3 ms·

I this is a solvable problem and moving from current propulsion methods to a whole bunch of very small individually controllable BLDC motors with one moving par

I this is a solvable problem and moving from current propulsion methods to a whole bunch of very small individually controllable BLDC motors with one moving part and low inertia is definitely a step in the right direction toward increasing the stability of low mass aircraft.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Wonder if the mass is low enough for a parachute to be used as a final failsafe.
- jmercouris 6y ago
  It absolutely is!
Alupis 6y ago
Most of the "uncomfotrable-ness" of smaller aircraft is how easily they are blown around in the wind, which is not insignificant at safe operating altitudes. This aircraft proposal will not be able to negate the effect. Think small boat on a lake - even with azimuth thrusters, still bobs up and down back and forth with the waves. Larger boats don't experience the effect as much, due to mass - same with large airliners.
- yread 6y ago
  Couldn't you come up with some smart way of changing the throttle of the engines to keep you stable. Bit like these fins www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rCWnI8r_EQ
  - Alupis 6y ago
    No. You're effectively in a liquid, and that liquid is moving very quickly up and down, left and right. You can see in the video you linked to, it's not all that effective, even while stationary in a boat. Plus, the drag penalty related to some extra appendage like this would be severe. It would take a LOT to keep you precisely in the same 6-axis position - and there's no way a system could react quick enough because it would first need to detect the movement, accounting for normal wind-speed, etc. Any solution here would be heavy, induce drag, eat through batteries/fuel, and introduce a lot of new failure modes that don't exist with traditional aircraft and could be unrecoverable in the event of a failure (stuck appendage or azimuth thruster-like propeller in wrong direction, destroying lift). Things are quite different just 1,000 feet off the ground, and even worse 5,000 ft or 10,000 feet. The wind speed can get extreme, averaging 100mph at 10,000 ft[1]. For people accustomed to flying in these small aircraft, you get used to it. But for people already nervous about flying, or not familiar with small aircraft, the sudden movement can be very disorienting and scary. People often underestimate the aviation industry. It's incredibly safe, and very stable. A lot of innovations were paid for with blood during the early days of aviation, which led to it's maturity. Innovation, at this point in aviation's history, is very challenging and requires very deep understandings - even mature organizations like Boeing struggle with this from time-to-time, and they have a ton of experience in developing extremely reliable aircraft for not just transport, but combat and more. Unfortunately, far too often, things like this startup's solution are dreamt up by people that don't understand the problem domain and don't have a lot of experience in the field. They look from afar, and confidently state they know a solution no one else has thought of or tried, and the entire industry is simply doing things so obviously wrong. Fortunately, they often find out why things are the way they are within a reasonable time frame and don't blow all of their investor's money or get people killed. Time will tell here. [1] http://www.kitegen.com/en/technology/wind-data/ http://www.kitegen.com/en/technology/wind-data/
    - errantspark 6y ago
      To be clear I don't think that a bunch of motors with low latency control solve the problem of flying straight in turbulence. I think that it will allow for exploration of a new space of clever approaches to mitigate turbulence for craft with low inertia.
      - Alupis 6y ago
        Maybe. I'd like to see myself. But, I'm highly skeptical for a lot of reasons. This design in particular introduces a lot of turbulent flow over the lift surfaces, and is going to require a lot of fancy logic to ensure the aircraft can remain stable with one or more of it's motors failing. It ads a lot of complexity, to a vehicle where simplicity keeps you safe, particularly at low altitudes where seconds matter when there's a problem.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

Wonder if the mass is low enough for a parachute to be used as a final failsafe.

jmercouris 6y ago
It absolutely is!

Alupis 6y ago

Most of the "uncomfotrable-ness" of smaller aircraft is how easily they are blown around in the wind, which is not insignificant at safe operating altitudes. This aircraft proposal will not be able to negate the effect. Think small boat on a lake - even with azimuth thrusters, still bobs up and down back and forth with the waves. Larger boats don't experience the effect as much, due to mass - same with large airliners.

yread 6y ago
Couldn't you come up with some smart way of changing the throttle of the engines to keep you stable. Bit like these fins www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rCWnI8r_EQ
- Alupis 6y ago
  No. You're effectively in a liquid, and that liquid is moving very quickly up and down, left and right. You can see in the video you linked to, it's not all that effective, even while stationary in a boat. Plus, the drag penalty related to some extra appendage like this would be severe. It would take a LOT to keep you precisely in the same 6-axis position - and there's no way a system could react quick enough because it would first need to detect the movement, accounting for normal wind-speed, etc. Any solution here would be heavy, induce drag, eat through batteries/fuel, and introduce a lot of new failure modes that don't exist with traditional aircraft and could be unrecoverable in the event of a failure (stuck appendage or azimuth thruster-like propeller in wrong direction, destroying lift). Things are quite different just 1,000 feet off the ground, and even worse 5,000 ft or 10,000 feet. The wind speed can get extreme, averaging 100mph at 10,000 ft[1]. For people accustomed to flying in these small aircraft, you get used to it. But for people already nervous about flying, or not familiar with small aircraft, the sudden movement can be very disorienting and scary. People often underestimate the aviation industry. It's incredibly safe, and very stable. A lot of innovations were paid for with blood during the early days of aviation, which led to it's maturity. Innovation, at this point in aviation's history, is very challenging and requires very deep understandings - even mature organizations like Boeing struggle with this from time-to-time, and they have a ton of experience in developing extremely reliable aircraft for not just transport, but combat and more. Unfortunately, far too often, things like this startup's solution are dreamt up by people that don't understand the problem domain and don't have a lot of experience in the field. They look from afar, and confidently state they know a solution no one else has thought of or tried, and the entire industry is simply doing things so obviously wrong. Fortunately, they often find out why things are the way they are within a reasonable time frame and don't blow all of their investor's money or get people killed. Time will tell here. [1] http://www.kitegen.com/en/technology/wind-data/ http://www.kitegen.com/en/technology/wind-data/
  - errantspark 6y ago
    To be clear I don't think that a bunch of motors with low latency control solve the problem of flying straight in turbulence. I think that it will allow for exploration of a new space of clever approaches to mitigate turbulence for craft with low inertia.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Maybe. I'd like to see myself. But, I'm highly skeptical for a lot of reasons. This design in particular introduces a lot of turbulent flow over the lift surfaces, and is going to require a lot of fancy logic to ensure the aircraft can remain stable with one or more of it's motors failing. It ads a lot of complexity, to a vehicle where simplicity keeps you safe, particularly at low altitudes where seconds matter when there's a problem.