@@frostfamily5321 that would be hard as the technology is the same as Voith-Schneider drives used on ships, and they say as much. There could be other patentable elements, maybe the control system, but the thrusters are old tech re-purposed.
Oh but they think they DID improve on the human body though. They cut off male parts and make them LOOK like females now trying to make it so they can have babies. NOT GONNA WORK
Yeah physics doesn't follow fads. Once an optimal design is found any changes just make it less than optimal. If a change makes it work better then it was not quite optimal in the first place.
I’m an aerospace engineer, fun fact: Turbines create thrust not lift. A wing’s curved shape creates lift as it moves through the air. Propeller blades have a similar shape for the same reason. Blades in a jet turbine also have the same shape, but they don’t use this to create lift or thrust. Instead, several layers of blades suck in and compress air, which is directed to the combustion chamber and nozzle.
I would argue that the blades are used to create thrust. The compression stage is a necessary part of the thrust making process. The thrust is of course a way to describe the mass flow rate out of the engine - but this is the result of combustion, caused by compressed air and fuel, caused by the compression stage, caused by the blades.
@@pfarraldcash6095 Exactly! Steam technology and paddle wheels are cool and good looking. They are not efficient, low maintenance or easy to handle properly and very dangerous if mishandled in just the right way. See April 27, 1865, the Sultana, a Mississippi river side paddle steamer. Actually, much steam equipment has become more dangerous now than 50-100 years ago, as the number of people with proper training and understanding has dropped with it no longer being in wide use - not including steam turbine electrical power generation, large steam-powered ships, or any nuclear-powered steam generation, of course.
Early windmills from middle east were built this way as it was easier to change the angle of the blade for speed adjustment back in those times, so you can't really say it's a modern design to be honest.
glad to see the people in the comments are not taking this bullshit. Next level of not taking this bullshit is to stop consuming and interacting in these videos, don't go down your level people.
For real. Fuckin sick of people discovering something they didn't know about and saying it a new tech. Fun fact: that video from "2021" is from 2017 lol
@@zbossgamer3400seems like a simplified, non-bionic ornithopter (entomopter?) wing: still using the most basic principle without trying to copy the complex anatomy and movement of the natural thing
Not really. A paddle wheel produces thrust by push against the water. This is making lift using venturi principle expanded with Bernoulli's theorem. It's closer to a helicopter that spin the rotor along the x axis and not the z axis.
It seems extremely inefficient. Four rotors verses one main rotor and a tail rotor, and lots of drag, is another negative. It failed in the early 20th century. It is still a fun project. But, that is all it is going to be, using this technique. The Magnus effect aeroplane was similar also. It failed as well.
Jet engines dont create lift. They provide thrust so that the wings with sufficient airspeed create lift Edit: Ladies and Gentlemen I thought it need not be said that this was a generalized statement as in general and civil aviation the primary lift generating component at cruise the wings generate the lift. Of course the thrust generating component has a force in the direction it is pointing, so if you direct your thrust downwards yes tour thrust will be producing more upwards force on the craft. This generalization is very common form of abstraction to simplify the model. Of course all models are wrong but some models are useful. It is general8zed at cruise in general and civil aviation where AOA is very small the thrust component is not producing much lift so the wings are the main lift generating component, so the statement engines don't create lift, the wings do that with airspeed is not entirely correct, it is also not flat wrong. Like how staing electricity takes the path of least resistance is wrong as electricity takes everypath with current proportionate to the inverse of resistance in said path; but that makes modeling complicated so we say electricity takes the path of least resistance, it is not entirely correct it is also not wrong.
@@lukasvavrinec5380 yeah you are correct to be fair, that said if you had a jet engine moving through the air at a high enough angle of attack, the engine body would create some lift 😂😂
@@YuFow yes you are correct, if you are at high enough aoa and are going at certain speed you can generate enough lift even with flat plate to make airplane flying, but it is not practical. Neither F-35 or Harrier is using engine in such a way that it generates lift.
But we should comment at all and yet I'm here too. It's evil. I try to just dislike and move on. I can't even say this is particularly horrible. It is, but at least it tried to have a point.
For a paper plane, yes. I'd your point was solid, running out of fuel wouldn't be much concern, but it is. So your point is watery at best and cannot be used as a counter in this scenario or application. This is to "replace cars" and I don't see wings and a jet engine being ideal for that. Even if you insist, at an appropriate size to fit 2- 4 humans and still park in a house or maneuver in a city, wings wouldn't work to keep it in flying. It would drop to earth immediately. Context.
@@robbylebotha Who mentioned running out of fuel. Running out of fuel as not a real issue beyond pilot error. Engine failure however is an issue. Also most of these localized commutes are going to be done by autonomous vehicle strategies from companies like Wisk. Also these designs fly on fly by wire concepts that do not allow for mechanical back up so the computer system becomes the single point of failure.
Propellers are not "too old school," they are by far the better choice for low speed propulsion, particularly when takeoff distance is a concern. That is why they continue to be used in craft like the c-130. The wheel, a cornerstone of modern life, is millenia old.
@@user-wl5ne6pk6zthis isn't new technology. It's really old and is hyper inefficient vs regular rotors. That's why in 1927 it was dropped for our modern prop.
Uhhh the cable was just a backup so that if it didnt work it catches it. You can clearly see there is slack in the line as it goes up.... .plus, they have done multiple outdoor flights without cables since....so then there is that.
@@martinheath5947It can at least pick itself up. That's a pretty good step, and will likely only get better from here. Atlas in it's early stage was a robot on a rope. Now it does flips and can self correct better than some people
If they put a seat on it and a steering wheel all they would need is tires on their rotors and they would have a home built Tesla automobile. Give them an umbrella in case of rain.
They didn’t switch it because the old blades were too last century, they switched it so you don’t slice people into purée like a open blender going down the roadway.
Limited design functionality and likely inefficient. Standard propeller has been used for so long because the are the most efficient. In regards to noise, less noise is produced because the “blades” are not creating “resonate pressure differentials” frame or stationary frame components. This can be corrected by offsetting the blade spacing. Auto manufacturers have been doing this for years to lower cooling fan noise. Also how you are you to control yaw? Yaw it typically controlled by increasing or decreasing motor speed. This change in interia allows for the craft to rotate about it yaw axis. However, in the design you have shown the rotational axis on the motor is perpendicular to that of the frame which would like yield a roll or pitch effect.
each rotor is able to move in 4 directions so in order to yaw all it would need to do is have 1 rotor move back on one side and have 1 rotor move forward on the otherside also with other drones they use inertia but with things like helicopters they have a colective in the tail rotor witch pitches up or down to creator more or less counter torque and yaw the helicopter coaxial rotor helicopters pitch on set of blades up at a time to create drag and yaw the reason they done just lower the speed of their rotors is because it would be slow due to inertia
The internal blades change orientation as the "wheel" turns so that, in effect, two blades are always lifting while the other two don't contribute. Frankly, it seems like a more complex system. But if that's the sacrifice necessary to have a compact VTOL as the objective, without retractable wings or propellers, so be it.
Not a new idea, a working plane with "propellers" like these were made before WW2, but just never caught on. I remember in the early 2010's my school also making a working model as well.
this design has been in existance since the first plane was born , no one used it because it was too complex and creates more points of failure , so thats why propellers are used today with the combination of wings
As a helicopter pilot.. the idea of letting, just anyone fly, scares me to no end. Imagine if car accidents could happen literally ANYWHERE! Its bad enough with them stuck on roads. And I'm not sure people realize that.. flying is a lot harder than driving.
we would already have flying cars by now if people weren't so stupid in driving land cars. We have the tech, but its best to not open that can of worms until they can be fully automated. Computers are better at driving than the average person driving a car.
That's what prestigious folks said when cars were first introduced. They didn't want every Tom, dick & Harry using vehicles because they were "complex machines". Then mankind made things user friendly and everyone owns cars now, I'm pretty sure if flying vehicles are to become mainstream for personal use, they'll eventually figure out user friendly mechanisms. Then Astronauts will begin complaining about the difficulty of spaceflight and the cycle continues. 😅
@@ryanjones2297 Don't get me wrong, i agree we're not there yet, but tons of small general aviation aircraft roam the skies without transponders or collision avoidance systems, there are so many relaxed rules, basically a lawnmower with wings is allowed to roam the skies (with obvious exceptions) but that's my point. They'll start off strict, only allowing trained aviators, then the average Joe will have his chance after robust Ai systems allow for safer travel.
Im pretty sure that's entirely different area as satellites don't fly and are launched into space, on a rocket and when they reach space, the satellite is released. There's no gravity or air in space, so there's no need for a satellite to have rotors or propellers. There's nothing for them to propel themselves with. They would have small rocket boosters to push them around if needed. Otherwise they just float, stuck in the earth's magnetic field, going round and round.
@@chickenychickens07 they seem to just be helping the magnus effect by increasing drag since aerofoils create some drag. And the way it "feels" like it would throw air, just seems like extension of magnus effect. Fyi, magnus effect creates lift as well.
It is indeed insane and unbelievable. It is certainly not more efficient. The general idea has been around a while. It just isn't worth doing. One problem is disc area. Generally speaking, moving a wide area of air slowly is better than moving a small area of air really fast. Those four wheels have a lot less area than a helicopter rotor.
from the research ive done it somehow is but i think they are saying its more efficient based on the fuel they consume per minute and that thing is electric but the cost of making 4 rotors instead of 1 per vehicle is going to be a huge limiting factor for the cyclocopter witch is probably why it hasent been touched sens 1909
@@autisticreatard7848 Oh no here we go again... Just how do witches fly? Is it thrust or lift generated by their broom or is it prue magic? Well, which is it? The idea of flying witches has been around for centuries ...
It's been nearly 20 years since I basically had a dream about this machine. I say basically, because I'd recently, at that time, sold my beloved little standard cab shortbed 4x4 95 Nissan hardbody pickup. In the dream, I had decided to keep it and attached giant squirrel cage blowers to all four wheel hubs, and table legs to each corner of the truck, and I managed to make it take off and fly when I revved it to high RPMs in 5th gear. It was a fun dream for awhile. I never worked out the detail on how I'd isolated the orientation of thrust to be downwards. There was no housing diverting the flow, it was all open air like this thing, so I just chalked it up as a stupid dream. The dream ended as I was trying to figure out how the hell to land it safely, since every time I let off the throttle just a little, it began falling fast. I was getting worried when I woke from it. It's one of those dreams I've somehow managed to remember through all these years, so this video really excited me to see!
I've had lots of flying dreams as well I would fly objects and even like super man many times apparently it's a sign that we arr astrolprojecting while asleep
If you had this dream, that means it's time for flying cars. There's three just created that are on the market. One has 4 rotors built into the body. Very little room for passengers and gear.
I tell you though, it really did seem to fit hovering out there in the farm fields for such a technologically advanced machine. I half expected it to start harvesting.😂
Found the info: Austrian CycloTech technology has succeeded in the eVTOL floating test equipped with a CycloRotor using Schneider propellers used on ships. @echgmbh5271 has its own youtube channel
the craft literally has the name plastered on it. Either youre just blind or just want to complain, sometimes its better to just not say anything, especially if its just cow dung coming out of your mouth
Check out their website for more details! www.cyclotech.at/
Does it have a patent?
@@frostfamily5321 that would be hard as the technology is the same as Voith-Schneider drives used on ships, and they say as much. There could be other patentable elements, maybe the control system, but the thrusters are old tech re-purposed.
back in 1903 .... if it ain't broke, just leave it alone. Just another money laundering scam
@@frostfamily5321no, because it's century old concept. The creator is a hypetard.
Patent? This was a kite when i was kid... use to buy them in Galveston, TX on the beach. Made out of styrofoam. Pretty sweet kite.. easy to build
"Eating food is too last several billions of years"
Lol, got to love logic.
Oh but they think they DID improve on the human body though. They cut off male parts and make them LOOK like females now trying to make it so they can have babies. NOT GONNA WORK
Zoomer logic 👍
@@name5293😂😂😂😂
AIN'T IT JUST AIN'T IT 😜 lols
"Too last century" just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad.
I tell my friends that, but they just say, "Wake up hold man. You're dreaming." /s
Yeah physics doesn't follow fads. Once an optimal design is found any changes just make it less than optimal. If a change makes it work better then it was not quite optimal in the first place.
Dont worry they had paddle boats and waterwheels 100 years before the first planes and that's all this is😂
Last I checked we haven’t reinvented the wheel yet.
The wheel is also last century or older. Let's reinvent it.
"blades are old fashioned, so THESE blades..."
That's true. I recognize this drive. Is it not the case with tugboat boats in ports?
I'd like to fatten those new blades up
Yea, like wheels are old fashioned. We need to stop using circles so no more cogs and sprockets
lol still uses blades 🤦🏼♂️
I’m an aerospace engineer, fun fact:
Turbines create thrust not lift. A wing’s curved shape creates lift as it moves through the air. Propeller blades have a similar shape for the same reason.
Blades in a jet turbine also have the same shape, but they don’t use this to create lift or thrust. Instead, several layers of blades suck in and compress air, which is directed to the combustion chamber and nozzle.
I would argue that the blades are used to create thrust. The compression stage is a necessary part of the thrust making process. The thrust is of course a way to describe the mass flow rate out of the engine - but this is the result of combustion, caused by compressed air and fuel, caused by the compression stage, caused by the blades.
I love seeing Bots argue.
Fun fact: turbines generate power, not thrust or lift
Fun fact:
Energy can not be created, only converted from one form into another.
Fun fact, thrust that is directed downwards is lift. Like, as in every quadcopter and this thing.
This is just a cyclogyro (first patented in 1927). Works like a Voith Schneider propeller.
Spot on!!!
Which was used in tug boats to make it move in all directions
Oh, man. Screw this design, it's too last century for me!
E. P. Sverchkov made the first cyclocopter in 1909 they are more efficient than a helicopter though
Patented. So thata why we dont see these things that often.
"Rotors are too last century, so this company invented a flying machine using a 94-year old rotor design"
Why have a modern boat when you can drive a Mississippi paddle steamer? 😂
@@pfarraldcash6095 Exactly! Steam technology and paddle wheels are cool and good looking.
They are not efficient, low maintenance or easy to handle properly and very dangerous if mishandled in just the right way.
See April 27, 1865, the Sultana, a Mississippi river side paddle steamer.
Actually, much steam equipment has become more dangerous now than 50-100 years ago, as the number of people with proper training and understanding has dropped with it no longer being in wide use - not including steam turbine electrical power generation, large steam-powered ships, or any nuclear-powered steam generation, of course.
And just to avoid misunderstanding, a 94 year old flying machine.
Early windmills from middle east were built this way as it was easier to change the angle of the blade for speed adjustment back in those times, so you can't really say it's a modern design to be honest.
Fr
glad to see the people in the comments are not taking this bullshit. Next level of not taking this bullshit is to stop consuming and interacting in these videos, don't go down your level people.
In the 70's, I had a "rotor blade", polystyrene plane. Awesome. 😊
But it's nothing new
Those rotors are just a few years shy of their 100th birthday. This is as new and revolutionary as a vacuum train.
Dumbass statement. That's like saying modern calculators were invented when the abacus came around.
For real. Fuckin sick of people discovering something they didn't know about and saying it a new tech.
Fun fact: that video from "2021" is from 2017 lol
Some Indian guy flew before the Wright brothers, a few years before, not sure why this isn't common knowledge
@@stueymorrisAlot of pepole did, What the Wright Brothers did was more so the most practical way to fly
@@dollarbuttthese new drum rotors can instantly change thrust into any axis so yes they are slightly revolutionary
😂 they made a paddlewheel for the air
Nah air wheels
Feels more like a propeller on its side. Since its not paddles pushing air, but wings creating lift in directions directions.
@@zbossgamer3400seems like a simplified, non-bionic ornithopter (entomopter?) wing: still using the most basic principle without trying to copy the complex anatomy and movement of the natural thing
A cyclorotor is able to produce variable thrust in any direction. See the Voith Schneider marine cyclorotor for historic examples.
Not really. A paddle wheel produces thrust by push against the water.
This is making lift using venturi principle expanded with Bernoulli's theorem.
It's closer to a helicopter that spin the rotor along the x axis and not the z axis.
These personal flying vehicle videos never let you hear the actual sound.
It looks like the flying car we have all been anticipating.
This is a less efficient design than regular rotors.
It seems extremely inefficient. Four rotors verses one main rotor and a tail rotor, and lots of drag, is another negative. It failed in the early 20th century. It is still a fun project. But, that is all it is going to be, using this technique. The Magnus effect aeroplane was similar also. It failed as well.
You're the expert... 👀
Jea it has waay to many mooving parts
Yes, but it's new and shiny! 😂
Doesn't mean it can't serve a purpose 🤷🏻♀️
Wheels are just too last millenium, let’s reinvent them
I mean we have been
We should build a giant tunnel and stick a hovering train in it. We'll call it.. Pyperhoop.
Let's try triangular wheels this time
Ya, I'm just so over electricity & running water too! Pffft so old already! 😂 🙄
square wheels should be way more effective if we make them a little rounder...
Literally the first rendition of the first logically engineered flying car
Imagine sitting in traffic turning on that feature and hovering over everyone
If “you read only one article and think it told you everything” was a person
The wheel is several thousand years old and yet it's still everywhere
Probably means it's a good design that doesn't need much improvement. Even so, tanks don't use them because they're not ideal. Things evolve. Grow up.
@@tdcfc You didn't understand what i said did you
@@tdcfc
Tanks also have wheels…
The wheel is fuckin ancient but still going strong
So this is how we get flying cars
Jet engines dont create lift. They provide thrust so that the wings with sufficient airspeed create lift
Edit:
Ladies and Gentlemen I thought it need not be said that this was a generalized statement as in general and civil aviation the primary lift generating component at cruise the wings generate the lift.
Of course the thrust generating component has a force in the direction it is pointing, so if you direct your thrust downwards yes tour thrust will be producing more upwards force on the craft.
This generalization is very common form of abstraction to simplify the model. Of course all models are wrong but some models are useful. It is general8zed at cruise in general and civil aviation where AOA is very small the thrust component is not producing much lift so the wings are the main lift generating component, so the statement engines don't create lift, the wings do that with airspeed is not entirely correct, it is also not flat wrong. Like how staing electricity takes the path of least resistance is wrong as electricity takes everypath with current proportionate to the inverse of resistance in said path; but that makes modeling complicated so we say electricity takes the path of least resistance, it is not entirely correct it is also not wrong.
@@YuFow that's a special case
@@faraanhadi yeah just thought it was worth pointing out
@@YuFowit still is thrust, you just orient it in other direction. Lift is force created by solid body moving through fuild.
@@lukasvavrinec5380 yeah you are correct to be fair, that said if you had a jet engine moving through the air at a high enough angle of attack, the engine body would create some lift 😂😂
@@YuFow yes you are correct, if you are at high enough aoa and are going at certain speed you can generate enough lift even with flat plate to make airplane flying, but it is not practical. Neither F-35 or Harrier is using engine in such a way that it generates lift.
is it me or this guy looks just like a real life woody from toy story
More like Sid, but yeah.
He does
I think you're on to something...
He's got a snake in his boots.
Verdade, olhando bem, ele parece mesmo. Só falta o chapel de cowboy 😂😅😅
this actually could pretty easily become a flying car without many transformations
That kind of reminds me of the cylinder sails in recent ships
I love how quick the internet is to call out the BS these idiotic youtube short creators are
warms my heart
It’s getting better, slowly, that’s for sure.
There’s even less TDS sufferers these days.
But we should comment at all and yet I'm here too. It's evil. I try to just dislike and move on. I can't even say this is particularly horrible. It is, but at least it tried to have a point.
+shouldn't
You may be a tad sadistic.
So that's where my push lawn mower went!
😂
@@Prahphetyo what
@@Prahphetmusic man here
😂😅 hahaha ❤love it man
Now that seems like it could actually be a flying car at some point
welp, here’s the first flying car prototype
It's still using airfoils for lift. Small, horizontal rotating ones but still airfoils.
Someone's out there adding some sort of plasma thrust thing to airfoils to help increase efficiency
@@Rork333more likely adding some bs
@@mlbr2940centrifugal force is not BS.
@@jamescoull7402it truly isn't bs idk these people don't think plasma jets aren't real
Keep in mind wings still work when engines fail.
Helicopter's autorotation?
@@internal_voice Which is still dependent on more moving parts.
For a paper plane, yes. I'd your point was solid, running out of fuel wouldn't be much concern, but it is. So your point is watery at best and cannot be used as a counter in this scenario or application. This is to "replace cars" and I don't see wings and a jet engine being ideal for that. Even if you insist, at an appropriate size to fit 2- 4 humans and still park in a house or maneuver in a city, wings wouldn't work to keep it in flying. It would drop to earth immediately.
Context.
@@robbylebotha Who mentioned running out of fuel. Running out of fuel as not a real issue beyond pilot error. Engine failure however is an issue. Also most of these localized commutes are going to be done by autonomous vehicle strategies from companies like Wisk. Also these designs fly on fly by wire concepts that do not allow for mechanical back up so the computer system becomes the single point of failure.
@@MrTravel4nutinyes but they auto-rotate as the helicopter falls out of the sky meaning you can still actually land
This is how flying cars will work
I remember when they started talking about those horizontal rotors. Impressive.
Propellers are not "too old school," they are by far the better choice for low speed propulsion, particularly when takeoff distance is a concern. That is why they continue to be used in craft like the c-130.
The wheel, a cornerstone of modern life, is millenia old.
Yeah it’s definitely time to move on from the wheel 😂
Nobody tell them this "New" propeller was invented before the "Old school" one rofl, mainstream plebeians are so uniformed that stupid is far to kind.
"a wheel is older than a wall" --President Trump
Plus propellers way more effective and takes less energy to take off or fly
Most things that fly around the earth have bird wings.
And quite efficient!
@@iraa9935 I forgot insects, who are efficient also.
There are more bug species and bugs in general than all the birds ever lived. So most things that fly around the earth are bugs using bug wings 😮😂
Imagine typing out that comment thinking you're doing something, but not actually thinking it thru... 🤣🤣🤣 You have time to delete this.
@@joewatson5226yeah but bugs are small
Planes are huge
Wings have their uses!
This is just the beginning of many new prop designs.
This is a case of " you can do the wrong things , right"
this video is full of misinformation= "don't recommend the channel"
My thoughts exactly
What misinformation
@@user-wl5ne6pk6zI’m wondering the same thing.
@@user-wl5ne6pk6zthis isn't new technology. It's really old and is hyper inefficient vs regular rotors. That's why in 1927 it was dropped for our modern prop.
I didn't have to even read to comments to come to this conclusion. Won't be recommending 👍
Great idea until you ditch the mains cable and stick a half ton battery inside to keep it going..
Uhhh the cable was just a backup so that if it didnt work it catches it. You can clearly see there is slack in the line as it goes up....
.plus, they have done multiple outdoor flights without cables since....so then there is that.
@@devind2915 But can it pick up a tin of baked beans?
@@martinheath5947 or an explosive
@@martinheath5947It can at least pick itself up. That's a pretty good step, and will likely only get better from here. Atlas in it's early stage was a robot on a rope. Now it does flips and can self correct better than some people
Helicopters have been working exactly the same way for decades
That thing is gonna make engineers cry and make it cost so much
Ahh, the squirrel cage rotor. Nice to see it used for more than a fan.
This idea is not New. The Principle is from ships. Its is called " Voith-Schneider Propeller " Namen after the german company that build it.
"Too last century" wait until this guy discovers how many years ago the wheel was made
“We’ll have flying cars in the future”
Flying Cars:
60 years ago they would have said that this looks like a flying car!
They did (this tech was in the 90')
Try the early 20th century
If they put a seat on it and a steering wheel all they would need is tires on their rotors and they would have a home built Tesla automobile. Give them an umbrella in case of rain.
Where as today we say it looks more like a flying car
@@jeff5798 😂
They didn’t switch it because the old blades were too last century, they switched it so you don’t slice people into purée like a open blender going down the roadway.
Funny 😂
Imagine not getting the obvious joke and posting the obvious things everyone knows.
TOO COOL, GOOD. STUFF
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
But it will still bkend🤣🤣🤣
Wheel was invented around 4000 years ago but we still use it. That’s 40 centuries.🙃
Bro that's like calling the A-10 completely insignificant
We were all RC enthusiasts. We did this back in the 80's with cardboard.
i was just about to say, i saw multiple youtube videos people building drones with those props, and they are quite trashy.
@@Stuntman5701 yes. It was more of a joke challenge to try and get one to fly. They do fly but horribly enificiant. 😆 🤣
Its a precursor to the Spinner (Flying car) from "Bladerunner".
Purge purge purge
Probably sounds like sirens flying.
One step closer to owning my very own Blade Runner Spinner.
Limited design functionality and likely inefficient. Standard propeller has been used for so long because the are the most efficient. In regards to noise, less noise is produced because the “blades” are not creating “resonate pressure differentials” frame or stationary frame components. This can be corrected by offsetting the blade spacing. Auto manufacturers have been doing this for years to lower cooling fan noise.
Also how you are you to control yaw? Yaw it typically controlled by increasing or decreasing motor speed. This change in interia allows for the craft to rotate about it yaw axis. However, in the design you have shown the rotational axis on the motor is perpendicular to that of the frame which would like yield a roll or pitch effect.
each rotor is able to move in 4 directions so in order to yaw all it would need to do is have 1 rotor move back on one side and have 1 rotor move forward on the otherside also with other drones they use inertia but with things like helicopters they have a colective in the tail rotor witch pitches up or down to creator more or less counter torque and yaw the helicopter coaxial rotor helicopters pitch on set of blades up at a time to create drag and yaw the reason they done just lower the speed of their rotors is because it would be slow due to inertia
save yourself some typing & read the other comments
The world’s coolest lawnmower.
This idea looks way safer for personal flying vehicle
Saying a propeller blade is "too last century" is like saying a wheel is "too last millennium"
Not a new idea, in 1910 the first attempts to use a Magnus effect propeller, and Flettner Rotors were used on some ships
Finding the right light but strong materials and efficient power source were the major limiting factors
That is not based upon Magnus effect.
So they were trying to build a cylindrical hydrofoil? Why?
The internal blades change orientation as the "wheel" turns so that, in effect, two blades are always lifting while the other two don't contribute.
Frankly, it seems like a more complex system. But if that's the sacrifice necessary to have a compact VTOL as the objective, without retractable wings or propellers, so be it.
With the thumb nail I was HOPING someone pulled off the Magnus effect as a lift mechanism, but this is unfortunately not the Magnus effect
Fans and rotors dont create lift, thrust me😂
This will be the predecessor of flying cars
Not a new idea, a working plane with "propellers" like these were made before WW2, but just never caught on. I remember in the early 2010's my school also making a working model as well.
this design has been in existance since the first plane was born , no one used it because it was too complex and creates more points of failure , so thats why propellers are used today with the combination of wings
didn't you heard its too last century. we want something new
@@lordjaashinbut it's not new, that was his point lol
Love how he had to explain to us what a rotor is
Great concept 😊. Ignore the snarkies . They don’t see what’s happening here. 😢
It's a Voith drive (used on tugs) converted for drone configuration.
"how can we make this drone quieter?"
"throw some wheels on it!"
and "quieter" remains to be seen... i mean heard
"it's too last century". This is a fashion channel
So that's how UFO has been flying all this time
As a helicopter pilot.. the idea of letting, just anyone fly, scares me to no end. Imagine if car accidents could happen literally ANYWHERE! Its bad enough with them stuck on roads. And I'm not sure people realize that.. flying is a lot harder than driving.
Ya and you could f up tomorrow too
we would already have flying cars by now if people weren't so stupid in driving land cars. We have the tech, but its best to not open that can of worms until they can be fully automated. Computers are better at driving than the average person driving a car.
That's what prestigious folks said when cars were first introduced. They didn't want every Tom, dick & Harry using vehicles because they were "complex machines".
Then mankind made things user friendly and everyone owns cars now, I'm pretty sure if flying vehicles are to become mainstream for personal use, they'll eventually figure out user friendly mechanisms.
Then Astronauts will begin complaining about the difficulty of spaceflight and the cycle continues. 😅
@@Gspec5 yes, but 5 minutes sharing the road with the general public is enough to see why we can't have flying cars
@@ryanjones2297 Don't get me wrong, i agree we're not there yet, but tons of small general aviation aircraft roam the skies without transponders or collision avoidance systems, there are so many relaxed rules, basically a lawnmower with wings is allowed to roam the skies (with obvious exceptions) but that's my point.
They'll start off strict, only allowing trained aviators, then the average Joe will have his chance after robust Ai systems allow for safer travel.
New my ass...
Saw someone make one out of kfc buckets years ago.
Mama always said , if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Funny how flying cars in movies had the wheels fold outward and point down, and now helicopters of the future have horizontal rotors
Satellites don't need blades
They travel around the earth....
Time for zeppelins to be new 😂
Im pretty sure that's entirely different area as satellites don't fly and are launched into space, on a rocket and when they reach space, the satellite is released. There's no gravity or air in space, so there's no need for a satellite to have rotors or propellers. There's nothing for them to propel themselves with. They would have small rocket boosters to push them around if needed. Otherwise they just float, stuck in the earth's magnetic field, going round and round.
Is this just magnus effect again?
No it’s not, it’s the individual blades angled precisely to produce lift, as it doesn’t move in the air to produce lift
@@chickenychickens07 they seem to just be helping the magnus effect by increasing drag since aerofoils create some drag. And the way it "feels" like it would throw air, just seems like extension of magnus effect.
Fyi, magnus effect creates lift as well.
@@prateekkarn9277look for scheider Voigt Prop, it's not working with magnus effect
@@prateekkarn9277 thanks for the information
But doesn’t the Magnus effect work while in motion?
I bet that thing could mow my lawn in an instant lol.
I was making gadgets out of squirrel cage fans to lift things 50 years ago
Hmm... it looks like they adapted the Voith Schneider Propeller from ships to work on aircraft. Clever!
C-130s still using props
What does the c130 have to do with this
@@JakobJakob1 im asking the same thing
That's some old tech! I wonder what people were using to fly before that?
"if it ain't broken, don't fix it."
That technology isn't new...
Looks like a true off-road vehicle
That company deserves the men's butts discount!
Now we got to make these vectorable. That is sick tech.
Wow its the 1832 centrifugal fan without a cowling? A squirrel cage with less blades?
what this thing call.....
Long dong blades.
Just added a pinned comment with information :D It's from a company called Cyclotech
cyclorotor
Nice now we design flying cars that look like grounded cars
It is indeed insane and unbelievable. It is certainly not more efficient.
The general idea has been around a while. It just isn't worth doing.
One problem is disc area. Generally speaking, moving a wide area of air slowly is better than moving a small area of air really fast. Those four wheels have a lot less area than a helicopter rotor.
Can't sell an honest video, just lie
from the research ive done it somehow is but i think they are saying its more efficient based on the fuel they consume per minute and that thing is electric but the cost of making 4 rotors instead of 1 per vehicle is going to be a huge limiting factor for the cyclocopter witch is probably why it hasent been touched sens 1909
@@autisticreatard7848
Oh no here we go again... Just how do witches fly? Is it thrust or lift generated by their broom or is it prue magic? Well, which is it? The idea of flying witches has been around for centuries ...
bro how the fuck do witches have anything to do with weather or not a drone is more efficient@@leecurtice8207
It's been nearly 20 years since I basically had a dream about this machine.
I say basically, because I'd recently, at that time, sold my beloved little standard cab shortbed 4x4 95 Nissan hardbody pickup.
In the dream, I had decided to keep it and attached giant squirrel cage blowers to all four wheel hubs, and table legs to each corner of the truck, and I managed to make it take off and fly when I revved it to high RPMs in 5th gear.
It was a fun dream for awhile. I never worked out the detail on how I'd isolated the orientation of thrust to be downwards. There was no housing diverting the flow, it was all open air like this thing, so I just chalked it up as a stupid dream.
The dream ended as I was trying to figure out how the hell to land it safely, since every time I let off the throttle just a little, it began falling fast. I was getting worried when I woke from it.
It's one of those dreams I've somehow managed to remember through all these years, so this video really excited me to see!
I've had lots of flying dreams as well I would fly objects and even like super man many times apparently it's a sign that we arr astrolprojecting while asleep
Flying like superman is...
If you had this dream, that means it's time for flying cars. There's three just created that are on the market. One has 4 rotors built into the body. Very little room for passengers and gear.
I tell you though, it really did seem to fit hovering out there in the farm fields for such a technologically advanced machine. I half expected it to start harvesting.😂
"Too last century"...proceeds to add water wheels...
Watching civilians rediscover things the military has had for decades is fun.
It was known before the military even loses k into it
Did I miss the part where the name of the device is mentioned? or the company name?
Found the info:
Austrian CycloTech technology has succeeded in the eVTOL floating test
equipped with a CycloRotor using Schneider propellers used on ships.
@echgmbh5271 has its own youtube channel
yes.....cyclotech
the craft literally has the name plastered on it. Either youre just blind or just want to complain, sometimes its better to just not say anything, especially if its just cow dung coming out of your mouth
@@user-di5er6uo5ecan't see it on a small screen...maybe use your own advice
You certainly missed the pinned comment with the URL in it
This is old tech, but glad it still has at least 1 fan boy…😂
A new means of turning birds and such, into confetti?! Sign me up, kind Sir!
Cool innovation, but absolutely the wrong person to be presenting it.
Paddles are not new get facts correct
"They'll have flying cars in the future"
The future: Well... yes! Yes we do
Yesterday i was imagining the same model of engine in my head
"Propellers are just too last century"
*30-06 has entered the chat*