The Personal Tilt-Rotor

Dear All,

We are aware that the article states tilt-rotor when it is a Tilt-Wing, we also know that the price on the article is about $1 million higher than the future RRP will be.

We have spoken to many people during the last two weeks and we are fully aware of vortex ring issues, rotor/prop diametre, landing gear, weights and power usage so please note we are working on all the issues we have been speaking to people about. These are after all concept images and demonstrate our concepts IDEAS, the final version will be different in many ways, but we are working on it.

Thanks for taking the time to read this....

Falx Air Team

Hi,

Thanks for the comment. I was just going to talk about the price. Those things are very cool and the design looks great but I'm guessing there are tens of companies that can build this with a 1.5 million price tag on it.

Now when you build that thing at around the price of a light sport plane...that's something.

Thanks

I want one of these very badly. The cost will have to lower $ 900,000.00 for me to ever hope of owning it.

A two stroke engine seems like a risky choice, reliability concerns aside is 104 horsepower really going to cut it? Is that derated from a higher power or is 104 horse the maximum which will later be derated to say 90? The battery would have to make up a lot of extra power, especially if you got into a situation where you had to go from hover to max climb and then quickly descend only to hover again a short distance later for landing. That battery pack better not run down very easy cause that thing looks like it would autorotate like a brick.
I hope they can overcome the engineering challenges because it looks like a hell of a ride.

Dear Ian1108 and All,

We are designing a platform with very low capability for hover (approx 5 min) and the reason is simple, energy technology has not hit the capacity needed to achieve long hover of a hybrid. As mentioned in the image on this site, we fit a Ballistic Recovery Chute as Standard. This is only for a 'worst case' situation and the positive side of the hybrid is that the system is far more robust and less maintenance than the drive shaft & gearbox system.

Due to patent filling and our current work we are unable to release more information than this. All we ask is that people keep an eye out for this type of platform as we are working hard to make it a reality.

Falx Air Team

i think that is a cool way to get things done. instead of having to do it by hand.

thats cool how they will have a hybrid airplane.
that will go up to 230 mph. i liked how the person that is being talked about in the article commented on his own article.

thats cool how they will have a hybrid airplane.
that will go up to 230 mph. i liked how the person that is being talked about in the article commented on his own article.

i think this would be a great idea and would be worth the money to have then because it would help save peoples lives by being able to get to them quicker .

i think this is a really good idea but the two stroke is alot lighter than say a four stroke but the two stroke can lock up alot faster because it will only be turing a generater. but like i said this is a good proto type and could be prety good.

i think it is great that as technology advances that the things people make get better and make easire and faster to help people and the earth

its cool that they have a hybrid plane that can go 270 mph.

i think that is a cool way to get things done. instead of having to do it by hand.
thats cool how they will have a hybrid airplane.
that will go up to 230 mph

Very neat idea. The plane goes alot faster and can help those in need of it. it would only do more good than anything else.

i think its good because you can make it to the hospital faster. you can save more of people lives. I would like more of the personal tilt-rotor.

If we could have something that fast then use it.Can it be dependable?I think its a cool invention because it saves gas and it saves lifes.(two in one hahahahaha)

it's a neat way how to do things

it's a neat way how to do things

wow thats pretty NEETO a hybrid aircraft that goes 180mph
also since it is smaller it gives it more maneuverability to the pilot.

I think that this article was good because i liked the idea of not having to use batteries and having to use generators.
I think that this idea would need alot of energy to use.

if we could have something that fast i think it would be in good need of things. if its going to help save lives then make it.

i think that this helicopter would be good because of its speed. As far as getting people to the hospital it would be neat to have helicopters like that. Hopefulywe will see a hybrid helicopter between the next 5 to 10 years.

It will be as popular as the jet-pack, seen any in your neighborhood lately? For personal aircraft of any kind to be popular,it will have to be cheap (under 30k) and it will HAVE to be idiot-proof.
Even a transportation as unique as a Segway still hasn't gotten into the mainstream after being in production for more than five years. A personal flying system of any kind does not have much luck of getting off the ground.

It is a curious choice to use a conventional engine and a hybrid system for a plane. Typically with aircraft weight is the primary concern, hybrids aren't particularly light,since batteries are heavy after all. All the extra components will make this an extremely challenging to keep everything light.
Hybrid systems are NOT more efficient than conventional, except in certain circumstances. (Like recapturing energy lost during braking). Even with highly efficient motors/generator you can only capture 90-95% of the energy output by the conventional engine. So now your down to around 90+ HP.
You will still need a gear box to couple the conventional drive to the generator, so no savings there, although it might be a little more efficient, since it can be simpler.
Hovering a vehicle with 90 horsepower is pretty difficult, especially with small rotors, which a tilt-rotor aircraft will need.
Good Luck with this project! You have no shortage of engineering difficulties ahead of you.
Personally I would dump the conventional engine, and replace it with a small turbine, but by then what would be the point.

In many regards this aircraft is technically feasible and they're headed in the right direction with the hybrid system but the company I work for is doing something similar (cheap hybrid VTOL) that's a lot safer and would not suffer from the kinds of safety issues (like suddenly flipping over) that are common to tilt-rotor/wing designs like that of the Falx concept.

I agree with timias I think a small turbine is the way to go, it could still power a generator because after all turbines are much better at constant speed applications. The turbines power to weight ratio is much higher than a piston engine so if you increased the size of the generator you might be able to squeeze enough power out of it to hover without battery assistance. On an aircraft that is so light already, batteries are a big weight penalty. Operating costs tend to increase with turbine over piston engines but if you are already paying 1,000,000 plus dollars then money is probably not your main concern.

Then again I don't think they would be testing the engine if they hadn't crunched the numbers and determined the power requirements, although engineers and pilots tend to have different priorities. As a pilot with my life on the line I would always prefer to have that extra power in reserve in case I screw up and need it to get me out of a jam.

Dear timias & Ian1108,

Why use a turbine that consumes 4x the fuel, Costs more to service and requires more electronics to manage than a well balanced, low fuel usage, IC engine?

Teh platform doesnt use 90hp to hover, it uses the internal genset (max 104hp) and the battery system (over 100hp) and thats why its hover endurance is so low.

With regards to Mboston comments, without knowing the control system, avionics, redundancy system, power installation and structure, how can you possible make the comment about suddenly flipping over, or that the system you may be working on is safer?

As mentioned before, the images here are concept images of the final platform, NOT the final version....

Regards

Falx Air Team

My point was that a small turbine may have the torque to run a larger generator which would eliminate the need for battery assist and therefore give the aircraft a longer hover endurance. I flew an Robinson 22 so I agree that it is possible and sometimes even better to run a small aircraft off of a piston engine, it was reliable, easy to use and efficient. Although I found the lack of power limiting sometimes and on the odd occasion dangerous. I found the piston engine a double edge sword, in my opinion it was the Robinsons biggest strength and biggest weakness at the same time (well that and the low inertia blades).

I think that an aircraft of the prototypes size will certainly be feasible with a piston engine although if the size is going to be increased someday for medivac applications where you will need a much larger payload capacity then a turbine will be inevitable. If cost of operation and ease of maintenance is a larger concern then yes, go with a piston. If performance and payload is a bigger concern then go with a turbine. I don't pay for the helicopters, I just fly them so you know I'm all about performance. Whatever you use to power it, I just hope I can take it for a spin someday.

It looks very cool, but that's about it. I'm very skeptical he can make this work. And if you read the article very closely, you'll notice it requires some yet-to-be-invented technology, like batteries that can hold enough power to safely make a vertical takeoff and landing. The wings are also way too small making a normal landing dangerous.

How about the designer testing this design in X-Plane to see how it fares there? That's the very least he could do to give himself some credibility. The design as is simply won't fly.

The costing estimates are wildly off-base. I'd be surprised if he can get this thing off the ground for less than $5 million and he'll need ten times that amount to get it to a production and FAA certified design.

Anyways, I've had a similar idea a while back, but using an autogiro instead of ducted-fans, and boosting it at take-off using an electric motor and battery pack (the prop would be driven by the internal combustion engine). It wouldn't be VTOL but certainly STOL since it would be airborne in a mere couple of meters. It's based on proven technology and technically much simpler, it's virtually guaranteed to work.

Well there is a huge difference between STOL and VTOL and the idea of a STOL autogyro is hardly new but you are certainly right about the costs of getting FAA approval, they can be quite duanting. If you get the prototype flying outside of FAA jurisdiction then it is much easier to attract investment though.

I still say turbines are the way to go though because you'll have the power you need to get it off of the ground for sure without messing with battery packs, yeah they are fuel hungry but at least it will give you the proof of concept you need that the configuration of the airplane is correct, after that try it with the new piston/battery combination. That all takes money though.

A bit ahead of it's time technologically and of dubious use. Medivac choppers operate in a mostly urban and suburban environment and you would gain nothing but additional risks going at this things projected top speed. Most Medivacs are capable of 125-140mph but rarely go top speed. The vast majority are short distance flights. And a two stroke motor, I don't understand what that's about, with the Rotax and similiar water cooled, 100-125hp and possibly already certified (they power a lot of aircraft) and are good for 1500 hours TBO motors available. Two strokes are for people that can't afford four strokes, so that's a strange choice in what isn't going to be a bargain basement priced craft. Nice idea, I'd certainly would like one but if realized I think you'd just have a lot of crashed tilt-rotors (look at the luck the military's had with them, and don't believe the propaganda crap that they actually use the damn things.)

An electrically assisted autogiro is VSTOL, virtually VTOL but it won't hover and it will need some space to take off since it does always travel laterally when flying. But it's proven technology, so you can focus on getting it on the market, which is hard enough in itself. Except for the blades hitting things, autogiros are much safer, inherently stable, can fly in inclement weather (compared to fixed wing aircraft) and are mechanically simple.

I like autogyros, they are great aircraft and there should be more of them, however even VSTOL is not VTOL, that ability to hover is the huge advantage. You can't longline loads if you can't hover, you can't rise out of a confined space if you can't hover. You basically lose all the advantages of a helicopter when you lose the hover. You can't drop into an intersection to pick up a crash victim and ascend vertically to get out again. They can't drop into a hot LZ and deliver troops if the ground is soft. Unless the designs have changed even short take off requires a small run of stable level ground to take off from, which is exactly what you lack most of the time you are using a helicopter. They have their place but if they were as useful as all the autogyro boosters would have you believe then they would be everywhere.

We also agree autogyros are great fun and great for STOL but as Ian1108 points out, not very practical in scenarios when you need to land on an exact point, or aviod cables/wires at a given area etc...

The 2 Stroke V 4 Stroke debate has been going for years and each has advantages over the other. We have selected the 2 Stroke engine for testing due to its initial low cost (a quarter of the Rotax 912S and service costs are also lower), it has a good service history and also because we save around 30kg once fully installed.

We are not selling our platform at $1,000,000 USD, the cost will hopefully be down to less than $250,000 USD which we know is still high but with the introduction of new nano-fibre materials, glass cockpit and unique ability, isnt that bad.

All we would like to say is that we will try all options during our testing phase. We cannot afford to build an unsafe platform and the law wont allow us to so please, just keep an eye out and we will try our hardest to turn our current testing and designs into reality.

Best regards

The Falx Air Team

In the defense of FalxAir, (because I'm glad they now acknowledge that the craft is a Tilt-Wing) there are many battery/capacitor technologies in existence which will work quite well (maybe even better than 5 min hover time):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A123Systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altairnano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eestor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Power

Also, the turbine/IC argument is moot, they really both have their pros and cons.

As far as the price goes, the closest things
the Westland Lynx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx,

and the BA609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA609
cost quite a bit more, so I doubt cost will be an issue.

For more information, check the "related article"

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-10/intelligent-design-unidentified-aircraft-det...

Love the concept, would love a kit version to build for personal use. Here is an idea, a remote control model can easily be used to solve some of the basic problems that might come up. However, using some of the technology from the Osprey, in use with the US military can solve most of the problems except the hardware design needed to tilt the whole wing and strong enough to handle vibration and stress created. A possible electrical generator drive source would be a rotory engine similar to Mazda's spinning a 5k - 10k generator would supply more than enough power for the electric prop drive motors, just an idea.

liked the Orig design in GITS 2, think you "Borrowed " heavily from this, i know the wings opened up a bit more & the scale is quite smaller.. but same concept.

http://www.rotaryaction.com/pages/ghostshell.html

Hello,

I was wonder, why don't they put jet engine instead of the tilt rotors, wouldn't it go faster?

The two stroke engine is the best choice for this lightweight/low cost aircraft. turbines are highly complex fuel hogs that would require an arm and leg to maintain. two strokes are light weight and get more power per pound than 4 strokes, and any idiot can work on them.

Now for you non electrical people, there is something called a variable frequency drive that eliminates the need for a gear boxes and can handle the power management.(you could 0 to 100% power and back to 0 in less than 5 seconds) its all solid state and is used to efficently handle power requiremnets and demands for most motor applications today. you can pick up one that will handle 100hp aka 75kw for about 3-4 grand, and weighs less than 40lbs. You dont need a large battery system for aux power in this plane design, a high effeciency capacator bank would seem to handle a short hover period.

this is an ingenious design that is easily achievable by pieceing together exsisting technologies. good luck!

Good points JaKeD. Since I doubt that this Tilt-Wing will be actually flying any time soon, maybe Falxair could benefit from EEStor's capacitors. Never the less, I believe FalxAir is better off working on hybrid power systems for conventional aircraft like R-22s. And then moving on to Tilt-Wing designs. Especially due to the efficiency and Autorotation ability of such aircraft.
There are also some good points on this Tilt-Wing's original article:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-10/intelligent-design-unidentified-aircraft-det...

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this concept work. But I've been following companies who promise these VTOL Personal Aerial Vehicles (PAV's) since the early 1980's when I was a kid, starting with Moller's SkyCar, and they all fall by the wayside after a while due to insurmountable technical difficulties. Over the years, having seen all these failures, I've become more pragmatic (maybe because of increasing age too) and I therefore like to focus on technologies that are known to work, in this area at least, since just getting these to market is more than most small companies can handle, let alone technology which is immature or has yet to be invented.

The other VTOL technology known to work is the vectored thrust used on the Bell X-14 of the 1950's. It requires a jet engine, however, which may not be practical for sport pilots.

Like I said, the least the author could do is to test his design in X-Plane (with PlaneMaker) and then build a small-scale prototype to prove that the concept *can* work.

We can all make beautifull CGI renderings these days, but getting it to work and to market is an different matter entirely .

As a pilot rated in helicopters and airplanes, I have concerns about this design. First, the thought of potentially not having enough power to land in the case of engine failure is a huge concern. As the pictures do not seem to show any items resembling wheels, I presume a run-on landing would be a potential option (although for helicopters this is usually done at rather low airspeed). However, this presumes enough altitude and airspeed to utilize as potential energy during the flare for landing. If the engine quits while trying to bring it into a hover from 50-100' AGL (a worst case scenario that needs to be considered), the idea from the Falx team of a BRS parachute seems absurd. That is fine for a catastrophic failure in cruise, but close to the ground at low airspeed it is useless.

As a pilot, I would want an aircraft that could either glide like an airplane to a suitable landing site (a problem due to the short wingspan -- my straight-wing Cherokee would look like a motorglider compared to that) or autorotate like a helicopter (potentially an issue if one does not have enough battery power, altitude, and time to bring the rotors vertical, plus the drag from that without rotor thrust would probably require deployment of the chute).

How about killing the hybrid idea until battery technology is mature enough and focusing on building a really good tilt-wing aircraft first? Preferably with dual engines/ dual alternators, if you insist on electric motors, as the two-stroke engine's reliability in the air is most likely going to be less than what we are used to for those of us flying with Lycomings.

To put two relatively untested powerplant technologies (given the comments about a "certified" 2-stroke 104 HP engine and the lack of commercially-viable electric aircraft) into an untested airframe is a sure way for Falx to gamble loads of money. It is a great idea, and if Falx hits the right numbers the payout could be incredible, but the odds are stacked against such a project. Just look at the VLJ manufacturers going belly up trying to take a certified turbine engine and make a new airframe around it. Jets have been in existence for how many decades? You have too many variables that are unknowns right now.

I also see alot of fatalities with this aircraft due to battery wear. The charge that a battery holds is dependent on the temperature and number of charge cycles. That 5 minutes of battery hovering power may decrease after a few years and I can see it now, some pilot thinks he has enough juice left to make a landing and suddenly his engines die because the battery is dead and he falls out of the sky like a brick. Even with a computer monitoring the battery it is going to be extremly difficult to predict the capacity over the lifetime of the battery.

I can guarantee you that the FAA is going to ask some difficult questions regarding this topic and may well render liablillity insurance for this vehicle impossible.

Gentlemen,

As mentioned in our other posts, these are CONCEPT images and the final version will have many modifications as aerodynamic properties and structural changes are made to accomadate new technologies.

The law will not allow us to produce an unsafe aircraft so all the issues and concerns the FFA/CAA/EASA will raise will be addressed.

Falx Air Team

By coincidence I found another small VTOL aircraft company like FALX (http://www.verticopter.com/index.php) whilst looking at the X-Plane simulator website.

They have made a model of their aircraft in X-Plane, which gives it a lot more credibility that it will fly and work. Although they will need to make several R/C models and a prototype to show it *really* works. It also has autorotation capabilities and two engines and can land like a regular, fixed wing aircraft.

Dear Dynatos,

The flight control system has been tested at a smaller rc scale and also on a fully fuctional 2metre x 1metre platform in Canada by our business partners.

Im sorry we dont have a flashy website and hours to burn on X-plane we we prefer to get the job done. I will speak to our team and if they agree i will publish some of the videos we have on our website, maybe that will calm your fears about our approach.

regards

Hi Falxair,

I would welcome it if your design works out. The more competition in this arena the better. I and others are just voicing our concerns, which may or may not be founded, but are based on what is known so far.

Over the years I've been disappointed too many times not to be skeptical.

Regards

In defense of Falxair Dynatos, I have done research on the Verticopter and find its design principles to be even more ridiculous. I firmly believe that the design "team" is bogus and had little to no idea of the dynamics involved with what they're doing. I won't even spend any time discussing the flaws but it will definitely never be a practical flying machine, even if the full version works.

I have a direct question for Falxair though. I noticed in your website that you offer a design that features two separate tilting wings. Why the mono Tilt-Wing design that we see in Popsci (obviously ridiculous)? I know you mentioned that the actual design differs substantially, this must be one of the features. Also have you ever considered developing Hybrid technology for conventional aircraft designs first, and then moving on to VTOL technology with your findings/profits?

Dear XTO,

Our goal has always been a VTOL platform, its taken so long to research the design and sub systems to enable it to actually work that to stop now would be a loss we cannot afford.

Many new companies are looking at the hybrid system and they concentrate on it as the major product and we realise we do not have the time, staff or facilities to attempt a better job, we have other goals to achieve.

Regards Falx Air

Right, I see what you are saying, that is a bold mission and good luck. Thank you for responding so quickly. Have you considered a quad Tilt-Wing design? I know Bell and Boeing are designing one now because it offers enhanced stability, redundancy, efficiency, and does not require cyclic pitch control (making the controls simpler, lighter and more reliable). Combine that with the reliability of electric motors and you have a much safer aircraft.

I must say that with regards to battery technology, batteries such as Altairnano's Nanosafe batteries or A123 Systems Inc's LiFe batteries would be infinitely safer, longer lasting, and more reliable than any other I have ever seen (with little to no extra cost). Also, maybe those of Compact Power (I have done quite some research on the subject for investment purposes).

I know I am very critical but I have one more important point/request;
I really think that being able to provide enough constant power to maintain a Hover-Out-Of-Ground-Effect is a critical design aspect of this project that should be built in at any reasonable cost. The thought of having 5 min of hover time might sound practical to a non rotary wing pilot, but it goes by faster than you think.

Dear XTO,

Energy storage is key but it isnt just the effect on hover endurance that is the only issue, its size and weight as well. Technology is not quite at the point that allows for any longer, safe endurance in the hover unless you go down the fuel hungry, expensive,complex drive train/turbine route.

The platform is not designed for long hover endurance and it would increase its footprint by some margin to house the energy storage. At this stage,with todays tech, its the best we can do, unless of course we have an extra $50 million to produce it, and we havent.

Kind regards

Falx Air

Right, maybe a rotary (Wankel) engine like that of an RX-7 or RX-8 would be a future option once the initial prototypes prove themselves (they're not the most reliable, but in a hybrid, that is not as much of a safety issue). To my understanding (I'm not an expert on rotary engines), an off the shelf turbo-charged rotary engine operating at optimum rpm will provide hundreds of horsepower for the same weight.
I know that the Mazda RX-8 engine core weighs 180, the whole engine weighs 325 with all the support equipment and produces slightly over 200hp stock. You could probably use a smaller rotary engine that only weighs about half as much, and turbo-charge it to get about 150 hp. I would imagine that such an engine would get much better fuel economy and weigh less than a 90hp 2 stroke (granted it would require a bit more maintenance, but I'm sure there are buyers willing to pay a bit for such an invaluable performance increase).

I was curious as to when this would be released for consumers. I understand that it will most likely be used for either military or medical use first, but to be able to use it would make me a very happy person.

XTO could you elaborate on your 'research' into the Verticopter? If it flies than it's a workable concept as far as I'm concerned. Are you saying that X-Plane doesn't properly simulate the flying characteristics of the aircraft?

XTO... It is dissappointing to see that a comment section on such an impressive endevour has turned into an opportunity to slander a potential competitors design.

I will only acknowledge your statements about the Verticopter™ to state that you are way off base and not accurate. Your research is inaccurate. Their is a highly qualified design team working the Verticopter™ and we have an average of 24+ years in FBW stability and control to add to many other skill sets.

I congratulate FALXAIR on an impressive design and would not begrudge any efforts in this arena.

Good luck to FALXAIR.

President
Betters Engineering Group, LLC

Is it possible to make some areas inside of the craft double as both structure AND capacitor - (for the extra power temporarily needed during takeoff and landing) ?

=structural capacitors in the shape of fairings, struts, etc?

There is an home built electric hummer out there that uses a gas turbine to juice up its batteries whenever it needs to.
It keeps less batteries on board since the turbine can regen them quickly which is similar to what you need.

So why not use a jet turbine to power the generators since they can provide more power with more surge for a given weight (not to mention ancillary benefits like higher ceiling and some thrust augmentation from directed exhaust).

Hi GeoPilot,

I agree with what your saying and the advantages but the fuel consumption is very high, cost of purchase is high, support and service costs are higher, emissions are higher and the noise levels are high.

Regards

Falx Air

What an amazing idea to have an aircraft that is a mix between a plane and a helicopter. On top of that it is a powered by a hybrid system making it lighter and faster and saving more gas. My only thought of criticism is, if this aircraft is made for rescue missions, as it is implied in the beginning of the article, what will it do about its limited weight capacity. What will it do when there is more than just one person injured, say that person needs constant medical care during transportation, or is too heavy to weigh under the maximum weight limit.

I am a rotorcraft pilot myself and am very interested in tiltrotor technology. I think this particular concept is great. However, I am worried about it's limited application. I can tell you that a rotorcraft is greatly affected by altitude and especially density altitude. I typically fly at altitudes between 5,000, and 6,000 feet MSL. This usually isn't a problem. However there are days when density altitude is very high and the power it takes to hover is not available, especially at higher altitudes. This concept has less power than an R-22 beta II. That makes me a bit of a skeptic. I know its just a concept, but I hope to see similar aircraft like this but with greater capability and power. A greater hover power and capability would be nice to have. Full hover power would not have to be used as much, saving on efficiency of course. I personally think tiltrotor technology has may applications and will improve VTOL aircraft efficiency and applicability in the future. I even hope to see a large market for tiltrotor open up and help to relieve congestion at airports and open more opportunities to rotorcraft pilots like myself, and even fixed-wing pilots struggling to find work that would be willing to take on some additional S/VTOL training.

For the looks of this personal flying machine_A+. But then again, you have to think of how many airplanes and private jets there are. If we could reuse some of the older materials from retired planes, we could conserve more natural resources. Thats my thought.

after flying electric rc planes with brush less motors and controllers this seem likely as the technology advances.