Quantcast

Electric powered Gyro any thoughts?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

RonL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
502
Location
Texas
Compressing air is one of the least efficient ways to store energy. As a former air-brake remanufacturer and troubleshooter, I can tell you about the terrific heat a compressor makes as the air is compressed. The Gas Laws of physics will tell us that when we reduce the volume of a given amount of a gas, its temperature and pressure will both rise. The heat is radiated and convected away from the compressor, its discharge lines, and the tank, and as the compressed air cools its pressure falls somewhat. When we use that compressed air its temperature falls enormously as the pressure is bled off, and this increases its density and reduces the effective pressure further.

The heat generated in air compression, along with the small amounts of lubricating oil that inevitably gets past the compressor's piston rings, causes coking in the head and discharge lines, evidence of serious heat. I have found heads and lines completely occluded by a coal-like material. Another problem with air compression is the condensation of atmospheric water vapor in the tanks as the air cools, causing corrosion and other problems with the air system, including freezeup in the winter.

The only real reasons for using compressed air include its ease of control and the fact that it doesn't make an oily mess everywhere if there's a leak.

Dan
Dan, look at the two 4.8 HP air motors, then look at the link. A torque motor and not much more than a ring and inner rotor with permanent magnets.

The air vane motor acting as a compressor, if extended to an 18" diameter, would take on dimensions almost equal to the 18" torque motor disign. Just a little change of air intake and discharge ports, then enclose the setup and you have what would look a little like a pancake compressor tank.
The stator rings could turn with the top set of rotor blades and the rotors of the electric and air maker would turn opposit by the lower set of rotor blades.
Air would only be in the system from center intake to tip discharge.
I really can't comprehend why nobody seems to be able to see the simplicity here.

"No energy would be harmed in this process" :)








Torque motors do the trick | Machine Design
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
It's escaping me why you would have the gyro being used as a generator?
Assuming a 150 lbs battery load, you can store a max of about 30 MJ in your batteries. That's a good pound of gasoline. Why bother will all kind of complicated stuff and why not have a small generator/charger?
And if you really want to be "clean", go buy a glider (or just a gyro as a glider). That's far better for the environment as those dirty Lithium-batteries. We regularly do 1000 MPG or better...
 

Culleningus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
265
Location
UK
Dan thanks for citing all the pitfalls, we dont want a flight of fancy, but this is a BRAINSTORMING (Autoreply).
A regular glider in a 40ft box behind a car is a major towing headache Autoreply.
Assembly 1hr?
I dont need to remind anyone about short field capabilities of gyros either.
Dan Im sure YOU are aware of the WIND (not that which is expended here) in the UK.
Boats regularly carry car batteries so I'm not certain LiPo batteries could not be stored on a waterborne gyro, as I say we need a sensor to make them open circuit prior to possible immersion.
Regular Wind Turbines do not stand much taller than the rotor diameter. This is all I was expecting with a rotating/extending/telecoping rotor mast on the gyro which in the 'erect' mode would make a vey rapid conversion into a wind-turbine, for charging in this state prior to flight (most people are not flying 100% of the time, so parked up at night the batteries would be fully charged?).
Part of the gyro-'yacht''s (I posted a video of above) attraction was the fact that it would sail in very strong winds. My concept for a generator/motor with feedback loop ECU + ESC was to keep it revving in the lulls (a basic requirement as theres no pitch on the blades). This alone might make an abandoned brilliant idea workable.
I therefore was trying to find out if the use of a gyro rotor in this mode was less likely to blow the craft over?

Dave
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,431
Location
CT, USA
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned one large objection: You simply can't leave a gyro tied down unattended at the airport with the rotor spinning! Think of the danger... even if you can talk yourself into thinking it would be safe, you'll never convince any airport manager.

Re compressed air power: As Dan says, it's horribly inefficient. It's very convenient in industrial applications as air actuators and motors are simple, light, and easily controllable compared to electric, but there's gotta be a honking big air compressor somewhere. Many companies get burned because they don't realize how expensive it is (because it is so inefficient) to supply enough compressed air to run their plant.

As much as I'd like to see a practical electric aircraft, until there's a breakthrough in batteries or ultracapacitors (unlikely as that pesky physics keeps getting in the way), gasoline still rules.

-Dana

Shaw's principle:
Build a machine that a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Dan thanks for citing all the pitfalls, we dont want a flight of fancy, but this is a BRAINSTORMING (Autoreply).
A regular glider in a 40ft box behind a car is a major towing headache Autoreply.
Assembly 1hr?
I dont need to remind anyone about short field capabilities of gyros either.
I've flown, assembled and towed (launching and on trailer) both. Assembling a glider (10 minutes from stepping out of the car to launching, alone) certainly doesn't take longer then pre-flighting and starting a gyro from the hangar.
YouTube - Guinness World Records : Fastest Glider Assembly!

The gyro also still needs a trailer and believe me, that's a major problematic aspect, gliders don't have at all. They're too high, you need to take the rotor-blades and hub off, probably the prop off and usually the track is too wide to legally tow. So you're now looking at a gyro you have to take apart, to even make it possible to tow.
Believe me, reality has proven that gyros (and helo's) are a pain to tow (if possible at all) Gliders are - apart from PPG's and delta's - by far the easiest air-vehicles to tow:


That wasn't my point though. I was asking why you would want to charge via the rotor. That's one of those horrible compromises. The rotor blades will fold in the wind (have to spin them up first), designing a tilt-able rotor hub is a design challenge, the danger of people nearby and so on. I simply don't see the rationale, if you can charge those batteries via the electricity grid or a generator.
That 30 MJ really is a very low amount of energy and you simply won't be able to take much more batteries with you anyway. A 10HP generator generates that in an hour and with electricity you can charge it in 2 hours.

I do see merit in a gyro that's electric, even though it'll have serious drawbacks. Reliability, simplicity and maybe cost come to mind as advantages. You spoil all those though by using the rotor as a windmill, hence my question.
 
E

Empirical

Guest
@RonL

Compressed-air energy/weight ratio (storage tank) and power/weight ratio (at the motor) are many times lower than standard (not even the latest) electric motors.

@Dan & @Dana

Since autogyro doesn't require an airport to take off -just a flat field or a remote road, you can just go where the wind blows, provided it's a remote, safe and nice location to fly at. You could charge at the edge of a hill facing the sea for example where the wind tends to be steady for several hours each day -depending on the season and the orientation.

If someone lives near such a windy location or knows a couple of such locations perfectly suited for charging & flying that might be a natural "green" choice even as an experiment.
If there is no wind available, a generator (for fast charging) or a solar panel (for slow green charging at home during the daytime) could be used.

@Culleningus

In order to save significant weight and cost, only a single motor could be used for both roles (motor & gen.), as well as for pre-rotation and emergency rotor rotation, but that would require a double clutch and a proper transmission making the whole design more difficult.

As much as I'd like to see a practical electric aircraft, until there's a breakthrough in batteries or ultracapacitors (unlikely as that pesky physics keeps getting in the way), gasoline still rules.
Standard gasoline autogyro

Pros:
+Flight duration
+Lower build cost

Cons:
-Noise
-Reliability
-Maintenance
-Control
-Response
-Pollution
-etc


A properly designed electric autogyro:

Pros:
+Quiet
+Reliability
+No maintenance
+Control
+Response
+Green energy source possible
+etc

Cons:
-Flight duration (30mins max)
-Higher build cost


That wasn't my point though. I was asking why you would want to charge via the rotor. That's one of those horrible compromises. The rotor blades will fold in the wind (have to spin them up first), designing a tilt-able rotor hub is a design challenge, the danger of people nearby and so on. I simply don't see the rationale, if you can charge those batteries via the electricity grid or a generator.
Obviously because he wanted to have a pre-rotator on the rotor (acting also as an emergency rotator). That can serve as a generator too, so having a generator ready, the next step is to use it! : ) Prerotation can be done automatically with the generator as motor just before charging starts. (Alternative, lighter, though more difficult solution above)


I do see merit in a gyro that's electric, even though it'll have serious drawbacks.
Such as?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,255
Location
Orange County, California
As extreme as it sounds to self-charge a parked electric autogyro from a medium-strong wind, then fly totally green, then land, recharge and repeat, IS feasible!
Yeah, but do you really want to fly an ultralight autogyro in a wind that strong, now that you've got it charged? A wind that is some large fraction of the normal flying speed? I wouldn't. Seems like a better option to leave it out charging from a solar panel during the week, and then go flying. Charge a spare battery pack at the same time and get your second flight by swapping packs, a matter of a few minutes work if you design for it.

Take a look at this ...towed Gyro Hang glider clip:
Well, that's one of the more unique flying machines I've yet seen!

Let me also second Autoreply with regard to glider trailering. You have to understand that gliders are designed for exceptionally easy trailering, since the disassembly might have to take place off in a field somewhere. I've watched guys pull their gliders out of the trailer and be ready to fly (offered to help, but none was needed) in about 15-20 minutes of very casual, no-hurry labor. Someone wanting to get it done quickly could probably do it in ten or less.

If you guys are bound and determined for "green" flight, then may I suggest a solar-charged, electric motorglider. Trickle-charge all week long on a solar panel, then use the motor for takeoff and climb, shutting it down for a couple hours of soaring, and then land at the airport, take lunch, and then back into the air under the same orginal charge. The powerplant might get fifteen or twenty minutes total use in two flights, so you could fly all day with a single battery pack, charged "for free" by the sun during the week while you're at work.

Other than pure soaring, you won't find a "greener" way to fly.
 
Last edited:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Obviously because he wanted to have a pre-rotator on the rotor (acting also as an emergency rotator). That can serve as a generator too, so having a generator ready, the next step is to use it! : )
Ah the "we have it, so let's use it" approach. I think more than enough reasons were given not to pursue that approach. You need so many adaptions to your gyro (and rotor) that it'll be heavier, more complex and simply dangerous. Making a separate (fixed-rotor) generator/windmill and erect it before flying seems way simpler.
Well, I could think of (insert evil smile):
Pros:
+Quiet
+Reliability
+No maintenance
+Control
+Response
+Green energy source possible
+etc

Cons:
-Flight duration (30mins max)
-Higher cost
Edit:
Following of Topaz' post I can think of an even greener way. Buy/build an autogyro with engine. Convert it to hydrogen. Then make a windmill and attach an electrode to the generator, put the stuff in a big can of water and use the electricity to compress the hydrogen for storage. Now that doesn't involve "dirty" Lithium-production either and you have the range/endurance of a "normal" autogyro.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,255
Location
Orange County, California
...Following of Topaz' post I can think of an even greener way. Buy/build an autogyro with engine. Convert it to hydrogen. Then make a windmill and attach an electrode to the generator, put the stuff in a big can of water and use the electricity to compress the hydrogen for storage. Now that doesn't involve "dirty" Lithium-production either and you have the range/endurance of a "normal" autogyro.
Gotta find that Scientific American article from three-or-four years ago. Essentially the research showed that the "greenest" (and cheapest) fuel/powerplant combo when one considers the entire process of production and use is natural gas in an internal combustion engine. You pipe the stuff directly from the ground and it just needs a basic filtering to be ready for motor use - no refining at all. Unlike hydrogen, almost no energy or infrastructure is required to produce it (you need energy and equipment to "crack" hydrogen from water), so there's no "footprint" from those items, either. Batteries, as you say here, are highly polluting to create and recycle/put in a landfill.

Hydrogen burning in an IC engine took second, simply because of the materials and energy needed to produce it from water. If a means could be found to catalyze it from water "for free", it would be the clear choice. It has the advantage of being completely renewable, too.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Gotta find that Scientific American article from three-or-four years ago. Essentially the research showed that the "greenest" (and cheapest) fuel/powerplant combo when one considers the entire process of production and use is natural gas in an internal combustion engine. You pipe the stuff directly from the ground and it just needs a basic filtering to be ready for motor use - no refining at all. Unlike hydrogen, almost no energy or infrastructure is required to produce it (you need energy and equipment to "crack" hydrogen from water), so there's no "footprint" from those items, either. Batteries, as you say here, are highly polluting to create and recycle/put in a landfill.

Hydrogen burning in an IC engine took second, simply because of the materials and energy needed to produce it from water. If a means could be found to catalyze it from water "for free", it would be the clear choice. It has the advantage of being completely renewable, too.
That's (LNG) essentially what we're doing, we have a huge amount of LNG (Slochteren) and a significant number of cars run on them. Barely any conversion required to the engine, I regularly drive one and it's very conventional.

The reason I mentioned hydrogen+windmill is simple; most people who're looking for "grean" power/energy systems don't qualify any fossil fuel (some even exclude Uranium) as "green" or "renewable". If you're limited to PV or windmills, the conversion to H2 is the most efficient in terms of energy density and conversion efficiency.
A little bit of math shows that a 10m (32 ft) windmill on average generates something like 7-8HP in our (windy) climate, taking into account all losses (hydrogen conversion, prop inefficiency). A couple hours of charging gives enough hydrogen for a good (1 hr) flight.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,255
Location
Orange County, California
That's (LNG) essentially what we're doing, we have a huge amount of LNG (Slochteren) and a significant number of cars run on them. Barely any conversion required to the engine, I regularly drive one and it's very conventional.
I wish they'd catch on more here. We're actually burning off some natural gas as "waste". *shakes head sadly*

The reason I mentioned hydrogen+windmill is simple; most people who're looking for "grean" power/energy systems don't qualify any fossil fuel (some even exclude Uranium) as "green" or "renewable". ...
Oh, I know, but politics is everywhere. I'd agree that natural gas isn't "renewable", but if it's less polluting overall, cradle-to-grave, then it most certainly is "green", no matter what people want to paint on the concept.

I still like my little solar-charged motorglider. If I knew more about efficient battery-motor systems, I might try one someday. A nearly perfect fit to my own "fun flying" needs. You've got plenty of wind in the Netherlands. We've got plenty of sun.
 
E

Empirical

Guest
Yeah, but do you really want to fly an ultralight autogyro in a wind that strong, now that you've got it charged? A wind that is some large fraction of the normal flying speed? I wouldn't. Seems like a better option to leave it out charging from a solar panel during the week, and then go flying. Charge a spare battery pack at the same time and get your second flight by swapping packs.
You are right, but it weighs around 300kg (660lbs)(!), it doesn't have large wings and the center of gravity is low, can't it fly safely at 30mph wind???

Anyway, if you know ...the wind's schedule, you can arrange to charge it eg. in the morning and fly in the afternoon.

Well, that's one of the more unique flying machines I've yet seen.
Me too! Since it is a light hang glider (actually a much lighter one ~10kg), in fact an autogyro with weight control which it can't stall, it doesn't suffer from stability issues and rotor-slow down (a maneuver can't be that harsh to slow-down the rotor because the weight is actually hanged and is controlled vs a standard autogyro), so I think it's the safest glider, provided there is enough wind at take off. I would prefer it from a parachute!
I think it can be improved a lot! I can think of no excuse that it has been abandoned until today -they were just too lazy to bother.

War's edition ...and worse! (not the same level of control, small rotor) "Hafner Rotachute"




A heavier one. You can drive to the top of a mountain, speed up to gain enough momentum, glide and then drive back home! (you can change the rotor with a foldable one for easier traffic maneuvers)! "Hafner Rotabuggy"



If you guys are bound and determined for "green" flight, then may I suggest a solar-charged, electric motorglider. Trickle-charge all week long on a solar panel, then use the motor for takeoff and climb, shutting it down for a couple hours of soaring, and then land at the airport, take lunch, and then back into the air under the same orginal charge. The powerplant might get fifteen or twenty minutes total use in two flights, so you could fly all day with a single battery pack, charged "for free" by the sun during the week while you're at work.

Other than pure soaring, you won't find a "greener" way to fly.
Nice, but that ain't an autogyro! (can't take off practically anywhere, etc)

You need so many adaptions to your gyro (and rotor) that it'll be heavier, more complex and simply dangerous. Making a separate (fixed-rotor) generator/windmill and erect it before flying seems way simpler.
You are right, it will be more complex and even more difficult. I've already tried to warn Culleningus (post #15) and I can repeat too that it's a very difficult project, especially difficult to ensure reliability for the whole electric/electronic system and the mechanical adaptations and safety in all cases. It all depends on the quality of design which requires experts both in mechanics and electronics (not just graduates) -it's not an average home project.



Following of Topaz' post I can think of an even greener way. Buy/build an autogyro with engine. Convert it to hydrogen. Then make a windmill and attach an electrode to the generator, put the stuff in a big can of water and use the electricity to compress the hydrogen for storage. Now that doesn't involve "dirty" Lithium-production either and you have the range/endurance of a "normal" autogyro.
Good idea (you reminded me when I was a kid and was making hydrogen with two carbon electrodes from batteries... just don't compress it along with the oxygen!!!)
Still, this has all the disadvantages of a standard autogyro (vs electric) except it's green! Most annoying of all, the noise! Most important, reliability etc. Plus, you carry a ...hydrogen bomb! (you know that hydrogen burns the whole energy almost instantly -in seconds, contrary to gasoline)



Here is my suggestion for an alternative that it's easier to build, low cost, the easiest to transport, it's safe, green, fun, etc is the ...Electric Paraglider: YouTube - Electric paramotor becomes a reality
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,255
Location
Orange County, California
You are right, but it weighs around 300kg (660lbs)(!), it doesn't have large wings and the center of gravity is low, can't it fly safely at 30mph wind???
Ever flown in a 30mph wind? Go out on a day with 30mph winds, and tell me how comfortable you'd be flying an extremely light aircraft in that. Not me, thank you.

Anyway, if you know the wind's schedule, ...
I think I just found the flaw in your plan. ;)

...so I think it's the safest glider, provided there is enough wind at take off. I would prefer it from a parachute!
Hmmm. I guess that's a matter of opinion. I'd prefer a powered-parachute myself. Much more portable, and less power required. And I think you'll find that, in terms of accident rate, gliders of any ilk have a better safety record than autogyros.

You can drive to the top of a mountain, speed up to gain enough momentum, glide and then drive back home! ... Nice, but that ain't an autogyro! (can't take off practically anywhere, etc)
The problems of roadable aircraft and "taking off practically anywhere" are more regulatory than engineering, and would be much more easily surmounted if they were engineering problems:

Making a "roadable" aircraft means complying with all the automotive safety rules as well as those for aircraft, and usually results in a compromised vehicle that's not terribly good at either task. Lighting, bumpers, crash protection, airbags, etc. A folding rotorhead is adding substantial complexity to what was supposed to be a simple system.

Landing and taking off "practically anywhere" is a nice idea that rarely works out to be a substantial advantage in practice. Your ability to simply take off from your back yard or a nearby field will almost certainly be proscribed by local city ordinance and, even if it isn't now, will be shortly after the moment your neighbors complain about the "noise and danger", however unjustified that complaint might be. Out away from populations, you can usually find a large enough patch of open ground or dirt road from which to operate a conventional aircraft/ultralight. Certainly a powered parachute.

Now, if you just want an autogyro, then cool. Nothing wrong with that. But understand that there are very good reasons that they have not caught on as "practical" air vehicles, even for fun flying. Basically people fly autogyros because they want autogyros, no more, no less.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
You are right, but it weighs around 300kg (660lbs)(!), it doesn't have large wings and the center of gravity is low, can't it fly safely at 30mph wind???
Ultralight gliders fully conform with the US ultralight regulations (below 150 lbs if I'm correct. That gives you a full-blown glider with great performance.
Anyway, if you know ...the wind's schedule, you can arrange to charge it eg. in the morning and fly in the afternoon.
The typical fly-time (1000-2000) is the only time with decent surface winds ;)

As for the roadable-aircraft; they won't work as has been proven by 60 years of history. The only solution I see as a reasonable one is taking a normal (legal) car and use a very low-speed means to get into the air so you can limit the power. A PPG seems natural. Take your car, attach a huge parachute/parafoil and add a 100HP fan on the back. The gyro-car is an interesting variation of this, but do realize that we're talking huge rotors and significant power.
 
E

Empirical

Guest
Ever flown in a 30mph wind? Go out on a day with 30mph winds, and tell me how comfortable you'd be flying an extremely light aircraft in that. Not me, thank you.
You're a probably right. I was just asking for an opinion.

Making a "roadable" aircraft means complying with all the automotive safety rules as well as those for aircraft, and usually results in a compromised vehicle that's not terribly good at either task. Lighting, bumpers, crash protection, airbags, etc. A folding rotorhead is adding substantial complexity to what was supposed to be a simple system.
Topaz, I hope you didn't take seriously the photo of "Hafner Rotabuggy"! I just put it there for fun! I was LOL-ing when I first saw it, it's the ultimate satire of such efforts, a rushed, unsuccessful marriage (almost ridiculous) between two different worlds! Or like an unrealistic-militaristic toy!

But I agree with your view. We can't have the best of both worlds in one package. Most such marriages as market research has shown, have failed! The reason is optimization. You can only optimize something, or perfect it, just for one thing. Everything else, is a compromise.


Now, if you just want an autogyro, then cool. Nothing wrong with that. But understand that there are very good reasons that they have not caught on as "practical" air vehicles, even for fun flying. Basically people fly autogyros because they want autogyros, no more, no less.
Personally I'm not fanatic about any air-vehicle, I was just trying to help Culleningus on the electric/electronic issues and defend the electric version of autogyro since I like it too (anything electric), as long as there are no strong opposite arguments.

But let me guess:
I think autogyro has failed to be popular because:

It looks like a a helicopter, but:
1. It can't take-off vertically
2. It can't land vertically
3. It can't hover
4. It needs a runway (eventhough a short one)
5. It looks more complicated (it has two propellers)
6. It isn't automatic (it requires manual pre-rotation)
7. It's too noisy (Most modern helicopters are using a turboshaft so are relatively quiet) The 2-stroke engine gives the impression that the autogyro straggles to take-off!
8. It promised safety in exchange. But it lost that too, everybody knows, it's not 100% safe. It's far safer if engine fails, but not 100%, it still "might happen to you".

Also, on the mind of the consumer, helicopter comes first. Because it has been promoted like it was first. And the above qualities are impressive, or magic.

The other differences, although huge, are "internal" and therefore less visible to the consumer, like the mechanical complexity of the helicopter, the difficulty to control, the lack of safety in case of a (rare) engine failure.

Now only an electric version, is capable to "correct" almost all of those disadvantages and make it more attractive:
-I think the noise itself might be the #1 factor, psychologically.It gives the impression that the autogyro straggles to take off! It can easily be fixed, even optimize the rotor for low noise!
-Prerotation can also be easily automatic.
-Safety can be increased by ensuring some minimum rotation of the rotor during flight -automatically, plus there will be highest reliability and almost virtually no maintenance because of the electric power plant.
-Now add to rotor collective pitch control and a power transmission -or a second motor and you can VTOL, hover somewhat (with the increased control, response and automation) and definitely eliminate the need for runway.
-The pitch should return to autorotation automatically (passively) in case of a power failure, to keep the safety advantage.
-The perceived (psychologically) complexity of the two propellers can be fixed by making the propulsion propeller hidden as a ducted fan embedded on the fuselage.
-Done!
Not equal to helicopter (since it's different) but quite alike and definitely safer!


As for the roadable-aircraft; they won't work as has been proven by 60 years of history. The only solution I see as a reasonable one is taking a normal (legal) car and use a very low-speed means to get into the air so you can limit the power. A PPG seems natural. Take your car, attach a huge parachute/parafoil and add a 100HP fan on the back. The gyro-car is an interesting variation of this, but do realize that we're talking huge rotors and significant power.
As I wrote above, the photo was a joke. But Gyro-car is also a mix of two totally different things -same mistake. Won't ever be popular. Except of course as a toy for a few rich guys and a couple of Gyro-car-like experiments between hobbyists -rarely.

My prediction:
As soon as we have an extremely powerful and economic electric source at hand (either a battery or a nuclear-based, antimatter or whatever device) everything will start flying!
There will be a full transition of roadcars to flycars (family air-vehicles) as well as personal air-vehicles. Everything else, will be history. No one would want to "roll" anymore. But they will retain that ability for practical reasons.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
-Now add to rotor collective pitch control and a power transmission -or a second motor and you can VTOL, hover somewhat (with the increased control, response and automation) and definitely eliminate the need for runway.
Somehow, people here seem to think you don't need counter-torque for an autogyro. Why not? All that complicated "helo"-stuff you immediately need if you're going VTOL.
Gyro-car is also a mix of two totally different things -same mistake. Won't ever be popular. Except of course as a toy for a few rich guys and a couple of Gyro-car-like experiments between hobbyists -rarely.
And military applications. A gyro isn't that efficient or fast. But it's just that what makes it relatively simple to apply to cars/trucks.
Just think of a PPG, with a 200HP fan and a manned HMMMV. No troubles crossing that single road. Cheap, expendable "airtransport".
My prediction:
As soon as we have an extremely powerful and economic electric source at hand (either a battery or a nuclear-based, antimatter or whatever device) everything will start flying!
There will be a full transition of roadcars to flycars (family air-vehicles) as well as personal air-vehicles. Everything else, will be history. No one would want to "roll" anymore. But they will retain that ability for practical reasons.
Well, that's been predicted for the last 60 years. Flying and especially flying nearby buildings is still so demanding that I don't see that happening in the coming 30-40 years.
 
E

Empirical

Guest
Somehow, people here seem to think you don't need counter-torque for an autogyro. Why not? All that complicated "helo"-stuff you immediately need if you're going VTOL.
I'm just talking about a simple blade pitch control only during take off or landing vertically. During flight it should return to autogyro so no complicated alternating pitch angles to ballance drag etc. Take a look at this amazing little Gyro, he spins, then just increase the angle and the gyro jumps!

[video=youtube;CFNc1iY8wi0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFNc1iY8wi0&feature=related[/video]

And military applications. A gyro isn't that efficient or fast. But it's just that what makes it relatively simple to apply to cars/trucks.
Just think of a PPG, with a 200HP fan and a manned HMMMV. No troubles crossing that single road. Cheap, expendable "airtransport".
I like more solid solutions, have you seen the movie "Back to the Future?" -I'm spoiled by that movie! (And, my belief that everything is possible!) :)

Well, that's been predicted for the last 60 years.
Then get prepared for a change! We are 60 years closer to that date! And the progress is exponential!

Flying and especially flying nearby buildings is still so demanding that I don't see that happening in the coming 30-40 years.
Electric power is so responsive with short overdrive capability that can be perfectly controlled (and asist the pilot) by electronic flight automation driven by sensors and logic -piece of cake!

BTW, the whole industry are making batteries like crazy! They cannot even tell when they will be able to deliver the current orders and virtually everybody is researching for the best battery! It's a matter of time... They didn't have that kind of research pressure until now!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,755
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
I'm just talking about a simple blade pitch control only during take off or landing vertically. During flight it should return to autogyro so no complicated alternating pitch angles to ballance drag etc. Take a look at this amazing little Gyro, he spins, then just increase the angle and the gyro jumps!
You need anti-torque or - in other words - a tail rotor/second rotor to hover or do safe VTOL flights. The flight your referring to is simply using the stored overspeed in the rotor to take-off. Sure, it's possible, but you barely have control over the gyro and you certainly can't steer it. For me, this comes pretty close to the vertical RATO-launces in terms of controllability and safety..
Then get prepared for a change! We are 60 years closer to that date! And the progress is exponential!

Electric power is so responsive with short overdrive capability that can be perfectly controlled (and asist the pilot) by electronic flight automation driven by sensors and logic -piece of cake!

BTW, the whole industry are making batteries like crazy! They cannot even tell when they will be able to deliver the current orders and virtually everybody is researching for the best battery! It's a matter of time... They didn't have that kind of research pressure until now!
Yeah, I've been told the same. We would get small turbines that are affordable (below 100K US$), we would get car-converted engines that were far superior. Diesels too. Automated flight control. HITS. An open protocol to safely fly dynamic approaches. A logical airspace (Geez, you're from Greece, you should know)
All those were claimed 60 to 20 years ago. None of them has already turned into reality.

There are huge concerns regarding flying cars, even if the people flying it are pilots. If they're not, you need a fully automatic flight/landing system. It needs to be (reasonably) weather resistant. And half a dozen other (unsolvable) issues. Maybe in 100 years, but certainly not in 30.
 
E

Empirical

Guest
You need anti-torque or - in other words - a tail rotor/second rotor to hover or do safe VTOL flights. The flight your referring to is simply using the stored overspeed in the rotor to take-off. Sure, it's possible, but you barely have control over the gyro and you certainly can't steer it. For me, this comes pretty close to the vertical RATO-launces in terms of controllability and safety..
Except if you don't mind the lack of yaw control while you take-off/land vertically (for just a few seconds), assuming you are in an open space. It has it's limitations, you can only take-off or land at the same orientation you approach, or even not exactly the same, but I don't see anything dangerous on that alone. We are not talking for a city vehicle anyway.

Even if the engine fails during take off, the pilot has enough time to switch to autogyro (because of the stored energy on the special rotor) and land safe, even more if the switch is being done automatically as I've suggested. Actually, that stored energy makes it safer!


There are huge concerns regarding flying cars, even if the people flying it are pilots. If they're not, you need a fully automatic flight/landing system. It needs to be (reasonably) weather resistant. And half a dozen other (unsolvable) issues. Maybe in 100 years, but certainly not in 30.
There are huge concerns about flycars, because we don't know exactly how we can achieve the full transition from today's road-car reality to a flying-car reality. Trying to figure out that today, is overwhelming.
But we don't have to!
The change and evolution comes in steps. We are not going nor need to develop the whole system including the flying cars at once -that's impossible! But for the first little step, there are never huge concerns, just a few issues. All we have to do is look at the right direction, plan right and just focus on the current step -keeping an eye at the forest too of course. During that transition, each technological and commercial success will trigger demand for relative products, technologies and updates on regulations which will boost transition further while the whole system (...the whole reality) will adapt accordingly!
 
Top