Israeli startup Eviation is making a nine-passenger all-electric regional passenger aircraft by 2021. It will take 9 passengers up to 650 miles at a cruise speed of 240 knots.
Alice uses distributed propulsion with one main pusher propeller at the tail and two pusher propellers at the wingtips to reduce drag, create redundancy, and improve efficiency.
Alice will cost at least four times less per passenger-mile and it can also operate as a drone to transport cargo or to reposition the plane for its next scheduled flight.
Eviation Aircraft, is using Stratasys 3D printing to accelerate its R&D process for everything from prototyping to tooling and evaluation of production parts.
Orca is their electric drone
Eviation’s Orca UAS is a smart, autonomous aerial vehicle that offers the ultimate platform for a low operating-cost solution.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
The inherent problem with this tech isn’t if it works it’s what happens when it gets into the wrong hands ergo smart terror is perhaps going to be a risk with these they already have certain guns that bring down drones near the border even as far as controlling the descent and what happens when they are loaded up with who knows what ready to blow and flown as a drone into whatever they wish now it’s a nearly 4 ton bang unstoppable. I don’t think the smart drone style repositioning is a good idea they should be piloted at all costs.
The inherent problem with this tech isn’t if it works it’s what happens when it gets into the wrong hands ergo smart terror is perhaps going to be a risk with these they already have certain guns that bring down drones near the border even as far as controlling the descent and what happens when they are loaded up with who knows what ready to blow and flown as a drone into whatever they wish now it’s a nearly 4 ton bang unstoppable. I don’t think the smart drone style repositioning is a good idea they should be piloted at all costs.
Unlike a fossil fuel plane, you don’t need to keep the engines running. On the ground, the wingtip ones would only spin on the takeoff roll, presumably after weather conditions were judged ok. For landing and taxiing, they’d be fixed in the horizontal position. ( I did break a blade on a powered hang-glider one time – I wasn’t flying it, I was just the nose man. Thought the pilot was getting ready to go, lifted the nose wires a fraction, and nek minnit the flight was over. Chris took it very philosophically, I thought. ) Come to think of it, the tail prop would need attention, too. Tall landing gear and shallow angle of attack.
Unlike a fossil fuel plane you don’t need to keep the engines running. On the ground the wingtip ones would only spin on the takeoff roll presumably after weather conditions were judged ok. For landing and taxiing they’d be fixed in the horizontal position. ( I did break a blade on a powered hang-glider one time – I wasn’t flying it I was just the nose man. Thought the pilot was getting ready to go lifted the nose wires a fraction and nek minnit the flight was over. Chris took it very philosophically I thought. )Come to think of it the tail prop would need attention too. Tall landing gear and shallow angle of attack.
Unlike a fossil fuel plane, you don’t need to keep the engines running. On the ground, the wingtip ones would only spin on the takeoff roll, presumably after weather conditions were judged ok. For landing and taxiing, they’d be fixed in the horizontal position. ( I did break a blade on a powered hang-glider one time – I wasn’t flying it, I was just the nose man. Thought the pilot was getting ready to go, lifted the nose wires a fraction, and nek minnit the flight was over. Chris took it very philosophically, I thought. ) Come to think of it, the tail prop would need attention, too. Tall landing gear and shallow angle of attack.
Unlike a fossil fuel plane you don’t need to keep the engines running. On the ground the wingtip ones would only spin on the takeoff roll presumably after weather conditions were judged ok. For landing and taxiing they’d be fixed in the horizontal position. ( I did break a blade on a powered hang-glider one time – I wasn’t flying it I was just the nose man. Thought the pilot was getting ready to go lifted the nose wires a fraction and nek minnit the flight was over. Chris took it very philosophically I thought. )Come to think of it the tail prop would need attention too. Tall landing gear and shallow angle of attack.
Unlike a fossil fuel plane, you don’t need to keep the engines running. On the ground, the wingtip ones would only spin on the takeoff roll, presumably after weather conditions were judged ok. For landing and taxiing, they’d be fixed in the horizontal position. ( I did break a blade on a powered hang-glider one time – I wasn’t flying it, I was just the nose man. Thought the pilot was getting ready to go, lifted the nose wires a fraction, and nek minnit the flight was over. Chris took it very philosophically, I thought. )
Come to think of it, the tail prop would need attention, too. Tall landing gear and shallow angle of attack.
Probably not fuel cost. Because ICE-s are still a lot less efficient. (It might also be problematic to place the turboprop in the tail. Plus with turbine engines more than one is mandatory, for passenger airplanes.)
Probably not fuel cost. Because ICE-s are still a lot less efficient.(It might also be problematic to place the turboprop in the tail. Plus with turbine engines more than one is mandatory for passenger airplanes.)
The research papers by Joby Aviation pointed out this triple layout with wingtip vortex cancellation via propeller counterrotation as a key configuration, if you are not going fully distributed propulsion along the wing.
The research papers by Joby Aviation pointed out this triple layout with wingtip vortex cancellation via propeller counterrotation as a key configuration if you are not going fully distributed propulsion along the wing.
The inherent problem with this tech isn’t if it works it’s what happens when it gets into the wrong hands ergo smart terror is perhaps going to be a risk with these they already have certain guns that bring down drones near the border even as far as controlling the descent and what happens when they are loaded up with who knows what ready to blow and flown as a drone into whatever they wish now it’s a nearly 4 ton bang unstoppable. I don’t think the smart drone style repositioning is a good idea they should be piloted at all costs.
The inherent problem with this tech isn’t if it works it’s what happens when it gets into the wrong hands ergo smart terror is perhaps going to be a risk with these they already have certain guns that bring down drones near the border even as far as controlling the descent and what happens when they are loaded up with who knows what ready to blow and flown as a drone into whatever they wish now it’s a nearly 4 ton bang unstoppable. I don’t think the smart drone style repositioning is a good idea they should be piloted at all costs.
The inherent problem with this tech isn’t if it works it’s what happens when it gets into the wrong hands ergo smart terror is perhaps going to be a risk with these they already have certain guns that bring down drones near the border even as far as controlling the descent and what happens when they are loaded up with who knows what ready to blow and flown as a drone into whatever they wish now it’s a nearly 4 ton bang unstoppable. I don’t think the smart drone style repositioning is a good idea they should be piloted at all costs.
Probably not fuel cost. Because ICE-s are still a lot less efficient. (It might also be problematic to place the turboprop in the tail. Plus with turbine engines more than one is mandatory, for passenger airplanes.)
Probably not fuel cost. Because ICE-s are still a lot less efficient.(It might also be problematic to place the turboprop in the tail. Plus with turbine engines more than one is mandatory for passenger airplanes.)
The research papers by Joby Aviation pointed out this triple layout with wingtip vortex cancellation via propeller counterrotation as a key configuration, if you are not going fully distributed propulsion along the wing.
The research papers by Joby Aviation pointed out this triple layout with wingtip vortex cancellation via propeller counterrotation as a key configuration if you are not going fully distributed propulsion along the wing.
Probably not fuel cost. Because ICE-s are still a lot less efficient.
(It might also be problematic to place the turboprop in the tail. Plus with turbine engines more than one is mandatory, for passenger airplanes.)
The research papers by Joby Aviation pointed out this triple layout with wingtip vortex cancellation via propeller counterrotation as a key configuration, if you are not going fully distributed propulsion along the wing.
Yes, you are right. Maybe eVTOL is a better option than e-props?
Yes you are right. Maybe eVTOL is a better option than e-props?
Yes, you are right. Maybe eVTOL is a better option than e-props?
Yes you are right. Maybe eVTOL is a better option than e-props?
I don’t see it as a drone for any assault purposes based off the speed and configuration a MQ-9 is way better (yes slower by a little but same cargo/weapons capacity, better range and due to wing shape, a much higher loiter time). Its only military application would be for quick (quicker than a helio) short range transport, especially since it can operate as a drone, it would be good for secondary medivac, after a helicopter rescue. It still needs a landing strip.
I don’t see it as a drone for any assault purposes based off the speed and configuration a MQ-9 is way better (yes slower by a little but same cargo/weapons capacity better range and due to wing shape a much higher loiter time). Its only military application would be for quick (quicker than a helio) short range transport especially since it can operate as a drone it would be good for secondary medivac after a helicopter rescue. It still needs a landing strip.
I don’t see it as a drone for any assault purposes based off the speed and configuration a MQ-9 is way better (yes slower by a little but same cargo/weapons capacity, better range and due to wing shape, a much higher loiter time). Its only military application would be for quick (quicker than a helio) short range transport, especially since it can operate as a drone, it would be good for secondary medivac, after a helicopter rescue. It still needs a landing strip.
I don’t see it as a drone for any assault purposes based off the speed and configuration a MQ-9 is way better (yes slower by a little but same cargo/weapons capacity better range and due to wing shape a much higher loiter time). Its only military application would be for quick (quicker than a helio) short range transport especially since it can operate as a drone it would be good for secondary medivac after a helicopter rescue. It still needs a landing strip.
Yes, you are right. Maybe eVTOL is a better option than e-props?
I think it’s a military drone disguised as a civilian program. The CEO and financial backers are all IDF. The MTOW is 6mt, 3mt is the battery itself. Its much heavier, carries much less payload, and 1/3rd less range than, say, the Pilatus 12C. Which of course is the trade-off difference in energy density performance between kerosene and electricity. This then questions the company’s passenger per mile operating costs. However, it appears a viable platform for pilotless air force work. Low heat signature, and quieter.
I think it’s a military drone disguised as a civilian program. The CEO and financial backers are all IDF. The MTOW is 6mt 3mt is the battery itself. Its much heavier carries much less payload and 1/3rd less range than say the Pilatus 12C. Which of course is the trade-off difference in energy density performance between kerosene and electricity. This then questions the company’s passenger per mile operating costs. However it appears a viable platform for pilotless air force work. Low heat signature and quieter.
I don’t see it as a drone for any assault purposes based off the speed and configuration a MQ-9 is way better (yes slower by a little but same cargo/weapons capacity, better range and due to wing shape, a much higher loiter time). Its only military application would be for quick (quicker than a helio) short range transport, especially since it can operate as a drone, it would be good for secondary medivac, after a helicopter rescue. It still needs a landing strip.
I considered that. But there are just so many issues. They could still hit the runway very easily. Often small planes get a little damage on their wing tips from that. With the blades sticking way down, it makes that very likely. And if they use carbon fiber the pieces could go flying anywhere. It also means you have to give this thing a very wide birth, similar to a much larger aircraft. That just makes everything awkward on the ground. And when people walk around these things they would naturally go close to the wing tips. Even on the ground and off it presents hazards. The blades are probably sharp and can damage hangers and other aircraft just moving these around.
I considered that. But there are just so many issues. They could still hit the runway very easily. Often small planes get a little damage on their wing tips from that. With the blades sticking way down it makes that very likely. And if they use carbon fiber the pieces could go flying anywhere. It also means you have to give this thing a very wide birth similar to a much larger aircraft. That just makes everything awkward on the ground. And when people walk around these things they would naturally go close to the wing tips. Even on the ground and off it presents hazards. The blades are probably sharp and can damage hangers and other aircraft just moving these around.
I think it’s a military drone disguised as a civilian program. The CEO and financial backers are all IDF. The MTOW is 6mt, 3mt is the battery itself. Its much heavier, carries much less payload, and 1/3rd less range than, say, the Pilatus 12C. Which of course is the trade-off difference in energy density performance between kerosene and electricity. This then questions the company’s passenger per mile operating costs.
However, it appears a viable platform for pilotless air force work. Low heat signature, and quieter.
I’d put a red LED light on the tip of the of wingtips prop to solve your safety issue.
I’d put a red LED light on the tip of the of wingtips prop to solve your safety issue.
The design looks promising. Though, they may wipe-out some propellers sticking them on the ends of the wing. I would suggest bending the wing up a foot or two near the end, or just have the wing split near the end with one part going up and the other right where it is. And it is not just that wind shear or something may cause the wing to dip during landing; I think people are not used to blades on the ends of the wings, and that could cause injuries or deaths at airports, especially at night.
The design looks promising. Though they may wipe-out some propellers sticking them on the ends of the wing. I would suggest bending the wing up a foot or two near the end or just have the wing split near the end with one part going up and the other right where it is.And it is not just that wind shear or something may cause the wing to dip during landing; I think people are not used to blades on the ends of the wings and that could cause injuries or deaths at airports especially at night.
I considered that. But there are just so many issues. They could still hit the runway very easily. Often small planes get a little damage on their wing tips from that. With the blades sticking way down, it makes that very likely. And if they use carbon fiber the pieces could go flying anywhere. It also means you have to give this thing a very wide birth, similar to a much larger aircraft. That just makes everything awkward on the ground. And when people walk around these things they would naturally go close to the wing tips. Even on the ground and off it presents hazards. The blades are probably sharp and can damage hangers and other aircraft just moving these around.
I’d put a red LED light on the tip of the of wingtips prop to solve your safety issue.
The design looks promising. Though, they may wipe-out some propellers sticking them on the ends of the wing. I would suggest bending the wing up a foot or two near the end, or just have the wing split near the end with one part going up and the other right where it is.
And it is not just that wind shear or something may cause the wing to dip during landing; I think people are not used to blades on the ends of the wings, and that could cause injuries or deaths at airports, especially at night.