Eliminate the rotor blade tips. Eliminate the stators. Eliminate physical contact points. The way you do this is so absurdly simple. Like "Damn! Kick me in the balls for not seeing that!" simple. Great video, though. I strongly suspect what you covered is going to largely become "obsolete" very soon. But it's equally important to earn one's "chops" re: the physics & engineering math. So Kudos for helping our next-gen engineers be better ones. I'm not sharing more because the patents are not yet formal. You'll know it when you see the public intro of 3 eVTOL craft. The Woof-Cub, the Aero-Woof, & the Battle-Woof. My tributes to Air Wolf. They are... A 24' (12,000 lb) private executive 6-seater. A 34' (17,000 lb) search & rescue utility craft. A 44' (22,000 lb) military insertion-extraction craft. The Woof-Cub Max TOW = 16,000 lb. Aero-Woof Max TOW = 30,000 lb. Battle-Woof Max TOW = 42,000 lb. I want y'all to remember you heard about this when the reveal goes public. And... May the Force (=MA) be with You :)
Subject . STOL bush planes , What about putting ducted fans in the wings ? Would that lift a stalled wing ? or employ both to sit you down short ? or they could come into play if you are taking off or landing in a cross wind ? It would be built into and flush with the wing, top & bottom, maybe 3/4 of of the way out.?
For a given type and configuration of motor, at the kinds of RPM we are talking about for driving a fan directly, without a gearbox, motor weight will increase as the torque required increases.
I'm a bit confused about the inlet shape - Bob suggests having a more rounded shape to allow air to flow over the lip from the side during hover, but according to this video czcams.com/video/Cew5JF8q6eY/video.html, you want a more sharp edged 'coanda-lip' duct, to get extra lift using the inlet lips.
You say non-traditional then you go over old already tried designs that didn't work 20+ years ago. Not sure when you will be willing to hear new ideas.
First, the purpose of this presentation was to teach the basics of ducted fan design. The stuff I presented is pretty well proven to work. If you want to do things differently, then the burden is on you to prove they work. Given that GoFly is on a pretty tight schedule, you probably need to minimize risks in areas that do not have a corresponding payoff. As for old designs, well, some of them failed before, but it is usually worth trying to understand why they failed and what could be different now. A good example is the now ubiquitous quadcopter. A manned quad flew in 1922.. and was a total failure. The X-22 was a ducted quad, and, according to you, a failure. But then electric propulsion became viable. (barely viable with brush motors and nicad batteries). The first RC quad was almost 20 years ago, but super difficult to pilot (at least for me). I think it had spinning wheel gyros on it. It was a failure. But then the electronics got a lot better and now they work. Tailsitter VTOLs have issues for manned aircraft, but can work fine for unmanned. The X-22 flew fine but was complex with all the drive shafts, and with the duct drag, was not particularly fast, so not too useful for a manned cargo transport. But with electric drive, and the lower speed requirements of GoFly, it could be a viable configuration. As for being willing to listen to new ideas, well, again, not part of this presentation, so you really have no basis for that statement.
Without risk there can be no reward. These proven ideas you speak of were never turned into products for a reason. You make a point not to try new ideas because of what you call payoff. I think this is a bad way to design. You are not asking people to start with a clean sheet of paper but to start with old ideas all over the paper and try and make something new. Not sure how you don't see this as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results. Just because most people didn't know we had full scale quadcopters back in the 60s is not a good reason to try and make them now. I've designed a hubless fan aircraft that I believe is the answer and would be worth any expense to develop but you outright say not to even try developing a hubless fan aircraft. When I showed DARPA they were quite shocked by what I showed them, they had many question and kept me on the live video chat for 30min longer than I was given. What do you think of that?
My second point I like to make to people is we are now in a time where we can make anything fly so strength and safety should be all that matters. Here is a perfect example of what not to do. czcams.com/video/E9t154HL1V0/video.html
HAHA, that one beats all 10 picked for Go Fly phase 1 selections. Most chosen were the worst entry's (i've seen them all). It's not really a competition for great innovation and coming into market, just PR for Boeing and most of the "schools" they donate too already. I was entered too, an FAR103 Compliant dual copter, kind of looks like a jet pack, but they are rotor blades. Building it anyways, designed to cruise at 55 mph, 40 minutes, and literally anyone can fly because it can be either fully automated via gps guidance or stick control, with built in BRS as well. And so high performance it could do back flips. Not bothering with Phase 2, since Phase 1 was a joke. Why waste money on them when it's not even legit.
I've decided to post my idea for a new aircraft platform that everyone can adopt "an aircraft for the people" I think after you see the benefits of development would far outweigh the cost. I also feel this would a world wide DIY project and a race to see who can put one in the air first. I'm also doing a SyFy story to help sell the idea of the design. Here is where I'll start uploading videos facebook.com/groups/973960859440915/ Feel free to join ;-)
I feel like you're already decades ahead of what anyone would come up with. Seems to me like you already know what you're looking for. So why are asking for people who know less about the subject than yourselves for help designing something we have no experience with? Doesn't make sense to me.
Eliminate the rotor blade tips. Eliminate the stators. Eliminate physical contact points. The way you do this is so absurdly simple. Like "Damn! Kick me in the balls for not seeing that!" simple. Great video, though. I strongly suspect what you covered is going to largely become "obsolete" very soon. But it's equally important to earn one's "chops" re: the physics & engineering math. So Kudos for helping our next-gen engineers be better ones. I'm not sharing more because the patents are not yet formal. You'll know it when you see the public intro of 3 eVTOL craft. The Woof-Cub, the Aero-Woof, & the Battle-Woof. My tributes to Air Wolf. They are...
A 24' (12,000 lb) private executive 6-seater. A 34' (17,000 lb) search & rescue utility craft. A 44' (22,000 lb) military insertion-extraction craft. The Woof-Cub Max TOW = 16,000 lb. Aero-Woof Max TOW = 30,000 lb. Battle-Woof Max TOW = 42,000 lb. I want y'all to remember you heard about this when the reveal goes public.
And... May the Force (=MA) be with You :)
Subject . STOL bush planes , What about putting ducted fans in the wings ? Would that lift a stalled wing ? or employ both to sit you down short ? or they could come into play if you are taking off or landing in a cross wind ? It would be built into and flush with the wing, top & bottom, maybe 3/4 of of the way out.?
please do you have a replacement for the defunct yahoo DFDC discussion group?
Could you add more details about how to duct fan design code(DFDC)??
"more torque and a heavier motor"
More torque =! Heavier motor
For a given type and configuration of motor, at the kinds of RPM we are talking about for driving a fan directly, without a gearbox, motor weight will increase as the torque required increases.
I'm a bit confused about the inlet shape - Bob suggests having a more rounded shape to allow air to flow over the lip from the side during hover, but according to this video czcams.com/video/Cew5JF8q6eY/video.html, you want a more sharp edged 'coanda-lip' duct, to get extra lift using the inlet lips.
as Bob would say "nope" , a smooth lip reduces aeroelastic separation or turbulence.
a sharp lip can cause a sort of flutter in the shroud.
You say non-traditional then you go over old already tried designs that didn't work 20+ years ago. Not sure when you will be willing to hear new ideas.
First, the purpose of this presentation was to teach the basics of ducted fan design. The stuff I presented is pretty well proven to work. If you want to do things differently, then the burden is on you to prove they work. Given that GoFly is on a pretty tight schedule, you probably need to minimize risks in areas that do not have a corresponding payoff.
As for old designs, well, some of them failed before, but it is usually worth trying to understand why they failed and what could be different now. A good example is the now ubiquitous quadcopter. A manned quad flew in 1922.. and was a total failure. The X-22 was a ducted quad, and, according to you, a failure. But then electric propulsion became viable. (barely viable with brush motors and nicad batteries). The first RC quad was almost 20 years ago, but super difficult to pilot (at least for me). I think it had spinning wheel gyros on it. It was a failure. But then the electronics got a lot better and now they work.
Tailsitter VTOLs have issues for manned aircraft, but can work fine for unmanned. The X-22 flew fine but was complex with all the drive shafts, and with the duct drag, was not particularly fast, so not too useful for a manned cargo transport. But with electric drive, and the lower speed requirements of GoFly, it could be a viable configuration.
As for being willing to listen to new ideas, well, again, not part of this presentation, so you really have no basis for that statement.
Without risk there can be no reward. These proven ideas you speak of were never turned into products for a reason. You make a point not to try new ideas because of what you call payoff. I think this is a bad way to design. You are not asking people to start with a clean sheet of paper but to start with old ideas all over the paper and try and make something new. Not sure how you don't see this as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different results. Just because most people didn't know we had full scale quadcopters back in the 60s is not a good reason to try and make them now. I've designed a hubless fan aircraft that I believe is the answer and would be worth any expense to develop but you outright say not to even try developing a hubless fan aircraft. When I showed DARPA they were quite shocked by what I showed them, they had many question and kept me on the live video chat for 30min longer than I was given. What do you think of that?
My second point I like to make to people is we are now in a time where we can make anything fly so strength and safety should be all that matters. Here is a perfect example of what not to do. czcams.com/video/E9t154HL1V0/video.html
HAHA, that one beats all 10 picked for Go Fly phase 1 selections. Most chosen were the worst entry's (i've seen them all). It's not really a competition for great innovation and coming into market, just PR for Boeing and most of the "schools" they donate too already. I was entered too, an FAR103 Compliant dual copter, kind of looks like a jet pack, but they are rotor blades. Building it anyways, designed to cruise at 55 mph, 40 minutes, and literally anyone can fly because it can be either fully automated via gps guidance or stick control, with built in BRS as well. And so high performance it could do back flips. Not bothering with Phase 2, since Phase 1 was a joke. Why waste money on them when it's not even legit.
I've decided to post my idea for a new aircraft platform that everyone can adopt "an aircraft for the people" I think after you see the benefits of development would far outweigh the cost. I also feel this would a world wide DIY project and a race to see who can put one in the air first. I'm also doing a SyFy story to help sell the idea of the design. Here is where I'll start uploading videos facebook.com/groups/973960859440915/ Feel free to join ;-)
I feel like you're already decades ahead of what anyone would come up with. Seems to me like you already know what you're looking for. So why are asking for people who know less about the subject than yourselves for help designing something we have no experience with? Doesn't make sense to me.