I’m an old A&P licensed Quality Control Inspector. I’ve worked in many production and maintenance rolls in both civilian and military aerospace. What I’ve seen here in vids 1&2 leave me with a happy desire to help you with your project and your application of this style of lift technology. I don’t know how much can assist you at this stage, but I’d love to. Keep going. You’re going to leapfrog many of the competitors vying for a profitable entry into the new age of flight. Best regards.
Thanks for your response and your keen desire to help. I am just a presenter, I dont work on this technology. I also present other technologies in the EVTOL industry. You can contact Jetoptera. I am sure they can benefit from your expertise
I want to express that I enjoyed both videos. I am not an aeronautics engineer but my brother works for Boeing. I'll run it by him with your permission. i really appreciate the concept. As with any new idea, bugs need to get worked out and adjustments made with updated versions. But at least someone is making the effort. I look forward to the proofs of principle. Putting in the effort is always preferable to the naysayers espousals.. Not every concept is successful. That's what trail and error is all about. I wish you well and thank you.
Bro you should title the video or add to it how to make wings increase lift cuz that's what this video is all about and it is a very good video I mean I've watched many many videos on engineering and this is one of the best.
this video is like a muscle man with not an ounce of fat, yes i am completely confident about jet optera carving out a huge slice of the vtol market, great explanation and great opportunity
That's just hyperbole without a video! Even if you did build a Dyson fan aircraft, it must have cost a fortune if they were true Dyson brand. Build one with any other well-known brushless motors and it will cost about 1/10th.
I really hope this becomes a reality, fascinating concepts , and something no one has mentioned, is that bird strikes wouldn't be a problem,....cuz there's no exposed blades
The problem is the constant back pressure that the compression fans are fighting against because they are forcing air through a airframe with sharp bends and curves finishing with narrowed ducted vents. To demand electric motors to fight against such pressure demands a constant high amperage power supply which is a major problem when weight is a factor from huge and heavy battery banks needed for adequate power for decent flight time.
The thing I have a hard time understanding is how they are avoiding high friction losses in the ducts between the compressor and the thrust ducts. The smaller and more complex the shape of that duct as well as its length and high speed movement of the air will necessarily create lots of frictional losses. The dyson fan gives a very even flow, but in comparison tests it is not more efficient or even quieter for a comparable air volume than a standard box fan.
My intuitive understanding is that there doesn’t need to be a high speed air flow in the ducts themselves. It’s the compression of the air in the duct system that creates high speed air flow when released at the slit around the air flow ring. That compressed air could be nearly stagnant in the ducts between the compression fan and release slit without any ill effects.
Sounds nice on paper (or on video) but I believe Jetoptera hasn't even made a single RC airplane fly using this concept. In the few videos I saw of them flying a RC plane, they simply stuck some EDFs on it. Theory is a nice world but the actual challenge is to make things work, affordably at that.
A superb comprehensive explanation of aerodynamic lift! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 You explain it so clearly for ordinary people like me, a great gift you have indeed! 👍👍😊😊
I think what is missing is the rate and surface area of the propulsion per kg of weight. To me this looks like a bonafide glide with a couple of powerful dyson fans for a small amount of propulsion. It works for a sub scale model because of the light weight. But once it scales it will need heavier "air compressors" just like large planes need larger engines. And when you add seating, instruments, interior materials and passengers with storage items then the weigh vs propulsion does not seem to add up. The drag will be significant. And while it will fly it will not be much fast than a glider plane most probably. I guess we will have to weight yet another decade to see large models
I think that design will have a future ☺and a little funny that there are very few who develop this, because it was used in the old supersonic airliner concord just with a jet engine .
Let's simply look at this as taking a Boeing 747 and cramming the engines inside the fuselage, then ducting their exhaust through the wings. You take an efficient turbofan and bury it inside, with airflow losses from hundreds of feet of intake and exhaust ducting, you must add engine and fuselage cooling and insulation, and all that exhaust ducting must be able to withstand the extreme heat and pressure from the engines. This probably necessitates stainless steel or titanium. You don't want any of that near the fuel tanks, passengers, or cargo. Oh yeah; one more thing: that ducted, high speed air also INCREASES drag on the wing surface. Finally, remember this: the most efficient use of air travel is for long distance travel. Think five miles up, but five thousand miles downrange. Yes, airplanes require lift to fly, but they have no need to go straight up; they cross continents. V/STOL is an entirely different mission, and is really just a better helicopter. No, you can't get more efficient lift than a helicopter rotor disk.
Agreed. Personally, I do see this technology as useful, just for specialty ultralight aviation instead of general commercial use. Specifically, I'd love to see a bladeless paramotor. Lots of injuries in the sport every year from accidental prop strikes could be avoided if there wasn't a prop just inches away.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 if you try to post the same weight with a smaller rotor, you have to increase rotor speed and noise, and when using a smaller diameter for the same lift, you also increase the drag produced in creating the same lift. You lose all the way around.
@@jamesengland7461 Perhaps there is an entirely different method that is more efficient and does not use rotors at all and we simply are not aware of it.
Safety certification rules for passenger carrying aircraft require that multi-engine aircraft can continue to safely operate even if a single engine suddenly fails at the worst possible time during takeoff or landing. Even single engine aircraft must demonstrate safe handling qualities if its engine fails. This means that designers cannot easily rely on lift generated directly or indirectly by the propulsion system.
The supplied points are interesting features, but do not fully cover the topic of flight efficiency. First of all, it should be noted that air flow over a wing/airplane might consist of LAMINAR as well as TURBULENT proportions. In modern aircrafts, both flows are present and the design is optimized accordingly. Using the exhaust flow of a propulsion system to create lift on a wing results in mostly turbulent flow conditions, which is not always most desirable. Second, notably not all the wing surface is similar in its flow conditions. This means that having local increase of lift will affect the wing areas closeby, probably putting those in less favourable conditions. This obviously is also the case in any twin turboprop aircraft. The idea of Jetoptera to distribute the propulsed air more equally by multiple propulsion units might be advantageous, but not necessarily better, as instead of having unsteady flow over part of the wing, it might cover the complete wing section. Fluid dynamics should not looked at at local scale, but more hollistic. Every change in a flow is affecting the others - and unfortunately not always to its benefit
The reason why commercial aircraft do not derive lift from propulsion is for because of safety. If an engine goes out, it would be incredibly dangerous to suddenly lose 30%+ of the aircraft's lift. I won't ever get into a plane that derives lift from thrust. I want to be able to safely coast to an emergency landing, not drop out of the sky like a rock with wing flaps.
My guess is that glide ratio could be managed with an adjusted configuration. I guess that you've never flown in a fighter jet - F111s onward. They drop like a rock.
Current Boeing and Airbus commercial planes like A320 are 17:1 glide ratio from altitude. The critical question here is what is the glide ratio of this new type of plane and what it would be with 70% remaining lift etc.
The critical question is what happens if a "propulsor" fails at the worst possible time? Safety is always based on the weakest link principle, and traditional power plants are not reliable enough. This system, where a highly reliable compressor is safely buried in the body and ducts carry high pressure air to the propulsors is the first I've seen that comes close, though I question what happens if the power fails 5 seconds after liftoff or before landing. There are even helicopters that are required to roll out to take off because they wouldn't be able to avoid a crash if one engine fails below a certain speed/altitude.
Electric planes ain't never gonna happen, not as large passenger aircraft. Battery vehicles and aircraft are ok for toys unless you're the parent paying for the batteries, but it's such a deeply flawed concept I'm stunned that so many seemingly intelligent people fall for the lie spread by the likes of Elon Musk. At best an extremely niche product which is expensive and poses an as great impact on the environment as gasoline vehicles.
@@ryanimpossible4985 Wow Dude, you don't have to be that disgusting to prove a point... Again, I am not mocking you bro...it was just a friendly joke... Anyway, enlighten me why you are being so negative about this concept. What are you actually trying to say??? a. Are you saying that the Science is not Solid??? Are you saying that the thrust generated by Jetoptera's concept VTOL Aircraft would not be enough to provide the necessary lift for a reasonably sized 2 Seater VTOL Aircraft??? b. Are you saying that the Cost vs ROI for this design concept is not economically feasible??? Are you assuming that it is gonna take too long to achieve a cost effective series production unit???
@@ryanimpossible4985 No worries Brother... Have you seen the Lillium EV VTOL Jet and the Orb Aerospace VTOL Designs? They both look amazing and I really like their Engineering design concepts...
O design final dos modelos VTOL da Jetoptera me lembra muito o design da aeronave 14-Bis, "Oiseau de Proie", "Ave de Rapina", inventada em 1906 pelo brasileiro Alberto Santos Dumont, a mais de 100 anos atrás! ------------------------------------ The final design of the Jetoptera VTOL models reminds me a lot the "14-Bis" aircraft design, the "Oiseau de Proie", or " Bird of Prey", invented in 1906 by the brazilian Alberto Santos Dumont, more than 100 years ago!
You also have to point out disadvantages! Distributed propulsion sucks at high speeds where low coefficients of lift but an aerodynamically clean wing is advantageous -> classical turbo fan design wins big.
The (high speed air) noise is a big problem, that's why commercial tip jets didn't "took off". And fan/prop of the same size would be more efficient and lighter.
I thought Jetoptera was a scam from the getgo - the losses from ducting airflow render it useless for anything more than drying your hands, let alone propulsive thrust. Your trying to sell shares in the company is huge red flag, and very disappointing. Next you'll be telling us to buy your new cryptocoin.
This ain't gonna fly.... it's just a combination carpet vacuum cleaner and a hand dryer... a good one at that. lol It may work on a small scale like on a hobby plane which is extremely light, but lifting and propelling significant weight would be a challenge at best. I've seen another projects which uses multiple hinged ducted fans each with its own direct drive electric motor to generate both lift and propulsion which makes more sense.
@@BillAnt Well, I guess that it's down to proof of principle, isn't it? I can visualize a bunch of naysayers standing around, watching the Wright Brothers take off.
The company is just getting on it's feet it's still a fledgling company but major investor's are already interested in the design even the automotive companies are already wanting it
Greetings, It’s Vladimir from Youmaker, one of the developing video platforms based in the US. Youmaker is international destination where creators’ freedom of expression is honored and it does not censor for political reasons. We have seen your RU-vid channel and it’s really incredible. We absolutely think that our fans would love your videos. We would like to invite you to join us. Also, it can serve for you as a free back up storage for your videos. Can I send you details?
It’s a nothingburger with a nightmare of internal ductwork. Nothing is as efficient for large airliners than nacelles hanging from their slender wings. The super powerful engines are dwarfed by the bypass turbines which are really huge ducted fans. Maintenance, drag, and costs are minimized by this configuration. Ever wonder why the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar’s ducted tail engine never caught on? Right.
My limited understanding of physics suggests the greater the difference between the speed of the propulsive flow and the speed of the aircraft the less efficient it is. So a slower moving high volume flow will be more efficient than a high speed lower volume flow. This is why model planes with huge slow moving props and vtol craft with large rotors are better for longer flight times. Jetoptera seems to be the opposite at least inside the plane, high speed compressor flow slowing down to be ejected from ducts. I must be missing something.
"high speed compressor flow slowing down to be ejected from ducts." exactly what I was thinking. Moreover, this design feels as unstable as Bellweather's Volar.
The compressed air is only high speed when its released. The total speed of air should be lower when taking into account the large volume of slower air being pulled through with the small volume of fast air.
you literally said it yourself and then questioned your statement. "slower moving high volume flow will be more efficient than a high speed lower volume flow" "high speed compressor flow slowing down to be ejected from ducts" yeah, exactly. they use high speed compressor air and then slow it down through those oval things while drastically boosting the mass flow of said air by entraining a ton more air
@@t_c5266 This assumes that there are not large losses associated with running high pressure air through elaborate ducts which seems a bit counterintuitive.
@@macrumpton I'm still skeptical on if they can overcome the losses. But as far as efficiency is concerned, it's exactly as you described for their operating principle. Trading velocity for mass flow
Sure wish I cold add my propeller-less, jet-less, wing-less air lift technology to this system. Between the two; all air mishaps due to quitting engines is eliminated.
Thank you for an investment idea, the company looks promising and your engineering expertise is of great value when spotting this type of opportunities. If you do not mind, I will forward your video to a couple german stock market youtubers for them to review the company on their channel. I hope you can share more interesting investment ideas and insights.
Please be more consistent and authentic: 1) when hinting at an investment possibility, disclose whether or not you personally have direct or indirect financial interests in this matter. 2) when hinting at one investment possibility, also mention the others: Joby and Lilium (scam) have completed their SPAC merger and are thus directly listed on stock exchanges.
@@gehtdichnixan4704 They acknowledge that it's not efficient in hover mode. The idea is to hover and transition to/from horizontal flight quickly, where the fans are more efficient. Seems like a plausible plan to me.
@@phamnuwen9442 the thing is that you need reserves for safe operations. If you include as little as 2 min extra hovering margin (say, in case of unclear landing site) their range goes down to essentially zero.
I'm a layman. But I see a glaring problem with this tech. What is the glide path with those tiny T-Rex wings? It looks like it will drop like a rock if it loses power. It achieves lift because of the way you use the thrust. Therefore, no thrust, no lift. I don't know if I want these things flying over me. Much less, to be in one.
@@xxxooo5618 , Helicopters can land without power. They actually have a significant glide path. They can go straight down, and land safely when the power goes out. Hollywood makes it seem impossible, but it isn't. Can this thing? It uses power to create lift. No power, no lift. No lift, no glide path.
@@xxxooo5618 thats not the greatest example. Helicopters can auto-rotate and actually touch down considerably softly. but yes i agree theres a lot of cognitive dissonance in comments like that. People every day get in things with life threatening single point failures. like "what if my wheel falls off at 80mph" or "what if one of the mains support cables on this bridge fails?" yet they dont unless maintenance is neglected or they've been misused. hell. your entire life on a plane depends on the wings not falling off. yet why isnt that a worry?
I've been working on hyper-efficient engineering projects, and this concept is kind of like my recent idea of utilizing heat loss as torque. In my design, which I hope will run on wood, I have a pseudo-wood gasifier that should hopefully recycle the lower pressure unburnt gas while the higher pressure combustion gas goes from wood burning reactor (that unburnt gas gets fed back into by combustion pressure, which should also be a higher octane) Into a jet turbine chamber. The jet turbine is powered by the heat of the wood burning in the reactor. As water becomes steam, it converts the energy from the heat that is lost normally, into steam pressure.. which can be very very high. Using this, a steam turbine is spun, and thus a turbojet engine is created. This could work without any kind of electricity, using steam pressure to circulate water, and slipstream air to condense the steam back into water, after cycling the engine. This turbine chamber could also be a combustion chamber, which small amounts of nitrous or bio-diesel could be sprayed into by nozzle such as in a normal jet engine, this would not only increase the thrust of the wood, but would reduce the need for airplane fuel. Also would require much less air intake, just a small opening on the fuselage should suffice, maybe some day this could be developed into a electricity-free aircraft. In any case, the theory of recycling lost heat into torque by way of steam pressure should apply universally.
...you say that modern jet engines don't contribute directly to lift, but I'm pretty sure there are designs out there using blown flaps. The issue is, if your lift relies partially on engine operation, you lose lift upon engine failure. That might be acceptable if you still maintain a safety margin, but you would also have to deal with the fact that part of your thrust is always contributing to lift even if you really don't need that...
Yes. A total electric system without liquid fuels would be the best. But, the way they are making the electric vehicles will be way to costly because of the batteries. The new technology will be able to have 95% less batteries. That's weight saving at it's best. But provide more, cleaner energy.
Crew: 1 Length: 50 ft 2 in (15.29 m) Wingspan: 45 ft 4 in (13.82 m) Height: 15 ft 6 in (4.72 m) Wing area: 221 sq ft (20.5 m2) Airfoil: NACA 4424 Empty weight: 8,240 lb (3,738 kg) Max takeoff weight: 10,740 lb (4,872 kg) Powerplant: 1 × Bristol Siddeley BOr.3 Orpheus Mk.805 turbojet engine, 4,000 lbf (18 kN) thrust
If that had horizontal blades it would almost be an exact copy of clive sinclairs flying car from the 90's. Its probably still sat in his back garden. He wasnt allowed to fly it around because they said there was no highway in the sky and therefore it was not safe. But its been sitting there flight capable for 30years. gathering dust.
I’d be interested in an electric vehicle that could take skydivers straight up to 25,000 ft and then return to home ready to take another group. I believe this could allow much less wait times lower cost and more jumps per day
Rate of climb is all about excess horsepower vs. weight. An electric aircraft could be optimized for that mission, but you would probably need to swap batteries on the ground between cycles. But why 25,000 ft? I don't skydive, but that seems too high. I understand that 10,000 to 14,000 ft is more common, and 18,000 ft is considered exceptional. Above 14,000 ft the pilot of an unpressurized airplane must be on oxygen, and even the divers should be taking supplemental oxygen on the trip up.
There is no need for such a narrow turbine, because the goal was blade-free exposer, not opressed turbine flow. This method of propulsion, requires sqeezing air through a very tiny turbine, this causes a tremendous power and force to get air through this to match a classic propulsion of a blade exposed. The only given advantage, is hidden blades, not providing more then a at home high power vacuum. Some advantages can apply, with afterburn or air heating, or instigate sonic waves turbines. Dyson presented this kind of "blade-free"at home fans, which is only a hidden blades. it will require a powerfull engine, with a higher air flow, afterburning/heat for greater speed. What good is a powerfull blade free exposer, when now slim air must be strong enough to cut a finger off.
@@stevemickler452 Lilium also, is not at all "blade-free exposer," more like postion conceal blades, the front will pull a tall childs hand in. If you take a ride in one, they are impressive luxury in feel, but more like a floating car, all those engines caused horizontal drag by wing spand vers bulk, quieter, but like a 7 passenger glider levitated by a sworm of tiny drones. They call it a "jet," it barely reaches half a private jets velocity in travel.
Good convincing video, but you forgot a lot of aspects in your research. For example: , vibration, maintenance, pre flight checks, safety and most of all temperature?!?! Especially from the exhaust… you want te melt the wings or even better, wanne ignite the kerosine in the wings? Oh and what about the center of gravity if you put tons of turbine engines on top of the wings. All these topics do not reflect completely on electric engines, so it’s not ok to compare these and conclude witch one is the best…
Greetings boys and girls in this vibrant comment section. Can someone who knows more than me about this subject help me answer this question. Can Jetoptera blade less jet engine be used as a less noisy range extender in an electric car? Thank you in advance
Even when you prove you have a MUCH better technology and have patents to protect your IP -- you will still be blocked from bringing your discoveries to market. The huge aerospace companies have too much time, effort, and money invested to let ANYTHING interfere with the status quo. There are lots of historical examples. The Fairey Rotodyne in the UK, and the slowed rotor/compound Cartercopter in the US are two. Good luck with challenging this historic fact.
So they are coming up with all these flow dynamic innovations basically because the vehicles don’t have adequate power or duration of flight. Every last effort must be made to increase efficiency whatever the research or production cost.
You went 'right-on-by' the Custer Wing.... So, you utterly Missed the 5th engine/wing high-lift design, which, btw, is part of Jetoptera's over-all design concept.
"4 times the current energy density" that is very sad... that wont be happening anytime soon... and other less efficient evtol craft will take over before that
Obviously you will eat ducting losses here. I wonder how the gains and losses balance out. Maybe it is more efficient for takeoff and landing, but less efficient for cruise flight? Maybe it simply allows for smaller wings to keep the plane aloft at low speed, which makes cruise flight less draggy if you turn off the diverters and use conventional jet outlets when not taking off or landing? Or perhaps it is a total wash, or worse?
This is simply incorrect. Modern passenger gets use the synergy between engine and the lift, on your own videos you can see that engines are located a little bit further from the wing and the exhaust is going under the wing, this does contribute to lift, by increasing the speed of air under the wing. The position behind the wing in some cases also makes sense, because they're sucking air from top of the wing.
We are a team of engineers to help . We want to see this just as bad as you do. We have helped co . Boston dynamics. For one . Please let us know we know the all of this . Basic first year high school. I think I am writing to the wrong people. But if you get us in contact with the co.it would be appreciated. Thank you.
Your synergy is not safe. If you lose an engine, you lose lift, which is not good. All the experimental airplanes that had propeller airstream blowing over flaps, had connecting shaft between props in case one engine fails. You are airborne, just off the runway, lose an engine at just above liftoff , and your lift now is less than weight, so, low altitude stall. What do you do? I think you should talk to some pilots (not Cessna 172) to explain these things. Coanda effect was known for some time but no practical applications for that reason.
@@argonwheatbelly637 I guess you don’t understand aerodynamics. You are already in a stalled situation because you lost an engine and there is not enough air mass over the wing to create lift. The only reason you were able to get airborne is because that engine was blowing air over the wing or it was diverted to create “power” lift. Now you cond have that lift. You lift coefficient went from 4 or 5 or 8, whatever you had with all the engines running, to half of it or less. You are stalled basically. Anyway, you should have thought about it before you got airborne.
Jetoptera looks like a big scam to me. Didn't hear anything about actual efficiency. Most of the flying aircraft were using turbines and not the compressor. The drones they are flying are just glorified model airplanes which you can build with very low relative wing loading. Four time more efficiency ? With four times more efficiency you can fly a brick as we used to say. Lillium is by far more efficient. The stupid Air force just throwing our money away.
@@Eugensdiet Not really. Lilium gets about 12.4 MPGe... it's not great. Virtually any propeller aircraft made in the last 50 years is more efficient, even considering the electric propulsion. VTOL capabilities are very detrimental to efficiency.
@@dudea3378 Thanks, but the intent of flight should be to minimize the VTOL portion of flight. Why do you suppose the efficiency is that low? Poor lift to weight?
I'm amazed how many people have fallen for this snake oil. There are VTOL aircraft capable of flight with the current battery technologies. Jetoptera needs batteries to greatly improve before their design can be electrified. I originally thought Jetoptera was just being misleading with their CGI videos. Now that they're raising money, I think they have crossed the line from being liars, to being scammers.
