Maybe the future Uber taxi

[Kyle Communications]

[winsor68]

 

That is awesome. There is a BIG wave in flight automation coming...we either surf it or drown.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's just something about that system that doesn't seem right. I understood they were not suitable for larger designs although proven for small ones. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

Yeh exposed blades for starters.... you would think guards might be in order

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the main problem with quadcopters is they stop flying once you get over about a 30% lean angle or lose power.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

4 rotors means no redundancy and CoG above liftline is a bit silly, brick status the moment anything goes wrong. Oh, and as it's presented there, 20 minutes flight time best case.

 

I like the Volocopter better for those reasons.

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

That looks much better

 

Flying tests link below..not animation

 

 

 

[SDQDI]

4 rotors means no redundancy and CoG above liftline is a bit silly, brick status the moment anything goes wrong. Oh, and as it's presented there, 20 minutes flight time best case.

You fellas have to start looking closer. It looked to me as though each arm had 2 rotors back to back, it is a bit hard to tell but I would guess that they run two elec motors back to back on each arm so that you have redundancy but without having to have extra arms/struts. I would say that should give you some weight saving over a standard octocopter layout but you still have the eight motors.

 

Also (I'm a farmer with no electrical experience!) would having the eight motors in a quadcopter layout be easier to program to cope with an engine failure? Or would it make no difference?

 

Either way it would be foolish IMO to not have a brs in something like this which is flying without a pilot

 

 

[bexrbetter]

You fellas have to start looking closer.

I am aware of the dual motors, I was more referring to the 4 corner layout, a sudden loss of, I guess 60%, power in one corner isn't going to be pretty, millisecond computers or not.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that 6 or more evenly spaced would allow far more margin for failure.

 

Another issue I just realised, besides the high CoG, the high cabin works against you in that the drag wants to tilt the machine backwards, a low cabin helps you to tilt forward, the tilt required for forward movement. Vice versa for slowing down stability.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I like the SAFE high voltage power lines nearby !!! Great testing location ads!! NOT

 

 

[SDQDI]

I am aware of the dual motors, I was more referring to the 4 corner layout, a sudden loss of, I guess 60%, power in one corner isn't going to be pretty, millisecond computers or not.There is no doubt in my mind that 6 or more evenly spaced would allow far more margin for failure.

 

Another issue I just realised, besides the high CoG, the high cabin works against you in that the drag wants to tilt the machine backwards, a low cabin helps you to tilt forward, the tilt required for forward movement. Vice versa for slowing down stability.

But wouldn't the second motor on an arm, if engineered right, have the ability to hold without too much hassle?

The only problem I can see with having a lower cockpit would be the departure angle of the props if you were to have a 'catastrophic' prop failure! Personally I would have thought having the cabin below the props would help with hovering stability? But then I guess they would be in the road if you were to have a brs for the cabin.

 

 

[DrZoos]

The money being put into drones by Amazon and a few others is incredible... given how long its taken Uber to make in roads in NSW and other nanny states, Ithink we can safely say CASA will keep human drones grounded for many decades after they are safe and viable...

 

 

[bexrbetter]

But wouldn't the second motor on an arm, if engineered right, have the ability to hold without too much hassle?The only problem I can see with having a lower cockpit would be the departure angle of the props if you were to have a 'catastrophic' prop failure! Personally I would have thought having the cabin below the props would help with hovering stability? But then I guess they would be in the road if you were to have a brs for the cabin.

Can't see it, the opposing corner would have to be instantly shut down and possibly reversed to check the inertia of the higher CoG coming over the fulcrum point (the other 2 corners).

 

High CoG above prop/lift line in no way can be better than low CoG for stability, that's simple physics, stand a pencil on it's end or hang it from 2 fingers, which is the easier ...

 

 

[SDQDI]

Can't see it, the opposing corner would have to be instantly shut down and possibly reversed to check the inertia of the higher CoG coming over the fulcrum point (the other 2 corners).

But bex if there was two motors on each arm and one failed wouldn't the other motor on that same arm be able to compensate enough without having to have the opposite one reverse?

That of course would be irrelevant if something like a bird took out both props on one arm but other than that I would have thought it would be designed so that it could be run on just four motor/props (well three in an extreme case) and that the double up on each arm was just there as a redundancy thing. Of course in normal operation they would all be running but at nowhere near capacity.

 

It would be interesting to see some figures on how much weight would be saved just having the four arms compared to having eight. Of course they would have to be a bit beefier but I still think you would save a bit.

 

And the more I think about the high or low cabin I think I would opt for the high cabin so that a brs had a clear shot unless of course there was a way to do it safely with the props up there. It could be less efficient but maybe safer? I'm not sure how popular you would be if you jettisoned four arms with props attached over some city somewhere :-)