The Electric Decennoctirotor (or Decennovirotor)

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:29 pm

Germany Gives All-Electric Rotorcraft a Lift

Decennovirotor if you count the pusher prop.

Tom Ligon · Post by **Tom Ligon** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:31 pm

Wow! The best solution ever to flocks of starlings!

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:59 pm

Octodecarotor.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:43 am

Another reason you should not let pot smokers play with AutoCad.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:22 am

ladajo wrote:Another reason you should not let pot smokers play with AutoCad.

but the prototype flys!!!!

zapkitty · Post by **zapkitty** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:33 am

Stormtrooper dropship designs: the early years...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:44 pm

Meet George Jetson...
The early years.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:51 pm

I can't see the benefit over a normal rotor wing. Is there a point beyond aesthetics?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:57 pm

GIThruster wrote:I can't see the benefit over a normal rotor wing. Is there a point beyond aesthetics?

Should be much simpler to fly in that that lift part and the thrust part are separate systems and not weirdly interactive like a helicopter. ICBW.

Also, might be easier to fold up and make the cabin a ground vehicle. Just a thought.

zapkitty · Post by **zapkitty** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:09 pm

KitemanSA wrote: Meet George Jetson...
The early years.

Science fiction: the early years... that's what was tickling my memory.

This is very similar to many illustrations from SF stories of the 1920's and -30's about future air travel.

Cool

KitemanSA wrote: Should be much simpler to fly in that that lift part and the thrust part are separate systems and not weirdly interactive like a helicopter. ICBW.

Nope...

http://www.e-volo.com/entwicklungs-news ... of-its-own

Seems that the basic vehicle doesn't have a horizontal prop and derives its lateral thrust from the vertical props just like a quadrotor.

I'd guess that the versions with horizontal props are for getting to work on time.

KitemanSA wrote: Also, might be easier to fold up and make the cabin a ground vehicle. Just a thought.

Well, I myself wouldn't want to try to design a support structure that light and that complex that both folds and still tries to stay attached to the vehicle while also staying affordable.

However it does seem to lend itself to "Land and Drive".... just leave the lift unit at the air park and roll along to the office.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:35 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
ladajo wrote:Another reason you should not let pot smokers play with AutoCad.
but the prototype flys!!!!

I can show you endless you-tube videos of things that fly with no utility. It is like anything. Add enough power and it will go where you want it too.

What are you really going to do with it? What is it's real benefit?

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:23 pm

GIThruster wrote:I can't see the benefit over a normal rotor wing. Is there a point beyond aesthetics?

Lift & control redundancy with proper electronics & software design.
Hitting a tree with a blade is not necessarily fatal (I like ducted fans better in this regard).
Simple control laws since only individual rpm is varied.

Room for lift & speed improvement by going beyond those straight, two-bladed props (multiblade composite, counter-rotating, ducted, hubless rim drive, ...).

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:52 pm

I think the mutual turbulance created by the rotors at any real level of power and translation is going to be an issue. The advantage of ducted fans and single rotors is they do not interfere with themselves.

I am inclined to apply my general rule: Too many moving parts creates too many problems to manage.

This thing is a novelty with no real future or utility other than, "Oh! Look what I can do!"

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:28 am

zapkitty wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Should be much simpler to fly in that that lift part and the thrust part are separate systems and not weirdly interactive like a helicopter. ICBW.
Nope...

http://www.e-volo.com/entwicklungs-news ... of-its-own

Seems that the basic vehicle doesn't have a horizontal prop and derives its lateral thrust from the vertical props just like a quadrotor.

I'd guess that the versions with horizontal props are for getting to work on time.

A typical quadrotor is also free of the weird rotor interaction on a typical helicopter. The point is that the blades are simple propellers and don't need the continuously changing pitch. Thus the control system should be much friendlier.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:34 am

ladajo wrote: I am inclined to apply my general rule: Too many moving parts creates too many problems to manage.
!"

I work in the aviation field and simpler is always better.