The other thing to add to that is true all-weather capability... put an IR camera in the nose of that thing and hook it to the inevitable glass panels in the cockpit...
Decades of Aeronautical Engineering experience tells me this design is a winner. Make a float plane, amphibious, and Ekranoplane versions to cover all markets.
Blown lift is old hat - Breguet built such an aircraft also intended to use STOLports in the 60s Eastern trialled it even. Having UNblown tail surfaces exposes the aircraft to potentially uncontrollable 'excursions' due to gusts at low speed when "hanging on the props' at critical height and speeds . The blowing effect leads to enormous induced drag and may make a go around impossible --getting too slow can be fatal (backside of the power curve) that said, better than VTOL in this respect . It IS powered lift unless you intend to always fly ABOVE the power off stall speed (ie not power/lift dependant ) -the 'airbrake effect' of stopped props will also equally destroy lift on the wing behind -sideslipping might be prohibited due to separation from the pods . Landing technique with highly deflected flaps is different --just as gliders with 90 degree flaps must be respected should an undershoot be in prospect . The DH Caribou is a good example of massive blown flaps - it lands nose DOWN and can be 'taxied' on the nose wheel in light winds --DH investigated this whole area decades ago including having a REVERSE thrust tail prop to allow spooling up the 'lift' props without speeding up --this aircraft should have that .
@@Bob_Adkins Why is it "obvious"? -- They have released their best guess publicly and it discloses grave shortcomings - design is what they have done to arrive at this result whether assisted by computer or not. Did Larry Paige set out to spend $100 million for nothing ? (the aborted/abandoned eVTOLS -like the Heaviside which, like the Archer efforts ,also has tail surfaces flying at a totally different AIR speed than the rest of the aircraft - and given that that will be zero in hover even worse than this one ( and likewise CityHop plus others ) Did the horde of prior VTOLS that all ended in failure ,shown on the classic 'wheel of misfortune' (google it if unfamiliar ) 'obviously' know their efforts would not work out ? When spending other people's money and getting fat salaries in the meantime it might make some sense to continue with 'obviously' deficient projects - like the nearly 800 current eVTOLs listed on the VFS site. Maybe we have a different understanding of what obvious means. The first time they try flying these contraptions on a windy blustery day in the real world I think it WILL be obvious.
PS look uo some of the blown wing prototypes like the Ryan vertiplane VZ3 or Fairchild VZ5 or look up some of the hundreds of research papers from NACA by the likes of Zimmerman and Rogallo et al that tested all these 'concepts' long ago , also talk to pilots of some of the few real STOL aircraft that fly behind the power curve - a really dangerous region for nonobvious reasons.
STOL makes so much sense. Is VTOL more of a sexy fad? Hybrid with a generator, shame, but with the advances in battery tech, easy to replace the genny with more batteries. At least for shorter routes.
I recall John Langford from the MIT HPV projects so he should be aware of the potential to reduce power requirements drastically over both eVTOL and CTOL state of the art -- there is a trade off for blown lift since it needs high slipstream velocity over the wing hence small fast turning props -potentially noisey and giving lower acceleration than if larger (note the gaps between the props here) -- I assume they have done their parametric studies around this . Span is limited for practical reasons and so induced drag and power are higher than need be (high Cl at high air velocity makes for higher power than if compared to unblown high span and high area at flight velocity --loss of both thrust and lift together and need to retain symmettry by shutting down 'opposite' props makes for a critical failure case --the messing up of lift if all power is lost in glide mode could be drastic. The similar Maxwekll x57 ,now defunct --used the same design philosophy -- it was abandoned before being flown . Stolports are exceedingly rare and stol flight is notoriously dangerous being power dependent and 'behind the power curve ' - a big trap for the unwary. (Cessna deleted it's 40 degree flap setting because of this - I have personal experience of the 'backside trap'......
Added complexity and cost for the initial use case. ie. make it commercially viable. VTOL may be in the future, however would require a complete redesign. As VTOL you're abandoning the principle of blown lift. The V280 already exists - at $25-$30M a copy ...
Is there any reason a vectored lift aircraft (Joby, Archer, etc.) cannot take advantage of a short runway when available and achieve the same savings under the favorable circumstances?
Propeller diameter - Any wheel-based horizontal speed will reduce energy use, but some designs have prop interference with the ground when in horizontal configuration. Launch them off a rail...
If you saw this video ua-cam.com/video/esTykmreHuQ/v-deo.htmlsi=H171rB6Uswx5O6hq The company engineers were in a chase aircraft ...... not on board of the electric plane....
@@snorttroll4379Ive thought of this too. A drone with a high output charging cord that has connectors at the top (ot the drone)for an evtol aircraft to take off without using its battery.
you know, if they could do that, they sure could access a lot of (wealthy) urban customers who want to leave from a downtown, or arrive at one, given all the cities by rivers or bays or ocean etc, as im sure you know.. that would be excellent.. i guess you need a lot more power to take off from water, at least until hydroplaning and still need a lot to get free? thx.
Just once I’d love to see this aircraft filled with 9 average people with all of there belongings/ baggage in the aircraft then let’s see the short field takeoff . Talk is cheap real life operations is a bright light of truth and not some pie in the sky dream of the sales department. Come on man show us the real deal . Please Please pretty please .
Blown wings really do work. "Short" is related to the load and available field length. You will see it, it will be short... not as short as the same empty aircraft. Significantly shorter than a conventional wing. See Theory of Wing Sections - Abbot and Van Donhoff. Historically, why bother when the military complex has provided many long runways? Now those runways are congested, as is ground transport to get to them.
I’m not anti innovation but I’m a realist show me a working model doing the job that the claims of verbiage talk about . It’s likened to the space rocket if it never leaves the ground no one’s gonna buy all the fuss around it’s capabilities in any believable fashion within perceived realities.
You need a high drag airframe to ALLOW high propeller speed on landing --otherwise you just accelerate -- the theory of a large number of very small diameter propellers to 'fool' the wing that it is flying faster is problematical -- you are in fact dealing with a narrow rectangle of high speed air being deflected by the wing it is the mass flow through that RECTANGLE and NOT the circle emcompassing the whole span that is involved -the X57 maxwell was testing the actual mass flow /Cl relationship of many tiny props -- the MacCready electric multi prop high altitude tailess drones of the 80s and even other one offs using scores of model aircraft engines probed the boundaries of just energizing a boundary layer versus genuine large mass flow deflection . Finding a few hundred yards of 'runway' WITH CLEAR APPROACHES AND DEPARTURES in any urban area is not easy --built UP areas are built up --no forgotten open spaces and the mechanical turbulence from the surrounding ground clutter in any wind is a show stopper from control and safety aspects. Seeley's 'pocket airports' were a nightmare idea that thankfully died on the vine.
@@jeffreypierson3023 Abbot and Von Doenhoff says nothing about blown wings let alone tiny multi props scabbed onto a wing -- just imagine power failure under high power - instant roll on your back , birdstrike/flockstrike will be thousands of times more frequent that 'one in a billion flying hours' as being touted by thr UAM/AAM proponents. STOL pilots know the danger of flight 'behind the power curve' --not a healthy option.
@@rossnolan7283 See chapter 8 on High Lift Devices. You are correct that they do not discuss external air accelerators. Do you agree that local acceleration of air over the airfoil increases lift?
Similarly cowardly lies have been heard from traditional automakers against the transition to EVs. A core problem is that a Vtol craft will instantly outcompete it because it can land on any building roof or even urban ground. Second, they aim for 9 passangers which is the traditional bus thinking and that too is instantly outcompeted by taxi operation. I don't know how wall street types travel but I'm guessing it's not commonly in packs of 9. It's the typical pattern of 1 or 2 that really carry weight and for that the vehicle can just be vastly smaller and cheaper to develop and operate. Smaller noise signature. Autonomy also makes it impossible to compete with cost wise. Ever ready, 24/7, christmas and new year without overtime. It's true there is some technical risk in a transition but that's a responsibility you take same as flight itself. His pitch is counting on fear. Nor do they have 1000 sales for this paper dragon although to be fair it might actually sell decently well for other use like small remote canadian destination hops, especially if it can water land.
Reflecting on the C-17 Lift system, it seems there should be some sort of leading edge articulation as the "Motors" seem a bit low to provide expected lift augmentation. Additionally, an articulating Canard feature may become useful at some point as the CG envelope is expanded. The Mike Patty Channel, Scrappy, Extended Lift System might be worth investigation... ua-cam.com/video/JcckHHiYkL0/v-deo.html
This concept has the greatest chance of near term success, when compared to standard EVTOL.
this guy has the right mindset. this can work with or without new infrastructure and is not a radical design change making it less risky
Surprised other aircraft makers are not taking this approach.
The other thing to add to that is true all-weather capability... put an IR camera in the nose of that thing and hook it to the inevitable glass panels in the cockpit...
Great to see them succeed! Our approach is very similar ~ going for estol rather than vtol for all the reasons covered in the video.
Decades of Aeronautical Engineering experience tells me this design is a winner. Make a float plane, amphibious, and Ekranoplane versions to cover all markets.
Wouldn't there be huge difficulties using blown lift on very hot days?
Great idea! Never get into anything that doesn't glide, like drone planes.
Blown lift is old hat - Breguet built such an aircraft also intended to use STOLports in the 60s Eastern trialled it even. Having UNblown tail surfaces exposes the aircraft to potentially uncontrollable 'excursions' due to gusts at low speed when "hanging on the props' at critical height and speeds . The blowing effect leads to enormous induced drag and may make a go around impossible --getting too slow can be fatal (backside of the power curve) that said, better than VTOL in this respect . It IS powered lift unless you intend to always fly ABOVE the power off stall speed (ie not power/lift dependant ) -the 'airbrake effect' of stopped props will also equally destroy lift on the wing behind -sideslipping might be prohibited due to separation from the pods .
Landing technique with highly deflected flaps is different --just as gliders with 90 degree flaps must be respected should an undershoot be in prospect . The DH Caribou is a good example of massive blown flaps - it lands nose DOWN and can be 'taxied' on the nose wheel in light winds --DH investigated this whole area decades ago including having a REVERSE thrust tail prop to allow spooling up the 'lift' props without speeding up --this aircraft should have that .
Totally correct, but obviously Electra knows this and is working on stability by design and/or computer assistance.
@@Bob_Adkins Why is it "obvious"? -- They have released their best guess publicly and it discloses grave shortcomings - design is what they have done to arrive at this result whether assisted by computer or not. Did Larry Paige set out to spend $100 million for nothing ? (the aborted/abandoned eVTOLS -like the Heaviside which, like the Archer efforts ,also has tail surfaces flying at a totally different AIR speed than the rest of the aircraft - and given that that will be zero in hover even worse than this one ( and likewise CityHop plus others ) Did the horde of prior VTOLS that all ended in failure ,shown on the classic 'wheel of misfortune' (google it if unfamiliar ) 'obviously' know their efforts would not work out ? When spending other people's money and getting fat salaries in the meantime it might make some sense to continue with 'obviously' deficient projects - like the nearly 800 current eVTOLs listed on the VFS site. Maybe we have a different understanding of what obvious means. The first time they try flying these contraptions on a windy blustery day in the real world I think it WILL be obvious.
PS look uo some of the blown wing prototypes like the Ryan vertiplane VZ3 or Fairchild VZ5 or look up some of the hundreds of research papers from NACA by the likes of Zimmerman and Rogallo et al that tested all these 'concepts' long ago , also talk to pilots of some of the few real STOL aircraft that fly behind the power curve - a really dangerous region for nonobvious reasons.
You're good at applying knowledge, but you're not good at thinking about new approaches and it shows. @@rossnolan7283
The best ESTOL design 👏
STOL makes so much sense. Is VTOL more of a sexy fad?
Hybrid with a generator, shame, but with the advances in battery tech, easy to replace the genny with more batteries. At least for shorter routes.
Brilliant concept, well done.
Why not imbed the motors in the wings for less drag..... more even prop blast distribution?
I love it. What will be the speed and range? Why aren't more planes adopting the toroidal propellers?
I recall John Langford from the MIT HPV projects so he should be aware of the potential to reduce power requirements drastically over both eVTOL and CTOL state of the art -- there is a trade off for blown lift since it needs high slipstream velocity over the wing hence small fast turning props -potentially noisey and giving lower acceleration than if larger (note the gaps between the props here) -- I assume they have done their parametric studies around this . Span is limited for practical reasons and so induced drag and power are higher than need be (high Cl at high air velocity makes for higher power than if compared to unblown high span and high area at flight velocity --loss of both thrust and lift together and need to retain symmettry by shutting down 'opposite' props makes for a critical failure case --the messing up of lift if all power is lost in glide mode could be drastic. The similar Maxwekll x57 ,now defunct --used the same design philosophy -- it was abandoned before being flown . Stolports are exceedingly rare and stol flight is notoriously dangerous being power dependent and 'behind the power curve ' - a big trap for the unwary. (Cessna deleted it's 40 degree flap setting because of this - I have personal experience of the 'backside trap'......
crossouts are unintentional sorry about that.
Well made video-
have the rotors pivot to allow for full VTOL in emergencies or shorter runways. Best of both worlds.
Added complexity and cost for the initial use case. ie. make it commercially viable. VTOL may be in the future, however would require a complete redesign. As VTOL you're abandoning the principle of blown lift. The V280 already exists - at $25-$30M a copy ...
Is there any reason a vectored lift aircraft (Joby, Archer, etc.) cannot take advantage of a short runway when available and achieve the same savings under the favorable circumstances?
Propeller diameter - Any wheel-based horizontal speed will reduce energy use, but some designs have prop interference with the ground when in horizontal configuration. Launch them off a rail...
@@jeffreypierson3023 - Neither Joby nor Archer Midnight would suffer from this.
This technology is awesome!
We want one!! actually not one... 30!
Together we fly evtol 100% 🎇🎆🎆🎆♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
This video is 1 year old- I just saw actual aircraft built on this concept, taking off in less than 300', carrying 4 people (company engineers)
If you saw this video ua-cam.com/video/esTykmreHuQ/v-deo.htmlsi=H171rB6Uswx5O6hq
The company engineers were in a chase aircraft ...... not on board of the electric plane....
Well , at least if all power fails , it won't fall like a rock .
...Cool
why not use an extension cord while taking off.
Hmmm. A powered rail for that initial acceleration...
@@jeffreypierson3023 and a drone to catch. or perhaps fuel that is depleted so landing can be done vertically.
@@snorttroll4379Ive thought of this too. A drone with a high output charging cord that has connectors at the top (ot the drone)for an evtol aircraft to take off without using its battery.
or a quadcopter that meets the plane and helps it vtol@@freddybell8328
I do think Lilium jet is superior. It can do eVTOL, sVTOL.
Lilium is nothing more but a pipedream.
This thing will turn out as a scam.
make this land on water.
you know, if they could do that, they sure could access a lot of (wealthy) urban customers who want to leave from a downtown, or arrive at one, given all the cities by rivers or bays or ocean etc, as im sure you know.. that would be excellent.. i guess you need a lot more power to take off from water, at least until hydroplaning and still need a lot to get free? thx.
cheap oil makes world peace
Just once I’d love to see this aircraft filled with 9 average people with all of there belongings/ baggage in the aircraft then let’s see the short field takeoff .
Talk is cheap real life operations is a bright light of truth and not some pie in the sky dream of the sales department.
Come on man show us the real deal . Please
Please pretty please .
Blown wings really do work. "Short" is related to the load and available field length. You will see it, it will be short... not as short as the same empty aircraft. Significantly shorter than a conventional wing. See Theory of Wing Sections - Abbot and Van Donhoff. Historically, why bother when the military complex has provided many long runways? Now those runways are congested, as is ground transport to get to them.
I’m not anti innovation but I’m a realist show me a working model doing the job that the claims of verbiage talk about .
It’s likened to the space rocket if it never leaves the ground no one’s gonna buy all the fuss around it’s capabilities in any believable fashion within perceived realities.
You need a high drag airframe to ALLOW high propeller speed on landing --otherwise you just accelerate -- the theory of a large number of very small diameter propellers to 'fool' the wing that it is flying faster is problematical -- you are in fact dealing with a narrow rectangle of high speed air being deflected by the wing it is the mass flow through that RECTANGLE and NOT the circle emcompassing the whole span that is involved -the X57 maxwell was testing the actual mass flow /Cl relationship of many tiny props -- the MacCready electric multi prop high altitude tailess drones of the 80s and even other one offs using scores of model aircraft engines probed the boundaries of just energizing a boundary layer versus genuine large mass flow deflection . Finding a few hundred yards of 'runway' WITH CLEAR APPROACHES AND DEPARTURES in any urban area is not easy --built UP areas are built up --no forgotten open spaces and the mechanical turbulence from the surrounding ground clutter in any wind is a show stopper from control and safety aspects. Seeley's 'pocket airports' were a nightmare idea that thankfully died on the vine.
@@jeffreypierson3023 Abbot and Von Doenhoff says nothing about blown wings let alone tiny multi props scabbed onto a wing -- just imagine power failure under high power - instant roll on your back , birdstrike/flockstrike will be thousands of times more frequent that 'one in a billion flying hours' as being touted by thr UAM/AAM proponents. STOL pilots know the danger of flight 'behind the power curve' --not a healthy option.
@@rossnolan7283 See chapter 8 on High Lift Devices. You are correct that they do not discuss external air accelerators. Do you agree that local acceleration of air over the airfoil increases lift?
Similarly cowardly lies have been heard from traditional automakers against the transition to EVs. A core problem is that a Vtol craft will instantly outcompete it because it can land on any building roof or even urban ground. Second, they aim for 9 passangers which is the traditional bus thinking and that too is instantly outcompeted by taxi operation. I don't know how wall street types travel but I'm guessing it's not commonly in packs of 9. It's the typical pattern of 1 or 2 that really carry weight and for that the vehicle can just be vastly smaller and cheaper to develop and operate. Smaller noise signature. Autonomy also makes it impossible to compete with cost wise. Ever ready, 24/7, christmas and new year without overtime.
It's true there is some technical risk in a transition but that's a responsibility you take same as flight itself. His pitch is counting on fear. Nor do they have 1000 sales for this paper dragon although to be fair it might actually sell decently well for other use like small remote canadian destination hops, especially if it can water land.
real world problems...
1000 hybrid eltrc dragin fky toóo
??
Reflecting on the C-17 Lift system, it seems there should be some sort of leading edge articulation as the "Motors" seem a bit low to provide expected lift augmentation. Additionally, an articulating Canard feature may become useful at some point as the CG envelope is expanded. The Mike Patty Channel, Scrappy, Extended Lift System might be worth investigation...
ua-cam.com/video/JcckHHiYkL0/v-deo.html