NASA's Puffin Is a Stealthy, Personal Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

So there is a tracking system being designed that can help control traffic prevent collisions and such as well I hope. With that said I want one!

I'd suggest an emergency parachute which comes standard with each puffin aircraft. Just in case. I could just imagine doing tons of barrel rolls with one of these things. How Cool!
I hope that someone also creates a publicly usable Heads-Up-Display as well. That would be a welcoming change. As a new pilot, I'm constantly amazed how much multi-tasking is involved in flying. Which is great for beginners (like me) but it would awesome to have a (HUD) displays that are more intuitive and easier to use.

Keep up the good work guys!

Fox

A good personal way to get to work and back, flyover traffic in a matter of minutes. Looking at its designs it appears to also allow for a simpler landing device that doesn't have to depend on a complex heavy landing gear assembly...

In an event of a blade-off....there is the possibility of the blade going through the fuselage, and the pilot....In typical propeller aircraft, you will notice that the placement of the props is not anywhere a pilot is sitting--for safety. Knowing that the aircraft has to be light, the fuselage wall thickness would have to be pretty thin.

Also in response to this statement in the article: "...Since the craft is electrically propelled it doesn't need air intake, so thinning air is not a limitation, meaning it can reach -- again, in theory -- 30,000 feet before limitations on battery power force it to descend...". yes it is possible, but you will be spinning the props faster, draining the battery quicker and that's just to stay at a constant cruise speed. But by the looks of it those wings don't look to big, so in order to stay aloft even if you do have the power, it would require a wider wing span..think about the U-2. But hey, going up to 30k feet and down might seem fun I suppose, I just don't see the capability, it takes an huge amount of power to get up to that altitude, as well as time, it would in no doubt run out of juice before reaching that altitude. Oh also, Good luck with the FAA.

It looks really cool, but I would be worried that the consumer would be uncomfortable lying down like that.

Why not have a wired grid for them to fly on, dropping
a wired pickup when riding the grid... When on the
grid a computer controlled mode could ensure safety and
efficient traffic flow.

Perhaps a beamed energy of grid of microwave/laser would be better.

not to be mean or anything but burn2burn i think you should give NASA more creadit seeing that you did not make youre own personal aircraft such as this i think you should have a little more respect for NASA but, what you said are good thoughts and i was just making an assumtion on the aircraftr thing. i hope that they do come out wit this and put it on the market soon though. i also hope that the military uses it spy behind enemy lines and sorry for any misspelings or grammical mistakes. if i was mean and hurt youre filings burn2burn it was not my intent

looks cool; but stupid politics/laws won't let you even take off. EPA, TSA, DHS, FAA, FCC (yes, electronics = radio interference) laws will contradict each other and prevent you from doing any flying. FWI (flying while intoxicated), FUI (flying under the influence), you know some idiot will try. Flying/cell-phones/texting? No-fly zones?

But cool, maybe we'll get to see all those cartoons about personal flight from elementary books come true; and maybe there's hope for my dreams (flying over trees) to come true, too.

Take care, keep up the good work engineers.

Tygrys you'll have to get a license and flow the rules but this is no reason it wont work. Vtol craft like helicopters can legally fly around in cities and land land in your front yard. You could commute to work in one of these and charge it up, as the crow fly's could make an 80 mile drive into 50 and count in traffic could save some people an hour and a half each way. Plug it in at work and fly home at night.

Wonder what the bootlegged Chinese version will cost.

At last! Someone (and this is NASA!) is doing what we all really need for transportation. I just want to share few thoughts about this design. 1. Around 80% of all aircraft crashed are due to pilot mistake. So, make it without pilot. This can be done, we've seen unmanned aircrafts for years.
2. Parachutes do not work at low altitude, when, again, most crashes occur. There should be some sort of emergency landing plan. At least, a landing capability when one engine is off at low altitude.
3. As rlb2 mentioned, the landing device looks overcomplicated and unreliable. Make it simple.
4. Tilt-rotor aircrafts consume much more energy during few seconds of take-off and landing. Consider using ultracapacitors to power the motors at high load.
5. Also, the motors should be able to provide extra power during few seconds of take-off/landing and be most efficient at low-power cruise speed.

Am I the only one who sees the fact that the driver is looking straight down as a serious issue? I just don't see how from that position a person can look ahead without straining his/her neck as if in the front row of a movie.

I do appreciate NASA's attempts to venture into areas like electric powered personal flight, but I feel like they should focus their time and resources (which seem to be strained more every administration) on subjects more relevant to problems we face now and in the upcoming future. It seems, to me at least, that NASA is so hungry for that concept-shattering breakthrough, that they loose sight of whats important now.

@i9998217

I know personally that parachutes work at low altitude. I was a paratrooper in the military and we regularly jumped at 800ft. and 500ft. We also dropped supplies from these altitudes. To give everyone an idea of how low this height is the Empire state building is 1453 ft which is 3 times the height we jumped at. Im certain that a spring mechanism used to help propel a parachute will help for even lower altitudes. There probably is a point to which a parachute will be completely ineffective. Makes me wonder if this design has the capability to auto rotate like a helicopter to help with crash landing situation. Or what safety features are available

@m888mm

I suppose this has been accounted for with the video monitoring that appears to be present, Its all design anyways. I would hate to have to strain my neck to try and look forward as well.

Did anyone happen to look at some of the other designs, NASA has some pretty interesting stuff going on over there hopefully we see something fruitful come from this.

1) The standard limitations on mass-personal-flight occur - pilot error, no safty for engine faliure, no infrastructure (for take-off, parking, overhead power lines, etc).

Strangely enough, vehicle to vehicle collision would likely be one of the least likely ways to die in this thing.

2) Cost. How will this beat out just owning your own helicopter? What you gain in speed, you loos out in luggage / passanger space.

I'm sure the guy who lives on his own personal island in the carribean will love this to jet over to the market and back, but otherwise, it lacks utility of purpose.

@sqush-u-like-bug - I'm an aerospace engineer and I work for a commercial aerospace company. The things I've mentioned is just a small list of issues. I just think it's so funny how people are dreaming about personal flying devices when there is no economic justification, as well as the battery technology not being ready for such thing. Keep in mind, most things NASA comes up with, ends on the drawing board. Yes this thing could possibly fly...but so can a rock...just have to throw it hard enough.

@sqush-u-like-bug - I'm an aerospace engineer and I work for a commercial aerospace company. The things I've mentioned is just a small list of issues. I just think it's so funny how people are dreaming about personal flying devices when there is no economic justification, as well as the battery technology not being ready for such thing. Keep in mind, most things NASA comes up with, ends on the drawing board. Yes this thing could possibly fly...but so can a rock...just have to throw it hard enough.

1) if it works similarly to the V-22, let's just hope it doesn't inherit the same history during test flights.

2) "let's not forget exactly who put men on the moon". those guys are mostly retired by now and their kids are the ones back-biting and fighting over the Ares-1.

Puffin will never happen.

Yay! More stupid public relations BS from NASA. An interesting but flawed concept, and why is tax money being used to do it?

The range on those tiny batteries (batteries are heavy, dude) would be very short. The "laying down pilot" thing has been tried before and abandoned. It's uncomfortable and difficult to see above you so it's dangerous as well. And good luck gliding with the short wings if the engines fail or your run out of juice. The first thing at the scene of an accident would be your face.

So what we got here is a maybe a toy for rich people or more likely something someone did on the government dime that will never see the light of day because it requires lightweight super powerful batteries that won't be developed for 20 years, if ever.

Why do we always become obsessed with far-fetched transportation around the turn of a century?

I can think of so many ways a user can kill him/herself with such a cool machine. Lots of money and not too much experience. Rotor wing is soooo different than fixed and this thing is different than rotor wing.

What happens when a motor on one side fails. ByeBye...

Seriously, just by the looks of it, the yaw moment that would be created in the event of one engine going out, would not only make it quite frankly impossible to fly...but landing..vertically? at least the osprey could glide down...

@justin_w222002
I agree, parashutes work well for 500ft. But not for 50ft, statiscally the most dangerous altitude.
@car04fsu
This device is the most important thing for us. It would solving all the transportation problems: traffic, lack of road, emission, even safety.
@Oakspar77777
Helicopters are slow, comsume lots of egergy per distance travelled, and they are not... electric
@burn2burn
A small fixed wing aircraft consume about the same amount of fuel per mile as a car. So, cost per mile should be similar. And we are going to drive electric cars next year, so the batteries are ready to powerup such vehicles. Also, osprey's ability to glide didn't help at all in all the crashes
@locutus
any electric aircraft is much safer that a powered by fuel aircaft because there's no fuel for fire.

@i9998217

A small airplane will never consume the same amount power as an electric car. An airplane uses most of it's fuel during liftoff, and that's using a runway. This thing is supposed to fly straight up, why do you think a rocket has to carry so much fuel, its for the kinetic energy that is required to lift and accelerate mass. Since an electric car doesn't take off, I don't see any resemblance in energy consumption. During cruising conditions, the plane would probably require less energy than a car, since it would only be countering air drag (as long as the frontal wetted area of the airplane is less than the electric car) but the car has to not only fight air drag, but also wheel friction which increase drastically as you add more mass to the car, such as batteries. Same thing for the electric plane, more energy requires more battery power, but all of that adds so much weight, by the end of the trip you will be hauling dead weight and no fuel...where as non electric planes burn fuel up making the plane lighter, in essence increasing efficiency as it goes. Also another thought...whats up with electric cars and planes? how are you planning on saving the world doing that? a large percentage of your electricity comes from burning coal, which produces more pollution than anything else.

@i9998217

A Cessna 152 (2 person airplane) burns about 5-6 gallons per hour and will travel about 80 miles (not accounting for a headwind). It takes me about 2 gallons to dive 60 miles in my car in one hour. So I'd say a car on a straight & level road is less efficient than a small airplane on a windless day.

I also disagree with it "solving all traffic problems". It's unlikely to ever be able to compete with land-based vehicles in cost, and the majority of commuters would not go to the extra expense & cost to get pilot's licenses, so we'd still have plenty of roads & traffic.

As for the pilot position, I don't think it'd be so bad, kind of like riding a sport bike. The biggest problems that I see are:

1. The difficulty in seeing above and behind you during flight.

2. Landing in windy conditions.

3. Parking (this doesn't look like it can taxi, and it would kick up a lot of dust & gravel).

For commuters, I recommend powered paragliders! No pilot's license needed for 1-person paragliders, easy to fly, pretty safe, low fuel requirements, and cheaper than a car.

Its a start but what I have wanted to see for some time now is a VTOL, Hydrogen/Electric, augmenting ducted fan aircraft. Keep up the good work NASA and a good concept but I dont think the whole super man lay down while in flight is going to be very popular. I see neck straigns comming from a flight longer than an hour or so. Stick to seated aircraft for the time being. Plus its looks kind of cramped in thier...Why does Americans drive suv's? We love our own comfortable space. We dont need as much as an suv by any means but its nice to have a little room. Comfort is a good thing to have just to simply keep the pilots mind clear and focused on the already demanding cabin work load. In conclusion, your heading in the right direction, but lets keep in mind every thing we have learned about transportaion as a whole thus far.

Oh great. People can't drive now - can you imagine drunks in this thing? Or teenagers and seniors? And they take 3x the space of an automobile to store...

Battery, battery, battery.

OK, isn't the perfect tool for commuters, but it can be a good transportation mean for emergency situations. Let's say, there was an accident on the highway and a cardiologist or a policeman is badly needed.

It's hard to guess where this project will go, no pun intended. I can see lots of pros and cons.

It's unlikely it will ever be allowed unless with auto-navigation on preset north-south and east-west air corridors.

Battery energy density (capacity) has already doubled just in the last few years, and with the air batteries being developed at IBM, St. Andrews in British Columbia, and The University of Arizona, battery capacity may soon be as much as 10 times better; the air battery technology can be combined with others that may result in electric motors that provide more range than the best ICE- powered vehicles. Electric motors and batteries are far simpler, and more reliable, powerful and safer than engines; so as soon as the battery energy density can be improved sufficiently, there will be little need for engines except for those Neanderthals that are addicted to smoke, noise, complexity and nostalgia.

Carbon nanotubes and other ultra-light materials are likely to help give Puffin-like vehicles very usable range, but the body position appears very cramped and uncomfortable, allowing very little movement, making such travel very undesirable for most people for more than a few minutes. If the design could allow for repositioning in a recumbent mode shortly after takeoff, I can see it being far more likely to succeed. For anyone that has spent two hours with their arm in the same position during a blood apheresis donation at Red Cross, there is no doubt that the lack of body mobility would be a major issue.

The most likely market for the Puffin is to the same adrenalin junkies that do base-jumping, bungee-cord jumping, hang gliding, etc. For them, there is no pain not worth the exhilaration.

I don't expect the Puffin to succeed as it is; as others have noted, multiple props should be used for added stability and safety; the more redundancy, the more likely to survive failure of a component, but ironically all that redundancy increases the failure rate, meaning that you trade reliability for survivability.

For anyone that wants a Puffin, go for it! But I'd prefer a Tesla Roadster or similar EV for my thrills.

About 70% of comments are negative. Come on, find some positives in this article and see the future of flight, not our current state of flight.

Safety: ballistic parachutes (BP)are very effective for small aircraft, a friend lost a strut and his lower wing folded at low altitude. His BP saved his life and his plane.

GPS and fly by wire controls can safely simplify air traffic within virtual lanes, while aircraft controls can include auto flight/landing like UAVs do now. Pilots lying on tummy can be modified from that shown and even changed in flight to suit attitude for landing or straight and level flight.

Battery powered flight is advancing very well, powered gliders already can launch without tow planes or catapault. Battery weights are dropping and storage density increasing. Electric motors are getting much smaller and lighter. Recharging can be done with green electricity,and batteries are becoming greener/zinc/air for instance. Next gen lithium ion with newer nano polymers are coming now, lighter, more power and cooler/safer temps.

Launch or takeoff could be assisted, instead of old JATO; now we could use plugged in runup power and unplug at, or even after takeoff; or visualize a soft catapault assist, or air launch from a balloon on a teather/winch. We used drop tanks, why not use soft drop batteries after takeoff?

Single electric motor failure could be less dangerous than with internal combustion motors; with redundant electrical wiring; or with newer differentials it could recover on single motor. That technology exists now. Brushless electric motors are simple and more reliable than gas burner motors. But when all motors fail; blow the BP and walk away from the downed craft to fly another day.

Wing area shown looks a bit meager? Puffins after feeding on fish have wings too small to fly; but they beat the air into submission and barely lift off the water and fly faster than bat out of heck.

The air force already tried a vertical take off plane.
It failed because it was hard to land. I doubt that they have solved that problem unless the landing protocols are
better. the history channel just had an episode on this.
the pilot could not see where they were landing.

Guys study history so you don't repeat the past!

I could see a small version of the Osprey helicopter plane. maybe
a 2 seater with tilt rotor mech. That solves the visiblity
and landing problems

www.trsohbet.in <<<<<<<<< Chat website.

For commuters, I recommend powered paragliders! No pilot's license needed for 1-person paragliders, easy to fly, pretty safe, low fuel requirements, and cheaper than a car.

They did not waste the money to build that its just a idea of what they can do, But they are not far off because I been watching the advancement of these cars on different sites but if you want to see a few check you tube: this is a bigger ugly one that has came out (actually flying in video) with a safety string attached: Moller SkyCar - Flying car
or a newer one that is being remade to fit in your garage as a car and plane, can drive or fly, on youtube: Terrafugia Flying Car Update, AirVenture Oskhosh 2008
That one is already on sale to you but you have to get on a 2 year waiting list to pick it up and new laws are being made to make it legal to land in your driveway instead of a airport.
as of now it will go like this youtube: Terrafugia Transition(R) Landing Animation

Just when you think its safe to go fly a kite.....

OK kids, listen up cause I'm only gonna say this once.

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DUM...period

(even dumber: an idea of having a flying vehicle with a miles long electrical lead making, at best, sporadic contact with an overhead(from the point-of-view of Joe Pedestrian) power grid)

Um... well I think that this idea is rather pointless in a time where NASA should be focusing on bigger projects than single seated aircraft... however if nyone has insight on wether using 4 vtol engines and 4 rolls royce engines on a blended wing body would be a good way to reduce fuel on take off for 200 passenger plane I could really use the insight...

http://www.tamders.com/ | http://www.mekanize.net/ | http://www.durust.net/ | http://www.aindir.com/ For commuters, I recommend powered paragliders! No pilot's license needed for 1-person paragliders, easy to fly, pretty safe, low fuel requirements, and cheaper than a car.

If you want to say goodbye once and for all the myths about http://greenline-rm.com
, Remember the old Russian proverb: ". Better to see once than hear a hundred times" Installation of plastic windows in the apartment, you will see how many myths created around them!

Here is a VTOL personal aircraft that is easy to fly and affordable:

www.kickstarter.com/e/uclvo/projects/1894175451/skyfly-vertical-takeoff-and-landing-ultralight-air