New cargo lifter concept by VW... Looks like right out of KSP

[WestAir]

... but I'd have to see it to believe it.

A scientists favorite statement, and for good reason.

[AngelLestat]

They do talk about it on their site. Not in too much detail, but the gist of it is that their VTOL system doesn't rely on power transmission or tilting via heavy shafts. Power is obvious, these being the EDFs. But I think their plan for tilting is to use thrust from the fans themselves to provide torque. I don't know if that's supposed to be achieved with thrust vectoring or differential thrust.

Either way, it's a neat idea, which would reduce complexity, cost, and weight. But I have serious doubts about these guys being able to execute this. Especially with aft set of EDFs being in the exhaust stream of the fore EDFs. This can result in all sorts of oscillations if the EDF sets are free to swivel about the support. Again, their site claims that they have electronic/algorithmic solutions for this sort of stuff, but I'd have to see it to believe it.

Ayup.

Ok, you are right, they use the same engines to produce the turn, here I find a video that show this with "more detail".

But is still unclear how they pass fuel and energy across this complex joint which still needs to support all those tons.

additionally, if the front engines and back engines are horizontal, the back engines receive the hot air and propulsion from the front engines. So how that can work?

I dint find their page, can you post it so I can try to understand better?

Edited August 17, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Nuke]

they are electric ducted fans, you are going to need some thick cables for those but thats manageable. this actually gets around the issue of multiple engine vtols. normally you would need to shaft all the rotors together to compensate for loss of an engine. if you use ultra-reliable electric engine and an ultra-reliable generator(s), such as gas turbines. the motors will work so long as their bearings hold out (im assuming ac induction motors, maybe dc brushless). i really dont see needing 16 of them, 12 or 8 makes more sense. if motors can run at twice their lifting power in an emergency, then in an emergency on an 8 motor version you could loose 4 (one in each pod), or an entire pod and still land safely vertically, and you might be able to land horizontally if you loose more than that while in cruise. im actually worried more about loosing your generator.

[K^2]

If the ground effect on EDF is anywhere near as significant as it is for heli, you wouldn't even need to worry about extra power. If you have enough thrust to hover and climb on 16 fans, you'll be able to have a soft landing on 8-12.

I don't know about generators, but the battery backup is definitely an extra safety feature. Although, part of the reason this thing has batteries is to get that extra thrust for hover without having to include a large generator. So I'm not sure how safe that thing will be if the generator and/or batteries bite the dust. The thing doesn't look like it can glide very well, and forget about autorotation with EDFs.

[Nuke]

having horizontal landing capability pretty much doubles acceptable failure modes. no gliding, but if you have a fan or two you might make it. but of course that means you need tougher landing gear. one advantage of electric transmission is if you loose an engine, you have additional power available for the others.

i actually rather like this kind of config.

2 sets of tandem props in horizontal flight, quad copter in vtol mode, horizontal landing capability (if you put wheels on it). of course this config introduces a bad failure mode if you loose a motor while in a hover. perhaps you can get two contra-rotating props in the same housing using independent motors. one fails the other can work double time.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Nuke

[magnemoe]

I can't get excited about cargo airships anymore. They hooked me as a kid with the "Hystar" demonstrator at Expo '86, when heavy lift airships were just a few years away from transforming the logging industry (no more logging roads, and selective logging will be so cheap there'll be no more clearcuts!). But cargo airships have remained "just a few years away" for the 28 years since (Hystar's main business since then appears to be moving its headquarters from New Brunswick to Maine to Delaware to Nevada). I was up in the arctic when Discovery Air, a moderate sized charter operator who, to their credit, run services with oddball aircraft like their trio of Dash-7's, announced they were going to buy a fleet of hybrid airships from the UK, but by then I just didn't believe anymore... and lo and behold, it didn't happen.

The availability and cost of energy for transportation use will be a problem before the roads fall apart. You can't save long distance transportation in North America (Canada has the same problem, only worse!) with a system that consumes more energy to move the same payload the same distance. If airships can't compete on a cost-per-ton-mile (or cost-per-passenger-mile) basis, an all-powered VTOL has no chance. Nevermind passenger rail; if you want to enjoy the future, pound tracks for freight rail, NOW.

Yes, the idea with an cargo airship is 1) move oversized cargo who is very expensive to move on roads 2) move things where its not suitable roads.

It can also compete on speed at lest in 1) and 2) settings.

Why not focus on an light VTOL as an light helicopter replacement, it has some benefits because it don't have the huge rotor: it fit in a smaller hangar, can land places helicopters can not land,

might be cheaper to operate. Air ambulance is one marked.

Another is replacing private helicopters: here the ease of use because you can mostly automate it is an huge benefit, the small footprint is another, finally its cool so it might be more expensive than a helicopter but small footprint and ease of use is more important.

[PTNLemay]

Thunderbirds are Go!

In case you missed the reference, the thing looks a lot like Thunderbird 2 (the green one):

Edited August 18, 2014 by PTNLemay

[AngelLestat]

they are electric ducted fans, you are going to need some thick cables for those but thats manageable. this actually gets around the issue of multiple engine vtols. normally you would need to shaft all the rotors together to compensate for loss of an engine. if you use ultra-reliable electric engine and an ultra-reliable generator(s), such as gas turbines. the motors will work so long as their bearings hold out (im assuming ac induction motors, maybe dc brushless). i really dont see needing 16 of them, 12 or 8 makes more sense. if motors can run at twice their lifting power in an emergency, then in an emergency on an 8 motor version you could loose 4 (one in each pod), or an entire pod and still land safely vertically, and you might be able to land horizontally if you loose more than that while in cruise. im actually worried more about loosing your generator.

Ok, so EDF means electric ducted fans. I am really bad with acronyms.

Now this has a lot more sense. Thrust control with electric motors is a lot easier than with turbines.

About the efficiency lost when front and back fans are in horizontal, maybe if the back fans increase the rotation speed using a Frequency Inverter then the energy lost may be redundant.

If the ground effect on EDF is anywhere near as significant as it is for heli, you wouldn't even need to worry about extra power. If you have enough thrust to hover and climb on 16 fans, you'll be able to have a soft landing on 8-12.

I don't know about generators, but the battery backup is definitely an extra safety feature. Although, part of the reason this thing has batteries is to get that extra thrust for hover without having to include a large generator. So I'm not sure how safe that thing will be if the generator and/or batteries bite the dust. The thing doesn't look like it can glide very well, and forget about autorotation with EDFs.

Yeah, a batterty backup would be very usefull, maybe with just 5 or 10 min would be enoght without add a lot of weight.

This also saves as you said any problem in cases of extra thrust needed reducing the need of a big generator.

Thunderbirds are Go!

In case you missed the reference, the thing looks a lot like Thunderbird 2 (the green one):

with a lot of imagination... maybe