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."

14 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 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/
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  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.
  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: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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

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

    I see dead people.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.