Slashdot Mirror


NASA Designs All-Electric Personal Flight Vehicle

MikeChino writes "NASA is currently working on a personal aircraft that will put jet packs to shame. The Puffin is an all-electric one-man airplane that could be the start of some new and amazing air travel technology. With two prop electric engines, lithium phosphate batteries and a top speed of almost 300 mph, the vertical take off and landing vehicle was originally designed for covert military insertions because it has a lower heat signature than combustion engines. The Puffin would also be super quiet – 10 times quieter than current low-noise helicopters, and since the engine is electric it has no flight ceiling and can fly up to 9,150 meters high, uninhibited by thin air."

25 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. "No flight ceiling" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "since the engine is electric it has no flight ceiling and can fly up to 9,150 meters high, uninhibited by thin air." I presume they mean in this context no substantial flight ceiling where the engine gives out from lack of oxygen and you have a very bad day. That's backed up by the original article which says that "It has no flight ceiling--it is not air-breathing like gas engines are, and thus is not limited by thin air--so it could go up to about 9,150 meters before its energy runs low enough to drive it to descend." So in fact you could fly this much higher than 9,150 meters if you started out high up (from say a larger aircraft) or had a parachute. This leads to a question: How high up could it go before the air becomes too thin to generate enough lift to continue ascending?

    1. Re:"No flight ceiling" by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not an engineer so I can't comment on the operating ceiling of the the thing but speaking as a former private pilot, 9,150 meters (FL 28, roughly) is already well above the point where the pilot-in-command would be allowed to operate without supplemental oxygen.In fact, up that high you'd be messing with the three-holer transport jets and would probably need a pretty high-quality heated flight suit.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    2. Re:"No flight ceiling" by rockNme2349 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That was my personal favorite quote.

      It has no flight ceiling... so it could go up to about 9,150 meters

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    3. Re:"No flight ceiling" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only does it become difficult to generate lift, but to keep the electric motors cooled. You're always going to have losses in the form of heat and that's generally carried away by the air moving past the motor. An overheated motor when that's what's keeping you from plummeting isn't cool... literally.

    4. Re:"No flight ceiling" by garyebickford · · Score: 4, Informative

      The other factor is that the typical propeller does become less efficient as the air gets thinner, so there is still a ceiling. Jets (turbofans) have less of an issue with this. From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.

      For me, the sheer fear factor of looking down from 9000 meters (30,000 feet) in not much more than my flight suit would be more than I'd be ready for.

      But I think this could be the inspiration for the long-awaited personal aerial commuter vehicle - especially if operation can be automated, and if the redundancy mentioned in TFA can achieve no-single-point-of-failure. If routing were handled by a central traffic control system, and local traffic position were handled by an agent swarm, it could work pretty well. The VTOL capabiliy means you could land in a parking space, or on the roof. And the 80 mile cruising range would be sufficient for commuting.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    5. Re:"No flight ceiling" by FlyingGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your about 10,000 feet off.

      Class "A" Airspace begins at FL180 (18,000 ft AMSL) and continues up to FL600 (60,000ft AMSL). AMSL = "Above Mean Sea Level"

      To fly in class "A" airspace you must be following a filed IFR Flight Plan and have two way radio communication. These are the only requirements.

      There is one instance where one is required to fly VFR in class "A" airspace. Look it up! I will give you a hint: FAR part 91 and AIM 6-x-x

      yes I am a pilot.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    6. Re:"No flight ceiling" by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      At those altitudes, wouldn't the fact that the air be EXTREMELY cold? (I think -52c or so at 30k feet?)

      The problem is that air is far less dense at those altitudes. There's roughly a third the air at sea level. For example, suppose you're trying to keep the engine below 80C. An air flow at sea level and 20C that barely does it, would be equivalent to a third the airflow at -100C.

    7. Re:"No flight ceiling" by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ask the fucking craziest of them all, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger .

      Personal experience is as good as it gets...

      "Capt. Joe W. Kittinger achieved the highest and longest (14 min) parachute jump in history on August 16, 1960 as part of a United States Air Force program testing high-altitude escape systems. Wearing a pressure suit, Capt. Kittinger ascended for an hour and a half in an open gondola attached to a balloon to an altitude of 102,800 feet (31,330 m), where he then jumped. The fall lasted 4 minutes and 36 seconds, during which Capt. Kittinger reached speeds of 1142 km/h (714 mph) [9]. The air in the upper atmosphere is less dense and thus leads to lower air-resistance and a much higher terminal velocity."

      Gives the phrase "No Fear" a whole new meaning.

    8. Re:"No flight ceiling" by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Informative

      From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.

      While possibly true in practice, it has nothing to do with altitude. Thrust comes from the mass flow rate, times the change in velocity. Aside from fighter jets on afterburner, the exhaust coming out of a jet engine will be subsonic. The speed of sound is proportional to the square root of temperature, so the hot core flow will be much faster than the relatively cool bypass flow.

      So what relevance is this to anything? By 'sea level' the quote you saw probably meant 'take off', or zero forward velocity. FL240 would be cruise at 500-550 knots. You have high mass flow but low velocity through the bypass fan, and high velocity but low mass flow through the core. At cruise speed, the velocity differential of the bypass flow may only be 1/4 what it was static, while the much hotter and faster core flow still has more than half its differential. Modern high bypass turbofans have ratios of 9:1 or better, so the bypass will still be producing more thrust than the core even at the reduced efficiency.

    9. Re:"No flight ceiling" by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well Everest is just under 9km up, and people have scaled it without oxygen. However these were mountaineers, and not duty free guzzling pilots.

      Also that's a totally different scenario. High altitudes like that without oxygen while mountain climbing are achievable only by letting the body acclimatize for several weeks at progressively higher altitudes during the climb.

      You take anyone at sea level and put them immediately at 9km up without oxygen, they will pass out within minutes.

    10. Re:"No flight ceiling" by aug24 · · Score: 3, Funny

      For me, the sheer fear factor of looking down from 9000 meters (30,000 feet) in not much more than my flight suit would be more than I'd be ready for.

      Yeah. To correct the GP:

      In fact, up that high you'd be messing with the three-holer transport jets and would probably need a pretty high-quality heated flight suit with a built in diaper.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  2. CG concept only by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By March, the researchers plan on finishing a one third-size, hover-capable Puffin demonstrator, and in the three months following that they will begin investigating how well it transitions from cruise to hover flight. They are already looking past the Puffin, however.

    And that's why we'll never see a full sized vehicle.

    The next-generation of this design might incorporate more than just two pairs of prop rotors, so that if one was struck by, say, a bird or gunfire, the aircraft could survive on redundant systems. "We could make it so there's no single point of failure--that's the cool next step," Moore says.

    Ya know what a cool next step would be? Actually making the vehicle.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:CG concept only by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      4 crashes since its inception? That really isn't so bad. You should compare with other military planes.

      Hell, just compare it to the early helicopters. The tilt-rotor concept is a major advancement. The accidents are regrettable, but not at all surprising.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. psst, NASA, just one little thing. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those little bars on the display that shows the charge remaining? Don't trust it. It does not work.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  4. Re:My question is.. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, let's see...

    FTFA:

    [...] the Puffin can cruise at 240 kilometers per hour [...] With current state-of-the-art batteries, it has a range of just 80 kilometers if cruising [...]

    So it can stay up about 20 minutes.

    It would work for me. I could get to work in about 15 minutes and plug it in. At the end of the day, it's all charged up and I take it home.

    So, yes. I want one.

  5. And part of the project is named Icarus? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why so many flight related programs are named Icarus. Let's remember what happened in the myth of Icarus: He flew too close to the sun and so he died. I can't tell if such program names are deliberately humorous (hah! Let's see if we can get pilots to fly in something named Icarus! Yeah, I already did that. Let's try to see if we can get them to test out a project named after a flightless bird. Maybe something like a kakapo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakapo that sometimes gets hurt from thinking it can fly when it can't), or if they just don't know any other myths related to flight, or if this is a deliberate comment about how many classical claims about "hubris" simply hold humans back from genuine progress. But would it hurt if occasionally a program was named after Horus or after Odin's raven?

  6. Re:Go the "Green Spin" by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    how quickly will it hit the ground if it runs out of power.

    You should be able to auto-rotate like you can with a helicopter. Also, there's always the parachute option.

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. Re:thin air? by Thagg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note well that the highest flying prop plane ever, the Aerovironment Helios, flew to 96,000 ft -- far higher than almost any other plane (probably the only one that could sustain that altitude was the SR-71). The Helios was powered completely by solar cells and electric motors.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  8. Battery powered aircraft:Completely unrealistic by viking80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Li-ion-anything has an energy density equaling 1% of gasoline. Lithium phosphate batteries are worse than others in energy density, but safer.

    So for the same fuel weight, instead of a 2 hour flight reserve, you would have 72 seconds.

    Until there is a radically different battery, this is unrealistic.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  9. Re:Earth to Orbit vehicle? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is odd that someone hasn't already cashed in on this. Is this a possible precursor to a simple earth to orbit vehicle?

        Not in any way, shape, or form. Getting to 20-30000 feet, if it was capable of that, with a very small payload, it essentially worthless in terms of orbital. To get into orbit the chief challenge is velocity. To get that (without other far more interesting technical breakthroughs) you need a HUGE rocket with very large amounts of fuel. So there is really no role at all for this teeny little helicoper/VTOL airplane.

              Brett

  10. Re:Earth to Orbit vehicle? by bertok · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not implying they could get into orbit with this vehicle as it obviously will require atmosphere for the rotor blades to be effective, but in a general sense. Specifically getting a launch vehicle as far into the atmosphere as possible before switching to a different means of propulsion like a typical rocket.

    Achieving orbit is about speed ('delta v'), NOT altitude. It takes much more energy to get the horizontal speed to the required level than to reach the required altitude. Getting above the atmosphere helps, but not all that much.

  11. Thank you, Google! by _merlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    PSA: don't blindly search Google if you want to find out what a "three-holer" is - I don't think any of the top hits are what he's referring to.

  12. I see... by DieByWire · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see dead people.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  13. Capt. 'Cannonballs' Kittinger by rts008 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow! And I thought I was nuts for loving HALO[High Altitude, Low Opening] jumps!
    [With full equipment/kit load+body wt. @ around 275 lb./125 Kg] I was told that the max. velocity was around 130 mph/209 kph...compared to 714 mph, I guess I was a piker!

    Offtopic side note:The highest we ever jumped from was around 17,000 feet altitude; I found my minimum altitude for releasing my chute was approximately 385 feet, but it hurt!
    (we were advised that the minimum altitude was 500 feet...I had to test this)
    [using the US Army version of the Ram Air-square type 'chute]
    That was also where I got over my fear of heights, once I was thrown out of a perfectly good airplane!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Capt. 'Cannonballs' Kittinger by Zordak · · Score: 3, Funny

      I found my minimum altitude for releasing my chute was approximately 385 feet, but it hurt! (we were advised that the minimum altitude was 500 feet...I had to test this)

      So are you still chasing that Darwin Award, or have you given up ;-)

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.