Not gonna work practicably. The weight of batteries alone for this thing will be about the same as a jet and fuel. The range with that weight will probably give you about enough distance to go to the coffee shop and back, before the bunny stops banging the drum! Cool concept but not feasible.
Fantastic! I'm specially keen of how it comes back to landing position, it works just like a pendulum! Instead of stalling at low speeds, the center of gravity, which is in the tail, does its work and gradually raises the rotors to keep lift. Congratulations to whoever thought this out, it's very simple and creative. The only weird thing is how the cockpit is set up: looks rather uncomfortable and neck-aching.
Hi NASAPAV, brilliant design. I personally love the design and think that even with current battery constraints that your design is feasible. It is definitely about power to weight ratio in this case. Have you considered multiple battery packs from the cordless drills. They are plug and play, fairly light and can be arranged on both sides of the pilot vertically for correct CG. Also with a stator ring underneath each prop for charging... I.E., similar to the charging system on a lawnmower.
Really? Do you know what the Lift/Drag ratio is for a helicopter? Between 4 and 5 - incredibly inefficient devices. Do you know what the L/D of this aircraft is? At 100 mph it's 17.5, at 150 mph it's 14.5. So about 4x the aerodynamic efficiency. Do you know how complex a helicopter rotor is and why heli's are so expensive? The hub mechanism on this is incredibly simple and low cost. Sorry, not quite...
Talk to me when you find the money just to finish drawing this thing that seems like an helicopter !
There are somene of this things that all end up looking all the same, but what they have in comun is all of then are waiting for some rich guy to put all his money into it and never see it again ha ha ha !
@NASAPAV Talk to me when you find the money just to finish drawing this thing that seems like an helicopter !
There are so many of this things that all end up looking all the same, but what they have in comun is all of then are waiting for some rich guy to put all his money into it and never see it again ha ha ha !
landing this thing will have to be on auto otherwise its just a guessing game. the pilots's position in the cockpit is not natural therefore its a no no
there is no lack of cool CG animation in aircraft design, specially in the VTOL category. :-) Putting electric, vtol, and a prone pilot position all in one vehicle in one go, sounds pretty risky to me....one at a time.... do a uav
You are correct, it is much more difficult to attempt several changes all at once. But the electric completely changes the VTOL design, and has to be done in combination. Prone doesn't really complicate things in terms of integration - it really just becomes a comfort and pilot acceptance issue, and isn't a factor in the sub-scale R/C versions we are flying.
I suspect thatg during flight face down, holding your head up will cause a fatigue problem (sore neck) , hence a recumbent position for the pilot would be better.??...Laurie
Pause the video at 1:35 into the video and you will see that there is an entire chest/shoulder/chin support - kind of watching TV while lying on your stomach and holding your head up with your hands. Certainly it is not ideal, but this vehicle is only meant for trips less than 30 minutes (and right now the batteries last about 15 min).
Actually, a mission we have been looking at is an IED aerial scout. One of the key accomplishments of this vehicle is the ultra low noise signature (10x quieter than the quietest helicopter). Plus it is 3x more aerodynamically efficient than a helicopter (L/D of 14-18 vs 4-5 for a heli) so it has a very efficient loiter. The mission would be to perform relatively low altitude surveillance at night along IED corridors, as an unmanned vehicle.
many people think the puffin needs a parachute, last semester as a fluids project i designed ( and refused to patent) a stringless paraglider for personal VTOL's. v=Q3ViAI-kDkk its called Tilt Rotor Coaxial Helicopter Para Glider Free Wing Hybrid on youtube
That Puffin is genius! Check tiltrotorcoaxial for a flight tested (Locking) Freewing Tiltrotor Bladecx, the servo arm restricts the free motion of the wing in pitch to any range desired, inculding zero(locked).The wing is locked during airplane mode ensuring a high Cl max for the wing same as a standard tailsitter! The purpose of the free wing is to ease the transtion to and from airplane mode, letting wing weathervane during transition and autorotation, while locking it in for airplane mode.
Nice test vehicle. Yes, free wings are a great way to deal with gust sensitivity when you don't care about getting a high Clmax off the wing. But for a tailsitter, doesn't really add any value, yet increases the complexity. For your vehicle - you essentially have a Baldwin Mono-tilt-rotor (I don't know if you have seen this effort, but search on the internet and you can it). I have never been a big fan of that concept, for many detailed reasons. Lots of issues to discuss...
I'm glad you mentioned counter-rotation. What we're doing is much better, and we now have test data to prove it. We get ~7% efficiency improvement and lower noise by having the rotors spin in the same direction, but at different heights. If we counter-rotated the noise would be higher, with only a 4% efficiency from swirl, and a much more complex mechanical system that would be very hard to make fully redundant (lie our current electric powertrain). So stacked biplanar flapping is best.
We only have sufficient funds to do sub-scale tests and higher-order tool analysis, so a full scale vehicle is out of the question, as it would take several million dollars. We have learned a lot from this concept, and it really makes a lot of sense if you care about keeping the power low (for electric) and keeping the noise as low as possible. But we are now working a ducted, non prone design to show more of the design space and other solutions that can use the same technologies.
@NASAPAV Do you have plans? I'd rather like to make a brushless-motor model version of it, with electronic stability devices. No hurry, because foam (and inaccuracy) will do for a while.
I think your original makes a motorbike look like a pushbike. Pity it wasn't possible forty years ago. I'm too old now.
Look at my other videos to see the 1/4 scale brushless motor model we have been testing with a professional modeler. But such efforts can only scale certain parameters correctly - the moments of inertia are not scaled correctly in this model, so the transition characteristics are not correct. No plans, but yes 3D models.
Where do the "Batterys" go?( Up the Gazoo?) Pogo and the Ryan verti jet were failures,Nice animation, But not cheap,or any good. And in a forced landing would you rather go feet first?
With the fiasco surrounding the TSA's abusive procedures at commercial airports, the people need alternative, PRIVATE forms of transportation such as the Puffin. Can we get some private investors to run with this idea and develop it QUICKLY into a commercial product that average people could buy and fly? Believe me, the need is great and becoming greater all the time.
I'm currently writing a paper with a student that looks at all the prior attempts at prone and semi-prone pilot positioning. Over 40 different aircraft were developed with this positioning strategy - some good, some bad. For a few of the aircraft, the pilots loved the visibility and 'feel' of bird like flight - and achieved good comfort for flights less than an hour. So look for a paper in the future that reviews all these prior prone pilot aircraft.
Actually one of the reason why they investigated prone position in the 1940's for fighters was because the body can tolerate more g's without blacking out in the prone position. So high g's is better for prone positioning. Yes, we looked at the ability of electric to go up to 30,000 ft without power lapse - and the answer is that electric aircraft can be incredibly fast at high altitudes. But since energy is very constrained in this vehicle, high speed is not a great option.
Looks pretty good, there have been a few like this in the past, at least general idea. But my question, and its not nit pick, how do you get in and out.
flying looking forward while facing down looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen for a strained neck.... 'imagine trying to play xbox360 at walmart but your life depends on the game and your ability to hold your head at a weird angle for prolonged periods of time..." just my 2c. oh btw you have the animations wrong on how the plane responds to elevator controls @1:27
Have you ever considered trying to combine the Puffin idea with the enclosed motorcycle concept?
If you do a youtube search on 'autocycle', 'monotracer', 'litestar' or 'ecomobile' you will see that such enclosed 2-wheel ground vehicles date back decades. It would seem a natural fit to adapt them towards personal air transportation.
Such vehicles could travel down highways like conventional motorcycles, and take off or land in specially designated branching lanes reserved for that purpose.
One problem I'm seeing with this. What counters the forward momentum with rotating for vertical landing? It would be difficult to achieve an accurate landing by only using air resistance to slow down forward momentum while in a vertical position without any pitch control in vertical position. would probably be able to fly but not land.
There is pitch control in approach, through the tails. This lets you get a reverse thrust to help slow down if rotated past 90 degrees. In the current model we are testing both with and without cyclic control. The cyclic control also provides significant pitch control to rotate the aircraft to slow down. So it is not a problem to achieve good fore/aft control forces, both in hover and transition. The gust sensitivity is a much larger issue, any the reason for out testing.
Another problem; if any object hits the propeller at any stage of the flight this object will be throw against the cockpit. ... i think the position of engines must be corrected.
Another problem in any case an electric motor could stop working and it does not show signals of failures. i mean, is like the engine of your hard drive, it could fail at any moment.. but if this happens while you are flying, the engines are so far to each other that it will be almost impossible to keep this machine in flight. (Engine Out)
NASAPAV, are you familiar with nitinol, shape memory alloy?
There is videos on here showing how it works but on the NASA website Anna McGowan states that a bullet could go right through a wing and the shape memory alloy will heal it's self after but the videos on here do not show anything along the lines of that!!!
Doesn't NASA remember they tried this type of "Verti-plane" before? The POGO. And what was discovered was that it was difficult for a expert test pilot to land it. Let alone a combat pilot in bad weather. Now the want a Private pilot to try it? Have Gyros & such improved some much over the years to make it easier to land?
Interesting concept, although I could never see this enter the commercial market for a few reasons. Firstly, I would never EVER trust an ordinary person to fly one of these, just look at how people drive on the road. Would you trust them to operate this? Furthermore, imagine the complications we would encounter with airspace etc, people taking off and landing everywhere, mid air collisions. Sounds like a recipe for disaster! Might be good for military applications but that's about it.
At least it doesn't have a opening (few minutes with a welding cutting torch would fix that) for rednecks to lob cinder blocks or dynamite from while chugging a Miller Lite. Or an opening for black Gangsta-psychopaths to shoot guns through.
All of humanity's great ideas are ruined by the "Cletus Factor" or the "Nigglet Psychotics".
why not 3 or 4 small electric motors,fixed pitch props,seats under the motors,much like the RC versions,using low cost proven componets.Transversing from verticle to horizontal flight and back again is not only dangerous,it adds a lot of cost.You could build mine tommorrow and it would fly
Sure that will work, but the cruise efficiency will be terrible (about 1/4th that of this concept). This concept is already extremely range limited due to battery energy storage at about 40-50 miles. Your way, it only has a range of 10-12 miles at a far lower speed.
No, the problem with what was proposed is that he would be using pure powered-lift for forward flight, which will require almost as much power as hover. Once you are moving forward, in order to be efficient you must off load the lift from the propeller to a wing - otherwise you will have very limited range, just like helicopters.
About 10 kw hrs, which is about 100 lbs of current tech batteries. I don't know of any flywheels that could hold this much energy - if you know of some, I'd love to hear about them. The shaft rpm is 1000 at hover and 500 at cruise, whatever energy storage means is best, we will use (as long as it is safe - not like some of the sulfur batteries which are like molten grenades..
@NASAPAV I've looked at flywheels, and if you have synthetic 2.2 pound flywheels with a 100k rpm max spinning at 76.8k rpm, you can achieve 1.09 kWh per flywheel.
For safety, keeping them small works, and tests have shown that if a flywheel explodes, the containment unit will contain the flywheel and could be reused.
I don't know about cost, space, weight of the storage system, but I read that cost per pound of flywheel material can be 12 to 60 dollars.
I do not know of any manufacturer that has such flywheels, and would be very interested in information if they can achieve that specific energy - because what you have quoted far surpasses battery technology (and at a far lower cost). So I would be very surprised to see this, but am open minded.
@NASAPAV There was an article in Machine Design magazine about 20 years ago proposing small, modular flywheels for energy storage in electric vehicles. They would still exceed today's best battery technology in energy density, and small flywheels can be built that have better durability than large ones. Moreover, by mounting them at various angles, precession forces can be canceled. Having many small units provides redundancy and graceful failure modes.
Flywheels are too heavy and can not compete with current lithium phosphate batteries. If you can find one, I would love to integrate it - but I have talked to many companies about this.
@NASAPAV It was an engineering concept. As far as I know, no company has pursued R&D on this. If memory serves, the modules would be about 6 inches on edge with electrically driven maglev rotors running at 10's of thousands of RPM in a vacuum. Since energy goes up with the square of speed, the potential for extreme power density exists.
@NASAPAV and you shouldn't. The 'specific strength' of carbon fibers are only 2.5 MJ/kg which is less than what Vacre7 quoted. Add safety factors, motor-unit and protection-encasement and the result is only possible with carbon nano-tubes.
Actually, the visibility is excellent during approach, that is one of the primary reasons for a prone position. If you look at 1:37 closely you will see there is a chin support system. We have tried this, and certainly for a 30 minute period it is very comfortable. This aircraft is not made for long flights - 30 minutes will get you 75 miles at 150 mph with just 20 hp during cruise.
@NASAPAV me and a friend of mine tried lying down like that, with supported chin and all I can tell you is that we started getting a stiff neck around 10 minutes...
Actually we have a tipover angle of almost 45 degrees - tailsitters such as the AeroVironment SkyTote (which had tipover issues) had tipover angles of less than 23 degrees. So this vehicle is quite stable in terms of tipover - and the reason for the extending legs.
That depends on several factors. Taking off and landing with wind is not the problem - it is gusting that is the problem. But if you look closely right before takeoff, we have full span split flaps that are there for precisely this reason - to spoil any 'lift' from a gust that would result in a sudden change in the resultant force vector. But the answer is, we don't know yet to what gust speed this concept will work - we will test that with the sub-scale demosntrator.
That is exactly what I meant by wind. Not just gusting but swirling and sudden wind changes and pressure when the vehicle is close to the ground and vulnerable.
I meant SEVERE gusting - note that this vehicle does not stay in ground effect for precisely this reason. It spolis lift while on the ground to reduce gusting issues - then pops up (and never being 'light' on it's feet because the collective is increased to provide sudden lift from the propeller. It is essence, this is like a jump takeoff. Look at the landing, it stays out of ground effect, and then essentially 'drops'. This will be as gust insensitive as possible - we will see how good.
this is great, I didn't like the look of it at first when it was standing but once it took off I thought WOW, brilliant concept, can't wait to see more newer developments to do with this.
It's not just NASA developing such ideas in electric VTOL- some of the most innovative people I have ever met are also investigating the possibilities. Honestly, NASA is too risk averse to fully embrace building and testing this full-scale (instead we will analyze it to death). But I expect to see very exciting projects like this made public within then next 2-3 years - and they will knock peoples socks off!.
A reasonable concern, however, look at 25 seconds into the video and you will see that both blade sets are above the pilots head (not in the same plane). In fact if a blade was shed for some extreme reason, the failure cone is above the cockpit, and the blades will not strike any part of the fuselage (this is because the blades are loaded to pull forward). So there is no way the blades could ever be in the same plane as the occupant - we designed it this way on purpose.
When you think about the fact that the automobile and the airplane came about rather parallel to one another, it's a wonder why things aren't different today. Instead, flight is still seen as something elusive, a privilege only a few can afford. I suggest a change. In my view that statement 'I'm a pilot' should be no more significant as someone who drives saying 'I'm a driver'.
This is the idea, because we have digital and comm technologies that can provide this for us relatively inexpensively these days. Terrain avoidance issues can be dealt with even better in the future with the equivalent of a Google maps database that could have even single light pole in it. This can happen, but won't unless a vehicle is developed that can lead the system change - much as the auto did for the last century.
"and if this was in production this could seperate people even more - rich people in the sky with thier PAV looking down on the average joe in their cars."
Hey, what's with all the class struggle and envy nonsense? Why does everyone have to be financially equal? I'm glad we're not such Marxists over here in the states. When I see someone in a Mercedes while I'm in my Honda, I don't envy the people in it at all. We yanks can deal with stuff like that.
Sorry, I meant class B airspace, not D. Of course there is plenty of class D that people would have to stay away from too. In some cases, people could stay under class B or C and not get too close to the airport but they'd still have to learn all about airspace and all the other things that a pilot has to learn. Another factor is an engine out, which would be a disaster as something like that could not deal with asymetrical thrust. People on the ground could also get hurt in the resultant crash.
You need to read our project reports - the 'engine' on each side is not a single motor, this is one of the unique features of an electric propulsion system. Each side has a completely redundant 36 pole motor system that can fail any 2 parts (including in the gear reduction) and still produce the full 30 hp per side - we satisfy the full FAA multi-engine rating (on each side) so that you can't have asymmetric thrust (unless you have a blade strike). And we have systems to help avoid that also
Also imagine bunches of these meandering around in a urban area. The potential for a mid-air is high as is the potential for someone eventually hitting overhead wires or hitting a tower or tower guy wire. And that doesn't even touch on the ATC factor in class C or especially class D airspace. People would need to learn to communicate with ATC in a complex environment. I also wonder how this vehicle would handle bird strikes of pigeon or gull sized birds, which are common most urban areas.
Not at all, the airspace would be completely different - but the vehicle always leads any system change. Imagine if you had to use ATC to drive your car - Burt Rutan once laid out this analogy. This is how archaic ATC is, compared to what it could be. The same thing was said about autos when they first started showing up - "Oh my gosh, they are going so fast they will all crash at the intersections" - and then they invited the stoplight. The techs are available to make free flight a realty.
I'd like to see a conceptual animation of a person taking off and landing in a heavy or even a moderate wind and especially gusty!! They could do the cartoon showing them crashing it in a million pieces and critically injuring themselves. And I am saying that as a fixed wing pilot. Because if they come out with something like that, some average Joe type probably will hurt themselves eventually. These concept ideas are great but they don't seem to consider anything but calm weather conditions.
Do you think we didn't think about any of this - I've been performing conceptual design studies for 25 years relating to powered lift aircraft. This vehicle would be able of taking off in the same conditions that a small aircraft can be used today - certainly not all weather, but good enough for now to be used in many parts of the country. Gust sensitivity is important for aircraft - but being able to orient the takeofff to just about any direction helps (which a CTOL aircraft can't do).
Thanks for pointing this out - because the opposite is true. The intent is to show the potential for low cost aerospace products that could achieve mass products - but this specific effort is not about a product, but about technologies for industries future products. The actual cost of the pieces of this vehicle are far less than a typical car, with the key being a 300 lb empty weight and all electric systems (yes, the batteries are $15,000 alone currently, but will get cheaper in time)
But you are correct, that the first unit will be expensive (with lots of software cost). But if this were to be built in high production volumes of say 50,000 units/year, the software costs are quickly amortized and become reasonable. So yes, I am convinced such a product could be built and sold in volume for less than $50,000 each, with a similar level of ease of use as a car. Many people could afford such a vehicle, to enable greater mobility. Tell me what aspect of this is so unbelievable
im just wondering what range of people could own this..i live in a townhouse in london, so there would be no where to park it, and if this was in production this could seperate people even more - rich people in the sky with thier PAV looking down on the average joe in their cars.
Look at the other video I have posted - we are testing a 1/3 scale prototype currently, and working on the 2nd design iteration to incorporate several improvements.
wonderful design and function but there is no need for another type of personal transport, especially when we all ready have cars for land, helicopter and air-planes for air and boats for sea travel, great concept but illogical
Illogical? Right now we have a choice between cars (with an average speed of 33 mph) that can get you where you want to go, or airlines (with an average speed of 500 mph) that can't even get you close to where you want to go. Cars do a great job with short distances, airlines do a great job with short distances, but most travel is not long distance. This type of vehicle would provide 4x the average speed of cars to provide a solution in the middle - which is logical.
Now if you mean to say that helicopters already do a fine job at mid distance travel - I would like to disagree with you. They are TERRIBLE devices; expensive, noisy, high vibration, lots of maintenance, incredibly inefficient... and the list goes on. This vehicle has an aero efficiency (L/D) that is 3-4 x better than a helicopter, and an engine efficiency that is 3x better. Combined this vehicle is 10x more efficient than a comparable small helicopter. So why stick with crappy heli's?
So you can't imagine having Google maps or earth providing the vehicle with an understanding of the terrain for automatic avoidance? This would be a simple way to avoid a CFIT incident. The Haptic control system would provide an ease of use that enables the ability for just about anyone to safely fly - and Highway in the Sky navigation aids will make it very easy to avoid collisions with others in the air. This really is not a hard problem.
Think about the guy who just crashed his own plane on purpose into a building in Texas! Suicidal people should not have access to this shit... Air rage!
Let's get real - this is a 600 lb aircraft that can carry 1 person (and 10 lbs of payload at most). It carries no flammable fuel. The amount of energy it would have in a crash is insignificant. However, if I wanted to rent a Ryder truck, anyone can do so and be able to carry 60,000 lbs of explosives. Humm - tough choice if I want to inflict damage, a tiny plane that carries only the pilot, or 60K lb of explosives. Sorry - but this is really a stupid comment.
Come on guys. Stop thinking so inside the box. I mean it's flying fucking cars for crying out loud. Have you not dreamed of this since you were a kid? What happened to the world, perhaps reality set it and you lost all your imaginations, or maybe you are 100% right... Only time will tell.
wtf...They are trying to make a flying car that can do 150mph in the air that ANY soldier would be able to learn to fly? If this is possible, why not task these same engineers with making planes perfect?! A year ago, a regional jet over Buffalo NY fell out of the sky and killed everyone on board and someone on the ground.
Its hard enough to fly fixed wing aircraft with years of training. They want soldiers to be able to fly these things into battle? What a terrible use of defense money.
My point is that we have imperfect flight training and technology that is 30 years old. The radar systems for Air Traffic Control are so outdated that planes are spread far apart in holding patterns wasting tons of fuel.
Now we want to make more things that fly in the air? We shouldn't trust half the idiots on the road let alone with a machine that can fly.
Actually, your logic is very flawed. The current airliner system is entrenched and very hard to change (you want to try to retrain every airline pilot with a new system?). We have the capability to have much more sophisticated and safer systems (because over 65% of accidents are caused by pilot error - just like the Buffalo accident you point out above). These new aircraft solutions could use this technology - but the entrenched airlines will not.
I don't understand how adding more flying things is safe. Even if this electric plane is the easiest thing to fly, what is to stop it from crashing into other ones? I don't see how you can create a system that will make collisions impossible when current airliners do not have that. Even if current pilots are stubborn, wouldn't that technology benefit all in making air travel safer, faster, and less of a hassle? I'd rather have research look into that than go out and buy a flying car.
That is exactly the type of research we are conducting, but vehicles always lead system change, just as PC's lead the internet. You would never see new systems develop, with the type of automation we are talking about, unless there is first a causal factor for that need. Just search Haptic control system and Highway in the Sky and you will see all the research being conducted to make new airspace and automation a reality.
WHAT A JOKE They have these already they are called the Osprey and even with the best pilots with the best military training..30 DEATHS in 8 years...NICE and we want to make one for regualr idiots who cant drive cars...
Please make this
bannanaman96 1 week ago
That would work brilliantly, If it was permanently plugged into the mains.
HighrockTendales 1 week ago
brilliant video
distractionxx 2 weeks ago
Not gonna work practicably. The weight of batteries alone for this thing will be about the same as a jet and fuel. The range with that weight will probably give you about enough distance to go to the coffee shop and back, before the bunny stops banging the drum! Cool concept but not feasible.
bigskip2121 2 weeks ago
iv been looking for this software....were can i find it??????????please help!!!!!
SeaSpider69 4 weeks ago
Fantastic! I'm specially keen of how it comes back to landing position, it works just like a pendulum! Instead of stalling at low speeds, the center of gravity, which is in the tail, does its work and gradually raises the rotors to keep lift. Congratulations to whoever thought this out, it's very simple and creative. The only weird thing is how the cockpit is set up: looks rather uncomfortable and neck-aching.
teopini 1 month ago
So when will I be taking that to work
callous21 1 month ago
I want one
jamesfly23 1 month ago
Nice design. Neck ache could be a problem when flying horizontally though.
repawnd 2 months ago 2
looks really badass.
fernandom713 3 months ago
Hi NASAPAV, brilliant design. I personally love the design and think that even with current battery constraints that your design is feasible. It is definitely about power to weight ratio in this case. Have you considered multiple battery packs from the cordless drills. They are plug and play, fairly light and can be arranged on both sides of the pilot vertically for correct CG. Also with a stator ring underneath each prop for charging... I.E., similar to the charging system on a lawnmower.
jasonharville1 3 months ago
@jasonharville1 nasa probably has access to far higher tecnology than those of a mere cordless drill.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
We have something better working already it is called HELICOPTER !!
ginofrater 3 months ago
Really? Do you know what the Lift/Drag ratio is for a helicopter? Between 4 and 5 - incredibly inefficient devices. Do you know what the L/D of this aircraft is? At 100 mph it's 17.5, at 150 mph it's 14.5. So about 4x the aerodynamic efficiency. Do you know how complex a helicopter rotor is and why heli's are so expensive? The hub mechanism on this is incredibly simple and low cost. Sorry, not quite...
NASAPAV 3 months ago 7
@NASAPAV
Talk to me when you find the money just to finish drawing this thing that seems like an helicopter !
There are somene of this things that all end up looking all the same, but what they have in comun is all of then are waiting for some rich guy to put all his money into it and never see it again ha ha ha !
ginofrater 3 months ago
@NASAPAV a mini pogo!!
MIGUEL2005LIMA 3 months ago
but in case of emergency.. what is the action course?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NASAPAV Talk to me when you find the money just to finish drawing this thing that seems like an helicopter !
There are so many of this things that all end up looking all the same, but what they have in comun is all of then are waiting for some rich guy to put all his money into it and never see it again ha ha ha !
ginofrater 3 months ago
@NASAPAV V22 Osprey.
ClaviculaNotoria 1 month ago
yes, indeed...VERY!
mad4umamma 4 months ago
i want one is a personal aicraft it going to be for all of us i want one to go to school
SuperJUANCHO7 4 months ago
landing this thing will have to be on auto otherwise its just a guessing game. the pilots's position in the cockpit is not natural therefore its a no no
JunkComa 4 months ago
there is no lack of cool CG animation in aircraft design, specially in the VTOL category. :-) Putting electric, vtol, and a prone pilot position all in one vehicle in one go, sounds pretty risky to me....one at a time.... do a uav
mzungu54 4 months ago
You are correct, it is much more difficult to attempt several changes all at once. But the electric completely changes the VTOL design, and has to be done in combination. Prone doesn't really complicate things in terms of integration - it really just becomes a comfort and pilot acceptance issue, and isn't a factor in the sub-scale R/C versions we are flying.
NASAPAV 4 months ago
@NASAPAV is this going to be available to the public? in all countries? also what will the price be?
Randanimation 5 months ago
And if you want to scratch your arse?
Gian092 5 months ago
thats a flying coffin but viva la nasa guys(im liking the wasp more)
Nndankn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch my video
Ali2011mb 5 months ago
Thanks...I hadnt seen that...Rgds...Laurie
LWJCarroll 6 months ago
I suspect thatg during flight face down, holding your head up will cause a fatigue problem (sore neck) , hence a recumbent position for the pilot would be better.??...Laurie
LWJCarroll 6 months ago 3
Pause the video at 1:35 into the video and you will see that there is an entire chest/shoulder/chin support - kind of watching TV while lying on your stomach and holding your head up with your hands. Certainly it is not ideal, but this vehicle is only meant for trips less than 30 minutes (and right now the batteries last about 15 min).
NASAPAV 6 months ago
I like it, i take two. I send 50 of my finest camels.
TheSpankymonkey 6 months ago
Batteries won't last long enough for it to be functionally viable.
You heard it here first.
BUCEnGAR 6 months ago
@BUCEnGAR - It's American made, it will be powered by God. lol.
TheSpankymonkey 6 months ago
So where are the guns / rockets mounted?
manfromregina 8 months ago
this thing looks preatty good but how can you get off ?
wajietaus 10 months ago
Wonderful CGI animation, and a curious invention.
loudclaw 10 months ago
AWFUL design!
qp12qp 11 months ago
I could see the military mounting a scoped turret cannon on this thing. It would be deadly.
Violaman0910 11 months ago
Actually, a mission we have been looking at is an IED aerial scout. One of the key accomplishments of this vehicle is the ultra low noise signature (10x quieter than the quietest helicopter). Plus it is 3x more aerodynamically efficient than a helicopter (L/D of 14-18 vs 4-5 for a heli) so it has a very efficient loiter. The mission would be to perform relatively low altitude surveillance at night along IED corridors, as an unmanned vehicle.
NASAPAV 11 months ago 2
did you get paid from fed ex
JRhalo14 11 months ago 2
Where I can download this game?
SuperLucascampos 11 months ago
many people think the puffin needs a parachute, last semester as a fluids project i designed ( and refused to patent) a stringless paraglider for personal VTOL's. v=Q3ViAI-kDkk its called Tilt Rotor Coaxial Helicopter Para Glider Free Wing Hybrid on youtube
tiltrotorcoaxialheli 11 months ago
That Puffin is genius! Check tiltrotorcoaxial for a flight tested (Locking) Freewing Tiltrotor Bladecx, the servo arm restricts the free motion of the wing in pitch to any range desired, inculding zero(locked).The wing is locked during airplane mode ensuring a high Cl max for the wing same as a standard tailsitter! The purpose of the free wing is to ease the transtion to and from airplane mode, letting wing weathervane during transition and autorotation, while locking it in for airplane mode.
tiltrotorcoaxialheli 11 months ago
Comment removed
tiltrotorcoaxialheli 1 year ago
Comment removed
tiltrotorcoaxialheli 1 year ago
Nice test vehicle. Yes, free wings are a great way to deal with gust sensitivity when you don't care about getting a high Clmax off the wing. But for a tailsitter, doesn't really add any value, yet increases the complexity. For your vehicle - you essentially have a Baldwin Mono-tilt-rotor (I don't know if you have seen this effort, but search on the internet and you can it). I have never been a big fan of that concept, for many detailed reasons. Lots of issues to discuss...
NASAPAV 1 year ago
i think You'd get tired of holding Your head up
etyrnal 1 year ago
100 years on and we're still using propellers!? God damn it, when will we be using space thrusters???
comanchio1976 1 year ago
It's the first thing I've seen that's just barely doable.
Some hot-shot batteries and control subroutines required...
I'd have made the rotor pairs counter-rotate
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
I'm glad you mentioned counter-rotation. What we're doing is much better, and we now have test data to prove it. We get ~7% efficiency improvement and lower noise by having the rotors spin in the same direction, but at different heights. If we counter-rotated the noise would be higher, with only a 4% efficiency from swirl, and a much more complex mechanical system that would be very hard to make fully redundant (lie our current electric powertrain). So stacked biplanar flapping is best.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV I wouldn't propose to argue with your test data!
Nor would I deride redundancy in such a energy-intense environment
How close are you to the real thing?
Have you modelled this yet?
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
We only have sufficient funds to do sub-scale tests and higher-order tool analysis, so a full scale vehicle is out of the question, as it would take several million dollars. We have learned a lot from this concept, and it really makes a lot of sense if you care about keeping the power low (for electric) and keeping the noise as low as possible. But we are now working a ducted, non prone design to show more of the design space and other solutions that can use the same technologies.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV Do you have plans? I'd rather like to make a brushless-motor model version of it, with electronic stability devices. No hurry, because foam (and inaccuracy) will do for a while.
I think your original makes a motorbike look like a pushbike. Pity it wasn't possible forty years ago. I'm too old now.
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Look at my other videos to see the 1/4 scale brushless motor model we have been testing with a professional modeler. But such efforts can only scale certain parameters correctly - the moments of inertia are not scaled correctly in this model, so the transition characteristics are not correct. No plans, but yes 3D models.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV I will look. I reckoned on CG and MI problems (the latter a good reason for contra-rotation)
Thanks
By the way, I didn't say so before, but I reckon it looks GREAT :)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
Where do the "Batterys" go?( Up the Gazoo?) Pogo and the Ryan verti jet were failures,Nice animation, But not cheap,or any good. And in a forced landing would you rather go feet first?
hillberg100 1 year ago
Wow! It's very silent!
nettmats 1 year ago 7
i kan haz fore khrismz plz?
LEGOKNlGHT 1 year ago 3
With the fiasco surrounding the TSA's abusive procedures at commercial airports, the people need alternative, PRIVATE forms of transportation such as the Puffin. Can we get some private investors to run with this idea and develop it QUICKLY into a commercial product that average people could buy and fly? Believe me, the need is great and becoming greater all the time.
tpreitzel 1 year ago
That's funny, I thought about a similar positioning for pilots a long time ago - it's much better on several situations for a number of reasons.
01248163264128256512 1 year ago
I'm currently writing a paper with a student that looks at all the prior attempts at prone and semi-prone pilot positioning. Over 40 different aircraft were developed with this positioning strategy - some good, some bad. For a few of the aircraft, the pilots loved the visibility and 'feel' of bird like flight - and achieved good comfort for flights less than an hour. So look for a paper in the future that reviews all these prior prone pilot aircraft.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV thanks, wasn't aware of them - did you considered high speeds, high Gs?
01248163264128256512 1 year ago
Actually one of the reason why they investigated prone position in the 1940's for fighters was because the body can tolerate more g's without blacking out in the prone position. So high g's is better for prone positioning. Yes, we looked at the ability of electric to go up to 30,000 ft without power lapse - and the answer is that electric aircraft can be incredibly fast at high altitudes. But since energy is very constrained in this vehicle, high speed is not a great option.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Looks pretty good, there have been a few like this in the past, at least general idea. But my question, and its not nit pick, how do you get in and out.
candr 1 year ago
Ouch... my neck would get sore after a while. How about a tethered helmet?
djsufferthing 1 year ago
would be very difficult to land straight because of tilt rotors. would be cool though
EVarvayanis1 1 year ago
top work will daen wondesen hail;emarayam
from leeds
wondesenhh 1 year ago
top work will daen
wondesenhh 1 year ago
flying looking forward while facing down looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen for a strained neck.... 'imagine trying to play xbox360 at walmart but your life depends on the game and your ability to hold your head at a weird angle for prolonged periods of time..." just my 2c. oh btw you have the animations wrong on how the plane responds to elevator controls @1:27
jake16424 1 year ago
@jake16424
True, and laying on your back with a tilted mirror facing front would be more relaxing, 'course a pillow would be a welcome option too ;-)
Media4TheMind 1 year ago
Some how i doubt anyone would send FED EX this way due too the expense for one
dobberdoss 1 year ago
I'd fall asleep in it.
abbiesaurusrex 1 year ago
Have you ever considered trying to combine the Puffin idea with the enclosed motorcycle concept?
If you do a youtube search on 'autocycle', 'monotracer', 'litestar' or 'ecomobile' you will see that such enclosed 2-wheel ground vehicles date back decades. It would seem a natural fit to adapt them towards personal air transportation.
Such vehicles could travel down highways like conventional motorcycles, and take off or land in specially designated branching lanes reserved for that purpose.
manofsan 1 year ago
Great, Homocopter! :D
termoyadro 1 year ago
One problem I'm seeing with this. What counters the forward momentum with rotating for vertical landing? It would be difficult to achieve an accurate landing by only using air resistance to slow down forward momentum while in a vertical position without any pitch control in vertical position. would probably be able to fly but not land.
cpa11225 1 year ago
There is pitch control in approach, through the tails. This lets you get a reverse thrust to help slow down if rotated past 90 degrees. In the current model we are testing both with and without cyclic control. The cyclic control also provides significant pitch control to rotate the aircraft to slow down. So it is not a problem to achieve good fore/aft control forces, both in hover and transition. The gust sensitivity is a much larger issue, any the reason for out testing.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Another problem; if any object hits the propeller at any stage of the flight this object will be throw against the cockpit. ... i think the position of engines must be corrected.
pytoche 1 year ago
Another problem in any case an electric motor could stop working and it does not show signals of failures. i mean, is like the engine of your hard drive, it could fail at any moment.. but if this happens while you are flying, the engines are so far to each other that it will be almost impossible to keep this machine in flight. (Engine Out)
pytoche 1 year ago
Great. I think I'll build it. :)
Looking at various VTOL design possibilities at the moment. This is very elegant.
knyshov 1 year ago
Genial !
PATRIENIX 1 year ago
NASAPAV, are you familiar with nitinol, shape memory alloy?
There is videos on here showing how it works but on the NASA website Anna McGowan states that a bullet could go right through a wing and the shape memory alloy will heal it's self after but the videos on here do not show anything along the lines of that!!!
Any information about this for me please?
Ecurrie84 1 year ago
dude if that guy hits anything head on he is so dead...
MasonC89 1 year ago
Tesla patented (Patent No. 1,655,114) this aerodynamic aircraft ("method of aerial transportation") in Jan 3, 1928.
watch?v=vmSPZbp4Pug
SealTooGreat 1 year ago
Doesn't NASA remember they tried this type of "Verti-plane" before? The POGO. And what was discovered was that it was difficult for a expert test pilot to land it. Let alone a combat pilot in bad weather. Now the want a Private pilot to try it? Have Gyros & such improved some much over the years to make it easier to land?
lst1195 1 year ago
Interesting concept, although I could never see this enter the commercial market for a few reasons. Firstly, I would never EVER trust an ordinary person to fly one of these, just look at how people drive on the road. Would you trust them to operate this? Furthermore, imagine the complications we would encounter with airspace etc, people taking off and landing everywhere, mid air collisions. Sounds like a recipe for disaster! Might be good for military applications but that's about it.
npasque 1 year ago
@npasque fuck you and your 2 cents
xExRxIxCxKx 1 year ago
@npasque This video addresses that exact concern. watch?v=FKqow8jzUDc
MarkProffitt 1 year ago
Open rotors in civilian flight zones? Bwahaa!
Aerial meat grinder in a Wal-Mart parking lot.
At least it doesn't have a opening (few minutes with a welding cutting torch would fix that) for rednecks to lob cinder blocks or dynamite from while chugging a Miller Lite. Or an opening for black Gangsta-psychopaths to shoot guns through.
All of humanity's great ideas are ruined by the "Cletus Factor" or the "Nigglet Psychotics".
Matrix29bear 1 year ago
That's not a car!
IJUSTSUBSCRIBENOW 1 year ago
Now we can text while while flying aswell! =)
JDFromSac 1 year ago
Looks like a comical penguin with propellors
rayzinnz 1 year ago
Another interesting concept - a long way to go to 1st flight though. Single passenger also a real limitation.
DToppenberg 1 year ago
thanks for posting all these inspiring concepts NASAPAV :) greatly appreciated!
Croopskate 1 year ago
Sorry for the spam... Do you know how it will cost?
gabrielbabin91 1 year ago
It's really interesting. I just hope in the near future it will cost approxymatly like a car of the year.
gabrielbabin91 1 year ago
It's really interesting. I just hope in the near future it will cost approxymatly like a car of the year.
gabrielbabin91 1 year ago
why not 3 or 4 small electric motors,fixed pitch props,seats under the motors,much like the RC versions,using low cost proven componets.Transversing from verticle to horizontal flight and back again is not only dangerous,it adds a lot of cost.You could build mine tommorrow and it would fly
inagod 1 year ago
Sure that will work, but the cruise efficiency will be terrible (about 1/4th that of this concept). This concept is already extremely range limited due to battery energy storage at about 40-50 miles. Your way, it only has a range of 10-12 miles at a far lower speed.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV
Interesting. What causes that? Is it a lowering of efficiency due to having 4 motor connections instead of one?
Vacre7 1 year ago
No, the problem with what was proposed is that he would be using pure powered-lift for forward flight, which will require almost as much power as hover. Once you are moving forward, in order to be efficient you must off load the lift from the propeller to a wing - otherwise you will have very limited range, just like helicopters.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV Okay. I understand. What's the kW for this battery? Could this work with a group of flywheels with equal or less kW?
Vacre7 1 year ago
About 10 kw hrs, which is about 100 lbs of current tech batteries. I don't know of any flywheels that could hold this much energy - if you know of some, I'd love to hear about them. The shaft rpm is 1000 at hover and 500 at cruise, whatever energy storage means is best, we will use (as long as it is safe - not like some of the sulfur batteries which are like molten grenades..
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV I've looked at flywheels, and if you have synthetic 2.2 pound flywheels with a 100k rpm max spinning at 76.8k rpm, you can achieve 1.09 kWh per flywheel.
For safety, keeping them small works, and tests have shown that if a flywheel explodes, the containment unit will contain the flywheel and could be reused.
I don't know about cost, space, weight of the storage system, but I read that cost per pound of flywheel material can be 12 to 60 dollars.
Vacre7 1 year ago
I do not know of any manufacturer that has such flywheels, and would be very interested in information if they can achieve that specific energy - because what you have quoted far surpasses battery technology (and at a far lower cost). So I would be very surprised to see this, but am open minded.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV There was an article in Machine Design magazine about 20 years ago proposing small, modular flywheels for energy storage in electric vehicles. They would still exceed today's best battery technology in energy density, and small flywheels can be built that have better durability than large ones. Moreover, by mounting them at various angles, precession forces can be canceled. Having many small units provides redundancy and graceful failure modes.
upajos 1 year ago
Flywheels are too heavy and can not compete with current lithium phosphate batteries. If you can find one, I would love to integrate it - but I have talked to many companies about this.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV It was an engineering concept. As far as I know, no company has pursued R&D on this. If memory serves, the modules would be about 6 inches on edge with electrically driven maglev rotors running at 10's of thousands of RPM in a vacuum. Since energy goes up with the square of speed, the potential for extreme power density exists.
upajos 1 year ago
@NASAPAV and you shouldn't. The 'specific strength' of carbon fibers are only 2.5 MJ/kg which is less than what Vacre7 quoted. Add safety factors, motor-unit and protection-encasement and the result is only possible with carbon nano-tubes.
ngupowered 6 months ago
@Vacre7 These sound similar to magnetic levitation/composite material flywheels that were experimented with in the recent KERS systems.
93ej20 1 year ago
@93ej20 They are the very same. I've been looking at those and theorizing about the current designs.
Vacre7 1 year ago
@NASAPAV They do of course exist, but only at very large diameters, the power storage is related to the moment of inertia, not the weight per say.
phillies4eva 1 year ago
Thanks but I think I'll pass
Grousuba 1 year ago
I think it's a very nice feature that the pilot sees absolutly nothing while landing...
Also: don't we all just LOVE that pain in the neck you get from looking up for long durations of time?
Hyshinara 1 year ago
Actually, the visibility is excellent during approach, that is one of the primary reasons for a prone position. If you look at 1:37 closely you will see there is a chin support system. We have tried this, and certainly for a 30 minute period it is very comfortable. This aircraft is not made for long flights - 30 minutes will get you 75 miles at 150 mph with just 20 hp during cruise.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@NASAPAV me and a friend of mine tried lying down like that, with supported chin and all I can tell you is that we started getting a stiff neck around 10 minutes...
Hyshinara 1 year ago
When does Wal Mart have them on sale ?
Deadman7Inc 1 year ago
one word: claustrophobia
aharrin1 1 year ago
ITS ROFLCOPTER! :D
louiscarr899 1 year ago 22
NASA budget deserve increase not decrease ...
FoltynD 1 year ago 23
buzz lightyear lol
cjellwood 1 year ago
Try that touch down in some wind.
Even when the vehicle is at rest, the wind could tip it over. Taking off and landing in the wind would be insane.
2bornot2b1984 1 year ago
Actually we have a tipover angle of almost 45 degrees - tailsitters such as the AeroVironment SkyTote (which had tipover issues) had tipover angles of less than 23 degrees. So this vehicle is quite stable in terms of tipover - and the reason for the extending legs.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
So what wind speed blowing at the broad side of the vehicle when parked would tip it over?
Also, you didn't address landing and taking off in the wind, how difficult is the vehicle to control during landings and take offs in the wind?
2bornot2b1984 1 year ago
That depends on several factors. Taking off and landing with wind is not the problem - it is gusting that is the problem. But if you look closely right before takeoff, we have full span split flaps that are there for precisely this reason - to spoil any 'lift' from a gust that would result in a sudden change in the resultant force vector. But the answer is, we don't know yet to what gust speed this concept will work - we will test that with the sub-scale demosntrator.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
"it is gusting that is the problem"
That is exactly what I meant by wind. Not just gusting but swirling and sudden wind changes and pressure when the vehicle is close to the ground and vulnerable.
2bornot2b1984 1 year ago
I meant SEVERE gusting - note that this vehicle does not stay in ground effect for precisely this reason. It spolis lift while on the ground to reduce gusting issues - then pops up (and never being 'light' on it's feet because the collective is increased to provide sudden lift from the propeller. It is essence, this is like a jump takeoff. Look at the landing, it stays out of ground effect, and then essentially 'drops'. This will be as gust insensitive as possible - we will see how good.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
NASAPAV,
this is great, I didn't like the look of it at first when it was standing but once it took off I thought WOW, brilliant concept, can't wait to see more newer developments to do with this.
When will these things be available roundabout?
Ecurrie84 1 year ago
It's not just NASA developing such ideas in electric VTOL- some of the most innovative people I have ever met are also investigating the possibilities. Honestly, NASA is too risk averse to fully embrace building and testing this full-scale (instead we will analyze it to death). But I expect to see very exciting projects like this made public within then next 2-3 years - and they will knock peoples socks off!.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Thanks for you reply and for the information.
Ecurrie84 1 year ago
thats fuckin awesome...
TheJoshJman 1 year ago
Oh please start making this one!! I want one too.
LVCatvGuy 1 year ago
yes closer towards the danger zone
blades spininng beside your head is always a great idea O.o
icelez 1 year ago
A reasonable concern, however, look at 25 seconds into the video and you will see that both blade sets are above the pilots head (not in the same plane). In fact if a blade was shed for some extreme reason, the failure cone is above the cockpit, and the blades will not strike any part of the fuselage (this is because the blades are loaded to pull forward). So there is no way the blades could ever be in the same plane as the occupant - we designed it this way on purpose.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
I want one!
draco900000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You said it, not I.....our current systems are way....behind. And that's putting it politely.
Unfortunately our world as it stands now prevents the imagination from flying. (figuratively speaking.)
Youbian 1 year ago
When you think about the fact that the automobile and the airplane came about rather parallel to one another, it's a wonder why things aren't different today. Instead, flight is still seen as something elusive, a privilege only a few can afford. I suggest a change. In my view that statement 'I'm a pilot' should be no more significant as someone who drives saying 'I'm a driver'.
Youbian 1 year ago
This is the idea, because we have digital and comm technologies that can provide this for us relatively inexpensively these days. Terrain avoidance issues can be dealt with even better in the future with the equivalent of a Google maps database that could have even single light pole in it. This can happen, but won't unless a vehicle is developed that can lead the system change - much as the auto did for the last century.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Comment by sugercoatedvenom:
"and if this was in production this could seperate people even more - rich people in the sky with thier PAV looking down on the average joe in their cars."
Hey, what's with all the class struggle and envy nonsense? Why does everyone have to be financially equal? I'm glad we're not such Marxists over here in the states. When I see someone in a Mercedes while I'm in my Honda, I don't envy the people in it at all. We yanks can deal with stuff like that.
carcharodonshark 1 year ago
Sorry, I meant class B airspace, not D. Of course there is plenty of class D that people would have to stay away from too. In some cases, people could stay under class B or C and not get too close to the airport but they'd still have to learn all about airspace and all the other things that a pilot has to learn. Another factor is an engine out, which would be a disaster as something like that could not deal with asymetrical thrust. People on the ground could also get hurt in the resultant crash.
carcharodonshark 1 year ago
You need to read our project reports - the 'engine' on each side is not a single motor, this is one of the unique features of an electric propulsion system. Each side has a completely redundant 36 pole motor system that can fail any 2 parts (including in the gear reduction) and still produce the full 30 hp per side - we satisfy the full FAA multi-engine rating (on each side) so that you can't have asymmetric thrust (unless you have a blade strike). And we have systems to help avoid that also
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Also imagine bunches of these meandering around in a urban area. The potential for a mid-air is high as is the potential for someone eventually hitting overhead wires or hitting a tower or tower guy wire. And that doesn't even touch on the ATC factor in class C or especially class D airspace. People would need to learn to communicate with ATC in a complex environment. I also wonder how this vehicle would handle bird strikes of pigeon or gull sized birds, which are common most urban areas.
carcharodonshark 1 year ago
Not at all, the airspace would be completely different - but the vehicle always leads any system change. Imagine if you had to use ATC to drive your car - Burt Rutan once laid out this analogy. This is how archaic ATC is, compared to what it could be. The same thing was said about autos when they first started showing up - "Oh my gosh, they are going so fast they will all crash at the intersections" - and then they invited the stoplight. The techs are available to make free flight a realty.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
I'd like to see a conceptual animation of a person taking off and landing in a heavy or even a moderate wind and especially gusty!! They could do the cartoon showing them crashing it in a million pieces and critically injuring themselves. And I am saying that as a fixed wing pilot. Because if they come out with something like that, some average Joe type probably will hurt themselves eventually. These concept ideas are great but they don't seem to consider anything but calm weather conditions.
carcharodonshark 1 year ago
Do you think we didn't think about any of this - I've been performing conceptual design studies for 25 years relating to powered lift aircraft. This vehicle would be able of taking off in the same conditions that a small aircraft can be used today - certainly not all weather, but good enough for now to be used in many parts of the country. Gust sensitivity is important for aircraft - but being able to orient the takeofff to just about any direction helps (which a CTOL aircraft can't do).
NASAPAV 1 year ago
this device is for rich people only
sugercoatedvenom 1 year ago
Thanks for pointing this out - because the opposite is true. The intent is to show the potential for low cost aerospace products that could achieve mass products - but this specific effort is not about a product, but about technologies for industries future products. The actual cost of the pieces of this vehicle are far less than a typical car, with the key being a 300 lb empty weight and all electric systems (yes, the batteries are $15,000 alone currently, but will get cheaper in time)
NASAPAV 1 year ago
But you are correct, that the first unit will be expensive (with lots of software cost). But if this were to be built in high production volumes of say 50,000 units/year, the software costs are quickly amortized and become reasonable. So yes, I am convinced such a product could be built and sold in volume for less than $50,000 each, with a similar level of ease of use as a car. Many people could afford such a vehicle, to enable greater mobility. Tell me what aspect of this is so unbelievable
NASAPAV 1 year ago
im just wondering what range of people could own this..i live in a townhouse in london, so there would be no where to park it, and if this was in production this could seperate people even more - rich people in the sky with thier PAV looking down on the average joe in their cars.
sugercoatedvenom 1 year ago
Any predicted test/release dates?
ParaglidingManiac 1 year ago
Look at the other video I have posted - we are testing a 1/3 scale prototype currently, and working on the 2nd design iteration to incorporate several improvements.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
wonderful design and function but there is no need for another type of personal transport, especially when we all ready have cars for land, helicopter and air-planes for air and boats for sea travel, great concept but illogical
sugercoatedvenom 1 year ago
Illogical? Right now we have a choice between cars (with an average speed of 33 mph) that can get you where you want to go, or airlines (with an average speed of 500 mph) that can't even get you close to where you want to go. Cars do a great job with short distances, airlines do a great job with short distances, but most travel is not long distance. This type of vehicle would provide 4x the average speed of cars to provide a solution in the middle - which is logical.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Now if you mean to say that helicopters already do a fine job at mid distance travel - I would like to disagree with you. They are TERRIBLE devices; expensive, noisy, high vibration, lots of maintenance, incredibly inefficient... and the list goes on. This vehicle has an aero efficiency (L/D) that is 3-4 x better than a helicopter, and an engine efficiency that is 3x better. Combined this vehicle is 10x more efficient than a comparable small helicopter. So why stick with crappy heli's?
NASAPAV 1 year ago
@sugercoatedvenom This is potentially the worst post I've ever read on Youtube.
TheGreatSteve 1 year ago
GreatSteve i wish nasa produced a laser gun so i could zap people like you
sugercoatedvenom 1 year ago
@sugercoatedvenom If they did they wouldn't let you near it! :-)
TheGreatSteve 1 year ago
Very appealing gizmo.
But raises the threat of "drunk driver" to a whole new level...
nameofthepen 1 year ago
I loved the expanding tail/landing gear combo! That was pretty slick. But they need to make it with a seat that swivels to the horizon.
bnther36 1 year ago
So very kewl!
mikwid 1 year ago
thats not safe
not as in its gonna break down and fall and not only kill the person inside, but also the people below.
Also, we have tons of skyscrapers, wats the chances of someone driving (if u can call it driving) NOT crashin into a building? very low
dudee620 1 year ago
So you can't imagine having Google maps or earth providing the vehicle with an understanding of the terrain for automatic avoidance? This would be a simple way to avoid a CFIT incident. The Haptic control system would provide an ease of use that enables the ability for just about anyone to safely fly - and Highway in the Sky navigation aids will make it very easy to avoid collisions with others in the air. This really is not a hard problem.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Think about the guy who just crashed his own plane on purpose into a building in Texas! Suicidal people should not have access to this shit... Air rage!
Bubbles36785 1 year ago
Let's get real - this is a 600 lb aircraft that can carry 1 person (and 10 lbs of payload at most). It carries no flammable fuel. The amount of energy it would have in a crash is insignificant. However, if I wanted to rent a Ryder truck, anyone can do so and be able to carry 60,000 lbs of explosives. Humm - tough choice if I want to inflict damage, a tiny plane that carries only the pilot, or 60K lb of explosives. Sorry - but this is really a stupid comment.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
Come on guys. Stop thinking so inside the box. I mean it's flying fucking cars for crying out loud. Have you not dreamed of this since you were a kid? What happened to the world, perhaps reality set it and you lost all your imaginations, or maybe you are 100% right... Only time will tell.
NeglectedGlitchers 1 year ago
wtf...They are trying to make a flying car that can do 150mph in the air that ANY soldier would be able to learn to fly? If this is possible, why not task these same engineers with making planes perfect?! A year ago, a regional jet over Buffalo NY fell out of the sky and killed everyone on board and someone on the ground.
Its hard enough to fly fixed wing aircraft with years of training. They want soldiers to be able to fly these things into battle? What a terrible use of defense money.
Deej1188 1 year ago
whattt...?????? whats ur point..??
ambuj1991 1 year ago
My point is that we have imperfect flight training and technology that is 30 years old. The radar systems for Air Traffic Control are so outdated that planes are spread far apart in holding patterns wasting tons of fuel.
Now we want to make more things that fly in the air? We shouldn't trust half the idiots on the road let alone with a machine that can fly.
We are getting ahead of ourselves with this crap.
Deej1188 1 year ago
Actually, your logic is very flawed. The current airliner system is entrenched and very hard to change (you want to try to retrain every airline pilot with a new system?). We have the capability to have much more sophisticated and safer systems (because over 65% of accidents are caused by pilot error - just like the Buffalo accident you point out above). These new aircraft solutions could use this technology - but the entrenched airlines will not.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
I don't understand how adding more flying things is safe. Even if this electric plane is the easiest thing to fly, what is to stop it from crashing into other ones? I don't see how you can create a system that will make collisions impossible when current airliners do not have that. Even if current pilots are stubborn, wouldn't that technology benefit all in making air travel safer, faster, and less of a hassle? I'd rather have research look into that than go out and buy a flying car.
Deej1188 1 year ago
That is exactly the type of research we are conducting, but vehicles always lead system change, just as PC's lead the internet. You would never see new systems develop, with the type of automation we are talking about, unless there is first a causal factor for that need. Just search Haptic control system and Highway in the Sky and you will see all the research being conducted to make new airspace and automation a reality.
NASAPAV 1 year ago
no way will that thing replace cars, but as a recreational toy for thrill seekers it would work.
samurai5625 1 year ago
I'll stick with my World Of Warcraft flyer LOL
nu2life80 1 year ago
WHAT A JOKE They have these already they are called the Osprey and even with the best pilots with the best military training..30 DEATHS in 8 years...NICE and we want to make one for regualr idiots who cant drive cars...
rich7t7 1 year ago
We have car accident on the ground. I know this is for soldiers but if civilians can get these :(
There will be accidents in the sky and then crap falling down and killing people on the ground and in their houses.
Also whats the point of coming up with something new for war and then posting vids of it online for the world to see?
Soldiers have huge guts just to go to war but their balls will be even bigger if they have the balls to fly in one of these unsafe looking things.
BruiserDrop 1 year ago
Stupid idea, and will not sell at ALL. People drive stupid, can't wait to see how they will fly.
nu2life80