Great stuff, I am always amazed at your insight, analysis and explanations. There is so much that is happening in this field, I'm glad you can stay on top of it. Keep up the good work, and don't even think about going back to that horrible computer voice thing. :) Love this channel.
The ones hidden in the contracting and expanding wing seems the most elegant solution to a not very elegant problem - All that redundant payload - either the lift engines at cruise or the cruise engines during VTOL frustrate the engineer within! Great video as ever, ^oo^
The top priorities of EVTOL have to be noise, safety and range, in order to get licenced to operate in cities and to be useful. Two separate motors help in noise and range. It's basically Jobe vs Beta technologies for double use motors versus double motors.
Pls let us not forget that the evtol is greatly driven by the need for urban transport. I absolutely love your channel and insight. The faa has made exceptable noise levels very clear. Pls teach us more about that and the engineering behind the different methodologies to achieve silent urban transport by different manufacturers. ANY VTOL IS DEAD IN THE WATER IF IT JUST BECOMES AN AIRCRAFT WITH THAT TYPICAL WHOP WHOP SOUND A CHOPPER MAKES.
If I was to design an eVTOL, what format might I use? Lilium has already done it. For simplicity, making the propulsion elements do as much duty as possible is the key. All of the designs shown in the video are using a combination of separate lifting devices, separate forward thrust devices, and control surfaces. Lilium is using just the ducted fans and thrust vectoring to handle everything. Surely that is more simple than anything else demonstrated? You mentioned that ducted fans are a little more efficient than open propellers. No, they are 40% more efficient. That allows the Lilium fans to be smaller in diameter yet still generate the required thrust, yet create less drag in flight. The trade-off there is twice as much energy used to take off and land vertically but that comprises just a couple of minutes total per flight. Most importantly, these aircraft are called eVTOL's, not, "endless hover" craft. The goal of the VTOl capability is to be able to take off and land vertically, no more. The rest of the energy is to be spent going somewhere and the chart at 4:00 shows clearly that the Lilium is vastly superior to the two others compared. Even the Joby looks to be in 20% hover during forward flight. Lilium can use 100% of the available thrust to take off and gain altitude, then transition to 100% going forward, said to require just 10% of the hover energy. It has no control surfaces to fail. It has no idle propellers or the weight of idle motors to carry during forward flight. And, if successful in testing and certification, the initial Lilium model will carry six, paying passengers, not four, in a very compact footprint. Where will all of these other contenders be if the proposed 16-passenger Lilium comes to fruition?
Fascinating how nothing seems to quite hit the nail on the head. Hope... Enthusiasm.... Skill? Real solutions? I guess we'll have to wait and see, right?
@@wildatlanticman128 I think if any of these craft were truly fully viable for any purpose they would be in use somewhere in the world by now. There would be somewhere they would be allowed. Some critical task they would be doing. Still getting ready to get ready.
@@dougselsam5393 The batteries are pretty much there, servos are strong enough, materials (carbon fibre etc) is fit for purpose, software sophisticated enough, so what's the hold up? To me it's compliance/regulations etc, i.e. FAA heel dragging again.
in my opinion the ideal Lift + Cruise EVTOL will have rotors specifically designed to reduce drag in the Cruise mode as done in the Beta Technologies ALIA
Electric Aviation Could you make an updated video of recent battery breakthroughs like the "massless energy storage" or structural battery ? How much could a thrust vectoring aircraft increase its range with this tech ?
Great channel ! All my faith goes into flex wing (Rogallo) electric minimal sport aviation vehicles and electric nano paratrikes.. I think these aircraft deserve a space in this amazing channel. Aircraft that regular, normal humans can afford... !!!!!!
I think I would give bias to aesthetics and bury the fans in the wing, though the shown example of a single rotor blade at the tip which can later serve as part of the wing in cruise is a very slick design.
I think the lift-fan design you mentioned where the wing slides open to expose the lift rotors would be the best design. The mechanism to open the wing won't weigh much, the mechanics are much simpler to maintain, the wing surface can double as flaps (if done properly) when extended, and there is not any "extra" panels to cover the exposed rotors.
The ability to hide/swap or morph/switch wings & emgine postion is key to maximize the sequels of lift-to-cruise velocity & reduce drag in any perpulsion VTOL craft. Which you notice many of the new crafts, still lack in understanding these principles.
The more I see how complex these designs are getting, the more respect I have for the Opener Blackfly. I imagine they could increase the range and capacity by having simple manual folding sections that lengthen the wing when not being stored or trailered. A larger version that sat four in a 2 level front and rear seating arrangement seems possible as well. The simplicity is alluring.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing 👍 All these spinning (rotating) components represent a contribution to ‘Rigidity in space’. How much of an impact does that constitute, especially in the context of having to operate in congested low altitude airspace; within the confines of urban areas with high traffic volumes and numerous fixed obstacles 🤔
How about a long fuselage with two ducted fans embedded in front, two to the back of the cockpit, optimized for vertical lift, with wings optimized for cruising at target altitude and speed and with three vectored thrusters on each wing, optimized for horizontal flight. The long fuselage with fans arranged in a line parallel to flight direction is much more aerodynamic than rotors arranged on wings perpendicular to the flight direction. Since the lift fans are in the fuselage they can have a larger vertical dimension, as tall as the cockpit, which needs to be tall enough to fit people. This means the ducted fans be could made with multiple counter-rotating discs, perhaps in a rim-driven configuration, for very high thrust but enclosed on the sides for better noise control. Sliding covers on the fuselage fans could be used. The vectored thrusters on wings would be similar to Lilium but only required to provide a minor amount of lift during vertical flight, mainly important for stabilization, which means they could be much better optimized for horizontal flight.
I think a gyrocopter blade instead of a fixed wing and 4 ducted fans that pivot would be the best design. And have an onboard A.I. to tilt the gyroblade as needed in a "crash" situation. It would also make it easier to put it in a regular parking spot. And let it be able to float on water... I might need to do some fishing.
Once again I am dumbfounded by the quality of your presentations. As an engineer and pilot myself, I love your work, particularly as I reflect on the sort of engagement my own kids may have in this field in the future. This video has left me with a number of innovative e-flight tech companies to explore and I thank you for your tireless work in making this exciting field so avaialble. My 11yo son and I love scratch building and flying RC planes. It would be great to start making some experimental EVTOL craft as well! Cheers and thank you from Sydney - Dave
This configuration has two crucial disadvantages: First, the lift-motors are basically dead weight / additional drag during cruise - basically the point you raised. Secondly, but more importantly, the lift motors (given the first point) are rather small and take substantial time to take the aircraft up to transition altitude. This is exactly the time that most of the energy is being burnt. While this design is currently widely used, I believe that we will soon see more streamlined, integrated designs that don't require separate sets of motors
Is anyone considering assisted take off? For example an umbilical power source that quick disconnects and rolls away like a vacuum cleaner cable. This would help range presumably since take off is so power hungry. Auto gyros could use ground power assisted pre-rotation with high inertia rotors and launch off an elevated platform or tower.
This is being considered for new vertiports. I will be covering this in an upcoming video. There are patents filed for detachable tethered power supply for take off
@@ElectricAviation Vertiports sound fascinating. In the extreme you would hardly need any power at all if you had enough height and a good enough glide angle to make it to the base of the next tower...😄
You're welcome for my attention. And thank you for this and other videos. As someone else has said, please do not go back to the computer voice. It's pronunciation is far worse. The issues I may have with the way you talk are insignificant compared to the info you are presenting.
I wonder if a hybrid autogyro EVTOL would be feasible or efficient. A single engine push/pull and then one or more vertical rotors to get the vehicle in the air before disengaging and using the forward motion to keep the rotor spinning and providing the wing effect.
Your videos often show gyrocopter type designs but I don’t think you have explored this much. For a lift and cruise design the weight to lift ratio of a gyrocopter would seem ideal, possibly with four swivelling ducted counter rotation fans (8 fans) for lift and forward thrust.
So, you're saying a wing that opens to reveal a pair of ducted fans while the wingtip splits into a two-blade propeller on each side to give six rotor lift that at cruise altitude shuts to become a pair of narrow aspect wings with minimal drag and the intermediate option of tilting those tip blades for thrust to gain speed, or deploying for extra wing length to conserve battery and gain range is feasible even for multiple pairs of wings? A nearly infinitely configurable craft with three wings on each side, a total of eighteen rotors, all with engineered surface flow effect synergy? No landing gear. No runway. No fuel tanks. Modular components so if one key motor fails you can land, swap it for a less critical motor and continue your flight, and the wing elements can be rotated seasonally like rotating tires on a car to extend useful life?
For simplicity, i would just use 4 ducked rotors that till for forward propulsion. The airframe could be conventional or perhaps be a body wing aircraft if possible.
I was at first really interested in the Cora but it has been very quiet from that company. Are they still named Wisk, Ibelive thyve changed names at least 3 times. The latest I heard they were going to run a test program of the Cora in New Zeeland.
Couldn't you just add 4 rotors that connect to the fuselage in the front and in the back to a typical low wing aircraft? These could then simply be rotated upward for hover and forward for cruise. I still think for optimal cruise efficiency you want tilt wing with distributed propulsion.
The Blown Wing concept like the Blackfly Vtol seems the simplest system but could it be scaled up to say a 19 passenger or larger using turbine, piston or hybrid powerplants?
"Flying Flapjack" combined speed with near vertical take off in a very simple package. Could use that trick of having two motors powering each of the two rotors for safety. Drops mic.
I'm nervous about the argument that multiple rotors give the aircraft increased redundancy. If we consider your example of a 4 rotor machine with one rotor failure, so that only the 2 remaining diagonal rotors are available, then per rotor: Before failure power = 0.25W * sqrt( 0.25*W / (2*rho*0.25*A)) = Nominal total hover power * 0.25 After failure power = 0.5W * sqrt( 0.5*W / (2*rho*0.25*A)) = Nominal total hover power * 0.7071 So the remaining rotors have to pick up 2.83 times the power! The most likely scenario for batt failure would be an overextended flight on end of life batteries near full discharge. If one system fails and the others are now driven to high power why wouldn't they then also cascade fail? Ballistic recovery won't work near the ground or powerlines...😨 Helicopters only have one rotor, with relatively low W/A, but if the power fails the collective pitch drops and you are still flying with time to look for a landing area. Also collective pitch gives velocity control instead of acceleration control - easier to fly.
Finally what we have in VTOL its best solution it's new bell and boing helicopters and all that quadrocopters and drones amateur kids enjoys pretty sad but saints makes sense
something like folding propellers, then hinge the motors off their center of thrust, that way when they are in use they pull themselves into position with minimal added complexity.. that or have permanently offset teetering hinge propellers, then drive them on an offset to their thrust range... or even just landing the craft on it's tail not a big fan of VTOL at the end of the day, they are cool and all but the disadvantages in comparison to STAL or high speed designs leave me thinking their applications are pretty niche at best
Motor failure seems to be a concern to Electric Aviation, but brushless motors are very reliable. Using the hobby community it should be apparent that even when people don't know what they are doing the motors fail infrequently while speed controllers and batteries appear to be the weak link, but that is because the user doesn't usually have the required knowledge of electricity. Commercially designed systems have to be much more reliable. The point is that failure of any of these components should be extremely unlikely. If I were to build a commercial product it would include continuous diagnostic testing. Failure modes should be way down the list of priorities. Carrying additional weight such as motors and propellers used just for take off doesn't make sense. The Lillium is not that complex and the use of smaller fans and motors makes it less expensive. The only question is what is the optimum size for a particular air craft. I'm looking forward to seeing more designs like the Lillium. I hope patents don't become a factor like the Wright aileron debacle. KISS
Dont know how difficult it would be to implement but I would design a multi-rotor system that is not only electrically controlled but mechanically, thus giving the craft the ability to auto-rotate safely down to the ground in case of power/motor failure/impact damage/emp etc. a joby with this capability would be the king.
Electric Aviation Why there is no eVTOL aircraft concept with flexible Solar Cells on the wings ? How much it could increase the range of aircrafts like this ? and What are the cons ?
Nowhere near the current required can be generated for real-time flight. The solar-powered airplane that won records a while ago was very skeletal. Solar cells are still only 22.8% for the best ones. Max wattage available for direct sunlight is 1360 per square meter, so 310W per square meter in the best conditions. Maybe on a 12' wing maybe three square meters of cells could be fit. So with both wings, only 1860W would be generated. Enough to run a hair dryer. Not bad at all for charging batteries but the weight would not be worth it since actual batteries can store more energy. So better to generated and store the energy beforehand.
Current cells can exceed 30% and even 40% for cells using concentrated sunlight so a 10 m^2 on a wing could produce a fraction of say 4 KW depending on the Sun angle. More than adequate for a sailplane and if the sailplane had batteries and props distributed along the wings it could be very STOL.
@Steve Mickler Yeah, I mean, if they add power, why not using them on the wings and on the fuselage, even if they don't generate too much energy, they are light and there are already flexible solar cells available on the market
@@gonzalomorenoandonaegui2052 so I can add value here. I studied aerospace engineering and did my masters work on Helios (flying solar wing) before working in the solar PV industry for 15 years. Power densities of solar aren't in the same magnitude as cruise power. PV cells do add appreciable weight, but more importantly cell cracking will trash efficiency in short order as wings deflect. When doing the optimizations, these engineers find adding extra batteries is a easy call over adding the same weight of PV cells and associated electronics.
Your writing of the commentary at one point seems to imply that embedded lift fans are a new development. They've been around for awhile (since 1961!) and experimental jet airplanes have already been flown with these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_XV-5_Vertifan
to increase flight times, make the vtol be directly non-moving transitioned tail-sitter cruise flight, drone with vertical wings, tail-sitter when landing, wings become effective when horizontal flight mode, but can easily just turn back to vertical vtol hover mode, tail-sitters it is
The Jetoptera / Dyson fluidic propulsion is the most efficient design yet, not in this video. Combined with the new "flying egg" low drag fuselage, these designs will rapidly evolve into lighter, simpler. faster, more efficient designs. Don't buy one yet or it will be obsoleted the following year.
I thought Ryanair pioneered the ducted fan in wing with Ryan XV-5 Vertifan. Personally, I find the use of a redundant system and additional structural weight problematic and inefficient It seemed to work well as the Fairey Rotordyne which could de-power the main rotor and had fixed wings suitable for forward fight ATT the complaint was the rotor power system of ramjets was very noisy, but now we could use electric motors and small folding tip props This seems to me to be a better balance because the electric power would come from the APU, and the weight of the electric motors and props being bearable and could be built today. Reasoning it out to a small craft would be funded by electric power from the forward flight engine high capacity alternators. Going full electric simply transfers battery supply to the forward transition motor and folds the small props into the rotor Of course this takes us right back to the tractor Cierva C-24 autogyro and the like with short stubby wings, adding tip mounted folding blade props, which, for a small machine, has lots of redundant safety and is ultimately is my best answer to date, but autogyros were never both speed efficient and low powered. Im sadly conventional I guess :)
a single rotor is the way to go for me, the redudancy safety is ubpset by the capability to use autorotation, if air taxis become a thing they´ll probably be electric autogyros, as they provide the highest safety, and are less likely to fall onto a street
I’ll take the ballistic parachute over lift rotors any day. Unless the lift rotors can control blade pitch and autorotate like a helicopter, they are useless in many failure scenarios.
The success of these companies will come down mostly to luck, I think. The tech is all basically the same. Honestly, at this point; I think that the shiniest and fastest will win. Put a Starbucks logo on it and Bob's your uncle.
They look beautiful on the surface but the race-to-success seems frenzied, rushed and haphazard like they're all trying so desperately to be the next Tesla. I'll let the crazies test-drive my future toy and let them decide for me which company cares about safety. I've never yet plummeted to my death from the sky and I plan to avoid it.
Great stuff, I am always amazed at your insight, analysis and explanations. There is so much that is happening in this field, I'm glad you can stay on top of it. Keep up the good work, and don't even think about going back to that horrible computer voice thing. :) Love this channel.
Much appreciated!
Scientifically accurate content.
How can anyone not hit the thumbs up after such an informative presentation.
The Ryan XV-5 Vertifan used ducted fans in the wings in the 1960s - a very interesting design!
That system design but electric is the future, everything else is a waste of time.
The ones hidden in the contracting and expanding wing seems the most elegant solution to a not very elegant problem - All that redundant payload - either the lift engines at cruise or the cruise engines during VTOL frustrate the engineer within! Great video as ever, ^oo^
I replied with the same thing.
@@ronrothrock7116 Wisdom indeed Ron, ^oo^
That's the thing I hate about most of these, they look so ugly. Retraction or tilt is definitely a refined look
Complexity adds to weight. The folding ones though seem to be really good for flight and efficiency
Any design that makes the same motors do double duty for both lift + cruise makes intuitive sense to me as an aero engineer.
Joby
Best part is no part
The top priorities of EVTOL have to be noise, safety and range, in order to get licenced to operate in cities and to be useful. Two separate motors help in noise and range. It's basically Jobe vs Beta technologies for double use motors versus double motors.
How do you know someone is an engineer….
@@gpaull2 same way you know someone uses arch, is gay, or is a pilot
I had a design where ducted fans were in body of craft that used folding wings and them as the landing gear similar to how a bat does with vectoring.
I love that you end your videos with "And with this the video is concluded" freeing me to scroll down and start commenting. :)
Pls let us not forget that the evtol is greatly driven by the need for urban transport. I absolutely love your channel and insight. The faa has made exceptable noise levels very clear. Pls teach us more about that and the engineering behind the different methodologies to achieve silent urban transport by different manufacturers. ANY VTOL IS DEAD IN THE WATER IF IT JUST BECOMES AN AIRCRAFT WITH THAT TYPICAL WHOP WHOP SOUND A CHOPPER MAKES.
If I was to design an eVTOL, what format might I use? Lilium has already done it. For simplicity, making the propulsion elements do as much duty as possible is the key. All of the designs shown in the video are using a combination of separate lifting devices, separate forward thrust devices, and control surfaces. Lilium is using just the ducted fans and thrust vectoring to handle everything. Surely that is more simple than anything else demonstrated? You mentioned that ducted fans are a little more efficient than open propellers. No, they are 40% more efficient. That allows the Lilium fans to be smaller in diameter yet still generate the required thrust, yet create less drag in flight. The trade-off there is twice as much energy used to take off and land vertically but that comprises just a couple of minutes total per flight.
Most importantly, these aircraft are called eVTOL's, not, "endless hover" craft. The goal of the VTOl capability is to be able to take off and land vertically, no more. The rest of the energy is to be spent going somewhere and the chart at 4:00 shows clearly that the Lilium is vastly superior to the two others compared. Even the Joby looks to be in 20% hover during forward flight. Lilium can use 100% of the available thrust to take off and gain altitude, then transition to 100% going forward, said to require just 10% of the hover energy. It has no control surfaces to fail. It has no idle propellers or the weight of idle motors to carry during forward flight. And, if successful in testing and certification, the initial Lilium model will carry six, paying passengers, not four, in a very compact footprint. Where will all of these other contenders be if the proposed 16-passenger Lilium comes to fruition?
my design would look like the bell x-22, four ducted fans that can be tilted, where the ducts also provide lift during forward flight.
Totally agree. Never waste mass. Combine lift and propulsion units into one unit per corner and vector them. 4 units should provide MVP redundancy.
Very interesting - yet again. fascinating times we live in.
Glad you enjoyed it
Fascinating how nothing seems to quite hit the nail on the head. Hope... Enthusiasm.... Skill? Real solutions? I guess we'll have to wait and see, right?
@@dougselsam5393 well yes...I think they have the tech sorted now, just...seems regulations and certs is the next hurdle.
@@wildatlanticman128 I think if any of these craft were truly fully viable for any purpose they would be in use somewhere in the world by now. There would be somewhere they would be allowed. Some critical task they would be doing. Still getting ready to get ready.
@@dougselsam5393 The batteries are pretty much there, servos are strong enough, materials (carbon fibre etc) is fit for purpose, software sophisticated enough, so what's the hold up? To me it's compliance/regulations etc, i.e. FAA heel dragging again.
in my opinion the ideal Lift + Cruise EVTOL will have rotors specifically designed to reduce drag in the Cruise mode as done in the Beta Technologies ALIA
Electric Aviation Could you make an updated video of recent battery breakthroughs like the "massless energy storage" or structural battery ? How much could a thrust vectoring aircraft increase its range with this tech ?
Great channel ! All my faith goes into flex wing (Rogallo) electric minimal sport aviation vehicles and electric nano paratrikes.. I think these aircraft deserve a space in this amazing channel. Aircraft that regular, normal humans can afford... !!!!!!
MashaALLAH Very good video.....
Interesting video, provided clarification
Interesting to see how many projects there are
I think I would give bias to aesthetics and bury the fans in the wing, though the shown example of a single rotor blade at the tip which can later serve as part of the wing in cruise is a very slick design.
I think the lift-fan design you mentioned where the wing slides open to expose the lift rotors would be the best design. The mechanism to open the wing won't weigh much, the mechanics are much simpler to maintain, the wing surface can double as flaps (if done properly) when extended, and there is not any "extra" panels to cover the exposed rotors.
The ability to hide/swap or morph/switch wings & emgine postion is key to maximize the sequels of lift-to-cruise velocity & reduce drag in any perpulsion VTOL craft. Which you notice many of the new crafts, still lack in understanding these principles.
The more I see how complex these designs are getting, the more respect I have for the Opener Blackfly. I imagine they could increase the range and capacity by having simple manual folding sections that lengthen the wing when not being stored or trailered. A larger version that sat four in a 2 level front and rear seating arrangement seems possible as well. The simplicity is alluring.
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Nice job, very interesting.
This channel is amazing.
Very nice presentation.
Good analysis, but you missed the most efficient cruise configuration : full tilting ducted fans , see Bell or Sabrewing Aircraft
Lilium Jet, its best solution! Aerodynamic, simple, redundant, stable, efficient. And it looks fu...g great!
You are correct. Lilium *looks* great.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing 👍
All these spinning (rotating) components represent a contribution to ‘Rigidity in space’.
How much of an impact does that constitute, especially in the context of having to operate in congested low altitude airspace; within the confines of urban areas with high traffic volumes and numerous fixed obstacles 🤔
How about a long fuselage with two ducted fans embedded in front, two to the back of the cockpit, optimized for vertical lift, with wings optimized for cruising at target altitude and speed and with three vectored thrusters on each wing, optimized for horizontal flight. The long fuselage with fans arranged in a line parallel to flight direction is much more aerodynamic than rotors arranged on wings perpendicular to the flight direction. Since the lift fans are in the fuselage they can have a larger vertical dimension, as tall as the cockpit, which needs to be tall enough to fit people. This means the ducted fans be could made with multiple counter-rotating discs, perhaps in a rim-driven configuration, for very high thrust but enclosed on the sides for better noise control. Sliding covers on the fuselage fans could be used. The vectored thrusters on wings would be similar to Lilium but only required to provide a minor amount of lift during vertical flight, mainly important for stabilization, which means they could be much better optimized for horizontal flight.
Thanks for your detailed design
Awesome
as always great job. thks
Thanks again!
I think a gyrocopter blade instead of a fixed wing and 4 ducted fans that pivot would be the best design. And have an onboard A.I. to tilt the gyroblade as needed in a "crash" situation. It would also make it easier to put it in a regular parking spot. And let it be able to float on water... I might need to do some fishing.
I hear that Cyberdyne Systems is working on one of those.
Thrust vectoring is the most smart way to do it ...
For information: the Ascendance Flight Technologies aircraft is called ATEA (not ATIA)
9:00 while during cruise-mode, the fans should have some sort of retractable shields in order to eliminate (or significantly cut back) the drag.
Once again I am dumbfounded by the quality of your presentations. As an engineer and pilot myself, I love your work, particularly as I reflect on the sort of engagement my own kids may have in this field in the future. This video has left me with a number of innovative e-flight tech companies to explore and I thank you for your tireless work in making this exciting field so avaialble. My 11yo son and I love scratch building and flying RC planes. It would be great to start making some experimental EVTOL craft as well! Cheers and thank you from Sydney - Dave
This configuration has two crucial disadvantages: First, the lift-motors are basically dead weight / additional drag during cruise - basically the point you raised. Secondly, but more importantly, the lift motors (given the first point) are rather small and take substantial time to take the aircraft up to transition altitude. This is exactly the time that most of the energy is being burnt.
While this design is currently widely used, I believe that we will soon see more streamlined, integrated designs that don't require separate sets of motors
Is anyone considering assisted take off? For example an umbilical power source that quick disconnects and rolls away like a vacuum cleaner cable. This would help range presumably since take off is so power hungry.
Auto gyros could use ground power assisted pre-rotation with high inertia rotors and launch off an elevated platform or tower.
Interesting thinking... or have as many of your landings on top of high structures so you can use gravity to get you into forward flight
This is being considered for new vertiports. I will be covering this in an upcoming video. There are patents filed for detachable tethered power supply for take off
@@ElectricAviation Vertiports sound fascinating. In the extreme you would hardly need any power at all if you had enough height and a good enough glide angle to make it to the base of the next tower...😄
You're welcome for my attention. And thank you for this and other videos. As someone else has said, please do not go back to the computer voice. It's pronunciation is far worse. The issues I may have with the way you talk are insignificant compared to the info you are presenting.
Thank you. That is very kind of you
Good stuff!
I wonder if a hybrid autogyro EVTOL would be feasible or efficient. A single engine push/pull and then one or more vertical rotors to get the vehicle in the air before disengaging and using the forward motion to keep the rotor spinning and providing the wing effect.
Your videos often show gyrocopter type designs but I don’t think you have explored this much. For a lift and cruise design the weight to lift ratio of a gyrocopter would seem ideal, possibly with four swivelling ducted counter rotation fans (8 fans) for lift and forward thrust.
Have they tried making the rotors in the wings tiltable to swap from hover to forward thrust?
The best designs are ones with less moving parts.
So frisbee them?
@@bespoken2017 I would so sign up to fly in a Frisbee (TM). The moment coriolis issues are resolved.
Ducted fans are my cup of tea I don't need to fly at supersonic speeds I only need optimum cruise speed to enjoy my flight
I think rotor wings hold a lot of promise, along with retracting lifting rotors.
I was wondering are there already V tol, s in production for the commercial market en wich brands?
If we really want to improve the lot of humanity, we would design much quieter airplanes. Excitingly there are designs out there that do that.
How does black fly fit into the EVTOL Scheme of things. And does it have a potential for longer range without the drawbacks of vertical takeoff
So, you're saying a wing that opens to reveal a pair of ducted fans while the wingtip splits into a two-blade propeller on each side to give six rotor lift that at cruise altitude shuts to become a pair of narrow aspect wings with minimal drag and the intermediate option of tilting those tip blades for thrust to gain speed, or deploying for extra wing length to conserve battery and gain range is feasible even for multiple pairs of wings? A nearly infinitely configurable craft with three wings on each side, a total of eighteen rotors, all with engineered surface flow effect synergy?
No landing gear. No runway. No fuel tanks. Modular components so if one key motor fails you can land, swap it for a less critical motor and continue your flight, and the wing elements can be rotated seasonally like rotating tires on a car to extend useful life?
For simplicity, i would just use 4 ducked rotors that till for forward propulsion. The airframe could be conventional or perhaps be a body wing aircraft if possible.
I was at first really interested in the Cora but it has been very quiet from that company. Are they still named Wisk, Ibelive thyve changed names at least 3 times. The latest I heard they were going to run a test program of the Cora in New Zeeland.
Couldn't you just add 4 rotors that connect to the fuselage in the front and in the back to a typical low wing aircraft? These could then simply be rotated upward for hover and forward for cruise.
I still think for optimal cruise efficiency you want tilt wing with distributed propulsion.
The Blown Wing concept like the Blackfly Vtol seems the simplest system but could it be scaled up to say a 19 passenger or larger using turbine, piston or hybrid powerplants?
cool
"Flying Flapjack" combined speed with near vertical take off in a very simple package. Could use that trick of having two motors powering each of the two rotors for safety. Drops mic.
I’d implement using 2 diffrent fuel sources. Electrical battery together with hydrogen fuelcell, they would both work with the same electrical motors.
Can the Ducted Fans be enclosed in a double iris?
If i give you an awesome design/model, if it is used do I get royalties and a free aircraft of my design? It's only fair.
I'm nervous about the argument that multiple rotors give the aircraft increased redundancy. If we consider your example of a 4 rotor machine with one rotor failure, so that only the 2 remaining diagonal rotors are available, then per rotor:
Before failure power = 0.25W * sqrt( 0.25*W / (2*rho*0.25*A)) = Nominal total hover power * 0.25
After failure power = 0.5W * sqrt( 0.5*W / (2*rho*0.25*A)) = Nominal total hover power * 0.7071
So the remaining rotors have to pick up 2.83 times the power! The most likely scenario for batt failure would be an overextended flight on end of life batteries near full discharge. If one system fails and the others are now driven to high power why wouldn't they then also cascade fail? Ballistic recovery won't work near the ground or powerlines...😨
Helicopters only have one rotor, with relatively low W/A, but if the power fails the collective pitch drops and you are still flying with time to look for a landing area. Also collective pitch gives velocity control instead of acceleration control - easier to fly.
Install the motors along the trailing edge and alo use tyhem as control surfaces.
Finally what we have in VTOL its best solution it's new bell and boing helicopters and all that quadrocopters and drones amateur kids enjoys pretty sad but saints makes sense
What are the chances of a single rotor failure anyway?
I have a copyrighted design that solves all the problems; where can i post it?
something like folding propellers, then hinge the motors off their center of thrust, that way when they are in use they pull themselves into position with minimal added complexity..
that or have permanently offset teetering hinge propellers, then drive them on an offset to their thrust range...
or even just landing the craft on it's tail
not a big fan of VTOL at the end of the day, they are cool and all but the disadvantages in comparison to STAL or high speed designs leave me thinking their applications are pretty niche at best
Motor failure seems to be a concern to Electric Aviation, but brushless motors are very reliable. Using the hobby community it should be apparent that even when people don't know what they are doing the motors fail infrequently while speed controllers and batteries appear to be the weak link, but that is because the user doesn't usually have the required knowledge of electricity. Commercially designed systems have to be much more reliable. The point is that failure of any of these components should be extremely unlikely. If I were to build a commercial product it would include continuous diagnostic testing. Failure modes should be way down the list of priorities. Carrying additional weight such as motors and propellers used just for take off doesn't make sense. The Lillium is not that complex and the use of smaller fans and motors makes it less expensive. The only question is what is the optimum size for a particular air craft. I'm looking forward to seeing more designs like the Lillium. I hope patents don't become a factor like the Wright aileron debacle. KISS
isn't the Prandtl Wing the most efficient body design for cruise ? why can't we figure a way to add vtol capability to that ?
Dont know how difficult it would be to implement but I would design a multi-rotor system that is not only electrically controlled but mechanically, thus giving the craft the ability to auto-rotate safely down to the ground in case of power/motor failure/impact damage/emp etc. a joby with this capability would be the king.
Electric Aviation Why there is no eVTOL aircraft concept with flexible Solar Cells on the wings ? How much it could increase the range of aircrafts like this ? and What are the cons ?
Nowhere near the current required can be generated for real-time flight. The solar-powered airplane that won records a while ago was very skeletal. Solar cells are still only 22.8% for the best ones. Max wattage available for direct sunlight is 1360 per square meter, so 310W per square meter in the best conditions. Maybe on a 12' wing maybe three square meters of cells could be fit. So with both wings, only 1860W would be generated. Enough to run a hair dryer. Not bad at all for charging batteries but the weight would not be worth it since actual batteries can store more energy. So better to generated and store the energy beforehand.
Current cells can exceed 30% and even 40% for cells using concentrated sunlight so a 10 m^2 on a wing could produce a fraction of say 4 KW depending on the Sun angle. More than adequate for a sailplane and if the sailplane had batteries and props distributed along the wings it could be very STOL.
@Steve Mickler Yeah, I mean, if they add power, why not using them on the wings and on the fuselage, even if they don't generate too much energy, they are light and there are already flexible solar cells available on the market
@@gonzalomorenoandonaegui2052 so I can add value here. I studied aerospace engineering and did my masters work on Helios (flying solar wing) before working in the solar PV industry for 15 years. Power densities of solar aren't in the same magnitude as cruise power. PV cells do add appreciable weight, but more importantly cell cracking will trash efficiency in short order as wings deflect. When doing the optimizations, these engineers find adding extra batteries is a easy call over adding the same weight of PV cells and associated electronics.
@@GuyIncognito764 and what efficiency flexible solar cells should have in order to be more compelling to use them on an aircraft ?
Can they just pick one most promising design and refine it first? Putting the energy into one design would get us to the goal faster.
i would use the propeller for both lift and cruise because its a wasted if you carry so much weight for only lift the aircraft....
Hello, How can i get in contact with you.
skywardselectric@gmail.com
Your writing of the commentary at one point seems to imply that embedded lift fans are a new development. They've been around for awhile (since 1961!) and experimental jet airplanes have already been flown with these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_XV-5_Vertifan
to increase flight times, make the vtol be directly non-moving transitioned tail-sitter cruise flight, drone with vertical wings, tail-sitter when landing, wings become effective when horizontal flight mode, but can easily just turn back to vertical vtol hover mode, tail-sitters it is
so you get mostly electric plane flight times
just add vertical wings to the octo-copter
and have either swivel chair seat, flight mode dependent, or space shuttle upward facing seat
tail-sitters!!
those are the simplest vtol airplanes
And what about ice protection ?
It is not an all weather aircraft
@@ElectricAviation
Precisely ! And nobody seems to be realizing that.
The Jetoptera / Dyson fluidic propulsion is the most efficient design yet, not in this video. Combined with the new "flying egg" low drag fuselage, these designs will rapidly evolve into lighter, simpler. faster, more efficient designs. Don't buy one yet or it will be obsoleted the following year.
Wing Embedded is my pick as superior design
HI, How can we get in touch?
you can email me at Haroon_junaidi@yahoo.com
I thought Ryanair pioneered the ducted fan in wing with Ryan XV-5 Vertifan.
Personally, I find the use of a redundant system and additional structural weight problematic and inefficient
It seemed to work well as the Fairey Rotordyne which could de-power the main rotor and had fixed wings suitable for forward fight
ATT the complaint was the rotor power system of ramjets was very noisy, but now we could use electric motors and small folding tip props
This seems to me to be a better balance because the electric power would come from the APU, and the weight of the electric motors and props being bearable and could be built today.
Reasoning it out to a small craft would be funded by electric power from the forward flight engine high capacity alternators.
Going full electric simply transfers battery supply to the forward transition motor and folds the small props into the rotor
Of course this takes us right back to the tractor Cierva C-24 autogyro and the like with short stubby wings, adding tip mounted folding blade props,
which, for a small machine, has lots of redundant safety and is ultimately is my best answer to date, but autogyros were never both speed efficient and low powered.
Im sadly conventional I guess :)
you should make an intro clip for your channel
I have two intro clips. I dont use them because they waste time
@@ElectricAviation oh
I skip past all intros.
a single rotor is the way to go for me, the redudancy safety is ubpset by the capability to use autorotation, if air taxis become a thing they´ll probably be electric autogyros, as they provide the highest safety, and are less likely to fall onto a street
Yes Electric AutoGyro by the name of Jaunt ROSA is being developed for safety
Can you please post the reference paper shown in 6:16
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963820311111
Do you have a twitter account or a direct email that we could use to reach you?
I think all these need to first the tested in small drone size
Open rotors are likely to be too noisy for urban environments
So far it seems like Lilium has the edge.
They need to do trials with dummy weight on-board.
I’ll take the ballistic parachute over lift rotors any day. Unless the lift rotors can control blade pitch and autorotate like a helicopter, they are useless in many failure scenarios.
Round aircraft with one 14v battery.
joby is the best design
Yeah, but you can't park them in your garage, or a parking lot. this is why they will never get past this stage.
The success of these companies will come down mostly to luck, I think. The tech is all basically the same. Honestly, at this point; I think that the shiniest and fastest will win. Put a Starbucks logo on it and Bob's your uncle.
Eu faria um Melho ✈🚖🚔🚘🛰🚀🚁 um Carro android drone🤖
Its not the sexiest but prob the safest, my money is on Jaunt Air.
This power line powered passenger drone (a.k.a cable drone ) could be another alternative: ruclips.net/video/unKaU5FyDrw/видео.html
They look beautiful on the surface but the race-to-success seems frenzied, rushed and haphazard like they're all trying so desperately to be the next Tesla. I'll let the crazies test-drive my future toy and let them decide for me which company cares about safety. I've never yet plummeted to my death from the sky and I plan to avoid it.
But look on the bright side...it will be a once in a lifetime experience.
These planes are ugly... that's how I know they are not efficient...
Always a problem when you have to encompass two flight modes