Aussie bogans home-built drone carrying a person - who goes fishing from it!

[Thruster88]

Un believable. To get enough lift to take that load and where does the power come from?

 

About 9sq metres max prop area. That equates to a chopper with about3.5m blade diameter.

 

Their little wings spin fast, power from batteries  electricity.?

 

Look how much thrust turbofan engine can produce, 50 tons from a 3.5m diameter 777 engine give or take a few tons.

 

 

[spacesailor]

" but there was no ANO95.10 "

 

Not needed as it hasn't enough   "wing area", same as the HummelBird/

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Their little wings spin fast, power from batteries  electricity.?

 

Look how much thrust turbofan engine can produce, 50 tons from a 3.5m diameter 777 engine give or take a few tons."

 

SO why do we have to lug a heavy gearbox around, instead of smaller faster props ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Thruster88]

 

SO why do we have to lug a heavy gearbox around, instead of smaller faster props ?.

 

spacesailor

 

The small diameter of the the multiple  props mean their tips are not getting close to the speed of sound, a normal

 

60-76 inch prop has to spin in the 2500-3000 rpm range to be efficient. 2 strokes and small displacement engines turn 5000-6000 rpm so a gearbox is required.  

 

 

[spacesailor]

" but there was no ANO95.10 "

 

Not needed as it hasn't enough   "wing-load area", same as the HummelBird.

 

"2 strokes and small displacement engines turn 5000-6000 rpm so a gearbox is required. "

 

So a smaller prop say 38" will Do if four or five blades are used to soak-up that horsepower ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Thruster88]

" but there was no ANO95.10 "

 

Not needed as it hasn't enough   "wing-load area", same as the HummelBird.

 

"2 strokes and small displacement engines turn 5000-6000 rpm so a gearbox is required. "

 

So a smaller prop say 38" will Do if four or five blades are used to soak-up that horsepower ?.

 

spacesailor

 

Yes that will work but you will lose efficiency due to having more tips.

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

I wonder when we will start seeing "drone chutes"....

 

They are already available and have been for 3 years.  https://www.galaxysky.cz/multicopters-s71-en    this is out of a drone magazine

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Well good on the bloke/blokes/blokettes who organised this. Truly in the spirit of all the early aviation pioneers, including Henri Mignet. The only clowns are those here who think regulation and CASA approvals make things "safe".

 

As for RC fields, there is the official hobby and the at least 5 times the size unofficial one.

 

The "consultation" on increases weight limits for RAAus is out. I'm going to suggest it be increased to 300Kg and be de-regulated.  Only pilot quals under 400 feet be similar to CASA drone licence (knowledge of places you can't fly), RPL or higher if you want above 400 feet.

 

The rest of the nonsense about running several general aviation systems when we all fly in the same airspace can be consigned to the rubbish bin, where it belongs.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

You all might like to contemplate where, when and how  ultralight aviation got started in Australia. Hint: It wasn't with regulatory approval.

 

 

[Stevesb]

Yes they may have broken some rules.

 

But if we stop innovation in aviation where would we be.

 

Should we leave it to the big corporations to do?

 

Recent experience is showing that that maybe not the only way forward.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.   

 

 

[facthunter]

The amount of research in total that went into the Wright Flyer was extensive and derived from other's like Lilienthal  and the workmanship was obviously excellent. Comparisons are Odious they say. I would just say not particularly valid beyond a superficial comparison of something lifting in the medium of the air. Drones are now not new and making a bigger one in itself not a great leap to anywhere.  You see Fictitious pictures of containers being whisked off to somewhere by a few props on each corner, easily defying gravity. Hardly likely to get enough lift for such contraptions to do such jobs. in such a simple way, AND as a lift method always will be inferior to an aerofoils for efficiency bya wide margin . This factor will always be there. It's inherent in the concept. Look at the size and complexity of helicopters that are needed to lift such weights and they are rotary WING  with collective and cyclic control of the thrust able to controllably autorotate. not little fixed pitch fans in a frame There's a lot of hype in this area (eVTOL )and don't forget Boeings version pranged not that long ago, with all the expertise they have in their Database that's a significant catastrophe for them.

 

   The young fella's are doing what young fella's like to do and I don't want to condemn that but this phenomenon has gone far beyond the resources available to the average backyard operator regards money and knowledge already to whatever stage it will go to. I personally think it's over hyped as to the extent of it's application. The law they need to watch is the law of gravity that applies whether CASA are about or not. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Today's battery technology only allows a few minutes in the air, so I wouldn't be getting too excited about Dronegate.

 

It's a spin doctor's paradise though, and don't forget Peter Gibson is the spin doctor.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

These guys already have a history with CASA and drones.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/man-faces-9000-fine-for-using-a-drone-to-pick-up-a-bunnings-sausage-20161109-gsl3q2.html

 

 

[Thruster88]

These guys already have a history with CASA and drones.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/man-faces-9000-fine-for-using-a-drone-to-pick-up-a-bunnings-sausage-20161109-gsl3q2.html

 

Did that really happen, not sure about this one either 

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

IMO, trying to compare these blokes to the Wrights is trying to compare apples to oranges. The Wrights went to great pains to study up on aeronautical theory and principles, and took knowledge from many others.

 

In addition, when the Wrights launched, there were no aviation rules or regulations. This is 2019, and the world is full of flying objects, and we have a multitude of aviation rules and regulations, for good reasons.

 

In addition, the Wrights were testing a totally new design that would lead to powered flight for them - something that no-one had ever done before.

 

These blokes are juvenile stunt backyarders - if you want to take to the air in any reliable form, carrying a human, you'd better have some aviation-level build quality.

 

Untested Chinese toy drone motors, and untested Chinese drone electronics, and aluminium kitchen chairs, are not aviation-level build quality.

 

And the bottom line is, these blokes have advanced nowhere in lightweight electric propulsion and passenger carrying in aviation - there are numerous operators who are currently, so much further advanced - and  they have taken great pains to utilise aviation-level build quality in their efforts.

 

https://www.rumblerum.com/jetsons-flying-go-kart-successfully-made-its-maiden-manned-flight/

 

https://evtol.news/aircraft/jetsonaerospeeder/

 

 

[SSCBD]

I suggest you look at this

 

 

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

SSCBD - Yep, more Youtube stunters! Not exactly advancing safe transport in electric-propulsion aviation, are they? 

 

As a stunt for emergency rescue of someone drowning after slipping into the sea off rocks - yes, perhaps.

 

But the person would be lost otherwise, and if the RC models propulsion failed, and dropped the person rescued - well, "such is life", as one famous risk-taking Australian, was reputed to have said. 

 

 

[KRviator]

IMO, trying to compare these blokes to the Wrights is trying to compare apples to oranges. The Wrights went to great pains to study up on aeronautical theory and principles, and took knowledge from many others.

 

In addition, when the Wrights launched, there were no aviation rules or regulations. This is 2019, and the world is full of flying objects, and we have a multitude of aviation rules and regulations, for good reasons.

 

In addition, the Wrights were testing a totally new design that would lead to powered flight for them - something that no-one had ever done before.

 

These blokes are juvenile stunt backyarders - if you want to take to the air in any reliable form, carrying a human, you'd better have some aviation-level build quality.

 

Untested Chinese toy drone motors, and untested Chinese drone electronics, and aluminium kitchen chairs, are not aviation-level build quality.

 

And the bottom line is, these blokes have advanced nowhere in lightweight electric propulsion and passenger carrying in aviation - there are numerous operators who are currently, so much further advanced - and  they have taken great pains to utilise aviation-level build quality in their efforts.

 

I think you're being overly critical of these blokes. It's reported they took 2 years to build the bloody thing, if that's true, then that's a substantial investment in time alone, yet alone materials and sheer perseverance. It's not something they thought "Hold my beer and watch this" and knocked up after a weekend on the pi$$.

 

I built an RV-9 in my back shed. I didn't do it to advance aviation, or try to prove anything to anyone, beyond myself, and that was simply that I could do it, and I could do it safely. To outward appearances, these blokes have done the same thing. No one knows what kind of control laws they have written, nor the quality of the components or software they've used. Given half a chance, I'd build something like that myself and take one of my rugrats flying over a waterhole too. 

 

I've no doubt the Cretins Against Sensible Aviation will get upset about it - indeed their public comments thus far, effectively "We're sure he's broken the law, we're just not sure which one it is..." don't really inspire much confidence.

 

 

[Litespeed]

I am with the cheers fellas brigade, have a bow.

 

They have proven the ability to make a man carrying drone. Others have tried few are actually successful.  

 

Yes, it might seem a tad risky but all big steps in technology often are. CASA should celebrate local innovation and make a small class to suit such things. 

 

 

[Litespeed]

With a hybrid drive running a powerful small two stroke with big brushless generator, gives range the batteries can't alone.

 

You could drink a lot if tinnies before needing a refill. So best add flying esky mods.

 

 

[Thruster88]

Something like this but with four paramotor engines would be perfect for the farm, a flying quad bike. Master throttle control and a joy stick to trim each engines thrust, simple, might have to start building.?

 

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

I asked this question (somewhere).

 

HOW does a quadramotor yaw ?.

 

Also !.

 

A passenger on a commercial flight, became the pilot.

 

HOW many laws did he break, (insurance ? )

 

spacesailor

 

 

[planedriver]

A quadcopter gets to yaw  when motors rotating in the same direction have an increase in power applied to them.

 

In the case of the popular DJI Phantom type with 4 motors. 2 props rotate clockwise and the other 2 counter clockwise.

 

Hope this helps?

 

 

[Keenaviator]

On 03/09/2019 at 6:44 AM, Thruster88 said:

 

Something like this but with four paramotor engines would be perfect for the farm, a flying quad bike. Master throttle control and a joy stick to trim each engines thrust, simple, might have to start building.?

 

Or one paramotor and one appropriate paramotor wing for the farm!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Or one paramotor and one appropriate paramotor wing for the farm!

 

Two things here:

 

1. The COG is higher with the above design, so thge software has to work harder/thrust is wasted  for stable flight, whereas hangung in suspension is self stabilising releasing more power to provide lift.

 

2. If you compare the thrust per kg of the paramotor vs the thrust per kg of a drone motor, I thing it would be surprising; many times the paramotor which really only has to push you along at a sedate speed.

 

People are fascinated with this need for farmers to fly, and I can remember Norman Hamiltons Jackeroo aircraft which was built for farmers. The fact that there aren't thousands of them out there could point to the lack of a market.

 

In that era, on a big station a flight around all the troughs was expensive, but practical because if you had a thousand cattle in the paddock you had a few hundred thousand dollars loss if the cattle died of starvation. These days cattle troughs can be electronically monitored, or photographically monitored and the property owner doesn't even need a pilot's licence, or the property owner may hqave to do what I did yesterday; carry a heavy crowbar and a shovel out to bury a sheep.

 

A drone can angle-in to overcome a small amount of wind, but so far they really fit into the same weather envelope as a powered parachute.

 

It might be that one day someone will come up with enough power to add a directional prop, and it might be that some day someone will invent a new type of battery to increase range, but today, they are for very localised work, albeit the Police and Fire Services are doing fantastic localised work.