Opener, Inc. brought version three of its BlackFly ultralight aircraft to AirVenture 2018. In this video, Alan Eustace explains the history of the aircraft and some of its features.
I want one and i want to support this aircraft.. this is the future.. the future is in the air.. thank you opener for bringing this to life.. more power..👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Battery tech may be improving in regards to cycle life, reliability etc but we are up against the laws of physics in terms of energy density. Battery energy density is very poor compared to hydrocarbon fuel. It's only our ability to harness electricity so efficiently that allows electric aircraft. But they will never achieve the load carrying, long distance flight of fuel powered aircraft. If we are to advance electric flight, we must move beyond chemical batteries.
Very true. We tend to look at where we are now, where we want to go tomorrow, and assess the possibility using only the tech we have now. If that makes sense. History is full of examples why it's foolish to say "can't be done". There are many passionate, brilliant people devoting their life to improving batteries. Obviously they see possibility.
As this technology progresses, it will eliminate the need for pilots. Computers will control flight, everyone on board will be a passenger. Brave New World.
tag491a People have been saying that for so many years now... I’m confident that we’ll have pilots well into the future. For example just look at specific aircraft: the F-35 and 777X are going to be in service for decades. Both are manned -> pilots. This thing doesn’t look like the future though. The future will be made with high aspect and bypass ratios. It’s all about accelerating more air less. Also who would operate this thing and in what capacity? Maybe it’s a toy for the rich but definitely not a game changer.
Oh dear. Why must some who comment on opinions posted on such as you tube ignore the opinion and instead make negative personal comments on the poster, someone they know nothing about. I have been flying light aircraft for 25 years, and still manage around 150 hours per year. I prefer fly by wire, that is where the control surfaces are connected to the stick and rudder by steel wire or pushrods. My comment on technology stems from my work environment in a university where I see development being made. Progress is not linear, it is exponential. Flexairz, please note. Songbird doesn’t agree with me and says why. Good. You just sneer in a comment worthy of a third year schoolboy. Not a good look for a pilot and it contributes nothing. Have you a useful comment to make?
If only it actually worked. Dont you think it is strange the only footage of this craft is marketing material and that it all looks rather clumsy small scale drones. Infact how do you sit in a craft when it is pointing either straight up like a rocket or down then maneuver into horizontal flight without any position issue to the pilot...
If someones commute was that short a distance they'd likely use a much cheaper mode of transport. Such as cycling......If they could afford that air vehicle, they also likely don't need to work at all.
You must live in a city. The average commute for most of my neighborhood is 40 to 50 miles ONE WAY. I really hope they expand the range of electric vehicles so us rural folk can try them too.
As currently regulated, it can't be flown over heavily populated areas. If you lived in a rural area and worked in a rural area in its range, you might be able to use it. But not as city transportation, the way things are currently.
To all you naysayers: In 1903, the Wright Flyer only flew for 12 seconds and covered just 120 feet. But it ushered in the age of flight. Today, drone-type aircraft such as this one will be no different. You gotta see beyond what is here and now.
The problem is that battery technology could be close to being maxed out right now. There's absolutely no guarantee that battery technology can even support the energy densities necessary to make this kind of aircraft practical.
idontcare80 Same argument naysayers used in 1903 when there were no light engine available to power an airplane. The Wright brothers had to develop their own engine for their Flyer. It produced only 12 HP, yet weighed 170 pounds! Today's Rotax 912 weighs about the same, yet produces over 100 HP. Do you see a pattern here? Why is it so hard for you to project into the future from what we have today? Mark my words, in the future, there will be a battery with the energy density of gasoline. It may not be Lithium Ion but it will power a car coast to coast and a plane for 5 hours without re-charging.
The thing is that the naysayers are usually right, look up survivorship bias. In other words: You're only looking at the successes and not the huge number of failures.
idontcare80 Not when it comes to flight and battery technology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to project such technologies. You just refuse to see what is already taking place.
I don't know about you, but I've seen a LOT of failed technologies in the aviation industry and battery technology has been advancing VERY slowly. You'd need around a 10 fold increase in battery energy density to make something like this aircraft practical for anything, and battery energy density has only been increasing by a few percent here and there, not the hundreds of percent necessary for aircraft like this to become practical. You can project all you want, but until there are actual products in existence, you're just fantasizing.
While this is not fully ready for mainstream, I feel as though I have just peeked behind the curtain and seen a future like what I always dreamt as a child. Absolutely amazing!
I didn't know Alan Eustace want to Opener. It makes sense, because of Larry Page. Estace holds the record for for highest jump 135,908 ft. He broke the Red Bull guy, Felix Baumgartner in 2012. Very cool.
The trifecta of technologies and amazing creativity. How will you overcome the fair-weather nature of the design? Can't wait to see what's next. Happy travels.
Unlike the flying car ideas I have some faith in this guy. He describes how all the functions work and all it’s hardware.. like he actually cares to display his work.
At some point you would hit a point of diminishing returns because of the weight. From this video it looks like the current US version could probably carry more. How much more is just a function of total thrust vs total weight.
This is amazing. I think this will spark many ideas and push more people into battery technology. I don't know much about solar but if it would be at all possible to place solar for less battery weight to have a similar range but also can self charge when parked, it would be incredible. If that was possible I would buy one the moment it was available and bring my ultra light minimalist camping gear and be gone for weeks at a a time.
BATTERIES CLOSER TO MOTOR MEANS 1. MINIMAL WIRING WEIGHT (since hi amp wires weigh more than motors), 2. hi amps closer to people dangerous too 3. Composites mean even if wires r stripped no conducting bodies around + no fire risks
They have 22,000 manned hours of flight and will get another 22,000 hours of flight by sometime in 2019 when they hope to be able to start selling, (translation from sales pitch to real world calendar: 2020 at the earliest). See their website www.opener.aero
FOR OPTIMUM EEFICIENT & INHERRENTLY STABLE CRAFT Have 4 MAIN MOTORS only on MAIN WING & main wing higher than tail for stability Have SMALL TAIL WING WITH 2 SMALL PITCH CONTROL MOTORS POINTED FORWARD (able to turn both CW & CCW)
Was waiting for the comment @ 2:50, and he finally made it...nice. Also, congrats on the 10K safe hours on the prototype, whenever it was that occurred. That virtual vertical TO and landing is NUTS! Love it! Looks like a hell of a first design/construction/flight step on wherever this type proceeds. She's beautiful, in her own weird way. ;-)
www.opener.aero says "We do require that all operators successfully complete the FAA Private Pilot written examination and also complete the company-mandated vehicle familiarization and operator training." This could be the new jet ski of the sky if the price is right. Don't think it will be as manueverable but looks fun.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MFYnsJlNoZ4.html watch entire video. At about 1:40 you see it land and kick up chunks of turf. I'll admit, it looks unreal when you see it flying. It'd be cool to have one and some countryside real estate.
It was at the Experimental Aircraft Association fly-in at Oshkosh this year - but only as a static display. It did not, as far as I know, fly. Some of the still images and brief portions of the videos which I have seen make it seem possible that it is actually capable of, at least a few seconds - perhaps even minutes - of flight. The overly dark, atmospheric, very clean, smooth camera steady videos prevalent on RU-vid I do not find compelling. The most convincing video of this craft flying which I have seen is at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DhKTCbbqbaE.html (1:01) Frankly, I doubt that, even if it can sustain flight, the craft has anywhere near the claimed performance. If it does, then why not show at least some of these capabilities at Oshkosh by flying it in front of the attendees at this event for all to see. At the moment, to me it looks as though it may well be another of aviation's many BD-5 moments.
I knew I couldn't be the only one who thought that there was something off about parts of their promo video. The craft is physically real and looks to be capable of liftoff, floating above ground, and landing but the flight sequences look digitally rendered. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jcpq6XYYoY4.html In the promo video (see link above), the only footage of supposed flight is shot from three perspectives: 1. Ground level perspective shot from a distance which gives the craft the appearance of being higher in the air than it actually is. 2. In-cabin perspective which only shows closeups of the faces of whomever is sitting in the craft and the camera is focused up, towards the sky which, yet again, gives the craft the appearance of being at a higher elevation than it actually is. 3. From a drone which is either recording from above or below the craft or is shooting an extreme closeup or a wide angle shot. The wide angle captures a much larger area and the craft seen in those particular scenes looks to be digitally rendered. My guess is that after nine years these people are either about to lose the last of their investors or their last investors recently pulled out and the promo video was made to attract new ones. Some of the footage is legitimate but some of it seems like false advertising. Frankly, the design is just strange to me. I'm no engineer but it seems bizarre having eight separate motors each of which powers one set of propellers which are attached to adjustable wings which are then fixed to a body that was designed with a teeter-totter in mind. The entire design seems inefficient to me. There's no way BlackFly is going to be cheaper than the cheapest helicopter on the market which, last time I checked, was the ultralight Mosquito which is basically a wheeled tripod with an engine, rotor blades, and pilot's seat. It costs a little more than $20,000 dollars but it actually has flight capability. Nine years of R&D and this is all they could come up with? This is either a money-making scheme or an elaborate ruse.
@@benoitavril4806 "I bet it's true and see nothing suspicious from the video." The video sequences of it flying are clearly CGI, and not real-life aerial videography. If you can't tell the difference, let me send you a video of some Florida land and New York bridges I'm offering for sale.
What are the motors? I build things, not planes, but I am looking for a motor with the qualities you mention.... light, compact, and powerful. Please respond with info. Thank you.
That would push it into the Light Sport Aircraft category here in the US. Although, I'd be surprised if they didn't at least do some design work on that very thing.
Most of these comments are from those unfamiliar with the development process. Sikorsky celebrated mightily the first time his helicopter flew 23 miles. This is quite an accomplishment.
Well, that is true for most engines. Electric engines tend to last longer than mechanical engines without the maintenance. And, if one fail, you'll still have 7 in backup, so you should be fine.
@Rick Vergara - Actually that is a VERY big seller because without a full overhaul as per manufacturer's specs, the failure rate in PISTON aircraft engines, is about 1 in 10,000 hours, which is why they require yearly inspection and a full, expensive overhaul about every 2,000 hours. There was a spot in the video where they said they used the original electric motor for 22,000 hours and it didn't fail; then they retired that 5 lb motor and hung it on their wall.
Just so ya know, this was shown on my favorite RU-vid channel about signs of the times. Knowledge of man increases! For the price of a SUV, I want one! Glad you were at Oshkosh so my brother was able to see this up close and personal
The knowledge here isn't actually new, the materials and design have just been put together by someone(s) who realized the potential of already existing things.
No way I could make one, much less make one for less. Hell I don't even drive, I use pedal power. If you want me to design you a nice bike we could talk.
People, the range is so limited so that it fits into the ultralight craft category. Meaning, you don't require a pilots license, not because they cannot make it go farther.
This excels when it comes to application, transportation, leisure, sports, and amusement. If you are going to sell this to the market, you must first survey the psychology and desire of potential costumers before mass production. More showcases, presentations, or advertisements to the public could increase demand. In my humble opinion, people are more attracted to the appearance. Perhaps make it more sexy, futuristic, or glossy. Maybe later you could upgrade or redesign it with wheels.
Insolation is about 1400 Watts/meter^2. About 1000 Watts/meter arrives at the surface of the earth after passing through the atmosphere. Solar cells are about 15% efficient, so that's 150 W/m^2. The Blackfly has a wingspan of about 4m (from website) and a chord of half a meter (pure guess from the pictures); that's 4*2*.5=4m^2. Divide by two since the wings are at a 45 degree angle on the ground; that angle gets better in the air but only if you specifically fly at the ideal angle for sunlight collecting rather than going in the direction you need to travel. Total is 300Whrs; a little less than 4% of the battery during your one hour flying time(!), or four extra miles of range added to your 25 miles/1hr flight. About a third of the 8kW battery capacity per 8hrs of sunlight per day if you charge on the ground. The international version has a 12kWhr battery and so it's 2.5% charge per hour, or 20% per day (5 days to 100%). Assuming ideal conditions. Weather obviously makes this worse, but this isn't rated for bad weather anyway. I'm not including the extra weight from the solar panels themselves; they can't be used as structural components and need to be protected. OK, but what about keeping a folding canopy inside? You land and keep the panels at a good angle. 50m^2 to charge the US battery in 1 hour (75m^2 for the int'l version), not counting the limitations of the battery itself. A canopy that unfolds to 5x5=25m^2 could charge it in 2 hrs. Googling portable, foldable chargers, I see most are about 30lbs per 100W, which equates to 45lbs to equal what you'd get from the Blackfly itself. A typical 200lb pilot thus uses all remaining cargo space and still needs a day and a half to reach full charge. At which time you'll be able to make another one hour flight. Better or at least lighter solar tech might let you fly out in the morning (1hr, 25 miles), set up the panels, hike or enjoy yourself during the day, and then fly back in the late afternoon. The Tesla Model S has state of the art batteries; 8kWhrs is about 120lbs. So foldable solar is better than packing in another battery, but only just barely, and only if you are ok with the long charging times.
The Program - Well Duuuuh, everybody knows that but you forgot to mention the vehicle must be integrated with the flux capacitor needed to be traveling at 88 mph (140.8 km/h), and required 1.21 gigawatts of power (1,210,000,000 watts), originally supplied by a plutonium-powered nuclear reactor!!
Really great stuff! Congratulations to the entire team! ~ Yes, the dream of flight is still alive and well, even 32 years after I had my own, so I would love to fly in a #BLACKFLY ultralight! Is the pilot area on gimbles so their orientation can shift as the vehicle transits from verticle to horizontal flight? I don't expect an answer here, simply wanted to ask the question.
The biggest issue is weight. To remain in ultralight, and keep it accessible to non-licensed markets, it’s understandable they have these small batteries. I’m sure the engineering could be done to get a Blackfly to 100 miles of range with bigger batteries and more motors, but a heavier craft requires a pilots license and more money. Then the craft is a pipe dream, just like every other personal aircraft.
A novelty for now. Thanks for investing your money in the experiment. Let us know when you have an affordable product that can fly for one hour minnimum.
In the videos they never let you hear the sound that it makes. I think this is because making that much thrust it would be very noisy. Other than that it looks a nice vehicle.
Yes, yes there is, as well as an allowance for a parachute (though it's unclear that the parachute is included in the stated 313lb weight as it is an option). Do you happen to know how much those allowances are for? And be careful ... the amphibious allowances are different depending on whether the craft uses floats or the hull.
Pete Kuhns No, it is fair audio but not fine audio. And no, not the Met. Since 1980 I started doing professional video production primarily for other performing arts organizations including opera and I was a pilot and airplane owner starting in the 1960s. I’m a fan of this channel and I want it to continue to succeed. I’ve given constructive criticism and advice in the past and their regular host has continued to improve his production techniques, including his sound recording. Making good choices in the equipment can maximize the quality. In this case with the high level ambient noise, instead of the omni body mike, he should have had the presenter hold his short shotgun mike straight up just below his chin. This rejects the unwanted noise and improves the intelligibility.
Robots4Sale Upon listening carefully again it sounds like there is some “pumping”, probably because of the malpractice of using auto-level audio instead of a manual setting which can further exacerbate the unwanted background noise. And, sometimes when playing video files it takes a few seconds for the processing to catch up and stabilize to the full resolution.
I think this is the first time I see a design where safety is given the right importance. Good to see wings there. Still relying too much on electronics. Of course this is just a personal opinion...
