Kestrel Aerospace PAV

[Kestrel]

Here is some info on the Kestrel Aerospace PAV system in development in the UK. www.kestrelaerospace.com

 

The systems use four lightweight, high performance brushless motors driving four 8 bladed fans. The motors weigh as little as 6kg each and have over 90% efficiency.

 

Built inside the airframe are two high performance engines which belt drive two alternators each. The alternators are linked to a reserve battery pack and capacitor which boosts power for take-off and landing.

 

The systems are all fitted with a BRS system and collision avoidance avionics as standard.

 

The first scheduled display of the systems are due at Farnborough 2006 next summer.

 

Hope this helps....

 

SJS

[Jon Matcho]

Interesting... I'm sure you're getting much criticism, but I do wish you the best to keep at it.

 

What's going to provide all that electricity?

 

One suggestion on the Web site... allow visitors to bypass the flash intro.

 

Good luck.

[Kestrel]

Interesting... I'm sure you're getting much criticism, but I do wish you the best to keep at it.

 

What's going to provide all that electricity?

 

One suggestion on the Web site... allow visitors to bypass the flash intro.

 

Good luck.

There is a SKIP below the flash...

[Jon Matcho]

There is a SKIP below the flash...

Ah, just noticed it -- the microscopic dark-white on white text.

[Len Evansic]

I'll bite. On your website, I see "Below is our current range of systems which are either working prototypes, in-build prototypes or at pre-build design stage..." All I see is renderings from CAD models and small images without much, if any detail. By the way, your finite element runs which are proudly displayed are poorly modeled at best, and show nothing in particular at worst.

 

Where are the photos of your working or in-build prototype, preferably one carrying a human? If you can get half the performance that your spec. pages list with your 6 kg motors, and an on-board power supply, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

Without any meat, you risk having the world see you as another Moller, except he actually made money off of patents, and he has a working tethered prototype.

 

Direct lift is very inefficient, but desirable for the duties you portray on your website. You would be better off attaching your wonder-motors to a more conventional design like an airplane or geared down to a helicopter before going whole-hog.

 

I'd love for your venture to succeed and for you to prove my assertions wrong, but it is hard for me to justify getting excited at this point. Get the smoke and mirrors (flash) off your site, and maybe more people would investigate your company's technology seriously. Until then, it's the digital equivalent of a snake oil salesman.

 

-- Len

[Kestrel]

The best thing with having our systems behind closed doors is it allows us to control the "when and where", not be forced to disclose information.

 

We are dealing with two of the worlds largest aerospace companies at this moment who are assisting us with flight trials but due to restrictions and NDA's we cannot publish all our information or show a fully working system until all tests are complete. There is no point showing you a system that only does half of what we say it does. We are not a Moller.... and we intend to make sure that NEVER happens.

 

IF we didnt have a viable range of products and IF we dont go through the certification process with the CAA why would we be entered into three RFI's with the worlds leading defence supplier?

 

Here is a photo taken earlier this year as we produced the master plugs for the UAV system moulds. As we stated above. The first manned system will be on full public display at Farnborough 2006.

 

 

I'll bite. On your website, I see "Below is our current range of systems which are either working prototypes, in-build prototypes or at pre-build design stage..." All I see is renderings from CAD models and small images without much, if any detail. By the way, your finite element runs which are proudly displayed are poorly modeled at best, and show nothing in particular at worst.

 

Where are the photos of your working or in-build prototype, preferably one carrying a human? If you can get half the performance that your spec. pages list with your 6 kg motors, and an on-board power supply, the world will beat a path to your door.

 

Without any meat, you risk having the world see you as another Moller, except he actually made money off of patents, and he has a working tethered prototype.

 

Direct lift is very inefficient, but desirable for the duties you portray on your website. You would be better off attaching your wonder-motors to a more conventional design like an airplane or geared down to a helicopter before going whole-hog.

 

I'd love for your venture to succeed and for you to prove my assertions wrong, but it is hard for me to justify getting excited at this point. Get the smoke and mirrors (flash) off your site, and maybe more people would investigate your company's technology seriously. Until then, it's the digital equivalent of a snake oil salesman.

 

-- Len

[Nathan Gifford]

The other problem with this design is that it cannot suffer an engine failure and continue flying. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft can still continue controlled flight with a dead powerplant.

 

BRS is a neat idea, but it still relies on pilot reaction time to deploy the system. Landings and takeoffs will test the limits of a pilot correctly identifying situations where deployment is required and activation of the system before impact. An automated system may help, but it will take time to see how many false and failed activations will occur in a new system.

 

This also seems like another 'highway in the sky' system. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to substitute all 's' with '$' in all the brochures. This will be especially true in the US since we have an abundance of lawyers (Europe is suppose to catching the same disease).

 

It will be increasingly difficult to keep the unit prices down. Further, there will be political problems too since it will be seen as tycoon's play toy and a fuel hungry machine (I don't see how you get pass this problem of fuel consumption for powered lift). I'm guessing if you are using electric motors, you are anticipating using fuel cells instead of batteries.

 

This is not say it cannot be done, but it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

[Kestrel]

Every manned system comes with TWO internal power generation systems, each one fitted with two generating alternators. Each system has its own fuel system independant of the other allowing for greater redundancy than a single engined helicopter.

 

Granted helicopters can auto-rotate but they are still stuck with a dead area between ground and a specific altitude. There are three layers of redundancy within each Kestrel platform, one more than a helicopter, and new designs of control systems allow for greater control in the event of loosing both internal engines and power generation systems.

 

The other problem with this design is that it cannot suffer an engine failure and continue flying. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft can still continue controlled flight with a dead powerplant.

 

BRS is a neat idea, but it still relies on pilot reaction time to deploy the system. Landings and takeoffs will test the limits of a pilot correctly identifying situations where deployment is required and activation of the system before impact. An automated system may help, but it will take time to see how many false and failed activations will occur in a new system.

 

This also seems like another 'highway in the sky' system. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to substitute all 's' with '$' in all the brochures. This will be especially true in the US since we have an abundance of lawyers (Europe is suppose to catching the same disease).

 

It will be increasingly difficult to keep the unit prices down. Further, there will be political problems too since it will be seen as tycoon's play toy and a fuel hungry machine (I don't see how you get pass this problem of fuel consumption for powered lift). I'm guessing if you are using electric motors, you are anticipating using fuel cells instead of batteries.

 

This is not say it cannot be done, but it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

[raydog]

The best thing with having our systems behind closed doors is it allows us to control the "when and where", not be forced to disclose information.

 

We are dealing with two of the worlds largest aerospace companies at this moment who are assisting us with flight trials but due to restrictions and NDA's we cannot publish all our information or show a fully working system until all tests are complete. There is no point showing you a system that only does half of what we say it does. We are not a Moller.... and we intend to make sure that NEVER happens.

 

IF we didnt have a viable range of products and IF we dont go through the certification process with the CAA why would we be entered into three RFI's with the worlds leading defence supplier?

 

Here is a photo taken earlier this year as we produced the master plugs for the UAV system moulds. As we stated above. The first manned system will be on full public display at Farnborough 2006.

 

 

I think that what was said was only constructive and dead on.

I'm not sure what your intention with the web site is, but I too think

it's missing it's mark.

I have some great ideas, hidden doodles saved away, we all do.

But I'm lacking the education, expertise, and confidence to throw

caution into the wind and persue them. I'm impressed to see

you hot on course and we cheer you on all the way.

Like was said, your site needs more substance to be taken seriously.

Past projects of your own will add substantial credibility.

I like the fact that you're not soliciting investors (cough, chough, moller)

I don't think that anythings been said to be offended by, just

a view from outside perception.

 

good luck with the venture

-ray

[Nathan Gifford]

Every manned system comes with TWO internal power generation systems, each one fitted with two generating alternators. Each system has its own fuel system independant of the other allowing for greater redundancy than a single engined helicopter.

 

Granted helicopters can auto-rotate but they are still stuck with a dead area between ground and a specific altitude. There are three layers of redundancy within each Kestrel platform, one more than a helicopter, and new designs of control systems allow for greater control in the event of loosing both internal engines and power generation systems.

I'm not going waste too many more bytes on this, getting the system affordable, reliable, and practical is going to be the problem -- especially affordable. Also by your own statement you say the PAV is more reliable than a single engine helicopter...but the PAV is multi-engine, therefore, is it more reliable than a multi-engine helicopter??

 

Besides that, until one is flying the reliability and redundancy of the PAV is calculated based on the reliability of (hopefully) proven components. If these components are still in development, then the reliability of the calculations are even more questionable.

 

That does not mean the PAV isn't everything you believe it is. It just has not proved itself yet.

 

I will conclude with what I said earlier:...it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

[Kestrel]

Reliability of components is a key factor to the system. We use a lot of COTS systems and combine them in a unique way to make the system more flexible and increase the overall reliability.

 

We don’t look for invest meant due to us being totally self funded as we have been for three years now.

 

Because we use two separate fuel systems the chances of cross contamination between fuel supplies is nil where as a multi engine helicopter gets fuel from a single point increasing the risk. A multi engine helicopter only has its engines to keep the system airborne as we have our engines, emergency power supply and (coming soon) a specialist fuel cell system.

 

Im not suggesting we have all the answers or will be in the air in a week but we are trying to make the dream a reality and bring something to market which is affordable, practical and flexible.

 

 

I'm not going waste too many more bytes on this, getting the system affordable, reliable, and practical is going to be the problem -- especially affordable. Also by your own statement you say the PAV is more reliable than a single engine helicopter...but the PAV is multi-engine, therefore, is it more reliable than a multi-engine helicopter??

 

Besides that, until one is flying the reliability and redundancy of the PAV is calculated based on the reliability of (hopefully) proven components. If these components are still in development, then the reliability of the calculations are even more questionable.

 

That does not mean the PAV isn't everything you believe it is. It just has not proved itself yet.

 

I will conclude with what I said earlier:...it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

[Nathan Gifford]

...Because we use two separate fuel systems the chances of cross contamination between fuel supplies is nil where as a multi engine helicopter gets fuel from a single point increasing the risk. A multi engine helicopter only has its engines to keep the system airborne as we have our engines, emergency power supply and (coming soon) a specialist fuel cell system...

Unless I missed something, the PAV only has its motors to keep it flying too. The difference is that in some multi-engine helicopters a single engine failure can allow for the aircraft to continue (derated) flight.

 

From what I can gleen from your post, Kestrel has developed an interesting powerplant design that may offer theortical increased redundancy. Apparently, redundancy is pretty much ensured except for failure of lift mechanism (motor, control, or airfoil).

 

You know, we would all like to see this technology work, especially the powerplant. If the powerplant would fit in a Cozy, ran on convential fuel, and had the needed power output, affordable, there would be plenty takers on this board. Heck Dust might abandon the Contential he's working on at his house right now!

 

That's what makes so many people doubters on this board. The technology that would make a powered lift function would be able to power so many other machines, why hasn't it been introduced there first? The potential for a very public failure in the PAV is very real. Most experimenters take a go slow approach since they don't want to ensure immortality with a truly dramatic failure on the 6 PM news.

 

And if you have a man flying in the PAV at Farnborough 2006, off tether, everyone will be impressed including Moller.

[Kestrel]

Thanks Ray, Support is all we are looking for, as for credability, most of my family come from aerospace and design, one being a design specialist for the old Avro and worked a great deal on the Lancaster Bomber. I my self fly and have done since the age of 18, both fixed wing and rotary. I have also done work with several high profile aerospace companies.

 

As with any new type of "out of the box" thinking, people will not believe it or understand it until they can "Kick the tyres" so that is the way we are heading. This isnt a one off idea as we have been running the propulsion system for nearly three years and under different enviromental conditions.

 

Thanks again for your support.

[Nathan Gifford]

If you have a man flying in the PAV at Farnborough 2006, off tether, everyone will be impressed.