Extending the Range of Jetson ONE
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 04. 2022
- In this video we look at methods that can extend the range of Jetson ONE.
The three methods are:
1. Using a Electric Generator
2. Using Helium Advertising Blimp
3. Optimizing Rotor blades
Paper on optimization of rotor blades
fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/down... - Věda a technologie
The blimp and generator look like the start of a whole new creation. The way technology is advancing so quick, especially for batteries and electric motors, upgrades are just around the corner.
it's actually really old, they tried it in the late 60's. it's technical term is "heavier then air-aircraft".
Oh yeah? What batteries are those ? Pixie dust batteries?
Chemical batteries don’t store electrons. They make them.
That’s why they suck.
There is no free lunch.
@@joeshumo9457 OMG your post is such horseshit babble and factless. E-VTOL is a new class of vehicle that is coming out THIS YEAR! electric 100- 250 miles range VTOL EV aircraft. you're opinion of battery tech is like 20 years behind the times. like the tesla S plaid they just tested in northern Michigan with a 752 mile range. By the end of THIS decade you wont even be able to buy a new petrol based vehicle, and for the record, EV's already surpass Diesel sales and for a dam good reason. stop holding us back with misinformation and ignorance. EV is superior in EVERY way now. aircraft are next. they already have 100% EV freight trains, and ocean liners. I can't wait for the "MANNED" drone races coming. they already built one.
Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal!
czcams.com/video/MrBPiTHh0fk/video.html
Can't wait till we can go to the battery museum 👉🤯👈 humasn are still so dumb thinking inside of thoer little boxes 🙄 😒 😑 🙃
The vehicle was pretty impressive, but even more impressive was the detailed analysis of all the suggestions prior viewers made, and weeding out the impractical and leaving the more plausible ones! Great job!
Blimps rapidly get better with size as the surface area drag (and envelope mass) increases as square function, whereas their lift increases as a cubic function - so larger always makes more sense (Hence why the commercially successful Zeppelins were so big, and still had relatively high cruising speeds of 70mph ) Of course there are so many management problems to contend with though too - some kind of mooring mast to ensure it faced the wind would probably be needed - and as soon as they get to any size, they need a ballonet (an internal balloon of air, that is pressured by a fan to maintain shape of the whole envelope) otherwise changes in temperature and altitude could cause the envelope to burst, ^oo^
And at some point you realise you're building a Zeppelin with a Jetson One ballast.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr Ha, yes In terms of dimensions - though obviously not the same in mass - ^oo^
What about using rotors with 4 or more blades? Any improvement there?
Any way to incorporate a foldable/extendable autogyro rotor and have the lift rotors tilt to push forward at altitude?
@@GaelTharLear That's an interesting idea, ^oo^
On the ideas of using wings or a blimp to gain flight time:
- Instead of a pair of wings to help generate lift, make a carbon fiber outer shell for the fuselage; one fabricated in a lifting body design.
It may not give much forward lift considering it's surface area, but if designed correctly, it could certainly help with lowering the rate at which the aircraft looses altitude when flown at higher altitudes and faster speeds.
- Using a blimp is a solid idea, if the bag were designed differently.
Rather than a single, average blimp, flatten it out somewhat into an inflatable wing.
A lifting body delta wing, to be exact.
Or 4 bladed carbon fiber propelers,a bigger batery and free energy generator from TheCrazyChannelinEnglish to charge the batery.
A blimp doesn't necessarily have to completely neutralize the weight of the vehicle, any reduction in the lift required to take it off the ground would increase the range. A smaller blimp would still increase the range to some extent.
@@burgerbobbelcher I agree; and a blimp that is in a flying wing/lifting body configuration would be even more beneficial to increasing flight times than a conventional "blimp" design.
Look up Egan Airship's Plimp. It's basically the idea of combining ducted fans with a blimp. I think it can be further optimized by using a gas envelope that is shaped like a wing, making it a hybrid airship.
I think the blimp idea is interesting but not in the same direction this seems to be heading. Perhaps a more casual blimp with even longer flight time would be a second model. I could easily see one decked out with ducted fans, since the blimps seem to be confined with more linear flight the fans could be angled appropriately
Great engineering assessment! It might also help to use lithium sulfur batteries. They may be commercially available in a usable size range.
Haven't expected to see you here, Ethan!
could you please explain your reasoning?
@@jdcampolargo I don't know if the cycle life of Lithium Sulfur is long enough yet for a daily commuting vehicle, I'd have to research it. There are however several companies selling them in various sizes. They are currently sometimes used on larger UAVs as well, due to a better energy density and reasonable power level.
What kind of batteries does it use? I'm sure they're using the best
@@Max-kn9yi I figure the Jetson1 uses lithium polymer batteries, but I have never looked it up. I have the world's only fully ion propelled unmanned vehicles with onboard power on my channel. They usually use 37 to 110mAh cells in pairs. They are very lightweight.
Now there's a new addition to be combined with the genset: Toroidal propellers.
Neat breakdown. The coaxial prop thing is a big ticket item with even small unmanned drones - you can dial the pitch of the lower prop way, way up and get much better efficiency, and responsiveness. Without the added pitch, the upstream prop winds up doing most of the work, and the downstream prop is actually choking the total efflux.
The blimp would be a neat addition if it could be parked - if you had a long flight, you could use the blimp to carry you for hours, basically idling the props to stay level and on course, but not really providing much, if any, lift. Get close to your destination and anchor it, or take on ballast (pie in the sky here... maybe a hose to take on water?) then disengage the multirotor and fly the short remaining distance to your destination. Re-docking would be problematic, but the USS Macon, and Akron were marvels of airborne aircraft carriers.
Thanks for your detailed and very thorough analysis of how to extend the Jetson's flight time. (subscribed)
The generator can be coupled with a battery to buffer power needs and keep a constant rpm. Second the fuel will burn lightening the weight. Third the max weight is possibly limited to battery time and not lift/rotor capacity.
And you could land and fill up gas at any gas station. Then you could go on long trips anywhere!
more energy dense fuel should help as well.
@@kakerake6018 Zip fuels? or nuclear?
I'm speaking outside my expertise, but presuming the machine's support struts are hollow, helium sealed inside the tubes could shave off a couple pounds. Every little bit helps.
What’s wrong with the ultra lights from the past? Longer fly time and better safety?
This is cooler
This was a very nice analysis. Really interesting. The genset option with different blades is not only better, it's required in order to make Jetson even worth thinking about. At least until battery capacity greatly increases. Before I would be seen flying around with that blimp attached I would consider a combination of leg amputation along with donating a kidney and some blood as a mechanism for payload reduction 😄
Just go the total donation and revert to RC.
Fun analysis, thanks
Glad you liked it!
Thank you for this precise flight dynamics analysis
My pleasure!
That was a fun video to watch. Thanks. Seems the easiest of all suggestions here and in video are
1. enhanced aero, weight reduction
2. update per video prop technology
3. keep applying latest in battery technology.
This concept, its size, speed, maneuverability, has alot of uses in the commercial world. EMT, ranching, farming, fire fighting, etc. Especially in rugged terrain, and especially since it is so transportable.
Thanks for the tips!
Glad you put my ”blimp” idea into perspective. I will try to send you, before the end of this year, my prototype drawing. Keep it going ✌
Sounds great!
send it also to me im curious
7:46 how did the balloon ride land?
Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal!
czcams.com/video/MrBPiTHh0fk/video.html
Why not attach the blimp design of the airlander 10 for further aerodynamyc lift?
I think this is just a case of an invention that is ahead of its time. Where as is it is more a novelty and a toy, when battery capacity increases in the not so distant future and it will, then the range and viability of this air frame will become more viable and interesting to a wider customer base.
Thank you for sharing this excellent video!
Hmm i wonder how much time I would get since i am 45 kg
The thumbnail got me chuckling! :D
Nice expose to many technical points, thank u
Combining the blimp with the rotary engine plus the special bades could allow for different uses of the VTOL System. The blimp Surface could be covered with PV modules and an air bag under the rotary engine would make use of the configuration blimp plus hybrid generator. The weight of the combustion engine would be at the bottom all times, while the air resistance of the blimp would be on top during an engine failure at all times. In this configuration the aircraft would aproach the ground in a stable configuration and make sure to have the contact with the ground exactly with the air bag. A great safety feature.
I love your inventive approach
Klaus from Germany
I spent several hours looking into the personal blimp idea. I also found the advertising blimps. I forget the size, make and model now, but a blimp twice the size of the one you chose, plus two paraglider motors mounted to a pivoting axle, should work pretty well. I dropped the idea becasue the blimp was bigger than I had hoped.
This thought just popped into my head, I love the aircraft in the film mortal engines
Such an exciting time! Electric motors will get smaller with greater output and efficiency . Batteries will get lighter with more energy density. Very nice information from your video!
Why?
Motors don't need to get much smaller, batteries do.
I like your presentations. They are full of detail and diagrams and have the supporting fact base for your conclusions.
As to the blimp size question... You showed a smaller one and detailed the gain in flight time VS the loss of fun factor in maneuverability Which is pertinent of course. My thoughts are this: We have to decide which flight mode is desired, time or performance. Performance dictates that the craft must fly as designed. For increased time a blimp of sufficient size to cancel out 95% of the payload ( craft and operator + any desired cargo) might be the answer. Since the majority of the energy used is to overcome the gravity we need to remove most of that from the equation for long distance flight. The idea does change the nature of the craft completely though and you might just as well design electric control motors for a custom single person blimp instead.
In the long run Higher density power storage will likely end up being the answer.
Thanks for all the great work you put into making these thoughtful videos!
Customized Single person blimp is a great idea. I would love to have one.
That was nice you explained variables.
IVE BEEN FOLLOWING YOUR FLIGHTS SINCE YOUR FIRST ONES OVER IN ITALY I THINK TESTING IN A FIELD AREA........GLAD YOU STUCK WITH THE IDEA AND TESTING OF THE FIRST UNITS .......YES THE BATTERY IS THE KEY.........BE PATIENT .......JUST LIKE YOUR BOLD AND PERSISTENT NATURE........PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON NEWER AND LIGHTER AND THE BIG THING......."MORE BATTERY CAPACITY ".........IM THINKING THE SKY REALLY WILL LOOK LIKE THE.............JETSONS SHOW I WATCHED AS A KID! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
.
Its not meant for flying at high altitudes or used for commuting. It will be only allowed in private rural areas
Use multiple blade propellers. Up to 5 blades per prop will require less power, and reduce noise, as well as increase range.
afaik biblades are the most efficient
@@oculicious Don't even numbered blades make more noise, because of harmonics? Odd numbered blades are better.
I'm curious about an inflatable flying wing for STOL and/or heavy lift vehicles.
Excellent mod ideas for the widowmaker!
Some great comments & suggestions here. I would have: 1) Canopy and/or other frame accessories of solar cells & hot air enclosures 2) Mix of light wt batteries & super capacitors providing 5-10 min flying time before max allowed discharge 3) Small IC engine to charge capacitors & battery while the heat exhaust creates hot air balloon effect 4) Rotor mods as specified Conclusion) Combining all the above would extend the flying time to make it more practical as an alternate mode of transportation. However, the unprotected power and data coms grid as well as the FAAs negligence to properly coordinate safe uncontrolled airspace near heavy populated areas make it too dangerous except in rural areas.
Solar cell? Can you explain your reasoning?
@@jdcampolargo There are now newer technology solar panels that are light weight as well as energy storage cells using heat, light, temperature difference, etc that could be utilized for higher efficiency.
Toroidal props?
Recent advances in propellors, electric motors and batteries seem to indicate that Jetson 1 might be able to get significantly more flight time if all its systems were optimized. Also, the craft might benefit from changing its shape to more of a partial lifting body, so it might enjoy at least some lift while traveling forward.
Could you consider a thin film solar generator system or perhaps a compact wind (ram air turbine) generator to charge the battery while in forward flight. It could be designed to have limited drag yet still be able to charge the battery for extended time and range.
Hi, another great vid thank you!
what about an air multiplier? like a Dyson blade-less fan, could that be used some where? and what about electrogravitics? And im not sure what its called but there was a man who invented a “hover craft” using bee hive structures and beetle wing covers? Do you know anything about that one? (just asking) love the idea of the blimps though! im so fascinated about this subject!
Awesome video! I was wondering about the generator idea and this perfectly explains the feasibility of such a configuration. I wonder why doesn’t Jetson (and other evtol companies) simply design a hybrid version that is designed to do exactly this more effectively and without modification. This would make these vehicles make much more sense. The generator would be loud, but you could just turn it on when you need the extra range.
Interesting..... I have been thinking about a wing shaped blimp which could provide partial lift and rest could be provide by the forward movement by the motors.. is there anything like that existing?
There are. They are called Hybrid Airship or Hybrid Air vehicles. Part of the lift is provided by the buoyant force and part from aerodynamic lift.
Look up LMH-1 for example
see book..."The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" a 1971 proven concept. or, look into "turtle airships" (that's me)
Great analysis!
Love your videos 😍
Thank you
I am thinking the rotary genset plus the rotor change is the best option. I wonder if the rotor change would add enough extra lift to allow for a larger fuel tank for the motor, thereby extending the range, or time in flight, if only by 5 minutes or so.
A blimp modification defeats the compactness of the Jetson, operation in anything but calm air will lower the advantage gained with the gas envelopes drag. Helium will inevitably leak, topping off will be a constant maintenance and cost issue. The motors would have to articulate to provide forward or reverse thrust, all things considered, a blimp is a bad idea unless it is being offset by the revenue generated by advertising space leased on the blimp. Part 103 excludes utilizing an ultralight aircraft being used for commercial purposes, advertising is obviously commercial.
you can get infinite hydrogen from water with electrolysis
@@kingmasterlord Yes, Hydrogen can be used as a lifting gas. Hydrogen has been avoided for combustion reasons in manner aircraft.
Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal!
czcams.com/video/MrBPiTHh0fk/video.html
@@airmobe4309 Sorry, blimps are too subject to wind for my liking. The balloon shaped envelope in the Blimp Airmobe proposal will be very slow, the only cross-country flights made will be downwind.
@@olsonspeed Yes, our flight will be 50 km/h maximum. That's a good drag ratio for electrical economy, a smooth flight.
Placing ducts or partial ducting around prop blades with proper clearance and axial placement was studied and shown to add thrust force to nonducted propellers in the early days of aviation.
Can’t cite the source but do remember seeing things on it (early Italian aircraft I think?)
As I notice you are always shown to be in constant, near ground level flight, or at “ground effect” height, have you considered placing a ducted radial fan “squirrel cage fan” at you center of lift?
(65 yr flight engineer)
Keep up your good work! Love it!
Ducted fan does indeed increase the thrust. The nacelle or the duct in forward flight becomes a problem. Its like a drum that is being pushed through the air. So the drag increases considerably. That is why it was dropped from Jetson one
Enclosing and streamlining the cockpit would reduce drag significantly, which could either extend flight time or increase the potential distance travelled for the same output.
Not with the added weight of said enclosure.
@@joeshumo9457 That depends what it's made out of. Carbon-fibre composites can be both very strong and very lightweight. Worth considering too, that the speed records for bicycles are held by fully-enclosed machines - the reduction in drag more than offsets the increased weight.
I think the diesel genset with the propeller mod is the best option to stay within the original craft idea. But I would consider adding a small battery, for emergency landing in the event of engine failure.
I really like the idea of starting with an advertising blimp and building off of it.
Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal!
czcams.com/video/MrBPiTHh0fk/video.html
@@airmobe4309 I like it! Where are you guys located?
Very interesting and enjoyable thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
Blimp hybrids are the future of aviation. You must have a larger envelope though. Balance ballast with drag and you get an ideal machine.
ZMC-2 (ideal machine)
congratulations best ever drone!
Loved the content, what about using a carbon fiber framework would that increase the flight time.???,
They already do that. The airframe is pretty light
I think a blimp would, indeed, slow the craft down, a lot. However, with the use of a gas generator to drive a pair of vector (tiltable) electric turbines, at front and rear, this would be an amazing aircraft for slow to medium speed flight, with much longer flight duration. This would be a great flightseeing craft. Tilting the turbines to the vertical position would enable hovering, and vertical launch/landing, whilst rotating the turbines to the horizontal position would enable horizontal flight. The ducted turbines would provide enhanced safety for both crew, and blimp. :)
Let's go back and move blimps forward. Start with a blimp then build your engine, rotters, wings and so on around it. This is so workable and cheap to do.
Rotors may need to be re positioned once the new design is completed. As I would redesign the body by introducing three elongated slim blimps within the body and tail of the Jetson. By making it carry Hidden Helium you eleviate many dilemas.You automatically stretch its range and its payload capacity by making it lighter . Larger rotors and better blades , and adding Fluidics technologyto the design as well. A fuidics power plant at the rear powered by a vaporized fuel engine coupled with an electric generators would make this a dream . Vaporizing the fuel would also make a clean super efficient burn
Really interesting answer, could you explain a bit further if you have time? thanks
Right at the very beginning of the jetson programme I was wondering why they don't fit a generator to make it a hybrid which can self charge and refuel in minutes practically anywhere!
Man, you are amazing, thank you!
You're welcome!
What about gear ratio on the propellers? Would that be sufficient to speed up the propellers while keeping the motor size down?
I like the use of blimps. For moving peoples and goods in remote regions.
Consider the inflatable wing of SolarShip. It houses solar panels on top and generates lift with very little forward motion, as well, the bouyancy of the bladder. SolarShip is used in extremely remote operations where there is no fuel source for carrying cargo. Also, consider the very high power density of Koenigsegg combined radial AND axial flux wound motors and generators. There is always a tradeoff between functionality and space/weight. Combing the above suggestions , as detachable modules, with the optimized prop design, you should be able to make the range unlimited and versatile for specific applications. Different wing shapes could be available to provide for more lifting capacity, speed, or range, as needed. Love your work and wish you the best.
Also, consider combining supercapacitors with batteries for load spikes. This also makes batteries live longer before replacement.
A very good analysis . I think the solution would be the use of a very small generator( small size and weight ).
Inducted fan shrouds would make it safer and produce more left what is your thoughts on that?
I don't know enough about output vs weight to say if this is practical, but I wonder about a hydrogen fuel cell drive system? I know there are fuel cell smallish drones that have much more range/endurance than similarly sized drones, so there should be a point where it can make sense. I would envisage it with a light, slim, carbon fibre fuel tank overhead, though if you were designing from scratch there maybe a preferred layout.
The small motor, smaller upper blades, larger lower blades prop setup seems ideal. The blimp creates drag, adds expense and, most importantly, complexity and labor to the whole thing. It is quite shocking how well the thing works. Very surprised to hear how shrouded rotors affects air movement so drastically in the negative. Is there any hope in a larger two rotor system, either side by side or front and rear? What about the addition of a gyro copter blade above the pilot to give lift assistance in forward travel? Very interesting stuff!
Very Good information! Can we discuss about it privately?
Interesting video. I would be interested to see another video examining how to extend RANGE for Jetson 1. The major thought I have is to keep the J1a configuration as it is, but adding a propellor for pure forward thrust, or small jet engine for pure forward thrust. These would increase top speed and hence range, for a given duration
Great suggestion!
pode me dize onde compro os rotores pra drone gigante
I believe the blimp option or combination of these options, rotor, rotary diesel motor and blimp could add payload, flight time and safety. Yes, understood is the fact the nimble quasi war plane speedy flight maneuverability might be diminished, but some of us would be more interested in a longer flight, with more payload and ranges of flight capabilities. You could always offer several models, the nimble blimp less model for those looking for that type of flight and the blimp model for reasons already explained. Keep us posted
Body: Better floating body design - the open cabin design is creating too much drag and you want as much of a drop like structure to generate in flight lift. Better control by adding a rear top spoiler in order to stabilize the floating body in horizontal flight. Power - tilted rotors will ensure a smooth translation from hover to horizontal flight. Folding props at bottom - this will ensure the capability to switch off a set of engines and recover some of the turbulence by letting them free spin recovering some of the energy lost at takeoff during flight. Also scaling to add more battery weight will help with the range.
@@neonpowar3766 I understand your point, thanks for commenting. Open top cars have close aerodynamics to hard top ones. Using a helmet is still confined, your body will need a flight costume in order to not loose heat. Of course in a 40 min flight at low altitude that may not be an issue but in a 2 hours flight, well... that's another thing. While most better performing drones have a full aerodynamic body, all the bars on this have a single function. Translate all the surfaces in active surfaces and you have an overall better performance. Look at formula 1 cars in this season and you will understand the role of a cockpit in the aerodynamics at general.
It doesn't need any of that unless you're trying to set some sort of silly record. Only in the upper 25% of its flight envelope will aerodynamics come into play, and at that point you're already asking a lot from the battery and motor...which means your most efficient power settings will be at a speed where drag is negligible. It only has a top speed of 60mph or so. What that means is if you're looking for endurance and getting beyond that 20min mark, you won't be flying at a speed where drag is going to hinder your efforts...and whatever drag you do encounter is only going to reduce your range, not your endurance. There's a reason why aerodynamics aren't really high on the list for most helicopter designs.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Sorry to come back to this two months after the fact but you are completely missing something. Reducing drag reduces the power needed to push an object through air or liquid. Thus the idea is actually a great one with one asterisk. Weight. All of that aerodynamic body paneling adds weight. The weight counteracts, and even potentially overcomes if too heavy, the gains from making the body more aerodynamic. Aerodynamic efficiency doesn't just improve speed. It also improves range which is why almost every EV car ever made has a CoD below .3 whereas most ICE cars have a CoD above .3.
ICE cars aren't emphasized for aerodynamic efficiency because it isn't relevant enough to the consumers when most ICE cars have a range of 300-400 miles. Something that was found to be the limits of how far a majority of people are willing to go on a car trip before they have to get out of the car and move around way back in the 90s. Electric cars are trying to reach that same range figure to remove the fear of a lack of range from the consumer in the US market. To do that EVs are being designed using every trick in the book known to squeak out as much range as possible. This includes maximizing aerodynamic efficiency.
Thus adding an aerodynamic shell will actually do a number to increase the range/endurance of the Jetson ONE so long as it is done with extremely lightweight materials. Currently it might only add an extra ~20% of range at best given what the Mythbusters found when giving a bike a more aerodynamic shell. That is roughly a 4 minute increase from 20 minutes. That doesn't sound like a lot but that percentage increase gets more and more significant the more range you are able to eek out of any given design. 30 minutes becomes 36 minutes all things being equal. 60 becomes 72 all things being equal. On and on.
Add tilting ducted fans optimized for Jetson ONE with a very lightweight aerodynamic shell and the range/endurance can go from 20 minutes currently to potentially somewhere in the 25-30 minutes range. The weight would likely increase to be around 100kgs vs the ~88kg that it currently is but if the benefit is anywhere above a 10% increase in range then I would happily make that tradeoff. The second relevant question would then be how much do those changes increase the per unit price to buy? All of this would likely push the cost up to, if not beyond, 150k. That is just my estimate though.
@@rainsilent What you seemed to miss is that aerodynamics won't come into play for range since your best cruise speed is going to be below the speed in which a low drag airframe would be beneficial in that aspect. At slow speeds, a brick has roughly the same air resistance as an ideal laminar flow body of the same size and weight, so the aerodynamic benefits would be meaningless. At higher speeds, aerodynamics will affect range, as drag is a cubic function of speed, and a 200mph Jetson 1 would certainly benefit from every aerodynamic advantage possible....but it'll never fly at those speeds. It's like saying a farmer will see efficiency gains from having enclosed tires and an aerodynamic shell on his tractor to make it streamlined. Do you think a helicopter in hover is going to hover longer if it had an aerodynamic body? It wouldn't make a bit of difference, as there's no air to resist. At some point in its slow speed regime, aerodynamics stop playing an important role in the range of any vehicle. If aerodynamic panels on a Jetson added zero weight, sure, you're likely to see an increase in range, a very negligible increase in range though, perhaps a percent at most due to how slow it flies. The problem is, weight is a far more important factor in a quad rotor like this, as it's using thrust as its sole source of lift, so for every extra pound you add, you're also taxing the battery reserve. The added weight of those panels and associated fasteners and tabs welded to the tubing and all of the other associated hardware will likely be on the order of 15-20lbs (this is based on a similar surface area of panels that I added to a race vehicle, weighed before and after the mods). 15-20lbs is nearly 10% of the Jetson 1's weight, and that makes a rather substantial change in performance. So that percent or so of theoretical range suddenly got negated by the additional weight, to the point where it will now likely have less range. Add more stuff like tilt rotors to the mix, and suddenly it's a completely different aircraft with a different flight regime and purpose. With the added weight and complexity, simply replacing fixed rotors with tilting rotors is going to drop your endurance considerably, and that's going to negatively affect the purpose of what most people would use the Jetson for. It's certainly not a feasible transport vehicle, it's a fly in circles with no point other than fun vehicle, and endurance is the name of the game there. Make it fly faster and further with tiltrotors and panels, not only have you lost the original purpose of it, you've also lost the target customer because it's no longer a slow speed craft with longer endurance that anyone can fly, and the average person will be too heavy to fly it without going over max takeoff weight. Just short, fast straight line trips from A to B in a craft so small and payload limited that you can't even pack a PB&J in. Sounds so useful and fun :/
At this point, we're splitting hairs trying to get every additional second of flight time and every inch of additional range from electric craft, but this generation of experimental craft are nearing the max theoretical performance possible with current battery tech. We're not really going to see much improvement beyond this until we get a battery chemistry capable of a paradigm shift.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Actually you are wrong. Yes, drag increases exponentially with speed but that doesn't instantly make most of the speed range of the Jetson ONE as irrelevant because it is traveling too slowly for it to matter. Even a 30mph cruising speed will provide a useful boost to range with improved aerodynamics. Sure, at speeds around 15mph and slower aerodynamic efficiency doesn't matter but the Jetson ONE very likely has a cruise speed of at least 30mph. Thus the cruise speed is very likely high enough that aerodynamic efficiency will have a factor. I am saying this based upon studies from NASA studying aerodynamics and its relevance for cars at city speeds, a la 30-45mph.
As for those panels you applied I want to ask, what was the material and the size of the vehicle? Jetson ONE has an aluminum frame and carbon fiber nearly everything else. Given that we are talking outer paneling if they kept to their tendencies the outer panels would also be carbon fiber sans something clear to see through for windows. The carbon fiber material would likely add up to a total of less than 5 pounds with 5 pounds being a very conservative high limit. I've handled large chunks of carbon fiber for aircraft and cars. They are extremely light. You are way overestimating the weight increase because you are judging by using material that Jetson wouldn't use based upon their current materials used and what you used the materials you used on. Your personal example is not applicable in this scenario.
Adding a blimp would greatly increase the influence of wind on the craft.
that's what happened in the late 60's when they tried it with full sized helicopter engine pods off huey's. 4 pods, 8 engines total. the wind pushed the blades and balloon together...... but who knows maybe someone can make it work better.
i wonder if a Vtol Configuration will help extend the flight time for the jetson
The blimp idea could also be a charging station for the Jetson and have its own propulsion system tied to the Jetson control system. It would just need rigid structure to dock and probably some magnetic connectors for charging and control input.
Could couple that with GPS equipment so it keeps positioning while you're not docked
Blimp AirMobe is coming, learn more about our proposal!
czcams.com/video/MrBPiTHh0fk/video.html
What about adding a top free wheel propeller like in gyroplanes to help lifting.
even pre-rotating it before take of, decreasing required vertical take of energy. Using the drone mostly moving instead of hovering to commute longer distances etc. What do you think?
Hmmm…Battery powered gyro copter that can vtol…
This…would prob give you more range, if not more flight time….
The 75kg limit is a concern. It also looks like it would be challenging to get in and out of this thing. I just googled it, and the website said it costs $92K and can travel 60 miles. To me, that is a pretty good commute range. I'd say price, weight limit, and ease of use are the bigger challenges.
A larger blimp could be useful. The limitation of weight is the main issue as I would not fit anyway. A blimp addon might also make it more interesting as a transport platform using remote control. Twenty minutes carrying 75 kg is quite good already for transport requirements, adding another 50 kg or much extended range would make it really interesting.
Buoyancy strategies (blimps) only make sense if you go BIG. So I would say that "compact" and "buoyancy" are mutually exclusive. However, a buoyant body that provides some degree of aerodynamic lift (as opposed to buoyancy only) is worth exploring, though I don't see any way to make it compact.
This is the perfect application for an Aluminum-Air battery. You can achieve easily 10 times the specific energy density. Refueling would require swapping out the aluminum hydroxide and aluminum oxide with a fresh aluminum anode but this would only need to be performed every three hours of flight time. The only issue might be Power Density.
Hold everything. Recent advances just made things look even better for using aluminum. However, instead of Aluminum-Air it now looks like it will be an "Enhanced Altered Aluminum Ion" or (Ea2I) battery chemistry. Boasting an energy density of more than 1500 Watt-hours (Wh) per liter, the new chemistry is promised to delivery more than 600Wh per kilogram. Claims are that a 150kW pack of solid-state aluminum-ion batteries will weigh 565kg, deliver 1200km of EV range and last at least 20,000 charge-discharge cycles. The company that's ready to bring these to market is Saturnose. Saturnose also claims the new chemistry will boast at least three times the charge-discharge cycles of the best current lithium-ion batteries. Looks like this is for real and should be available within 2 years.
Riiiiiight. Suuuuure. Yawn.
Better to just use a generator and regular gas. Then you can refill at any gas station. Eventually liquid hydrogen will be the best solution.
Is not posible put a small charger on the vehicle like a "wind turbine + alternator and charge the battery during trip"? also solar cells could be maybe no ?
what about the use of solar panels to charge batt.along with other panels to take load off motors also cant the motors somehow create power like a alternator
The addition of small wings, maybe 4 m sq, would provide significant lift without affecting maneuverability. They could be optimized for cruise speed to extend the flight range.
What about winglets on the end of the rotors to reduce drag?
Is the generator using steeless stators with aluminum windings ?
I believe the genset motor is an excellent idea combined with the new rotor design. The blimp design would be great for advertisers or those who don't care about the loss of maneuverability to increase flight-time only! Not for individual thrill seekers. And I also believe that in the not so distant future, battery power will increase drastically as well as solar power which could also be combined with an electric battery powered vehicle to increase flight time.
I would like to see the rotor investigation to see if it does increase your overall, however for power generation have you considered using Metal Hydride Hydrogen storage with a hydrogen generator as water is everywhere and you could have an onboard mini hydrolizer powered by thin film solar panels for the system to recharge itself.
And what would be the implications of using rotors with two or three blades?
How about adding a much larger lift fan under the body of the vehicle (sort of like the blade on a riding lawnmower). Being larger could it provide a majority (say 80%) of the required lift for less power, and then the 4 outboard props would only be responsible for providing the remaining 20%, and directional control?
Good solution. It would add some weight but no increase on size !
A bank of super capacitors would allow for constant diesel economy mode. Couple kgs.
An aerodynamic body would reduce the drag of forward movement making faster flying or longer flying. Also you can lift the rear rotors out of the turbulence created buy the front.
Loved it
Super Presentation 😃
Great analysis! Blimps always seem to end up as a dead-end.
I wonder what you could get with a slightly larger craft with larger optimized rotors, turbine genset, and optimized aero shell? The great thing about rotors is that they can be folded for ground handling relatively easily. Also, would constant-speed props with pitch control be worth the extra weight and complexity? What about tilting rotors for FF?
Tilting rotors would add to complexity and existing weight. Turbine Genset can be a good option, but it would be loud.
@@ElectricAviation True. Given the torque curve of EMs, fixed pitch and fixed position is probably best. Turbines are noisy, although on top of 8 rotors I'm not sure if noise is much of an issue! I suspect optimized props, better batteries, and some (light) bodywork for aero lift in FF will be the way forward for this type of craft.
The whole tradeoff with quad setup: Only 8 moving parts, the efficiency of small rotors vs heli arrangement, the abandonment of inherent stability for electronic stabilization, hover vs FF, etc is fascinating.
Constant speed props (rotors?) would be the ideal solution. Run your motors at their ideal RPM all the time, whether that be for efficiency or performance. The lower rotor will be perfectly pitched for the incoming downwash from the upper rotor. There is some added complexity to a constant speed prop, but in this size it's easily done with servos and additional weight would be negligible.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper With constant speed you don't even need the generator and motors. Gear them straight to the engine. There was a guy on the old GoFly competition forum years ago working on such a design. I wonder what ever became of it. Sadly all the interesting discussions on that forum were lost because people figured out the competition was basically a scam, and naturally the solution was to silence everyone and wipe the records.
@@dekutree64 I considered that, I just don't know how feasible it would be to route power through four booms. You're talking a minimum of a 65hp engine for equivalent power, and then factor in drivetrain losses. Engines that size might weigh more than the electric combo, which would mean you'd likely have to compromise with larger rotors to maintain similar performance. It's certainly possible to do, but I don't know if you'd end up with something as simplistic and easy to fly.
Haces unos *Videos Brillantes* los cuales veo y me agradan mucho.
En este caso en concreto, no me fio de tener solamente helices como *Poder Sustentador* + el inconveniente añadido de la Reducida Autonomia de los *Drones* (dispositivos o aparatos que usan Helices como poder de sustentación) Estaria bien que le añadieran algunas superficies o Alas.
Un saludo desde Galicia.
If you attach the blimp, then the jetson BECOMES a blimp. That is not what a Jetson owner signs up for. I like the rotor and genset options together.
Great video man. Always informative, entertaining and refreshing compared to the algo hunting click bate videos on other channels. Keep it up!
ELECTRIC AVIATION CHANNEL-what about the parawing like the ones used with power paragliding? That would definitely be cool to run the numbers and see what they are.
How fast is it going for those 3 and a 1/2 minutes????
Respected Sir , Pls help me to calculate the Area of the wing and weight of the Airframe for an EVTOL
There is a video about how to make 100 km range aircraft. I have shown in there what you need to do
My thought is replacing the bars holding the propellers with tiltwings. There will be two pairs, one in front and one in the back. The tiltwings will be face up during takeoff and landing. As the jetson begins its flight, the wings will tilt forward and will function like the wings of a regular airplane.
If seen some of these "open" designs that are basically a flying frame. I feel like this would generate a lot of turbulence and reduce performance. Now my question: Would an aerodynamic shell over the whole thing improve performance or is that irrelevant for these craft?
I think flight time with Jetson one won't improve more than 3% with aerodynamic frame.
For bicycles, >15 MPH is where air resistance starts to become an issue.
Aerodynamics only come into play if you're trying to increase range, not endurance. Meaning, if you need it to go 30 miles and it'll only go 20, then sure....make it slick. It won't help you much, but every little step forward is a step in the right direction. If you're wanting to stay in the air longer than 20min, then no, aerodynamics are entirely irrelevant. You could have zero aerodynamic drag and it'll still only last for 20min. Think of it this way, if you can hover in place for 20min with a draggy and exposed tube steel body, you actually won't be able to hover for 20min with the most insane laminar flow body ever designed. The reason for that is the fact that whatever shell you create is going to increase weight, and additional weight requires additional power to stay in the air. Fairings and shells and fasteners aren't weightless, even if they're made from lightweight carbon fiber and titanium...it all adds up.
Would extend range, if only a little, but not flight time
Which motor/props does it actually use?
Would Dyson style blade fans work?