aerospace

Article
Electric VTOL Configurations Comparison
Alessandro Bacchini *,† and Enrico Cestino †
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy;
enrico.cestino@polito.it
* Correspondence: alessandro.bacchini@polito.it; Tel.: +39-339-5348624
† These authors contributed equally to this work.




Received: 21 December 2018; Accepted: 22 February 2019; Published: 28 February 2019


Abstract: In the last ten years, different concepts of electric vertical take-off and landing aircrafts
(eVTOLs) have been tested. This article addresses the problem of the choice of the best configuration.
VTOLs built since the fifties are presented and their advantages, disadvantages, and problems are
discussed. Three representative eVTOLs, one for each main configuration, are compared on five main
parameters and three reference missions. The parameters are disk loading, total hover time, cruise
speed, practical range, and flight time. The performance of the eVTOLs on the urban, extra-urban,
and long-range mission is evaluated computing the time and energy required. The results show that
the best configuration depends on the mission. The multirotor is more efficient in hover. The vectored
thrust jet is more efficient in cruise and has a higher range. The lift + cruise is a compromise.

Keywords: electric VTOL configurations; VTOL design; aircraft design

1. Introduction
Electric vertical take-off and landing aircrafts (eVTOLs) are being built and tested, and their
configurations vary from hover bikes to electric ducted fans. In 2010, Moore [1] presented the NASA
Puffin electric tailsitter VTOL concept and highlighted the potential of electric propulsion to enable
cheap, quiet, and reliable short-range VTOLs. That same year the company ZeeAero, now Kitty
Hawk [2], was founded by Kroo with the aim of building an eVTOL flying car. From that moment
on, many researchers, companies, and startups started to work on eVTOLs. Now, most of the major
aircraft companies are directly developing their own electric VTOL or have subsidiaries doing it. More
than 130 electric VTOL concepts have been proposed [3] and venture capitalists have invested more
than 1 billion dollars into promising eVTOL startups [4]. Moore and his colleagues have worked on
the idea of on-demand air mobility [5,6], hybrid eVTOLs [7], the advantages of electric propulsion
compared to internal combustion and gas turbines [8], and the distributed electric propulsion of the
X-57 Sceptor [9]. McDonald has worked on electric propulsion modeling for conceptual design [10]
and developed the OpenVSP design tool.
Most of the research has been conducted by private companies. Uber has hired both Moore and
McDonald and is trying to build, with its program Uber Elevate, the infrastructure for eVTOLs [11].
Kitty Hawk, Lilium, Joby Aviation, and E-Hang are four of the startups developing electric VTOLs.
Kitty Hawk has developed and is now testing two vehicles: Cora, the lift + cruise air taxi and the Flyer,
a hoverbike [12]. Lilium is a German startup that is building an electric ducted fan eVTOL. They have
flown many prototypes including a two-seater jet and are now developing a five-seater air taxi [13].
Joby Aviation has performed tests on electric propulsion and is building an eVTOL prototype [14].
E-Hang is a Chinese company manufacturing quadrotor UAVs that has built and tested, with humans
on board, the E-Hang 184 passenger drone [15].
This article tries to understand which is the best eVTOL design, presenting and discussing all
the different configurations, from the first developed in the fifties and sixties to the present eVTOL

Aerospace 2019, 6, 26; doi:10.3390/aerospace6030026 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 2 of 19

configurations. Then, the performances of the three main eVTOL configurations are evaluated and
compared using data from existing prototypes.

2. Materials and Methods

During the fifties and sixties, after the development of the helicopter, a great research effort
was put into the development of a machine able to fly as fast as an airplane and able to take off
and land vertically like a helicopter, the VTOL aircraft. Many different configurations were tested,
and the only VTOL put into operation was the Harrier. Years later it was followed by the Yak-38,
the V-22, and the F-35. The power plants available to the designers were piston engines and jets.
The efficiency of these engines grows with their size, this means that having multiple power plants on
the aircraft means a reduction in efficiency and power at a fixed total mass. Instead, electric motors
have negligible variation in efficiency at different dimensions. At that time, choosing between using
the same power plant for hover and cruise, or having two different power plants was the main design
decision. Different configurations were tested by different companies during the span of two decades.
The main configurations are listed following the criteria used by the American Helicopter Society [16]
and the advantages and disadvantages of each configuration [17] are discussed.
The VTOLs that use the same propulsion system for hover and forward flight can rotate the
direction of the thrust in different ways. The tail-sitters rotate the entire aircraft. They are conceptually
simple but difficult and risky to control [17]. The Harrier configuration is called vectored thrust
because it can orientate mechanically the direction of the thrust. In the beginning, vectored thrust
VTOLs, like the first Harrier prototypes and the Bell X-14, suffered from suck-down, engine gyroscopic
effects, and hot gas re-ingestion [17,18]. When these problems were solved, the Harrier became the
first operational VTOL attack aircraft [19]. The deflected-slipstreams use flaps to deflect the slipstream
of the propellers. The Ryan VZ3 achieved excellent STOL performances but no VTOL capabilities [17].
The tilt-jets rotate the entire nacelle of the jet. The tiltrotors like the V-22 Osprey and the Agusta
Westland AW609 tilt the entire rotor. They have hover performances comparable to the ones of a
helicopter with the advantage of not having the retreating blade problem in forward flight. They are
complex machines. The tilt-wings rotate the entire wing, the engines and the propellers as a single
piece. Rotating the wing in hover avoids the impinging of the propeller slipstream on it, a problem
that reduces the thrust in the hover of tiltrotors. The lift produced by the wing is augmented, at high
angles of attack, by the blowing effect of the propellers. Tilt-wings of the fifties and sixties suffered
from control problems due to low pitch control power, were mechanically complex, and the loss of
an engine could cause catastrophic roll upset [17]. NASA’s Greased Lightning new tilt-wing hybrid
diesel-electric VTOL demonstrated that these problems are solvable with electric motors and electronic
control [20]. Tilt-ducts use ducted fans which have the advantage of reducing blade tip loss and
producing higher thrust for the rotor diameter. The Doak VZ-4 and the Bell X-22 proved the feasibility
of the concept but struggled with control problems [17].
Other VTOLs like the Short SC.1, the Dassault Balzac V, and the Mirage III V had an additional
power plant for hover. The Mirage III V is the fastest VTOL on record, reaching Mach 2.04 in September
1966. The VTOL capability was achieved adding vertical jets in the fuselage, which reduced the useful
load fraction [17,21].
The lift + lift/cruise VTOLs use one set of engines for lift only and another set of engines for both
lift and cruise. The Soviet Yak 38 is one of these VTOLs, it vectored the thrust of the main engine
and used two additional engines behind the cockpit for hover. The tip-jets are a kind of compound
autogyros that use a rotor powered by jets at the tip of the blade, propellers for horizontal thrust and a
wing to generate lift. The ejector VTOLs eject high-pressure engine efflux into a channel called the
augmentor causing additional ambient air to accelerate through the channel and mix with the engine
exhaust. The Lockheed XV-4A Hummingbird applied this concept but tests on the prototypes showed
results inferior to laboratory tests, incomplete mixing, and ram drag [17]. The fan VTOLs have one
or more additional fans buried in the wings or fuselage powered by the main engine. The F-35 has
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 3 of 19

a fan behind the cockpit which provides, with the nozzle of the main engine swiveled, the thrust
required for hover. The Rayan XV-5A had two fans-in-wing powered by the exhaust gases of its two
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
turbojets. The two prototypes crashed during transition because of the slow control response and
narrow transition corridor [17]. The last VTOL category is the compound helicopter which uses a rotor
its two turbojets. The two prototypes crashed during transition because of the slow control response
to hover and has a propeller for forward flight.
and narrow transition corridor [17]. The last VTOL category is the compound helicopter which uses
In recent years many companies and startups have started developing and testing different
a rotor to hover and has a propeller for forward flight.
electric VTOLs. The website Electric VTOL News [22], published by the Vertical Flight Society,
In recent years many companies and startups have started developing and testing different
classifies eVTOLs in the following categories:
electric VTOLs. The website Electric VTOL News [22], published by the Vertical Flight Society,
-classifies eVTOLs
Vectored in the following categories:
Thrust
- -Lift Vectored
+ Cruise Thrust
- -Wingless+ Cruise
Lift
- Wingless
- Hoverbikes
- Hoverbikes
- eHelos
- eHelos
The
The vectored
vectored thrust
thrust eVTOLs
eVTOLs have
have aa wing
wing for for an
an efficient
efficient cruise
cruise and
and use
use the
the same
same propulsion
propulsion
system
system for both hover and cruise. The Lilium Jet, the Aurora LightningStrike, and thethe
for both hover and cruise. The Lilium Jet, the Aurora LightningStrike, and JobyJoby
S2 S2
andand
S4
S4 are in this category (Figure 1). The Lilium Jet is a tilt duct able to increase the lift coefficient
are in this category (Figure 1). The Lilium Jet is a tilt duct able to increase the lift coefficient of the of the
wing,
wing, during
during the
the transition,
transition, sucking
sucking air
air from
from the
the upper
upper surface
surface of
of the
the wing
wing and
and pushing
pushing it it down
down with
with
the
the electric jets. The Aurora LightningStrike is a tilt-wing with fans-in-wing. The Joby S2 is aa tilt
electric jets. The Aurora LightningStrike is a tilt-wing with fans-in-wing. The Joby S2 is tilt prop.
prop.
The
The main
main difference
difference between
between eVTOLs
eVTOLsin inthis
thiscategory
categoryisiswhether
whethertheytheyhave
havefans
fansororpropellers.
propellers.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Vectored thrust electric
electric vertical
vertical take-off and landing
landing aircrafts
aircrafts (eVTOLs):
(eVTOLs): Lilium Jet [13],
Aurora Lightning Strike [23], Joby S2 [24].
Aurora Lightning Strike [23], Joby S2 [24].

The
The lift
lift++cruise
cruiseeVTOLs
eVTOLshavehavea wing
a wingforfor
anan
efficient cruise,
efficient likelike
cruise, vectored thrust
vectored eVTOLs,
thrust but they
eVTOLs, but
use
theytwo
usedifferent propulsion
two different systems
propulsion for hover
systems and cruise
for hover flight. flight.
and cruise The ZeeAero Z-P2, the
The ZeeAero Kitty
Z-P2, theHawk
Kitty
Cora,
Hawkand theand
Cora, Aurora Flight Sciences
the Aurora eVTOLeVTOL
Flight Sciences are in this
are category (Figure (Figure
in this category 2). 2).
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 4 of 19
Aerospace 2018,
Aerospace 2018, 5,
5, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 44 of
of 19
19

Figure 2. Lift
Figure 2. cruise eVTOLs:
Lift ++ cruise eVTOLs: ZeeAero Z-P2 [25],
[25], Aurora
Aurora Flight
Flight Sciences
Sciences eVTOL
eVTOL [26],
[26], Kitty
Kitty Hawk
Hawk
Cora
Cora [27]:
[27]:

The
The wingless
wingless eVTOLs
eVTOLs areare multirotors.
multirotors. They
They have
have large
large disk
disk actuator
actuator surface
surface which
which makes
makes them
them
efficient
efficient in hover, but they do not have a wing for an efficient cruise. These vehicles are suited for
in hover, but they do not have a wing for an efficient cruise. These vehicles are suited for
short-range
short-range operations
operations inin cities
cities where
where they
they can
can fly
fly over
over traffic
traffic jams. Two VTOLs
jams. Two VTOLs in in this
this class
class are
are
already
already inin the
the certification
certificationphase:
phase: The
The E-Hang
E-Hang184184and
andthe
theVolocopter
Volocopter2X 2X(Figure
(Figure3).
3).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Wingless eVTOLs: E-Hang
Wingless eVTOLs: E-Hang 184
184 [28],
[28], Volocopter
Volocopter 2X
2X [29].
[29].

Hoverbikes are
Hoverbikes are multirotors
multirotors that
that can
can be
be flown
flown like
like aa motorbike.
motorbike. The pilot sits on
on aa saddle
saddle or
or is
is
standing. An example
standing. An example is
is the
the prototype
prototype built
built and
and flown
flown byby Kitty
Kitty Hawk
Hawk (Figure
(Figure4).
4).
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 5 of 19
Aerospace 2018,
Aerospace 2018, 5,
5, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 55 of
of 19
19

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Kitty
Kitty Hawk
Hawk hoverbike
hoverbike [30].
[30].

eHelos are
eHelos are electrical
electrical conventional
conventional helicopters.
helicopters. An
helicopters. An example
example is
is the
the Aquinea
Aquinea Volta
Aquinea Volta(Figure
Volta (Figure5).
(Figure 5).
5).

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Aquinea Volta
Volta [31].
[31].
Figure 5. Aquinea
Aquinea Volta [31].

The E-Hang
The E-Hang 184,
184, the
the Kitty
Kitty Hawk
Hawk Cora,
Cora, and
and the
the Lilium
Lilium Jet
Jet have
have been
been chosen
chosen asas the
the reference
reference for
for
the comparison of the three main eVTOL categories. Their performances have
the comparison of the three main eVTOL categories. Their performances have been computed using been computed using
analytical methods
analytical methods[32]
methods [32]
[32] such
such
such as the
as
as the the disk
disk disk actuator
actuator
actuator theory
theorytheory [33]
[33] to [33] to evaluate
to
evaluate evaluate hover performances,
hover
hover performances,performances,
Breguet’s
Breguet’s
Breguet’s
equation for equation
equation for
electricfor electric
electric
flight [34] toflight
flight [34]
[34] to
compute to compute
thecompute the theoretical
therange,
theoretical theoretical range,
range,
empirical empirical
empirical
methods methods
methodsthe
to evaluate to
to
evaluate
evaluate
drag of the the drag
theeVTOL of
drag offromthe eVTOL
the the
eVTOL from the
from the
Hoerner’s bookHoerner’s
Hoerner’s book
[35] and book [35] and
[35] drag,
standard standard
and standard drag, power,
drag, power,
power, efficiency efficiency
efficiency
considerations.
considerations.
considerations.
The comparison has been performed evaluating five parameters and computing the energy and
The
time The comparison
comparison
required to performhas been
has been performed
threeperformed evaluating
evaluating
reference missions. Thefive
five parameters
parameters
five parameters and
and computing
computing
are the energy
the
disk loading, energy and
and
total hover
time
time required
time,required to perform
to perform
cruise speed, practicalthree
three reference
reference
range, missions.
missions.
and flight The five parameters
five parameters
time. The reference missions are disk
areare: loading, total hover
disk loading, total hover
time, cruise speed, practical range, and flight time. The reference
time, cruise speed, practical range, and flight time. The reference missions are: missions are:
- 7 km kmurban mission
-- 77 km urban
urban mission
mission
- --30 km
30 km extra-urban
extra-urban
30 km extra-urban mission
mission
mission
- --100 100
100 km
km km long-distance
long-distance
long-distance mission
mission
mission

Results
3. Results
3.
3.1. Wingless Multirotor
3.1. Wingless
Wingless Multirotor Configuration
Configuration
3.1. Multirotor Configuration
To
To present
present the
the performances
performances ofof the
the wingless
wingless multirotor
multirotor configuration, the
configuration, the e-Hang
the e-Hang 184
e-Hang 184 data
184 data [15]
data [15]
[15]
To present the performances of the wingless multirotor configuration,
has been
has been used
been used and
used and its
and its performance
its performance has
performance has been
has been evaluated.
been evaluated. Figure
evaluated. Figure 6 shows
Figure 66 shows the
shows the E-Hang
the E-Hang 184.
E-Hang 184.
184.
has
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 6 of 19
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

Figure6.6.E-Hang
Figure E-Hang184
184specs
specsand
anddimensions,
dimensions, from E-Hang
E-Hangwebsite
website[15].
[15].Dimensions
Dimensionsinin
the top
the view
top view
are
are ininmillimeters.
millimeters.

Data
Dataofofthe
thee-Hang
e-Hang184
184configuration,
configuration, found
found in their website
website[15],
[15],isispresented
presentedininTable
Table1.1.

Table1.1.E-Hang
Table E-Hang 184
184 specifications
specifications from
from E-Hang
E-Hangwebsite
website[15].
[15].

Maximum total power

Maximum total power 152152
kWkW
NumberNumber
of motors of motors 8 8
Total energy
Total battery battery energy 14.414.4
kWh kWh
Propeller
Propeller diameter diameter 1.6 1.6
m m
Net weight 260 kg
Net weight 260 kg
Total flight time 25 min
Total Rated
flight payload
time weight 100 kgmin
25
Rated payload
Average weight
flight speed 100 kg
100 km/h
Average flight speed 100 km/h
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 7 of 19

The estimated values of geometry, battery, mass balance, and hover performances are presented
in Table 2.

Table 2. E-Hang 184 data computed with Figure 6 and Table 1 data.

Geometry
Propeller area 2.01 m2 Computed
Total disk actuator area 8.04 m2 Computed
Battery
Energy density 157 Wh/kg Assumed [36]
Specific power 735 W/kg Assumed [36]
Max power 67 kW Computed
Mass balance
Battery mass 92 kg Computed
Empty weight 168 kg Computed
Payload weight 100 kg E-Hang data
Hover performances
Average power consumption 34.6 kW Computed
Power required to hover 47 kW Computed
Energy required for 1 min of hover 0.79 kWh Computed
Total hover time 20.5 min Computed
Disk loading 440 N/m2 Computed

The battery mass has been computed as total energy divided by energy specific density. The energy
specific density and specific power have been assumed equal to the values of the Tesla Model S battery
pack [36]. This assumption has been made because these batteries are used in a consumer product in a
high-power application. They have demonstrated the ability to work after years and hundreds of life
cycles, in harsh environments like Norway. Li-ion batteries for power applications have specific energy
ranging from 100 to 250 Wh/kg [34,37] and specific power from 700 to 1300 W/kg [37]. The assumed
values are at pack level, they consider the additional weight of casing, connections, and thermal
management system. The energy density and specific power of the batteries used for eVTOLs might
be better than the assumed values. This conservative assumption means that the batteries will be
able to provide enough power for takeoff and landing even after years of utilization. As batteries age,
the energy they can store and the maximum power they can provide decrease [37,38]. For electric cars,
this means that the total range decreases. For eVTOLs, designed to be able to take off with maximum
battery power at the beginning of the life of the battery, this might mean not having enough power to
take off after a few years of service.
The average power consumption has been computed dividing the total energy by the total time
of flight. The power required to hover, P, has been computed with the disk actuator theory modified
for coaxial rotors [39]:
3
T2
P = k int p (1)
2 ρA

where T is the thrust or the weight of the vehicle, ρ is the air density at sea level (1.225 kg/m3 ), A is the
disk actuator area of the vertical thrust system, in this case, the area of √the four coaxial rotors, and k int
is the interference factor. k int varies from 1 for zero interference to 2 for maximum interference
corresponding to the case of two rotors corotating in the same plane. The value selected is 1.26 for
rotors operated at balanced torque with the lower rotor operating in the fully developed wake of the
upper rotor [39].
The power required to hover, 42.7 kW, is different from the average power consumption specified
by the producer, 34.6 kW (Table 1), because the power required in cruise is less than in hover due to
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 8 of 19
Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

is 1.26 for rotors operated at balanced torque with the lower rotor operating in the fully developed
the lift produced by the vehicle and to the reduction in induced drag [39–41]. The total hover time
wake of the upper rotor [39].
found isThe20.5 min.required to hover, 42.7 kW, is different from the average power consumption specified by
power
Thetheelectric
producer,motors
34.6 kWhave
(Table been sizedthetopower
1), because ensure the in
required safety
cruise of thethan
is less vehicle in due
in hover case of failure.
to the
Each coaxial rotor couple
lift produced is a failure
by the vehicle redundant
and to the reduction system.
in inducedThe
dragtwo rotors
[39–41]. Theare
totaldriven by two
hover time found different
motors.isWhen
20.5 min.
one motor fails, the propeller connected to it stops and the propeller connected to the
undamagedThe electric motors have been sized to ensure the safety of the vehicle in case of failure. Each
motor of the couple provides the entire thrust normally provided by the coaxial rotor
coaxial rotor couple is a failure redundant system. The two rotors are driven by two different motors.
couple. To evaluate the power required for this contingency scenario, the standard disk actuator theory
When one motor fails, the propeller connected to it stops and the propeller connected to the
has been used [32,33]:
undamaged motor of the couple provides the entires thrust normally provided by the coaxial rotor
T3
couple. To evaluate the power required for this contingency scenario, the standard disk actuator
theory has been used [32,33]:
P= (2)
2ρA
𝑇
where T is the thrust and A is the disk actuator 𝑃 = area of the single operative propeller. The (2) thrust
2𝜌𝐴
considered is a quarter of the weight of the vehicle multiplied by a 1.3 margin factor for maneuver.
where 𝑇 is the thrust and 𝐴 is the disk actuator area of the single operative propeller. The thrust
The power foundisisa17.5
considered kWofper
quarter the motor, while
weight of the maximum
the vehicle multipliedpower
by a 1.3per motor
margin specified
factor by E-Hang’s
for maneuver.
websiteThe
[15]power
is 19 found
kW. This value
is 17.5 hasmotor,
kW per beenwhile
found theby dividing
maximum the total
power power,
per motor 152 kW
specified in Table 1, by 8,
by E-Hang’s
the totalwebsite
number [15]ofis motors.
19 kW. This value has been found by dividing the total power, 152 kW in Table 1, by
8, the total number of motors.
3.2. Lift + Cruise Configuration
3.2. Lift + Cruise Configuration
To present the performances of the lift + cruise configuration, the Kitty Hawk Cora’s data has
To present the performances of the lift + cruise configuration, the Kitty Hawk Cora’s data has
been used (Figure 7 and Table 3).
been used (Figure 7 and Table 3).

Figure 7. Kitty Hawk Cora geometry [27].

Figure 7. Kitty Hawk Cora geometry [27].

TableTable 3. Kitty
3. Kitty Hawk Hawk Coraspecifications
Cora specifications from
fromKitty
KittyHawk’s website
Hawk’s [2]. [2].
website
Wingspan 11 m Website data [2]
Wingspan 11 m Website data [2]
Wing chord 1m Estimated from Figure 7
Wing chord 1m 2 Estimated from Figure 7
Wing surface 102 m Website data [2]
Wing surface 10 m Website data [2]
Number of lift fans
Number of lift fans 12 12 From Figure 7
From Figure 7
Lift propeller
Lift propeller diameter
diameter (external)
(external) 1.3 1.3
mm Estimated
Estimatedfrom Figure
from 7 7
Figure
Lift propeller diameter
Lift propeller diameter (hub) (hub) 0.5 m m
0.5 Estimated from Figure
Estimated from Figure7 7
Cruise propeller diameter 2m Estimated from Figure 7
Range 100 km Website data [2]
Flight time (with 10 min reserve) 19 min Website data [2]
Speed 180 km/h Website data [2]
Passenger cargo capacity 181 kg Website data [27]
Rear landing gear-tail angle 15.9◦ Estimated from Figure 7
Fuselage-wing angle 12.4◦ Estimated from Figure 7
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 9 of 19

Table 3 shows the Kitty Hawk Cora specifications. With this data, the propeller area has been
computed and is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Kitty Hawk Cora propeller area.

Propeller area (external, single propeller) 1.3 m2 Computed

Propeller area (internal, single propeller) 0.2 m2 Computed
Circular crown area (single propeller) 1.1 m2 Computed
Total disk actuator area 13.6 m2 Computed

The mass and battery data of the Kitty Hawk eVTOL are listed in Table 5. The total mass of the
vehicle is 1224 kg as specified in [42]. The battery mass has been estimated computing the minimum
power required to hover P. This is given by the disk actuator Equation (2), where the thrust, T, is the
weight of the vehicle, ρ is the air density at sea level (1.225 kg/m3 ), and A is the disk actuator area of
the vertical thrust system.

Table 5. Kitty Hawk Cora mass and battery data.

Total mass 1224 kg Data [27]

Power required to hover 228 kW Computed
Battery energy specific density 157 Wh/kg Assumed [36]
Battery power density 735 W/kg Assumed [36]
Minimum battery mass 310 kg Computed
Battery mass 400 kg Assumed
Total battery energy 63 kWh Computed
Battery mass to total mass ratio 33% Computed

The hover performances are listed in Table 6. The gravity acceleration g = 9.8 m/s2 has been
used. The energy required to hover for one minute is computed multiplying the power required to
hover by 60 s and the total hover time is computed dividing the total energy available by the power
required to hover.

Table 6. Kitty Hawk Cora hover performances.

Energy for 1 min of hover 3.8 kWh Computed

Total hover time 16.5 min Computed
Disk loading 880 N/m2 Computed

Comparing it to the E-Hang 184, the Kitty Hawk Cora requires over four times the energy for
one minute of hover, has double the disk loading, and has a lower total hover time. The aerodynamic
properties of the Cora vehicle have been estimated using the lifting line theory, adding the additional
resistance of the pylons and propellers for the vertical takeoff. For the lifting line procedure, the airfoil’s
lift slope coefficient and zero lift angle have been assumed 5.34 rad−1 and −3.26◦ . These values
have been found selecting the airfoil NLF(1)-0115 [43,44] and using the software Xfoil [45] for the
computations. The aerodynamic drag of the wing and the horizontal tail are computed integrating
the airfoil sections contribution. The drag of the other components is estimated using the parameters
listed in Table 7.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 10 of 19

Table 7. Kitty Hawk Cora geometry data used to compute the drag.

Fuselage
Length 4.8 m Estimated from Figure 7
Diameter 1.5 m Estimated from Figure 7
Wet surface 13 m2 Computed
Horizontal tail
Surface 2 m2 Estimated from Figure 7
Thickness to chord ratio 0.12 Assumed
Chord 0.75 m Estimated from Figure 7
Vertical tail
Sweep 10◦ Estimated from Figure 7
Thickness to chord ratio 0.12 Assumed
Height 1m Estimated from Figure 7
Chord 0.75 m Estimated from Figure 7
Wet surface 1.5 m2 Computed
Number of vertical tails 2 From Figure 7
Pylons
Length 3.5 m Estimated from Figure 7
Width 0.16 m Estimated from Figure 7
Height 0.36 m Estimated from Figure 7
Wet surface 3.76 m2 Computed
Number of pylons 6 From Figure 7
Propellers
Length 1.3 m Estimated from Figure 7
Diameter 0.3 m Estimated from Figure 7
Wet surface 0.8 m2 Computed
Number 12 From Figure 7
Landing gear
Tire width 0.15 m Estimated from Figure 7
Tire height 0.3 m Estimated from Figure 7
Surface 0.045 m2 Computed

The fuselage drag is computed using [46]:

h i
CD0 = ∑ C f FQ Swet /Sre f (3)

where C f is given by:

0.455
Cf = 2.58 0.65
(4)
(log Rec ) (1 + 0.144M2 )
for turbulent flow, and by:
1.328
Cf = √ (5)
Rec
for laminar flow, F is the form factor given by:
 1.5  3
d d
F = 1 + 2.2 − 0.9 (6)
l l

and Q is the interference factor set at 1. The flow is assumed to be 20% laminar and 80% turbulent.
The same procedure has been followed for the vertical tail, computing the form factor, F, by

F = ( F ∗ − 1)cos2 ∆0.5c + 1 (7)

Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 11 of 19

where F ∗ = 1 + 3.52(t/c) and ∆0.5c is the sweep angle at 50% of the chord. The interference factor, Q,
is set at 1.2 for the vertical tail.
The drag of the pylons supporting the vertical lift propellers and the drag of the vertical lift
propellers has been computed as the base drag of a 3D body [35] (pp. 3–19). The drag coefficient is
computed as:
0.029
CDB = q (8)
Cf

then it is scaled to the reference surface, corresponding to the wing surface:

S f ront
CDB0 = CDB (9)
Sre f

Equations (8) and (9) have been applied for both the pylons supporting the vertical lift propellers
and for the vertical lift propellers using their different geometries and different friction coefficients.
The drag of the landing gear is computed supposing a CD0 of 0.25 as suggested in [35] and scaling it
from the wheel surface to the reference surface.
The interference drag between the wing and fuselage has been added using the following
equation [35]: !
 3
t c2
CD = 0.8 − 0.0003 (10)
c Sre f

The drag polar of the Cora vehicle computed is:

CD = 0.0438 + 0.0294·CL 2

The speed of maximum L/D and the maximum L/D are given by [47]:
v s
u
u 2 k W
Vmax L =t (11)
D ρ∞ CD0 S
r
L CD0
= (12)
D max k
where CD0 and k are the parameters of the drag polar. This gives a speed of maximum L/D of 145 km/h
and a maximum L/D of 13.9. The theoretical range, given by [32]:

1 L m battery
R = E∗ ·ηtotal · · · (13)
g D m

is 200 km. Limiting the depth of discharge to 70%, improving the cruise speed to save time to 180 km/h,
and considering takeoff and landing the range decreases to 107 km. The flight time is 36 min. These
results are in accordance with the performances specified by the producer of 180 km/h cruise speed
and 19 min flight time plus 10 min of reserves (Table 3). The depth of discharge of the battery has been
limited to 70% because Li-ion batteries lifetime depends on the depth of discharge at which they are
subjected [37]. A 70% depth of discharge gives a good amount of energy preserving the lifetime of
the battery. The energy required for takeoff, landing, and transition is 6.3 kWh, which corresponds to
1 min and 40 s of hover. The power required for the cruise is given by:

D ·v
Preq = (14)
η
has been limited to 70% because Li-ion batteries lifetime depends on the depth of discharge at which
they are subjected [37]. A 70% depth of discharge gives a good amount of energy preserving the
lifetime of the battery. The energy required for takeoff, landing, and transition is 6.3 kWh, which
corresponds to 1 min and 40 s of hover. The power required for the cruise is given by:
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 𝐷∙𝑣 12 of 19
𝑃 = (14)
𝜂
where D
where D isisthe
theaerodynamic
aerodynamicdrag,drag,D𝐷==21 ρ𝜌∞ S𝑆v𝑣C𝐶
2
D ,, vvisisthe
theflight
flightspeed
speedandandηηis is
thethe total
total efficiency
efficiency of
the power electronics and propeller which has been assumed
of the power electronics and propeller which has been assumed 75%. 75%.
The angle of attack in cruise is 8 degrees. This This seems
seems reasonable
reasonable because, as seen in in the
the drawings,
drawings,
the angle
angle between
between the
thewing
wingandandthe
thefuselage
fuselageisis1212degrees.
degrees.This Thisfeature
featureallows
allowsa comfortable
a comfortable cruise
cruiseat
high angles of attack that reduces the required wing surface also reducing the aerodynamic
at high angles of attack that reduces the required wing surface also reducing the aerodynamic drag drag of the
wing. Flight Flight
of the wing. at highatangles of attack
high angles with low
of attack withinduced
low induceddrag is possible
drag because
is possible Cora Cora
because has a has
verya high
very
aspect ratio wing. The angle between the wing and the fuselage is also beneficial
high aspect ratio wing. The angle between the wing and the fuselage is also beneficial because turningbecause turning on
the VTOL
on the VTOL propellers in flight
propellers produces
in flight a thrust
produces which has
a thrust which a component opposedopposed
has a component to the flight direction,
to the flight
allowing
direction,aallowing
smooth deceleration, and transition
a smooth deceleration, and between
transitioncruisebetweenand cruise
vertical landing.
and vertical landing.

3.3. Vectored Thrust

3.3. Vectored Thrust
To
To evaluate
evaluate the
the vectored
vectored thrust
thrust eVTOL
eVTOL category,
category,the
the Lilium
Lilium JetJet has
has been
been selected.
selected. The
The geometric
geometric
dimensions have been estimated from the image of the first flight test of the prototype
dimensions have been estimated from the image of the first flight test of the prototype (Figure (Figure 8
8 and
and Table
Table 8). 8).

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Lilium
Lilium Jet
Jet geometry
geometry [13].
[13].

Table 8. Lilium
Table 8. Lilium Jet
Jet geometry
geometry

FuselageFuselage
width width 1.4 m
1.4 m Estimated from Figure 8
Estimated from Figure 8
Fuselage length 3.6 m Estimated from Figure 8
FuselageWingspan
length 6m3.6 m Estimated
Estimated from
from Figure 8 Figure 8
Root chord 0.78 m Estimated from Figure 8
WingspanTip chord
6m
0.42 m
Estimated from Figure 8
Estimated from Figure 8
Man lying on the tarmac
Root chord 1.52 mm
0.78 Estimated from Figure
Estimated from8 Figure 8
Suitcase 0.46 m Estimated from Figure 8
Tip chord
Fans diameter 0.42
0.15 mm Estimated
Estimated from
from Figure 8 Figure 8
Number of fans 36 From Figure 8

The man lying on the tarmac and the suitcase have been measured to crosscheck the validity of
the estimated measures.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 13 of 19

The total mass has been assumed 490 kg because this is less than the maximum takeoff weight for
the ultralight aircraft category in Europe (450 + 45 kg) [48,49]. The battery mass has been estimated at
240 kg, with a battery mass to total mass ratio of 49%. These results are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Lilium Jet mass and battery data.

Total mass 490 kg Assumed

Power required to hover 187 kW Computed
Battery energy specific density 157 Wh/kg Assumed [36]
Battery power density 735 W/kg Assumed [36]
Battery mass 240 kg Computed
Total battery energy 38 kWh Computed
Battery mass to total mass ratio 49% Computed

The hover performances have been computed using the disk actuator theory modified for ducted
fans [50]. The power required to hover is:
v 
u T 3
u
t Ti
P= (15)
2ρA

where Ti = 1.26 is the thrust increase for ducted fans, T is the thrust required or the weight of
the vehicle and A is the disk actuator area of the vertical thrust system. The sea level air density
ρ = 1.225 kg/m3 and gravity acceleration g = 9.8 m/s2 have been used. The results are listed in
Table 10. The power required found is 187 kW and the maximum power available with 240 kg of
batteries and a specific power of 735 W/kg is 176 kW. This means that, with the assumptions made,
the Tesla batteries considered are not enough to power the Lilium jet. It requires batteries with a higher
specific power.

Table 10. Lilium Jet hover performances.

Energy for 1 min of hover 3.12 kWh

Total hover time 12.1 min
Disk loading 7500 N/m2

Prandtl’s lifting line theory was used to compute the wing’s lift and drag. The drag produced by
the fuselage and by the forward fans has then been added. The resulting drag polar is:

CD = 0.0163 + 0.058·CL 2

Applying Equations (11) to (14), the speed of maximum L/D is 230 km/h and the maximum L/D
is 16.3. The theoretical range, computed with Equation (13) [32], is 380 km. Limiting the depth of
discharge to 70%, improving the cruise speed to save time to 250 km/h, and considering takeoff and
landing the range decreases to 203 km. The flight time is 48 min.
Lilium is now developing a five-seater version of its eVTOL (Figure 9).
 Aerospace 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 14 of 19

Figure 9. Lilium jet five-seater geometry.

Performing the same procedure Figure 9. this

for Lilium jet five-seater
vehicle, geometry.
the estimated values are 12 m wingspan, 0.28 m
fans diameter, 1700 kg total mass, and 900 kg battery mass. The disk loading of this vehicle is the same
as thePerforming
two-seater the same
jet, the procedure
practical rangeforwith
this70%
vehicle,
depth the
ofestimated
discharge values are 12speed
and a cruise metersof wingspan,
290 km/h
0.28 m fans diameter, 1700 kg total mass,
is 245 km, and the total flight time is 55 min. and 900 kg battery mass. The disk loading of this vehicle is
the same as the two-seater jet, the practical range with 70% depth of discharge and a cruise speed of
3.4.
290 Reference Mission
km/h is 245 km, andPerformance
the total flight time is 55 min.
The time and energy required by the three eVTOLs to perform the three reference missions have
3.4. Reference Mission Performance
been computed. Each mission consists of:
The time and energy required by the three eVTOLs to perform the three reference missions have
- 15 s of takeoff at hover power;
been computed. Each mission consists of:
- 2 from zero forward speed to cruise speed at hover power;
-acceleration at 2atm/s
15 s of takeoff hover power;
- -cruise flight; at 2 m/s from zero forward speed to cruise speed at hover power;
acceleration
2
- cruise flight;at −2 m/s from cruise speed to zero forward speed at hover power;
-deceleration
- s of landingatat−2
-15deceleration m/spower.
hover from cruise speed to zero forward speed at hover power;
- 15 s of landing at hover power.
The results are presented in Tables 11–15.
The results are presented in Tables 11–15.
Table 11. Data used in the computations for the reference mission performance.
Table 11. Data used in the computations for the reference mission performance.
E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium
Cruise power E-Hang
34.6 kW 184 Kitty Hawk Cora 28 kWLilium
63 kW
Cruise Cruise
powerspeed 100
34.6km/h
kW 180 km/h
63 kW 252 km/h
28 kW
Takeoff and landing power 42.1 kW 228 kW 187 kW
Cruise Total
speed battery energy 100 km/h
14.4 kWh 180 km/h
63 kWh 252 km/h
38 kWh
Takeoff and landing power 42.1 kW 228 kW 187 kW
Table 12. Takeoff, landing, acceleration, and deceleration.
Total battery energy 14.4 kWh 63 kWh 38 kWh
E-Hang 184 Cora Lilium
Table 12. Takeoff, landing, acceleration, and deceleration.
Takeoff and landing time 30 s 30 s 30 s
Takeoff and landing energy 0.35 kWh 1.9 kWh 1.6 kWh
Acceleration/deceleration 2E-Hang
m/s2 184 2 m/s Cora 2 2 m/sLilium
2

Acceleration
Takeoff and landingtimetime 14
30ss 2530s s 35 s 30 s
Acceleration energy 0.16 kWh 1.58 kWh 1.82 kWh
Takeoff and landing energy
Acceleration/deceleration distance 0.35mkWh
193 6251.9mkWh 1225 m1.6 kWh
Deceleration time 14 s 25 s 35 s
Acceleration / deceleration
Deceleration energy
2 m/s
0.16 kWh
2 m/s
1.58 kWh
2 m/s
1.82 kWh
Total time
Acceleration time for takeoff, landing, acceleration, and deceleration 114
min
s 1.325min
s 1.7 min
35 s
Total energy for takeoff, landing, acceleration, and deceleration 0.7 kWh 5.1 kWh 5.2 kWh
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 15 of 19

Table 13. Mission 1: 7 km urban mission.

E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium

Cruise distance 6.6 km 5.8 km 4.6 km
Cruise time 3.9 min 2.0 min 1.1 min
Cruise energy 2.3 kWh 2.0 kWh 0.5 kWh
Total time 4.9 min 3.3 min 2.8 min
Total energy 3.0 kWh 7.1 kWh 5.7 kWh

Table 14. Mission 2: 30 km extra-urban mission.

E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium

Cruise distance 29.6 km 28.8 km 27.6 km
Cruise time 17.7 min 9.6 min 6.6 min
Cruise energy 10.2 kWh 10.1 kWh 3.1 kWh
Total time 18.7 min 10.9 min 8.2 min
Total energy 10.9 kWh 15.2 kWh 8.3 kWh

Table 15. Mission 3: 100 km long-range mission.

E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium

Cruise distance - 98.8 km 97.6 km
Cruise time - 33.0 min 23.2 min
Cruise energy - 34.6 kWh 10.9 kWh
Total time - 34.3 min 24.9 min
Total energy - 39.7 kWh 16.1 kWh

4. Discussion
The three configurations examined have been compared. Their hover and cruise flight parameters
are presented in Table 16 and their performances for the three reference missions are presented in
Table 17, Figures 10 and 11.

Table 16. Performances comparison.

E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium

Disk loading (N/m2 ) 440 880 7500
Total hover time (min) 20.5 16.5 12.1
Cruise speed (km/h) 100 180 252
Practical range (km) 42 107 203
Flight time (min) 25 36 48

Table 17. Summary of the energy and time required for the three reference missions.

E-Hang 184 Kitty Hawk Cora Lilium

7 km urban mission time 4.9 min 3.3 min 2.8 min
7 km urban mission energy 3.0 kWh 7.1 kWh 5.7 kWh
30 km extra-urban mission time 18.7 min 10.9 min 8.2 min
30 km extra-urban mission energy 10.9 kWh 15.2 kWh 8.3 kWh
100 km long-range mission time - 34.3 min 24.9 min
100 km long-range mission energy - 39.7 kWh 16.1 kWh
 7 km urban mission energy 3.0 kWh 7.1 kWh 5.7 kWh
30 km extra-urban mission time 18.7 min 10.9 min 8.2 min
30 km
30 km extra-urban
extra-urban mission
mission energy
time 18.7kWh
10.9 min 10.9kWh
15.2 min 8.2kWh
8.3 min
30 km extra-urban mission energy 10.9 kWh 15.2 kWh 8.3 kWh
100 km long-range mission time - 34.3 min 24.9 min
100 km
100 km long-range
long-range mission
mission energy
time -- 34.3kWh
39.7 min 24.9kWh
16.1 min
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 16 of 19
100 km long-range mission energy - 39.7 kWh 16.1 kWh

Figure 10. Energy required for the three reference missions.

Figure 10. Energy required for the three reference missions.
Figure 10. Energy required for the three reference missions.

Figure11:
Figure Timerequired
11.Time requiredfor
forthe
thethree
three reference
reference missions.
missions.
Figure 11: Time required for the three reference missions.
Table 16 shows that the multirotor configuration represented by the E-Hang 184 is the best suited
to hover flight while Lilium is the best suited to cruise flight. The lift + cruise Cora is a compromise.
It has less range and flight speed than Lilium but good hover performances comparable to the wingless
multirotor configuration.
The 7 km urban mission is completed in 4.9 min by E-Hang, 3.3 min by Cora, and 2.8 min by
Lilium. E-Hang requires 3 kWh, Cora 7.1 kWh, and Lilium 5.7 kWh. The 30 km extra-urban mission is
completed in 18.7 min by E-Hang, 10.9 min by Cora, and 8.2 min by Lilium. E-Hang requires 10.9 kWh,
Cora 15.2 kWh, Lilium 8.3 kWh. The 100 km long-range mission cannot be completed by E-Hang
and is almost Cora’s computed maximum range. It is completed in 34.3 min by Cora and 24.9 min by
Lilium. Cora requires 39.7 kWh and Lilium 16.1.
The urban mission comparison shows that multirotors require less energy for short-range missions.
In the extra-urban mission, the cruise phase is as important as the hover phase, and the energy required
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 17 of 19

by the three configurations is comparable. In the long-range mission, cruise efficiency is more important.
E-hang’s range is insufficient to complete it. Cora’s parasitic drag caused by the pylons and vertical
thrust propellers increases the power required in cruise. Its cruise speed is less than Lilium’s and the
energy required is more.
Lilium’s hover is so power demanding that it requires batteries with higher specific power than
the Tesla batteries considered for the computations. This means that the aerodynamic advantages of
this configuration are balanced by higher demands on the batteries and on the power electronics.
More practical reasons might influence which eVTOL configuration will be adopted more rapidly
in the future. The multirotor configuration seems to be closer to the market and less complex than
the lift + cruise and the electric jet. However, the range advantage of the latter two enables missions
impossible to the multirotor configuration.

5. Conclusions
Different configurations of turboshaft powered VTOLs tested in the fifties and sixties have
been discussed in the introduction detailing advantages, disadvantages, and problems of each one.
The recent eVTOL prototypes categories have then been presented under the classification proposed
by the American Helicopter Society. The performances of the three main eVTOL configurations have
been evaluated estimating five main parameters, the energy and the time required to complete three
reference missions. The performances of the E-Hang 184 have been estimated for the multirotor
configuration, the Kitty Hawk Cora was selected for the lift plus cruise configuration and the Lilium
jet represented the electric jet configuration. This analysis showed that the best eVTOL configuration
depends on the mission. Short-range missions are best performed by multirotors because they have
better hover performances. Long-range missions cannot be accomplished by multirotors because their
range is not enough.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B. and E.C.; Methodology, A.B. and E.C.; Software, A.B.; Validation,
A.B. and E.C.; Formal Analysis, A.B. and E.C.; Data Curation, A.B. and E.C.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation,
A.B.; Writing—Review & Editing, A.B. and E.C.; Supervision, E.C.; Project Administration, E.C.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Moore, M. NASA Puffin Electric Tailsitter VTOL Concept. In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 13–15 September 2010.
2. Kitty Hawk. Available online: https://kittyhawk.aero/ (accessed on 20 December 2018).
3. Hirschberg, M. Stand on the Shoulders of Giants. Vertiflite. 2019. Available online: http://evtol.news/2019/
01/02/stand-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/ (accessed on 28 January 2019).
4. Hirschberg, M. Electric VTOL is Taking Off. Vertiflite. 2018. Available online: http://evtol.news/2018/08/
30/electric-vtol-is-taking-off-beware-the-hyper-hype-cycle/ (accessed on 28 January 2019).
5. Smith, J.C.; Viken, J.K.; Guerreiro, N.M.; Dollyhigh, S.M.; Fenbert, J.W.; Hartman, C.L.; Kwa, T.K.; Moore, M.
Projected demand and potential impacts to the National Airspace System of autonomous, electric, on-demand
small aircraft. In Proceedings of the 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO)
Conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 17–19 September 2012.
6. Patterson, M.; German, B.; Moore, M. Performance Analysis and Design of On-Demand Electric Aircraft
Concepts. In Proceedings of the AIAA ATIO Conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 17–19 September 2012.
7. Fredericks, W.J.; Moore, M.; Busan, R.C. Benefits of Hybrid-Electric Propulsion to Achieve 4x Cruise Efficiency
for a VTOL UAV. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Powered Lift Conference (AIAA AVIATION
Forum), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 12–14 August 2013.
8. Moore, M.; Fredericks, W.J. Misconceptions of Electric Aircraft and their Emerging Aviation Markets.
In Proceedings of the 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting (AIAA SciTech Forum), National Harbor, MD, USA,
13–17 January 2014. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 18 of 19

9. Borer, N.K.; Patterson, M.D.; Viken, J.K.; Moore, M.; Bevirt, J.; Stoll, A.M.; Gibson, A.R. Design and
Performance of the NASA SCEPTOR Distributed Electric Propulsion Flight Demonstrator. In Proceedings of
the 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (AIAA AVIATION Forum),
Washington, DC, USA, 13–17 June 2016.
10. McDonald, R.A. Electric Propulsion Modeling for Conceptual Aircraft Design. In Proceedings of the 52nd
Aerospace Sciences Meeting (AIAA SciTech Forum), National Harbor, MD, USA, 13–17 January 2014.
11. Holden, J.; Goel, N. Uber Elevate. Available online: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf (accessed on 28
January 2019).
12. Kitty Hawk Aero. Available online: https://kittyhawk.aero (accessed on 28 January 2019).
13. Lilium. Available online: https://lilium.com (accessed on 28 January 2019).
14. Joby Aviation. Available online: https://www.jobyaviation.com (accessed on 28 January 2019).
15. E-Hang 184. Available online: http://www.ehang.com/ehang184/specs (accessed on 20 December 2018).
16. Vertipedia. Available online: vertipedia.vtol.org (accessed on 11 November 2017).
17. Anderson, S.B. Historical Overview of V/STOL Aircraft Technology; NASA Technical Memorandum 81280;
Ames Research Center: Moffett Field, CA, USA, 1981.
18. Margason, R.J. Review of Propulsion-Induced Effects on Aerodynamics of Jet/Stol Aircraft; NASA Technical Note
D-5617; Washington, DC, USA, 1970. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.
gov/19700008938.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2019).
19. Harrier Jump Jet, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet (accessed
on 28 January 2019).
20. McSwain, R.G.; Glaab, L.J.; Theodore, C.R. Greased Lightning (GL-10) Performance Flight Research; NASA
TM—2017-219794; Washington, DC, USA, 2017. Available online: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.
ntrs.nasa.gov/20180000765.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2019).
21. Dassault Mirage III V, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IIIV
(accessed on 28 January 2018).
22. eVTOL Classifications. Available online: http://evtol.news/classifications (accessed on 28 January 2019).
23. Aurora Aero. Available online: www.aurora.aero/lightningstrike (accessed on 28 January 2019).
24. Blain, L. Joby’s Wild 16-Rotor Convertible Aircraft for Long-Range, High-Speed, Electric VTOL Commuting.
Available online: https://newatlas.com/joby-s2-tilt-rotor-vtol-multirotor-aircraft-concept/40662/ (accessed
on 28 January 2019).
25. Electric VTOL News. Available online: http://evtol.news/aircraft/zee-aero (accessed on 20 December
2018).
26. Electric VTOL News. Available online: http://evtol.news/aircraft/aurora (accessed on 20 December 2018).
27. Electric VTOL News. Available online: http://evtol.news/aircraft/kitty-hawk-cora (accessed on 20
December 2018).
28. Electric VTOL News. Available online: http://evtol.news/aircraft/ehang (accessed on 20 December 2018).
29. Volocopter 2X, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volocopter_2X (accessed on 20
December 2018).
30. Fingas, J. Kitty Hawk’s Flyer Isn’t the Flying Car You Were Promised. Available online: https://www.
engadget.com/2017/04/24/kitty-hawk-flying-car (accessed on 20 December 2018).
31. Electric VTOL News. Available online: http://evtol.news/aircraft/aquinea-volta (accessed on 20 December
2018).
32. Bacchini, A.; Cestino, E. Electric VTOL conceptual design general considerations. Proc. iMeche Part G J.
Aerosp. Eng. 2018, submitted.
33. Seddon, J. Basic Helicopter Aerodynamics, 2nd ed.; Blackwell Science: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; p. 16.
34. Hepperle, M. Electric Flight—Potential and Limitations; German Aerospace Center, DLR: Braunschweig,
Germany, 2012.
35. Hoerner, S.F. Fluid-Dynamic Drag; Hoerner Fluid Dynamics: Brick Town, NJ, USA, 1965.
36. Tesla Model S, Wikipedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S (accessed on 20
December 2018).
37. Linden, D.; Reddy, T.B. Handbook of Batteries, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
38. Leishman, G.; Syal, M. Figure of Merit Definition for Coaxial Rotors. J. Am. Helicopter Soc. 2008, 53, 290–300.
[CrossRef]
Aerospace 2019, 6, 26 19 of 19

39. Coleman, C.P. A Survey of Theoretical and Experimental Coaxial Rotor Aerodynamic Research; NASA Technical
Paper 3675; National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
40. Bramwell, R.S. Bramwell’s Helicopter Dynamics, 2nd ed.; Butterworth-Einemann: Oxford, UK, 2001.
41. Di Franco, C.; Buttazzo, G. Energy-Aware Coverage Path Planning of UAVs. 2015 IEEE International
Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions, Villa Real, Portugal, 8–10 April 2015.
42. Electric VTOL News, Meet Cora by Mike Hirschberg. Available online: http://evtol.news/2018/04/19/
meet-cora (accessed on 20 December 2018).
43. Selig, M.; Maughmer, M.D.; Somers, D.M. Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil for General-Aviation Applications.
J. Aircr. 1995, 32, 710–715. [CrossRef]
44. Airfoil Tools. Available online: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=nlf0115-il (accessed on 28
January 2019).
45. Xfoil. Available online: https://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/xfoil/ (accessed on 28 January 2019).
46. Jenkinson, L.R. Civil Jet Aircraft Design, 1st ed.; Arnold, A Member of the Hodder Headline Group: London,
UK, 1999.
47. Anderson, J.D. Aircraft Performance and Design; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
48. Ultralight Glider. Available online: http://www.ultralight-glider.fr/en/european-exemptions (accessed on
20 December 2018).
49. Official Journal of the European Union. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2018:212:FULL&from=FR (accessed on 21 December 2018).
50. Tognaccini, R. Lezioni di Aerodinamica dell’ala Rotante; Università Degli Studi di Napoli: Napoli, Italy, 2008.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).