Slashdot Mirror
First Fully Electric Manned Helicopter Flight
cylonlover writes "On August 12, electrical/aerospace engineer and helicopter pilot Pascal Chretien took to the sky in the world's first untethered, fully electric manned helicopter flight in a prototype machine that he designed and built almost entirely by himself within a 12-month development period. In his 2-minute, 10-second test flight, Chretien beat aviation giant Sikorsky into the record books — but it was not without significant risk. As the man himself puts it: 'in case of crash I stand good chances to end up in kebab form.'"
I will NOT be satisfied until I see a real life StarScream or at least a well mannered ThunderCracker.
And what were decibels of that vehicle?
I am more interested just for that information as it gives answers what are possibilities to companies and governments to use those in spec-ops missions.
Like you could fly only a hundred meters from the target to drop person(s) and then fly off without anyone hearing you.
As on current vehicles the noise is just too loud so you end up a few klicks away.
Major props to this guy.
"as the flight ended in disaster leading to the deaths of its entire crew."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_McNair#Music_in_Space_project
"something went wrong and the player fell to his death"
http://cafesaxophone.com/showthread.php?5512-Finn-Martin-Dead
Don't play saxophone, if you're not grounded.
Oh, I'm sure that could catch on eventually.
It will end up a curiosity since it has no real world application. Helicopters consume vast amounts of energy just to stay aloft, much less get any work done.
Just like the electric float plane featured ob /. it simply wont scale. The laws of physics and thermodynamics simply cannot be ignored.
Mass will always be a factor until we figure out an anti-gravity field or some other star treckian device to reduce our apparent mass we simply cannot get enough energy out of today's batteries or fuel cells -v- their mass.
I am a pilot and there are few people in the world besides us that really want this tech to work more then we do, but I am pretty darn sure I am going to be completely decomposed long before this ever happens.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Amazing development from such a tiny operation! However, I recommend he employ a professional welder. The one rather important-looking weld he shows in a pic looks a little dodgy.
yea no shit that thing looks like its 1 good hit from falling apart, whats going to happen on a hard landing ie if your battery starts to die, some angle welded aluminum and 2 giant spinning food processor blades all going apeshit with you in the middle?
have fun buddy
Fuel taxes are not how the FAA is funded. You sir suck at sarcasm.
The rest of your pathetic attempt failed just as poorly.
I love the part in the article about using batteries and an electric motor to land a helicopter in case the main engine dies. Here are a few issue with that;
1. High cost of batteries and a motor big enough to land the helicopter.
2. Lift capacity decrease due to the weight of batteries and electric motor.
3. The extra fuel needed to carry the weight of the batteries and electric motor causing higher flight costs and shorter range.
4. Maintenance costs on batteries and motor that will probably never be used.
Interesting but impractical.
i hate you
The laws of physics still have room for at least a 10-fold improvement in battery technology compared to current commercially available batteries. Of course this helicopter is a curiosity, it would be a curiosity even if it was powered by a conventional engine! It isn't exactly something you could use for commercial flights.
I would expect to see electric private planes to become popular within 10 years (popular within the small community which has private planes anyway) and perhaps another 10 years before it makes serious inroads among smaller helicopters.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Hah you probably would have said all the same things if you were alive in the age of the Wright Brothers, and you would have been equally wrong for all the same reasons.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You know, mate, you seriously suck at straw man burning. Drop a few more mentions of "taxes" in there, and you might get some cheers from the teabaggers for your exceedingly sharp wit.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The energy density of the battery is 0.576 MJ/kg. The energy density of kerosene type BP Jet A-1, 43.15 MJ/kg. To get the same energy density the battery would have to be 74 times as efficient. That is a bit of a stretch for batteries.
Did you also notice that the helicopter was flown in ground effect which decreases the energy required. One would think he would have tried an endurance test to see how the batteries stood up. 130 second is not a long flight.
Shush! I'm trying to work on my time machine...
2) If you think "but I am pretty darn sure I am going to be completely decomposed long before this ever happens.", shouldn't you be concerned about life extension efforts first?
Not to belittle the achievement- but a height of 1 meter means he never got out of ground effect. It would take a lot more power to really fly. I mean, if a vehicle never goes out of ground effect while flying over water, it can be registered as a boat.
I was disappointed by this coverage for two reasons:
1. I wanted to hear it.
2. I wanted to see it rise above ground effect.
Energy density for lithium air is 18.8MJ/kg, if you have to carry the oxygen with you. Twice that at take off if you use atmospheric air. 9MJ/kg including oxygen has been achieved in the lab. Not 43MJ/kg, certainly, but you are lucky to get a third of that energy out with helicopter engines and the engines or turbines are quite heavy.
Yes, the particular electric helicopter from TFA is all fun and games and doesn't have a future. Nothing wrong with a bit of fun and games.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
It's longer than the Wright Bros stayed up.
No real world application (yet) perhaps, but I was actually surprised to see a more or less practical helicopter design, instead of something looking like those human-powered airplanes made up of rice paper and balsawood, with a 150m wingspan, requiring two guys to run along to balance it on takeoffs, etc. And if flight times increase, it will find some uses.
The control stick setup reminded me a little of the Kolibrie helicopter, which has a similar "hobby" look to it. By the way, someone mentioned batteries going flat in the air... seems to me there's no autorotation on this thing.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I've got an analogous design of hoverboard. Around 30 kilos - so just about portable, can do nearly 2G of acceleration from a standing start, and will get you to around 3km altitude.
Of course, it costs several tens of thousand dollars, and would make a noise that would make the dead go looking for earplugs, and has a 'flight' time of 3-4 minutes.
(15Kg of really fast discharge rated li-ion, around a hundred closely packed ducted fan units, and a nutter on top)
what's your problem today, got out of bed on the wrong side?
Time machine? I've already got one, although it's a go-forward model only at this point. And it is rather slow -- it takes about 60 seconds to go forward 1 minute.
I'm not sure. There's a lot of interesting tech here at least. Low weight is a plus for any aircraft and it seems that this can be transferred to other power systems. There have to be some uses for a lightweight helicopter.
Really, the only dead end is use of batteries. I reckon more suitable fuel cells will come as soon as there's a need.
Hah, I have one that goes forward a whole day every 24 hours.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Aircraft are all made as light as they can possibly be and still fulfill their design function. The skin of you typical general aviation four place single engine is about twice as thick as a bear can. Airliners are very very fragile as evidenced by whats left when they crash as the pretty much just shred into little shards of aluminum and about the only parts left intact are the engine cores and landing gear.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Is that for an adult bear or a baby bear?
Mostly random stuff.
I personally buy my bears bagged and not canned. The bagged ones are much fresher, canning bears gives them a rather metallic taste.
You can't build electric helicopters. The battery technology does not exist to make viable electric helicopters. Some silly toy that someone built in his garage that has a 2-minute flying time (or whatever) is not a replacement for a real helicopter, any more than this is a replacement for a normal car.
How about the frozen ones?
Mostly random stuff.
Oh please. Do you even know anything about physics or the current state of battery technology?
The Wright Brothers were still trying to figure out principles of aerodynamics and invent a craft that could fly through the air in a controllable manner. (Some other people had already invented working airplanes before them; they weren't the first. The problem was that their predecessors made planes that took off, flew a short distance, and then crashed. The Wrights invented a plane that could turn.) We don't have that problem; we already know how to make high-performance airframes. We even know how to make high-performance electric motors that could power them. The only thing we don't know is how to store enough energy in a small enough and light enough device to make an electric aircraft a viable alternative to current fossil-fuel powered ones. Building prototypes isn't going to change that simple fact.
If you want to make electric aviation a reality, you have to wait for the people working on battery technology, or start working on battery technology yourself. Battery technology is a very different domain from aerospace engineering, but putting people to work building unusable electric aircraft isn't going to move battery technology along any faster than it would help GPS navigation technology; even though most modern aircraft use that too, it's not something aircraft builders have any expertise in, they just buy a Garmin box and bolt it into the cockpit.
Or you can wait ten years. By that time, the Wright Brothers' kite already transformed into viable planes with much longer ranges and speeds. Let's see if it happens with electric helicopters.
Let me save you ten years: won't happen.
Well, it might happen, but it won't be because anyone built electric-powered aircraft, it'll be because someone completely disconnected from the aviation industry worked away in a lab experimenting with battery chemistries and different materials (such as nanotubes) until they found something that worked and provided the required energy density. Aviation isn't the only place where batteries with much higher energy densities would be very useful; everyone's screaming for electric cars these days (which burn far, far more fuel than aircraft in total), and those aren't quite viable yet either, because of battery technology. Plus, everyone wants their phone or their laptop to run longer between charges. Aviation is probably going to be the last place to move away from fossil fuel, because the energy density is such an important requirement, far more so than in ground vehicles.
That is one badass vehicle, though. You can tell because of the awesome rock music.
That's not a "design", that's a daydream.
I am pretty darn sure I am going to be completely decomposed long before this ever happens
Perhaps in certified form, especially heli's, but take a look at what is happening in the experimental space.
There are a number of electric hybrid aircraft in development that are starting to look like we will see some practical applications in 2-3 years. Burt Rutan flew one to Oshkosh this summer. The biggest difference is they are not trying to carry all the energy in batteries, but rather just enough for takeoff. Charge the batteries with small highly efficient engine powered generator, and use a simple electric motor for propulsion. The engine does not need a wide power band, so something like a wave disk design looks promising.
At least until we get a major breakthrough in battery tech.
This guy accomplished something very few people will ever achieve and yet half the posts above are "what's the point", "shitty welds", "batteries suck", etc.
Fscking hell. He just built a helicopter. I say congratulations!
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
Wow, you really believe that? It isn't 1922 anymore. You can't make breakthoughs in the physical/chemical world in a garage anymore. Software wankery is just that; wanking. Anyone can bodge together gigabytes of code and "innovate". The real world? Not so much. As with the other dude, I wish you well, but in ten years, nothing will have changed.
Wow, you really believe that? It isn't 1922 anymore. You can't make breakthoughs in the physical/chemical world in a garage anymore.
Where did I say anything about a garage, or about a single person?
Let me repeat what I wrote before:
"it'll be because someone completely disconnected from the aviation industry worked away in a lab experimenting with battery chemistries and different materials (such as nanotubes) until they found something that worked and provided the required energy density."
Maybe the "someone" threw you, and I should have said "some party" but this isn't a research paper or anything else where people double-check everything for precise grammar, it's the electronic equivalent to shooting the shit at a bar. The bit about nanotubes should have been a tip-off that this comment wasn't assuming garage inventors; I've never heard of anyone making nanotubes in their garage. The word "lab" should have been a tip-off too; how many people have a lab? No, a garage is not a real lab, a lab is a room in a building at an institution that has the money to build a real lab. And where else do you think the engineers and scientists who create the next generation of batteries are going to do so? In a cubicle?
Wait... was it 2 minutes? Or 10 seconds?
Yeah Yeah Yeah... I want a spell checker that can read my mind dammit! lol!
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
It's a 'sheet of a4' design, admittedly.
However, the power budget is achievable in the mass budget, the control gear is not fundamentally harder than a quadcopter - though a lot more numerous.
All of the constituent parts are readily available, it's 'simply' a case of putting them together in simple ways.
'40C' quality li-ion cells are not hard to find, nor are reasonable thrust/weight ratio ducted fan units, nor are ESCs.
Sure there are major issues, the control laws at liftoff and transition through ground effect will be freaky, but the large excess of (instantaneous) thrust over weight helps with that.
Vortex ring is a concern.
There don't seem any fundamental showstoppers, if you're willing to fly on something that will not kill you 99 times out of a hundred.
Adding more 9's would mean a lot more testing and design.
If they'd have waited for suitable batteries to be developed for mobile phones, before building phones, then we wouldn't have anywhere near as good mobile phones right now.
Instead they just used the batteries that were available at the time, and accepted the fact that a mobile phone needed a battery-pack the size of a shoebox.
It was the fact that there was an actual demand for better mobile phone batteries that spurred development. That demand wouldn't have been their had phone manufacturers waited.
Same goes for electric cars. Development of suitable batteries for cars is now progressing at a fast rate. But that's only happened because car manufacturers have actually stared producing electric cars.
It's chicken and egg. If the product manufacturers wait for the battery manufacturers, then the battery manufacturers will wait for the product designers. To get progress, both have to move forward at the same time.
The requirements for aircraft and car batteries are different. Aircraft motors run at a pretty constant speed. Cars are constantly accelerating, decelerating and braking (which on the more advanced EVs means a little recharging). Also if a car battery fails, that's annoying. If an aircraft battery fails, that may be fatal.
In both cases you want the lightest battery given the usage profile. And that means different for those two applications.
And mobile phone and laptop batteries are different again.
Sure, the Tesla Roadster is built with laptop batteries. But that's because they are a small manufacturer who designed their car in a hurry, used a tiny and light body-shell (from the Lotus Elise) and were in a market that could stand expensive batteries. They could afford to compromise. The mass market of family cars at affordable prices and with decent ranges requires specialist batteries designed specifically for cars.
"And where else do you think the engineers and scientists who create the next generation of batteries are going to do so? In a cubicle?"
Do they have cubicles in China?
I'm a Space Nutter now because I'm pro-space-exploration? Even though I've made arguments in the past for unmanned rather than manned space travel and made demonstrations that it wouldn't be economically viable to collect watermelon-sized diamonds from the surface of Mars? Wow, doesn't take much to get that label I guess.
Well, I think Grishnakh said everything I would have had to say down here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2413768&cid=37311778
And as with the Wright Brothers who hadn't reached the limit of what fossil fuels were capable of, we haven't reached the limits of what electrons are capable of. We're just using the equivalent of their fragile inefficient old engine. Wait until we have the equivalent of a Rotax.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If they'd have waited for suitable batteries to be developed for mobile phones, before building phones, then we wouldn't have anywhere near as good mobile phones right now. Instead they just used the batteries that were available at the time, and accepted the fact that a mobile phone needed a battery-pack the size of a shoebox.
Bad comparison. I'm old enough to remember the "bag phones". Back then, sure, batteries weren't quite as good, but that wasn't the biggest problem, it was the phone technology itself. AMPS wasn't very power-efficient, and the electronics back then weren't as power-efficient as they are now. The battery technology actually hasn't changed all that much; there's probably been a lot more improvement in the electronics' power usage than in the battery storage capacity.
But on top of all of that, even with the lousy form-factor (a phone that takes up an entire briefcase?), this was still a very usable alternative to no mobile phone at all. Sure, it was bulky compared to today's phones, but it was still an improvement over not having a mobile phone at all, and became a very worthwhile investment for people in certain professions where that capability was useful.
Making an electric helicopter simply isn't like this. There is NO application for a helicopter with a 2-minute flight time. It takes longer than this to pre-flight the damn thing!!! By the time you start it up and run it, and are about to pick up, you'll be out of power!
Worse, the improvements needed in battery technology are orders of magnitude. I don't have any figures handy, but I'm quite sure the batteries in those old bag phones don't have orders of magnitude less energy density than today's cellphone batteries. Battery technology has been evolving very, very slowly over the last century, even with the recent demand for ultra-light mobile devices. Willing the technology to appear does not make it appear, nor does demand; the laws of physics have to agree, and there has to be people actually working on the problem. As I said before, the electronics have improved far more than the batteries, which is why things have gotten so small: more-efficient electronics don't require as much battery capacity. There appear to be fundamental problems with chemisty which are blocking us from making batteries with orders of magnitude better energy density, and I suspect it's probably impossible, without doing something very different, such as utilizing nanotubes or other nanoscale technology, rather than just looking for better chemicals for electrolytes like we've been doing since batteries were invented and using the same basic construction method.
Same goes for electric cars. Development of suitable batteries for cars is now progressing at a fast rate.
Is it? I haven't seen anything but very, very small incremental improvements in batteries over the last couple of decades. Certainly no orders-of-magnitude improvements. It's still questionable whether viable EVs are going to appear any time soon, or if they'll be relegated to commuter vehicles with a 50-100 mile range. A battery increase yielding 400+ mile ranges would make them truly viable, but we haven't seen anything like that yet, and instead many makers seem to be abandoning the idea altogether and instead going for plug-in hybrids for their next generation. Another thing I haven't seen any mention of is the heat problem in EVs: in regular cars, heat is produced in great quantities as a waste product, but in northern areas in the wintertime, this becomes invaluable for keeping the passengers from freezing to death in -40 temperatures. Large parts of the central US, plus much of Canada, experience very cold winters and subzero temperatures. EVs don't make much waste heat like ICE engines, so you'd need an electric heater, but those things use a lot of power, and greatly reduce the already-short range. Without a good range with the head blasting, these cars will be useless in the wintertime. And a lot of people can't af
You make a good point that shoebox powered mobile phones were still and practical useful for certain markets. Whilst ultra short flight helicopter's aren't. And yet you're comparing an early shipping product to a hobbyists first prototype.
Back then, sure, batteries weren't quite as good, but that wasn't the biggest problem, it was the phone technology itself.
Well yes. And also the fact that cell towers are a lot closer today, so lower power is needed. And yet those two don't completely explain the progress from a shoe box sized battery to today's tiny batteries.
The batteries back then were Ni-Cd. Now they're Li-ion or Li-Po. In current versions of those batteries lithium have 5 times more energy density than Ni-Cd. I'm guessing that improvement is even greater compared to 30 year old designs.
Also Ni-Cds are AFAIK always made up of batteries of cylindrical cells in metal cases. Lithium batteries can be made in flatpacks to specifically fit it's application. And that adds to the practical energy density difference.
As to electric car batteries, I on't have, and can't be bothered to research the specifics, but I was listening to a 30 min interview with the CEO of Renault other day, specifically on the topic of EVs. And he was talking about how much batteries have improved over the past few years, and the expectations of improvement over the next few. Not just in chemistry, but in battery management, where software is monitoring the performance an selectively using each of the individual cells in the battery. Today they are designing batteries specifically for EVs, rather than making use of generics.
The end of your post seems to have veered off topic into an anti EV rant. Lets leave that debate for another time. I'll just say this: predicting the limits of how products will improve over time is a fools errand. When the most advanced computers filled a large room, no-one envisaged that people would be carrying a far more powerful computer in their pockets in 50 years time. And when talking about the limits of physics, they'd be referring to how small you can make each individual vacuum tube valve, not how tightly you can pack transistors on a semiconductor. EVs are already practical for some people's needs. All that's required is that they continue to improve each year, and they will eventually become the preferred option for most people. One has to remember of course that ICE is becoming a worse option as time goes by as oil becomes more scarce and thus expensive.
You make a good point that shoebox powered mobile phones were still and practical useful for certain markets. Whilst ultra short flight helicopter's aren't. And yet you're comparing an early shipping product to a hobbyists first prototype.
The laws of physics prevent that "prototype" from ever becoming anything useful. Is the hobbyist working on improving battery technology? No? Then it won't work. The problem isn't helicopters, it's energy storage.
Well yes. And also the fact that cell towers are a lot closer today, so lower power is needed. And yet those two don't completely explain the progress from a shoe box sized battery to today's tiny batteries.
The batteries back then were Ni-Cd. Now they're Li-ion or Li-Po. In current versions of those batteries lithium have 5 times more energy density than Ni-Cd. I'm guessing that improvement is even greater compared to 30 year old designs.
So still not an order of magnitude. With helicopters, you need at a minimum a 100x improvement over today's very best battery technology. If they haven't even improved batteries one-tenth of that in 30 years, then working on electric helicopters now is a pointless task.
As to electric car batteries, I on't have, and can't be bothered to research the specifics, but I was listening to a 30 min interview with the CEO of Renault other day, specifically on the topic of EVs. And he was talking about how much batteries have improved over the past few years, and the expectations of improvement over the next few. Not just in chemistry, but in battery management, where software is monitoring the performance an selectively using each of the individual cells in the battery. Today they are designing batteries specifically for EVs, rather than making use of generics.
So what? How is this going to get you a 100x improvement in energy density? Sure, this might be useful for small improvements in EVs, but that's it.
The end of your post seems to have veered off topic into an anti EV rant.
That's not a rant, it's just pointing out how EVs cannot replace cars for the vast majority of Americans. Maybe they'll work out better for the French; their climate is far more mild and they probably don't drive nearly as far as we do. Over here, we need much better battery technology for EVs to become a viable alternative.
I'll just say this: predicting the limits of how products will improve over time is a fools errand.
No, trying to build useful items when the laws of physics are against you is a fools' errand.
When the most advanced computers filled a large room, no-one envisaged that people would be carrying a far more powerful computer in their pockets in 50 years time.
And what does that have to do with electric helicopters? Back in the days of no computers, a room-size computer was a very useful thing. Corporations actually used them for important tasks. It didn't matter that they didn't have today's computers, the ones they had were already useful, despite their enormous size. Electric helicopters will NEVER be useful until someone develops batteries at least 100x as energy-dense as today's. As I said before, there is no application for a helicopter that flies for 2 minutes and then crashes (two minutes isn't long enough to get enough airspeed and altitude to do an autorotation; it's really not enough to even take off).
All that's required is that they continue to improve each year, and they will eventually become the preferred option for most people.
I doubt it. A massive improvement in battery technology is required for this, and you're not going to get that by just playing with chemistry or packaging. However, this is barely related to electric helicopters, as truly practical EVs require far less improvement in batteries than helicopters would. If you don't mind having a car that can only go 30 miles on a charge and doesn't have heat, you can already build your own EV in your garage.using a donor car. You'll n
We ought to.call you Scotty. "Ye cannie change the laws of physics captain."
Clearly there is no such law of physics, since there already is a technology that packs the required energy density. A fuel tank. We're looking for an alternative to something that already exists, not something impossible.
Clearly there is no such law of physics, since there already is a technology that packs the required energy density. A fuel tank. We're looking for an alternative to something that already exists, not something impossible.
I never said batteries with the energy density of a fuel tank are impossible, only that they don't exist right now. What's impossible is using today's battery technology to create a helicopter that can come remotely close to replacing a conventional fossil-fuel-powered one. People keep saying some small improvements here and there will change this, but what they miss is that the laws of physics show that the energy required to make a helicopter work are so much higher than what today's battery technology can deliver, that nothing short of a complete revolution in battery technology will make this dream come true.
I have no doubt that it's possible to make batteries with the required energy density, it's just a matter of when. (Looking at human society today, I do have my doubts that humans can ever achieve it; it looks to me like we're might be at a technological peak and will shortly descend into another Dark Ages due to social and governmental factors, and it's questionable whether we'll survive to rebuild society again instead of becoming extinct due to various environmental factors. Even super-optimistic Star Trek shows us going into a Dark Age pretty soon, with our only salvation being Zephram Cochrane inventing the warp drive from old rocket parts and getting the Vulcans to come help us save our society (see "First Contact").) And because the improvements in energy density needed are SO great, I contend that building prototypes is just a waste of time. It's like trying to build a solar-powered car with today's solar panels. There simply isn't enough area on a car's roof to capture enough sunlight at today's PV efficiency to make enough power to even move a normal car. The only solar-powered "cars" that have been made were not cars at all, but really bicycles that traveled at walking speeds.
If you want to make electric helicopters a reality, stop wasting time building helicopters, and get to work inventing better batteries. There's no other way. If you don't have the expertise or capability to research better battery technology, then find something more productive to spend your time on than toys with no real-world value.
ok, you build a hybrid blimp helicopter. Pontoons filled with helium. does two things reduces lift requirement and makes it a water safe.
done and done..... m