Jetson One Vs SkyDrive : Can we Increase Flight Times ?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 июл 2024
- In this video we are going to compare the Jetson One and the SkyDrive SD03 that has been backed by Toyota.
We will explore how can we increase the Flight times and is currently on the lower side 
Наука
It feels like we are in the "New Kitty Hawk" era, just starting with fly machines and where flytime is measured in minutes. A new beginning once again :-)
They couldn't put pedals on this. Too many people are out of shape these days.
@@rangerfontana591 lmaooo. Ice way of saying they FAT AS HELL LOL.
Jetson is the one I like-But-"New Kitty Hawk"? For 15 minutes? $90,000 Dollars? Well, ok-but at the rate of these so called "personal VTOL" aircraft pop up on my radar? Complete with slick CGI videos and "grand announcements" for "commuting" -They always end up moving around at a bare hover, only to skim some field miles away from any urban setting.
Battery Life dependent on heat and as usual, technology.
Still would want one-but the very design gives birth to ideas of what this type of aircraft can do, should be doing. Yet the technology (as well as the decibels) make these aircraft "prohibitive" to operate anywhere but in CGI or a deserted field!
We need to be thinking of Frequency, Oscillations, Electro-Magnetic pulses etc. The air around us is already charged-we just haven't figured out the frequency needed to develop thrust, lift and forward movement from what is already given to us by nature!
All these companies should come together under one single entity with one design and one goal-To make a personal commuter aircraft that could be spun off into Agriculture, Law Enforcement, Search/Rescue, Air Freight and, the occasional jaunt out to the countryside.
Until that happens-all these craft will be relegated to Aviation oddities -crafts that are no more than a flying weed wackers, barely moving out of hover.
@@shannonstewart4792 😂
Yes but we’re like....20-30 years behind schedule 😄
They need to hurry up I’m getting older lol
Would buy a Jetson if I had enough spare change. Sounds so much fun!
Excellent analysis as always. You are answering the exact questions I asked myself after watching a promotion video for the Jetson.
Great to hear!
Love your videos. Very interesting topic. Thanks for your efforts to share this information!
Seems a similar problem to the rocket equation, regarding fuel v weight. Another fascinating video. Thanks!
Thanks again!
Delta V
1). Shroud the propellers. Properly designed Ducted Fans will outperform a similar sized free propeller. It has been amply demonstrated, both theoretically and empirically, that a ducted fan system, properly designed for a specific operating condition, will always outperform (propulsively) a free propeller of the same diameter (that is, it will produce more thrust for the same power input) at that operating condition. While this fact is always true (at least at subsonic speeds), it does neglect the drag of the duct itself, which at high speeds can easily overcome propulsive benefits. However, this vehicle is not a high speed application so any drag associated with the duct itself should be negligible. The shrouds should be made of carbon fiber to keep from adding an appreciable amount of weight.
2). Use ethanol in a Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell (DAFC). Should allow for a much smaller lighter battery pack (essentially acting as a buffer). DAFCs possess a wide spectrum of advantages as compared with proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) that use hydrogen as the fuel. The theoretical energy conversion efficiency of all DAFCs exceeds 90%, which is higher than that of PEMFCs (83%). More importantly liquid alcohols have a much higher volumetric energy density than does gas hydrogen. For this reason DAFCs require much smaller fuel cartridges and they are thus much more compact systems. In addition, alcohol fuels are easily handled, transported, and stored. Unlike hydrogen-feed PEMFCs, liquid fuel-feed DAFCs do not need humidification and separate thermal management ancillary systems. All these features make DAFCs particularly suitable for portable and mobile applications.
energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/18529/direct-ethanol-fuel-cells-ethanol-for-our-future-fuel-cells-energiforskrapport-2015-137.pdf
Agreed, ... put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. No heavy metals or rare materials that are very hard on environment to dig up, and far less c02 of production and recycling when the time comes.
These personal vehjcles are cool but they are simply enlarged drones that I can buy at best buys. What is the maintenance on these things? How much will your power bill go up ? And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?
Besides, i dont want millions of morons flying above me, when they can barely drive their cars presently. Just imagine the havoc...
Yeah, They are cool but just a very very expensive toy.
@@sasquatch2753
"put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. "
600cc motorcycle engine is zero emission? News to me. Citation needed. If it's not then no, problem not solved.
"What is the maintenance on these things? "
Damn near zero. Only moving part is for each propeller so like four moving parts.
"How much will your power bill go up ? "
Negligible. Remember a fossil fuel engine is a heat engine so it is limited by the Carnot limit...so it can't be more than 50% efficient or so. Whereas an electric motor is 90% efficient. Also even if the power plant is coal powered, it burns far less fuel to generate enough power for an electric vehicle than a fossil fuel engine burns to do the same thing.
"And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?"
Part of going green is eliminating fossil fuel as a source of power. Not for power, not for propulsion. Source of plastic only (and even that will go away when plant based plastic becomes more prevalent).
So nuclear and renewables. Some time in the next 20 years, the last fossil fuel plant in the western world will be built, replaced by nuclear and renewables.
Very good , concisely made video. It puts into perspective very clearly what is needed to further develop these into viable options. Higher density batteries, improved power to weight and possibly an augmented lift option (fixed wing) or larger blades. I'm sure if we take a peak 10yrs into the future, the biggest change will be battery density.
Increased rotors is the fix... for now.
Excellent video. Great hearing the weight to flight time calculations.
Glad it was helpful!
EXCELLENT information! Keep up the GREAT work, sir!
Best channel for this stuff.
It may, be but I suggest this channel tends to emphasize all the upsides of these technologies, and neglects to address the downsides.
Do these type of rotor systems become more efficient with increased inflow (associated with gaining airspeed) like a helicopter as it transitions from hovering and gains airspeed? Also, could power required decrease itch increased if the craft was a lifting body &/ had other lifting surfaces like wings?
Excellent analysis. I love the entire experience of the Jetson, someday hopefully it will sell for a fraction of the $92k they want for it today
Thomas Haynes has
They need to move out of California to the mid west where it really started
Very well explained. Thank you.
Very informative and concise video, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
ok back again, this is a really hard thing to do.They have wisely made Jetson as light as possible, so increasing range means sacrificing vehicle structure to add range.
Because the few ways of increasing flight efficiency would include rotating thrusters, or swash plates or wings, or either of the first two and wings.
What you have to bargain with is that moving forward with less thrust saves battery power, which you would have less of because of added structure.
1. In any event if you do this other effects become apparent, that transiting into forward flight requires control manoeuvres which complicates use.
Said complications go further when you will find your minimum speed just went up a lot without further control manoeuvres to slow down
2. If the machine is purely for entertainment, like a flying dirt bike, it is quite optimal because it doesnt 'really' matter how far you go. Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis.
If however the thought was you could fly around a neighbourhood, even if its rural, you need to have more equipment and more weight to work with, like add wings.
That of course takes us out of the unregulated end of the aviation market and the horror that these are multi engine machines and pilot training in that sphere is ever more difficult.
GOTO 2. keep inside unregulated space for the time being, Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis.
As an aside I would expect a reformation of regulation in this space.
Maybe retracting wings that are made of hang glider or paraglide material. Like a wing suit
There isn't necessarily a need for control surfaces.
Even a small wing, fitted between the forward and rear rotors could provide lift at higher speeds provided it is pitched slightly upward so that it lies almost horizontal when the aircraft pitches down to generate forward thrust.
The added lift would not be enormous but it would more than compensate the added weight.
You can also add that they need to step off the X8 octocopter configuration. The bottom 4 motors run very inefficient due to the top motors prop wash. They would probably get the same amount of lift and more flight time with a hexa configuration as long as the propellers are not overlapping one each other.
But contra-rotating is always more efficient than single rotating.
@@manofsan but you always have contra rotating on a drone else you cant maneuver the drone as you have to slow down the one rotation to let opposite rotation move the mass. the only way you can create a better coaxial effect if top motors are always in the same offset as the bottom motors as you never break the stream of air as much. as the perfect example is the K-MAX helicopter
@@Drone_Out - KMAX has the rotors in sync to keep the blades from colliding. Rotors that don't intersect shouldn't automatically have to be in sync with each other. The lower rotor is simply collecting the spin energy imparted by the upper one, and converting it into thrust. Btw, have you heard about Airspeeder? They're trying to do some kind of pod-racing games with these things.
It seems like adding some lift surfaces (ie) wings and a V tail might increase the flight time. BUT then the weight increaes and I believe you would legally need a Sports Pilot license which is what they were trying to avoid.
Thank you for an intelligent presentation devoid of drama and nonsense.
Jetson is the best for me in many ways, the greatest being a sence of 'Spirit' and homegrown passion.🍀
I love this whole concept! Definitely the way of the future.
Cannot wait to see what kind of batteries we develop in the next 5-10 years. This industry is solely dependent on a battery with less weight but a lot more power inside. Cant wait!!😆
I'd like to rent time on one of these and do the training. It looks like great fun. Within 5-10 years these will be quite common and perhaps the price will go down as flight times are increased with lighter, more powerful batteries.
Would adding multiple generators cause too much drag on the rotors and cause too much rotor reduction SPEED? Or how about adding a film solar panel to it ? How many watts are these rotors pulling?
Great upload buddy.
YOU sir, have a new subscriber 👍
I like co-axial design, could there be any benefit of adding 2 more co-axial rotors giving it a total of 6 coax rotors?
Rotor increases great but is there a way to remove blade protection?
Just wondering if you added an alternator to keep the battery charged if that would help with the a longer flight time?
Jetson 1 is obviously much more superior to that other one. I am wondering if it is possible to combine this layout with some kind of lift generating surfaces when there is forward motion (wings, but does not have to be wings).
Profile the front motor blades like a helicopters, and tilt them slightly back, and you can gyrocopter the whole front end for free at forward speed.
@@benwilms3942 They could build the airframe out of carbon fiber which would help increase the range, not so much the price.
@@readhistory2023 Maybe, maybe not... Any time carbon fibre pops up, it's money grab I hear afterwards!!
Yes, then you basically get the Blackfly. Anything else requires tilting surfaces.
@@KevinATJumpWorks Blackfly is one of the best designs currently at that category. The only things I would add to it is a second seat, better visibility cockpit and a top fixed elaron wing for in flight stability.
Adding wings would quadruple the flight time. Powered lift is great for TOL, and a bit of loitering. But it's very inefficient compared to the aerodynamic lift of fixed wings.
Agreed. There is a reason airplanes dominate aerial travel. The first company to make a 2hr+30 min reserve plane thats "affordable" will sell like hotcakes.
Bye Aerospace's EFlyer 2 is the one that has 2hr + 30 min reserves. I dont think its a budget aircraft though. It is a good option for a trainer
Plus wings don’t just fall out of the sky when the fuel runs out.
@@gpaull2 Depending on rotor size (disk loading) autorotation is possible.
Helicopters also don't just fall when the engine quits
Indeed. Jetson is aware of this, but deliberately chose this configuration to go forward.
It does not mean, that future variants might not also have wings for forward flight.
The question is: can it powerloop? 😇
Now on a more serious level, would adding small wings close to the fuselage increase the gliding and thus the flight time?
Exactly, the entire shape should be designed to increase lift.
@@TheBrothersMpeshaMD That's what the rotors are for. Anything else ADDS WEIGHT.
Short answer is yes, quite simply. The people designing these things are laser focused on "no lifting surfaces" brute force flight.
If one was simply looking for the maximum flight time regardless of package dimensions you could add full size glider wings and 90 degree rotating engines to transition from VTOL to forward flight.
Flight time would go from minutes to hours.
Would adding wings reclassify it? Would a pilot's license then be required?
@@01foote01 Probably, as wings would add weight.
The type of lift isn't a factor in whether or not powered aircraft require a license, it is based on weight, amount of fuel carried, and top speed.
Jetson is the way to go, but, I think i will wait for the Jetson 2!
What would increase flight time by adding just some minimum weight is if a small removable air foil wing design that could snap on, or slide and lock on the bottom of the aircraft that would increase flight time by removing the weight constraints on the motors when in forward flight and if the motors could then tilt forward would even then increase the speed of the aircraft of that of the many small fixed wing aircraft. Forward control still could then be accomplished by slowing down the right, or left motors to then turn left, or right and to descend while in forward motions would then still be in just decreasing all of the motors at the same time some, or by the tilting of all of the motors at the same time vertically. Adding the design to tilt the motors horizontally will add a bit more weight that would be imposed on the wings more while flying horizontally and only on the motors while just in vertical flight mode.
1. increase aerodynamic efficiency, add clear very thin plexiglass windshield on the jetson
2. add fabric wing, or make the underside of the jetson a lifting body design using fabric material
3. add 1 large pusher prop
4. use hybrid gas engine.
Having a gas engine with an alternatot to charge rhe battery will greatly improve its range
I like what you're thinking. I'm sure somewhere someone is crunching the numbers on that
Does anyone know what brushless motors are being used on the Jetson One? Size and/or manufacturer?
This young engineer is a genius. I love the Orb. Cheers
Love it. Thanks for the info.
Our pleasure!
So if you do a half roll, to invert, does it have enough thrust to fly inverted?...
Some forget that flight at low levels increases drag. There is not enough updraft to effectively counteract the drag from the same forces. The propellers are actually forcing air downward, cutting though levels of air propelling it upward. Not forcing against the ground to create lift. Otherwise flight would be limited to a few feet, or yards above the surface. It is not like taking off from a aircraft carrier in a jet engine, with the engine placed against a wall for thrust. Vertical props work by pushing air, not pushing against the ground.
Question?
Does anyone know how much a Wright electric spirit cost? I can’t find anything on google and i was hoping someone here might know.
Love this! These machine's are straight out of a James Bond film.☺️☺️☺️
35 minutes flight time would be amazing! Keen to know how well it recovers from a motor failure.
I do believe by law it must have a parachute.
Parachute is onboard alreddy
Excellent presentation. Make more videos!
Thank you, I will
Is it possible to have chargers on the aircraft to keep the batteries charged just like we do with an automobile? I'm sure you need one for each motor but if you could brainstorm and come up with a small alternator or generator that would put off enough juice to keep it at maximum capacity, or even take on the responsibility of flight with the power generators as to allow the battery just to be used for the initial take off or startup. I don't see why you couldn't fly unlimited, as well as the possibility of some streamlined solar panels adapted to the frame to ensure that your batteries don't diminish in flighAs an emergency backup.
So if you got 500kw batteries and the 1,35m rotors, how long could you fly then?
Would like to know what the HP of each (fan) motor is on these aircraft.
Battery degradation is also a concern. How many cycles will the battery last before it needs to be replaced ? Very high C rating and full cycle use degrade the battery faster. Subtract 20-30% of the flight time after xx or xxx cycles ? Thats the current problem in small electric airplanes
Just interested what would happen if you had one or two of the rotors fail in flight? What is the height ceiling on these things? If you were several thousand feet up and had rotor failure, would you coast down or drop like a rock? Helicopters are very un aerodynamic when the rotors fail. Has anyone ever tried doing a loop in one of these things? They will.
Oh yeah! I would love to fly one!
Dank yew fer dour review
I really like the idea of the Jetson One, but $92k is way too much for 5 min of flight time. Personally, I think if we are going to get good use out of these kinds of airframes we need a lightweight hybrid gas/electric power system. A sort of auxiliary power unit to help keep batteries up while flying. Larger installations could use a turbo shaft generator while smaller ones could use two or four stroke engines for their APU. Just my 2¢, especially for the ultralight crowd.
Then again, auxiliary power from a hybrid system would add considerably to the weight AND cost, especially if a turbine engine were to be employed with respect to cost. Added to that, the Jetson seems to be particularly sensitive to any additions in weight.
the jetson has a 20 min air time
I wonder if an alternator system would aid in battery life and flight time... Simply recharging the battery as the rotors spin and flight continues and maybe compromise a little bit of the altitude for the Jetson
Is there the option to fly by mouse? I could fly the heli's quite well in Battlefield2.
Reduce the drag of the design. But that would add weight and cost. This is a dead end without a new powersource that not yet exists. I believe you are right that bigger rotors could benefit.
Why can't you add mini alternators under every blade charging the battery as you go?
What about using solar and or wind to recharge batteries during flight?
This may sound foolish but... could Helium be of assistance with lift/weight?
Can't wait until Machines like these can fly for 2 hours and Recharge quickly, Be a Dream come True!!
jetson should add those larger props and possibly small lift surfaces and a forward prop. They have the weight disposition to do it .
Easy solution for longer flight times: Kerosine - with 50 times higher energy density than Li-Batteries.
This could be combined with a generator and buffer battery if one wants to keep the electric motors by all means.
Looks awesome
They're just not ready yet. I need to go 35 miles across water to get to the nearest grocery store what you have won't work. I look forward to further updates thank you
Pipistrel Velis Electro would do the task. It needs a landing strip though
Jetson one goes 63mph
what is the total installed power to the dron.
what is the material of construction of the dron .
What about the powerful downdraft and its impact on other users, people below, wildlife, soil etc?
I will love to buy one but waiting untill they're in better development...I need more flight time...but they both are awesome...
Wonderful amazing👌🏼👍🏼
Solution is a 4 winged "plane", acting like a flying wind turbine, to recharge the batteries during flight. An electric aircraft could use roll maneuvers, so the plane wings can spin on the opposite direction, with full 360° revolutions on its longitudinal axis. First pair of wings spin on one side, second pair of wings spin faster on the opposite side, this way the pilot or passengers will never be upside-down.
Circular tube wing around the whole thing that is my idea for these machines like to hear your thoughts Gman
I think they're awesome I wonder about the pancake shape they used on an old Antiquated WWII plane built for short takeoffs and Landings
How much do the battery's weigh?
que distância que faz, quantos quilômetros que voa ?
Ellon Musks design had a central motor and propellor, this allows him to charge his vehicles while descending altitude! There are a ton of ideas incorporating small solar panels. If the motors can tilt slightly for forward travel, set up a charge circuit for each of the motors and program rear propellors to tilt the same way. Funnel some air creating scoops along the sides front and rear of the craft. Create some contoured vents to direct air to the central fan to allow new controls to blow air down constantly during flight. The motor will provide constant charge during flight. Once you program it properly.
What's the possibility of adding a small jet turbine with a generator like a commercial aircraft's APU system to provide electricity for extended flights? Yes, I know we are working toward all electric aircraft, but we just don't have the same power density in batteries as we do from chemical fuels.
Can't the spinning rotors recharge the battery?
What if it was done with internal combustion? Would a gas engine be able to get around this issue
Current 20 KW generators are not that small to fit the Jetson one
Has anyone tried Toroidal props yet? They increase efficiency by 105%. I know they're expensive but in time they will get cheaper.
Maybe adding inflated skids like helicopters have but with Helium just to take a few kilograms of weight out of the equation?
Also makes a for nice landing on land and water.
Can they use the Lifting Body principle to add some lift when in forward flight?
Thank you
You're welcome
what about a combination of drone control and helium to make it lighter? What would such a single person vehicle look like? How much Helium would you need to help offset the weight of a passensger with this tech?
About 80 cubic meters (14x14x14' cube) would lift it and an 85kg occupant.
@@noalear OK, that's one possible direction to offset some if not all of the weight. I also wonder about the motors / propellers. It seems to be the center of those propellers motors is a high source of drag. So what about a different configuration of motor propeller. Imagine if the propeller or 'rotor' had no central core, but instead had its baring on its outer edge with the outer edge as a kind of inside out motor. It might work a bit like the maglev trains where the idea of the motor is turned inside out. You would have many more of these motor within the frame of the plane. There might even be benefits in having higher speed 'rotors'.
We've got to come up with some type of hover conversion device. Kinda like what they have in the matrix movies.
I'm really looking forward to getting seated immediately in my favorite restaurants.
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
There is a type of drone, pioneered by RC Heli Champion Curtis Youngblood, that uses a single motor to drive all four rotors at a constant speed and varies the pitch of individual rotors for maneuvers. He did this using a custom control board, but the hardware was mostly off-the-shelf model Helicopter parts that were repurposed.
The reason I mention this is that if such a thing could be done at man-carrying scales, we could dispense with batteries altogether and use a lightweight, high-performance engine. Think liter-sized motorcycle engines. This would also improve maneuverability of the craft since rotor inertia would no longer restrict thrust changes. There are other benefits to Collective-Pitch rotors on multirotor craft like this, which are mentioned in the linked video, below.
ruclips.net/video/TnGhEInTXYc/видео.html
Why couldnt a small fixed wing, or 2 or even 3 be mounted to help with lift while cruising? same speed, less energy used while forward movement is being achieved
if jetson one wil decrase price to 60.000$ probably can dominate whole ultralight market
Drone racing I thought of a while ago and was like yes, like in ninja turtles. Where people fly the drones on obstacle courses over like miles, add like cool fireworks and various things in. Have small drones following to film it. And have the announcers on like a giant platform, or an airship with a platform above or below. Or maybe the announcers above and seating below so you can watch from the air if you have a premium ticket.
What about installing free energy electric generators using car alternators shown on YT ? If it works the flying vehicle could have unlimited range.
What if you fly off of a cliff In either of them? Will it freak out the lidar and make you crash? Because Jetson one can go 5000 feet almost
Great video thanks
为什么人的位置不放一个稳定器，类似摄像头的那种
Good information. When the flight time is extended so will the interest.
Yes it will
Why didn't the video focus heavily on wings ?
It seeems like such ab obvious design improvement, but maybe there is a legal catagorisation issue for a plane vs a quadcopter
I swapped mine with a good ol' fashion Briggs & Stratton 5hp. Works fantastic!
Realistically speaking it's 10 years too early for these "gadgets". I wouldn't even consider these things other than just toys and execution machines at this point.
I would love to hover above my city in a jetson one while eating lunch and enjoying the view!
Nice. Does it come with financing?
I think the video speaks for it self on who is ahead.
What happened to the E Hang??
What about adding a generator to keep batteries charged?
these are both playthings of the mega rich. It would be chaos if everybody had one.
I think that Jetson 1 is heading in the right direction, unfortunate about flight time and weight restriction, room for improvement, as I am sure will happen in the near future. Jetson 1 out Performs any rival complications, they are surely in a field of their own.
How about giving it attachable wings? That will allow it to coast in the air saving battery life.
Inventing unlimited energy technology is closer to reality than antigravity , combined that with propellers that don't have fans, and create little noise to none at the same time would be awesome and safer