Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

jetsonaero.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 246 posts

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#211

Post by tw04 »

ladyattis wrote: post #208

If you're rich enough for this vehicle, it might be better to rent or buy a single engine plane instead. Yes, you gotta get a license but honestly after you get past the basics you'll probably fly better than Harrison Ford with little issue. I assume the real costs are going to be the hanger rental, insurance, and maintenance.

I think you'd have a far better chance of walking away from a failed engine in that plane too. Assuming it's something like a Cessna you've at least got a reasonable chance of landing it.

There's a reason the racecar frames that "inspired" this thing are made of steel and not aluminum. While this looks sturdy to a layman, I'd imagine this thing would crumple to nothing on impact.

Love to see a crash test and be proven wrong though.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#212

Post by purpleflame1257 »

ladyattis wrote: post #208

If you're rich enough for this vehicle, it might be better to rent or buy a single engine plane instead. Yes, you gotta get a license but honestly after you get past the basics you'll probably fly better than Harrison Ford with little issue. I assume the real costs are going to be the hanger rental, insurance, and maintenance.

Harrison Ford is in fact a very skilled pilot in real life. https://snowbrains.com/fun-fact-harrison-ford-is-a-teton-cou...

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#213

Post by paul_f »

yholio wrote: post #183

It's a nice toy, but the problems of personal aerial vehicles were not about electric motors vs ICE: - Massive amount of sound pollution, current crop won't be allowed near cities in significant numbers; that's why the presentation videos are always silent. - Exceptionally energy inefficient and limited speed, due to the way lift is achieved; it makes zero sense to spend 10 times the energy to travel at speeds compar…

You nailed it. They never seem to mention how load these things are. The use case is more of a dune buggy or jet ski. An expensive toy.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#214

Post by mrfusion »

Toutouxc wrote: post #209
mrfusion wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t that make the body spin in the opposite direction?

No, because the pre-spinning (torque applied to rotor) part happens on the ground with the rotor blades set to low/no pitch. The rotor then starts freewheeling (no torque applied or transferred from the rotor) and the blades' pitch angle is increased, which slows the rotor down, but momentarily creates enough lift to lift the autogyro into the air, where it immediately transitions to forward flight.

Wow neat approach. I’m always surprised auto gyros aren’t more popular. They seem so versatile.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#215

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

VLM wrote: post #202
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parachutes have a minimum altitude. For standard human chutes, that’s 300 feet (100 meters) or so. Not sure what the ceiling is on this. They don’t have footage of it going too high. You only need to fall 30 feet (10 m), to buy the farm. Less, in many cases (depending on how you fall, and onto what).

> Parachutes have a minimum altitude. If you have the money, zero/zero ballistic parachutes have been a reliable thing for more than half a century. For ultralight sized aircraft, they cost about 1/5 the cost of a new airframe. Generally they don't provide much survivability IMHO. Most ultralight deaths seem to boil down to CFIT and similar "happened too fast too close to ground" incidents with a side dish of refusal…

>If you have the money, zero/zero ballistic parachutes have been a reliable thing for more than half a century.

That's called an ejection seat, right? As in a rocket-propelled vehicle to launch you sufficiently high out of your aircraft to allow your parachute safely to deploy (i.e. about a hundred meters, as described in the prior post)

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#216

Post by mrfusion »

Toutouxc wrote: post #209
mrfusion wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t that make the body spin in the opposite direction?

No, because the pre-spinning (torque applied to rotor) part happens on the ground with the rotor blades set to low/no pitch. The rotor then starts freewheeling (no torque applied or transferred from the rotor) and the blades' pitch angle is increased, which slows the rotor down, but momentarily creates enough lift to lift the autogyro into the air, where it immediately transitions to forward flight.

I always assumed the main benefit of an auto gyro was a fixed pitch main propeller for the simplicity and cost benefits.

I guess if you could attach the vehicle to the ground and spin up the propellor and then release you could get the same effect.

Or another option is if the rear propeller could turn its rudder against the spin direction.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#217

Post by ctvo »

kumarvvr wrote: post #60
ctvo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personal aerial vehicles are never going to be safe. Not for the lack of innovation or technology, but for human nature. Ever see how many people drive their cars with the "check engine" lights on? Or how many fail to get theirs serviced in time, or change the oil in time? The mass market is not fit to drive their own personal aerial vehicles. > There are niche uses, such as medical emergencies, policing, etc. Putt…

> Listing all of the things that could go wrong with a technology hasn't worked well for us I am did not list anything wrong with the technology. My point is that human nature itself is at fault. Would you trust a flying machine in the hands of a drunk driver? But, no amount of regulation / laws / punishment will deter such incidences.

> My point is that human nature itself is at fault. Would you trust a flying machine in the hands of a drunk driver? But, no amount of regulation / laws / punishment will deter such incidences.

You're talking about degrees of damage. The issues presented here are present in cars. We've worked around them in cars (relatively well I'd argue) because of the trade-offs in convenience and time savings. There's nothing that says this mode of transaction, if viable, wouldn't have the same pressures applied to make it safer.

The wider point is convenience / time savings is a significant motivator, and betting against a technology that seems to include both has never turned out well.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#218

Post by tweedledee »

anonporridge wrote: post #125
leoedin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wingsuit flying is pretty well known as a hobby that eventually kills almost everyone who does it. It seems once you start flying as close to rocks as you can for fun there's some sort of skill-risk feedback loop that eventually kills you.

And yet, people still do it. In fact, the sport is growing.

Most wing suit flying is generally far away from obstacles. When they do get close its not many obstacles and it’s carefully planned. Flying FPV through forests is a lot of fun because of how random it is, and how dangerous it feels, but you quickly become aware that the human brain is not set up to do that kind of high speed navigation. There is no traction and flight lines have to be planned a few moves ahead. There is very little margin in the best of times, and sometimes no margin at all. It’s like that ball tracking / hidden monkey experiment. While you are watching one tree another jumps out at you from nowhere. It would be like playing Russian roulette non stop. You’re looking for the intersection of people who are actively suicidal and with a spare $100K.

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#219

Post by BurningFrog »

yholio wrote: post #183

It's a nice toy, but the problems of personal aerial vehicles were not about electric motors vs ICE: - Massive amount of sound pollution, current crop won't be allowed near cities in significant numbers; that's why the presentation videos are always silent. - Exceptionally energy inefficient and limited speed, due to the way lift is achieved; it makes zero sense to spend 10 times the energy to travel at speeds compar…

An air ambulance that flies above roads is actually a real good idea!

Re: Jetson One – Personal Electric Aerial Vehicle

#220

Post by BurningFrog »

ladyattis wrote: post #208

If you're rich enough for this vehicle, it might be better to rent or buy a single engine plane instead. Yes, you gotta get a license but honestly after you get past the basics you'll probably fly better than Harrison Ford with little issue. I assume the real costs are going to be the hanger rental, insurance, and maintenance.

This thing can be flown from lawn to lawn.

Very different from what a plane is good for.

Post reply on HN