@@graffiti4christ956 he said it looks like a flying car, thos other ones are just upscaled quadcopters, this one with the diferent propeller look like wheels
Honestly with the purpouse of use on transport that uses traditional propellers, there's no real need to make them quieter. Theres a reason that no manned aircraft has made good use of toroidal propellers or these. Also it means that its limited to being used by drones since it faces perpendicularly to the flow of air so it cannot be used on a 'forward travelling' aircraft like a plane.
Could the rotors act as wheels on the ground if rubber was added or if the blade structure was 3D printed similar to the new type of wheels that don't require tubes?
Would be interesting to know some of the specs on this type of rotor, like how much energy is required to make it perform . In what ways might it be better than traditional methods of flight. It's great to see new ideas explored , but are they more practical in every way to what we have now?
Besides up and down can it move in other directions, how does it do this? I'm thinking by changing speeds of individual rotors? Also what happens when losing one or more rotors/blades can it auto rotate or glide to safety?
That is the advantage of the cyclogyro concept. It changes pitch of each blade at different times in the overall revolution to instantly vector thrust along any direction in 360 degrees.
This is amazing, great work! Thanks for inventing the future - just work on the efficiency of the blades, so the sound can be more quite and maybe work with different textures on the blades, to get more drag and lift in general, this could improve the blades and the efficiency
Unfortunately, there are few who work fruitfully in this direction. But the fact that this team is working on creating a cyclogyro even according to the old aerodynamic design of 1909 is also very cool!
Fascinating. Had a question while I was watching - What emergency option would pilots of this kind of aircraft have during loss of power? Without wings in a conventional sense, I don't imagine gliding is possible. Are cyclo-rotors capable of some form of autorotation that would give them unpowered descent capabilities akin to a helicopter? If not, what would the general plan be for operators in the event that the motors failed? Thanks!
Ballistic chute. Ultralight aircraft have them as well. I still think they have to add a wing surface of some sort. The advantage in this case would be the transition to forward flight will become easier.
Great, you can use this for vertical take off and landing, for traveling purpose gliding is far more efficient. By this technology now you can use your rotors as tyres
Gliding doesn't work in crowded city spaces without large airports. This technology is meant to provide solutions for crowded spaces. Imagine landing spaces in a park near your house and another at your work. You could have aerial buses where your commute is cut in half and pollution is eliminated.
With a speaker for each cage this could be entirely silent. The amount of electricity used for the speaker to silence each unit this could fly perfectly silently except for the sound of the downward thrust of air. Which will be gentle compared to the thrust off propeller blades. The only thing that would instantly take her down would be a small plastic bag. Anything blown up by the rotor could be injested and create immediate results. That is where the ripping shredding motion of a standard propeller would take precedence. The pilot could be made aware of this danger and any flying bits could be vectored away from the rotors.
И скорость не показали. Может до 150км/с летать. Но даже на 200 метров не пролетел никуда. Я надеялся, что хоть шум будет меньше, но нет... К сожалению, нужна какая-то другая технология.
@@Rusl_U Это тестовые полёты, показывают что и так тоже летать возможно и скорость тут явно не на первом месте, как и дальность, вероятно проверяли управляемость, вибрации и т.п.. Пока лучше воздушных винтов ни чего не придумали, естественно для машин подобного класса, и ,как мне кажется, в ближайшее время не придумают, вот если создадут что-то подобное крыльям и приводам стрекозы... но это уже из области фантастики)
Working on magnus effect vehicle for senior design and cant tell you one rotor going outs gonna mean a crash and a hard one at that(hard dive to a corner and flip over). Also definitely requires more power than a standard prop plane of equivalent size bc the rotors have to provide the lift whereas a prop plane the forward motion creates a lift. What I'm curious to see here is how they achieve a somewhat efficient directional motion seeing as the rotors mostly just provide lift.
efficiency??? basically, if aerodynamics is not the main scope one can fly a door with a powerful power motor. Same goes for fancy blades like this one.
I'm skeptical. Flying a light prototype is one thing. Scaling this up to the size and weight for 2-3 passengers is going to be a huge challenge. I expect they will be going for investors based on this prototype.
The ability to change the direction of thrust without turning the propeller is obviously the main scope of the mission. They probably didn’t think that they needed to explain it to anyone
@@user-bc3xo3bm1m this concept also have spoilers or fins inside that rotating drum and they tilt them also . in this design the fins are parallel to the axis of rotation. i think you have get the whole idea wrong.
Remarkable! It’s about time somebody took aviation to the next level. (Sikorski was treated as a crackpot when he developed the helicopter. History repeats itself, right?)
Dr Ignaz Semmelweis was also considered insane for suggesting washing your hands before delivering a baby would reduce infections. This is a cornerstone in multiple industries today.
@@user-jh6ik1qd7p Not really, if anything making drone based 'flying cars' is a terrible design choice in terms of energy efficiency. Forward travelling aircraft like planes are much more efficient as they use lift and forward motion to keep them in the air whereas you must be using a high rate of power from quad rotors to be able to move slowly. While yes, it makes sense for compact areas where short take off and landings are needed, in any range its better to use a car or train, or take a plane
At least they are honest about the noise - which seems to be not extremely loud. Are the going to develop a larger model for the second test pilot? LOL
The thrust vector of each cyclorotor can be individually controlled. You can have the vector in an angle slightly backwards so it produces lift and forward force at the same time.
If they come to America or UK sell it to a big company they will have these flying around in a few years. It gets rid of the biggest issue the rotar. If it had some real funding it may do somthing cool. Edit. Crazy that the RU-vid Short that some dude made about this thing has more views by probably millions then this whole page has...Thats how i thought to look this up crazy.
If you lose one spool, the fall will be immediate. By reducing the wing length, noise increases. It is unlikely that the development will reach civilian use
If by lose one spool you mean one motor on one rotor breaks, there's an easy way to mitigate that risk. Simply link the rotors together with axels to a single motor (or tandem motors for redundancy) and a drive shaft with a transfer case like an AWD car
Ефективність таких двигунів замала. З аналогії вітряних електростанцій, їм потрібно значно більше енергії, щоб виконувати ту саму роботу, ніж звичним гвинтам. Тому, якщо з батарейками вирішать питання (яких сюди потрібно суттєво більше), то може й буде існувати такий "двигун". Але щось підказує, що не на часі.
I dont think this thing could handle a stiff crosswind? Im not a mechanical engineer... also differential torque would cause it to nose up or down...? im a software guy im just curious what code would look like to control these surfaces. I think it would also have issues banking and with yaw. Pretty cool looking.
