ok. nice vid. good idea. but that's all. so great waste of space...how is possible to call this huge pece of .. carbonfibe ana kevlar.. revolution.. you have a vehicle with the size of 2 Cheznas and single person cabin. where do you put the load? i am not telling nothing bad.. just the idea needs more work.
1. IT WON'T WORK - We've made several prototypes that have worked as predicted.
2. Rip-off Artists - The Verticopter is an idea that has not been done before in the world of VTOL.
3. There's a patent-pending solution we're working on right now for full pitch maneuverability. Besides, you seem to not understand that this is conceptualized as a STOVL, not a VTOL.
4. What makes you think most of the mass is over the CG? That statement doesn't even make sense. Most of the mass IS AT the CG. Duh.
We have made several successful R/C prototypes that have performed just as predicted, and yes, transitions have worked successfully. We simply haven't published those videos yet.
You should really take a look at the newer videos, and the tutorial.
A.) The need for 2 rotors to balance the effect of torque.
B.) The reduction of air flow through the blade area while if forward flight from vortexing over the top of the canopy and body. i.e. the props are not directly in the airflow. They are obstructed to a degree.
C.) The need for a decoupling system in event of total engine shut down. Tipjets don't need this because of the free rotating rotor hub.
D.) The need for point thrusters to manuver because all torque is balanced.
What types of design hindrances are you referring to?
Tip-jet technology would solve no design hindrances. The main advantage of tip-jets is that they don't produce net torque... something that the Verticopter doesn't have to deal with.
Tip-jets are also best used on helicopter rotors, not propellers. (The Verticopter uses propellers).
Also, you may want to take a look at the newer videos, which address all the new features and updates we've gone through over the past year. This vid's old.
the important thing is that this friend does not alter the course of our lives, one hours someone would do that, but you could have put the video of it too, without Recentimente a hug and even more
In almost all other countries, the Wright brothers are considered the pioneers of aviation were flown in by December 17, 1903, three years before Santos-Dumont. But this flight was made without a scientific committee or witnesses and the apparatus of Wright, other than the 14-bis, did not use self-propelled. He was catapulted into the wind and only then was able to sustain the air.
Just look it up on Wikipedia and other sources. It's all there, both under Santos-Dumont and under Wright brothers.
Personally, I don't care if there was a panel or supervisory committee... the definition of flight does not depend on that. All you need is witnesses... and you're mistaken about the Wright-flyer's lack of power. The rails were only there to maintain it on track. It was self-propelled, and to attach the definition of flight to landing gear or rails is really quite silly.
Sorry, there are several other poineers before wright which only allowed wright to fly. There only invetion was the steering every other thing was invented before.
In Brazil and in France, Alberto Santos-Dumont is considered the inventor of the airplane. On October 23, 1906 in Paris, Santos-Dumont flew a 14-Bis, self-propelled 50 meters, 2 meters off the ground for 7 seconds before a supervisory committee of the Aero Club of France , who had promised a cash prize to the first man to conduct a flight.
Just to clarify: I'm born in Brazil. I know that in Brazil, Santos Dumont is considered the "father of aviation". Although this is taught in Brazilian schools, it is not true. Santos Dumont went PUBLIC with his plane first (before the Wright Brothers) in 1906 in France, but the Wright brothers had a functional, controllable airplane years before then.
Santos Dumont was a pioneer in aviation and in dirigible balloons, and he deserves credit for that. But he didn't invent the airplane.
it says there is a massive wing area but there just isn't... if the engines fail you are 99% buggered, like 1m of suspension travel will stop your spine crushing like a coke can...
I'm trying to respond to this comment, but it won't work. I have a picture comparing the Piaggio Avanti to the Verticopter, to showcase the point about wing area... but maybe YouTube is not allowing me to post this comment, because there's a URL. Let's see if that's the case.
At any rate, the airfoil has also been meticulously engineered to maximize glide ratio and it produces excellent lift at low speeds.
The design has been a work in progress. See what it started out looking like, in the second video response above. To see what it looks like now, click on the red, in-video link.
I'm not a plane expert, so please forgive if dumb question, what kind of glide ratio/capability is there, between typical cruise speed and indicated stall speed, curious, thanks
I'm not sure... Never really checked. And it's still a work in progress, so statistics will be changing over time a bit.
This plane is stall-proof, since it's a canard, and has vertical flight capabilities. The glide ratio is pretty good. It allows for safe landings at low-altitude engine loss.
There's a smaller one coming: a 1-seater. The glide ratio is more than adequate for safe landings during complete engine failure. In fact, it's pretty comfortable compared to most other planes in engine-failure situations. You don't HAVE to find a landing strip... it doesn't need that much space to land, even without engines.
i really like the design, if your right and they do come out with a smaller design, able to glide down with complete engine failure, then im in! was reasearching some ultralight aircrafts too, they all glide down safetly, but they only go about 60-70 mph.
Please watch the newer videos for information on these questions. We're taking a tiered approach. RC kits are next... then drones. Then a 1-seater, a 2-seater, and a 7-seater are planned for prototyping in the next few years.
excuse me it makes more sense to say: how bout ducting the top rotors and adding a screen on the top duct to keep the parachute or other ubstructions from interupting the rotors rotation it may reduce lift but thats wat the duct is for
TO RESIDENTS OF CANADA: A segment on the Verticopter will be airing on Discovery Channel's "Daily Planet" show.
THE VERTICOPTER SEGMENT IS NOW CONFIRMED FOR THIS THURSDAY, NOV. 20, 2008 AT 7P AND 11P EST! You might see some of this footage in the show... but it'll probably mainly be covering the RC prototype, which was flown at the NASA AMES landing strip in California.
The Verticopter's CG is occupied by its propellers. A rocket parachute would cause more problems than it would solve.
The Verticopter went through 47 design iterations, and the canards (front wings) were added in the 40th iteration. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages by a large margin.
Any more "You should's" are welcome, but please consider that if you don't display an understanding of the plane, it'll reflect poorly on YOU, not on the plane.
3.-¿would it possible to place the canards over the cockpit, as a car´s roof? cause in aircraft i'd better see down than up...!!specially in VTOL mode...
¿Can the upper surface of the "ring-wing" tail stabilizers be used also as horizontal stabilizers(elevators) to somehow do/substitute/displace the canards function/position?
4.-jeje, I really dilike canards!! but if they still remain, some surfaces (wings) might be tilted as in v-22 during hover for horizontal stability... added complexity...
1.-ok! Sorry! "I SHOuLD, I MuST" be more polite...
2.-mmm what about if the rocket parachute is placed just beteween the cockpit and the propellers??? anyway the hard shock during emergency landings in the video comes first to the landing gears at the back., somehow a lasso help a little contrarest the CG dislocation of the parachute... well as a cutomer I would definitively look for a parachuted one...!!
2. Still a huge danger of parachute getting tangled in prop.
3. Probably, but that's not part of this design.
4. Canards are cool. They're stall-proof, and provide more lift.
5. Wing tip and tail puffers (like the Harrier).
6. Inertia is lower than a heli's rotor, and disc loading (weight per rotor area) is higher. But large wing area compensates for this, and makes for a safe plane even during dual engine failure.
It's $10 for 6 months of work. I used to think like that too, until I got it over myself to pay for some quality work I saw some people put into aircraft. I also changed my mind about payware when I actually did something of this caliber myself. It really makes a difference!
Due to the prototype nature of this plane, it has not been made for FS (either one), because FS does not use laminar flow calculation to predict flight behavior. The idea of the virtual model is to showcase its flight characteristics in a simulator known to have a realistic flight model. One could get a fridge to fly like a Cessna in FS, which would not really help in predicting flight behavior of a new design. Performance is very good in X-Plane 9, and a free demo is available. Try it!
As mentioned in the video, X-Plane accurately predicts flight behavior. The airfoil shape goes a long way towards making a BWB (Blended Wing-Body) design or flying wing viable and actually quite efficient at high speeds. (I'm assuming you meant "horizontal flight" instead of "vertical flight." (Vertical flight is barely affected by aerodynamic drag.)
Besides tests done in X-Plane, real-life Radio Control tests have confirmed the viability of this configuration (see video response).
It's not a jet, but more like a turboprop. (Propellers are powered by turboshaft engines). The "gliding" is attained through a combination of effects: large wing surface area and windmilling propellers. Ever heard of a helicopter autorotation? That's what keeps helis "gliding" when their engine fails.
The fact that props would strike the ground in case of a landing gear failure isn't unique to this design. Any propeller plane would have this problem.
LOL but the prop will strike the ground in case of landing gear failure. Also, i've never heard a jet that actually will "glide" in engire failure but interesting if this works.
Dear santa,
Armydude771 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(Blake Griffin Do This Magical Dunk,YouTubeWOW20,000Hits!SuperNaturalJump2012,YouTube,WOW near 6FEET VerticalSky,Head almost by ceiling 13FeetHigh!UltraHighJump2012YouTube,Awesome nearly touching 13FOOT basketballRim& UltraSuperJump2012YouTube,Touching12Foot Ceiling,SuperPowerDunk2012YouTube,My hand above10foot rim,strong dunk,I'm 5-9tall!SuperSlamDunk2010,Dunking authority on rim!SuperJamTipDunk,SuperPutbackDunk&SuperSlamTipDunk allYouTube,RimRockingDunks)
seros2010 2 months ago
la gran malloria de esos diseños futuristas no funcionan, por muy apantalladora que se oiga esa voz narrando, pero son bonitos sueños
faunabundo 4 months ago
Comment removed
DeeplyPurpleCurve 5 months ago
Santos Dumont invented the airplane
Amazon is Brazilian!
sleep with the news!
thecritico22 8 months ago
Nice video.
@last comment
I also can't get the harrier to hover. The engine seems to be in a bad VTOL position
alexander82327 1 year ago
I can never get firkin harrie to hover
carlomasterofamine 1 year ago
its a game look at 0:31
GustavoRodrigo15 1 year ago
How does this thing even maintain a hover? Nozzle vents? Or is it infact a verti copter that cannot truely verti? :')
SvenOkonomi 1 year ago
ha "considerably" lower
slinky211 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danklaue How can we buy an rc verticopter?
I'd love to test one out!
khunarak 1 year ago
i have seen this so many years. It seems that all they have until now is the Video film......!!!? Is that so hard to build that!!?
Ebdan88 1 year ago
ok. nice vid. good idea. but that's all. so great waste of space...how is possible to call this huge pece of .. carbonfibe ana kevlar.. revolution.. you have a vehicle with the size of 2 Cheznas and single person cabin. where do you put the load? i am not telling nothing bad.. just the idea needs more work.
keebordcowboy 1 year ago
I read that this is a STOVL (& not VTOL) Aircraft, what is the reasoning behind the difference?
Also, if the problem facing VTOL is control during Hover/Take Off and you folks did not want to use a Swashplate on the Proprotors a la V22 Osprey.
How about using a Rotor Hub Tilting Mechanism, the way of the Autogyros.
That should help keep weight & complexity down.
nausher81 2 years ago
You should really watch the newer videos, especially the tutorial. It explains and answers pretty much all your questions.
danklaue 2 years ago
IT WONT WORK- Rip Off Artists
there is no way to control pitch without air flowing over the tail. As it seems that most of the mass is over the CG makes it unstable also.
Bet you anything that you havent made anything that works yet, or transitions from vertical to horizontal.
Craftek 2 years ago
1. IT WON'T WORK - We've made several prototypes that have worked as predicted.
2. Rip-off Artists - The Verticopter is an idea that has not been done before in the world of VTOL.
3. There's a patent-pending solution we're working on right now for full pitch maneuverability. Besides, you seem to not understand that this is conceptualized as a STOVL, not a VTOL.
4. What makes you think most of the mass is over the CG? That statement doesn't even make sense. Most of the mass IS AT the CG. Duh.
danklaue 2 years ago
(Cont'd)
We have made several successful R/C prototypes that have performed just as predicted, and yes, transitions have worked successfully. We simply haven't published those videos yet.
You should really take a look at the newer videos, and the tutorial.
danklaue 2 years ago
Design hinderance:
A.) The need for 2 rotors to balance the effect of torque.
B.) The reduction of air flow through the blade area while if forward flight from vortexing over the top of the canopy and body. i.e. the props are not directly in the airflow. They are obstructed to a degree.
C.) The need for a decoupling system in event of total engine shut down. Tipjets don't need this because of the free rotating rotor hub.
D.) The need for point thrusters to manuver because all torque is balanced.
ARMOROID5000 2 years ago
ebn nich ^^ sind ja 2 rotoren , die sich gegenseitig stabilisieren ^^
affenarschfeli 2 years ago
CAN TIP-JET TECHNOLOGY BE USED ON THIS CRAFT?
That would solve a few design hinderances.
ARMOROID5000 2 years ago
What types of design hindrances are you referring to?
Tip-jet technology would solve no design hindrances. The main advantage of tip-jets is that they don't produce net torque... something that the Verticopter doesn't have to deal with.
Tip-jets are also best used on helicopter rotors, not propellers. (The Verticopter uses propellers).
Also, you may want to take a look at the newer videos, which address all the new features and updates we've gone through over the past year. This vid's old.
danklaue 2 years ago
Hmm, big plane in terms of length/wingspan yet small usable fuselage, basically just the cockpit.
Good basic concept but needs more work.
Treblaine 2 years ago
You should really watch the newer videos. This one is way outdated.
danklaue 2 years ago
danklaue i got ur Mega Pack an hour ago an i was amazed at how awesome and easy it was
ipodplaya 2 years ago
That's great! I'm glad you're enjoying it. Make sure you also watch the tutorials of the Verticopter, and the last update video (v.1.5).
danklaue 2 years ago
will do
ipodplaya 2 years ago
Fantastic Idea !!
loresamba 2 years ago
the important thing is that this friend does not alter the course of our lives, one hours someone would do that, but you could have put the video of it too, without Recentimente a hug and even more
gutobissaco 2 years ago
In almost all other countries, the Wright brothers are considered the pioneers of aviation were flown in by December 17, 1903, three years before Santos-Dumont. But this flight was made without a scientific committee or witnesses and the apparatus of Wright, other than the 14-bis, did not use self-propelled. He was catapulted into the wind and only then was able to sustain the air.
gutobissaco 2 years ago
Just look it up on Wikipedia and other sources. It's all there, both under Santos-Dumont and under Wright brothers.
Personally, I don't care if there was a panel or supervisory committee... the definition of flight does not depend on that. All you need is witnesses... and you're mistaken about the Wright-flyer's lack of power. The rails were only there to maintain it on track. It was self-propelled, and to attach the definition of flight to landing gear or rails is really quite silly.
danklaue 2 years ago
this is awesome! the future of flight, amazing!. get ready for the future people, things like this will change our world greatly
thepiratep 2 years ago
Sorry, there are several other poineers before wright which only allowed wright to fly. There only invetion was the steering every other thing was invented before.
Freakbrain1 2 years ago
In Brazil and in France, Alberto Santos-Dumont is considered the inventor of the airplane. On October 23, 1906 in Paris, Santos-Dumont flew a 14-Bis, self-propelled 50 meters, 2 meters off the ground for 7 seconds before a supervisory committee of the Aero Club of France , who had promised a cash prize to the first man to conduct a flight.
gutobissaco 2 years ago
o primeiro deveria ser Santos Dumont
gutobissaco 2 years ago
Just to clarify: I'm born in Brazil. I know that in Brazil, Santos Dumont is considered the "father of aviation". Although this is taught in Brazilian schools, it is not true. Santos Dumont went PUBLIC with his plane first (before the Wright Brothers) in 1906 in France, but the Wright brothers had a functional, controllable airplane years before then.
Santos Dumont was a pioneer in aviation and in dirigible balloons, and he deserves credit for that. But he didn't invent the airplane.
danklaue 2 years ago
Is tis real (the proper full sized thing
movieclub01 2 years ago
It's being developed.
danklaue 2 years ago
it says there is a massive wing area but there just isn't... if the engines fail you are 99% buggered, like 1m of suspension travel will stop your spine crushing like a coke can...
vanepico 2 years ago
Have you watched the updated video yet?
danklaue 2 years ago
I'm trying to respond to this comment, but it won't work. I have a picture comparing the Piaggio Avanti to the Verticopter, to showcase the point about wing area... but maybe YouTube is not allowing me to post this comment, because there's a URL. Let's see if that's the case.
At any rate, the airfoil has also been meticulously engineered to maximize glide ratio and it produces excellent lift at low speeds.
danklaue 2 years ago
this looks ridiculous...
vanepico 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com
rndllhllw 2 years ago
the thing's ugly but if it works you might be able to sell it
yreuq0 2 years ago
The design has been a work in progress. See what it started out looking like, in the second video response above. To see what it looks like now, click on the red, in-video link.
danklaue 2 years ago
I would love to see this as an RC model.
ALTN8NRG 2 years ago
You will. Stay tuned!
danklaue 2 years ago
Where does the payload go? And how can it counter roll when hovering? I guess it can't, maybe I'm wrong.
rcairpower 2 years ago
Please watch the newer videos (hyperlinked on this video) for answers to some of these questions.
danklaue 2 years ago
I'm not a plane expert, so please forgive if dumb question, what kind of glide ratio/capability is there, between typical cruise speed and indicated stall speed, curious, thanks
uber2ber 2 years ago
I'm not sure... Never really checked. And it's still a work in progress, so statistics will be changing over time a bit.
This plane is stall-proof, since it's a canard, and has vertical flight capabilities. The glide ratio is pretty good. It allows for safe landings at low-altitude engine loss.
danklaue 2 years ago
fs 2004 or fs x???..
ommer080383 3 years ago
Neither. X-Plane. (it's in the info bar.)
See my channel for a video tutorial, that describes why I used X-Plane and not FS.
danklaue 3 years ago
i actually like this design
JUKIO01 3 years ago
if it was smaller, and able to glide down in an complete engine failure, id get it.
JUKIO01 3 years ago
There's a smaller one coming: a 1-seater. The glide ratio is more than adequate for safe landings during complete engine failure. In fact, it's pretty comfortable compared to most other planes in engine-failure situations. You don't HAVE to find a landing strip... it doesn't need that much space to land, even without engines.
danklaue 2 years ago
i really like the design, if your right and they do come out with a smaller design, able to glide down with complete engine failure, then im in! was reasearching some ultralight aircrafts too, they all glide down safetly, but they only go about 60-70 mph.
JUKIO01 2 years ago
Whots the simulator name?
BoBoSTD1 3 years ago
When on market?
Hansolo60 3 years ago
Please watch the newer videos for information on these questions. We're taking a tiered approach. RC kits are next... then drones. Then a 1-seater, a 2-seater, and a 7-seater are planned for prototyping in the next few years.
danklaue 2 years ago
how bout ducting the top rotors and addind a screen in front of the top front rotor it will increase lift and increase safety why not?
nonavailablename 3 years ago
excuse me it makes more sense to say: how bout ducting the top rotors and adding a screen on the top duct to keep the parachute or other ubstructions from interupting the rotors rotation it may reduce lift but thats wat the duct is for
nonavailablename 3 years ago
blender rules
smartflyerbrushless 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TO RESIDENTS OF CANADA: A segment on the Verticopter will be airing on Discovery Channel's "Daily Planet" show.
THE VERTICOPTER SEGMENT IS NOW CONFIRMED FOR THIS THURSDAY, NOV. 20, 2008 AT 7P AND 11P EST! You might see some of this footage in the show... but it'll probably mainly be covering the RC prototype, which was flown at the NASA AMES landing strip in California.
danklaue 3 years ago
iy vas the coolest sort of helikopter i ever seen
robintf 3 years ago
amazing its just genius!!
iwant one!!!!
lioneljams94 3 years ago
you should place an emergency rocket parachute on the cg...
you should seek a way of eliminating the small front wings, the ones by the cockpit wich interrupt pilots vision...
makinamati 3 years ago
The Verticopter's CG is occupied by its propellers. A rocket parachute would cause more problems than it would solve.
The Verticopter went through 47 design iterations, and the canards (front wings) were added in the 40th iteration. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages by a large margin.
Any more "You should's" are welcome, but please consider that if you don't display an understanding of the plane, it'll reflect poorly on YOU, not on the plane.
danklaue 3 years ago
3.-¿would it possible to place the canards over the cockpit, as a car´s roof? cause in aircraft i'd better see down than up...!!specially in VTOL mode...
¿Can the upper surface of the "ring-wing" tail stabilizers be used also as horizontal stabilizers(elevators) to somehow do/substitute/displace the canards function/position?
4.-jeje, I really dilike canards!! but if they still remain, some surfaces (wings) might be tilted as in v-22 during hover for horizontal stability... added complexity...
makinamati 3 years ago
1.-ok! Sorry! "I SHOuLD, I MuST" be more polite...
2.-mmm what about if the rocket parachute is placed just beteween the cockpit and the propellers??? anyway the hard shock during emergency landings in the video comes first to the landing gears at the back., somehow a lasso help a little contrarest the CG dislocation of the parachute... well as a cutomer I would definitively look for a parachuted one...!!
makinamati 3 years ago
5.-I understand there´s no swashplate,nor left-right vectored thrust... I wonder how would it be possible to hover left-right?
6.-Does the rotors/propeller small diameter in relation to the aircraft affect the autorotation time...(inertia)...
well i know few about this aircraft, just have some questions... keep it up!!
... !!!! :D
makinamati 3 years ago
1. Thanks.
2. Still a huge danger of parachute getting tangled in prop.
3. Probably, but that's not part of this design.
4. Canards are cool. They're stall-proof, and provide more lift.
5. Wing tip and tail puffers (like the Harrier).
6. Inertia is lower than a heli's rotor, and disc loading (weight per rotor area) is higher. But large wing area compensates for this, and makes for a safe plane even during dual engine failure.
danklaue 3 years ago
god i hate payware
wohoo111 3 years ago
It's $10 for 6 months of work. I used to think like that too, until I got it over myself to pay for some quality work I saw some people put into aircraft. I also changed my mind about payware when I actually did something of this caliber myself. It really makes a difference!
danklaue 3 years ago
Is there a person hanging out of the side of the balloon basket at 3:37?
superafterburner 3 years ago
Yes, there is. Courtesy of Austin Meyer, creator of X-Plane. :) Glad someone noticed!
danklaue 3 years ago
santos dummont
¬¬
caleb33960768 3 years ago
Anyone has VertiCopter for FS-2004? (I know it is not FSX, but still FS2004 is good compromise in terms of Performance-to-HWrequirements ratio)
empiempiempi 3 years ago
Due to the prototype nature of this plane, it has not been made for FS (either one), because FS does not use laminar flow calculation to predict flight behavior. The idea of the virtual model is to showcase its flight characteristics in a simulator known to have a realistic flight model. One could get a fridge to fly like a Cessna in FS, which would not really help in predicting flight behavior of a new design. Performance is very good in X-Plane 9, and a free demo is available. Try it!
danklaue 3 years ago
Will not be the relatively large "wing+body" area a problem (due to higher drag) during the vertical flight?
empiempiempi 3 years ago
As mentioned in the video, X-Plane accurately predicts flight behavior. The airfoil shape goes a long way towards making a BWB (Blended Wing-Body) design or flying wing viable and actually quite efficient at high speeds. (I'm assuming you meant "horizontal flight" instead of "vertical flight." (Vertical flight is barely affected by aerodynamic drag.)
Besides tests done in X-Plane, real-life Radio Control tests have confirmed the viability of this configuration (see video response).
danklaue 3 years ago
Looks pretty cool !
kaveac 3 years ago
It's not a jet, but more like a turboprop. (Propellers are powered by turboshaft engines). The "gliding" is attained through a combination of effects: large wing surface area and windmilling propellers. Ever heard of a helicopter autorotation? That's what keeps helis "gliding" when their engine fails.
The fact that props would strike the ground in case of a landing gear failure isn't unique to this design. Any propeller plane would have this problem.
danklaue 3 years ago
LOL but the prop will strike the ground in case of landing gear failure. Also, i've never heard a jet that actually will "glide" in engire failure but interesting if this works.
annihil8ted 3 years ago
That's a really neat solution. Can't wait to see an actual test flight.
Odziz 3 years ago 2