Because of the fact that these centrifugal designs usually produce a significantly good pressure when allowed to flow, did you try reducing the diameter of the outlet nozzle at all? I know more air flow is desired but I was thinking just the rear engine with the higher velocity flow and keep the front on with higher volume?
Over-engineered, over-marketed, but have for a long time been the best by far. There are obviously a number of good product people keeping things going
Dysons are powerful but always have a bunch of gimmicks-over-engineering actually hurts performance. Also harder to clean. Shark vacs are superior because of this.
I bought a broken one. It happened to be an easy repair too I had to buy another one. Still repairable. *Week later* Now I have 23 working Dyson vacuum cleaners
If you match the desired speed of the airplane with the area of the inlet with a gradual (low loss) cross section reduction from the inlet bell to the impeller vs the same mass exiting the fan system you will minimize inlet losses and maximize available thrust. Keep in mind that the fan you are using was designed for high inlet velocities with no restriction. Create a ram inlet to maximize the aspiration volume and minimize the aspiration losses . Likewise, the outlet nozzle should do some flow straightening to get maximum impulse, and the area ahead of and outside of the nozzle should be tapered to allow the ambient airstream to gently return to fill the void created by the engine cross section avoiding turbulence rapid shear at the trailing edge. You end up with an aerodynamically efficient engine housing and an efficient energy transfer. Remember that an inlet to a fan that is "starved" will produce less net gain in pressure and therefore a lower exhaust impulse (MV2). Spend more of the energy compressing and accelerating the air to maximize the V2 component of the MV2 formula at the outlet. It will always be true that the M portion is the same for the inlet and the outlet. (conservation of matter) so look for lower V2 at the inlet (larger smooth intake) and highest possible V2 at the outlet. This all would be best achieved by placing the motor with its inlet axis the same as craft direction of travel and then using a bell housing around the motor outlet to collect and compress the air as it moves rearward towards the exhaust nozzle. Voila..electric jet engine. Forcing the air to spin around the volute (many times) instead of moving directly to the outlet with a single turn burns energy as friction and heat.
So, knowing that the intake position is not particularly sensitive to location, you might be able to gain some advantage by burying the centrifugal fans inside a wing with a top surface inlet and exhausts below/aft the wing. The low pressure may well contribute to overall lift. Thinking about this a bit more, over the course of the day, I would suggest you could have an upper surface inlet inboard, close to the fuselage, if there is one. You may require a fence outboard of the inlet in case the low pressure zone disrupts the outboard flow. The other thing you could do with this (and it could be impractical at this scale....) is to use the jet exhaust as a trailing edge jet, rather than as a propulsion system. This could act as a jet flap and encourage flow attachment when it would otherwise break away - boundary layer control. This has been tried on a few aircraft over the years - today the Shinmaywa US-2 uses a separate power system to generate flow for BLC on flaps, rudder and elevators. Another aircraft to look up is the british Hunting H.126 which was used to investigate these systems.
would be interesting to test this, because some aeronautical engineers claim that the lift is produced by the reaction force that results from the airflow leaving the wing, not the old concept of low pressure above the wing. If air is sucked away from the top of the wing, it might reduce the pressure there, but it will also reduce the amount of air flowing off the wing. If the old concept is right, then the lift should be improved, if the new ideas are right, the lift should be reduced (provided the air intake is relevant compared to the total wing surface).
@@lukearts2954 Isn't the airflow leaving the wing called the Mach Tuck? Rather than lifting the plane, it changes the CG of the plane enough to cause it to nose down, causing quite a few air crashes in the past. Modern planes have features to prevent this these days so if that claim was true, these modern planes would have had less lift than those in the past but you don't see this, so I'm a bit skeptical about that claim.
I have no experience beyond paper airplanes, but my understanding is that fast flowing air creates low pressure, so wouldn't you prefer the fast exhaust to flow over the top of the wing instead of underneath?
Watching you smash apart a vacuum violently just after watching NileRed delicately procure a tiny vial of cherry flavour from paint thinner is quite jarring.
This was so fun and impressive. I was kinda dying at the asymmetric mount to get your center of gravity/lift to be right. Since you have a 3d printer, next time you do this and it needs 2 motors, just print an inverted flow unit so you can mount the motors on the left and right of center line for the craft (in forward direction)! But seriously, this was awesome and the bonus destruction at the end had me stunned!
someone just tossed a $500 vacuum away cuz one battery was bad lmao. good find on your part. i got a dyson and its impressively quite yet powerful like you said in the intro. this should be an interesting video.
The dyson hair dryer doesnt only pull air from the duct, it uses the venturi effect to pull more air through another opening. that's where all your efficiency went!
I feel like I'm watching the future of combat - drone vs. drone. The part where the collision happened, the "plane" crashed and then the copter drone came down and slammed the "corpse" on the ground was priceless!
Glad to see someone else make the point on vacuums. I've told people that the motor speeds up because it's doing less work, but people never believe me. Just like you pointed out moving the air is the load. If your not moving any air there's no load.
Well, sure, they may have refined it, but James Dyson has a background in engineering and industrial design and spent about 15 years making his first bagless vacuum with cyclonic separation. So, I think it’s fair to give the guy a little credit, even if many of current components weren’t designed by him.
Maybe you can make something akin to a jet engine: You set the impeller in the middle and let the exhaust of the impeller get redirected from all sides, basically creating a sort of bell shape that tapers off towards the end. Then you take a sort of trumped shaped inlet, so when the aircraft flies, it generates static pressure infront of the impeller, so it acts like a compressor. No idea about how aerodynamic that would be, but that is how I would do it, personally.
You could replace the snail flow-director with the same kind of flow director used in centrifugal-flow jet engines, which redirects the air all around the centrifugal flow and directly backwards.
@@davelowets It's not a bypass, it's just a way of more evenly distributing the flow. See the following image for what. I mean. Ignore the combustion and turbine, just look at the compressor and how the air flows around it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_compressor#/media/File:Turbojet_operation-centrifugal_flow-en.svg
13:00 I'm not sure but I would say that most of the difference would come from the orientation relative to the moving air. In a static test, where there's no airflow this would have no effect (right?)
@@christianlabanca5377 But i would expect the front-facing one to outperform the other one while moving, as it experiences a higher dynamic pressure. With static pressure it's just the same
If I remember correctly, the material used in the latest Dyson impellors is a composite of PPS specialty polymer compounded with 30% or 40% glass fiber reinforcement. Plain resin isn't strong enough for the forces endured at extreme RPMs. Should make for exciting high speed explosions though.
Really inspiring how much you channel has grown and that your getting sponsors now like crazy. You never changed your style to clickbait and I respect that a lot.
it isn't that hard to ditch the snail shape for an axial shape and get a better aerodynamic profile. you could also check a multi-stage dyson turbine. it might increase both ejection velocity and flowrate. specially for a motorjet engine ;)
Stacking identical compressors usually does nothing. You'd need the second one to be smaller so that there is a net confinement of the flow. The open air compressor can develop pressure because there is an unrestricted mass flow of air into it, but the second one can only work with the fixed volume that the first provides it. You might even see a decrease in net pressure if you stack them due to the back pressure on the first lowering its efficiency. You might see something happen if you use multiple parallel compressors to feed a single additional compressor, as that would create the net restriction needed to develop further pressure.
@@NonEuclideanTacoCannon I don't think vortex effects are going to matter when there's already a manifold duct involved. Maybe some parallel baffles on the mouth of the second stage would do a little bit, but its not like the angular moment of the flow will be anywhere close to the speed of the impellers.
Cool project! Worked amazingly well. I wonder if any gains might be had if you line them up to get a little compound thrust by pointing the outlet from the front motor towards the inlet of the rear motor. Not up close but in the thrust path to give it a little forced induction.
Has anyone ever told you that you kinda look the engineer version of logic? Great video as always, really like that you tested multiple factors and explained everything so well
Back in the college days, 1982, in bio lab, I used stereo microscope to draw images of specimens on a slide, using 1 eye and optic to view, and the other eye to project on to the desk and paper.
Looking forward to seeing this progressed. I watched the earlier attempts and Kevin T.’s video covering the speed week & his own attempts. Exciting stuff!
Cool to see! I actually did the exact same thing you did to the two motors. The only difference was that i wanted to design the "snail" so that the area inside of the snail does match the area that the motor outlet has from beginning to a certain point at any point around the motor. So the inner area of the snail rises parallel to the area of the outlet while you go "arround" the motor...if that makes any sense. I did this to have the same airpressure everywhere inside of the snail. I couldn´t finish it sadly. My CAD skills are still not good enough to make this happen :(
I've heard of vacuum motor powered hovercraft, but this is a new one. I actually copied and 3D printed that impeller design, but in the end, I was too scared to actually put it on a brushless. I just knew that the forces would tear it apart and send plastic shrapnel everywhere.
That was hilarious that when it collided with the drone, then the drone then came down and hit it again. That was a "no way" moment that I had to watch over and over. 🤣
for the next plane, remote controlled start, could work. also setting up the vacuum motors like jet engines could help with the stability, as well as ducting the intake could help with the thrust issues.
The flared intake pulls air from all round. I guess you were hoping for the koanda effect to add lift/pull, but I think ram pressure overrides that. Replace flared intakes with a straight, sharp edged tube , so it pulls only from Infront. Ideally also fair the outside edges, but not so vital with the airodynamics of that beast. Possibly a stator to true up the intake would help, but not sure
Dyson should send you a box of left overs for all kinds of projects! You make some really cool stuff, and I wish I could be organized enough to start and finish a project. - Cheers
This isn't the usual sort of content I watch on YT yet I found this very interesting. Seems like there is more potential to be unlocked here. Great work!
I'm reminded of a line from a great movie... "If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could fly it!" I think we found his cousin... Calling SpaceX
. How many times over the many years has he proven things we all thought and where told was not possible and actually proven it wrong? If your gonna support anyone he's the man I'm still amazed that he still get so much beginner advice when he's the GOAT or RC testing. He got me at 45 now 52 into flying again after stopping in the mid 90s. Love the way he seems to be like most of us if he's told something won't work he needs to visually see it not work and then learns from it rather then just take what he's told as fact.
The flat profile of the impeller would probably mount nicely inside the wing reducing drag could 3d print as part of wing as one unit. Loved you work brilliant idea 💡
Hay man, I would love to see someone try to make a coanda effect thruster usign the dyson motor. It makes a lot of sense, since the air exits radially, you can just put a bell shaped surface at the outlet. Much like the ones done by Tom Stanton in "Coanda Effect Drone Propulsion"
Sometimes those sharp edges at the inlet help the compressor to achieve a slightly wider compressor map. Uses the disturbed boundary layer to achieve a cheap port shrouding effect via forcing more flow towards the center of the wheel
Heres an idea. Make a wing with a full legth slit inlet near the rear of the aerofoil feeding into one of these impellers. See if you can get airflow over the aerofoil that increases the lift at lower speeds. Would be cool as to see an EDF plane with no obvious inlet.
I've aways through about using vaccum cleaner as RC plane thruster (and also if you could do one with hair dryers) but i think you shall try to shape your engines, not as a turbocharger, but as a reactor. I mean put it with the compressor facing the air flow and attached under the wings (like a passager plane) or half way in the fuselage like a fighter jet. Maybe the second will reduce the drag. In any case well done you've realised one of my childhood mad experience
Lay blower flat & imbed it in the wing ,use 90deg intake sticking out the top of wing, like b2 spirit, add articulating thrust cone to exhaust that can choke down at higher speeds!!!!!
from jerry bruno . The shape of the intake is called a bell mouth housing. A commercial aircraft jet engine test stand use this type of intake because it could literally have a tailwind and get the same results on a test run.
You can't move a lot of air with "suction", because the limit is the ambient atmospheric pressure. They aren't "sucking", they're moving air for the air-pressure to move in on. That means that there's an upper-limit for an vacuum. Dyson quit focusing EXCLUSIVELY on 'suction', and instead started doing both suction AND air-flow. Dyson moves more air than most of their competitors, and that's why their vacuums are so effective. I watch a lot of "Vacuum Wars" (A RUclips channel), because caring a lot about your carpet is the middle-age equivalent of caring a lot about your lawn, except I don't have a lawn.... I have carpet.
if the air is exhausted too fast to be effective, try blowing into a wide tube, so more air could be sucked through the tube, the combined airflow will be more but slower. another idea might be to exhaust the air through a slit at the top of the wing, creating lift through blowing over the wingsurface. last the fan from a dyson bladeless fan might be better for propelling a plane. Ps.: mabe mr. dyson might be interested in this sort of project.
Use code RCTESTFLIGHT40 to get 40% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3LeE7JX!
6:10 Um, the snail exhaust looks like an uncircumcised penis. 😂😂
my dude is all over the place. i love it! 😅
whats wrong with all the dislikes?! 40% WTF?!
I’m not interested 😒
Can u add some butane and a spark ...maybe try an add a afterburner
Because of the fact that these centrifugal designs usually produce a significantly good pressure when allowed to flow, did you try reducing the diameter of the outlet nozzle at all?
I know more air flow is desired but I was thinking just the rear engine with the higher velocity flow and keep the front on with higher volume?
At first I thougth it was a PeterSripol video.
Same bruh
Same
But it was successful
Wow, same
Me too 😂
Dyson might be over engineered, but they’re incredible at what they do.
Over-engineered, over-marketed, but have for a long time been the best by far. There are obviously a number of good product people keeping things going
Dysons are powerful but always have a bunch of gimmicks-over-engineering actually hurts performance. Also harder to clean. Shark vacs are superior because of this.
I bought a broken one.
It happened to be an easy repair too
I had to buy another one.
Still repairable.
*Week later*
Now I have 23 working Dyson vacuum cleaners
Lmfaooooooooooooo
Do you ship?
Sell them
Profit: ???
> Now I have 23 working Dyson vacuum cleaners
The Collective ... is growing!
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL - and I have followed for YEARS! KEEP GOING.. you are TOP quality!
Agreed. Great sense of humor.
You have to try to build one of those bladeless dyson fan rings to try to get more thrust and efficiency!
I think he's the smartest guy on youtube.
This was an awesome project to see in person, thanks for offering to let me do a flight with her! Had a blast. 😁 -Zach
so you didn't say thanks when you were there? you forgot and had to post it here?
@@CaptainHoratioPugwash yeah. I know what it's actually for. but it's so obvious. lol.
Hi Zach
@@CaptainHoratioPugwash r/whoosh ;)
Don't quit ya day job...
If you match the desired speed of the airplane with the area of the inlet with a gradual (low loss) cross section reduction from the inlet bell to the impeller vs the same mass exiting the fan system you will minimize inlet losses and maximize available thrust. Keep in mind that the fan you are using was designed for high inlet velocities with no restriction. Create a ram inlet to maximize the aspiration volume and minimize the aspiration losses . Likewise, the outlet nozzle should do some flow straightening to get maximum impulse, and the area ahead of and outside of the nozzle should be tapered to allow the ambient airstream to gently return to fill the void created by the engine cross section avoiding turbulence rapid shear at the trailing edge. You end up with an aerodynamically efficient engine housing and an efficient energy transfer. Remember that an inlet to a fan that is "starved" will produce less net gain in pressure and therefore a lower exhaust impulse (MV2). Spend more of the energy compressing and accelerating the air to maximize the V2 component of the MV2 formula at the outlet. It will always be true that the M portion is the same for the inlet and the outlet. (conservation of matter) so look for lower V2 at the inlet (larger smooth intake) and highest possible V2 at the outlet. This all would be best achieved by placing the motor with its inlet axis the same as craft direction of travel and then using a bell housing around the motor outlet to collect and compress the air as it moves rearward towards the exhaust nozzle. Voila..electric jet engine. Forcing the air to spin around the volute (many times) instead of moving directly to the outlet with a single turn burns energy as friction and heat.
🫡
@@TheHishamManna what he said
Yeah, make sure it's not to bell though.
Nerd!
🤓
Damn dude, that is impressive.
So, knowing that the intake position is not particularly sensitive to location, you might be able to gain some advantage by burying the centrifugal fans inside a wing with a top surface inlet and exhausts below/aft the wing. The low pressure may well contribute to overall lift.
Thinking about this a bit more, over the course of the day, I would suggest you could have an upper surface inlet inboard, close to the fuselage, if there is one. You may require a fence outboard of the inlet in case the low pressure zone disrupts the outboard flow. The other thing you could do with this (and it could be impractical at this scale....) is to use the jet exhaust as a trailing edge jet, rather than as a propulsion system. This could act as a jet flap and encourage flow attachment when it would otherwise break away - boundary layer control. This has been tried on a few aircraft over the years - today the Shinmaywa US-2 uses a separate power system to generate flow for BLC on flaps, rudder and elevators. Another aircraft to look up is the british Hunting H.126 which was used to investigate these systems.
would be cool in a flying wing
So in static testing no. But in flight there's "ram recovery".
The air rams itself into the intake making the impeller more efficient
would be interesting to test this, because some aeronautical engineers claim that the lift is produced by the reaction force that results from the airflow leaving the wing, not the old concept of low pressure above the wing. If air is sucked away from the top of the wing, it might reduce the pressure there, but it will also reduce the amount of air flowing off the wing. If the old concept is right, then the lift should be improved, if the new ideas are right, the lift should be reduced (provided the air intake is relevant compared to the total wing surface).
@@lukearts2954 Isn't the airflow leaving the wing called the Mach Tuck? Rather than lifting the plane, it changes the CG of the plane enough to cause it to nose down, causing quite a few air crashes in the past. Modern planes have features to prevent this these days so if that claim was true, these modern planes would have had less lift than those in the past but you don't see this, so I'm a bit skeptical about that claim.
I have no experience beyond paper airplanes, but my understanding is that fast flowing air creates low pressure, so wouldn't you prefer the fast exhaust to flow over the top of the wing instead of underneath?
Watching you smash apart a vacuum violently just after watching NileRed delicately procure a tiny vial of cherry flavour from paint thinner is quite jarring.
Can we all stop and appreciate the absolute butter of a landing at 10:12
Was looking for this comment 😅
This was so fun and impressive. I was kinda dying at the asymmetric mount to get your center of gravity/lift to be right. Since you have a 3d printer, next time you do this and it needs 2 motors, just print an inverted flow unit so you can mount the motors on the left and right of center line for the craft (in forward direction)! But seriously, this was awesome and the bonus destruction at the end had me stunned!
someone just tossed a $500 vacuum away cuz one battery was bad lmao. good find on your part. i got a dyson and its impressively quite yet powerful like you said in the intro. this should be an interesting video.
yeah why can he find so many dysons?? I wonder where he looked for them..
Wealthy yuppies in Seattle, that's all there is to it.
seattle. lots of people with money
that model is like 12 years old now
A good tip for when the batteries wear out is to get an adapter for DeWalt/Makita or whatever batteries your cordless tools use.
Impressive, it's flying so stable and smooth. And the sound sounds like a turbo jet engine 😅
Well, it is a compressor.
Turn the intakes up, for VTOL lift! 😋
You are so smooth on the stick, those landings were all light as a feather
Not to discredit daniel but he did have a flight controller
Next the bladeless Dyson fan?
The dyson hair dryer doesnt only pull air from the duct, it uses the venturi effect to pull more air through another opening. that's where all your efficiency went!
pweez twy it XD
The intake at 6:11 looking really suspicious after you made it pink ;)
Because It acts as a centrifugal compressor, build an afterburner, increase the thrust and burn some fuel ;)
I feel like I'm watching the future of combat - drone vs. drone. The part where the collision happened, the "plane" crashed and then the copter drone came down and slammed the "corpse" on the ground was priceless!
Did you try even smaller nozzles to see if it increased thrust more?
Glad to see someone else make the point on vacuums. I've told people that the motor speeds up because it's doing less work, but people never believe me. Just like you pointed out moving the air is the load. If your not moving any air there's no load.
Small correction - the Dyson engineers did the engineering.
Well, sure, they may have refined it, but James Dyson has a background in engineering and industrial design and spent about 15 years making his first bagless vacuum with cyclonic separation. So, I think it’s fair to give the guy a little credit, even if many of current components weren’t designed by him.
Really enjoyed watching this one. I like seeing how creative you can be with these flying machines. Great job!
Cool project! I would look into making the housing have an increasing size, like what it typical on turbochargers.
I was thinking of metal components and an injection of fuel into the exhaust like an afterburner.....now that would be a project 😂
To quote " you know what doesn't need Athertons to have flight control? Factor meals!" is like, the dadest transition ever.
Maybe you can make something akin to a jet engine:
You set the impeller in the middle and let the exhaust of the impeller get redirected from all sides, basically creating a sort of bell shape that tapers off towards the end. Then you take a sort of trumped shaped inlet, so when the aircraft flies, it generates static pressure infront of the impeller, so it acts like a compressor.
No idea about how aerodynamic that would be, but that is how I would do it, personally.
Was going to suggest the same.
A setup like that could make for a more compact "thruster".
I love the park at the end with a racing drone crashes into the foamy airplane when explodes every word that has happened to me before it’s fun😂😂😂
You could replace the snail flow-director with the same kind of flow director used in centrifugal-flow jet engines, which redirects the air all around the centrifugal flow and directly backwards.
then you could put a flame catch can and inject fuel and burn it for more thrust
That would only benefit an internal combustion engine. There is NO reason to bypass air if there's no combustion happening inside of it.
@@davelowets It's not a bypass, it's just a way of more evenly distributing the flow. See the following image for what. I mean. Ignore the combustion and turbine, just look at the compressor and how the air flows around it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_compressor#/media/File:Turbojet_operation-centrifugal_flow-en.svg
0:30 “ooohhh look at that”
*BONK BONK BONK BONK BONK*
13:00 I'm not sure but I would say that most of the difference would come from the orientation relative to the moving air. In a static test, where there's no airflow this would have no effect (right?)
Technically the low pressure zone would still provide thrust as it is just Pressure * Area
@@christianlabanca5377 But i would expect the front-facing one to outperform the other one while moving, as it experiences a higher dynamic pressure. With static pressure it's just the same
0:32 “Oooooh! Look at tha-“ *BANGING NOISES*
If I remember correctly, the material used in the latest Dyson impellors is a composite of PPS specialty polymer compounded with 30% or 40% glass fiber reinforcement. Plain resin isn't strong enough for the forces endured at extreme RPMs. Should make for exciting high speed explosions though.
Really inspiring how much you channel has grown and that your getting sponsors now like crazy. You never changed your style to clickbait and I respect that a lot.
it isn't that hard to ditch the snail shape for an axial shape and get a better aerodynamic profile.
you could also check a multi-stage dyson turbine. it might increase both ejection velocity and flowrate.
specially for a motorjet engine ;)
Stacking identical compressors usually does nothing. You'd need the second one to be smaller so that there is a net confinement of the flow. The open air compressor can develop pressure because there is an unrestricted mass flow of air into it, but the second one can only work with the fixed volume that the first provides it. You might even see a decrease in net pressure if you stack them due to the back pressure on the first lowering its efficiency. You might see something happen if you use multiple parallel compressors to feed a single additional compressor, as that would create the net restriction needed to develop further pressure.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875 You need a stator too. An axial compressor stage is, like, really freaking hard to build.
@@NonEuclideanTacoCannon I don't think vortex effects are going to matter when there's already a manifold duct involved. Maybe some parallel baffles on the mouth of the second stage would do a little bit, but its not like the angular moment of the flow will be anywhere close to the speed of the impellers.
Pure mechanical genius. He knows his stuff. He has to be good to make dummy like me understand the physics of the project.
Cool project! Worked amazingly well. I wonder if any gains might be had if you line them up to get a little compound thrust by pointing the outlet from the front motor towards the inlet of the rear motor. Not up close but in the thrust path to give it a little forced induction.
LOL, a screenshot at 4:07 is definitely tee-shirt worthy😄
3:25 that outlet is looking pretty sus...
Man of culture
Has anyone ever told you that you kinda look the engineer version of logic? Great video as always, really like that you tested multiple factors and explained everything so well
I beg you, please calibrate your FDM printer
yeah that was the best quality footage i've seen of an absolute trash print in ages
Back in the college days, 1982, in bio lab, I used stereo microscope to draw images of specimens on a slide, using 1 eye and optic to view, and the other eye to project on to the desk and paper.
Looking forward to seeing this progressed. I watched the earlier attempts and Kevin T.’s video covering the speed week & his own attempts. Exciting stuff!
I had a big grin on my face from the moment the Dyson Plane took off til after it landed.
I wonder if a "flow multiplier" like in bladeless fans would improve thrust over a simple nozzle.
Same thought!
This video was suggested by RUclips. It earned an instant sub after looking at some of your other video titles. Ingenious work!
Cool to see! I actually did the exact same thing you did to the two motors. The only difference was that i wanted to design the "snail" so that the area inside of the snail does match the area that the motor outlet has from beginning to a certain point at any point around the motor. So the inner area of the snail rises parallel to the area of the outlet while you go "arround" the motor...if that makes any sense. I did this to have the same airpressure everywhere inside of the snail. I couldn´t finish it sadly. My CAD skills are still not good enough to make this happen :(
Wow! Impressive!
Congratz for the succesfull project.
Support from The Netherlands, Europe. 🇳🇱
What a cool project, didn't think there was any way those tiny motors would have enough thrust!
The motor is over 150 watts, and is very efficient, it had BETTER..
I've heard of vacuum motor powered hovercraft, but this is a new one. I actually copied and 3D printed that impeller design, but in the end, I was too scared to actually put it on a brushless. I just knew that the forces would tear it apart and send plastic shrapnel everywhere.
Great video. Since the Dyson can create such a huge pressure differential, I'd be curious to see what a nozzle might do to increase thrust
What do you think he has on the end of it already?? 🤔
I'll be damned, it's a NOZZLE!! 😕
people in the 90s : “the futures will have flying cars!”
now 2023 : “plane powered by vacuum cleaner”
Partner with integza and turn those into jet engines?
That man IS a pilot! Greased it in dead STICK.
That pink nozzle is hilarious. Good job
That was hilarious that when it collided with the drone, then the drone then came down and hit it again. That was a "no way" moment that I had to watch over and over. 🤣
for the next plane, remote controlled start, could work. also setting up the vacuum motors like jet engines could help with the stability, as well as ducting the intake could help with the thrust issues.
That kamikaze drone attack at the end was very funny.
Hey... that was my Dyson. Thanks for fixing it. I'd like it back now, please. 😉
First RC plane that looks flying at the right speed
Finally! That's where my Dyson went! I was just about to clean out my car.
Thar was more impressive than I expected it to be. Well done.
I also must say... These things sounded WAY better than your typical EDF.
The flared intake pulls air from all round. I guess you were hoping for the koanda effect to add lift/pull, but I think ram pressure overrides that. Replace flared intakes with a straight, sharp edged tube , so it pulls only from Infront. Ideally also fair the outside edges, but not so vital with the airodynamics of that beast. Possibly a stator to true up the intake would help, but not sure
Dyson should send you a box of left overs for all kinds of projects! You make some really cool stuff, and I wish I could be organized enough to start and finish a project. - Cheers
i love how you open things
its, beautiful
The test pilot did an awesome job!
that was some fun rapid unscheduled disassembly at the end ^_~. and man that dyson motor is insane.
The pink tip was a nice touch
I think the sound on that Dyson plane sounds much better than the regular one. I think your engineers need to look at that more
This isn't the usual sort of content I watch on YT yet I found this very interesting. Seems like there is more potential to be unlocked here. Great work!
I'm reminded of a line from a great movie... "If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could fly it!" I think we found his cousin... Calling SpaceX
"hey mom can I take the Dyson into my bedroom?"
"No you can't Johnny, it'll make you go blind."
That was a really cool video to watch. I wish the younger generation could use their brains and be creative like this.
I like how you so gingerly dissected p the vacuum
Seeing that 7inch destroy the foamy was the best part 😅
. How many times over the many years has he proven things we all thought and where told was not possible and actually proven it wrong? If your gonna support anyone he's the man
I'm still amazed that he still get so much beginner advice when he's the GOAT or RC testing. He got me at 45 now 52 into flying again after stopping in the mid 90s. Love the way he seems to be like most of us if he's told something won't work he needs to visually see it not work and then learns from it rather then just take what he's told as fact.
The flat profile of the impeller would probably mount nicely inside the wing reducing drag could 3d print as part of wing as one unit. Loved you work brilliant idea 💡
I've never before seen an airplane fly this well on a vaccum cleaner motor!!! 😀
Man, i was thinking that my fdm 3d printer produces bad quality print, but you changed my day :D
You’re a mad genius. Extremely satisfying watch!
This channel kept popping up in my feed and I'm so glad I watched it this time! Fun and just technical enough.
WoW, the air is so clean now !
And some rather incredible drone flying, doing loops around another craft
As a car guy. I can't wait to see that propeller resin creation. :)
I knew I have seen you before at @4:13 that is Rick Sanchez. Hi Rick!
7:44 Love the way you integrate ads
Hay man, I would love to see someone try to make a coanda effect thruster usign the dyson motor. It makes a lot of sense, since the air exits radially, you can just put a bell shaped surface at the outlet. Much like the ones done by Tom Stanton in "Coanda Effect Drone Propulsion"
Sometimes those sharp edges at the inlet help the compressor to achieve a slightly wider compressor map. Uses the disturbed boundary layer to achieve a cheap port shrouding effect via forcing more flow towards the center of the wheel
Heres an idea.
Make a wing with a full legth slit inlet near the rear of the aerofoil feeding into one of these impellers. See if you can get airflow over the aerofoil that increases the lift at lower speeds. Would be cool as to see an EDF plane with no obvious inlet.
bro used his reflexes to open the dyson vacuum
I've aways through about using vaccum cleaner as RC plane thruster (and also if you could do one with hair dryers) but i think you shall try to shape your engines, not as a turbocharger, but as a reactor. I mean put it with the compressor facing the air flow and attached under the wings (like a passager plane) or half way in the fuselage like a fighter jet. Maybe the second will reduce the drag.
In any case well done you've realised one of my childhood mad experience
And no matter how many bugs the motor ingests The plane never loses thrust.
Samm Shephard built a foam plane powered by a centrifugal fan a few years ago, so you're in good company.
Lay blower flat & imbed it in the wing ,use 90deg intake sticking out the top of wing, like b2 spirit, add articulating thrust cone to exhaust that can choke down at higher speeds!!!!!
This is like a Peter spirol video without the annoying editing!! Thank god
This reminds me of the Dave Gingery book, How To Design & Build Centrifugal Fans For the Home Shop.
from jerry bruno . The shape of the intake is called a bell mouth housing. A commercial aircraft jet engine test stand use this type of intake because it could literally have a tailwind and get the same results on a test run.
You can't move a lot of air with "suction", because the limit is the ambient atmospheric pressure. They aren't "sucking", they're moving air for the air-pressure to move in on. That means that there's an upper-limit for an vacuum. Dyson quit focusing EXCLUSIVELY on 'suction', and instead started doing both suction AND air-flow. Dyson moves more air than most of their competitors, and that's why their vacuums are so effective.
I watch a lot of "Vacuum Wars" (A RUclips channel), because caring a lot about your carpet is the middle-age equivalent of caring a lot about your lawn, except I don't have a lawn.... I have carpet.
if the air is exhausted too fast to be effective, try blowing into a wide tube, so more air could be sucked through the tube,
the combined airflow will be more but slower.
another idea might be to exhaust the air through a slit at the top of the wing, creating lift through blowing over the wingsurface.
last the fan from a dyson bladeless fan might be better for propelling a plane.
Ps.: mabe mr. dyson might be interested in this sort of project.
Your bell-mouthed intake is called a velocity stack in the old school carburetor days.