Hmm... I kinda like the prototype more than the finished version...lol more compact. Love the way it transitioned so effortlessly into forward flight. Gorgeous...
Your concept is the most effective of all vtol . Period ! By placing the battery pack in the motor pod, it is possible to have a shifting cg for each phase of the flight, thus insuring the best configuration for each mode. You are the best !
i was impressed by the fact that the transition was made so close to the ground. very long span, so efficiency. next step should be to make a miniature version of this and sell it to the rc hobby !
Thank you for the update of the project. I love the scaling of the concept, but I am still unable to find any details on the flight performance of the different versions. Is there any time line about the production of these products?
Hi Pascal. We have more details, including projected flight performance of several models, in the Transwing section of our website: PteroDynamics.com/transwing. Also, as I write this, we are uploading a new video of a flight test yesterday of our all-electric Parus12 (12.3 ft / 3.8 m) Transwing carrying a 15 lb payload. We have not made any announcement about a timeline for when our aircraft might be available for purchase.
Just a pleasure to watch. 2 questions though, 1 the control input between quad and conventional, is that a built in controller or some manual setting. 2 is yaw control via differential motor speed? Notice you went to an inverted V tail on the larger scale.
Thanks Patrick! The transition of control between hover and cruise configurations is handled entirely by the onboard flight controller (which is the subject of the 3rd patent we just received the other day). All the pilot (or autonomous flight system) has to do is tell the aircraft where to go. Yes, in hover config, pitch, yaw, and roll are all controlled by differential thrust (which could be rotor speed or pitch). We have opted for V tails, testing both anhedral and dihedral designs as well as a V tail with a vertical stabilizer. It works well and causes less drag than conventional empennage.
It’s a really clever mechanism for the transition! Is the Flight controller a complete custom design or is it a commercially available one with custom firmware? I fly both Multirotors and Aircraft, the concept of dual operation is something I find really interesting. I know it’s been done before but just by rotating the motors usually a bit like the full size Osprey, I think that this takes it into a different league! I like flying V or A tails myself, but have yet to try an A with a vertical stab; how critical is the tail angle?
We're not revealing too many details about our flight controller other than that we received in August 2020 a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO for a third U.S. patent, the subject of which is how our flight controller works.
Considering how effective this design seems to be I’m surprised it hasn’t made a bigger splash in the pond. One thing I’m curious about; can one set of props be disengaged to allow longer flight time when the wings take over lift production?
Love your work, surely one of a kind and the landing transition looks beautiful. I do have a question though. Given that the main problem of a VTOL is efficiency, neither fully optimized for take off or cruising, because of the engine/props needs that are completely different for the 2 phases, how is this design any better than a tail sitter for example? I see a huge complication (weight and durability) at the hinge but no improvements for efficiency.
Thanks Alex. There are several advantages of our Transwing design over tail-sitters. 1) Because of their compact configuration in hover takeoff/landing/hover (VTOL) config, Transwings require only about 1/4-1/2 the space to takeoff and land, all all things (energy source, payload, range, endurance) being equal. The is critical in real use cases where operators are managing fleets of aircraft and busy vertiports, whether that's for cargo delivery or air taxis. This is also critical in many defense-related applications. 2) The payload on a Transwing remains horizontal throughout the flight, whereas it shifts 90° twice on a tail-sitter. This is critical for certain payloads, like camera systems and sensitive cargo. 3) Transwings spend a much smaller % of overall flight time transitioning between VTOL and cruise configurations, taking about 6 seconds. Also, transitions can take place much closer to the ground, requiring much less time in VTOL config where power consumption is about 5x that of cruise flight. 4) Many missions (e.g., linear inspection) require several transitions between VTOL and cruise modes during the mission, and as described in #3 above, the Transwing uses substantially less energy (could be as low as 1/10) for each of those phases. 5) Check out Bell's APT 70 demo video from yesterday (th-cam.com/video/7xLVfHH8T2E/w-d-xo.html) and see if you think that aircraft flying in cruise mode is as efficient as a Transwing in its cruise configuration. And in the air, does it look like it would be able to maneuver as well as a traditional fixed wing? If bi-planes were the best design for fixed-wing flight, the world would not have switched to single wings. I suspect there's a reason when they did not show the takeoff and landing phases in their video, because they take a lot of time/energy and may not be as smooth and stable as they would like. That's why we show so many videos of our full flights, including all the hard parts.
Wow, I started modeling parts for a prototype VTOL drone plane VERY similar to this about a year ago. The psuedo company name I chose for the design.... PteroDynamics.
Really interesting concept, looks to me like a self leveling system... one wonder that is going to be the max pay load.. at this point in my custom MaX-8 I can handle up to 3 kilos of equipment beside my batteries.. I guess we'll see!!
Yesterday we flew our Parus12 (12.3 ft / 3.8 m wingspan) with a 15 lb / 6.8 kg payload. We're uploading that video to TH-cam shortly. It will be on our TH-cam channel by the end of the day (in California).
Hmm... I kinda like the prototype more than the finished version...lol more compact. Love the way it transitioned so effortlessly into forward flight. Gorgeous...
Just, no way you actually got this to work! Just wow!
Your concept is the most effective of all vtol . Period ! By placing the battery pack in the motor pod, it is possible to have a shifting cg for each phase of the flight, thus insuring the best configuration for each mode. You are the best !
i was impressed by the fact that the transition was made so close to the ground. very long span, so efficiency. next step should be to make a miniature version of this and sell it to the rc hobby !
Thanks! We're focused on other markets, but if an rc hobby company would like to license the design, we'd be open to discuss it.
100 percent Id buy one. They should just sell the smaller one as the RC spec unit.
Wow well done! It's very aesthetically pleasing too.
Thanks Jonathan!
Very stable. This will revolutionize the vertical take off industry.
Fascinating, one day I'd love to see it in the sky.
Thanks for the love, Micha!
Man, just saw this on FB... very impressive. Love the whole concept. What are the problems preventing wide adoption?
Thank you for the update of the project. I love the scaling of the concept, but I am still unable to find any details on the flight performance of the different versions. Is there any time line about the production of these products?
Hi Pascal. We have more details, including projected flight performance of several models, in the Transwing section of our website: PteroDynamics.com/transwing. Also, as I write this, we are uploading a new video of a flight test yesterday of our all-electric Parus12 (12.3 ft / 3.8 m) Transwing carrying a 15 lb payload. We have not made any announcement about a timeline for when our aircraft might be available for purchase.
Just a pleasure to watch. 2 questions though, 1 the control input between quad and conventional, is that a built in controller or some manual setting. 2 is yaw control via differential motor speed? Notice you went to an inverted V tail on the larger scale.
Thanks Patrick! The transition of control between hover and cruise configurations is handled entirely by the onboard flight controller (which is the subject of the 3rd patent we just received the other day). All the pilot (or autonomous flight system) has to do is tell the aircraft where to go. Yes, in hover config, pitch, yaw, and roll are all controlled by differential thrust (which could be rotor speed or pitch). We have opted for V tails, testing both anhedral and dihedral designs as well as a V tail with a vertical stabilizer. It works well and causes less drag than conventional empennage.
@@PteroDynamics and yaw control in forward flight with wing in traditional configuration
It’s a really clever mechanism for the transition! Is the Flight controller a complete custom design or is it a commercially available one with custom firmware?
I fly both Multirotors and Aircraft, the concept of dual operation is something I find really interesting. I know it’s been done before but just by rotating the motors usually a bit like the full size Osprey, I think that this takes it into a different league! I like flying V or A tails myself, but have yet to try an A with a vertical stab; how critical is the tail angle?
We're not revealing too many details about our flight controller other than that we received in August 2020 a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO for a third U.S. patent, the subject of which is how our flight controller works.
Considering how effective this design seems to be I’m surprised it hasn’t made a bigger splash in the pond. One thing I’m curious about; can one set of props be disengaged to allow longer flight time when the wings take over lift production?
Amazing. Is it stable at all positions between full hover and full forward flight? Or are there specific increments?
Love your work, surely one of a kind and the landing transition looks beautiful. I do have a question though. Given that the main problem of a VTOL is efficiency, neither fully optimized for take off or cruising, because of the engine/props needs that are completely different for the 2 phases, how is this design any better than a tail sitter for example? I see a huge complication (weight and durability) at the hinge but no improvements for efficiency.
Thanks Alex. There are several advantages of our Transwing design over tail-sitters.
1) Because of their compact configuration in hover takeoff/landing/hover (VTOL) config, Transwings require only about 1/4-1/2 the space to takeoff and land, all all things (energy source, payload, range, endurance) being equal. The is critical in real use cases where operators are managing fleets of aircraft and busy vertiports, whether that's for cargo delivery or air taxis. This is also critical in many defense-related applications.
2) The payload on a Transwing remains horizontal throughout the flight, whereas it shifts 90° twice on a tail-sitter. This is critical for certain payloads, like camera systems and sensitive cargo.
3) Transwings spend a much smaller % of overall flight time transitioning between VTOL and cruise configurations, taking about 6 seconds. Also, transitions can take place much closer to the ground, requiring much less time in VTOL config where power consumption is about 5x that of cruise flight.
4) Many missions (e.g., linear inspection) require several transitions between VTOL and cruise modes during the mission, and as described in #3 above, the Transwing uses substantially less energy (could be as low as 1/10) for each of those phases.
5) Check out Bell's APT 70 demo video from yesterday (th-cam.com/video/7xLVfHH8T2E/w-d-xo.html) and see if you think that aircraft flying in cruise mode is as efficient as a Transwing in its cruise configuration. And in the air, does it look like it would be able to maneuver as well as a traditional fixed wing? If bi-planes were the best design for fixed-wing flight, the world would not have switched to single wings. I suspect there's a reason when they did not show the takeoff and landing phases in their video, because they take a lot of time/energy and may not be as smooth and stable as they would like. That's why we show so many videos of our full flights, including all the hard parts.
Beautiful! Do you have any plans to make full size versions that can carry passengers?
We shall neither confirm nor deny 😉
Best design for vtols.This design will be future of aviation . İ am sure about this.Love from Turkey
Wow, I started modeling parts for a prototype VTOL drone plane VERY similar to this about a year ago. The psuedo company name I chose for the design.... PteroDynamics.
What a coincidence Cody! I guess we picked the right name :)
Love the idea! Good luck! Subscribed.
Thanks Marcin!
This is freaking amazing
How about a full size?
I wonder if amazon or Zipline not contact you yet.
Just an amazing design. I hate to see vtol uavs with un-used quadcopter rotors during level flight.
Thanks Jin! We hate to see that too.
Really interesting concept, looks to me like a self leveling system... one wonder that is going to be the max pay load.. at this point in my custom MaX-8 I can handle up to 3 kilos of equipment beside my batteries.. I guess we'll see!!
Yesterday we flew our Parus12 (12.3 ft / 3.8 m wingspan) with a 15 lb / 6.8 kg payload. We're uploading that video to TH-cam shortly. It will be on our TH-cam channel by the end of the day (in California).
This should supplant the Osprey.
Go❇od 😊
Skynet is coming
Cute toy now try scaling up ten thousand times.