Projecting Hybrid aerial vehicle for human transport

This might be the future of human transport.

The Ehang 184 is the first of many manned autonomous vehicles and it runs on Lipo like most UAV. They are great but they also weight too much for a long endurance flight compared to their energy capacity, indeed the time this vehicle can fly is only 22 minutes per charge.

This is of course not suitable for a medium or a long trip.

We believe that the solution is to use hybrid power, while big industries can work on high energy density batteries. This kind of solution is the best for a transition moment, at the ending of that batteries will replace the generators and we will not need new vehicles. Making fast air transport for everyone and make it cleaner is a priority.

Our goal is to achieve a fuel consumption of 6 L/h on a manned multirotor able to fly at 80+ km/h. For comparison, a Cessna 172 has a fuel consumption of 30+L/h.

This kind of power system will use Wankel engines for their high efficiency and high power to weight ratio. We will need to design our own brushless engines and propellers, so it will not be easy but it will be a great step.

Our intentions are:

  1. Make a more time-efficient way to travel inside the city and outside the city.
  2. Make the air transport sector less polluting and prepare it for the electric transition.
  3. Make a cargo version for urgent transport.

      

This is also gonna be expensive, so we first want to take some funds from selling our generators before getting on a similar project.

Any help with your knowledge, financial participation or hardware will be great. For any question write to nicolai.valenti@gmail.com

Thank you

Views: 688

Comment by Auturgy on July 31, 2018 at 9:13pm
I assume you’re aware of this: https://workhorse.com/surefly
Comment by Nicolai Valenti on August 1, 2018 at 11:43am

They are doing a great work with redundancy, also the little hops they did were on manual, so with a stabilization software it will fly very stable.

There is gonna be a pilot for the first times and I think it does not have a super-efficient generator.

Comment by Andreas Gazis on August 2, 2018 at 12:43am

Um, intention number 2: "Make the air transport sector less polluting and prepare it for the electric transition" is a bit weird. Multis are the most inefficient flying things and making it electric doesn't make it less polluting, it shifts to the grid the problem of acquiring stupidly gigantic amounts of energy.

Comment by Nicolai Valenti on August 2, 2018 at 1:09am

I'm happy you said this.

For a long time, I tried to figure out a way we can fly inside a city and a fixed wing is not so practical for small movements, and I really like the way fixed-wing aircraft fly (I'm an ultralight aircraft pilot). VTOL could be taken into consideration, but sometimes simplicity and small dimensions are essential.

I'm actually studying by myself how to make the motors that I need but I'm also making the inverse operation of using the motors I get as an alternator for wind power generation (still small blades 3/4 m).

I'm not afraid of any technical challenge, I'm quite afraid by the non-existent regulation about this way of flying and also by the fact that in the windiest parts of my country (Sicilia, Calabria, and Sardegna) the mafia administrate the renewable energy system.

Comment by frederic reblewski on August 2, 2018 at 9:29am

to be fair to Cessna, 30l/h is at around 180km/h. energy varying as the third power of speed that would be 3l/h at 80km/h .... if it was not below the 172 stall speed!

Comment by frederic reblewski on August 2, 2018 at 9:41am

I would be interested to understand how you come up with the 6l/h. If I assume a mechanic to electric one way conversion efficiency around 80% and an engine efficiency around 25%, a propeller efficiency of 80% 6l/h gives you around 6KW mechanical power. is that really enough to fly passengers at 80km/h?

Comment by Nicolai Valenti on August 2, 2018 at 9:44am

The stall speed of a Cessna is a little bit more than 80 km/h if it is not in landing configuration. Your observation is of course right, you can save a lot of fuel by flying slower. But none of my friends or neighbors have a runway in their backyard so unfortunately, we will have to drive across the city to get a Cessna and this will consume fuel and time and you will need also another runway in the place you want to land (quite difficult to make a runway on the roof of a building).

Comment by Nicolai Valenti on August 2, 2018 at 9:53am

This is the challenge, I'm not saying that we already did.

The conversion efficiency of our generators is above 90% and the Wankel engine we are looking for has a 40% efficiency.

Comment by d j on August 2, 2018 at 3:10pm

I have talked to Ehang 5 years ago. For stability and safety, rotors should be raised and put at roof top level or above like in real helicopter or drone.

Comment by Nicolai Valenti on August 3, 2018 at 6:20am

thank you for the information!

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2018   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service