Re: the YC14: Mentor Pilot, in one of their excellent videos has given an explanation as to why engines mounted forward & above the wing have drawbacks. It was entitled 'How big can a fanjet get?'. By the way, your video is excellent too - thank you.
It's an interesting concept, but not much more than that I think. Somehow the single seater terrifies me. But these are exiting times and time will tell what sticks.
Seems like a great idea. I wonder what the performance would be if you made them smaller and used about six to eight on either side of the chassis.... Just a thought.
In conventional aircraft design the principle reason for the separation of propulsion and lift is the design simplicity: Modularisation of thrust components allows them to be positioned in such a way as to avoid unwanted interactions with wings. This has the added benefit of allowing competition between propulsion providers without undue compromise to the airframe development. One of the key challenges with eVToL (or indeed elec aircraft in general) is that the whole technology only reaches minimum value when the unique characteristics of electric propulsion are fully exploited... i.e. Elec aircraft only make sense (below the 400W/kg battery threshold) when distributed propulsion is used... the X-57 is a prime example of this. (Compare Chord lengths between the elec version and the original donor aircraft)
Excellent review of these unusual aircraft designs 😊👍👍 It would be interesting to hear of the progress and various design technologies of one man lifting systems (like jet packs) with no fuselage. They should have made progress with electric and partial balloon systems for one-man flight?
0:24 well what i saw here was this rotor on the nose or the craft it's useful only for VTOL but not for normal flying maybe this could be used for thrust as well
Combined propulsion methods are the most promising so far until battery technology can be improved but I wonder if STOVL experiments would help to refine what you show us here as the biggest power use is in VTO. Thank you for retaining your high standard of presentation.
I wonder about the possibility of increased propeller efficiency on these smaller electric motors using a single-sided propeller? One of the two asymmetrical load (balance) could easily be addressed with a weight. In full sized aircraft the asymmetrical thrust load would tair apart most structures. But it may not be too much for these types of smaller electric motors. The higher RPM's would also make it easier to dampen out the vibration. Efficiency drops as the number of "tips" (blades) increase. Meaning a 4-blade propeller has higher losses than a 2-blade of the same disc diameter.
I think there is one speed record still standing with a single-blade aircraft, and that was set ages ago! Not so sure high rpm is easier to dampen than low rpms. Ages ago (soon 100 years ago) you could buy fixed-pitch single-blade props for small low-power aircraft, and the only practical gain was better glide ratios, power off. And you'd get more vibration, as one side had a propeller blade that flexed under load, while the other just had a heavy lump of metal. Today's multi-blade props for private aircraft increases climb a lot, while some do not do much better in cruise, efficiencywise. Three-bladed propellers have less vibration issues then two-blade, and five-blade is even better than three-bladed! To keep efficiency up the propeller tips should travel at Mach .6-0.8, and lots of power combined with two-bladed props has never worked. The late Spitfires had five-bladed propellers, while the very first had two blades!
Looks like an intriguing design. For quite a time, I wondered if ducted fans might push performance, even for bigger props. Coleopters/"circular wings" habe been tried every now and then, but never caught up. Many creative guys tried a range of ideas and details with RC models, but, whatever gets to work at 1:5 scale or even smaller, not necessarily is feasible at full scale, be it too heavy/lacking payload, too expensive, complex or fragile to build at 1:1? The design of current commercial aircraft might be dated, but seems to have proven itself as a compromise between performance, cost and durability?
Big ducted propellers weigh a lot, thus even less suitable for an electric aircraft. Secondly, all duct designs work best at one speed, one lift situation, while propellers are fairly easily made in-flight adjustable (old technology, since the birth of helicopters). So ducts have a restricted speed range where they are effective, and in an electric aircraft efficiency is the paramount concern, till the day we get much better batteries! And just all the added wetted area is a huge problem at speed.
@@ErikssonTord_2 To my understanding, a wide speed range is a must-have for freight machines and WW2 fighters, but not for a plane that will do cruising speed for >90% of their time of operation. Weight on the other hand is a factor, and even more: rotating mass leading to gyroscopic effects.
and how to you glide when the engine fails? and how heavy are the batteries, which need endless amouts of nuclear power and new elaborate infrastructure as household plug in.s are fair too weak? hmm? itls the same nightmare as the Texan windmills...they are all dead niw and many never poduced any revenue due to missing infrastructure...no nework to transpirt the electricity...the cheapest and least environment impacting technology is and will ever be a lightweight combustion system..🤷♀️needs the least resources and same running energy...no one of those eko freaks ever tells you what all the copper and uranium costs on environmetal damage and energy to mine! same for hybrid cars! 3 times the energy and resources and 20% energy regain,.,itls all a lie built of blending out zhe manyfold of damage done and energy needed...same for insukating houses! the insulations bedome like spinge sin wet dlimate and then the same costs as if heated traditionally but dry and zero mold would be the end result...the issue is that we are too many! the 3 rd world 10 folded their population since ww2 while th so called " bad white west" which is ironically also located in Australia, which is neither west nor on the cold northern hemisphere...) we only grew by 20% on average mostly due to immigration, otherwise we would have shrunk and would not need as much energy as 50 yrs ago,,,or more, as today! 🤷♀️so...too many peopke! become less and the world is saved! stop breeding, stop military (30% of oil reserves and production nowadays run into military! ) , send soldiers to the farms for labour and herding animals...needs another 1/3 less on machinery...but sleeping and waging war on others costs is seemingly more alluring than a cheap job on a farm! and that,s te fucking truth🤷♀️
Nice review. ive been looking at another startup for comparison. can u review Jetoptera? Their wing design uses a lift wing design. The power plant either traditional combustion or electric.
I would suggest designing the propeller blades to "park" so the blades add to lift when power is lost. Maybe a two blade system with pitch defaulting to horizontal and lift setting. Instead of random feathering just causing drag.
I really enjoy the open dialogue in this group, and that’s largely to your masterful video presentations. Thank you and I like your feedback ideas CandC68
@@fredtatch1572 Well the hub would get a bit complex with pitch changing hardware. I guess similar to helicopters. But it is fun to "hare brain" ideas and see what floats. B-)
@@CandC68 I’m new to this, but it seems like this now isn’t part of the larger conversation 🤫. But transforming the propellor from driver to driven relative to desired direction of flight. Could it even generate beneficial electricity in certain conditions?
@@fredtatch1572 Not being edjumikated in aeronautical engineering, I'm not constrained by knowing what I'm talking about. So, take a grain of salt with my comments. Which I have found isn't a bad thing. It may not occur to trained folks to think outside their box. Who knows if silly concepts might trigger a new thought. The dif in design and efficiency from "driver to driven" would be above my understanding. Except that all drivers that I've seen seem dif from drivens. But, I'm normally outside the box(untrained). Still working on making a reverse vortex generator. B-)
Sounds very interesting Unfortunately as a blind subscriber I really couldn’t get my head around this concept Could someone who has the time please describe it for me Thanks
There are different configurations, but in general you have one wing in the middle that extends left and right like regular wings in a normal airplane, but instead of connecting to the hull it has a circular section that goes under the hull. So it goes straight, then makes a "U" some distance away from the hull and then it goes straight again. There is also one configuration where this "U" just sits behind the cockpit. Then at the end of the plane is a ducted propeller that can either tilt downwards or straight in line with the direction of flight. In the downwards position the "U" section of the wing acts a an extension of the duct, so air flows overt the "U" into the duct and into the propeller. And in the strait position the "U" does not connect to the duct. Even using my eyes this was hard wrapping my head around it...
I believe what he is saying is that there is one school of thought to keep the part of an aircraft that creates lift, like wings, separate from the part that provides propulsion and forward velocity. This way, if the propulsion side fails, the airplane can still act as a glider of sorts with the possibility of landing safely. There is another design concept that integrates propulsion systems with physical lift mechanisms such as wings more directly which can lead to increased efficiency. However, if the propulsion system fails, the lift producing structures will not be enough to keep the aircraft aloft. Independent electric motors could help offset this danger, since it would take several motor failures to present a danger to the aircraft, which is unlikely.
i donlt think so, itls the same crap most architects slurry on paper or "design" as their fantasies on a computer, sell fancy dreams and then some underpayed technician can try to make it work..at the end it,s too heavy or stability can.t be reached...if too many crowd fund that stuff they might even build naother useless prototype and bury that money juts to come to the result that production is too expensive amd nobody buys that stuff,,.same is that 20 min. max flying time electric manned drone stuff now on the market for hillariously high prices....bcs those are nit even allowed to enter rgeulated airspace or urban areas as they are ULs in the US and banned elsewhere,,,🤷♀️the moment the propulsion wuits the small wingareas are only good for downwards very steep falling angles...i would not call it glide angle at that point! they are so small that their wingloadings exceed any usefull parameters for such small stuff to be safe! and small fast dangerous airplanes already exist enough...🤷♀️
The angulation of the single thrusting element to bring both the lift and propulsion into place is not a safe method of flight. There must be an auxiliary element to fall back into in case of sudden failure of any type. We can not scarify safety on expense of efficiency. This is great for moving things, not for moving human.
Not enough emphasis was placed on the fact that these big pusher ducts will have to contain 'coaxial' propellors, as the toque effect of a single prop would be uncontrollable, or would absorb a significant amount of thrust to correct. I think I'll stick to wings...
The GREATEST efficiency & safety available is in the gyro-copter ... if I had the cash Id make an electric version in a heartbeat. Can take off like a helicopter, no runway needed, cut the engine and it will coast to the ground, current efficiency is very high as well
3:06 Why would the electric motors spin up before starting the engine? That makes no sense with regard to battery load. Those small motors are electric, are they not? Oh - I am guessing that the main engine is electric as well. I was thinking it was internal combustion…
If kids were playing with a scaled-down drone, or, say free, or nearly so, simulator, maybe with contests.. oh yeah! But, I gotta ask, is that guy's name computer-generated, or what?
Am I wrong? Doesn’t this design forward motion to achieve steering? Also, if this design tried to hover like a helicopter, having only two rotors, it would not be able to maintain balance left to right. I’m not saying this is a bad design. I’m just saying people should not expect it to do vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter.
We’ve passed the demographic peak that would have economically driven the adoption of such tech. I hoped you liked 1925, because that’s where we’re headed for the next 50 years.
Наука
You have a gift to explain aviation (particularly electric) in a not overly technical manner so we can understand and appreciate
Thank you. That is very kind of you
@@ElectricAviation (?
Exciting to see how non-stop creativity is moving us forward.
This is like a channel wing, pulling air over the curve and generating lift at low speed. Clever!
The fact that you tested the flight model in X-Plane grants you instant credibility in my mind
Wow,thanks for bringing this to our attention, this is quite amazing
It's my pleasure
Re: the YC14: Mentor Pilot, in one of their excellent videos has given an explanation as to why engines mounted forward & above the wing have drawbacks. It was entitled 'How big can a fanjet get?'. By the way, your video is excellent too - thank you.
Excellent video as usual!
And it looks like the Eviation Alice is almost ready to fly. Really looking forward to that!
Can't wait!
Excellent, innovation changes how we can do things and this shows just how well it can be done. Keep the content coming!
Thanks, will do!
I talked to Mr Stan at the 2018 Maker Festival here in Toronto.
Nice to see his ideas coming to fruition.
The air bike design is awesome
It's an interesting concept, but not much more than that I think. Somehow the single seater terrifies me. But these are exiting times and time will tell what sticks.
Great, informative vid... thank you! Ive been interested in the custer wing and svtol for many years, so this was v interesting!
I did learn something!!!
Thanks for the posting!😊
I'm so glad!
Great history on the trade off in the past with safety and lifting wing designs and why electric brings them back in play!
Thank you
Briliant project Congratulations
Funny thing....
The Florida Air Boats have used shrouded fans for decades.
we are certainly at the dawn of a very interesting era
Seems like a great idea. I wonder what the performance would be if you made them smaller and used about six to eight on either side of the chassis.... Just a thought.
and what the performance is when the propulsion stops...bcs then the small wings are insufficient fir glide and it becomes a stone like projectile...
It looked like something you would see in a sci-fi show
Looks like channel wing... I have been a fan of the design for 40 years
Really good and important report and video! Where do I submit my VTOL and extended fast flight ideas?
Wow what a great video explanation 👍🏻
Glad you liked it!
the YC-!4 was more inovative with the engines mounted in front and above the wing
So beautiful! It looks like flying origami!
It does!
It’s an interesting design. Also seems simple enough to get some people to build maybe a RC 1/4 scale or smaller flying prototype .
True
Awesome design!
Glad you like it!
Amazing. So excited
In conventional aircraft design the principle reason for the separation of propulsion and lift is the design simplicity: Modularisation of thrust components allows them to be positioned in such a way as to avoid unwanted interactions with wings. This has the added benefit of allowing competition between propulsion providers without undue compromise to the airframe development. One of the key challenges with eVToL (or indeed elec aircraft in general) is that the whole technology only reaches minimum value when the unique characteristics of electric propulsion are fully exploited... i.e. Elec aircraft only make sense (below the 400W/kg battery threshold) when distributed propulsion is used... the X-57 is a prime example of this. (Compare Chord lengths between the elec version and the original donor aircraft)
Great post my friend.
Thank you! Cheers!
Very intersting info
Beautiful.
Thank you!
Excellent.. As always... Now who wants to make one..?? 😎
Great video
Thanks for the visit
Excellent review of these unusual aircraft designs 😊👍👍 It would be interesting to hear of the progress and various design technologies of one man lifting systems (like jet packs) with no fuselage. They should have made progress with electric and partial balloon systems for one-man flight?
They should look into it
Awesome👏👏
This looks great. How much is this connected to french 'Coleoptere'? Blessings +
0:24 well what i saw here was this rotor on the nose or the craft it's useful only for VTOL but not for normal flying maybe this could be used for thrust as well
Is the X-Plane flight model available for download somewhere?
Muy Eficiente ... Es altamente factible.
Hope to fly on one of these evtols shortly
Combined propulsion methods are the most promising so far until battery technology can be improved but I wonder if STOVL experiments would help to refine what you show us here as the biggest power use is in VTO.
Thank you for retaining your high standard of presentation.
Wow no clickbait garbage, thankyou.
Only thing missing is a gyrocopter type blade.
Nice vid
How does it make lateral movements along the yaw axis?
Which software u use to design this aircraft?
Please how fast will a plane with thrust to weight ratio of 1 fly?
it's hard to understand them but it's a must watch awesome video I just need to clean my ears take care be safe
I wonder about the possibility of increased propeller efficiency on these smaller electric motors using a single-sided propeller? One of the two asymmetrical load (balance) could easily be addressed with a weight. In full sized aircraft the asymmetrical thrust load would tair apart most structures. But it may not be too much for these types of smaller electric motors. The higher RPM's would also make it easier to dampen out the vibration.
Efficiency drops as the number of "tips" (blades) increase. Meaning a 4-blade propeller has higher losses than a 2-blade of the same disc diameter.
I think there is one speed record still standing with a single-blade aircraft, and that was set ages ago!
Not so sure high rpm is easier to dampen than low rpms.
Ages ago (soon 100 years ago) you could buy fixed-pitch single-blade props for small low-power aircraft, and the only practical gain was better glide ratios, power off. And you'd get more vibration, as one side had a propeller blade that flexed under load, while the other just had a heavy lump of metal. Today's multi-blade props for private aircraft increases climb a lot, while some do not do much better in cruise, efficiencywise. Three-bladed propellers have less vibration issues then two-blade, and five-blade is even better than three-bladed!
To keep efficiency up the propeller tips should travel at Mach .6-0.8, and lots of power combined with two-bladed props has never worked. The late Spitfires had five-bladed propellers, while the very first had two blades!
Looks like an intriguing design. For quite a time, I wondered if ducted fans might push performance, even for bigger props. Coleopters/"circular wings" habe been tried every now and then, but never caught up. Many creative guys tried a range of ideas and details with RC models, but, whatever gets to work at 1:5 scale or even smaller, not necessarily is feasible at full scale, be it too heavy/lacking payload, too expensive, complex or fragile to build at 1:1?
The design of current commercial aircraft might be dated, but seems to have proven itself as a compromise between performance, cost and durability?
Big ducted propellers weigh a lot, thus even less suitable for an electric aircraft. Secondly, all duct designs work best at one speed, one lift situation, while propellers are fairly easily made in-flight adjustable (old technology, since the birth of helicopters).
So ducts have a restricted speed range where they are effective, and in an electric aircraft efficiency is the paramount concern, till the day we get much better batteries! And just all the added wetted area is a huge problem at speed.
@@ErikssonTord_2 To my understanding, a wide speed range is a must-have for freight machines and WW2 fighters, but not for a plane that will do cruising speed for >90% of their time of operation.
Weight on the other hand is a factor, and even more: rotating mass leading to gyroscopic effects.
Where is the low speed lateral stability coming from?
OMG the drone bike 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
As soon as i saw it i was reaching for the name of the original channel wing. Custer .. of course.
It will be interesting how it behaves at scale..
Yes its basically a Custer Channel wing with titling ducted fan
It seems like a great idea but how high can it be flown and how likely is it to fly in the winter with a pilot??
and how to you glide when the engine fails? and how heavy are the batteries, which need endless amouts of nuclear power and new elaborate infrastructure as household plug in.s are fair too weak? hmm? itls the same nightmare as the Texan windmills...they are all dead niw and many never poduced any revenue due to missing infrastructure...no nework to transpirt the electricity...the cheapest and least environment impacting technology is and will ever be a lightweight combustion system..🤷♀️needs the least resources and same running energy...no one of those eko freaks ever tells you what all the copper and uranium costs on environmetal damage and energy to mine! same for hybrid cars! 3 times the energy and resources and 20% energy regain,.,itls all a lie built of blending out zhe manyfold of damage done and energy needed...same for insukating houses! the insulations bedome like spinge sin wet dlimate and then the same costs as if heated traditionally but dry and zero mold would be the end result...the issue is that we are too many! the 3 rd world 10 folded their population since ww2 while th so called " bad white west" which is ironically also located in Australia, which is neither west nor on the cold northern hemisphere...) we only grew by 20% on average mostly due to immigration, otherwise we would have shrunk and would not need as much energy as 50 yrs ago,,,or more, as today! 🤷♀️so...too many peopke! become less and the world is saved! stop breeding, stop military (30% of oil reserves and production nowadays run into military! ) , send soldiers to the farms for labour and herding animals...needs another 1/3 less on machinery...but sleeping and waging war on others costs is seemingly more alluring than a cheap job on a farm! and that,s te fucking truth🤷♀️
Nice review. ive been looking at another startup for comparison. can u review Jetoptera? Their wing design uses a lift wing design. The power plant either traditional combustion or electric.
I already have two videos on Jetoptera
@@ElectricAviation found it and yes I saw this before....I didn't kno it was ur review. Thx
Thumbs up and subscribed!
Welcome aboard!
Cheers !😀
i remember this from dark wing duck lol
but that thing at the end just has a shrouded propeller, so why should it be more efficient than a shrouded one? hm? just bcs it,s electric?
perhaps someone like PeterSripol will try to make one of these designs up?
How soon will my DJI mini 3 pro look similar to this unit? Very interesting, new sub 😀
Thanks for the sub!
I would suggest designing the propeller blades to "park" so the blades add to lift when power is lost. Maybe a two blade system with pitch defaulting to horizontal and lift setting. Instead of random feathering just causing drag.
I really enjoy the open dialogue in this group, and that’s largely to your masterful video presentations. Thank you and I like your feedback ideas CandC68
@@fredtatch1572 Well the hub would get a bit complex with pitch changing hardware. I guess similar to helicopters. But it is fun to "hare brain" ideas and see what floats. B-)
@@CandC68 I’m new to this, but it seems like this now isn’t part of the larger conversation 🤫. But transforming the propellor from driver to driven relative to desired direction of flight. Could it even generate beneficial electricity in certain conditions?
@@fredtatch1572 Not being edjumikated in aeronautical engineering, I'm not constrained by knowing what I'm talking about. So, take a grain of salt with my comments. Which I have found isn't a bad thing. It may not occur to trained folks to think outside their box. Who knows if silly concepts might trigger a new thought.
The dif in design and efficiency from "driver to driven" would be above my understanding. Except that all drivers that I've seen seem dif from drivens.
But, I'm normally outside the box(untrained). Still working on making a reverse vortex generator. B-)
@@fredtatch1572 Check this out. ruclips.net/video/JoVmejDsMrM/видео.html
Sounds very interesting
Unfortunately as a blind subscriber I really couldn’t get my head around this concept
Could someone who has the time please describe it for me
Thanks
There are different configurations, but in general you have one wing in the middle that extends left and right like regular wings in a normal airplane, but instead of connecting to the hull it has a circular section that goes under the hull. So it goes straight, then makes a "U" some distance away from the hull and then it goes straight again.
There is also one configuration where this "U" just sits behind the cockpit.
Then at the end of the plane is a ducted propeller that can either tilt downwards or straight in line with the direction of flight. In the downwards position the "U" section of the wing acts a an extension of the duct, so air flows overt the "U" into the duct and into the propeller. And in the strait position the "U" does not connect to the duct.
Even using my eyes this was hard wrapping my head around it...
I believe what he is saying is that there is one school of thought to keep the part of an aircraft that creates lift, like wings, separate from the part that provides propulsion and forward velocity. This way, if the propulsion side fails, the airplane can still act as a glider of sorts with the possibility of landing safely. There is another design concept that integrates propulsion systems with physical lift mechanisms such as wings more directly which can lead to increased efficiency. However, if the propulsion system fails, the lift producing structures will not be enough to keep the aircraft aloft. Independent electric motors could help offset this danger, since it would take several motor failures to present a danger to the aircraft, which is unlikely.
@@Embassy_of_Jupiter thanks for the answer
Yes I’m usually able to visualise such descriptions but this time I got lost so much appreciated
Cheers
we'll have those flying cars yet
What will happen if bird flies in this huge propeller ?
Do you think Joby or Lillium have any chance of gliding to an emergency landing or is the lift area of the wings much to small
I will have to look into that one
I imagine they will need parachutes since their wings are optmized for much higher airspeed than it could reasonably glide.
For anyone curious like me it is Aliptera Inc EVTOL
Looks like a further development of the Custer Channelwing from 70-80 years ago
It is a modification of Custer Channel wing
Thanks, but what’s the website? I can find it on Bing. It’s not in your description either.
Nevermind found two, one from the PDF on:
aliptera.com/lip_wing_lift_at_zero_speed_r2.pdf
hypertriangle.com/lipwing.php
Aliptera.com
And I will be thrilled to see more on this... when a working model is shown. Not just renders.
Any idea how the yav and roll will be controlled on takeoff and landing?
i donlt think so, itls the same crap most architects slurry on paper or "design" as their fantasies on a computer, sell fancy dreams and then some underpayed technician can try to make it work..at the end it,s too heavy or stability can.t be reached...if too many crowd fund that stuff they might even build naother useless prototype and bury that money juts to come to the result that production is too expensive amd nobody buys that stuff,,.same is that 20 min. max flying time electric manned drone stuff now on the market for hillariously high prices....bcs those are nit even allowed to enter rgeulated airspace or urban areas as they are ULs in the US and banned elsewhere,,,🤷♀️the moment the propulsion wuits the small wingareas are only good for downwards very steep falling angles...i would not call it glide angle at that point! they are so small that their wingloadings exceed any usefull parameters for such small stuff to be safe! and small fast dangerous airplanes already exist enough...🤷♀️
What software used for flight simulation?
For fligt simulation they use X plane, v11 for that i can SEE, i've working with that same program for the competition
The depicted aircraft in blue appears very dependent on successful operation of all propulsive elements during takeoff & landing.
a critical pointbis that when the propulsion fails your high lift breaks down to aerodynamic basics and your wonder airplane falls like a stone...🤷♀️
Time for a lapel mic. My other videos today sounded great.
Either you or someone needs to make a music video with electric aircraft montaged to the music of Marcia Griffith's Electric Boogie
the landing gear would have to be extremely long. and therefore vinerable to breaking on contact to the ground. when landing.
how much lift do the wings create without power?
Kites...
@@finddeniro so pure drag?
The angulation of the single thrusting element to bring both the lift and propulsion into place is not a safe method of flight. There must be an auxiliary element to fall back into in case of sudden failure of any type. We can not scarify safety on expense of efficiency. This is great for moving things, not for moving human.
Not enough emphasis was placed on the fact that these big pusher ducts will have to contain 'coaxial' propellors, as the toque effect of a single prop would be uncontrollable, or would absorb a significant amount of thrust to correct. I think I'll stick to wings...
True. Thanks for adding that
Well. I know what I'm going to try building next time I fire up scrap mechanic or trail makers.
The Corsair reborn
So it's basically a copy of the Custer Channelwing from the 1920's and Soviet AN-181
Custer Channel wing was designed in 1950s.
@@ElectricAviation It was designed in the 1920's, and took 14 years before the CCW-1 first flew in 1942, and Custer had 5 models by the early 50's.
The language is just positive speaking.
The GREATEST efficiency & safety available is in the gyro-copter ... if I had the cash Id make an electric version in a heartbeat. Can take off like a helicopter, no runway needed, cut the engine and it will coast to the ground, current efficiency is very high as well
Exactly what I thought also. But in order to maximize the range I'd still use gasoline for the lift off and battery power only for the cruise.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The audio quality was not very good, but was not horrible.
Please be aware that room reverb is not your friend. Care about mic use and placement.
Thanks for the tip. I use a Rode mic but my room isnt sound proof
3:06 Why would the electric motors spin up before starting the engine? That makes no sense with regard to battery load. Those small motors are electric, are they not?
Oh - I am guessing that the main engine is electric as well. I was thinking it was internal combustion…
Brahmaputra vimana
😎
4:52 dude... you're dead if that goes down lmao
🔋🦅
If kids were playing with a scaled-down drone, or, say free, or nearly so, simulator, maybe with contests.. oh yeah!
But, I gotta ask, is that guy's name computer-generated, or what?
Now add a toroidal propeller.
Am I wrong? Doesn’t this design forward motion to achieve steering? Also, if this design tried to hover like a helicopter, having only two rotors, it would not be able to maintain balance left to right. I’m not saying this is a bad design. I’m just saying people should not expect it to do vertical takeoff and landing like a helicopter.
In cases of failure, this concept does not have enough propeller (helicopter) or wings (airplanes) to have a chance on safe landing.
More relevant was the XC142 Tilt wing
Good luck with that...
Its like boba fetts thing
We’ve passed the demographic peak that would have economically driven the adoption of such tech. I hoped you liked 1925, because that’s where we’re headed for the next 50 years.
Yes...all the changes..Boom Bust. Bang Bang..
and how many even understood your oerfectly fitting statement? maybe less than 10% here...but you are right! 🤷♀️
@@SR-gs8zo / 1% maybe