![]() Aerofex thinks its vehicle could be useful for farmers, both for agriculture (crops) and herding animals. It could also be used by emergency services, for disaster relief or search and rescue, as well as for border patrols. None of these people fly aircraft for a living, so the vehicle will have to be easy enough for a non-pilot to fly. The company says that should be possible, and that the rider sits in a position where the vehicle responds to his movements similar to the way a motorcycle would. Aerofex says it has found that, for this type of vehicle, it makes sense to fly up to around 20ft (6m) above the ground. The concept behind the Aero-X isn’t new, with similar designs dating back to the 1950s. Piasecki Helicopter Co (now Piasecki Aircraft) built three variants of "flying Jeep" for the US army. Cutbacks in military spending meant the vehicles were never developed further, but they serve as a proof-of-concept for tandem-duct aircraft like the hoverbike, says DeRoche. The video (above) shows early test flights of the Aero-X, with no computer interface between the pilot and the controls. DeRoche says this is to prove that the controls are as intuitive as possible. “If we had said, ‘Oh by the way there’s a computer in there’ it would be like photoshopping our videos.” It’s important to prove that stable flight is possible without constant, complicated computer intervention, says DeRoche. Production hoverbikes will probably have more computers to help guide the pilot, particularly in extreme circumstances. Like traction control technology in a modern car, the computer could help a driver going too fast, or who, in a flying vehicle, encounters strong winds for example.Īnother significant design consideration is the engine. The Aero-X uses a special rotary engine, which DeRoche says offers additional safety benefits. “They have some features that we need,” he says. “For example a piston engine could seize – we can’t allow that.”Ī rotary engine design should continue to allow the blades to rotate, even if it stops running, which could help in landing the craft in an emergency. A conventional engine, on the other hand, can lock in one position if a major component fails. That’s because rotary engines do away with conventional pistons which reciprocate, up and down – action that has to be then converted into rotational movement. Instead they have a spinning rotor to do the jobs of compression, ignition, combustion and exhaust in sequence. It will be interesting to see if the company can overcome some of the well-known limitations of rotary engines. Mazda was one leading car-maker that used them, in their RX line of vehicles, but in general they have proven to be difficult to make clean and fuel efficient, and they need scrupulous regular maintenance to avoid engine failures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |