It feels like we are in the "New Kitty Hawk" era, just starting with fly machines and where flytime is measured in minutes. A new beginning once again :-)
Jetson is the one I like-But-"New Kitty Hawk"? For 15 minutes? $90,000 Dollars? Well, ok-but at the rate of these so called "personal VTOL" aircraft pop up on my radar? Complete with slick CGI videos and "grand announcements" for "commuting" -They always end up moving around at a bare hover, only to skim some field miles away from any urban setting. Battery Life dependent on heat and as usual, technology. Still would want one-but the very design gives birth to ideas of what this type of aircraft can do, should be doing. Yet the technology (as well as the decibels) make these aircraft "prohibitive" to operate anywhere but in CGI or a deserted field! We need to be thinking of Frequency, Oscillations, Electro-Magnetic pulses etc. The air around us is already charged-we just haven't figured out the frequency needed to develop thrust, lift and forward movement from what is already given to us by nature! All these companies should come together under one single entity with one design and one goal-To make a personal commuter aircraft that could be spun off into Agriculture, Law Enforcement, Search/Rescue, Air Freight and, the occasional jaunt out to the countryside. Until that happens-all these craft will be relegated to Aviation oddities -crafts that are no more than a flying weed wackers, barely moving out of hover.
Agreed, ... put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. No heavy metals or rare materials that are very hard on environment to dig up, and far less c02 of production and recycling when the time comes. These personal vehjcles are cool but they are simply enlarged drones that I can buy at best buys. What is the maintenance on these things? How much will your power bill go up ? And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ? Besides, i dont want millions of morons flying above me, when they can barely drive their cars presently. Just imagine the havoc... Yeah, They are cool but just a very very expensive toy.
@@sasquatch2753 "put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. " 600cc motorcycle engine is zero emission? News to me. Citation needed. If it's not then no, problem not solved. "What is the maintenance on these things? " Damn near zero. Only moving part is for each propeller so like four moving parts. "How much will your power bill go up ? " Negligible. Remember a fossil fuel engine is a heat engine so it is limited by the Carnot limit...so it can't be more than 50% efficient or so. Whereas an electric motor is 90% efficient. Also even if the power plant is coal powered, it burns far less fuel to generate enough power for an electric vehicle than a fossil fuel engine burns to do the same thing. "And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?" Part of going green is eliminating fossil fuel as a source of power. Not for power, not for propulsion. Source of plastic only (and even that will go away when plant based plastic becomes more prevalent). So nuclear and renewables. Some time in the next 20 years, the last fossil fuel plant in the western world will be built, replaced by nuclear and renewables.
@Jan 6 was "Wall Street Putsch" part 2 Thanks for sharing... This could be the intermediary solution, but solid state is still the end game... Unless you're persuaded beyond doubt that DAFCs will be the future... Then I don't know what else....
You can also add that they need to step off the X8 octocopter configuration. The bottom 4 motors run very inefficient due to the top motors prop wash. They would probably get the same amount of lift and more flight time with a hexa configuration as long as the propellers are not overlapping one each other.
@@manofsan but you always have contra rotating on a drone else you cant maneuver the drone as you have to slow down the one rotation to let opposite rotation move the mass. the only way you can create a better coaxial effect if top motors are always in the same offset as the bottom motors as you never break the stream of air as much. as the perfect example is the K-MAX helicopter
@@Drone_Out - KMAX has the rotors in sync to keep the blades from colliding. Rotors that don't intersect shouldn't automatically have to be in sync with each other. The lower rotor is simply collecting the spin energy imparted by the upper one, and converting it into thrust. Btw, have you heard about Airspeeder? They're trying to do some kind of pod-racing games with these things.
ok back again, this is a really hard thing to do.They have wisely made Jetson as light as possible, so increasing range means sacrificing vehicle structure to add range. Because the few ways of increasing flight efficiency would include rotating thrusters, or swash plates or wings, or either of the first two and wings. What you have to bargain with is that moving forward with less thrust saves battery power, which you would have less of because of added structure. 1. In any event if you do this other effects become apparent, that transiting into forward flight requires control manoeuvres which complicates use. Said complications go further when you will find your minimum speed just went up a lot without further control manoeuvres to slow down 2. If the machine is purely for entertainment, like a flying dirt bike, it is quite optimal because it doesnt 'really' matter how far you go. Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis. If however the thought was you could fly around a neighbourhood, even if its rural, you need to have more equipment and more weight to work with, like add wings. That of course takes us out of the unregulated end of the aviation market and the horror that these are multi engine machines and pilot training in that sphere is ever more difficult. GOTO 2. keep inside unregulated space for the time being, Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis. As an aside I would expect a reformation of regulation in this space.
There isn't necessarily a need for control surfaces. Even a small wing, fitted between the forward and rear rotors could provide lift at higher speeds provided it is pitched slightly upward so that it lies almost horizontal when the aircraft pitches down to generate forward thrust. The added lift would not be enormous but it would more than compensate the added weight.
It seems like adding some lift surfaces (ie) wings and a V tail might increase the flight time. BUT then the weight increaes and I believe you would legally need a Sports Pilot license which is what they were trying to avoid.
Very good , concisely made video. It puts into perspective very clearly what is needed to further develop these into viable options. Higher density batteries, improved power to weight and possibly an augmented lift option (fixed wing) or larger blades. I'm sure if we take a peak 10yrs into the future, the biggest change will be battery density.
Cannot wait to see what kind of batteries we develop in the next 5-10 years. This industry is solely dependent on a battery with less weight but a lot more power inside. Cant wait!!😆
Some forget that flight at low levels increases drag. There is not enough updraft to effectively counteract the drag from the same forces. The propellers are actually forcing air downward, cutting though levels of air propelling it upward. Not forcing against the ground to create lift. Otherwise flight would be limited to a few feet, or yards above the surface. It is not like taking off from a aircraft carrier in a jet engine, with the engine placed against a wall for thrust. Vertical props work by pushing air, not pushing against the ground.
Adding wings would quadruple the flight time. Powered lift is great for TOL, and a bit of loitering. But it's very inefficient compared to the aerodynamic lift of fixed wings.
Agreed. There is a reason airplanes dominate aerial travel. The first company to make a 2hr+30 min reserve plane thats "affordable" will sell like hotcakes.
Indeed. Jetson is aware of this, but deliberately chose this configuration to go forward. It does not mean, that future variants might not also have wings for forward flight.
What would increase flight time by adding just some minimum weight is if a small removable air foil wing design that could snap on, or slide and lock on the bottom of the aircraft that would increase flight time by removing the weight constraints on the motors when in forward flight and if the motors could then tilt forward would even then increase the speed of the aircraft of that of the many small fixed wing aircraft. Forward control still could then be accomplished by slowing down the right, or left motors to then turn left, or right and to descend while in forward motions would then still be in just decreasing all of the motors at the same time some, or by the tilting of all of the motors at the same time vertically. Adding the design to tilt the motors horizontally will add a bit more weight that would be imposed on the wings more while flying horizontally and only on the motors while just in vertical flight mode.
1. increase aerodynamic efficiency, add clear very thin plexiglass windshield on the jetson 2. add fabric wing, or make the underside of the jetson a lifting body design using fabric material 3. add 1 large pusher prop 4. use hybrid gas engine.
The question is: can it powerloop? 😇 Now on a more serious level, would adding small wings close to the fuselage increase the gliding and thus the flight time?
Short answer is yes, quite simply. The people designing these things are laser focused on "no lifting surfaces" brute force flight. If one was simply looking for the maximum flight time regardless of package dimensions you could add full size glider wings and 90 degree rotating engines to transition from VTOL to forward flight. Flight time would go from minutes to hours.
@@01foote01 Probably, as wings would add weight. The type of lift isn't a factor in whether or not powered aircraft require a license, it is based on weight, amount of fuel carried, and top speed.
Easy solution for longer flight times: Kerosine - with 50 times higher energy density than Li-Batteries. This could be combined with a generator and buffer battery if one wants to keep the electric motors by all means.
Solution is a 4 winged "plane", acting like a flying wind turbine, to recharge the batteries during flight. An electric aircraft could use roll maneuvers, so the plane wings can spin on the opposite direction, with full 360° revolutions on its longitudinal axis. First pair of wings spin on one side, second pair of wings spin faster on the opposite side, this way the pilot or passengers will never be upside-down.
Jetson 1 is obviously much more superior to that other one. I am wondering if it is possible to combine this layout with some kind of lift generating surfaces when there is forward motion (wings, but does not have to be wings).
@@KevinATJumpWorks Blackfly is one of the best designs currently at that category. The only things I would add to it is a second seat, better visibility cockpit and a top fixed elaron wing for in flight stability.
I really like the idea of the Jetson One, but $92k is way too much for 5 min of flight time. Personally, I think if we are going to get good use out of these kinds of airframes we need a lightweight hybrid gas/electric power system. A sort of auxiliary power unit to help keep batteries up while flying. Larger installations could use a turbo shaft generator while smaller ones could use two or four stroke engines for their APU. Just my 2¢, especially for the ultralight crowd.
Then again, auxiliary power from a hybrid system would add considerably to the weight AND cost, especially if a turbine engine were to be employed with respect to cost. Added to that, the Jetson seems to be particularly sensitive to any additions in weight.
I wonder if an alternator system would aid in battery life and flight time... Simply recharging the battery as the rotors spin and flight continues and maybe compromise a little bit of the altitude for the Jetson
Reduce the drag of the design. But that would add weight and cost. This is a dead end without a new powersource that not yet exists. I believe you are right that bigger rotors could benefit.
I think that Jetson 1 is heading in the right direction, unfortunate about flight time and weight restriction, room for improvement, as I am sure will happen in the near future. Jetson 1 out Performs any rival complications, they are surely in a field of their own.
I love the innovation of these and the idea of flying finally. But, only thing that scares me is air traffic control and safety. This could be difficult considering people will have the ability to go just about anywhere in any direction they desire versus when in a land vehicle your somewhat limited because of landscape so it was a little easier to traffic control people. It would be pretty scary just witnessing someone fall out of the sky randomly and land on your sidewalk table at a restaurant because they clipped a rotor or crashed into someone else, not to mention more chance of death cause you didn’t just crash you also now have to plummet to the earth. At least in a car you have a chance to survive after impact if you crash. I’m sure this is one of the many reasons its taken us so long to adopt flying as an option in our everyday travel even though we’ve had the technology to do so
If anything in metro areas these vehicles would be tied into an automated flight system. Where there would be strict zoning as to where to fly. There would be flight corridors as to not interfere with buildings and people. Let's say there was a medical emergency and the pilot jerked the the craft to the right. It might respond to that input but at a certain point the system would meet the boundary and stop going in that direction no matter how hard the stick is being forced.
@@jaguillermol yeah but that was different cause cars can’t go everywhere. When your in the sky there’s literally no limits or terrain to stop you. How do you control that?
@@jaguillermol you can’t drive a car over a canyon or a cliff or through the Amazon rainforest or through the ocean and rivers but a flying vehicle? Yes. No limits. Not the same situation
They're just not ready yet. I need to go 35 miles across water to get to the nearest grocery store what you have won't work. I look forward to further updates thank you
Ellon Musks design had a central motor and propellor, this allows him to charge his vehicles while descending altitude! There are a ton of ideas incorporating small solar panels. If the motors can tilt slightly for forward travel, set up a charge circuit for each of the motors and program rear propellors to tilt the same way. Funnel some air creating scoops along the sides front and rear of the craft. Create some contoured vents to direct air to the central fan to allow new controls to blow air down constantly during flight. The motor will provide constant charge during flight. Once you program it properly.
Inventing unlimited energy technology is closer to reality than antigravity , combined that with propellers that don't have fans, and create little noise to none at the same time would be awesome and safer
Realistically speaking it's 10 years too early for these "gadgets". I wouldn't even consider these things other than just toys and execution machines at this point.
That Jetson look so awesome, if they could put a hydrogen engine in it and still keep the weight down it would be a GAME CHANGER 👍👍 I see huge things coming to this company in the future.
So two strategies are suggested: 1) Get some uber light weight lifting wings on the Jetson. Once installed, and the thrust required to maintain lift is satisfied, 2) Takeoff with a long extension cord, say 150 meters, to get the machine to wingborne speed, then reduce throttle. Bet you'd add 5-10 minutes of flight time with these two strategies alone. Then, higher power density batteries, and pretty soon, you're talking an hour of flight time....maybe. Obviously, weight is everything.
I suspect we're at that awkward point in the design of these things where it's just approaching feasibility... Hence the 5 minute flight times! Things like solid state batteries will have significant impacts on practicality. I figure these companies are about 10 years early here.
I think biofuel and a constant rev IC engine driving a gen would get them to feasibility real quick, then disrupt the power train with an all electric down the line.
The longest possible flight time would be where the greatest possible fraction of mass is made up of battery. A battery with rotors attached and nothing else would be about the best possible scenario.
I feel the body of the jetson should be enclosed with fabric as used in Hawker Hurricane and most prior planes and shaped to give a little lift as a "flying body". Objective is to reduce load on batteries once at height and moving at speed.
@@rangerfontana591 you seem incapable of understanding what you read, so let me spell it out for you. Yes, wings=weight and complexity, which is precisely why Jetson chose to go without wings in the model presented here. That is also the same reason why I suggested a lifting body profile of the cabin and profiled motor pylons as stub wings. The only added complexity would involve swiveling the motors.
@@jwalker7650 Sounds like you need a hug or need to be heard. There's no limit to injecting (other than your mother) on posts. Of course they'd be 'light-weight' wings Mr. Gump. Good think you clarify the obvious. 🤣
@@rangerfontana591 I doubt the price difference will be that big by simply comparing aluminum alloy sports bicycle with a carbon composite sports bicycle which does not have that kind of price difference either.
Adding size to the rotors will also drain the batteries because of the extra power needed to move them. The only effective solutions are to increase the energy density of the batteries and use some kind of wing that could save power when planning.
I am not a pilot or aircraft engineer. However, I guess the solution to address the problem in battery power/mile range is just to add wings. A conventional ultralight aircraft can be fitted with 4 rotors with just the 2 front rotors with tilting capability. Once airborne, the 2 front rotors can be tilted forward and the 2 rear rotors are turned off and the aircraft is flying. No backward and sideways motion while hovering which depletes the battery.
Problem with adding wings is that it add a whole new set of aerodynamics and controls. Yes the range will be extended but it wont be as manuverable as it currently is.
@@ElectricAviation Well, I guess the answer to the ever pressing problem in evtol which is still insufficient battery power lies in the research and development of battery technology. A battery which can last up to at least 500 mile range is better.
the main problem of both - trying to solve it by batteries, they can put turbine which will provide enough power and keep couple small batteries for 1m emergency landing
I still want to see a video from Jetson 1 with their vehicle during harsh weather, i.e Thunderstorms, drought, winter, etc. Once i see that then im buying.
"The most obvious solution is to add more batteries" Incorrect, the most obvious solution is to tilt the rotors forward so you lose less energy to keeping the flyer afloat.
I don't see why you couldn't develop ultralight gas-powered combustion engines to generate power for the batteries and thus the rotors. Yeah, I know this is "Electric Aviation" but it would significantly increase the flight time.
There is a type of drone, pioneered by RC Heli Champion Curtis Youngblood, that uses a single motor to drive all four rotors at a constant speed and varies the pitch of individual rotors for maneuvers. He did this using a custom control board, but the hardware was mostly off-the-shelf model Helicopter parts that were repurposed. The reason I mention this is that if such a thing could be done at man-carrying scales, we could dispense with batteries altogether and use a lightweight, high-performance engine. Think liter-sized motorcycle engines. This would also improve maneuverability of the craft since rotor inertia would no longer restrict thrust changes. There are other benefits to Collective-Pitch rotors on multirotor craft like this, which are mentioned in the linked video, below. th-cam.com/video/TnGhEInTXYc/w-d-xo.html
I love the Jetson One. Adding a blimp is a poor idea. I hope a different solution can be found to increase flight time without major changes in the original or current configuration.
Looking at case 2 first, not knowing where they are going for part 'b', What Toyota are doing here is selling you structure, which in this case is ostensibly useless. So how do we make Jetson go further longer, we know there are 2 answers, the better battery we dont have, or add wings to reduce thrust and prolong battery life. So my wing plan is 2 delta wings, the canard is a reverse delta, the mainplane is conventional and sits above the canard as in a tandem wing. The mainplane is a transparent triangle above the pilot and forward of to aid visibility, and a seat tub in the top of the canard for the pilot. The props are situated at the outside apex of each delta, with the inboard 1.47 ft rotating with the motors to facilitate vertical thrust. This keeps the machine to the important 8ft width for transport, although it is arguably longer by 0.9m or 3ft All of the thrust would also be required to maintain the correct attitude of the machine to keep it in effective balance. The sum of both wings is 75 sq ft which when calculated to a Cl max of 1.3 makes a stall speed of 28mph keeping us within the UL specification. What I didnt figure out was the weight of the wing, which cancels some battery power, and the drag, and therefore thrust required to maintain 63mph, and as a consequence the endurance and therefore range. On this case as it was with Blackfly, it seems apparent that a tandem configuration is indeed a useful attribute.
not sure I went the right way here, what I attempted to do was use pressure shift to automatically adjust the attitude of the machine., and the intention was to limit speed to 62mph. oh well, ...
could add a fuel cell? Good breakdown. What we could have is some infrastructure... say a microwave beam that the craft can fly into which is intercepted under the craft and used to recharge? They have used microwave to transmit power.
Cost vs. usability time is terrible. I don't see these things ever getting widely used unless the cost drops substantially, and the flight times increase substantially. As they are now, they are basically a very expensive toy.
Drone racing I thought of a while ago and was like yes, like in ninja turtles. Where people fly the drones on obstacle courses over like miles, add like cool fireworks and various things in. Have small drones following to film it. And have the announcers on like a giant platform, or an airship with a platform above or below. Or maybe the announcers above and seating below so you can watch from the air if you have a premium ticket.
Hydrogen would increase energy density without increasing weight actually weight would decrease as the flight goes on. Also there are lighter materials that could be used like graphene and carbon fiber. Since its not going that fast or high it would be fine . It would also dignify the price tag. Hell since they could even use densified wood since they are only making what looks like a couple thousand of them. I agree with the fountain lift version they would have to move the propellers closer to the center but it would also make more sense . If we're doing that though then we should use turbines not propellers .
Hydrogen is a lost cause. Read Honda's report. The spent decades trying to make it work, in the end they said it's just not feasible for any form of transportation.
This is technology that really could never work without a massive battery Improvement. But I wonder how a battery powered gyrocopter would do in comparison, because the weight is not lifted by the batteries. Only the rotors left and adding bigger rotors for more batteries is only an addition of some drag.
It seems that the SD03 could shed a lot of excess weight by removing all that cowling. Strip it down to just the cockpit, frame, battery compartment, and rotors. Wonder how much weight that would save and how much flight time would improve?
Both need perpendicular propeller which uses pedal assist tech for forward momentum and need aerofoils to reduce battery needs. 25-35 miles range, top speed about 20-30mph, charge time 4 hours. That's it, essentially a flying bike. Price needs to be below $2k. Good luck
@@ElectricAviation yea, goals are not always met and higher price is ok but it has to be as cheap as possible and as a electric pedal assist you can get more power from the human to reduce price and weight. Could even use existing ebikes, $700 sold separately and you just sell the conversion kit.
@jacob spair You can get at most 500 W of constant pedalling power from humans. Jetson 1 needs more than 50 kW of power to remain airborne. So pedalling will only provide about 1% energy.
@@ElectricAviation great analyses, however that much power is only needed for vtol whereas when the craft can use a small 350w pedal assist motor for forward momentum and the craft needs to be seated on aerofoils so the energy needed reduces. Does that make sense? Quadcopter for vtol and stabilization and pedal assist power for forward momentum and aerofoil flight, range needed is only 25 miles to compare with a basic ebike.
It seems at most. Both are capable aircraft except for power supply. The issue with power is more to do with the power efficiency of the batteries. Given some more development the batteries could effectively increase flight time significantly.
I would love to buy if they had a 2 hr flight time or more. A person could get a birds eye view of a persons surrounding area. I would have lots of fun flying around in the first one
We just need to wait for better battery technology. Just waiting for that solid state battery with graphine. I also don't understand why they can't make a hybrid for now, gas and electric.
I can lower the weight of any aircraft, I can improve on flight safety, Maneuverability and increase the overall speed. I can see several improvements that could be engineered. Starting with Hamster ball inspired Cockpit for the Pilot) This allows for another self charging option, as well as negating some of the G forces on the pilots.
Battery degradation is also a concern. How many cycles will the battery last before it needs to be replaced ? Very high C rating and full cycle use degrade the battery faster. Subtract 20-30% of the flight time after xx or xxx cycles ? Thats the current problem in small electric airplanes
I would imagine most use cases would keep at low altitudes. Although as popular saying goes - speed = life and altitude = life insurance. It wont me the case here. I really doubt these small rotors could in case of failure auto rotate in any meaningful way due to their tiny mass to keep spinning any useful length of time. Nor will it glide. In my meaningless opinion for these designs to be useful for transporting people, really going to have to adopt tilting mechanism and some small wings for bit of ground effect. Otherwise it seems like a dead end technology.
They all have fixed pitch props from what I’ve seen. A variable pitch prop that can go into negative pitch is required to autorotate…but like you mentioned these rotors probably don’t even have enough mass to do anything beneficial.
A feasible safety strategy would be to add wings and fly above best glide speed so that you can still convert speed to altitude and deploy an emergency parachute.
@@noalear as I said. A ballistic emergency parachute system only works, if the vehicle is within deployment parameters. Under a certain speed and altitude, the entire parachute system is just dead weight (just adding energy to dissipate in the crash 😃). So, if the vehicle will regularly NOT be flying in conditions where a ballistic parachute system can actually be of help, it will be more honest to skip it entirely and save weight and complexity.
Great video, but it's the BlackFly for me. With its black-and-white wings, Opener's craft would help me pretend I was flying a De Haviland Mosquito from WW2. (I can dream, can't I?)
100kg is such a bad limit... i see a huge potential for EMS personal to get in touch with manned drones in the future but technology needs to improve a lot if the jetson one is the current limit. the mobility and the agility would make this drone a real advantage in big cities where medical helicopters have difficulties to find a fitting landing spot. of course we`re far away from transportation of a patient but the response time for professionals would blast this scenario. hopefully this tech will rise much faster than expected!
It feels like we are in the "New Kitty Hawk" era, just starting with fly machines and where flytime is measured in minutes. A new beginning once again :-)
They couldn't put pedals on this. Too many people are out of shape these days.
@@rangerfontana591 lmaooo. Ice way of saying they FAT AS HELL LOL.
Jetson is the one I like-But-"New Kitty Hawk"? For 15 minutes? $90,000 Dollars? Well, ok-but at the rate of these so called "personal VTOL" aircraft pop up on my radar? Complete with slick CGI videos and "grand announcements" for "commuting" -They always end up moving around at a bare hover, only to skim some field miles away from any urban setting.
Battery Life dependent on heat and as usual, technology.
Still would want one-but the very design gives birth to ideas of what this type of aircraft can do, should be doing. Yet the technology (as well as the decibels) make these aircraft "prohibitive" to operate anywhere but in CGI or a deserted field!
We need to be thinking of Frequency, Oscillations, Electro-Magnetic pulses etc. The air around us is already charged-we just haven't figured out the frequency needed to develop thrust, lift and forward movement from what is already given to us by nature!
All these companies should come together under one single entity with one design and one goal-To make a personal commuter aircraft that could be spun off into Agriculture, Law Enforcement, Search/Rescue, Air Freight and, the occasional jaunt out to the countryside.
Until that happens-all these craft will be relegated to Aviation oddities -crafts that are no more than a flying weed wackers, barely moving out of hover.
@@shannonstewart4792 😂
Yes but we’re like....20-30 years behind schedule 😄
They need to hurry up I’m getting older lol
Would buy a Jetson if I had enough spare change. Sounds so much fun!
Seems a similar problem to the rocket equation, regarding fuel v weight. Another fascinating video. Thanks!
Thanks again!
Delta V
Agreed, ... put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. No heavy metals or rare materials that are very hard on environment to dig up, and far less c02 of production and recycling when the time comes.
These personal vehjcles are cool but they are simply enlarged drones that I can buy at best buys. What is the maintenance on these things? How much will your power bill go up ? And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?
Besides, i dont want millions of morons flying above me, when they can barely drive their cars presently. Just imagine the havoc...
Yeah, They are cool but just a very very expensive toy.
@@sasquatch2753
"put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. "
600cc motorcycle engine is zero emission? News to me. Citation needed. If it's not then no, problem not solved.
"What is the maintenance on these things? "
Damn near zero. Only moving part is for each propeller so like four moving parts.
"How much will your power bill go up ? "
Negligible. Remember a fossil fuel engine is a heat engine so it is limited by the Carnot limit...so it can't be more than 50% efficient or so. Whereas an electric motor is 90% efficient. Also even if the power plant is coal powered, it burns far less fuel to generate enough power for an electric vehicle than a fossil fuel engine burns to do the same thing.
"And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?"
Part of going green is eliminating fossil fuel as a source of power. Not for power, not for propulsion. Source of plastic only (and even that will go away when plant based plastic becomes more prevalent).
So nuclear and renewables. Some time in the next 20 years, the last fossil fuel plant in the western world will be built, replaced by nuclear and renewables.
@Jan 6 was "Wall Street Putsch" part 2 Thanks for sharing... This could be the intermediary solution, but solid state is still the end game... Unless you're persuaded beyond doubt that DAFCs will be the future... Then I don't know what else....
You can also add that they need to step off the X8 octocopter configuration. The bottom 4 motors run very inefficient due to the top motors prop wash. They would probably get the same amount of lift and more flight time with a hexa configuration as long as the propellers are not overlapping one each other.
But contra-rotating is always more efficient than single rotating.
@@manofsan but you always have contra rotating on a drone else you cant maneuver the drone as you have to slow down the one rotation to let opposite rotation move the mass. the only way you can create a better coaxial effect if top motors are always in the same offset as the bottom motors as you never break the stream of air as much. as the perfect example is the K-MAX helicopter
@@Drone_Out - KMAX has the rotors in sync to keep the blades from colliding. Rotors that don't intersect shouldn't automatically have to be in sync with each other. The lower rotor is simply collecting the spin energy imparted by the upper one, and converting it into thrust. Btw, have you heard about Airspeeder? They're trying to do some kind of pod-racing games with these things.
ok back again, this is a really hard thing to do.They have wisely made Jetson as light as possible, so increasing range means sacrificing vehicle structure to add range.
Because the few ways of increasing flight efficiency would include rotating thrusters, or swash plates or wings, or either of the first two and wings.
What you have to bargain with is that moving forward with less thrust saves battery power, which you would have less of because of added structure.
1. In any event if you do this other effects become apparent, that transiting into forward flight requires control manoeuvres which complicates use.
Said complications go further when you will find your minimum speed just went up a lot without further control manoeuvres to slow down
2. If the machine is purely for entertainment, like a flying dirt bike, it is quite optimal because it doesnt 'really' matter how far you go. Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis.
If however the thought was you could fly around a neighbourhood, even if its rural, you need to have more equipment and more weight to work with, like add wings.
That of course takes us out of the unregulated end of the aviation market and the horror that these are multi engine machines and pilot training in that sphere is ever more difficult.
GOTO 2. keep inside unregulated space for the time being, Optimise battery, weight and control synthesis.
As an aside I would expect a reformation of regulation in this space.
Maybe retracting wings that are made of hang glider or paraglide material. Like a wing suit
There isn't necessarily a need for control surfaces.
Even a small wing, fitted between the forward and rear rotors could provide lift at higher speeds provided it is pitched slightly upward so that it lies almost horizontal when the aircraft pitches down to generate forward thrust.
The added lift would not be enormous but it would more than compensate the added weight.
Excellent analysis. I love the entire experience of the Jetson, someday hopefully it will sell for a fraction of the $92k they want for it today
Thomas Haynes has
They need to move out of California to the mid west where it really started
Jetson is the best for me in many ways, the greatest being a sence of 'Spirit' and homegrown passion.🍀
It seems like adding some lift surfaces (ie) wings and a V tail might increase the flight time. BUT then the weight increaes and I believe you would legally need a Sports Pilot license which is what they were trying to avoid.
Very good , concisely made video. It puts into perspective very clearly what is needed to further develop these into viable options. Higher density batteries, improved power to weight and possibly an augmented lift option (fixed wing) or larger blades. I'm sure if we take a peak 10yrs into the future, the biggest change will be battery density.
Increased rotors is the fix... for now.
Cannot wait to see what kind of batteries we develop in the next 5-10 years. This industry is solely dependent on a battery with less weight but a lot more power inside. Cant wait!!😆
Thank you for an intelligent presentation devoid of drama and nonsense.
35 minutes flight time would be amazing! Keen to know how well it recovers from a motor failure.
I do believe by law it must have a parachute.
Parachute is onboard alreddy
Some forget that flight at low levels increases drag. There is not enough updraft to effectively counteract the drag from the same forces. The propellers are actually forcing air downward, cutting though levels of air propelling it upward. Not forcing against the ground to create lift. Otherwise flight would be limited to a few feet, or yards above the surface. It is not like taking off from a aircraft carrier in a jet engine, with the engine placed against a wall for thrust. Vertical props work by pushing air, not pushing against the ground.
Adding wings would quadruple the flight time. Powered lift is great for TOL, and a bit of loitering. But it's very inefficient compared to the aerodynamic lift of fixed wings.
Agreed. There is a reason airplanes dominate aerial travel. The first company to make a 2hr+30 min reserve plane thats "affordable" will sell like hotcakes.
Bye Aerospace's EFlyer 2 is the one that has 2hr + 30 min reserves. I dont think its a budget aircraft though. It is a good option for a trainer
Plus wings don’t just fall out of the sky when the fuel runs out.
@@gpaull2 Depending on rotor size (disk loading) autorotation is possible.
Helicopters also don't just fall when the engine quits
Indeed. Jetson is aware of this, but deliberately chose this configuration to go forward.
It does not mean, that future variants might not also have wings for forward flight.
What would increase flight time by adding just some minimum weight is if a small removable air foil wing design that could snap on, or slide and lock on the bottom of the aircraft that would increase flight time by removing the weight constraints on the motors when in forward flight and if the motors could then tilt forward would even then increase the speed of the aircraft of that of the many small fixed wing aircraft. Forward control still could then be accomplished by slowing down the right, or left motors to then turn left, or right and to descend while in forward motions would then still be in just decreasing all of the motors at the same time some, or by the tilting of all of the motors at the same time vertically. Adding the design to tilt the motors horizontally will add a bit more weight that would be imposed on the wings more while flying horizontally and only on the motors while just in vertical flight mode.
1. increase aerodynamic efficiency, add clear very thin plexiglass windshield on the jetson
2. add fabric wing, or make the underside of the jetson a lifting body design using fabric material
3. add 1 large pusher prop
4. use hybrid gas engine.
Having a gas engine with an alternatot to charge rhe battery will greatly improve its range
I like what you're thinking. I'm sure somewhere someone is crunching the numbers on that
The question is: can it powerloop? 😇
Now on a more serious level, would adding small wings close to the fuselage increase the gliding and thus the flight time?
Exactly, the entire shape should be designed to increase lift.
@@MpeshaBrosMD That's what the rotors are for. Anything else ADDS WEIGHT.
Short answer is yes, quite simply. The people designing these things are laser focused on "no lifting surfaces" brute force flight.
If one was simply looking for the maximum flight time regardless of package dimensions you could add full size glider wings and 90 degree rotating engines to transition from VTOL to forward flight.
Flight time would go from minutes to hours.
Would adding wings reclassify it? Would a pilot's license then be required?
@@01foote01 Probably, as wings would add weight.
The type of lift isn't a factor in whether or not powered aircraft require a license, it is based on weight, amount of fuel carried, and top speed.
Excellent analysis as always. You are answering the exact questions I asked myself after watching a promotion video for the Jetson.
Great to hear!
Jetson is the way to go, but, I think i will wait for the Jetson 2!
Excellent video. Great hearing the weight to flight time calculations.
Glad it was helpful!
Easy solution for longer flight times: Kerosine - with 50 times higher energy density than Li-Batteries.
This could be combined with a generator and buffer battery if one wants to keep the electric motors by all means.
This young engineer is a genius. I love the Orb. Cheers
Can't wait until Machines like these can fly for 2 hours and Recharge quickly, Be a Dream come True!!
Solution is a 4 winged "plane", acting like a flying wind turbine, to recharge the batteries during flight. An electric aircraft could use roll maneuvers, so the plane wings can spin on the opposite direction, with full 360° revolutions on its longitudinal axis. First pair of wings spin on one side, second pair of wings spin faster on the opposite side, this way the pilot or passengers will never be upside-down.
Best channel for this stuff.
It may, be but I suggest this channel tends to emphasize all the upsides of these technologies, and neglects to address the downsides.
Love this! These machine's are straight out of a James Bond film.☺️☺️☺️
these are both playthings of the mega rich. It would be chaos if everybody had one.
Jetson 1 is obviously much more superior to that other one. I am wondering if it is possible to combine this layout with some kind of lift generating surfaces when there is forward motion (wings, but does not have to be wings).
Profile the front motor blades like a helicopters, and tilt them slightly back, and you can gyrocopter the whole front end for free at forward speed.
@@benwilms3942 They could build the airframe out of carbon fiber which would help increase the range, not so much the price.
@@readhistory2023 Maybe, maybe not... Any time carbon fibre pops up, it's money grab I hear afterwards!!
Yes, then you basically get the Blackfly. Anything else requires tilting surfaces.
@@KevinATJumpWorks Blackfly is one of the best designs currently at that category. The only things I would add to it is a second seat, better visibility cockpit and a top fixed elaron wing for in flight stability.
I really like the idea of the Jetson One, but $92k is way too much for 5 min of flight time. Personally, I think if we are going to get good use out of these kinds of airframes we need a lightweight hybrid gas/electric power system. A sort of auxiliary power unit to help keep batteries up while flying. Larger installations could use a turbo shaft generator while smaller ones could use two or four stroke engines for their APU. Just my 2¢, especially for the ultralight crowd.
Then again, auxiliary power from a hybrid system would add considerably to the weight AND cost, especially if a turbine engine were to be employed with respect to cost. Added to that, the Jetson seems to be particularly sensitive to any additions in weight.
the jetson has a 20 min air time
I wonder if an alternator system would aid in battery life and flight time... Simply recharging the battery as the rotors spin and flight continues and maybe compromise a little bit of the altitude for the Jetson
jetson should add those larger props and possibly small lift surfaces and a forward prop. They have the weight disposition to do it .
Reduce the drag of the design. But that would add weight and cost. This is a dead end without a new powersource that not yet exists. I believe you are right that bigger rotors could benefit.
I think that Jetson 1 is heading in the right direction, unfortunate about flight time and weight restriction, room for improvement, as I am sure will happen in the near future. Jetson 1 out Performs any rival complications, they are surely in a field of their own.
EXCELLENT information! Keep up the GREAT work, sir!
Howcome is SkyDrive so shaky esp. if backed by a huge car company and a tiny startup Jetson flies so well? Are SkyDrive designers so bad?
I will love to buy one but waiting untill they're in better development...I need more flight time...but they both are awesome...
I love the innovation of these and the idea of flying finally. But, only thing that scares me is air traffic control and safety. This could be difficult considering people will have the ability to go just about anywhere in any direction they desire versus when in a land vehicle your somewhat limited because of landscape so it was a little easier to traffic control people. It would be pretty scary just witnessing someone fall out of the sky randomly and land on your sidewalk table at a restaurant because they clipped a rotor or crashed into someone else, not to mention more chance of death cause you didn’t just crash you also now have to plummet to the earth. At least in a car you have a chance to survive after impact if you crash. I’m sure this is one of the many reasons its taken us so long to adopt flying as an option in our everyday travel even though we’ve had the technology to do so
If anything in metro areas these vehicles would be tied into an automated flight system. Where there would be strict zoning as to where to fly. There would be flight corridors as to not interfere with buildings and people. Let's say there was a medical emergency and the pilot jerked the the craft to the right. It might respond to that input but at a certain point the system would meet the boundary and stop going in that direction no matter how hard the stick is being forced.
Cars had exactly the same problem in the beginning. It worked out well.
@@jaguillermol yeah but that was different cause cars can’t go everywhere. When your in the sky there’s literally no limits or terrain to stop you. How do you control that?
@@fabreezo They could before. There were no asfalt roads then. Their wheels were very big
@@jaguillermol you can’t drive a car over a canyon or a cliff or through the Amazon rainforest or through the ocean and rivers but a flying vehicle? Yes. No limits. Not the same situation
They're just not ready yet. I need to go 35 miles across water to get to the nearest grocery store what you have won't work. I look forward to further updates thank you
Pipistrel Velis Electro would do the task. It needs a landing strip though
Jetson one goes 63mph
Love your videos. Very interesting topic. Thanks for your efforts to share this information!
Ellon Musks design had a central motor and propellor, this allows him to charge his vehicles while descending altitude! There are a ton of ideas incorporating small solar panels. If the motors can tilt slightly for forward travel, set up a charge circuit for each of the motors and program rear propellors to tilt the same way. Funnel some air creating scoops along the sides front and rear of the craft. Create some contoured vents to direct air to the central fan to allow new controls to blow air down constantly during flight. The motor will provide constant charge during flight. Once you program it properly.
I swapped mine with a good ol' fashion Briggs & Stratton 5hp. Works fantastic!
We aren't even close to these being mainstream. We need 300 miles of range or at least 2 to 3hrs of flight.
The Jetson one is not meant for long distance commuting. Its just like a Dodgem car or a Go kart, that you will be able to fly in certain areas
@@ElectricAviation ...that's disappointing at $100K. My dream of personal free flight will have to wait....
Inventing unlimited energy technology is closer to reality than antigravity , combined that with propellers that don't have fans, and create little noise to none at the same time would be awesome and safer
Realistically speaking it's 10 years too early for these "gadgets". I wouldn't even consider these things other than just toys and execution machines at this point.
I'm really looking forward to getting seated immediately in my favorite restaurants.
I think the video speaks for it self on who is ahead.
What I learned from this video is that I'll never own one, not with a $92,000 price tag.
I love this whole concept! Definitely the way of the future.
if jetson one wil decrase price to 60.000$ probably can dominate whole ultralight market
Very informative and concise video, thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I would love to hover above my city in a jetson one while eating lunch and enjoying the view!
That Jetson look so awesome, if they could put a hydrogen engine in it and still keep the weight down it would be a GAME CHANGER 👍👍
I see huge things coming to this company in the future.
So two strategies are suggested:
1) Get some uber light weight lifting wings on the Jetson. Once installed, and the thrust required to maintain lift is satisfied,
2) Takeoff with a long extension cord, say 150 meters, to get the machine to wingborne speed, then reduce throttle.
Bet you'd add 5-10 minutes of flight time with these two strategies alone. Then, higher power density batteries, and pretty soon, you're talking an hour of flight time....maybe. Obviously, weight is everything.
I think they're awesome I wonder about the pancake shape they used on an old Antiquated WWII plane built for short takeoffs and Landings
I suspect we're at that awkward point in the design of these things where it's just approaching feasibility... Hence the 5 minute flight times! Things like solid state batteries will have significant impacts on practicality. I figure these companies are about 10 years early here.
I think biofuel and a constant rev IC engine driving a gen would get them to feasibility real quick, then disrupt the power train with an all electric down the line.
Yeah, solid state batteries was already covered. #awesome
The longest possible flight time would be where the greatest possible fraction of mass is made up of battery. A battery with rotors attached and nothing else would be about the best possible scenario.
I feel the body of the jetson should be enclosed with fabric as used in Hawker Hurricane and most prior planes and shaped to give a little lift as a "flying body". Objective is to reduce load on batteries once at height and moving at speed.
Lifting body and stub wings instead of the unprofiled motor pylons
@@daszieher Wings = weight = less time in the air. Well done. You're wrong again.
@@rangerfontana591 you seem incapable of understanding what you read, so let me spell it out for you.
Yes, wings=weight and complexity, which is precisely why Jetson chose to go without wings in the model presented here.
That is also the same reason why I suggested a lifting body profile of the cabin and profiled motor pylons as stub wings.
The only added complexity would involve swiveling the motors.
@@jwalker7650 Sounds like you need a hug or need to be heard. There's no limit to injecting (other than your mother) on posts. Of course they'd be 'light-weight' wings Mr. Gump. Good think you clarify the obvious. 🤣
@@jwalker7650 blah-blah-blah-blah... is all I heard. Thx. for playing. 😂🤣😂🤣
If Jetson swaps the Aluminum frame to carbon composite, I believe it will further reduce the overall weight resulting to better flight time.
Then mult. the cost by 5-fold. Oh... well done you!
@@rangerfontana591 I doubt the price difference will be that big by simply comparing aluminum alloy sports bicycle with a carbon composite sports bicycle which does not have that kind of price difference either.
Adding size to the rotors will also drain the batteries because of the extra power needed to move them. The only effective solutions are to increase the energy density of the batteries and use some kind of wing that could save power when planning.
I am not a pilot or aircraft engineer. However, I guess the solution to address the problem in battery power/mile range is just to add wings. A conventional ultralight aircraft can be fitted with 4 rotors with just the 2 front rotors with tilting capability. Once airborne, the 2 front rotors can be tilted forward and the 2 rear rotors are turned off and the aircraft is flying. No backward and sideways motion while hovering which depletes the battery.
Problem with adding wings is that it add a whole new set of aerodynamics and controls. Yes the range will be extended but it wont be as manuverable as it currently is.
@@ElectricAviation Well, I guess the answer to the ever pressing problem in evtol which is still insufficient battery power lies in the research and development of battery technology. A battery which can last up to at least 500 mile range is better.
What you should do is tow the weight supported by a tow cable, you don't have to fly so high keep it close to ground
the main problem of both - trying to solve it by batteries, they can put turbine which will provide enough power and keep couple small batteries for 1m emergency landing
I still want to see a video from Jetson 1 with their vehicle during harsh weather, i.e Thunderstorms, drought, winter, etc.
Once i see that then im buying.
Jetson 1 is meant for recreational flying in private grounds
We've got to come up with some type of hover conversion device. Kinda like what they have in the matrix movies.
"The most obvious solution is to add more batteries" Incorrect, the most obvious solution is to tilt the rotors forward so you lose less energy to keeping the flyer afloat.
or as mentioned in the video larger rotor.
Without aerodynamic lift (wings) the props will always need to be supplying 100% of the lift.
I don't see why you couldn't develop ultralight gas-powered combustion engines to generate power for the batteries and thus the rotors. Yeah, I know this is "Electric Aviation" but it would significantly increase the flight time.
Hovering is nice and all, but if we want range and speed we should start on designing a short span wing
Forget flying cars, these make more sense.
Very well explained. Thank you.
Considering the octaquad X8 frame, the most viable solution with current technology is an hybrid gas/electric.
Oh yeah! I would love to fly one!
There is a type of drone, pioneered by RC Heli Champion Curtis Youngblood, that uses a single motor to drive all four rotors at a constant speed and varies the pitch of individual rotors for maneuvers. He did this using a custom control board, but the hardware was mostly off-the-shelf model Helicopter parts that were repurposed.
The reason I mention this is that if such a thing could be done at man-carrying scales, we could dispense with batteries altogether and use a lightweight, high-performance engine. Think liter-sized motorcycle engines. This would also improve maneuverability of the craft since rotor inertia would no longer restrict thrust changes. There are other benefits to Collective-Pitch rotors on multirotor craft like this, which are mentioned in the linked video, below.
th-cam.com/video/TnGhEInTXYc/w-d-xo.html
I love the Jetson One. Adding a blimp is a poor idea. I hope a different solution can be found to increase flight time without major changes in the original or current configuration.
Good information. When the flight time is extended so will the interest.
Yes it will
It has a collapsible structure for reducing impact during a crash. It better be able to handle at least 9.8...you get the point.
Skydrive stays in it's cage for the whole demo... LOL! While the Jetson1 is zipping around everywhere. Has anyone been foolish to even buy a Skydrive?
Think I’ll wait 20 years when they can add a few more seconds to the flight and come down in price
I have a material 7 times lighter then aluminum , perfect for this application.
Rotor increases great but is there a way to remove blade protection?
Maybe they need to use "Saw" vertical trajectory :moving forward aerovehicle fly up, then fly down with recuperation of energy
Looking at case 2 first, not knowing where they are going for part 'b', What Toyota are doing here is selling you structure, which in this case is ostensibly useless.
So how do we make Jetson go further longer, we know there are 2 answers, the better battery we dont have, or add wings to reduce thrust and prolong battery life.
So my wing plan is 2 delta wings, the canard is a reverse delta, the mainplane is conventional and sits above the canard as in a tandem wing.
The mainplane is a transparent triangle above the pilot and forward of to aid visibility, and a seat tub in the top of the canard for the pilot.
The props are situated at the outside apex of each delta, with the inboard 1.47 ft rotating with the motors to facilitate vertical thrust.
This keeps the machine to the important 8ft width for transport, although it is arguably longer by 0.9m or 3ft
All of the thrust would also be required to maintain the correct attitude of the machine to keep it in effective balance.
The sum of both wings is 75 sq ft which when calculated to a Cl max of 1.3 makes a stall speed of 28mph keeping us within the UL specification.
What I didnt figure out was the weight of the wing, which cancels some battery power,
and the drag, and therefore thrust required to maintain 63mph, and as a consequence the endurance and therefore range.
On this case as it was with Blackfly, it seems apparent that a tandem configuration is indeed a useful attribute.
not sure I went the right way here, what I attempted to do was use pressure shift to automatically adjust the attitude of the machine., and the intention was to limit speed to 62mph.
oh well, ...
Great upload buddy.
YOU sir, have a new subscriber 👍
could add a fuel cell? Good breakdown.
What we could have is some infrastructure... say a microwave beam that the craft can fly into which is intercepted under the craft and used to recharge? They have used microwave to transmit power.
Cost vs. usability time is terrible. I don't see these things ever getting widely used unless the cost drops substantially, and the flight times increase substantially. As they are now, they are basically a very expensive toy.
Drone racing I thought of a while ago and was like yes, like in ninja turtles. Where people fly the drones on obstacle courses over like miles, add like cool fireworks and various things in. Have small drones following to film it. And have the announcers on like a giant platform, or an airship with a platform above or below. Or maybe the announcers above and seating below so you can watch from the air if you have a premium ticket.
Hydrogen would increase energy density without increasing weight actually weight would decrease as the flight goes on. Also there are lighter materials that could be used like graphene and carbon fiber. Since its not going that fast or high it would be fine . It would also dignify the price tag. Hell since they could even use densified wood since they are only making what looks like a couple thousand of them. I agree with the fountain lift version they would have to move the propellers closer to the center but it would also make more sense . If we're doing that though then we should use turbines not propellers .
Hydrogen is a lost cause. Read Honda's report. The spent decades trying to make it work, in the end they said it's just not feasible for any form of transportation.
This is technology that really could never work without a massive battery Improvement. But I wonder how a battery powered gyrocopter would do in comparison, because the weight is not lifted by the batteries. Only the rotors left and adding bigger rotors for more batteries is only an addition of some drag.
It seems that the SD03 could shed a lot of excess weight by removing all that cowling. Strip it down to just the cockpit, frame, battery compartment, and rotors. Wonder how much weight that would save and how much flight time would improve?
Both need perpendicular propeller which uses pedal assist tech for forward momentum and need aerofoils to reduce battery needs. 25-35 miles range, top speed about 20-30mph, charge time 4 hours. That's it, essentially a flying bike. Price needs to be below $2k. Good luck
$2k is a bit low dont you think?
@@ElectricAviation yea, goals are not always met and higher price is ok but it has to be as cheap as possible and as a electric pedal assist you can get more power from the human to reduce price and weight. Could even use existing ebikes, $700 sold separately and you just sell the conversion kit.
@jacob spair You can get at most 500 W of constant pedalling power from humans. Jetson 1 needs more than 50 kW of power to remain airborne. So pedalling will only provide about 1% energy.
@@ElectricAviation great analyses, however that much power is only needed for vtol whereas when the craft can use a small 350w pedal assist motor for forward momentum and the craft needs to be seated on aerofoils so the energy needed reduces. Does that make sense? Quadcopter for vtol and stabilization and pedal assist power for forward momentum and aerofoil flight, range needed is only 25 miles to compare with a basic ebike.
Two words “Solar Energy “
Yea why not
It seems at most. Both are capable aircraft except for power supply. The issue with power is more to do with the power efficiency of the batteries. Given some more development the batteries could effectively increase flight time significantly.
How about giving it attachable wings? That will allow it to coast in the air saving battery life.
I would love to buy if they had a 2 hr flight time or more. A person could get a birds eye view of a persons surrounding area. I would have lots of fun flying around in the first one
We just need to wait for better battery technology. Just waiting for that solid state battery with graphine. I also don't understand why they can't make a hybrid for now, gas and electric.
I can lower the weight of any aircraft, I can improve on flight safety, Maneuverability and increase the overall speed. I can see several improvements that could be engineered. Starting with Hamster ball inspired Cockpit for the Pilot) This allows for another self charging option, as well as negating some of the G forces on the pilots.
I'm thinking solar power built on top could slow it down a little but more time and distance we would gain
Battery degradation is also a concern. How many cycles will the battery last before it needs to be replaced ? Very high C rating and full cycle use degrade the battery faster. Subtract 20-30% of the flight time after xx or xxx cycles ? Thats the current problem in small electric airplanes
Excellent presentation. Make more videos!
Thank you, I will
I would imagine most use cases would keep at low altitudes. Although as popular saying goes - speed = life and altitude = life insurance.
It wont me the case here. I really doubt these small rotors could in case of failure auto rotate in any meaningful way due to their tiny mass to keep spinning any useful length of time. Nor will it glide. In my meaningless opinion for these designs to be useful for transporting people, really going to have to adopt tilting mechanism and some small wings for bit of ground effect. Otherwise it seems like a dead end technology.
They all have fixed pitch props from what I’ve seen. A variable pitch prop that can go into negative pitch is required to autorotate…but like you mentioned these rotors probably don’t even have enough mass to do anything beneficial.
A feasible safety strategy would be to add wings and fly above best glide speed so that you can still convert speed to altitude and deploy an emergency parachute.
I believe these come with parachutes.
@@noalear as I said. A ballistic emergency parachute system only works, if the vehicle is within deployment parameters.
Under a certain speed and altitude, the entire parachute system is just dead weight (just adding energy to dissipate in the crash 😃).
So, if the vehicle will regularly NOT be flying in conditions where a ballistic parachute system can actually be of help, it will be more honest to skip it entirely and save weight and complexity.
Great video, but it's the BlackFly for me. With its black-and-white wings, Opener's craft would help me pretend I was flying a De Haviland Mosquito from WW2. (I can dream, can't I?)
This may sound foolish but... could Helium be of assistance with lift/weight?
100kg is such a bad limit...
i see a huge potential for EMS personal to get in touch with manned drones in the future but technology needs to improve a lot if the jetson one is the current limit.
the mobility and the agility would make this drone a real advantage in big cities where medical helicopters have difficulties to find a fitting landing spot. of course we`re far away from transportation of a patient but the response time for professionals would blast this scenario.
hopefully this tech will rise much faster than expected!