NASA Low Cost and Low Noise Personal Air Vehicle Concept

Personal Air Vehicle concept designed for low manufacturing cost and low community noise. The concept also permits multiple engine integration solutions without CG shift problems, for either low cost (automotive LS-1 direct drive Corvette engine), high efficiency (advanced turbo-diesel engine), or high performance (twin pack turboshaft engine).

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• NASA
• Personal
• Air
• Vehicle
• PAV
• Low
• Cost
• Aircraft
• Future
• General
• Aviation
• Community
• Noise

[Tjita1]

All these aircraft you guys design are really cool, but when will we actually see a prototype of any of them in the air?

[NASAPAV]

Two new concepts with sub-scale flying prototypes are being done this year, so soon...

[b101aa2]

ducted fans are LOUD!!!!! are you all sure that will be quiter, cause in the world of rc planes, ducted fans are about twice the db as a prop. almost as loud as a jet.

[NASAPAV]

That's because the RC ducts only care about performance (in fact, they like to have the ducts be loud). If you are designing for low noise, there is no question that a duct CAN be quieter, but it has to be designed to achieve that goal. Think of a duct as an acoustic muffler. The key to low noise is getting as much shielding as possible, while reducing the tip speed as much as possible - also clean inflow/outflow are critical. Do those 3 things, and it will be quiet.

[p90lover]

Hmmm... the designs for a impeller type rear propulsor that i've seen had elevators in the front as the CG and wings were farther back. It appears the CG of this airplane is about 2-4 feet behind the wings. Explain how this would ever fly? Or is it purely conceptual?

[NASAPAV]

No the CG is in the correct location considering the wing and tail. The rear ducted propeller has a minor effect on the center of lift, but a significant effect on the CG location. The wing is located further back than a conventional aircraft - hence the ease of entry without the wing being in the way. This is also permits less variability on the CG with different engine selections. This concept had a great deal of work done on it, and was more than just conceptual.

[Aeromakerable]

@NASAPAV Where might I see these flying prototypes -- I do not care whether they are flying or not

[GrenadeCatcher]

people cant even drive on the ground you think this will ever happen to let people fly? It would have to be 100% computer controlled or else its planes smashing into each other or falling out of the sky into your house.

[EngineeringFun]

I am not sure how practical the details of this configuration are but sure it looks awesome.

[carrionpvp]

proof that everyone puts the LS1 engine into fucking everything @

[Tjita1]

@NASAPAV Thankyou for your reply! The technologies you guys develop is really exciting, and it would be sad if they never got further than computer simulations. I hope your government and the citizens of your country keep funding your research.

[Membrane556]

@purpleGoAhead

The LS1 is not a bad choice for an engine it's a lot cheaper then an equivalent Lycomings.

Though it would need to be fitted with a dry sump system.

A cheaper engine then the LS1 might be the GM vortec 5300 which should still have enough power for such an aircraft.

[b101aa2]

@NASAPAV i get it. i am just curious about what kind of thrust vs blade rpm will be needed. that will determine much on the db levels. a multistage compressor style fan system might be a good way to slow them down. but am pretty sure you're folks already know it. check your messages. send ya a 3 view of something. john tracy at boeing has it.