I have a "book" which was published in 1978, which explained pretty much everything you would want to know about Rotors. This company is trying to push a Savonius Rotor which rarely has a specific power coefficient above about 0.15, but is very good at moving large masses of material, at slow speeds (as used to position ships and oil platforms). For practical purposes, it is just an1800 paddle-wheel river boat. In contrast, the competing Darrieus Rotor (invented about 2000-years ago), has about three times the energy efficiency, but requires high speed flow from the media (wind or water). On the Inet, some companies have combined these into a single structure, to maximize the advantages of both, AND their combined power efficiency is about that of the early American Farm Turbines, used for well pumping of water. Ordinary two-blade propellers have useage coefficients of about 0.5 (as used on small airplanes), and the the better 4-to-6-blade AI designs, have useage coefficients of about 0.6-to-0.7 (as used on military heavy airplanes, and newest open-rotor designs for low-carbon airplanes). Modern electric power gathering turbines are somewhere in between, and are limited by having to be high above the ground, requiring massive towers & huge infrastructure logistics, so are limited by external factors. The CEO of the company depicted in this video is a complete idiot, and obviously not smart enough to just go look at some ancient history. We are being forced to re-live "dreams from losers" about fundamental physics. PassItOn. Please.
Very interesting do you think I can find this book? You say they combined in a single structure! How so? Can you provide a key-WORD ? Thanks mate all the Best
This concept has been used as propulsion in shipping since 1926. Developed and manufactured by the company Voith in Heidenheim, Germany and called Voith-Schneider-Propeller.
@@Marcel-e5h Agreed that it exists. Agreed that it may have specific application benefits. Mass replacement or substitution for other propulsion technologies with VSP/cycloidal propulsion is just fantasy. Again, 90 year old tech that is not adopted as safe, reliable, efficient, & affordable is probably not those things. Only in a corrupted government model do those technologies (safe, reliable, efficient, affordable) not rise to the top/majority of usage.
@@AnthonyBennettKYYou are right👍 In Shipping it is most commonly used as propulsion on Harbour towing vehicles for beeing able to seamlessly change the vector of the propulsion. I have not heard of it for beeing better in terms of fuel consumption or sth else.
So what did your great grandfather tell Orville & Wilbur Wright in 1902?? 😉 Just joshing. Wonder how many told the Wrights to their face they were nutty??
Having spent many years driving next to other human beings on the roads, the thought of many of those people flying personal air vehicles gives me the screaming meemees.
@@Israelipropaganda There will also be an onboard AI named HAL, but I understand there is a glitch with his software that prevents him from opening the doors.
The efficiency of any wing-lift device relies on the minimum disc/wing loading. These stubby blades with their rapidly changing angles of attack are going to suffer from very high wing loading but also suffer from shock-stalling due to the rapidly changing angles of attack. No doubt the idea can be made to function but in my opinion it will be fearfully inefficient as a means of providing lift.
@@nobodyknows3180 Hydroelectric also has carbon footprint. You need to build the dam or dams first. You need to transport a lot of concrete and steel bar for construction. There cannot be no carbon footprint. You can argue that it is smaller.
@@nobodyknows3180 Only in the first cycle, and then only if using fossil fuels. Once an electric based infrastructure is built, it then provides the clean electricity for the second and subsequent generations. Already seen this in action with pure electric trucks being used to haul components for wind turbines.
@@binarybox.binarybox Had the same thing in the 70s - great for kites appearently but not so great for aeroplanes, for which it had been used also in the very beginning of humans building machines that can fly. Its also good for low velocity room fans.
An aircraft in a hover has a zero energy efficiency. Anything that makes lift from thrust has the same limitation. Therefore this idea is equally bad but is far worse. As stated, its limitation make more inefficient that a conventional helicopter. These designers need to understand the concept of thrust efficiency which favors the biggest propeller area, and the lowest possible thrust velocity. Sorry but this concept will ultimately fail as a practical aircraft propulsion method
Se questo è vero, perché tutto questo sviluppo sui droni per fare riprese , rilievi, foto e quant’altro? Non si potevano già fare con un normale elicottero?
Not true; Propeller design: Quadcopters typically use smaller, more efficient propellers compared to the large main rotor of a helicopter. Smaller propellers require less power to generate the necessary lift. Distributed thrust: A quadcopter distributes the thrust across four motors, whereas a helicopter concentrates all the thrust on a single main rotor. The distributed design of a quadcopter is more efficient. Control mechanism: Quadcopters use electronic flight control systems that can precisely adjust the speed of each motor, optimizing power usage. Helicopters rely more on mechanical linkages, which are less efficient. Aerodynamics: The compact, symmetric design of a quadcopter has less aerodynamic drag compared to the bulky fuselage and exposed rotor system of a helicopter. Overall, the combination of these factors makes quadcopters substantially more energy-efficient than helicopters when carrying similar payloads. The power efficiency advantage of quadcopters is a key reason for their widespread use in commercial and recreational drone applications
Can't wait to be all hype about this technology, only for the hype to die down and then to never hear about it ever again, which seems to happen an awful lot with these breaking technologies
The cyclic pitch control in a helicopter is achieved by changing the angle of attack of the blades over the revolution of the rotor. It is controlled by the swash plate (or azimuthal star) and it is the single greatest vulnerability of a chopper. You want to add 4-5 of those mechanical units per rotor and 4-8 rotors per aircraft. This will give you an unprecedented chance of failure and a very short MTBF. Your craft may also fail catastrophically, if a single blade control unit fails. Reliability and safety are enormous concerns by drone-like designs, as they usually do not survive the failure of a single rotor drive. And you take this risk to an all new height. Also keep in mind that helicopters waste 10-15% of their drive power in adjusting airblades at such high speeds. And that for about 100-180 degrees of the turn, the blades are at a suboptimal angle of attack. You basically advocate for replacing the propeller of the ship by a paddle wheel again. Add to this, that no one needs 360 degrees thrust distribution. You need 80%-90% downwash at all times and then the rest in forward or brake thrust. Unless you aim at inverted flight you solve a problem no one has.
in the late 30s when jack northrop developed the original flying wing the entire industry said he was nuts and after many years of developing and failures both with the aircraft with its mechanical wire and lever operated controls the plan was dropped, fast forward to 1980 shortly before his death he was able to see the flying wing in its' modern form, the B2 stealth bomber, with almost the exact same figurations as he developed in the 30s. at my age i've accepted that most of what we think is impossible is just waiting for the right time and person's to prove most things are possible.
Even drag racers have parachutes. I watched the moon mission return with a parachute. Then there was that dude that jumped from the edge of zero-G...yup, parachute.
Cycloidal props work well in water....not well in air as they're too small and need to spin too fast. Big thrust needs big bite and surface area engaging the air and cycloidal props just don't have it.
Yeah, the moving parts in the propeller plus the vortex forces.It's just too unstable.I feel like. The only benefit it has to the propeller is no spinning blade.
This is a pipe dream. It's so complex and fragile that it would never be safe or reliable for human flight. My plane has a variable pitch prop which is ridiculously simple by comparison, yet you can easily feel the massive change in force on the prop with even tiny changes in pitch. There is a point of diminishing returns in aviation, and cycloidal props are one of them.
There is nothing any more complicated with these than your "pitchable" propeller. And using electric motors you eliminate mechanical linkages and weight. Your airplane can not take of vertically, making it useless for urban travel.
@@_Coffee4Closers I don't believe you. Actual aviation experts would NOT use the made up and ignorant term "pitchable propeller". Someone who actually knows what they're talking about would call it a "Variable/controllable pitch propeller". Busted.
@@Thinks-First Believe what you want, I hold a pile of patents in Aerodynamics and engine design, I worked many military and commercial designs. If you can't understand the terms Pitchable and Propeller used in a sentence that's on you not me. The cyclonic design shown here is not meant for general "longer range" flights like your small plane, it is meant for short urban settings. Yes it is not the World's most efficient, but that is not the point. The point is the ability to maneuver in tight spots for short haul transportation. And yes these types of aircraft will find a niche market. By the way flying a plane does not mean you know anything about "Aviation" as a business model or Aerodynamics, or electronic control versus mechanical linkages.
You better wear hearing protection if you get near these cyclo rotors. I can just imagine your neighbor taking off in one of these things and waking the entire neighborhood.
Yeah they claim they'll be quieter, but ya can see from the high rotational speed that they won't be quieter at all without even needing to hear them. 🙉🎧😂🤣
Great point. Noise is one of those mundane, ordinary aspects that is hidden by fantasy, and flashy visuals, until your neighbour starts his giant leaf blower to fly to work in the morning. Lifting X lbs off the ground vertically requires moving Y cubic metres of air. Everytime. Not only will this giant leaf blower make noise, it'll blow everyone's leaves (and other debris) into everyone else's yard, and vice versa. I work in excavation and construction where underground electric lines are a major obstacle. Now imagine half the population with their flying "excavators" taking off and landing around overhead power lines every day.
I'm always a big fan of cooperative hybridization. Instead of trying to fully rely on one singular method or tool as a "one-size-fits-all" solution, I prefer to employ a combination of approaches, each bringing their own particular strengths to the table and combining in such a way that the whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts. As such, I think the approach of using the Cyclo-Rotors to generate the _lift,_ is not a good use for them. That's not playing to their strengths properly; there are *already* far better options available to get pure lifting power. Instead, the ability to re-direct thrust should be employed in stearing and maneuvering, and maybe adding to forward movement. I recall seeing another company working with "off-center" propellers that were _not_ radially symmetric. I could see something like _that_ used primarily for VTol, lift, and hovering; and then employing the omnidirectional advantage of Cyclo-Rotors, maybe even scaled down since they won't need to generate full _lift,_ only maneuvering thrust, for small trajectory adjustments. And when not needed for such, they can contribute with additional forward thrust for plain ol' speed. Another interesting technology I recall seeing used the same principle as in a Dyson Fan. A confined fan that compressed air and sent it through a ring-shaped outlet to create a high-speed "tube" of air. This, in turn, created a low-pressure vortex which pulled in air and forced it through the ring, compressing it and increasing its speed, thus generating thrust. It doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive sort of "you're only allowed _one_ technology, choose wisely" matter; a good designer and engineer ought to be able to incorporate whichever and as many of these are needed to get the job done. I can easily conceptualize a craft using a set of asymmetrical props for VTol and primary lift and secondary forward thrust, an internal "Dyson Fan" for primary forward thrust and secondary lift, and Cyclo-Props for primary maneuvering and secondary forward thrust.
These probably would be great in thicker atmosphere like that of Venus where you could achieve good thrust at much lower RPMs. Imagine you stick these into an airliner. The amount of wear and tear in bearings, pitch control mechanism will be too much.
Safety? Using cyclo rotors for propulsion is one thing, but using them lift is another thing entirely. A fixed wing aircraft can be landed "dead stick" in the event of engine failure, and even a rotary wing aircraft can execute a autorotation landing in the event of engine failure, but an aircraft relying on cycol rotors for lift, would fall like a brick if the power source was to fail.
While the concept of autorotation is well-established for conventional helicopter rotors, the application to cyclorotors is relatively newer. However, theoretical calculations and experimental tests have shown that cyclorotors are indeed capable of autorotation. One of the key advantages of cyclorotors is their ability to autorotate at a wide range of descent angles, including vertically. This is due to the unique design of the cyclorotor, which allows for independent control of each blade's pitch angle.
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Everyone is talking about this "new" technology but, in 1963 my father bought me a kit based on this design. How is it that it's new technology?
I'm glad you didn't just talk about the good points, but talked realistically about the problems. One other problem you didn't mention and that I think will delay them in general aviation is that you can't retrofit them onto existing aircraft.
Follow the general rule. From pre WWI through 1960, the best technical minds and efforts in the country were devoted to aviation. They knew what they were doing and none of them opted for this propeller nor for any of the zillions of other half-baked novelties. In short if it was not adopted, it wasn’t worth adopting.
@@crhu319 Absolutely. The engineers who work on engines thoroughly understand thermodynamics. They know that the combination of high energy per pound of jet fuel and the light weight of jet engines make everything else a nonstarter. Last year an amonia engine enthusiast happliy told me that amonia engines only increase the fuel load by 30%. But that would mean that a trans Pacific flight could carry no passengers. Or, i suppose, they could take out the seats and maybe carrying a few anorexic teenagers.
@@dancarter482 probably the best engineering in the WORLD. Two pieces of evidence. WWI was fought with biplanes…WWII was fought by P51s, Zeros and ME109s. AND 2, the modern jet plane and the old C130 did not appear by magic.
I can see these being possibly used as a more compact propulsion solution for VTOL aircraft as they solve a lot of the problems with tiltrotors needing to balance prop drag in forward flight with disk loading in hover and the footprint of the aircraft on the ground. They will not replace traditional helicopters or airplanes however.
It will be mentioned again but it will be a tough road. Even towards the video end he talks about the really high speeds these units require, but those speeds tear apart the materials. Helicopters and auto gyros were crazy concepts at one time, especially the helo which I still don't trust especially if its a Huey operated by the US Army Guard forces.
When it gets the magic formula dialed in, it will be of interest. Until then it is only a novelty in flying machines where progress has often been measured in blood from test pilots.
In the beginning you said they create high thrust at a very low rotation , then in the end , you said one of there downfalls is because of the high rotation ?
there have been many prototypes over the last 90 years, but none of them seems to have worked very well, if they had worked as stated here they would be flying all around us
The benefit of cycloidal propellers has increased with more adaptive control mechanisms, eg computerised monitoring and control. One flaw, no gyrorotion or auto-rotation on failure. Again you require more complex control and monitoring to even resemble a safe aircraft.
I'm not to fond of the open blade ship propellers. I see those as being Whale Killers. I think Azipods and Bow Thrusters are more efficient and don't require addition draft depth.
@@PRH123 Demand? I asked neutrally and with a please. That offends you somehow? Maybe I should be offended with a misguided accusation. Go back to reading comic books in your parents basement.
@@joewoodchuck3824 I said amused, not offended. And you did indeed request him to provide you with data. That’s not an accusation of any kind, just an observation, that is indeed amusing. As far as your basement comment, if you would like to insult someone you really should be move creative than using that very old and very standard internet meme :)
219% more thrust is a highly misleading term. A regular propeller can easily reach an efficiency of >85%. A variable pitch propeller can achieve this high efficiency over a huge range of velocity.
This video should be 2 minutes long but if you listen carefully they repeat the exact same thing seven times. Over and over they have a point they repeat that point seven times but changing it slightly every time they repeat it it's annoying
why not close the gaps between foils, just like the impellers in air-conditioner fans, maybe it will be more efficient! might be resulting slower cycling but more force out
how the HELL does one 'destroy' an industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY MAKING IT OVER 200% MORE EFFICIENT IN A VITAL PART OF IT?????????????
Los rusos siempre han sido muy creativos en sus soluciones, pero la visión torcida de EEUU e Inglaterra, ha frenado al mundo, segado y nublado la visión y la tecnología
Had a kids toy in the 70's that was based on a plastic plane body with a set of these rotors on and worked like a kite , flew way better than a std kite and looked way cooler .
Once the _Unobtainium_ mines are up and running and the _Unexplainium_ equations are all solved we can use this stuff for sight seeing trips to the Sun!
With the burgeoning of industrial production of graphene in the EU, metal fatigue on the rotors will history. When it comes to security issues, c'mon, never heard about BRS (ballistic Recovery System)? It's already mandatory on light aircraft in several countries
I have often wondered if there was a better way to propel a boat in the water, a way that would be less damaging to fish and or manatees and whales. I don’t believe this is the answer to that problem but it would come in handy for local commuting.
@ I don’t mean it that way but now that you mention it ever heard of the Manhattan island ferry? There are commuter ferry’s all over the world which makes your comment uninformed.
@@roysnider3456 You’re talking about individual commuting by boat (not ship), not about ferries. In any case no manatees or whales in the waters around Manhattan, mister well-informed.
@ no just Florida and a lot of Asian country’s who use far more ferries than we do here in the states, those and dugongs. And it’s funny how you pick and choose which part of my comment you try and fail to refute. Sounds like a troll looking for a reaction to me. Move along troll no joy here sorry.
@@roysnider3456 Refute? Don’t understand. This is what’s called a conversation. You really shouldn’t post things if you’re too emotionally sensitive to have people discuss them.
Who wrote the title? It will destroy the aviation industry if adopted. Maybe someone with a working brain should do the article or report headline. Something like revolutionize, change, even disrupt?
These are active propellers and therefore way too complex to really use properly except in very specific circumstances. . They have other problems That generally just make them not worth the trouble. Especially maintenance wise.
I have a "book" which was published in 1978, which explained pretty much everything you would want to know about Rotors. This company is trying to push a Savonius Rotor which rarely has a specific power coefficient above about 0.15, but is very good at moving large masses of material, at slow speeds (as used to position ships and oil platforms). For practical purposes, it is just an1800 paddle-wheel river boat. In contrast, the competing Darrieus Rotor (invented about 2000-years ago), has about three times the energy efficiency, but requires high speed flow from the media (wind or water). On the Inet, some companies have combined these into a single structure, to maximize the advantages of both, AND their combined power efficiency is about that of the early American Farm Turbines, used for well pumping of water. Ordinary two-blade propellers have useage coefficients of about 0.5 (as used on small airplanes), and the the better 4-to-6-blade AI designs, have useage coefficients of about 0.6-to-0.7 (as used on military heavy airplanes, and newest open-rotor designs for low-carbon airplanes). Modern electric power gathering turbines are somewhere in between, and are limited by having to be high above the ground, requiring massive towers & huge infrastructure logistics, so are limited by external factors. The CEO of the company depicted in this video is a complete idiot, and obviously not smart enough to just go look at some ancient history. We are being forced to re-live "dreams from losers" about fundamental physics. PassItOn. Please.
Very interesting do you think I can find this book?
You say they combined in a single structure! How so? Can you provide a key-WORD ?
Thanks mate all the Best
But! But! But! There's soooo much $money$ in UA-cam videos!
Even your comment, and mine, help monetize this guy...
@@brunonikodemski2420 Thank you brother! I will research as so as I eat my meal!
в 70-х было осуществоено много прорывов в исследованиях по всему миру, но потом началась эпоха иудаизма в науке и все стоящее пришло в упадок
@@istinaanitsi3342 fake Judaism
If it worked efficiently and was safe & reliable it would be everywhere by now. That tells you everything.
This concept has been used as propulsion in shipping since 1926. Developed and manufactured by the company Voith in Heidenheim, Germany and called Voith-Schneider-Propeller.
@@Marcel-e5h
Agreed that it exists. Agreed that it may have specific application benefits. Mass replacement or substitution for other propulsion technologies with VSP/cycloidal propulsion is just fantasy.
Again, 90 year old tech that is not adopted as safe, reliable, efficient, & affordable is probably not those things. Only in a corrupted government model do those technologies (safe, reliable, efficient, affordable) not rise to the top/majority of usage.
@@AnthonyBennettKYYou are right👍 In Shipping it is most commonly used as propulsion on Harbour towing vehicles for beeing able to seamlessly change the vector of the propulsion. I have not heard of it for beeing better in terms of fuel consumption or sth else.
@@Marcel-e5h Please advise just which ships use it, Have not seen any evidence to date.
So what did your great grandfather tell Orville & Wilbur Wright in 1902?? 😉 Just joshing. Wonder how many told the Wrights to their face they were nutty??
Having spent many years driving next to other human beings on the roads, the thought of many of those people flying personal air vehicles gives me the screaming meemees.
It will be Cyberdyne systems controlling the flight so you should be fine, isn't that right arnold.
@@Israelipropaganda There will also be an onboard AI named HAL, but I understand there is a glitch with his software that prevents him from opening the doors.
It would certainly reduce the population. better build a concrete roof on your house. they'll be falling everywhere.
Don't worry most of the crappy drivers are too broke to afford any more than a dodge minivan
@@smithjones3548 LOLOL
The efficiency of any wing-lift device relies on the minimum disc/wing loading. These stubby blades with their rapidly changing angles of attack are going to suffer from very high wing loading but also suffer from shock-stalling due to the rapidly changing angles of attack. No doubt the idea can be made to function but in my opinion it will be fearfully inefficient as a means of providing lift.
very good argument ... possibly u can invent a material that handles this well but it will always be the weak-point of this tech.
Yeah. Seems like a lot of wasted power doing what it does. And horrible during wind turbulence.
But I don't know. Not an engineer.
>we have helicopters
>nobody:
>this!
I want to hear the dBA of one of these things 😂😂😂
Bitcoin fuel will make it work.
Any “scientist” who says electric is carbon dioxide free has lost all credibility to me.
Except for hydroelectric. Even solar and wind have an enormous carbon footprint because of what it takes to produce the components.
@@nobodyknows3180 Hydroelectric also has carbon footprint. You need to build the dam or dams first. You need to transport a lot of concrete and steel bar for construction. There cannot be no carbon footprint. You can argue that it is smaller.
well, you are basically tard then.
@@nobodyknows3180 Only in the first cycle, and then only if using fossil fuels. Once an electric based infrastructure is built, it then provides the clean electricity for the second and subsequent generations. Already seen this in action with pure electric trucks being used to haul components for wind turbines.
Any person that thinks electricity production requires carbon has lost all credibility nowadays.
Tugs use these propellers for their manoeuvrability. In an aircraft they are far heavier than a traditional propeller.
Had a toy aircraft that worked on the principle of revolving wings when used as a kite, this was in 1955. Phil.
I had a kite with rotating wings around the 50s...it was called Revojet.
@@binarybox.binarybox Had the same thing in the 70s - great for kites appearently but not so great for aeroplanes, for which it had been used also in the very beginning of humans building machines that can fly. Its also good for low velocity room fans.
@@binarybox.binarybox Yeah, my aircraft/kite was branded Rotaflyer.
Yep! I remember those. I was 11 in ‘55.
An aircraft in a hover has a zero energy efficiency. Anything that makes lift from thrust has the same limitation. Therefore this idea is equally bad but is far worse. As stated, its limitation make more inefficient that a conventional helicopter. These designers need to understand the concept of thrust efficiency which favors the biggest propeller area, and the lowest possible thrust velocity. Sorry but this concept will ultimately fail as a practical aircraft propulsion method
Se questo è vero, perché tutto questo sviluppo sui droni per fare riprese , rilievi, foto e quant’altro? Non si potevano già fare con un normale elicottero?
Not true;
Propeller design: Quadcopters typically use smaller, more efficient propellers compared to the large main rotor of a helicopter. Smaller propellers require less power to generate the necessary lift.
Distributed thrust: A quadcopter distributes the thrust across four motors, whereas a helicopter concentrates all the thrust on a single main rotor. The distributed design of a quadcopter is more efficient.
Control mechanism: Quadcopters use electronic flight control systems that can precisely adjust the speed of each motor, optimizing power usage. Helicopters rely more on mechanical linkages, which are less efficient.
Aerodynamics: The compact, symmetric design of a quadcopter has less aerodynamic drag compared to the bulky fuselage and exposed rotor system of a helicopter.
Overall, the combination of these factors makes quadcopters substantially more energy-efficient than helicopters when carrying similar payloads. The power efficiency advantage of quadcopters is a key reason for their widespread use in commercial and recreational drone applications
@@cinemoriahFPV Grazie per la risposta, è quello che sostengo anche io.
Propellers produce less thrust towards the center, these are towards the outside
Maybe when they inject vaxxsheens in it it will be the most efficient aka healthy option.
Can't wait to be all hype about this technology, only for the hype to die down and then to never hear about it ever again, which seems to happen an awful lot with these breaking technologies
They're too loud. I won't work
Agreed.🎯
Wait ? It’s already old 😅
Especially in aviation. Someone is going to change the world every year for a hundred years. And they usually do not.
I wonder what a errant floating shopping bag would affect one of these craft if ingested?
The cyclic pitch control in a helicopter is achieved by changing the angle of attack of the blades over the revolution of the rotor. It is controlled by the swash plate (or azimuthal star) and it is the single greatest vulnerability of a chopper.
You want to add 4-5 of those mechanical units per rotor and 4-8 rotors per aircraft. This will give you an unprecedented chance of failure and a very short MTBF.
Your craft may also fail catastrophically, if a single blade control unit fails. Reliability and safety are enormous concerns by drone-like designs, as they usually do not survive the failure of a single rotor drive. And you take this risk to an all new height.
Also keep in mind that helicopters waste 10-15% of their drive power in adjusting airblades at such high speeds. And that for about 100-180 degrees of the turn, the blades are at a suboptimal angle of attack. You basically advocate for replacing the propeller of the ship by a paddle wheel again.
Add to this, that no one needs 360 degrees thrust distribution. You need 80%-90% downwash at all times and then the rest in forward or brake thrust. Unless you aim at inverted flight you solve a problem no one has.
in the late 30s when jack northrop developed the original flying wing the entire industry said he was nuts and after many years of developing and failures both with the aircraft with its mechanical wire and lever operated controls the plan was dropped, fast forward to 1980 shortly before his death he was able to see the flying wing in its' modern form, the B2 stealth bomber, with almost the exact same figurations as he developed in the 30s. at my age i've accepted that most of what we think is impossible is just waiting for the right time and person's to prove most things are possible.
NO GLIDING to a safer landing... You just FAIL out of the sky
@@etyrnal Falling = failing 🤣🤣 Gravity always wins
Even drag racers have parachutes. I watched the moon mission return with a parachute. Then there was that dude that jumped from the edge of zero-G...yup, parachute.
@@DisposableEgo what’s the edge of zero g?
Elliptical loads create vibration. I imagine the harmonics of this design are an issue.
Cycloidal props work well in water....not well in air as they're too small and need to spin too fast. Big thrust needs big bite and surface area engaging the air and cycloidal props just don't have it.
Yeah, the moving parts in the propeller plus the vortex forces.It's just too unstable.I feel like. The only benefit it has to the propeller is no spinning blade.
@@recoilrob324 & due to the ridiculous rotational speed the noise and gyroscopic effects would be fearsome
This is a pipe dream. It's so complex and fragile that it would never be safe or reliable for human flight. My plane has a variable pitch prop which is ridiculously simple by comparison, yet you can easily feel the massive change in force on the prop with even tiny changes in pitch. There is a point of diminishing returns in aviation, and cycloidal props are one of them.
There is nothing any more complicated with these than your "pitchable" propeller. And using electric motors you eliminate mechanical linkages and weight. Your airplane can not take of vertically, making it useless for urban travel.
@@_Coffee4Closers You clearly know nothing about aviation.
@@Thinks-First LOL, over 30 years as an Aerodynamic designer for both of the World's biggest jet engine makes would prove you wrong but OK, pal.
@@_Coffee4Closers I don't believe you. Actual aviation experts would NOT use the made up and ignorant term "pitchable propeller". Someone who actually knows what they're talking about would call it a "Variable/controllable pitch propeller". Busted.
@@Thinks-First Believe what you want, I hold a pile of patents in Aerodynamics and engine design, I worked many military and commercial designs. If you can't understand the terms Pitchable and Propeller used in a sentence that's on you not me. The cyclonic design shown here is not meant for general "longer range" flights like your small plane, it is meant for short urban settings. Yes it is not the World's most efficient, but that is not the point. The point is the ability to maneuver in tight spots for short haul transportation. And yes these types of aircraft will find a niche market. By the way flying a plane does not mean you know anything about "Aviation" as a business model or Aerodynamics, or electronic control versus mechanical linkages.
You better wear hearing protection if you get near these cyclo rotors. I can just imagine your neighbor taking off in one of these things and waking the entire neighborhood.
Yeah they claim they'll be quieter, but ya can see from the high rotational speed that they won't be quieter at all without even needing to hear them. 🙉🎧😂🤣
Great point. Noise is one of those mundane, ordinary aspects that is hidden by fantasy, and flashy visuals, until your neighbour starts his giant leaf blower to fly to work in the morning.
Lifting X lbs off the ground vertically requires moving Y cubic metres of air. Everytime. Not only will this giant leaf blower make noise, it'll blow everyone's leaves (and other debris) into everyone else's yard, and vice versa.
I work in excavation and construction where underground electric lines are a major obstacle. Now imagine half the population with their flying "excavators" taking off and landing around overhead power lines every day.
@@gregorytoews8316 Spot on observation.
This presents like an info-mercial. I kept waiting for the announcer to say
"Set it and forget it!"
I'm always a big fan of cooperative hybridization. Instead of trying to fully rely on one singular method or tool as a "one-size-fits-all" solution, I prefer to employ a combination of approaches, each bringing their own particular strengths to the table and combining in such a way that the whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts.
As such, I think the approach of using the Cyclo-Rotors to generate the _lift,_ is not a good use for them. That's not playing to their strengths properly; there are *already* far better options available to get pure lifting power. Instead, the ability to re-direct thrust should be employed in stearing and maneuvering, and maybe adding to forward movement.
I recall seeing another company working with "off-center" propellers that were _not_ radially symmetric. I could see something like _that_ used primarily for VTol, lift, and hovering; and then employing the omnidirectional advantage of Cyclo-Rotors, maybe even scaled down since they won't need to generate full _lift,_ only maneuvering thrust, for small trajectory adjustments. And when not needed for such, they can contribute with additional forward thrust for plain ol' speed.
Another interesting technology I recall seeing used the same principle as in a Dyson Fan. A confined fan that compressed air and sent it through a ring-shaped outlet to create a high-speed "tube" of air. This, in turn, created a low-pressure vortex which pulled in air and forced it through the ring, compressing it and increasing its speed, thus generating thrust.
It doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive sort of "you're only allowed _one_ technology, choose wisely" matter; a good designer and engineer ought to be able to incorporate whichever and as many of these are needed to get the job done.
I can easily conceptualize a craft using a set of asymmetrical props for VTol and primary lift and secondary forward thrust, an internal "Dyson Fan" for primary forward thrust and secondary lift, and Cyclo-Props for primary maneuvering and secondary forward thrust.
These probably would be great in thicker atmosphere like that of Venus where you could achieve good thrust at much lower RPMs. Imagine you stick these into an airliner. The amount of wear and tear in bearings, pitch control mechanism will be too much.
Safety? Using cyclo rotors for propulsion is one thing, but using them lift is another thing entirely. A fixed wing aircraft can be landed "dead stick" in the event of engine failure, and even a rotary wing aircraft can execute a autorotation landing in the event of engine failure, but an aircraft relying on cycol rotors for lift, would fall like a brick if the power source was to fail.
Drag racers have parachutes
While the concept of autorotation is well-established for conventional helicopter rotors, the application to cyclorotors is relatively newer. However, theoretical calculations and experimental tests have shown that cyclorotors are indeed capable of autorotation.
One of the key advantages of cyclorotors is their ability to autorotate at a wide range of descent angles, including vertically. This is due to the unique design of the cyclorotor, which allows for independent control of each blade's pitch angle.
@@DisposableEgo; OK, drag racers have parachutes, and your point is?
@@jonathanbrooks1857; Yes, helicopters can autorotate , but can this device do that? I highly doubt it.
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Everyone is talking about this "new" technology but, in 1963 my father bought me a kit based on this design. How is it that it's new technology?
Wonder how they glide
Bless his heart. Still watches the JETSONS.
Stick the fan in a box & have it blow air out of slots in a hollow ring, call it a Dycyson.
Very good reason these never took off ( pun inc ) they have far to many parts with failure ever present.
So like 4 upscaled Remington electric shavers around a canoe?
Why have an 80 pound solid propeller with no moving parts when you can have six sixty pound propellers with hundreds of moving parts?
Was there an 1873 era US navy torpedo boat (USS Alarm) that used a type of this propulsion?
1 plane = aircraft
Multiple aircraft = aircraft
Multiple aircraft types = aircrafts
1 fish = fish
multiple fish = fish
multiple species of fish = fishes
Inflammable means flammable.
Yes, aircraft!
@@Famous-Potatoes
1 deer = deer
Multiple deer = deer
I'm glad you didn't just talk about the good points, but talked realistically about the problems. One other problem you didn't mention and that I think will delay them in general aviation is that you can't retrofit them onto existing aircraft.
Im surprised that they havent made them so they retract into the crafit when not needed. Or have they?
Sure, more mechanical complexity and weight. Would be even less capable of carrying any useful load. When would they not be needed?
If we applied this to a racing car wheel, with rubber either side of the wheel, with the blades in the middle, will this increase the drivers thrust.
Follow the general rule. From pre WWI through 1960, the best technical minds and efforts in the country were devoted to aviation. They knew what they were doing and none of them opted for this propeller nor for any of the zillions of other half-baked novelties.
In short if it was not adopted, it wasn’t worth adopting.
Same for all the "new" hydrogen and ammonia engines 😂
@@crhu319 Absolutely. The engineers who work on engines thoroughly understand thermodynamics. They know that the combination of high energy per pound of jet fuel and the light weight of jet engines make everything else a nonstarter. Last year an amonia engine enthusiast happliy told me that amonia engines only increase the fuel load by 30%. But that would mean that a trans Pacific flight could carry no passengers. Or, i suppose, they could take out the seats and maybe carrying a few anorexic teenagers.
"The country" - _Really?_
@@dancarter482 probably the best engineering in the WORLD. Two pieces of evidence. WWI was fought with biplanes…WWII was fought by P51s, Zeros and ME109s. AND 2, the modern jet plane and the old C130 did not appear by magic.
@@piperg6179 Mitchel (Spitfire) English. Whittle (Jet) English. Rolls/Royce (Merlin engine used in the P51 etc.) English. W.von Braun (Rockets) German.
I can see these being possibly used as a more compact propulsion solution for VTOL aircraft as they solve a lot of the problems with tiltrotors needing to balance prop drag in forward flight with disk loading in hover and the footprint of the aircraft on the ground. They will not replace traditional helicopters or airplanes however.
Yet another miracle that will never be seen or mentioned again.
It will be mentioned again but it will be a tough road. Even towards the video end he talks about the really high speeds these units require, but those speeds tear apart the materials.
Helicopters and auto gyros were crazy concepts at one time, especially the helo which I still don't trust especially if its a Huey operated by the US Army Guard forces.
@@LuvBorderCollies I'm with you on helicopters being very dangerous. Auto-gyros are interesting and much safer.
I sometimes wonder whether a screw shaped rotating magnetic field might also work?
Pilot here, cant really see how
In a plasma environment, or ionized solution in liquid maybe?
How loud is it?
1:38 самолёт (samoLYot) translates (and means) as airplane
When it gets the magic formula dialed in, it will be of interest. Until then it is only a novelty in flying machines where progress has often been measured in blood from test pilots.
_V22 Osprey!_
Can these be used in water?
Yes, starting at 4:11 the video goes over them extensively.
In the beginning you said they create high thrust at a very low rotation , then in the end , you said one of there downfalls is because of the high rotation ?
What about for Windmills?
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how well it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
Partly, of course. Noise is an extremely important aspect. As well as the effects of the mass of downwardly moving air it would generate.
Why would they destroy the aviation industry? If they are that good, wouldn't they benefit the aviation industry?
Pair this with Jetoptera’s fluidic propulsion system (which would provide thrust) and you’ve got yourself a potential hoverbike.
Could prove the concept by building a desk fan with it.
I'd like to see a working prototype.
there have been many prototypes over the last 90 years, but none of them seems to have worked very well, if they had worked as stated here they would be flying all around us
One of these you showed looks a lot like a ancient piece in Egypt museum that nobody can figure out what it was used for.
Why is cycloidal now pronounced cycloidial?
Cycloidal props would be ideal for airships and luxury airship cruising.
Looks like the kind of propellers that George Jetson used in the cartoon or even Steve zodiac and the puppet cartoon Fireball xl5 😯😀👍
Squirrel cage fans are awesome
Love it, the rotor is carbon free, made from carbon fibre.
And it’s sustainable. It was carbon fiber yesterday, and it still is today :)
how about using that for a wind turbine?
Easy solution. Instead of Vanos veins keep them static rotate your housing as nozzles
Being CO2 free is unimportant. Safety is paramount.
The benefit of cycloidal propellers has increased with more adaptive control mechanisms, eg computerised monitoring and control.
One flaw, no gyrorotion or auto-rotation on failure. Again you require more complex control and monitoring to even resemble a safe aircraft.
This is the future of aviation in 3d rendering.
I'm not to fond of the open blade ship propellers. I see those as being Whale Killers. I think Azipods and Bow Thrusters are more efficient and don't require addition draft depth.
Statistics on the whales injured by propellers please
@@SnowTiger45 Some do have a disk shaped lower cover,
@@joewoodchuck3824always amusing to see comments demanding annotated footnotes and a bibliography to a u tube comment
@@PRH123 Demand? I asked neutrally and with a please. That offends you somehow?
Maybe I should be offended with a misguided accusation. Go back to reading comic books in your parents basement.
@@joewoodchuck3824 I said amused, not offended. And you did indeed request him to provide you with data. That’s not an accusation of any kind, just an observation, that is indeed amusing.
As far as your basement comment, if you would like to insult someone you really should be move creative than using that very old and very standard internet meme :)
Marine versions look incredibly vulnerable to damage - which will be catastrophic and irrecoverable as the blades systematically destroy each other.
Not to mention the capacity to damage wildlife.
how loud are they
219% more thrust is a highly misleading term. A regular propeller can easily reach an efficiency of >85%. A variable pitch propeller can achieve this high efficiency over a huge range of velocity.
My dog made me watch this. I have no opinion, one way or the other. Woof.
I think the design might change, I saw at the beginning of the video a complex interesting design.
Thank you for this video 👍🏻
Right, let's get this sorted now... Is the voiceover pronouncing it incorrectly or should it be spelled 'cycloidial'?
This video should be 2 minutes long but if you listen carefully they repeat the exact same thing seven times. Over and over they have a point they repeat that point seven times but changing it slightly every time they repeat it it's annoying
I call it “the joy of repetition “….😅. I observe it on many (probably AI- generated?) videos….
8:09 "...expensive as all hell"? LOL
why not close the gaps between foils, just like the impellers in air-conditioner fans, maybe it will be more efficient! might be resulting slower cycling but more force out
Can't wait to see DUI with these machines.
Turn these sideways and that’s what many high tech tug boats are using. 360 degree thrust vectoring instantly.
I would have watched this video if the audio levels were more balanced
Narrator really needs to learn to pronounce "cycloidal." Three syllables, not four.
Fantastic commercial Cyclotech.
Actually, every detail of this propeller was developes in the 19th century to propell paddlewheel steamships.
Yeah I heard about these over a decade ago I think.
If they're so great, why aren't they everywhere now? We don't even have toys that use these.
Idc how efficient if it’s moving enough air to lift vehicles it’s gonna be too noisy/windy for anything revolutionary
I'm imagining the glide path if it loses power. Yikes.
how the HELL does one 'destroy' an industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY MAKING IT OVER 200% MORE EFFICIENT IN A VITAL PART OF IT?????????????
Do I hear titanium additive manufacturing in the near future?
Los rusos siempre han sido muy creativos en sus soluciones, pero la visión torcida de EEUU e Inglaterra, ha frenado al mundo, segado y nublado la visión y la tecnología
Gracias a Dios están en decadencia, y el mundo pronto podrá vivir libre de su oscurantismo y violencia, y florecer en prosperidad
I guess they never heard of Occam's Razor. That is one complicated propeller.
Had a kids toy in the 70's that was based on a plastic plane body with a set of these rotors on and worked like a kite , flew way better than a std kite and looked way cooler .
Similarly, a crossflow hydro turbine is a real good design for water :)
How about Cyclorotors for Wind Power Generators!
This is like the fusion reactor thing! If it worked we would see it everywhere! The Truth is that does not work well like fusion will not work.
Once the _Unobtainium_ mines are up and running and the _Unexplainium_ equations are all solved we can use this stuff for sight seeing trips to the Sun!
With the burgeoning of industrial production of graphene in the EU, metal fatigue on the rotors will history.
When it comes to security issues, c'mon, never heard about BRS (ballistic Recovery System)? It's already mandatory on light aircraft in several countries
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how stably it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
In the next 20 years these will be viable because Battery Technology will be so much lighter
It sounds like it would be more suited to the renewable energy sector, as a V.A.W.T.
I have often wondered if there was a better way to propel a boat in the water, a way that would be less damaging to fish and or manatees and whales. I don’t believe this is the answer to that problem but it would come in handy for local commuting.
Not many people commute by boat
@ I don’t mean it that way but now that you mention it ever heard of the Manhattan island ferry? There are commuter ferry’s all over the world which makes your comment uninformed.
@@roysnider3456 You’re talking about individual commuting by boat (not ship), not about ferries. In any case no manatees or whales in the waters around Manhattan, mister well-informed.
@ no just Florida and a lot of Asian country’s who use far more ferries than we do here in the states, those and dugongs. And it’s funny how you pick and choose which part of my comment you try and fail to refute. Sounds like a troll looking for a reaction to me. Move along troll no joy here sorry.
@@roysnider3456 Refute? Don’t understand. This is what’s called a conversation. You really shouldn’t post things if you’re too emotionally sensitive to have people discuss them.
Who wrote the title? It will destroy the aviation industry if adopted. Maybe someone with a working brain should do the article or report headline. Something like revolutionize, change, even disrupt?
These are active propellers and therefore way too complex to really use properly except in very specific circumstances. . They have other problems That generally just make them not worth the trouble. Especially maintenance wise.
Santos-Dumont is known as the real "Father of Aviation".
How about boat ?
Maybe the Police Spinner from Blade Runner is not far off?
At first they are extremely optimistic, then reality sets in when the disadvantages are mentioned 🤷♂️
These propellers are not a technological breakthrough, they have been using them on tugboats for over 30 years!
Exactly! I saw one the other day flying over a job site I was at.
I cant imagine it being able to lift much compared ro normal rotors
you're not going to have flying cars until FSD is perfected.
would be FSF, and in other words, never
If THIS is gonna "destroy the aviation industry", why hasn't ANYBODY else mentioned it?