FLYING FANCY: Another design for a single-passenger/pilot aircraft makes the future of transportation look extremely fun and a little bit green
Image: NASA Langley/Analytical Mechanics Associates
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A super-quiet, hover-capable aircraft design, NASA's experimental one-man Puffin could show just how much electric propulsion can transform our ideas of flight. It looks like nothing less than a flying suit or a jet pack with a cockpit.
On the ground, the Puffin is designed to stand on its tail, which splits into four legs to help serve as landing gear. As a pilot prepares to take off, flaps on the wings would tilt to deflect air from the 2.3-meter-wide propeller rotors upward, keeping the plane on the ground until it was ready to fly and preventing errant gusts from tipping it over. The Puffin would rise, hover and then lean over to fly horizontally, with the pilot lying prone as if in a glider. When landing, the extending spring legs would support the 3.7-meter-long, 4.1-meter-wingspan craft, which is designed with carbon-fiber composites to weigh in at 135 kilograms, not including 45 kilograms of rechargeable lithium phosphate batteries.
In principle, the Puffin can cruise at 240 kilometers per hour and dash at more than 480 kph. It has no flight ceiling—it is not air-breathing like gas engines are, and thus is not limited by thin air—so it could go up to about 9,150 meters before its energy runs low enough to drive it to descend. With current state-of-the-art batteries, it has a range of just 80 kilometers if cruising, "but many researchers are proposing a tripling of current battery energy densities in the next five to seven years, so we could see a range of 240 to 320 kilometers by 2017," says researcher Mark Moore, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. He and his colleagues will officially unveil the Puffin design on January 20 at an American Helicopter Society meeting in San Francisco.
Moore and his colleagues at NASA, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the National Institute of Aerospace, and M-DOT Aerospace named their craft the Puffin because "if you've ever seen a puffin on the ground, it looks very awkward, with wings too small to fly, and that's exactly what our vehicle looks like," he explains. "But it's also apparently called the most environmentally friendly bird, because it hides its poop, and we're environmentally friendly because we have essentially no emissions. Also, puffins tend to live in solitude, only ever coming together on land to mate, and ours is a one-person vehicle."
This design relies on electric motors. These remain efficient regardless of their size, whereas internal combustion engines become less efficient the smaller they are. As such, electric aircraft can use small motors while generating impressive propulsion—the Puffin can lift a person with just 60 horsepower.
At up to 95 percent efficiency, electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines, which only rate some 18 to 23 percent. This means electric aircraft are much quieter than regular planes—at some 150 meters, it is as loud as 50 decibels, or roughly the volume of a conversation, making it roughly 10 times quieter than current low-noise helicopters.
This super-quiet quality makes the Puffin potentially ideal for covert military insertions of special operations units and other troops—indeed, it was originally aimed to launch from submarines; unmanned versions could also help transport supplies. Quieter aircraft also mean that airports for civil applications such as personal travel and fast courier services could be located much closer to population centers and perhaps even residences without bothering others, significantly cutting down commute times. Inventors all over the world are still striving to develop personal air vehicles, the equivalent of a plane in every garage—for instance, Samson Motorworks is trying to develop a land/air-capable motorcycle.
In addition, since electric motors are so efficient, they also generate far less heat. This not only gives them a lower thermal signature for military stealth, but means they don't need anywhere near the same amount of cooling air flowing over them that internal combustion engines do, thereby reducing aerodynamic drag that can slow them down.
Because electric motors have fewer moving parts, they are perhaps 10 or even 20 times more reliable than piston engines. In addition, the Puffin's design allows pieces of either of its two electric motors to fail without any reduction in power to the prop rotors. The plane could also take a hard, forceful landing if necessary, as the landing gear supports the brunt of the load instead of the pilot, unlike some other one-man flying craft.
"The Puffin is an exciting idea.... It converges and demonstrates many technologies at once," said Brien Seeley, president of the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation, a Santa Rosa, Calif.–based independent flight test agency that hosts the annual Electric Aircraft Symposium. "In my opinion, a mass-marketable version will need conventional seating, cup holders and a short runway for glide-in, view-ahead landings—but opening up people's imagination is the first essential step."
By March, the researchers plan on finishing a one third–size, hover-capable Puffin demonstrator, and in the three months following that they will begin investigating how well it transitions from cruise to hover flight. They are already looking past the Puffin, however. The next-generation of this design might incorporate more than just two pairs of prop rotors, so that if one was struck by, say, a bird or gunfire, the aircraft could survive on redundant systems. "We could make it so there's no single point of failure—that's the cool next step," Moore says.
See what we're tweeting about
74 Comments
Add CommentI want one!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a bunch of hogwash. How did this material end up at SA, and not Discover magazine. I have very serious doubts about the basic specifications and assumed energy/weight assumptions for the supplied power. And don't get me started about the electric vs internal combustion motor 'efficiencies' and some undescribed direct relation to noise levels. Propeller noise would be the dominant component anyway (unless there is some kind of magic 'electric' propeller). The only thing missing is solar power, to bring in some kind of feel-good 'green' aspect to the story...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo points to note: First, don't confuse efficiency with energy density. In terms power generated to total system weight, usually internal combustion engines are less weight than battery electric systems. An electric motor system can convert over 90% of the energy in a battery to shaft power. An internal combustion system can at best convert 30% of the chemical energy in the fuel to shaft power. Battery technology is constantly improving with time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond point, noise. The way the propeller noise is so low on Puffin is because the tip speed is much lower than a typical propeller or helicopter rotor. Noise loosely correlates with the 5th power of velocity. The tip speed of Puffin is on the order of 400 ft/sec. Most propellers and rotor craft have tip speeds of 800 to 1000 ft/sec.
You will have to read some of the papers presented to learn about how this is to be accomplished. Its not "imagineering"
I thought this was one of the better technology articles I have seen in a while. I disagree with Iamorpa in that I think the bit about electric motor efficiency was about the flight characteristics, not the overall "greenness".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I think this was a bit overoptimistic about the use by ordinary people. Most have enough trouble dealing with 2-dimensional car maneuvering. 3-dimensional maneuvering would make for an enormous accident rate unless the entire flight control was automated and the person just enters the destination.
Definitely one of the better discussions about electric motor use in aircraft. The reference to high altitude flight is a bit ambiguous - as certainly there are speed and altitude limits, even for electric (it's just the power isn't dropping with the density so it's easier to go faster).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think there is any confusion of efficiency to energy density. The article points out the significant range restriction of even a very compact, low wetted area vehicle that 'cheats' through prone pilot positioning. Everything is better about electric than IC engines - it's just the battery energy density sucks - thus a 50 mile range. But billions of dollars are going into advanced batteries - so let's be prepared to understand how to use electric propulsion so that we are ready to use new batteries as they come on line.
The fact is, this vehicle is not unrealistic, it is the EASIEST way to do VTOL - the question is how quiet and useful it could be. But the point is not to develop a product, but to have a technology integration platform to understand how to take advantage of new technologies - such as the ability to vary rpm at constant power (sonething other motors can't do, that permits much higher prop efficiency and much lower noise - if you design for it).
Definitely one of the better discussions about electric motor use in aircraft. The reference to high altitude flight is a bit ambiguous - as certainly there are speed and altitude limits, even for electric (it's just the power isn't dropping with the density so it's easier to go faster).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think there is any confusion of efficiency to energy density. The article points out the significant range restriction of even a very compact, low wetted area vehicle that 'cheats' through prone pilot positioning. Everything is better about electric than IC engines - it's just the battery energy density sucks - thus a 50 mile range. But billions of dollars are going into advanced batteries - so let's be prepared to understand how to use electric propulsion so that we are ready to use new batteries as they come on line.
I doubt other conceptual design studies have gone to the extent of this study to use Overflow CFD and WopWop aeroacoustic analysis ,which is state of the art. And the detail of the powertrain realibility analysis is extensive, along with the blade dynamics and transition analysis modeling.
The fact is, this vehicle is not unrealistic, it is the EASIEST way to do VTOL - the question is how quiet and useful it could be. But the point of this effort is not to develop a product, but to have a technology integration platform to understand how to take advantage of new technologies - such as the ability to vary rpm at constant power (sonething other motors can't do, that permits much higher prop efficiency and much lower noise - if you design for it).
"with the pilot lying prone as if in a glider"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to quibble, but don't you mean "hang glider"? In a regular glider/sailplane the pilot sits in a seat.
"with the pilot lying prone as if in a glider"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to quibble, but don't you mean "hang glider"? In a regular glider/sailplane the pilot sits in a seat.
whoops duplicate post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Iamorpa is exactly right. There is no relationship between motor efficiency and noise, that's nonsense. As an avid electric vehicler, I can tell you its easy to show that x lbs of motor and gasoline has a lot more power at the prop or wheel than x lbs of batteries and emotor. And battery systems are definitely not 95% efficient, there's lots of loss at charging and discharge and at the controller.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some solar planes, unmanned, in the air, and needless to say, they don't use magic to get there, but they don't try VTOL either.
Shades of the Moller air car that will never be.
@Iamorpa is exactly right. There is no relationship between motor efficiency and noise, that's nonsense. As an avid electric vehicler, I can tell you its easy to show that x lbs of motor and gasoline has a lot more power at the prop or wheel than x lbs of batteries and emotor. And battery systems are definitely not 95% efficient, there's lots of loss at charging and discharge and at the controller.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are some solar planes, unmanned, in the air, and needless to say, they don't use magic to get there, but they don't try VTOL either.
Shades of the Moller air car that will never be.
@wjfredericks4
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the well written, scientific information. There's more technical information in your comment than in the article.
Correct. Noise is a function of prop tip speed. It's cavitation that does it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, what this vehicle needs is not a battery by a fuel cell. That would multiply the range by at least 10, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/resources/2009/presentations/StevenVisco-AlmadenInstitute2009.pdf
Interesting, bu I can not understand that anyone would produce or certify an human carrying aircraft that could not safely land if there were a loss of power. Deadstick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is an altitude limit, oxygen and pressurization. Whether anything like this would be certified without a fully automatic flight control system is very questionable. A wildly innovative but impractical idea. More mass and greater margin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely we are all forgetting that the "efficient" batteries have been charged and energised ultimately from a conventional fuel source ! So there is no added efficiency if we take the overall picture !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a more efficient way of producing lift and thrust forces than by using open (unshrouded) propellers. Hint: try not to waste the kinetic energy of the downstream jet, by means of ducted fans, inlet suction and plenum chamber pressures, as in hovercraft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this60 horse-power for 80/240 = 0.3 hours or 20 minutes is about 15,000 KWH energy in battery storage at a mass of only 45 kg. Thats impossible!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact it takes a lot less horse power to lift a single person if the propulsion system were more sensible, see previous comment!
"Exciting idea" is an understatement. That is an excited hoop-n-holler fantastic idea, but unless you put a neck brace in the pit, you are going to have some tight muscles when you get to the office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we can just get rid of all these power lines that would entangle you like a spider web, this baby would make a great "I am heading to the office now dear" family vehicle.
http://forums.g-gulf.net/t14209.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://forums.g-gulf.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless this machine is planned to have some serious fly-by-wire, computer-controlled, gyroscopic capabilities, there's no way a normal human could convert from horizontal flight back to vertical aspect in a small space and land as precisely as shown in the video. The closest thing I've seen to this is the Military Osprey which has been a colossal challenge to make stable from what I've read. This thing would tip over and crash with the first gust of light wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis technology has been the pipe dream of society since flight became a reality. This is just another toy for the wealthy (just like the Segway). What makes this vehicle SO significantly different from a one man electric helicopter? Who (if anyone) will ever use it? It's a waste of taxpayer money and time. Why don't engineers spend time reducing the need for overly complex machines and instead put their brainpower to work solving real problems that we all face on a daily basis. Build us a better wind turbine already... Sad...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It has no flight ceiling-it is not ir breathing like gas engines are, and thus not limited by thin air-...."-Does the author think the wings and props would not be affected by the thin air? If he is correct we could fly this all the way to the moon!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author needs to educate himself on the concept of aerodynamics. Flight ceilings are imposed due to lack of lift as well as combustion limitations. The aspect ratio of the incredibly small wing would require the vehicle to travel at extremely high speeds to maintain lift in a thining atmosphere, requiring thrust that Idon't believe the propellers could deliver at those altitudes. Also to take in to account is the temperature drop at higher altitudes, requiring heating systems to keep the pilot alive and keep the batteries from freezing. "Whoops why is my power dropping?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets add oxygen systems, navigational systems, and all the other things necessary in a real aircraft. Tell me what the weight is then. And, what size passenger will this accommodate? Need only jockeys apply?
This is a puff piece that disgraces SA and belongs in Popular Mechanics. Unfortunately this is what we get from NASA these days.
Much debate is contigent upon the application, or potential application, of the vehicle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I doubt the Jetson notion of personal flying cars will become reality any time soon. Security/Terrorism-related fears alone make civilian use dubious and making certain this will be developed in a military capacity.
"Surely we are all forgetting that the "efficient" batteries have been charged and energised ultimately from a conventional fuel source ! So there is no added efficiency if we take the overall picture !"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm...why are you assuming a conventional fuel source? Batteries can be charged via solar cells, wind turbines and ocean wave power generation stations, not to mention nuclear power generation and other, less used alternatives.
As far as your assertion that there is no more efficiency if you look at the big picture, you are flat out wrong.
Sorry but thi won't even get off the ground. if they think they can get enough lift from 2 7' props and 60hp, they are not being very bright. Now maybe 4 8-9' props and a longer, wider wing it could work. But to use batteries, you are going to have to be eff. And 1 thing the Puffin was not, is eff in either prop or wing loading. You need a lot of prop, wing area if one wants to use little energy. .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo take off you need light rotor loading to be eff, thus 4 props with more dia is needed. Since each of these can be throttled with it's separate motors, they can be used for control without collective/variable pitch rotors problems, weight. No tail needed.
Then use the flaps, etc on the wing and you have plenty of redundant control at little weight, complexity. Now add a stability computer to work it all for people who can't handle such a craft. One could be packed in a 6'x6'x10' space with a 26' wingspan. Launched aloft they could have 200+ mile range VS 60-80 mile range if land launched.
Allot of armchair aeronautics engineers here. Do you really think they did not at least run a basic sim on this??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big thing with this design IS using modern materials and propulsion for maximum benefit. While this design may not be practical there is no reason it could not fly. (Heck this thing weighs as much as I do, with battery?) vs a 250-300+ ultralight?
The 60 horse power described here can be very misleading also (total?, Per eng? Total to shaft, rated engines ?) Unless you can answer that, any knee jerk "that can't work" is unfounded. Often ultralights have ~40-50hp rated Engs and not all of that gets to the propeller unlike this craft. also 4x 90" propellers vs a ultralights "normal" single 66" propeller?
Also look at the design people! forward-back Stability is "easy" as it will "want" to hang and transition to horizontal flight is also easy as any forward movement flips the tail up and lack of movement the tail goes down.
It is the side to side stability (from the thrust of the engines ) that benefits from computer control and look at that you have 2 finely tunable electronicly controllable engines (not the transmissions of poorly controlled ICE engines like the Osprey)
So what is with all of this guff?
With substantial work, this could be made into something worth investing in, as a long term substitute for short distance, but now? It is far to optimistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEspecially in relation to military uses, the range is far to low. Even without any dashing, you would have to launch from within forty kilometers, if the intention is to have the soldiers to return.
To approach without being seen by a visual spotter, a dash would almost certainly be required. This would quickly eat up range. If anyone is left alive after the operation, more 'dashing' would be required to escape.
This would severely cripple any military operation beyond repair.
Even so, if you were to hypothetically extend the range of the Puffin to 400 or 500 kilometers, the pilot would still be prone to antiaircraft fire. A short burst of firing might harm a large plane, but would kill the pilot of a Puffin.
A missile with heat seeking capabilities, when attuned to the low emission level of the Puffin would easily be able to out run the Puffin. Any sort of counter measures would be far to heavy to carry. Any attack on a well fortified facility would be impossible.
Which brings me to a third point. For a small group of Puffins to bring a squad of Special Forces to a target, they would have to be able to carry large weights.
To accomplish there missions, Special Forces (for I will assume they would be the primary users of one man insertions vehicles) carry large weights. Weapons, ammunition and other supplies would not be able to be carried in such a small space.
From a military stand point, the Puffin would be next to useless.
The idea that it has NO flight ceiling is idiotic. Propellers and wings do NOT operate in a vacuum!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeterT
If the batterys are placed low in the craft the tipping over problems could be resovled.Flight ceiling would still be a problem unless the compartment is presurised.Needs headsup display so that operator has clear view.Needs GPS collision advoidance system to protect it from other crafts and other things like telephone poles, trees ,and buildings And a balitistic parashute wouldn't hurt,with a rocket assist, if it's to close to the ground when the craft fails.If all the bugs can be worked out it would be a great idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe battery pack is only 46kg's, normally that is only about 10kwhrs worth, so it's not going to put out 60hp for long, only about 10-12 minutes worth. Since it doesn't have light wing loading, it takes a lot of power to cruise. Add take off and cruise and it's good it's fast as it is not going to be up long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've found ignoring basic physics is a sure way to fail.
And then it crashes into the ground, person's head first. Brilliant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFlies nice--in the cartoon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA methanol fuel cell would be just as quiet and much more efficient than a lithium battery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe martin jetpack needs 200 horsepower to liftoff with 535 lbs maximum weight and this would be over 600 lbs and can liftoff with only 60? Yeah right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you see-and-avoid when your face is pointed at the ground?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fail here is people not reading and popping off over things not fully described in the article and making assumptions on data given. . . 60HP total or per motor? 60HP at shaft or motor rated? Total weight? Type of electric motor? total wing surface area and lift characteristics, power density of battery's?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisALL of which are not given in much detail . . .
What IS given is that they are using the HIGHEST tech possible and expecting battery advances before making it really viable.
It is more of a proof of concept that radical changes of thought propulsion and materials can do.
While interesting to brainstorm possible problems it is ENTIRELY useless to to after it as hard as some people here are since it is a proof of concept and any real data is not shown.
"I've found ignoring basic physics is a sure way to fail. "
So does misunderstanding . . .
Curiously no mention is made of using the props as energy recovery generators by diving from altitude. In the Formula One world they are experimenting with KERS, Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems, which use generator-motor combination mounted on the front of the engine crankshaft to generate in deceleration and to boost power out of sharp low speed corners. The F1 teams don't like them--too much additional stuff to take care of. But, I bet the props on the Puffin would generate some juice in a dive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I first saw this plane design, I immediately felt that I had already seen this design once before, however I knew that it had not been from anyone employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, it had instead been from the pages of World War II history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was the design of the 1944 Focke-Wulf Fw Triebfl�gel from the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party).
In fact the United States in the 1950's also produced a similar prototype which was called the Lockheed XFV.
So will this "new" design work or will history be repeated yet again ?
To the already reasoned discussion of why this concept is so much hokum, may I add two points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne, both Lockheed and Ryan tried to develop tail sitter aircraft in the 50's. Only Ryan ever made the transition to vertical landing and the pilot, a very experienced test pilot was soaked in sweat from the effort.
Two, I currently fly two aircraft in the same horsepower and weight range. Both have far more wing area and neither is capable of VTOL operation.
Where is SA's scientific scrutiny of these claims? Neither lift nor thrust are terribly difficult to calculate, why is there not this small level of detail to back up the claims.
Were your editors smoking the same thing as the "researchers"?
If the motors crap out for any reason, you have just become a brick, with the resulting crater soon to follow, which you will not be crawling out of. Without autorotative capabilities, no vehicle like this could ever be safe. For unmanned use, it has possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Christian von Delius
If the motors crap out for any reason, you have just become a brick, with the resulting crater soon to follow, which you will not be crawling out of. Without autorotative capabilities, no vehicle like this could ever be safe. For unmanned use, it has possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Christian von Delius
I am on the positive side about this. In fact, this thing or something very much like it is inevitable. I suspect that the pilot will not do much more than indicate a GPS coordinate he wants to go to and an idiot-proof autopilot will take him or her there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, with a little prop-folding magic about 250 of these things will fit in a C-17 so the paratrooper of the future will not have a parachute. Deployed at night these things would be so stealthy it would take quite sophisticated defenses to detect them and keep them out.
I also suspect that the per-unit production cost will come down steadily as well. Of course, models big enough to take 4 or 5 people will eventually replace the automobile in rural areas, which will be good because pickup trucks driving down dirt roads kick up a lot of dust in this world.
While solar cells on the air vehicle itself will never make much engineering sense, the roof of your garage could host solar cells that help charge your replacement battery pack during the day while you are at work.
In civilian use, I can see these little fliers change the way populations distribute themselves. In early industrial societies people crowded into multi-story tenements very densely packed into crowded blocks. The automobile brought the suburbs and the strip malls. Most people really hate mass transportation (I know I do) but contemporary urban planners have a dogmatic fixation on getting people to voluntarily ride some form of a train. Our city built a light rail line and has refused to even build parking lots for commuters to drive to the train and leave their auto in a park and ride. That is pretty high idealism, right off the social engineering scale, in fact, but it means the trains are running empty as a kind of futile. taxpayer-built moving monument to high concept versus human nature.
The personal flying vehicle will really let us keep our distance from each other. I like that. Like Davy Crockett, if I stand on the porch of my cabin on a frosty morning and am able to even see the smoke from a neighbor's chimney rising into the air like a white pencil way over the next ridge, I am prone to think that things are too crowded and it may be time to look into moving on.
There are many reasons, some mentioned and some not, why the Puffin will never be able to perform as described.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, here is a single person rotorcraft by Frans Schoeffman that has small diameter rotors and flies on 28 hp ~ http://www.unicopter.com/1764.html
Here is a proposed electric version of his craft. ~ http://www.unicopter.com/ElectrotorSloMo.htm
And here are two proposed craft that are similar to the Puffin but functionally more viable. ~ http://www.unicopter.com/AeroVantage.html
Eventually it will be done.
http://www.unicopter.com/ElectrotorSloMo.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshould be
http://www.unicopter.com/ElectrotorSloMo.html
Sorry
SORRY! In my calculation (08.23 AM on 01/20/10) for KWH I erred by 1000 times!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 46 kg of battery mass would perhaps just supply the necessary 15 KWH and provide 60 HP for 0.3 hours. But that is not really enough to make this vehicle practical for commuting to work or for making emergency low-mass deliveries. I reckon that it can be done but with considerably less horses, by use of a more energy-efficient propulsion system as previously commented.
I'm on board with it. It is the future of GA, quite, small lightweight, made of cutting edge materials, and is the dream of almost everyone. Land it virtually anywhere. I can even see the costs around the same as a luxury car. Com'on next gen battery technology, the motors are already a reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow I personally would feel really unsafe flying one of those things in enemy territory. Quiet Schmiet. You're a sitting duck in that thing. I prefer unmanned all the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisдля полетов нужно исользовать- гравитацию, реактивную силу и аэродинамическую силу, тогда полет будет устойчивым и стабйльным. Мы знаем как это делать.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFlight time will be very short & it won't be able to carry much of anything, useless. Clearly designed just because it could be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks like the only real use would be for hobbyists.
A total waste of NASA's & SA's time, but the Pentagon will probably fund development in the billions for the next decade before they dump it.
What an awesome way to publicize a terrible use of budget on ridiculous R&D. Not too long ago, NASA was looking for more funding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad I am not an American - Otherwise I would be pissed off while reading this instead of laughing at it.
What happened to the electrical car? Oviously the oil magnates will do anything they want to "KILL" any project that is not powered by OIL. At the same time they will keep the price of the oil skyroketting making us their permanet slaves. Human being, please don't dream, we can't defeat the absolute power of the greedy oil companies. If they don't buy you out they will KILL YOU.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to the electrical car? Oviously the oil magnates will do anything they want to "KILL" any project that is not powered by OIL. At the same time they will keep the price of the oil skyroketting making us their permanet slaves. Human being, please don't dream, we can't defeat the absolute power of the greedy oil companies. If they don't buy you out they will KILL YOU.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want one. Oooooooooooooo, do I want one!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't Buzz Lightyear fly one of these in "Toy Story"? 40 years ago NASA had men walking on the moon. Now we have flying bathtubs conducting earth orbit missions and fixing space telescopes at 10x the replacement costs. NASA has become a rest home for old bureaucrats trying desperately to hold onto their jobs. Concentrate on unmanned deep space exploration and leave the satellite launching to private companies, the military, and much cheaper unmanned rockets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm Raphael Mutinda ,a third year student at Kenyatta university -Kenya,am taking a course on aducation science . its a brilliant idea ,as scientist we are empowered to save the environment for our own happiness andfuture generation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThree forces are known, which will allow steadily and stably to fly. In this construction used only two. A positive gravitation is not used here, and takes place negative. Therefore, a vehicle will not be able to go out on horizontal flight. It is needed to apply antigravity, we know as it to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's entirely possible, anyone who flies model aircraft these days could tell you that. Stability problems can be solved with gyros.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt won't fly far, and will also be extremely inefficient with that very short wingspan, and that's another limitation.
But any aircraft which will only land tail first, and is battery powered is asking for trouble. I wouldn't fancy finding myself at at 2000' with a cold declining battery, and knowing that I need massive power output for a tail first transition at 50 feet.
I designed one semilar for 3 years ago, I took into my consideration these points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- Noise
2- Safty
3- Performance
4- Stability
I designed one semilar for 3 years ago, I took into my consideration these points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- Noise
2- Safty
3- Performance
4- Stability
I designed one semilar for 3 years ago, I took into my consideration these points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- Noise
2- Safty
3- Performance
4- Stability
I want one, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pilot will get an awful crook in their neck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy not look into some type of photo-votaic coating on exterior surfaces to help extend battery life?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFine, but can you text while you are flying it;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting but it looks like history repeating itself, check out the Convair XFY-1 Pogo. The Pogo was designed to take-off and land vertically but only one pilot was ever brave enough to fly this dangerous aircraft. Yes we have computers now that can compensate for the lack of stability but if they stop working you crash. I am fascinated by this no flight ceiling, the engines may not need air but the pilot will and putting him in an environmental suit is going to add to the weight. As for flying prone, I do hope that NASA plan to put some thought into the emergency egress system, check out the Northrop XP-79 for the sad consequences of not doing so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting but it looks like history repeating itself, check out the Convair XFY-1 Pogo. The Pogo was designed to take-off and land vertically but only one pilot was ever brave enough to fly this dangerous aircraft. Yes we have computers now that can compensate for the lack of stability but if they stop working you crash. I am fascinated by this no flight ceiling, the engines may not need air but the pilot will and putting him in an environmental suit is going to add to the weight. As for flying prone, I do hope that NASA plan to put some thought into the emergency egress system, check out the Northrop XP-79 for the sad consequences of not doing so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like I am repeating myself:/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif lithium ion batteries get any more energy dense, like with that silicon nanowire stuff that was in the news a while ago, its really gonna end up more practical to just have electric engine airplanes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMark,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat work on the Puffin. Are you involved with the DARPA Transformer TX Solicitation?
Stephen Cook
Warsaw, IN
I am having this idea for the past five years but i can't do it because i don't study about aircraft but now my dream is infront of me,can i get all the details about the flight?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.minitorrentz.com/
I have become very interested in "electric" propulsion for Aviation purposes, and I have considered the addition of new SOFC or 'solid oxide fuel cells" as the source of energy for the motors on electric craft. Similar to the Boeing electric prototype, but more cost efficient than Membrane fuel cells, which must either use hydrogen gas, or include an on-board reformer to generate current. I also though that perhaps with the added advantage of extremely dense storage capability of LNG Liquified Natural Gas, such a system could have an more desireable range characteristic. So, a powerplant consisting of advanced electric motors, SOFC, and LNG might be developed to achieve satisfactory results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this