Carter Wind Turbines
Wichita Falls, TX 76301
Products
Learn More
Carter Wind Energy © 2026 | Web Design by Hoegger Communications | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use
Powering Opportunity with Wind
What is significant about the Carter wind turbine design and what is the technologies competitive advantage?
The competitive advantage of the Carter turbine is in the two blade design which eliminates or reduces many of the loads encountered by three bladed turbines. Inherently, the rigid three-blade design must overcome both gyroscopic and aerodynamic loads. The teetering, two bladed downwind design, on the other hand, avoids gyroscopic loads altogether and minimizes aerodynamic loads through creative design features such as the flexible blades and teetering hub. By minimizing stress loads through optimization, turbines can be designed to weigh a fraction of three bladed designs while still delivering equivalent energy. The lighter weight results in lower manufacturing, transportation costs, installation, and maintenance costs which in turn results in a lower cost of energy.
Since the proposed wind turbine uses a teetering rotor design that produces no gyroscopic loads, the turbine can be erected on a flexible tall tilt-up tower secured with guy wires. The tilt-up tower is lighter and less expensive to manufacture than competing free standing designs. Foundation costs are less (1/5 to 1/10) than that required for free standing towers with the same rotor diameter and tower heights. The tilt-up design eliminates the need for tall cranes, which dramatically reduces installation costs. Also, installation and heavy maintenance can be performed safely on the ground, even in high winds. This substantially reduces maintenance costs. The guyed tower’s maximum bending moment occurs where the upper guy cables attach (blade radius from hub height.) Its maximum diameter for a given tower height and rotor diameter will be much smaller than a free standing tower. For this reason, the guyed tower can be much taller for a given rated/diameter wind turbine. Wind speed increases with altitude, and harvestable energy is a cubic function of wind speed. Because the guyed tower concept is structurally efficient, turbines can be placed at higher hub heights without an appreciable increase in overall installed cost. This results in significantly more annual energy production and increased capacity factor.
The technology is most significant in that it produces 4 times the energy per pound of equipment weight versus competing turbines in the market. More energy with less equipment weight means a lower cost of energy. This achievement has been accomplished by successfully integrating the enabling technologies of the helicopter industry into our wind turbine design. The result is a wind turbine that produces electricity at a cost that is competitive with the lowest cost fossil fueled power plant without subsidy.
As a result of the lower weight fraction, this technology is scalable to multi-MW onshore and offshore turbines.
Why do you call this technology disruptive, if it has been around for so many years?
Carter technology first emerged in the 1970’s when wind power was not supported in the US. As wind power emerged in the 1990’s and 2000’s, the large companies adopted the 3 bladed European designs and quickly found that the cost of this design is supported in Europe by higher energy prices, but is not supported in the US unless subsidized.
By understanding the cost/competitiveness demonstrated by the past Carter units, and recognizing today’s dependence on subsidies by the large 3-bladed machines, Carter sees a tremendous opportunity. Carter did not have the opportunity to ramp up the use of this technology at the time when wind became recognized as a viable source of energy.
The cost of energy generated with this technology is cost competitive with the fuel costs (natural gas, coal, and oil) of conventional power generation without the need for subsidy. Deployment of this technology is not reliant on political whims. Low cost, distributed power brings the potential opportunity of increased productivity in developing countries. For developing countries needing power, but without the infrastructure capital and water required for typical low cost power generation.
What limits other people from copying your design?
The Carter wind turbine configuration has many innovative features that must work in unison to eliminate gyroscopic loads and substantially reduce aerodynamic loads. Field experience provides the proven knowledge needed for how these subsystems interact and most importantly how they must be designed to work together to reduce weight/cost, allowing higher safety margins and improved reliability.
Carter Wind Energy started in 1976 and has many hundreds of turbines installed throughout the world with many having operated for over 3 decades. It is this experience for the why and how (IP), that drawings/hardware do not define which inhibits others from replicating the design.
What evidence is there that multi-MW, 2-blade, downwind turbines are feasible?
There have been significant prior US government funded development programs in the early 1980’s with large industry partners in the past that focused exclusively on multi-MW, 2-blade wind turbine designs. Industry partners who had the technical capabilities to understand the significant advantages of a wind turbine designed using proven helicopter technology.
- Mod program – Boeing, Lockheed, United Technologies, & GE.
- The Mod 4 turbine was built under contract with Hamilton Standard (a United Technologies company) and was a 4 MW 2-blade downwind turbine.
- Hamilton Standard helped fund the Carter 300kW turbine as an alternative to their design.
TastyCakes on English Wikipedia, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Commercial success of US development programs and similar private ventures such as Carter’s was limited due mainly to US market conditions. High energy prices of the 70’s were replaced by lower energy prices in the 80’s which in turn depressed political, utility, financial, and commercial support of alternative energy in the US.
- Alternative energy development shifted to Europe. This shift prompted Carter to search for European manufacturing/investment partners such as DITT in France, MAN in Germany, and private funding through a consortium of individual English investors. This allowed Carter to be one of only two US turbine manufactures to survive once the federal incentives expired in the mid 80’s. Carter survived because of the reliability track record of the 25kW and 300kW turbines, but most importantly because our product was cost competitive without incentives.
- Had incentives remained in place, the US market would not have collapsed and it feasible to believe US technologies would have survived its early infancy and obtained greater commercial success.
- By the time the US introduced the Production Tax Credit in 1992 to restart the US market; European manufactures/designs had an upper hand because they survived the downturn through European subsidy of projects installed in Europe with European manufactures. As a result the European design was readily available to deploy and became dominant in the US market.
Why don’t conventional 3 blade turbines use a self-erecting guyed tower?
The lower nacelle/blade weight vs. swept area is enabled by downwind, teetering hub, and flexible rotor system. This configuration eliminates gyroscopic loads into the hub. As a result, a flexible (vs. rigid), guyed tower can be utilized if desired. Assuming an equivalent turbine of similar swept area/power rating, (max thrust loads) a guyed tower turbine can be more than 2.0 times taller than a monopole structure/foundation for the same cost. The net result is higher average wind velocity/annual energy production. The added benefit is that the turbine can be erected and maintained without a crane. A 200m guyed tower structure is feasible for larger Carter turbines.
Comparison - Carter self-erecting vs direct drive vs flying wind turbine.
Carter Self-Erecting Wind Turbine
The guyed tower Carter Wind utilizes is not only light weight, but self-erecting (no cranes for installation, maintenance, or removal) and requires significantly less excavation and concrete/rebar than a traditional free standing turbine of the same height and rotor diameter. Self-erecting capabilities reduces turbine downtime, O&M costs, and budgeting uncertainty by eliminating the need for cranes. Additionally, the physical size and weight of our medium size turbines makes shipment/transport significantly less complicated/expensive. As a result, it is economical and practical to redeploy our turbines to different sites as required.
The mobility/portability of our medium size turbines is compelling to many customers seeking turbines that are less than 1.0MW. Additionally, the turbine is very well suited for extreme environment (hurricane/typhoon), remote power or semi-permanent power applications needing 100kW-40MW to supplement high cost heavy fuel power generation.
Direct Drive Wind Turbine
Direct drive wind turbines must offset their higher initial capital costs through a presumed assumption of improved reliability and the potential future reduction in O&M costs that are most directly associated with crane costs. For remote locations, where availability of cranes is limited and more costly, and the cost of down time is higher, operators seek any perceived opportunity for potential improved reliability. A self-erecting turbine achieves the objective of higher uptimes/availabilities and lower O&M costs by eliminating the need for cranes, but without the higher initial capital cost of the direct drive turbine.
Flying Wind Turbine
Although there is theoretical potential associated with a flying wind turbine, the real world practicality is highly subjective. The tether and requirements for large amounts of back-up power are two of many critical single points of failure that could cause catastrophic loss of the entire turbine, but also surrounding structures. The practicality and reliability growth of operation in real world conditions with many single point failure modes is highly questionable. i.e. thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, lightening, extreme wind shear, icing, etc. What will be the offsets required to safely operate in proximity to humans considering the immense potential area of impact when flying 1,000+ feet above the ground and with 360 degrees of operation tracking wind direction changes? When considering the additional redundant systems and required aviation type reliability that will likely be required to operate, can the flying turbines achieve their anticipated cost projections or required weight fraction?
The flying turbine is self-erecting and can reach higher heights above ground than conventional free-standing wind turbines, but so can a guyed, tilt-up tower. Maybe a flying turbine makes sense on Mars or even potentially offshore, but not on land for distributed power generation applications. (i.e. near load, populated areas).
What is significant about the Carter wind turbine design and what is the technologies competitive advantage?
The competitive advantage of the Carter turbine is in the two blade design which eliminates or reduces many of the loads encountered by three bladed turbines. Inherently, the rigid three-blade design must overcome both gyroscopic and aerodynamic loads. The teetering, two bladed downwind design, on the other hand, avoids gyroscopic loads altogether and minimizes aerodynamic loads through creative design features such as the flexible blades and teetering hub. By minimizing stress loads through optimization, turbines can be designed to weigh a fraction of three bladed designs while still delivering equivalent energy. The lighter weight results in lower manufacturing, transportation costs, installation, and maintenance costs which in turn results in a lower cost of energy.
Since the proposed wind turbine uses a teetering rotor design that produces no gyroscopic loads, the turbine can be erected on a flexible tall tilt-up tower secured with guy wires. The tilt-up tower is lighter and less expensive to manufacture than competing free standing designs. Foundation costs are less (1/5 to 1/10) than that required for free standing towers with the same rotor diameter and tower heights. The tilt-up design eliminates the need for tall cranes, which dramatically reduces installation costs. Also, installation and heavy maintenance can be performed safely on the ground, even in high winds. This substantially reduces maintenance costs. The guyed tower’s maximum bending moment occurs where the upper guy cables attach (blade radius from hub height.) Its maximum diameter for a given tower height and rotor diameter will be much smaller than a free standing tower. For this reason, the guyed tower can be much taller for a given rated/diameter wind turbine. Wind speed increases with altitude, and harvestable energy is a cubic function of wind speed. Because the guyed tower concept is structurally efficient, turbines can be placed at higher hub heights without an appreciable increase in overall installed cost. This results in significantly more annual energy production and increased capacity factor.
The technology is most significant in that it produces 4 times the energy per pound of equipment weight versus competing turbines in the market. More energy with less equipment weight means a lower cost of energy. This achievement has been accomplished by successfully integrating the enabling technologies of the helicopter industry into our wind turbine design. The result is a wind turbine that produces electricity at a cost that is competitive with the lowest cost fossil fueled power plant without subsidy.
As a result of the lower weight fraction, this technology is scalable to multi-MW onshore and offshore turbines.
Why do you call this technology disruptive, if it has been around for so many years?
Carter technology first emerged in the 1970’s when wind power was not supported in the US. As wind power emerged in the 1990’s and 2000’s, the large companies adopted the 3 bladed European designs and quickly found that the cost of this design is supported in Europe by higher energy prices, but is not supported in the US unless subsidized.
By understanding the cost/competitiveness demonstrated by the past Carter units, and recognizing today’s dependence on subsidies by the large 3-bladed machines, Carter sees a tremendous opportunity. Carter did not have the opportunity to ramp up the use of this technology at the time when wind became recognized as a viable source of energy.
The cost of energy generated with this technology is cost competitive with the fuel costs (natural gas, coal, and oil) of conventional power generation without the need for subsidy. Deployment of this technology is not reliant on political whims. Low cost, distributed power brings the potential opportunity of increased productivity in developing countries. For developing countries needing power, but without the infrastructure capital and water required for typical low cost power generation.
What limits other people from copying your design?
The Carter wind turbine configuration has many innovative features that must work in unison to eliminate gyroscopic loads and substantially reduce aerodynamic loads. Field experience provides the proven knowledge needed for how these subsystems interact and most importantly how they must be designed to work together to reduce weight/cost, allowing higher safety margins and improved reliability.
Carter Wind Energy started in 1976 and has many hundreds of turbines installed throughout the world with many having operated for over 3 decades. It is this experience for the why and how (IP), that drawings/hardware do not define which inhibits others from replicating the design.
What evidence is there that multi-MW, 2-blade, downwind turbines are feasible?
There have been significant prior US government funded development programs in the early 1980’s with large industry partners in the past that focused exclusively on multi-MW, 2-blade wind turbine designs. Industry partners who had the technical capabilities to understand the significant advantages of a wind turbine designed using proven helicopter technology.
- Mod program – Boeing, Lockheed, United Technologies, & GE.
- The Mod 4 turbine was built under contract with Hamilton Standard (a United Technologies company) and was a 4 MW 2-blade downwind turbine.
- Hamilton Standard helped fund the Carter 300kW turbine as an alternative to their design.
TastyCakes on English Wikipedia, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Commercial success of US development programs and similar private ventures such as Carter’s was limited due mainly to US market conditions. High energy prices of the 70’s were replaced by lower energy prices in the 80’s which in turn depressed political, utility, financial, and commercial support of alternative energy in the US.
- Alternative energy development shifted to Europe. This shift prompted Carter to search for European manufacturing/investment partners such as DITT in France, MAN in Germany, and private funding through a consortium of individual English investors. This allowed Carter to be one of only two US turbine manufactures to survive once the federal incentives expired in the mid 80’s. Carter survived because of the reliability track record of the 25kW and 300kW turbines, but most importantly because our product was cost competitive without incentives.
- Had incentives remained in place, the US market would not have collapsed and it feasible to believe US technologies would have survived its early infancy and obtained greater commercial success.
- By the time the US introduced the Production Tax Credit in 1992 to restart the US market; European manufactures/designs had an upper hand because they survived the downturn through European subsidy of projects installed in Europe with European manufactures. As a result the European design was readily available to deploy and became dominant in the US market.
Why don’t conventional 3 blade turbines use a self-erecting guyed tower?
The lower nacelle/blade weight vs. swept area is enabled by downwind, teetering hub, and flexible rotor system. This configuration eliminates gyroscopic loads into the hub. As a result, a flexible (vs. rigid), guyed tower can be utilized if desired. Assuming an equivalent turbine of similar swept area/power rating, (max thrust loads) a guyed tower turbine can be more than 2.0 times taller than a monopole structure/foundation for the same cost. The net result is higher average wind velocity/annual energy production. The added benefit is that the turbine can be erected and maintained without a crane. A 200m guyed tower structure is feasible for larger Carter turbines.
Comparison - Carter self-erecting vs direct drive vs flying wind turbine.
Carter Self-Erecting Wind Turbine
The guyed tower Carter Wind utilizes is not only light weight, but self-erecting (no cranes for installation, maintenance, or removal) and requires significantly less excavation and concrete/rebar than a traditional free standing turbine of the same height and rotor diameter. Self-erecting capabilities reduces turbine downtime, O&M costs, and budgeting uncertainty by eliminating the need for cranes. Additionally, the physical size and weight of our medium size turbines makes shipment/transport significantly less complicated/expensive. As a result, it is economical and practical to redeploy our turbines to different sites as required.
The mobility/portability of our medium size turbines is compelling to many customers seeking turbines that are less than 1.0MW. Additionally, the turbine is very well suited for extreme environment (hurricane/typhoon), remote power or semi-permanent power applications needing 100kW-40MW to supplement high cost heavy fuel power generation.
Direct Drive Wind Turbine
Direct drive wind turbines must offset their higher initial capital costs through a presumed assumption of improved reliability and the potential future reduction in O&M costs that are most directly associated with crane costs. For remote locations, where availability of cranes is limited and more costly, and the cost of down time is higher, operators seek any perceived opportunity for potential improved reliability. A self-erecting turbine achieves the objective of higher uptimes/availabilities and lower O&M costs by eliminating the need for cranes, but without the higher initial capital cost of the direct drive turbine.
Flying Wind Turbine
Although there is theoretical potential associated with a flying wind turbine, the real world practicality is highly subjective. The tether and requirements for large amounts of back-up power are two of many critical single points of failure that could cause catastrophic loss of the entire turbine, but also surrounding structures. The practicality and reliability growth of operation in real world conditions with many single point failure modes is highly questionable. i.e. thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, lightening, extreme wind shear, icing, etc. What will be the offsets required to safely operate in proximity to humans considering the immense potential area of impact when flying 1,000+ feet above the ground and with 360 degrees of operation tracking wind direction changes? When considering the additional redundant systems and required aviation type reliability that will likely be required to operate, can the flying turbines achieve their anticipated cost projections or required weight fraction?
The flying turbine is self-erecting and can reach higher heights above ground than conventional free-standing wind turbines, but so can a guyed, tilt-up tower. Maybe a flying turbine makes sense on Mars or even potentially offshore, but not on land for distributed power generation applications. (i.e. near load, populated areas).