• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Where The Hell Are The Flying Cars? It's The 21st Century!

Trevp666 said:
I don't quite understand what principle makes it fly though cos surely a rotating drum with the blades fixed inside it like that would give out a thrust in all directions at the same time?
I mean, I can see that the blades themselves can move independently of the drums but if they are an aerofoil shape then each blade would have to do a 1 to 1 rotation in the opposite direction to the spinning drum to provide any lift.
Click to expand...
Two possible ways to achieve it:

1) The winglets have an aerofoil section but the Variable pitch (change of angle of attack) cancels this out, or
2) The winglets do not have an aerofoil section but are merely streamlined to reduce drag, and rely wholly on pitch/angle of attack to generate the lift.
 
Trevp666 said:
Yeah but same could be said for any aircraft.

I don't quite understand what principle makes it fly though cos surely a rotating drum with the blades fixed inside it like that would give out a thrust in all directions at the same time?
I mean, I can see that the blades themselves can move independently of the drums but if they are an aerofoil shape then each blade would have to do a 1 to 1 rotation in the opposite direction to the spinning drum to provide any lift.
Click to expand...

I did a little googling and was surprised to see that this is actually a concept that's been around for a long time. Materials tech has finally advanced enough to make it practical. The pitch of each blade can be changed independently (similar to a conventional helicopter), which allows each drum to generate lift in any direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation. The responsiveness of the system is reported to be very fast, which is the key to making it practical for controlled flight.

I think it looks promising.
 
Trevp666 said:
Yeah but same could be said for any aircraft.

I don't quite understand what principle makes it fly though cos surely a rotating drum with the blades fixed inside it like that would give out a thrust in all directions at the same time?
I mean, I can see that the blades themselves can move independently of the drums but if they are an aerofoil shape then each blade would have to do a 1 to 1 rotation in the opposite direction to the spinning drum to provide any lift.
Click to expand...
Yes that's true. . . but, as RaM said (above) "You could see how that could end up as a workable flying car." So, with that in mind - there are many more constant obstacles; birds, insects all sorts of stuff when considering flying about in the air only 'x' number of feet from the ground:caution:
 
I can still see it working if it is efficient enough to make it practical,
stick wheels on the ends of the rotors with some sort of maybe epicyclic
gear to slow rotation, bodywork covering them with ducting with a mesh
over to keep out dogs,cats,birds,small children and so on out of the suck
side, and ducting for the trust it would look ok if it could be made to cart
the extra weight about.
 
RaM said:
I can still see it working if it is efficient enough to make it practical,
stick wheels on the ends of the rotors with some sort of maybe epicyclic
gear to slow rotation, bodywork covering them with ducting with a mesh
over to keep out dogs,cats,birds,small children and so on out of the suck
side, and ducting for the trust it would look ok if it could be made to cart
the extra weight about.
Click to expand...
Another problem might be stability! You've got four synced rotors/drives all perfectly matched up to keep it stable, one gets a sudden problem - could the other three (or less) rotors provide enough thrust to keep the vehicle in the air I wonder? :(
 
Quite a lot of these designs make me wonder what happens if a motor quits,
I don't think the motors will be synced but will be computer controlled the driver
pilot will just move the controls to say turn left and the computer will sort out
how to do it, if the computer quits then It will be unflyable. With a aircraft with
wings you stand half a chance but these devices don't seem to have aerodynamic
surfaces relying on engine trust alone, so your in or on a well rounded brick.
It will be interesting that's for sure.
 
RaM said:
Quite a lot of these designs make me wonder what happens if a motor quits,
I don't think the motors will be synced but will be computer controlled the driver
pilot will just move the controls to say turn left and the computer will sort out
how to do it, if the computer quits then It will be unflyable. With a aircraft with
wings you stand half a chance but these devices don't seem to have aerodynamic
surfaces relying on engine trust alone, so your in or on a well rounded brick.
It will be interesting that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Similar to a helicopter, not much gliding ability if the rotor fails
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
RaM said:
make me wonder what happens if a motor quits,
Click to expand...
I believe that in that event the vehicle will most likely suddenly plummet quite vigorously.
I would expect such an event to be survivable from anything high enough to effect the deployment of a parachute (if carried) but other than that it will get a bit crashy.
 
Trevp666 said:
I believe that in that event the vehicle will most likely suddenly plummet quite vigorously.
I would expect such an event to be survivable from anything high enough to effect the deployment of a parachute (if carried) but other than that it will get a bit crashy.
Click to expand...
I attend an event at a local small airport and I'm amazed at the variety of open topped tiny helicopters, winged things and similar which fly about the place and have wondered how they would manage in the event of engine failure. A bit crashy probably sums it up .
 
Saw this article on the BBC website today and a quote from one of the guys seems strangely similar.

"..He points out that with more motorised vehicles in the air it is a statistical probability that more accidents will occur, adding that if a flying taxi fell in an uncontrolled way it "could amount to a descent with as much aerodynamic finesse as a rock, posing great danger to all on-board, and anyone or anything in the direct parabolic vicinity of the vehicle".

You may be able to book a flying taxi within three years​

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58895259
 
PeteS said:
I attend an event at a local small airport and I'm amazed at the variety of open topped tiny helicopters, winged things and similar which fly about the place and have wondered how they would manage in the event of engine failure. A bit crashy probably sums it up .
Click to expand...
Open topped tiny helicopters sound like autogyro/gyrocopters. If the engine fails, the large rotor can act like a wing and the gyrocopter can be brought down safely. Probably a bit safer than a helicopter.
 
maximus otter said:
Autorotation: Essentially, using the (undriven) rotor blades as a brake. lt’s a basic tactic for helicopter pilots.

Here’s a Hungarian police pilot practising the technique:


maximus otter
Click to expand...
The rotors are operating in this video, auto rotation can only work if the problem is engine failure rather than a main rotor failure and you are close to the ground when the engine failure occurs, if you are high enough that the rotor momentum stops after an engine failure or if you lose the main rotor the helicopter will fall like a brick
 
Mythopoeika said:
Open topped tiny helicopters sound like autogyro/gyrocopters. If the engine fails, the large rotor can act like a wing and the gyrocopter can be brought down safely. Probably a bit safer than a helicopter.
Click to expand...
Yep ... In an autogyro / gyrocopter setup the large overhead rotor is not powered. It is in free rotation at all times because it's serving as a virtual wing (giving lift). Power is fed to one or more other propellers to provide horizontal / lateral propulsion.

Helicopters, of course, have powered linkages to their main rotor(s). If there's a power failure, the rotor is of no use in breaking a fall unless it is disengaged ('put out of gear', so to speak ... ) so as to go into autorotation. This disengagement capability is typically built into the drivetrain by design (e.g., using an automatic clutch device).
 
EnolaGaia said:
In an autogyro / gyrocopter setup the large overhead rotor is not powered.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking not always so.
Some have a PTO that 'assists' the rotor but AFAIK that isn't to give it enough power to provide the lift, it's more just to get it going around as the majority of the lift is generated through the forward motion of the vehicle through the air which makes the rotor spin. Indeed if the engine should fail then the vehicle will fairly gently descend with the rotor turning like one of those sycamore seeds does.
 
I'd think I would even be waiting if it was 92 minutes flying time on a full charge, for $20,000
 
MercuryCrest said:
Look at that rotor downwash though. I mean, if anyone has any small children, pets, rocks, clumps of dirt, it's going to be like someone's landing a tornado in your yard. Pretty much the same as a helicopter, I'd guess.
Click to expand...
Yep.
I can think of a few ways I'd improve that design too.
It'd be possible to build your own for a LOT less than $92,000.
 
MercuryCrest said:
Look at that rotor downwash though. I mean, if anyone has any small children, pets, rocks, clumps of dirt, it's going to be like someone's landing a tornado in your yard. Pretty much the same as a helicopter, I'd guess.
Click to expand...
Unless this comes with a Death Ray as standard, I'm not interested....
 
Bigphoot2 said:
An M134 Minigun and a couple of Hellfire missiles would make it even more fun.

​

Click to expand...
Some people are never satisied.
1635150818520.jpeg
 
I've sat in that, the firing of the rocket pods was controlled by open rotary switch
with open contacts much like you used to see on old fairground rides, it was on the
side of the cockpit and you just wound it round to get a burst of fire.
built I think by Barns Wallace but not of bouncing bomb fame.
 
Just for clarity

Wing Commander Ken Wallis, a former RAF pilot, developed a number of improvements to the autogyro design, including the offset gimbal rotor head which gives the autogyro hands-off stability. Wallis' first prototype autogyro, registered G-ARRT, was first flown on 2 August 1961.

The wikibumdia page gives links to additional info from other sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_WA-116_Agile
 
Trevp666 said:
Just for clarity

Wing Commander Ken Wallis, a former RAF pilot, developed a number of improvements to the autogyro design, including the offset gimbal rotor head which gives the autogyro hands-off stability. Wallis' first prototype autogyro, registered G-ARRT, was first flown on 2 August 1961.

The wikibumdia page gives links to additional info from other sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_WA-116_Agile
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember seeing an interview or feature with him many years ago on TV. In it, he gives a demo of autogyro flying.
It might have had something to do with the Bond film, but I'm just guessing.
 
I also have a recollection of same - I think it might have been on something like 'How' or 'Blue Peter'. Or possibly even 'Connections'.

There is this (below) with what sounds like the late, great, John Peel narrating.
Ken says at one point "It's a bit like an aerial motorbike" and then goes on to show himself 'flying' it by not holding any of the controls and with his legs splayed out either side to show no control input! lol.

 
Trevp666 said:
I also have a recollection of same - I think it might have been on something like 'How' or 'Blue Peter'. Or possibly even 'Connections'.

There is this (below) with what sounds like the late, great, John Peel narrating.
Ken says at one point "It's a bit like an aerial motorbike" and then goes on to show himself 'flying' it by not holding any of the controls and with his legs splayed out either side to show no control input! lol.

Click to expand...
I think that may have been the one!
Good find.
 
That certainly looks like a proper job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top