Jay Carter, Founder &

CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES An Aerospace Research & Development Company

Jay Carter, Founder & CEO CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium www.CarterCopters.com July 23rd, 2017

Built first gyros while still in college with father’s guidance Led to job with Bell Research & Development

Steam car built by Jay and his father First car to meet original 1977 emission standards Could make a cold startup & then drive away in less than 30 seconds

Founded Carter Wind Energy in 1976 Installed wind turbines from Hawaii to United Kingdom to 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle One of only two U.S. manufacturers to survive the mid ‘80s industry decline

2013-2014 DARPA TERN Won contract over 5 majors 2009 License Agreement with AAI, Multiple Military Concepts 2011 2017 2nd Gen First Flight Find a Manufacturing Later Demonstrated Partner and Begin 2005 L/D of 12+ Commercial Development 1998 1 st Gen 1st Gen L/D of 7.0 First flight

1994 - 1997 Analysis & Component Testing 22 years, 22 patents + 5 pending 1994 Company 11 key technical challenges overcome founded Proven technology with real flight test

Quiet Jump Takeoff & Flyover at 600 ft agl

Video also available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxOC7xtfRM

 3 2  600 0 C AR 1 4.6  8 Db  HP  0 500 O 550 400 299 300 HPo - Full

Profile Profile HP 200 HPo - Rot Only 100 54 155 0 5.7 0 100 200 300 400 Rotor RPM • SR/C wing very small because rotor supports aircraft at low speeds – wing can be sized for cruise • Fixed-wing wing must be sized for low speed/landing • SR/C slowed rotor & small wing equivalent to fixed-wing’s larger wing

54” Cabin Width 36’

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 6 SR/C Electric Air Taxi– Features High inertia, low disc Lightweight, low Slowed rotor enables 10’ diameter scimitar loaded rotor acts as profile, streamlined high speed forward tail prop rotates to built-in parachute, but tilting hub greatly flight, low drag, low tip provide counter torque safer because it works reduces drag. No speed/noise, no for hover or thrust for at any altitude / spindle, spindle retreating blade stall forward flight speed, and provides housing, bearings or directional control lead-lag hinges

Tall, soft mast isolates airframe from rotor vibration for fixed-wing smoothness

Tilting mast controls Mechanical flight aircraft pitch at low control linkages to speeds & rotor rpm for optional pilot in parallel high cruise efficiency with actuators for true at high speeds redundancy Extreme energy Simple, light, absorbing fail safe High aspect ratio wing Battery pack in nose to structurally efficient landing gear up to with area optimized for balance tail weight wing with no need for 30 ft/s improves cruise efficiency high lift devices landing safety

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 7 Performance Parameters Drag coefficients based on actual achieved data, not expected improvements 3200 lb empty weight with batteries 4000 lb max gross weight (800 lb max payload) 300 W-hr/kg battery energy density Assumed margin for 0.5 Empty Weight Fraction at 600 ft/s tip speed Mission: 30 sec HOGE for takeoff, Climb at Vy to 5k ft, Cruise at 175 mph, Descend at Vy, 2 min HOGE at landing (no reserve) Empty Wt (w/o batteries) vs. Rotor Range at 175 mph vs. Payload for Hover Tip Speed Various Hover Tip Speeds 2250 200 180 2200 2213 lbs 160 159 miles 140 2150 D=46 miles 120 113 miles 2100 D=213 lbs 100 80 Range, Range, miles 600 ft/s 2050 Empty Weight, EmptyWeight, lbs 60 550 ft/s 40 2000 2000 lbs 500 ft/s 20 450 ft/s 1950 0 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Rotor Hover Tip Speed, ft/s Payload, lbs Note: 150 mph cruise will extend range by Figure 1 Figure 2 ~10% at 800 lb payload

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 8 Air Taxi Concept Comparison • Compared three different configurations • SR/C • Hex Tilt Rotor • ‘T’ Tilt Rotor • Used common assumptions and methods for all three concepts SR/C • Based drag coefficients and parameters on measured flight data from PAV Carter PAV L/D vs. IAS 14

8 Hex Tilt Rotor L/D 6 Meas'd Model 4

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 IAS, mph Actual Measured Flight Data Note: Data scatter mostly attributable to gathering data when developing rotor rpm / mast control algorithms and varying rotor rpm considerably ‘T’ Tilt Rotor

Parameter Assumptions Gross Weight 4000 lbs 200 lbs per person Pilot/Pax Weight 4 people max Empty Weight Calc’d with same method for all – modified Raymer Battery & Drive Efficiency 0.92 80% Useable Battery Capacity (top 10% unuseable with rapid charge, bottom 10% unuseable to avoid current spike) Scaled Linearly with Max Continuous Power Motor + Inverter Weight 0.4 lb/HP Assumed motor could be overloaded 1.87x for 30 sec for OEI Limited current to 40 amp per wire, running multiple wires per Wiring Weight leg to reach full current required. Per N.E.C., used AWG-10 with Class C Insulator Used same coefficients on all concepts & appropriately scaled Drag Coefficients misc drags as derived from calibrating model to actual flight data from PAV Hover Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) at 6k ft with 1.1x margin Typical Mission 30 sec hover, climb, cruise, descent, 30 sec hover 120 sec hover, climb, cruise, descent, 120 sec hover Planning Mission +Reserve: 120 sec hover, 2nm divert, 120 sed hover

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 10 Common Footprint • Footprint driven by interface with vertiports • If certain size footprint can be justified, justification is applicable to all technologies • Single Rotor SR/C & Hex Tilt Rotor have similar disc loadings • ‘T’ tilt rotor has very high disc loading 39 ft ‘T’ TR Hex TR SR/C Rotor Area, ft² 144.9 791.5 907.9

Disc Loading, lb/ft² 27.6 5.1 4.4

Total Hover HP 774.0 368.4 424.0 ft

30 sec OEI HP 1869.6 467.8 N/A 34 34 34’ 34’ width Cruise HP at 175 mph 240 240 207 Total Installed Cont HP 1099.2 390.1 612.8

• ‘T’ TR Rotor Area only includes 4 lifting rotors (tails rotors for trim control only) • SR/C Total Hover HP includes tail rotor power to counter torque • All Hover HPs include 10% lift margin

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 11 Comparison Preliminary Results • ‘T’ Tilt Rotor has very high HP required due to disk loading – higher empty weight for installed HP • SR/C has better L/D @ 175 mph due to smaller wings & less wetted area from prop spinners, fuselage, & no LG sponsons Empty Weight vs. Width Range vs. Payload 2,100 180 SR/C - 40 ft 2,050 160 2,000 140 SR/C - 37 ft 120 1,950 SR/C - 34 ft 100 1,900 SR/C Hex TR - 40 ft 80 1,850 Hex TR Hex TR - 37 ft

Range, Range, miles 60 1,800 T TR 40 Hex TR - 34 ft 1,750 20 'T' TR - 40 ft 1,700 0 'T' TR - 37 ft 32 34 36 38 40 42 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Empty Weight, EmptyWeight, Excluding Batteries,lb Overall Width, ft Payload, lbs 'T' TR - 34 ft

L/D vs. Airspeed Mileage vs. Payload 16 1.4 SR/C - 40 ft SR/C - 40 ft 14 1.2 SR/C - 37 ft SR/C - 37 ft

12 1 hr 10 SR/C - 34 ft - SR/C - 34 ft 0.8 8 Hex TR - 40 ft Hex TR - 40 ft L/D 0.6 6 Hex TR - 37 ft Hex TR - 37 ft mile / mile kW 0.4 4 Hex TR - 34 ft Hex TR - 34 ft 2 0.2 'T' TR - 40 ft 'T' TR - 40 ft 0 0 'T' TR - 37 ft 'T' TR - 37 ft 0 50 100 150 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 True Airspeed, mph 'T' TR - 34 ft Payload, lbs 'T' TR - 34 ft

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 12 Comparison Preliminary Results • SR/C has farthest range with least energy used in typical mission, due to better L/D at 175 mph • ‘T’ Tilt rotor has low useable energy because of high empty weight fraction. Has low percentage of energy available for cruise because of high HOGE power requirements for planning / reserve.

Useable Energy Budget, 800 lb payload, 34' width 180

160

140 R3. Reserve 2 min HOGE 120 R2. 2 nm reserve at best endurance Reserve

R1. Reserve 2 min HOGE hr - 100 P1. 90 sec + 90 sec add'l HOGE for planning Add’l HOGE for Planning 5. 30 sec HOGE 80

Energy, Energy, kW 4. Descend to Ldg Altitude 3. Cruise at 5000 at 175 mph 60 Typical Mission 2. Climb at Max ROC to Cruise Alt

40 1. 30 sec HOGE

0 SR/C (123 mile) Hex TR (110 mile) 'T' TR (49 mile)

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 13 Extreme Energy Absorbing Landing Gear • Extreme energy absorbing – 24” stroke for descent rates up to 24 ft/s at touchdown Carter Smart Strut • Responds to impact speed for near constant deceleration across full throw of gear Belleville Stackup • No rebound – no bouncing to control valve • Proven technology – used on all Carter to keep pressure prototypes Air Over on piston near • Lightweight due to efficient energy Hydraulic for constant based absorption Energy on impact PAV Single Strut Design Absorption velocity Energy Absorbing Cylinder Automatic Metering Valve

Hydraulic Pressure in Lower Cylinder Main Gear for Gear Retract Trailing Arm Torque Tube

Video also available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MntCeJRl2YE

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 Piston position (8.44" max) 55 50 Valve position (.5" max) 45 Pressure Top (3000 psi max) 40 Pressure Bottom (3000 psi max)

Percentage of Max 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time (s) Data from drop test shown in previous slide

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 16 Carter Scimitar Propeller • Highly swept to reduce apparent Mach number – Allows higher CL’s, faster tip speeds, & thicker airfoils – Swept tip reduces noise • Twist a compromise between high speed cruise & static/climb • Lightweight composites 1/2 to 1/3 the weight of conventional designs • 100” diameter prop shown weighs 42 lb • Tested at Mach 1 for cumulative 10 minutes • Wide chord – blade not stalled • Spinner nearly flat at prop root – Reduces decreasing pressure gradient, keeping good airflow on prop root • Cruise efficiencies of 90+% • Static/climb efficiencies on order of 30% better than conventional designs

• Pitch change accomplished by twisting the spar • Eliminates spindle, spindle housing, and bearings used on conventional propeller – simple & lightweight • Similar design used on Carter rotors which further eliminates lead/lag and coning hinges

Video also available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scrXVfwJ7hY

Jay Carter, Founder & CEO CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium www.CarterCopters.com July 23rd, 2017

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 20 Mission Definition • Using same typical & planning missions as McDonald and German* • Typical mission for operating cost only requires 30 sec hover for T.O. & landing • Worst case mission for planning (i.e. charge required before taking off to fly a given mission) requires 120 sec T.O. & landing for given mission + 120 sec T.O. & landing for reserve + 2 nm reserve cruise • For sizing, assuming 4 min continuous hover

*McDonald, R. A., German, B.J., “eVTOL Energy Needs for Uber Elevate,” Uber Elevate Summit, Dallas, TX, April 2017.

• Analysis conducted with Carter’s proprietary cruise analysis model • For SR/C, developed mainly for cruise when rotor is unloaded • Model calibrated to measured flight data for PAV. Inputs were scaled appropriately for these concepts. Carter PAV L/D vs. IAS • Had to estimate drag contributions 14 from different elements, since the 12 aircraft is only instrumented to 10

measure overall thrust* 8 L/D • Interference & separation drags can 6 Meas'd account for up to ~1/2 of total aircraft Model drag, and must be accounted for to 4 allow accurate L/D prediction (based 2 on flight test experience by Carter and 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Bell Helicopter / Ken Wernicke) IAS, mph

• Air taxi analysis breaks flight into short Note: Data scatter mostly attributable to gathering data segments, incorporating climb, when developing rotor rpm / mast control algorithms descent, and reserves and varying rotor rpm considerably

* Overall drag is calculated based on thrust adjusted for rate of climb/descent – report with methods is available

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 22 Battery Assumptions • Using same rationale as McDonald and German* for useable battery capacity • Top 10% & Bottom 10% of capacity inaccessible • 80% capacity accessible DOD = Depth of Discharge • Ignoring internal resistance losses for this analysis

Ignored for this analysis

*McDonald, R. A., German, B.J., “eVTOL Energy Needs for Uber Elevate,” Uber Elevate Summit, Dallas, TX, April 2017.

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 23 Motor Overload Capacity • Overload capacity very dependent on specific motor – see examples below from various sources (only shown to illustrate behavior – these aren’t the motors being used)

• Model with a simple empirical curve that mimics those trends, where C is a constant 퐶 푇푖푚푒 = 퐼 2 − 1 퐼푟푎푡푒푑 • Based on text in ‘Uber Elevate’, assume a motor that can be overloaded 1.5x for 90 seconds (paper stated 1–2 min). Matching above formula to that data point, C = 22.5 Thermal Limit assuming 90 sec @ 1.5x t, sec I/Ir 120 15 2.22 100 30 1.87 1.87x for 30 sec OEI 80 45 1.71

60 60 1.61 Time, Time, sec 40 90 1.50 20 120 1.43 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 240 1.31 1.31x for 4 min HOGE I / I_rated 480 1.22 Data from manufacturer needed to improve this estimate

• Weight estimate for all concepts used same methodology • Structures & Equipment Groups based on method in Chapter 15 of Raymer, Daniel P: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach • Structures weights multiplied by 0.50 to reflect gains from carbon- composite construction, with the exception of tilt rotor wings, which were multiplied by 0.625 to reflect the higher bending moments due to carrying lift from prop/rotor • Landing Gear based on historical Carter data, not Raymer's method (same for all aircraft) • Propeller weights based on historical Carter data • All Equipment Group weights from Raymer included. Even if the system per se wasn’t in the aircraft, the functions it would have done must still be performed by another system, so the weight must still be accounted for (e.g. hydraulics) • All other weights based on best engineering practices and judgment

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 25 Prop-Rotor Performance • Conceptual design using a blade element model validated through previous Carter propellers – calculates FOM & efficiency • Includes induced velocity • Airfoils design by John Roncz • Uses CL & CD vs. alpha lookup tables for -20° < α < +20° • Models CL & CD as sine functions for α < -20° or +20° < α • Includes simple estimation of critical Mach & drag divergence Mach (Mcr & Mdd) based on CL, & increases CD accordingly • Completed for both tilt rotor configurations (substantially different operating parameters due to disc loading) • Different flight regimes in hover and cruise make prop-rotor less efficient than a conventional propeller • Varied prop-rotor planform area to shift optimization from static (hover) performance to cruise performance • Requires very low RPMs in cruise for best efficiency – only possible with electric motors

(Results shown next slide)

1.00 Hex Tilt Rotor 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92

Hover Cruise cruise - 0.90

Airspeed 0 175 mph 0.88 FOM RPM 820 422 0.86 0.84 ΩR 600 ft/s 310 ft/s 0.82 HP per prop 66 HP 34 HP 0.80 Dia 168” 168” 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 Spinner 15” 15” FOM - static Note different 1.00 x-scales ‘T’ Tilt Rotor 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92

Hover Cruise cruise - 0.90

Airspeed 0 175 mph 0.88 FOM RPM 1690 267 0.86 0.84 ΩR 600 ft/s 95 ft/s 0.82 HP per prop 215 HP 34 HP 0.80 Dia 81.5” 81.5” 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 FOM - static Spinner 15” 15”

• Cruise RPM is ratioed by HPcruise/HPhover, assuming constant torque from motor – results in very low cruise rpm, especially for ‘T’ Tilt Rotor • ‘T’ tilt rotor can achieve higher static FOM, but because of very high disk loading, actual HP requirement is still much higher

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 27 Single Rotor SR/C Hover Performance • Using slightly modified method from WADC TR 55-410* • Rotor Induced HP: W  L HP  0.03W  L  WH ih WH  A  o L  DiskLoading  PlanformScaleFactor WingArea  FuselageTopArea  HorStabArea WH Where HPih = Induced horsepower in a hover W = weight LWH = Wing, fuselage, & horizontal stabilizer downforce in a hover A = Disk Area ρ = density ρo = density at standard sea level • Rotor Profile HP:

o 3 2  HPo  CDb AR 1 4.6 f pr  550 8 o Where HPo = Profile horsepower σ = Solidity ΩR = Tip speed µ = Advance ratio f = profile correction factor pr *Foster, R. D., “A Rapid 3  T  2 Performance Prediction • Tail Rotor HP:   k 1 Method for Compound Type HP     dia  Rotorcraft,” WADC TR 55-410,

o 1957.

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 28 Wing Sizing • Input from Ken Wernicke • Former program technical manager of all Bell helicopter’s tilt rotor programs from the XV-15 through the V-22 (now retired) • Tilt rotors have a special consideration for avoiding stall during the transition between partial rotor supported flight and full lift on the wings • Wing must be sized with appropriate margin. • For 175 mph cruise, wing must support aircraft at 125 mph • SR/C – rotor is already in autorotation and can take over and provide the lift required to prevent wing stall • For 175 mph cruise, wing must support aircraft at 150 mph

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 29 Wing Sizing Concern • Wing Sizing / Structural Integrity • Required wing area combined with high wing spans yields very high aspect ratios • High aspect ratio a concern for tilt rotors with prop-rotors mounted near wing tips AR with AR with 37’ span AR with 40’ 34’ span span SR/C (S = 63 ft²) 18.4 21.7 25.4 Hex Tilt Rotor (S_main = 68 ft²)* 17.0 20.1 23.5 ‘T’ Tilt Rotor (S = 83 ft²) 13.9 16.4 19.2 *Note, Hex Tilt Rotor has 3 wings. Fore & aft wings provide additional area

Plan to do structural analysis to see if this will be an issue / how it will affect wing weight compared to historical trends from Raymer

High speed & fixed Tail prop rotates to Scimitar prop for wing smoothness provide counter torque high cruise from SR/C for hover, or thrust for efficiency & high technology forward flight static thrust

Battery pack in nose Long tail boom reduces tail rotor required HP in to balance tail hover, also reduces hor weight stab area

Component Weight Estimation (lbs) - CC-31A Hovering SR/C Concept I Gross Weight 34 37 40 Gross Weight 34 37 40

Structures Group Total Before Margins, no batteries W_wing 137.5 152.2 167.1 Total Empty Weight Before Margin 1,588.1 1,585.5 1,587.0 W_horizontal tail 8.9 8.9 8.9 Empty Weight Fraction Before Margin 0.397 0.396 0.397 W_vertical tail 5.9 5.9 5.9 W_fuselage 136.0 136.0 136.0 Margin W_main landing gear** 111.3 111.3 111.3 Margin % of Empty Weight 0.100 0.100 0.100 W_nose landing gear** 27.8 27.8 27.8 Margin, lbs 158.8 158.5 158.7 Total Structural 427.5 442.1 457.1 Total Empty Weight, no batteries Propulsion Group Total Empty Weight Including Margin 1,746.9 1,744.0 1,745.7 W_motors+inverters 245.1 228.3 214.8 Empty Weight Fraction Including 0.437 0.436 0.436 Margin W_wiring 10.3 9.6 9.0 W_prop 93.4 91.2 89.5 Batteries Total Propulsion 348.8 329.0 313.3 Battery Weight 1,453.1 1,456.0 1,454.3 Empty Weight, with batteries 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0 Equipment Group W_flight controls 78.1 80.6 83.0 Other Weight W_hydraulics 4.0 4.0 4.0 Unusable Fuel 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_electrical 118.5 118.5 118.5 Oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_avionics 81.4 81.4 81.4 Oxygen 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_furnishings 167.8 167.8 167.8 Total Additions 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_air conditioning & anti ice 95.4 95.4 95.4 Total Equipment 545.3 547.8 550.2 Basic Weight 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0

SR/C Unique Elements Gross Weight Rotor 200.0 200.0 200.0 Crew & Pax 800.0 800.0 800.0 Rotor Drive (Mechanical Only) 56.5 56.5 56.5 Gross Weight 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 Tail Rotor Pivot Mechanism 10.0 10.0 10.0 Total SR/C Elements 266.5 266.5 266.5

Structures & Equipment Groups based on method in Chapter 15 of Raymer, Daniel P: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Structures weights multiplied by 50% to reflect gains from carbon-composite construction Landing Gear based on historical Carter data, not Raymer's method. Includes hydraulic pumps to raise/lower gear W_hydraulics included to account for traditionally hydraulic systems, even though most of those will be electric on this aircraft All other weights based on best engineering practices and judgment Increasing structural weight from high aspect ratio wing offset by reduced motor weight due to lower hover power requirement

Distributed Electric Battery packs distributed Lift sharing for 3 lifting Propulsion (DEP) allows along length of aircraft surfaces optimized for multiple rotors without for reduced wire run lowest possible induced weight & complexity of lengths drag for configuration gearboxes & cross shafts

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 35 Motor Sizing for OEI Hover • Sized motors to maintain hover even if one motor fails (One Engine Inoperative – OEI) • Must maintain balance around CG, not just total lift • Two minimization strategies • Minimize total horsepower while hovering • Minimize horsepower increase of each individual motor – results in lowest installed horsepower

• Solved with iterative solver to find min HP solutions Baseline – 1L Fail, 1L Fail, Example Case – Fail front left rotor normal Min Min hover Total HP Installed • Min Total HP Strategy – keeps all remaining rotors providing lift. 1L Lift, lbs 682.23 0.00 0.00 Total HP = 418.12, but rotor 2L must go to 2.18x the baseline (to 1L Preq'd, HP 57.13 0.00 0.00 balance moments about CG) 1L HP / HP Baseline 1.00 0.00 0.00 • Min Installed HP Strategy – Drops opposite rotor (rear right). 1R Lift, lbs 682.23 1070.24 988.89 Total HP = 443.58, but 2L only must go to 1.75x the baseline 1R Preq'd, HP 57.13 112.25 99.69 1R HP / HP Baseline 1.00 1.96 1.75 2L Lift, lbs 835.54 1404.31 1211.11 1L 1R 2L Preq'd, HP 69.96 152.45 122.10 2L HP / HP Baseline 1.00 2.18 1.75 2R Lift, lbs 835.54 808.04 1211.11 2R Preq'd, HP 69.96 66.54 122.10 2R HP / HP Baseline 1.00 0.95 1.75 3L Lift, lbs 682.23 705.93 988.89 2L 2R 3L Preq'd, HP 57.13 60.13 99.69 3L HP / HP Baseline 1.00 1.05 1.75 3R Lift, lbs 682.23 411.48 0.00 3R Preq'd, HP 57.13 26.76 0.00 3R HP / HP Baseline 1.00 0.47 0.00 3L 3R Total Lift, lbs 4400.00 4400.00 4400.00 Total HP Req’d 368.44 418.12 443.58 Max HP / HP Baseline 1.00 2.18 1.75

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 36 Motor Sizing for OEI Hover • Min installed power solutions will give best empty weight fraction / most battery capacity • Summary of min installed power solutions: Small Rotor Motor Failure Large Rotor Motor Failure Increase Failed power to Failed Rotor remaining Rotor Reduce to rotors zero power

Increase Reduce to power to zero remaining power rotors

Motor HP Req’d Normal Small Rotor Main Rotor (4000 lb GW, 1.1 margin) Hover Failure Failure Main Rotor HP Req’d (each) 70.7 122.6 NA Small Rotor HP Req’d (each) 56.4 97.7 117.0

Component Weight Estimation (lbs) - CC-31C Hex Tilt Rotor Overall Width 34 37 40 Overall Width 34 37 40

Structures Group Total Before Margins, no batteries W_wings 189.6 193.4 208.1 Total Empty Weight Before Margin 1,587.3 1,573.5 1,572.9 W_horizontal tail 0.0 0.0 0.0 Empty Weight Fraction Before Margin 0.397 0.393 0.393 W_vertical tail 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_fuselage 126.5 126.5 126.5 Margin W_main landing gear** 111.3 111.3 111.3 Margin % of Empty Weight 0.100 0.100 0.100 W_nose landing gear** 27.8 27.8 27.8 Margin, lbs 158.7 157.3 157.3 Total Structural 455.2 459.1 473.8 Total Empty Weight, no batteries Propulsion Group Total Empty Weight Including Margin 1,746.0 1,730.8 1,730.2 W_motors+inverters 156.0 144.2 134.0 Empty Weight Fraction Including Margin 0.436 0.433 0.433 W_wiring 5.2 5.0 4.4 W_props 287.2 278.9 271.8 Batteries Total Propulsion 448.5 428.1 410.2 Battery Weight 1,454.0 1,469.2 1,469.8 Empty Weight, with batteries 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0 Equipment Group W_flight controls 86.4 89.1 91.7 Other Weight W_hydraulics 4.0 4.0 4.0 Unusable Fuel 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_electrical 118.5 118.5 118.5 Oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_avionics 81.4 81.4 81.4 Oxygen 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_furnishings 167.8 167.8 167.8 Total Additions 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_air conditioning & anti ice 95.4 95.4 95.4 Total Equipment 553.6 556.3 558.9 Basic Weight 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0

Other Systems Gross Weight BRS 100.0 100.0 100.0 Crew & Pax 800.0 800.0 800.0 Wing Tilt Mechanism 30.0 30.0 30.0 Gross Weight 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 Total Other Elements 130.0 130.0 130.0 Structures & Equipment Groups based on method in Chapter 15 of Raymer, Daniel P: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Structures weights multiplied by 50% to reflect gains from carbon-composite construction Landing Gear based on historical Carter data, not Raymer's method. Includes hydraulic pumps to raise/lower gear W_hydraulics included to account for traditionally hydraulic systems, even though most of those will be electric on this aircraft All other weights based on best engineering practices and judgment

©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 39 Motor Sizing for OEI Hover • Sized motors to maintain hover even if one motor fails (One Engine Inoperative – OEI) • Must maintain balance around CG, not just total lift • To keep motors as light as possible (min empty weight), minimize power increase for each motor (not total power) – strategy depends on which rotor fails Inboard Rotor Motor Failure Outboard Rotor Motor Failure Failed Failed Rotor Rotor

Increase Decrease power, Increase Decrease to power but not to zero power zero power Tail Rotors Tail Rotors don’t provide don’t provide significant lift significant lift Motor HP Req’d Normal Inboard Rotor Outboard (34’ overall width, 1.1 margin) Hover Failure Rotor Failure Inboard Rotor HP Req’d (L / R) 194 / 194 Fail / 388 547 / 547 Outboard Rotor HP Req’d (L / R) 194 / 194 388 / 144 Fail / 0

Component Weight Estimation (lbs) - CC-31F 'T' Tilt Rotor Overall Width 34 37 40 Overall Width 34 37 40

Structures Group Total Before Margins, no batteries W_wing 176.4 195.2 214.4 Total Empty Weight Before Margin 1,875.7 1,830.9 1,818.1 W_horizontal tail 21.3 21.3 21.3 Empty Weight Fraction Before Margin 0.469 0.458 0.455 W_vertical tail 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_fuselage 126.4 126.4 126.4 Margin W_main landing gear** 111.3 111.3 111.3 Margin % of Empty Weight 0.100 0.100 0.100 W_nose landing gear** 27.8 27.8 27.8 Margin, lbs 187.6 183.1 181.8 Total Structural 463.3 482.1 501.3 Total Empty Weight, no batteries Propulsion Group Total Empty Weight Including Margin 2,063.3 2,014.0 1,999.9 W_motors+inverters 439.7 392.8 365.7 Empty Weight Fraction Including Margin 0.516 0.503 0.500 W_wiring 26.8 23.8 22.0 W_prop 262.4 245.8 240.2 Batteries Total Propulsion 728.9 662.4 627.9 Battery Weight 1,136.7 1,186.0 1,200.1 Empty Weight, with batteries 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0 Equipment Group W_flight controls 86.4 89.1 91.7 Other Weight W_hydraulics 4.0 4.0 4.0 Unusable Fuel 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_electrical 118.5 118.5 118.5 Oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_avionics 81.4 81.4 81.4 Oxygen 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_furnishings 167.8 167.8 167.8 Total Additions 0.0 0.0 0.0 W_air conditioning & anti ice 95.4 95.4 95.4 Total Equipment 553.6 556.3 558.9 Basic Weight 3,200.0 3,200.0 3,200.0

SR/C Unique Elements Gross Weight BRS 100.0 100.0 100.0 Crew & Pax 800.0 800.0 800.0 Wing Tilt Mechanism 30.0 30.0 30.0 Gross Weight 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 Total SR/C Elements 130.0 130.0 130.0 Structures & Equipment Groups based on method in Chapter 15 of Raymer, Daniel P: Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Structures weights multiplied by 50% to reflect gains from carbon-composite construction Landing Gear based on historical Carter data, not Raymer's method. Includes hydraulic pumps to raise/lower gear W_hydraulics included to account for traditionally hydraulic systems, even though most of those will be electric on this aircraft All other weights based on best engineering practices and judgment