© 2024 New Atlas
Aircraft

Elytron 2S tiltrotor demonstrator airframe completed

By David Szondy
March 27, 2015
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
View 8 Images
The Elytron 2S demonstrator concept's airframe was recently completed
Rendering of the Elytron 2S demonsrator
Rendering of the Elytron four-passenger executive plane
Rendering of the Elytron air taxi production model
Side view of the Elytron 2S
The Elytron 2S demonstrator concept's airframe was recently completed
Infographic about the production Elytron aircraft
View gallery - 8 images

When we laid eyes on the Elytron 2S tiltrotor plane prototype last year at the Experimental Aircraft Association's fly-in airshow in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, it was a half-built concept with only part of its Prandtl wing box installed. The company has now completed the airframe ahead of planned flight tests later this year.

The Elytron 2S two-seater demonstrator was on display earlier this month at the Hai-Helo Expo in Orlando, Florida. With a 28-ft (8.5-m) wingspan, the tiltrotor aircraft combines features of fixed-wing and rotorcraft and is capable of conventional takeoff and landing, along with vertical and short takeoff and landing capabilities.

According to Elytron Aircraft, all the carbon composite work has been completed on the fuselage, the center wing, the tilting mechanism and vertical flight controls have been installed, as have the taxiing system, avionics, and engine. The company says that the current design is close to achieving its weight goal of 1,100 lb (500 kg) and will execute a vertical takeoff and landing test by the end of 2015.

in addition, the company has unveiled concept renderings for its four and 10-passenger production airplanes for executive and air taxi markets.

Source: Elytron Aircraft

View gallery - 8 images

Tags

AircraftPrototypeAircraftExperimentalTiltrotorElytron
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
David Szondy
David Szondy is a playwright, author and journalist based in Seattle, Washington. A retired field archaeologist and university lecturer, he has a background in the history of science, technology, and medicine with a particular emphasis on aerospace, military, and cybernetic subjects. In addition, he is the author of four award-winning plays, a novel, reviews, and a plethora of scholarly works ranging from industrial archaeology to law. David has worked as a feature writer for many international magazines and has been a feature writer for New Atlas since 2011.
11 comments
Buellrider
It will be something to see these thing flying. Good going.
EH
This is what real engineering looks like. It's a nice change from the usual aircraft "concepts" that consist of little but a CG render and optimism. The Elytron website has a great rundown of the advantages and disadvantages of all their design concepts. If they can get well-proven gearboxes pretty much off the shelf, then it could be quite safe and reliable while being relatively reasonably priced (they estimate $2000/hr. for the 10-seater, with about 400mph cruise.)
Bob
Vertical takeoff would require about 700-800 pounds of thrust per propeller. That will require a lot of horsepower for a craft that is only 1100 pounds empty. Add a 300+lb. load and it becomes unlikely. Very unlikely. Now for short takeoff and good speed he may have something as long as he abandons the very power intensive and complicated vertical takeoff.
The Skud
Hope they succeed, one step closer to the "flying car" we have been promised for decades. With the advances in self-driving technology and newer cars 'talking' to each other, the legalities of flight for the not-so-rich is getting closer. These advances would remove a lot of the worries about flying vehicles passing or nearly approaching each other - as long as manufacturers can avoid the "Beta v Videotape" confrontations!
Mzungu_Mkubwa
I'm not sure why they are insisting on the very unstable Osprey-inspired dual rotor design for vertical flight mode. It would seem better to me to pursue a multi-copter type concept, scaling something like this R/C up to full size: https://youtu.be/fOJ8TWYUedA . Although, I wouldn't stop a just four props, but rather would mount at least six remote electric engines. Implement a central micro turbine generator (such as from Capstone: http://www.gizmag.com/capstone-cmt-380-an-electric-hybrid-featuring-wind-turbines/13517/ ) and you're good to go, right?
StWils
I would be interested in one of these once my Lottery Investment Program works out great. So far not so good there. And also once they install one of those whole aircraft parachutes. However, after all of that I am way on board with this.
Josh Coray
Per Bob:
"Vertical takeoff would require about 700-800 pounds of thrust per propeller. That will require a lot of horsepower for a craft that is only 1100 pounds empty"
Lets see: You get about 1lb of thrust per 100w of power on electric power. For this application you only need 70,000 watts, or 70-80kw. That would translate into about 100hp (93-107hp range) each prop.
100hp each wing is reasonable. A Cessna 170 has about 145hp and weighted 1200 empty, with 2,200 gross weight. So a smaller sized engine per, or just the engine from a Cessna 180 at 230hp would do it.
Nothing to radical about that.
steveraxx
Always admire all of the negative comments from the guys who have forgotten more than the people building the actual thing: bike, airplane, house, computer...
Nostromo47
What's old is new. There have been convertiplane projects dating back to the 1950's. The current offering, while very swoopy, looks remarkably like those by Bell, Vertol, Convair, NASA and dozens of others. Only the V-22 Osprey has made it to prime time. They keep trying with ever developing new materials and improved engines. We are apparently on the threshold of development of several new designs that will revolutionize aviation. I keep hoping they will succeed.
Matt Fletcher
To Josh Coray- Vertical take off breakaway has to create all lift whereas a Cessna has wings that create lift. So at the very least double the power requirements you came up with while still maintaining the same weight. Also with only 2 motors it actually makes control very difficult. That's why the V-22 was originally dropped because they didn't have the stability control calculations correct the 1st time around and crashed more often then not. Really, if it were as easy as you make it sound Cessna (and every other aircraft manufacturer) would have done it in the 70's.
To steveraxx- I too love the couch potato quarterbacks/engineers.
Still this design might work. There are jet engines today that weight 80 lbs and can produce 400 hp. My guess is they will put a higher hp jet engine in the back and split the power between props. The split will bleed hp but save weight with one power source. The double joined wing will add structural integrity, a lower width and greater stability than a single wing same length but with more drag. My guess is the VTOL won't work very well, if at all, due to prop wash between props (to close to each other for VT) but the STOL will.
Personally I'd rather just buy or fly in a Cessna or Robinson helicopter.
Most Viewed