce great instability impossible to correct with the flying surfaces. You need about 1 lb of batteries per each hp due to their maximum current delivery limits called the "C" factor (forget the endurance limitations), so 8 lb of batteries can only supply enough current to about 8 hp of power. Good enough for some improved control but not possible to make it SSTOL and operate out of a helipad as claimed
what happens if you have a computer or battery failure or electrical short and one of the wing props stops and the other keeps going!!... or even just a glitch in the computer program and the wing props start spinning, unplanned and unregulated, at different rates "out of control"... NO MOTOR (gas or electric), and NO Computer are 100% reliable... it once took me 6 months to build a new Windows 11 computer because of 2 defective motherboards, 2 defective graphics cards, and a defective external 8TB hard drive... almost everything that could have gone wrong did... I'm even thinking the power supply also went bad... but one of the graphics cards and the first power supply, I did buy second hand... and even though it seems to be working fine now, I would not put it in charge of a plane I intended to leave the ground with... LOL...
I can see the FAA crash reports now: failure of the secondary propulsion system due to vibration and destruction of the wing resulting in loss of the aircraft.
You don't put a propeller in the wind shadow of anything ever for any reason. There have been a lot of crashes of rear prop aircraft for exactly this reason and those just failed from being in the shadow of relatively well designed aerodynamic support structures.
It doesn't matter if this only runs for a minute every flight. You get a 5hp motor and a broken prop shredding a wing, its done.
In 1929 at Handley Page Ltd, UK, the Guggenheim Safe Aircraft design competition with the Curtiss Airplane Company, resulted in a single propellor driven light aircraft with a patented leading-edge slat and flapped wing, capable of taking-off in about 240 feet and landing run of only 63 feet! The British competitor, of 40 ft wing-span, was called the GUGNUNC and used a 155 HP Mongoose II engine and had an all-up weight of 2,100 lb. I presume that the Aeromarine design has a better performance than this.
So does this thing actually fly?
no this is one of these "marketing" videos where you see a slick awesome looking electric drone for people but it never shows anybody sitting inside and fly. i specialy love how they keep interrupting each other by saying nothing useful.
Nice info, but the Interviewer was Argumentive (frequently interrupting the Spoksman).
{Bill in CA}
Nope. One motor out would leave a very asymmetric thrust situation. Extreme yaw would follow. And if one is close to the ground, those conditions can be deadly.
One motor out, the second one turns off automatically
@@MrPilotStunts, you had better HOPE SO!
Lots of planes have 2 engines. And edrives have much better MTBF. Got to attach huge rudders😊
It could be done with enough electronics redundancy. 3 to 7 microcontrollers monitoring the thrust of both engines and a lot of good firmware. But God help you if there is a catastrophic electrical event that fries your electronics and only 1 of the motors. It is a solution that requires active stabilization. Generally not a good design choice unless absolutely necessary.
@@BangkokBubonaglia ever heard about multi engine aircraft? I heard they do pretty good. #nuffrudder
This is an old video right? Any recent updates?
Video was shot at AirVenture 2022. Updates were contained in my website article… but this is a development project.
I've alway though about that, blowing the wing to have lift at 0km/h
"We had a little rain last night", says the guy who slept in a motel room!
Take off and land on a helipad? Woooo
From an Aero Eng of many decades, I can say this is one of the most confused concepts I've ever seen. First, the potential flow field around the wing will ruin the prop performance, second, the prop wash will have high potential of causing problems with the flow over the ailerons, finally, there is some chance that Von Karman vortex streets will set up on the wing causing massive vibration problems. Overall, an idea worthy of the trash bin.
“EATO”…electric assisted takeoff
I have to wonder how much efficiency the props lose when they're embedded in the wing like that.
hey if we dont see it fly it dont count
not to be a nay-sayer, but what happens if anything goes out of alignment? You destroy both one propulsion source & potentially one wing (or a portion thereof).
Nothing like a lithium fire in flight.
nothing like lithium cell collapse at 10,000ft and 50Nmi from shore...
“There is 3 functions?” How about “There ARE 3 functions?” Love the plane. Go electric with many functions. They are phenomenal.
does this guy realize those batteries catch fire sometimes? seems like storing them in the wing is an awful idea.
Enhanced coanda effect.
Just needs solar panels on too of those wings
oh boy another thing to distract chip erwin from getting the Merlin produced. Guy can't complete a project to save his life
patents are not prizes that are awarded for great ideas. it's protection for a novel idea, even if the novel idea is bogus. Not saying this is bogus, but patents are not prizes that "proves" something works.
Electrics will SAVE general aviation, trust me. The biggest problem with GA are the 1940's engines that are used. Fragile, prone to failure, easily damaged, prone to carburetor icing... This is the problem. Electric motors will solve all the issues with GA and allow it to flourish.
That being said, the FAA should STILL require a multi-engine rating for this airplane. Electric motors rarely fail, but they CAN so the training is necessary.
Thank you so much for assuring us all with your expertise and critical opinions. I for one thought GA was dead but now I am so happy you have made it clear that I was worried about nothing. So glad I now know that these electric motors will "Solve all the issues with GA" lets hope they are used on all aircraft immediately because they seem to be perfect in every way with no problems what so ever. I am sure the FAA will be in touch soon for more of your desperately needed opinions to make the whole of GA 100% safe for everyone.
@@thedave7760 I highly recommend you turn off Fox Network. And stop drinking-
@@Flies2FLL Thank you oh wise one I will do what you say immediately. Please keep sharing your impeccable insights and instructions with us and surely the world will be better.
@@thedave7760 Sure! No problem. Have a nice day, and turn off Fox Network.....
PS: Jealousy is a really stupid emotion, don't you think?
Duuudes 😂 haters gonna hate, huh? The future of GA will be electric. Absolutely clear. But near future? Far future? Within a decade, two? A century? Depends on how long humen take to find, develop, test and certify an energy source delivering the same range at same power/weight. Once this is achieved anydamnbody will go to fly electric. Think about no more leakage, spilling, icing, ... and almost no damn maintenance like 5 hrs wrenching 1 hr flying.
Imagine: once horse, then steam, then gasoline. The old ones think they live the edge of all times but they don't. And those flew electric all their lifes will then question the next step as hard as those avgasers today.
Keep in mind: conservatism is the handbreak for any evolution. Nothing will ever stay the same but old people. But they die and world evolves further. Again and again and again. In 1.000 years - if species makes it - they even won't use such things as airfoils, high lift devices, even no concept of lift. Bug hang on to the past. Coffin is waiting...
Btw: I consider this plane as a design flaw. Sell it to the Icon guys.
Bad idea! If you change one thing only it is you gotta put them much closer to centerline.
Then you lose aileron control at low speed.
It's really hard to use phrases like “exponential kinetic energy” and continue to sound like you know what you're talking about. You _have_ to be able to get the maths right to do safe and effective engineering, and it's important not to train the public to overlook bullshit. PR flash and folksiness can come second, can't they?
Spin control? Computerassisted….
👎🏼i love electric propulsion. i build my own just now. but this has to be the most idiotic waste of money i ever saw. not one but two motors!😂 and you use it just for take off and to give airflow while you still standing on the runway to make the wings wiggle?! 🤯the weight of 24kw worth of extra power plus lipos and ESCs. could have been so much more. and OF COURSE he didnt turn them on for a little demonstration leave alone a flight to show the F16 like performance. such BS
I wouldn’t buy a plane from someone like that.
]] TIME HAS RUN OUT !! John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Don't ignore this message... REPENT NOW !! TRUST that God raised Him from the dead !! By FAITH accept JESUS's blood alone as payment for your sins unto Salvation, to escape what's about to happen !!
Not really practical when it increased overall weight.
Okay, no thanks
Patent? For this? You serious?
patents are the stupidest thing.
If one of those electric motors fails on take off you could have some bad results............
😂 right. But eDrives have much better MTBF thyn piston engines and even turbines/turboprops. And they are normally used in multi engine ac. Better attach a huge rudder to it 😂
Is it me or does the pilot sound a little bit drunk-?
its you
It was hard to appreciate this man's brilliance with the interviewer constantly interrupting him. Clearly he has trouble waiting for another person finish talking. I suggest instead of having two mics you give the speaker your microphone and let them talk until they hand the mic back that way you can't interrupt them.
Excellent
Lot of talk and nothing to show for, crap