Personal Aerial Vehicle (PAV) to take your commute into the third dimension

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Kingfisher, Aug 4, 2016.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Nov 28, 2016 #21

    Terrh

    Terrh

    Terrh

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Windsor, ON, Canada / Detroit, MI, USA.
    I think that my approach to solving this problem would be to have two separate vehicles. It must be a lot easier to design a plane that can carry a small, 1000lb car than make a car that can fly or an airplane with road manners.

    A 1000lb car, or room for a pair of motorcycles, sounds easy enough to design to me.
     
  2. Sep 15, 2017 #22

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    Hello VB,
    I really apologize for not responding to this great post of yours. I have a weird thing with the forums, sometimes I get all fired up and post stuff, and then I don't even look at the response.
    There are some similar old designs to what I have posted, one with tilting wings and 4 rotors, the other only 4 tilting rotors and fixed wings. I have summarised them in a little patent paper regarding my proposal, which I've submitted as a provisional application, just for the record. The CL-84 was not one of them, and I had never heard of it. It is interesting it was so successful in its mission, and the failures where all mechanical. Same was true for the other designs, regarding the failures, but not as much success. The "84" seems to have gone a fair distance on the way to prove itself.
    Like you said, the electric motors with computer aided control should reduce this failure potential. All your other comments I agree with, too, although not sure about the autorotation, one would need variable pitch for sure. Maybe it's a must have anyway to extend the speed envelope, but not on first prototype. I have had my main parts 3D printed to make a model about 800mm wingspan. I realise full scale requirements are much tougher, just want to have some fun. But by the slow pace I work at, others will pass me by....
     
  3. Sep 15, 2017 #23

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,736
    Likes Received:
    3,324
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    There is a company with a Robinson R-44 converted to electric. It can do about two traffic patterns to hover in the safe range of battery care. Any more and it would junk them. I don't think it can take a passenger.
     
  4. Sep 15, 2017 #24

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Aesquire

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,344
    Likes Received:
    947
    Location:
    Rochester, NY, USA
    I say thee Nay! Nay!

    That said, looks good.

    Free wing is not a good idea here I think. You want control of wing position because of the dynamic range of airflow as the wings tilt. A free wing is a special case design like a Flea. Works fine in it's deliberate limited control scheme.

    Aka. Don't cross the streams.

    The ultimate flying car IMHO ( except for Thunderbirds Are Go ) was in the TV show "The Magician", starring Bill Bixby as a do-good who used magic tricks to help people. One season he was headquartered at The Magic Shop but others he flew around in a 727 with the rear stairs as a car ramp to disgorge his Corvette. Or was it one season with the plane? Whatever, it was functional.

    Scaling that down is going to be tricky. Suzuki had a two seat car that might work, or you can go for the Smart mini car & death trap.

    ( rant on ego driven sales of stupidly expensive junk to idiots with raging blazing hatred towards German over engineering..... deleted ;) )
     
  5. Sep 15, 2017 #25

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,235
    Likes Received:
    5,049
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    As has been discussed on several of these threads, a homebuilt airpane the size of a Cessna Caravan, but configured with a rear ramp like a Skyvan or C-119 Boxcar could easily carry a purpose built two seat enclosed motorcycle. The road vehicle doesn't have to be side by side seating, thus allowing the airplane to be within reason width wise.

    This is the Auster B.4, an airplane that is essentially a modified Taylorcraft with large clamshell doors to be used as an air ambulance.

    b4_in_flight.jpg
     
    cheapracer and delta like this.
  6. Sep 18, 2017 #26

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    So true that a lot things we take for granted were spawned by a writer of either book or film. The english speaking parts of the world seem to have bit more imagination and sense of humour in these things. Especially tv ads are way better than in Germany. All that Starwars airtraffic is so cool, and plausible if one had the machines to do it.
    I guess some German things are overengineered, especially the upmarket stuff. Regarding the multicopter, though, I'm not even sure who invented it. When I was still poor/in school, I had tampered with the idea of steering a multiengined Rc plane, or helicopter, with its motors via the speed controls. The problem was I only had one motor, and it was so weak it couldn't even lift its own weight.
     
  7. Sep 18, 2017 #27

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    280
    Location:
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
    Sheesh. The whole point of a flying car is that it can drive to an airport and then operate as an airplane with all the inherent aero advantages. If you want a VTOL don't bother with the car part- just land at your destination.

    And while you're improving your design, you'll find that at the rotors get larger everything becomes more efficient.

    (hint- invented in 1939 and is used very successfully all over the world today)
     
    delta likes this.
  8. Sep 18, 2017 #28

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,235
    Likes Received:
    5,049
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    ^^^^^^ +1 ^^^^^^^

    Another thing in favor of an "airplane" flying car is that even the people who own FAA certified helicopters usually can't land at their destination. Either the city/county laws won't allow it, or the cops show up and cause problems because they got a "crash" 911 call, or the neighbors are upset, etc. The whole George Jetson rooftop platform thing is very very hard to achieve. If it were doable, there would be twenty thousand lawyers and surgeons and white collar crooks commuting to work every day in their A-Star, not just a small handful of really wealthy folks that do it now.

    So if the multi-copters and Uber-Air Taxis and and all the other potentially viable VTOL personal transport stuff actually became available to the public at a reasonable cost... there is still this "societal barrier" that would be even harder to break than the technical/mechanical barriers.

    As unfortunate as it is, I would guess that when the E-Volo is finally in the hands of the average Joe, they will be flying from airport to airport for a long time, until there is an infrastructure of urban STOL-Ports, or VTOL ports or helipads that are actually accessible and affordable to the general public.

    In the meantime, it seems logical that the "airplane" flying cars and PAV's that are designed to operate at airports and then drive into town will be in daily use, and (again unfortunately) the PAV / VTOL owners will not be able to get the full benefit of that technology.

    I hope I'm wrong. I hope that multi-copters and VTOL PAV's will be allowed to operate wherever they can fit. But logic tells me that (at least in America) our liability lawyers and risk-averse city managers will be terrified of the mult-copters landing in the city park or baseball field.
     
  9. Sep 19, 2017 #29

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Four wheels and two drive belts could be fitted to any R-22 and then drive it down the road to the local airport or heliport field and takeoff.
    But who wants a two-seat (1.5 seat? with wheels) that costs $150 per hour to operate?
     
  10. Sep 20, 2017 #30

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    Canada
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Helicopter commuting is already popular in Brazil's larger cities because elites fear driving. They fear driving because of all the street crime, gang wars, car-jacking, kidnapping, etc.
    Brazil has such huge wave disparities that the rich can land wherever they can afford to land, while city council ignores millions of poor people.
     
  11. Sep 20, 2017 #31

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Riggerrob

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    Canada
    Kingfisher's original sketch reminds me of a multi-copter patented in France during the 1950s. Try to picture a small car surmounted by the world's greatest roof-rack!
    It had four rotors. The rear rotors folded forward to stow along the sides of the roof, while the forward rotors folded aft. The body was a typical, small European sedan that could be driven on surface streets.

    Now the challenge is to update this old patent with modern horsepower and electronics.

    For short-range commuting, wings are irrelevant.
     
  12. Sep 20, 2017 #32

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,235
    Likes Received:
    5,049
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Define short range... three city blocks away? To go three blocks, yes you can use a rocket belt or a Harrier style vectored thrust turbine.

    I'm pretty sure that wings (whether fixed or rotating) will start to become favorable quickly once you increase the commute distance above 4 or 5 miles.
     
  13. Sep 22, 2017 #33

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    harrisonaero

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    280
    Location:
    Coeur d'Alene, ID
  14. Sep 22, 2017 #34

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Yeah. I don't think inner city air transport can happen. Gravity always wins. The futurists don't have an answer for total safety yet.
    Might work to a boat dock with overwater flights.
     
  15. Sep 23, 2017 #35

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,235
    Likes Received:
    5,049
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Inner City air transport may be different than a Personal Air Vehicle commuter. That huge Sikorsky in the video was definitely not a small personal transport!

    BTW I got to fly on the Los Angeles Airways version of that once when I was a kid.

    Here's the thing - Wings that are fixed on the fuselage, or wings that are always in a state of autorotation (gyroplane) are pretty reliable, likely to be reliable in a city environment. As long as you don't base the primary flightworthiness of the craft on Dilithium Crystals or Mollerium or the Jupiter Battery, you have a chance of achieving good enough reliability to operate in a city environment. That famous video of a gyroplane delivering mail on top of a NY skyscraper happened 80 years ago.

    Keeping the legalities and the bureaucratic paperwork aside for a moment... a small 1 seat personal gyro with "jump" capability (and a decent pilot) could safely and reliably operate on and off the top of a city parking structure, using 50-60 year old aircraft technology and materials. No Secret Sauce. No alien battery technology. No 5000 RPM fan blades being turned by a bunch of 10,000 RPM engines. NO !(#*% COMPUTERS.
     
    Sockmonkey likes this.
  16. Sep 23, 2017 #36

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,213
    Likes Received:
    2,408
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Almost no chance of getting an approved personal autogyro or helicopter landing area in a major city now.
    Even a 5 pound drone can kill you. A person was injured in Seattle from a small drone.
     
  17. Mar 20, 2019 #37

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    Here is an update to my project. Obviously Opener and Vahana have beaten me to it, but I got it to fly on a small scale. Still find the free wing interesting, but it is probably not necessary. At this point I think a wing that tilts with the engine as one unit and is fully immersed in the propeller slipstream is probably best.
    [video]https://1drv.ms/v/s!AlOiWyKLXM2DgjFLUcRCYbGx66md[/video]
     
    delta likes this.
  18. Mar 23, 2019 #38

    BrettG

    BrettG

    BrettG

    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    CA, USA
    Howdy Kingfisher,

    Interesting design, thanks for sharing the video! I look forward to more!

    I'm with a company that's been in this space since before those two you mentioned. I've flown many configs, including things like yours, though with direct control of the wing tilt (though we moved away from tilt wings). You will probably not find a linear actuator that is light enough and fast enough for good tilt control, and most servos are not precise enough to hold accurate position of such a powerful effector. The best results we've had are with the Dynamixel servos by ROBOTIS. I've used the MX-106R extensively, and a few of their smaller ones, these work great and handle lots of abuse: http://www.robotis.us
     
  19. Mar 25, 2019 #39

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Kingfisher

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Perth, WA, Australia
    Hi BrettG,

    Thanks for sharing your experience. Makes me wonder what company it is you're with, I think I have an idea. The robotis servos will come in handy if I ever get to built something bigger, I think they are too heavy for my small scale, but I haven't looked at all the options yet. Price is a factor....I've just received some more powerful conventional servos for this model, I'll give that a shot next. Attached is short paper I wrote with regards to control strategy and possible advantages and disadvantages of the idea. I haven't included excessive control forces and precision of actuators, but share your concerns there.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. Mar 25, 2019 #40

    Dusan

    Dusan

    Dusan

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Canada
    Hi Kingfisher, great for sharing your work!

    I think the biggest problem for VTOL aircraft design is the disparity in power between hovering and cruising. This VTOL conundrum is somewhat alleviated by the high efficiency of electric propulsion, but the lift in hover still needs to be increased without consuming much more power. Just tilting the rotors will not do; e.g. for a cruise L/D of 10, thrust needs to be increased 10 times for VTOL operation, and power rises even more, exponentially. Designing the aircraft for efficient VTOL operation, low disk loading is needed, leading invariably to large rotor disk area, which is detrimental to efficient cruise operation. Having the wings in the rotor's slipstream they are just dead weight, even worse they consume energy as boundary layer friction. Some gain can be achieved by putting them in front of the rotors, as here: http://aliptera.com/development.html#Lip Wing
     

Share This Page



arrow_white