The future is VTOL

Imagine commercial aviation using VTOL technology for takeoff and landing rather than having huge airports with long runways. I saw a video on YouTube about a guy who wants to make circular runways to lessen an airport's footprint and noise, but I think VTOL is the next technology. Perhaps this tech would also lessen the burden of delayed flights, runway/taxiway incursions, and lessen ATC headaches. Not too mention the obvious less noise pollution.

I'm a huge proponent to natural gas for vehicle, plane and ship transport. I know NASA has a jet that is powered off of NG, and I think these new VTOL aircraft could run off of NG as well. Speaking of vehicles, wouldn't it be great to see a natural gas hybrid? Talk about economical and pollution friendly. I think the U.S. Post Office should use natural gas hybrids along with UPS/FedEx/DHL and garbage trucks. The U.S. is the number one producer of natural gas. We should utilize it.

Anyway... I think I should draw a concept drawing of such a VTOL commercial aircraft.

***on YouTube about a guy who wants to make circular runways***

Plenty of nuts on You Tube

We fortunate ones realize they are nuts

A380's were developed due to NEED

Thus they NEED to develop VTOL with an A380's capacity

That also is NUTS

Assuming VTOL is a fancy name for helicopter (yes, I know that's not strictly true), the Russians already have a natural gas powered one.

HeliRussia 2017 to discuss alternative fuel for helicopters

 

Russia is the only country in the world that already have technologies of liquefied natural gas use on aircraft. For example, in the late 1980s, a Mi-8TG helicopter with TV2-117TG engines was developed and tested. Engines designed by Klimov could work on both regular aviation fuel and liquefied natural gas. The helicopter successfully passed the evaluation tests, but further work was stopped because of the economic reasons.

Like ricardo_NY1 suggested, they stopped development for "economic reasons".

However, interest has been rekindled, but now for "eco-friendly reasons".

Today the possible liquefied natural gas use to power helicopters is once again of interest. "Alternative Fuel Supply" round aims to discuss both the general situation with liquefied natural gas as aviation fuel, and more specific topics, like dual-fuel TV3-117VM and VK-2500 engines development, their use on Mi-8/17 helicopters, its advantages, an assessment of investment opportunities, as well as infrastructure and operational support for dual-fuel helicopters.

Source: http://www.helirussia.ru/en/media/press_releases/2017/04/28/alternative_fuel/

I have serious doubts about the viability of CNG/LNG powered aircraft, VTOL, STOL or otherwise.

Actually, for everything but speed, dirigibles would probably be great.....

Unfortunately, everyone keeps thinking of the Hindenburg, even though much has changed with the technology.

For a VTOL Boeing 747-400 .

Aircraft weight 910,000 lbs divided by 63,300 lbs thrust per engine equals 14.376 engines required to get it to lift off the ground .

The noise on lift off would be awesome , as would the runway erosion caused by the exhaust below the aircraft .

Failure of one or two engines during lift off or landing would result in dropping like a rock , as well the out of balance thrust distribution would result in brief but wild aerobatics immediately prior to the crash .

Fuel consumption could be a minor problem .

I suspect that marketing tickets on that ride might be a challenge .

Cheers

Karol

If I want to go straight up and down I will fly a helicopter.........LOL

... or take the elevator :D

Thinking about it, don't own a home anywhere near the short approach end of an airport. 300,000lbs of downward thrust will put your roof through the basement. Microburst every day.

Yep, anything under the approach would be constantly blown away. There are some videos of V-22s landing in parks and fields with people getting blown across the ground from the downwash. Something the size of an airliner would be as bad as a tornado.

...but I think VTOL is the next technology. Perhaps this tech would also lessen the burden of delayed flights, runway/taxiway incursions, and lessen ATC headaches.

People have been saying/speculating on this for decades, and it hasn't happened yet, except for very specialized applications. And I don't see how it would cure the problems you mention, since people are still involved and the traffic level is still high trying to fint into a small space from having been all over the sky.

And note the many specific objections mentioned by numerous posters here -- they're valid concerns, and I feel that within your mind you are simplifying this thing too much.

I suspect that propulsion with a new principle of physics will be needed before this can become a reality, from a practical and economical standpoint. The physical ability to do something doesn't always translate into something practical, when you start considering large scale (both big and numerous) operations in a non-lab environment.

For those interested in a slightly larger VTOL aircraft , do a google search for ,

Dornier DO 31

You will also find You Tube videos of it flying .

I have no idea if this aircraft was ever modeled or released in the Sim world .

Cheers

Karol

Thinking about it, don't own a home anywhere near the short approach end of an airport. 300,000lbs of downward thrust will put your roof through the basement. Microburst every day.

They wouldn't hover until over the airport. Plus, I was envisioning a hover initialization at about 3000' AGL. You would fly up to that altitude and then go straight for the horizontal takeoff. By the time the aircraft is over any population it be at least 4000' AGL + in the air.

They wouldn't hover until over the airport. Plus, I was envisioning a hover initialization at about 3000' AGL. You would fly up to that altitude and then go straight for the horizontal takeoff. By the time the aircraft is over any population it be at least 4000' AGL + in the air.

Resolves the issue but creates a new one, congestion. Having to bring both arriving and departing aircraft very close within the airport boundary would certainly create safety issues from minimum separation to airport equipment and smaller regional aircraft getting blown away, etc. In the same you have wake turbulence, you may end up with downblast issues of all sorts. Also, a transition to or from hover is best done as soon as possible. A hover to or from 3000ft would consume lots of fuel. I think the airlines would be more interested in an aircraft carrier style catapult system to get the aircraft up and going with less power on take off and fuel savings.

It is an impractical solution on a mass-transport scale, but reduce it down to personal transport scale and that's a different story - this thing is not only VTOL, but pilotless too:

"The first single passenger drone that is capable of transporting a passenger at 11,000 ft. is to operate in July.

The Autonomous Aerial Vehicle, branded as EHANG184 wrote on the website: “Ehang 184 AAV is the safest, Smartest and Eco-Friendly low altitude autonomous aerial vehicle, aiming on providing Medium-Short Distance communication and transportation solution.”

The Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) in collaboration with the Chinese EHANG company ran the first test in Dubai’s skies.

RTA is to begin AAV operation by July."

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2017/02/13/Dubai-to-operate-first-AAV-transport-drone-.html

Resolves the issue but creates a new one, congestion. Having to bring both arriving and departing aircraft very close within the airport boundary would certainly create safety issues from minimum separation to airport equipment and smaller regional aircraft getting blown away, etc. In the same you have wake turbulence, you may end up with downblast issues of all sorts. Also, a transition to or from hover is best done as soon as possible. A hover to or from 3000ft would consume lots of fuel. I think the airlines would be more interested in an aircraft carrier style catapult system to get the aircraft up and going with less power on take off and fuel savings.

Airports are mighty big so there's plenty of room for the launch pads to fill up with traffic.

Airports are mighty big so there's plenty of room for the launch pads to fill up with traffic.

Sure, on the ground there is lots of room. However, requiring all departing and arriving aircraft to climb/descend vertically within the airport boundary is going to put the aircraft even closer together than they are now and likely lead to worse congestion problems in the air. And you will still need to keep them reasonably widely separated to minimize issues from the down drafts.

There is still the issue of how the aircraft would be powered. Currently, jet VTOL capable aircraft like the Harrier and F-35B can't take off vertically with a full load. They would be more correctly labelled STOVL aircraft as they typically do rolling take-offs. Trying to scale to an airliner will take quite some time and almost certainly a new source of power.

I think better solutions to increasing traffic will come through new technologies like the ADS-B systems and GPS. Combined with more automation in ATC and it may be possible to better spread out arriving and departing aircraft.

Personally, I think we will see the return of supersonic flight in some fashion. Possibly even sub-orbital based on something like Virgin Galactic's work with the SpaceShip Two spacecraft. Again, this will be ways into the future too.

Airports are mighty big so there's plenty of room for the launch pads to fill up with traffic.

Airports actually aren't very big, when you consider the amount of aircraft/traffic involved, and when you add the congestion around terminals, limitations because of winds, etc. And if you eliminate the runways, they'll be even smaller, making the congestion worse (politicians and developers really want that land, which is why airports are disappearing all over the country).

You're dreaming -- a nice dream, but impractical, as far as I can see, until a totally new type of propulsion comes along that solves all the problems listed above, plus some others no one has mentioned (ice, anyone).

The Autonomous Aerial Vehicle, branded as EHANG184 wrote on the website: “Ehang 184 AAV is the safest, Smartest and Eco-Friendly low altitude autonomous aerial vehicle, aiming on providing Medium-Short Distance communication and transportation solution.”

"AAV is the safest".

Hmm. With multiple high speed rotors placed close to the vehicle doors at knee height, what could possibly go wrong? ;-)

And with a battery charge lasting around 20 minutes maximum (less in a strong headwind), it's not going to get very far before those warning buzzers start flashing and the craft sinks earthwards.

Plus there are numerous questions about safety and legal issues still to be clarified...

http://www.dronethusiast.com/ehang-184-is-a-manned-uav-you-will-never-get-to-fly/

Extracts / quotes..

1) From a helicopter pilot...

"To claim that this “will safely spiral down to the ground” if it looses one or more engines, is surreal. The size of these rotors makes it impossible to auto-rotate just to begin with, and loose 1 or 2 and you will have torque issues making it impossible to even control in an emergency (there is a reason why travelling in a conventional helicopter is 5x higher of a risk compared to a fixed wing aircraft)

And 23 minutes of flight for a 2-4 hour charge cycle on a price tag between 200k and 300k USD? Thats extremely expensive. A raw hour rate for an R22 (able to carry 2 people) is 150-160 dollars (if you own the machine).

The Robinson R22 has got an endurance of about 3 hours (with reserves).

A parachute system on this will weigh over 100 kilograms, so thats going to require even stronger engines and an increase in blade span. I know these rotors have fixed pitch and control yaw and thrust/lift by varying RPM on each unit. Each arm has two rotors spinning in each direction to cancel torque. If only 1 fails you will have serious problems controlling this".

---------------------

2)

"There are huge regulatory issues beyond what’s being discussed here.

FAA regulations require that all manned aircraft land with at least 30 minutes reserve fuel capacity. The EHang doesn’t even take off with that much “fuel” on board. How they’re going to get around that is a mystery.

A BRC has a minimum deployment altitude of about 250′ AGL. Below that that, in an emergency you might as well be in a washing machine that’s plummeting straight to Mother Earth. The FAA is going to require having a flight regime that allows the aircraft to recover from all altitudes inside the flight envelope. In helicopters this is called the “dead man’s curve” and most pilots avoid operating in it although it’s legal to do so. Unsuspecting, unrated passengers is another matter — no way the FAA is going to allow an autonomous air taxi to operate inside the dead man’s curve at all times.

The BRC also has annual inspection requirements, a limited lifetime requiring components to be replaced every few years, and other costs that amortize out to about $150/month … forever. Plus it eats about 40lbs of useful load, so you can’t fly it if you weigh more than about 170lbs naked".

.

Watch this space - or smoking hole, whichever...

:)

That remind me that hard landings in drones often result in the batteries turning into blowtorches...