Double Range Electric Aircraft: Distributed Propulsion

They need to make them quieter.

VTOL would be great mainly for short hauls in the city and no transformer shape change necessary with the short distances. I agree STOL is way better especially without any transformer shape change which makes it easier to make, lighter and simpler. And you maybe can design STOL to near VTOL performance. e.g. A semi Black Fly idea with wheels and a slow landing speed that can easily stop short.

Distributed propulsion simulate what a bird wings would do if it was flapping its wings to get lift. The airflow is evenly distributed over the whole wing and not just a section of the wing. They should design bigger aircraft with this in mind.

Yes, finally. Real efficiency improvements over getting a brick to fly.

Very good coverage of this. VTOLs are likely destined to serve as urban robo-taxies rather than go to traveling vehicles, imho. Could you cover this aspect please?

The more motors and propellors you add the more weight and drag you add. So adding a bunch of motors defeats all objectives. Thus guy does not understand why early aircraft had many engines. It does nothing positive once you meet redundancy requirements.

My hope is a combination of small STOL aircraft with AI control system would liberate humans to live in smaller towns. Current flight tech makes travel from smaller towns not economic, with most only achievable with large Govt subsidies. If the cost of the flights is halved, likley even more with the low cost of electricity and much reduced maintenance of elctric motors compared to ICE planes, chosing where you live can be much more about lifestyle.

amazing

I really do wonder if the best combination would be a ground effect aircraft with hydrogen fuel cell electric propulsion for at least 80% of propulsion needs of 50+ person passenger aircraft... 🤔🤔🤔

Excellent!

Better handling? This video is crap! Just propaganda

Can I help you with the Edison generator and dynamos to power your plane without battery powered . Fully unlimited electric power planes.

If you use Edison generators and dynamos rather than battery powered electric can allow much more powerful electric motor.

Do not over amp the motor use the Edison generator for electric power source. An old generator can be converted to Edison power by chiseling off the Tesla magnets and leaving the Edison magnets on the generator armature. A pre 1974 car generator can be used count the armature magnets and divide by six and chisel off one sixth and leave one sixth on and then off and on until you have chiseled off three sixths and left three sixths on alternating on and off. The generators are motors and will spin as you assemble the generator. The generators self spin unlimited generation of electricity. You have replace the commutator brushes. Add inverters and transformers to deliver power plant power or house current. But 12 v power continuous peak power or 110v AC is immediately available for airplanes power for an unlimited time . Redundancy is safer.

Until they figure out how to mass produce graphene for batteries electric vehicles are just too impractical.

Interesting

Luv, the channel . Btw, that wasn't a Mig-21 .

Nice job!

I listened to this video hoping for some kind of explanation for the claim but heard nothing.
Therefor, I believe that in the absence of rational scientific cause, the claim is bogus.
The video did mention what I consider critically important, which is the calculated thrust to weight ratio of the engine and aircraft.
But, I heard nothing about why distributed power should be more efficient or be reason for a superior thrust to weight ratio.

I will say that AFAIK,
fewer and larger props and engines do run into certain limitations...
The propeller tips must not travel faster than the speed of sound.
The propeller must be optimized for a particular speed.
An optimized propeller will account for the different radial velocities closer to the hub and along the propeller to the tip.
Of course, an optimized propeller will have an airfoil shape.
There can be additional features that can help propeller efficiency like ducting.

Maybe the idea is that with smaller propellers, the extreme difference of the propeller's efficiency from hub to tip is possibly less, but that might only mean a less optimized propeller shape might be required.
It might mean that with smaller propellers, the propellers can spin faster, but that's hardly related to propeller efficiency which also depends on airfoil, angle of attack, materials and more.

So, based only on what is in the video, I don't think that its claim is accurate.
Need proof, or at least a sensible argument.

Time someone’s makes a super high bypass single shaft electric monster to rival a ge90’s record 134,000 ft lbs of trust

So, using 100hp motor with 8' dia. prop, would burn more fuel than four 25hp motors, each with a 4 foot diameter propeller? Would the propeller design and rpm's make a difference?

Yo - this dude presents his stuff really well👌✍

Some very interesting information. Now the question is will an electric version of a turbofan jet engine be even more efficient? The electric motor would replace the axial flow jet engine. Keep up the good work. I love to see people thinking outside the box.

I see a lot of companies pursuing VTOL and think of the wasted energy. VTOL is unnecessary in most instances and only serves to increase the cost of flying. I am excited for full electric aircraft, however I am impatient. Can you do a video analysis of Pipistrel's Panthera Hybrid system?

Exciting to see how we are gaining new insights all the time. This really helps me feel more positive about the future that awaits my children. As always, I particularly love your delivery - concepts are articulated with incredible clarity and always with context. You have an exceedingly rare ability to communicate at this level and I often refer to your videos when I am preparing presentations myself (I have been in management consulting around the globe for over 20 years). Regards and thanks from Sydney - Dave

Does electric propulsion have anything to offer sea planes ?

Solar powered electric airships (rigid Blimps) could take over a huge portion of freight flights point to point with almost no infrastructure. I’m amazed there is so little interest. Point to point at 120 mph with no wear and tear or clogging of roads would be extremely helpful. Quiet and no pollution also good. Modern technology would mitigate hydrogens flammability as it has lithium.

thanks for showing DEP and boundary layer ingestion. i think that with distributed propulsion is more appropriate to use closed wings as joined wings or box wings because it gives more structural stability and reduces flutter, a trade-off of distributed propulsion.

Nice!

What about size of the aircraft? Is there an advantage/disadvantage scaling up.

Yeah, but in an STOL you are still taking off and landing on a runway, which is existing infra usually built far outside of the city. And even if you start building custom runways of let's say only 50m you still need empty space for approach, and for city travel that's still a lot of prime real estate space dedicated for landing infrastructure.
The reason people are excited about eVTOLs is specifically that it enables point to point because the landing infrastructure is so much less involved. Nothing to do with flying cars.

This guy: Talks in depth about the science behind and efficiency of battery powered aircraft
Also this guy: Refuses to replace the dying battery in his smoke detector

Jetoptera: propellers are so passe.

Please provide a reference for the Takeoff Length equation 13.WingLoading/(TtoWt*Cl)

Can distributed propulsion setup with small open propellers also achieve the high top speeds of a large EDF in forward flight?

Hey how do I get in touch with you?

Amazing. We should really go for it. Less pollution, less roads, more flexibility, less traffic jam, more live quality, more terrain for agriculture, shorter commute between X and Y, lots of advantages. Smaller plains, less components, saver, cheaper, less CO2 footprint, more aesthetic, less dependence from large companies with goal to exploit you. Go for it!

Сколько можно причмокивать

Great informative video on the advantages of distributive propulsion and eSTOL being more energy efficient than eVTOL. Will you investigate the PLIMP hybrid airship design and give the pros and cons of the design?

Do you think Joby and Vertical will be able to take off and land like a conventional estall aircraft where it’s appropriate to do so and save some power for longer missions

Electra Aero 😍

How does blown air increase lifting coefficient? Thank you

What about speed? How is it affected with the number of propellers?

The biggest problem with eSTOL is safety. eVTOL machines are fundamentally safer, and there is a lot of designs that are optimally cruise efficient.

would the lift be higher when the props are located above the wing rather than below as with the NASA design?

What about the drag all those propellers create?

The next level is to replace the electric propellers with electric compressors, each directly connected to an oblong shaped bladeless fan built into the wing's leading edge so as to deliver the maximum laminar flow distributed across an optimized wing surface. So you are multiplying the lift and and mechanical airflow both. This should result in doubling the range again over the propeller design, allowing the electric system to easily beat the conventional one in subsonic flight. One could also incorporate a hybrid power source as well, making electricity onboard in an optimized RPM range for efficiency. The resulting efficiency in fuel consumption would approach an order of magnitude, the electrical approach allowing the optimal mechanical power distribution for a given form.

this video is very beautiful.that is very exellent development for the future environment to increase the coefficient of lift by airplane wings with minimum drag