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.

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.

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 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.

There is a SKIP below the flash...

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