If you had one on each side instead of two, and the diameters were larger, they could run at a lower rpm and would be more efficient. They would need to counter rotate to avoid creating unwanted roll.
What about putting a cage around it, like one of those cylindrical caged quad copters? That way you don’t have to worry about bumping into anything and it’s just Smoother?
I'm amazed that people are still playing around with this idea nearly 100 years after the first attempt. It's really cool that modern computing allows this type of flight to be possible, but I just can't understand why it's advantageous to add multiple points of failure to an aircraft.
Great teaching project to show why you don't see these. They're terribly inefficient. Now, modifying an AutoGyro with revolutionary changes that improved efficiency would be a breakthrough.
@@Pudelspringer They are not more efficient than a helicopter. The lifting surface vs mass is is less so higher RPM must be used to compensate. This is what helicopters call "disk loading" basically a larger slower rotor is more efficient than a smaller higher speed one. Also the mechanics are far more complex than the cyclic and collective pitch mixing system on a helicopter rotor and that's already pretty complex. At full scale it would be a maintenance nightmare. They get more efficient at lower speeds in a thicker fluid (water) which is why they are widely used in tugboat propulsion. Also the 360 degree instant thrust vectoring trumps the extra cost and maintenance compared to cheaper azimuth pods in that specific application which is why you only ever see them used in tugs and other boats that need to be able to thrust in various directions just use azimuth pods (an electric propeller in a rotating pod under the boat connected to power by slip rings).
@@atomicskull6405 Can you share any details on why you state the efficiency of a Cyclocopter is less than a helicopter? I’d like to understand this concept much better. I would have thought the entire wing is lifting at high efficiency would outperform the low lift from the helicopter wing near the hub
@@Pudelspringerthe projected area of a helicopter rotor is much larger. The larger the area, the more mass of air you have to push against. The more mass you can push against, the less you have to accelerate it. The less you accelerate the air, the less energy is wasted. To stay in the air you want to grab onto as much air as you can.
@@zachary3777 . Thanks Zach. But doesn’t the helicopter wing only generate maximum lift at the wing tips and nil at the hub? Whereas the Cyclocopter is generates lift along the entire wing as each wing is at the top & bottom of the cycle. More wings = more lift?
try ducted shutter directional output impeller instead, you dont have to actively move the blades, just spin the air pump with the shutters in the thrust directions, mostly down
The weight of the rotors far exceeds those of a regular quad-copter and much of that weight is furthest from the axis. The rotational inertia is then much higher and therefor the ability to rapidly change rotational speed is harder to attain. As a result this will be an inherently less stable platform, as can be seen in the demo. Much software already exists for controlling vehicles with four thrust points and I assume is being used. The fact they have less stability seems to confirm software alone will not fix that issue. Much larger motors would be required adding more weight, requiring larger vanes. It would be interesting to do the analysis of whether that makes this solution non-viable.
"Real" rotorcraft don't vary their rotational speed to control thrust. Small quadcopters can get away with it but basically every other configuration gets up to ideal speed and sits there. Helicopters are controlled with blade pitch, the same way this thing is.
Amazing. Would love to see the airflow/wind tunnel on this. Also, the outer support spokes... Could they be turned into props to further push air to the center? The fuselage could then incorporate structure to redirect air downward. Just thinking out loud.
