They couldn't put pedals on this. Too many people are out of shape these days.

@@rangerfontana591 lmaooo. Ice way of saying they FAT AS HELL LOL.

Jetson is the one I like-But-"New Kitty Hawk"? For 15 minutes? $90,000 Dollars? Well, ok-but at the rate of these so called "personal VTOL" aircraft pop up on my radar? Complete with slick CGI videos and "grand announcements" for "commuting" -They always end up moving around at a bare hover, only to skim some field miles away from any urban setting. Battery Life dependent on heat and as usual, technology. Still would want one-but the very design gives birth to ideas of what this type of aircraft can do, should be doing. Yet the technology (as well as the decibels) make these aircraft "prohibitive" to operate anywhere but in CGI or a deserted field! We need to be thinking of Frequency, Oscillations, Electro-Magnetic pulses etc. The air around us is already charged-we just haven't figured out the frequency needed to develop thrust, lift and forward movement from what is already given to us by nature! All these companies should come together under one single entity with one design and one goal-To make a personal commuter aircraft that could be spun off into Agriculture, Law Enforcement, Search/Rescue, Air Freight and, the occasional jaunt out to the countryside. Until that happens-all these craft will be relegated to Aviation oddities -crafts that are no more than a flying weed wackers, barely moving out of hover.

@@shannonstewart4792 😂

Yes but we’re like....20-30 years behind schedule 😄 They need to hurry up I’m getting older lol

Great to hear!

Increased rotors is the fix... for now.

Thanks again!

Delta V

1). Shroud the propellers. Properly designed Ducted Fans will outperform a similar sized free propeller. It has been amply demonstrated, both theoretically and empirically, that a ducted fan system, properly designed for a specific operating condition, will always outperform (propulsively) a free propeller of the same diameter (that is, it will produce more thrust for the same power input) at that operating condition. While this fact is always true (at least at subsonic speeds), it does neglect the drag of the duct itself, which at high speeds can easily overcome propulsive benefits. However, this vehicle is not a high speed application so any drag associated with the duct itself should be negligible. The shrouds should be made of carbon fiber to keep from adding an appreciable amount of weight. 2). Use ethanol in a Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell (DAFC). Should allow for a much smaller lighter battery pack (essentially acting as a buffer). DAFCs possess a wide spectrum of advantages as compared with proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) that use hydrogen as the fuel. The theoretical energy conversion efficiency of all DAFCs exceeds 90%, which is higher than that of PEMFCs (83%). More importantly liquid alcohols have a much higher volumetric energy density than does gas hydrogen. For this reason DAFCs require much smaller fuel cartridges and they are thus much more compact systems. In addition, alcohol fuels are easily handled, transported, and stored. Unlike hydrogen-feed PEMFCs, liquid fuel-feed DAFCs do not need humidification and separate thermal management ancillary systems. All these features make DAFCs particularly suitable for portable and mobile applications. energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/18529/direct-ethanol-fuel-cells-ethanol-for-our-future-fuel-cells-energiforskrapport-2015-137.pdf

Agreed, ... put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. No heavy metals or rare materials that are very hard on environment to dig up, and far less c02 of production and recycling when the time comes. These personal vehjcles are cool but they are simply enlarged drones that I can buy at best buys. What is the maintenance on these things? How much will your power bill go up ? And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ? Besides, i dont want millions of morons flying above me, when they can barely drive their cars presently. Just imagine the havoc... Yeah, They are cool but just a very very expensive toy.

@@sasquatch2753 "put 600cc motorcycle engine in and problem solved. " 600cc motorcycle engine is zero emission? News to me. Citation needed. If it's not then no, problem not solved. "What is the maintenance on these things? " Damn near zero. Only moving part is for each propeller so like four moving parts. "How much will your power bill go up ? " Negligible. Remember a fossil fuel engine is a heat engine so it is limited by the Carnot limit...so it can't be more than 50% efficient or so. Whereas an electric motor is 90% efficient. Also even if the power plant is coal powered, it burns far less fuel to generate enough power for an electric vehicle than a fossil fuel engine burns to do the same thing. "And how much more coal will many cities have to dig blm And burn to meet the electricity demands ?" Part of going green is eliminating fossil fuel as a source of power. Not for power, not for propulsion. Source of plastic only (and even that will go away when plant based plastic becomes more prevalent). So nuclear and renewables. Some time in the next 20 years, the last fossil fuel plant in the western world will be built, replaced by nuclear and renewables.

Glad it was helpful!

It may, be but I suggest this channel tends to emphasize all the upsides of these technologies, and neglects to address the downsides.

Thomas Haynes has

They need to move out of California to the mid west where it really started

Maybe retracting wings that are made of hang glider or paraglide material. Like a wing suit

There isn't necessarily a need for control surfaces. Even a small wing, fitted between the forward and rear rotors could provide lift at higher speeds provided it is pitched slightly upward so that it lies almost horizontal when the aircraft pitches down to generate forward thrust. The added lift would not be enormous but it would more than compensate the added weight.

But contra-rotating is always more efficient than single rotating.

​@@manofsan but you always have contra rotating on a drone else you cant maneuver the drone as you have to slow down the one rotation to let opposite rotation move the mass. the only way you can create a better coaxial effect if top motors are always in the same offset as the bottom motors as you never break the stream of air as much. as the perfect example is the K-MAX helicopter

​@@Drone_Out - KMAX has the rotors in sync to keep the blades from colliding. Rotors that don't intersect shouldn't automatically have to be in sync with each other. The lower rotor is simply collecting the spin energy imparted by the upper one, and converting it into thrust. Btw, have you heard about Airspeeder? They're trying to do some kind of pod-racing games with these things.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Our pleasure!

Thank you, I will

Pipistrel Velis Electro would do the task. It needs a landing strip though

Jetson one goes 63mph

Exactly, the entire shape should be designed to increase lift.

@@Dr.MuhanuziMpeshaMD That's what the rotors are for. Anything else ADDS WEIGHT.

Short answer is yes, quite simply. The people designing these things are laser focused on "no lifting surfaces" brute force flight. If one was simply looking for the maximum flight time regardless of package dimensions you could add full size glider wings and 90 degree rotating engines to transition from VTOL to forward flight. Flight time would go from minutes to hours.

Would adding wings reclassify it? Would a pilot's license then be required?

@@01foote01 Probably, as wings would add weight. The type of lift isn't a factor in whether or not powered aircraft require a license, it is based on weight, amount of fuel carried, and top speed.

Having a gas engine with an alternatot to charge rhe battery will greatly improve its range

I like what you're thinking. I'm sure somewhere someone is crunching the numbers on that

I do believe by law it must have a parachute.

Parachute is onboard alreddy

Agreed. There is a reason airplanes dominate aerial travel. The first company to make a 2hr+30 min reserve plane thats "affordable" will sell like hotcakes.

Bye Aerospace's EFlyer 2 is the one that has 2hr + 30 min reserves. I dont think its a budget aircraft though. It is a good option for a trainer

Plus wings don’t just fall out of the sky when the fuel runs out.

@@gpaull2 Depending on rotor size (disk loading) autorotation is possible. Helicopters also don't just fall when the engine quits

Indeed. Jetson is aware of this, but deliberately chose this configuration to go forward. It does not mean, that future variants might not also have wings for forward flight.

Profile the front motor blades like a helicopters, and tilt them slightly back, and you can gyrocopter the whole front end for free at forward speed.

@@benwilms3942 They could build the airframe out of carbon fiber which would help increase the range, not so much the price.

@@readhistory2023 Maybe, maybe not... Any time carbon fibre pops up, it's money grab I hear afterwards!!

Yes, then you basically get the Blackfly. Anything else requires tilting surfaces.

@@KevinATJumpWorks Blackfly is one of the best designs currently at that category. The only things I would add to it is a second seat, better visibility cockpit and a top fixed elaron wing for in flight stability.

Then again, auxiliary power from a hybrid system would add considerably to the weight AND cost, especially if a turbine engine were to be employed with respect to cost. Added to that, the Jetson seems to be particularly sensitive to any additions in weight.

the jetson has a 20 min air time

I wonder if an alternator system would aid in battery life and flight time... Simply recharging the battery as the rotors spin and flight continues and maybe compromise a little bit of the altitude for the Jetson

Glad you enjoyed it

Yes it will

Jetson 1 is meant for recreational flying in private grounds

These machines are only available under part 103. That means you will only be able to fly them in designated areas and when the weather is clear.

@@ElectricAviation thanks for leading me to Part 103 details. Shows how new I am to dreaming of flying an ultralight. I found limits in flight visibility and clouds (103.23), and "congested areas" (103.15), and I guess the hazardous operations rule (103.9) covers the wind issue. But what is a "designated area" is harder to determine (103.19 & .20). I'll do more research. It seems odd people are buying the Jetson one in my home area, which is on the outskirts of an expansive State park, but won't be able to use it nearby. Thanks again!

If anything in metro areas these vehicles would be tied into an automated flight system. Where there would be strict zoning as to where to fly. There would be flight corridors as to not interfere with buildings and people. Let's say there was a medical emergency and the pilot jerked the the craft to the right. It might respond to that input but at a certain point the system would meet the boundary and stop going in that direction no matter how hard the stick is being forced.

Cars had exactly the same problem in the beginning. It worked out well.

@@jaguillermol yeah but that was different cause cars can’t go everywhere. When your in the sky there’s literally no limits or terrain to stop you. How do you control that?

@@fabreezo They could before. There were no asfalt roads then. Their wheels were very big

@@jaguillermol you can’t drive a car over a canyon or a cliff or through the Amazon rainforest or through the ocean and rivers but a flying vehicle? Yes. No limits. Not the same situation

I think biofuel and a constant rev IC engine driving a gen would get them to feasibility real quick, then disrupt the power train with an all electric down the line.

1). Shroud the propellers. Properly designed Ducted Fans will outperform a similar sized free propeller. It has been amply demonstrated, both theoretically and empirically, that a ducted fan system, properly designed for a specific operating condition, will always outperform (propulsively) a free propeller of the same diameter (that is, it will produce more thrust for the same power input) at that operating condition. While this fact is always true (at least at subsonic speeds), it does neglect the drag of the duct itself, which at high speeds can easily overcome propulsive benefits. However, this vehicle is not a high speed application so any drag associated with the duct itself should be negligible. The shrouds should be made of carbon fiber to keep from adding an appreciable amount of weight. 2). Use ethanol in a Direct Alcohol Fuel Cell (DAFC). Should allow for a much smaller lighter battery pack (essentially acting as a buffer). DAFCs possess a wide spectrum of advantages as compared with proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) that use hydrogen as the fuel. The theoretical energy conversion efficiency of all DAFCs exceeds 90%, which is higher than that of PEMFCs (83%). More importantly liquid alcohols have a much higher volumetric energy density than does gas hydrogen. For this reason DAFCs require much smaller fuel cartridges and they are thus much more compact systems. In addition, alcohol fuels are easily handled, transported, and stored. Unlike hydrogen-feed PEMFCs, liquid fuel-feed DAFCs do not need humidification and separate thermal management ancillary systems. All these features make DAFCs particularly suitable for portable and mobile applications. energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/18529/direct-ethanol-fuel-cells-ethanol-for-our-future-fuel-cells-energiforskrapport-2015-137.pdf

Yeah, solid state batteries was already covered. #awesome

There is a formula for disc loading and power relationship. You can find it easily

You're welcome

I'm thinking solar power built on top could slow it down a little but more time and distance we would gain