61–70 of 95 posts
When they led with “100x quieter than a helicopter,” my first reaction was a skeptical “well sure, decibels are logarithmic!” But 40dB from 600ft away is impressive, and within the range of what I would consider acceptable for residential flyover (though not takeoff and landing) in a medium-density area.
Every time I see a multirotor carrying people, I think of the many times while building them at the beginning of the drone renaissance that I saw 4/6/8 bladed multirotors have an AP failure, a blade break, a speed controller overheat, etc etc and it fell out of the sky, literally. These do not have a glideslope! Sure, a ballistic chute might prevent an onboard tragedy but I continue to wonder about what the flying ca…
Speaking as a pilot, if I were flying (or being flown) by this thing, the electric powerplant would be the least of my worries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also guessing that the name 'heaviside' is a reference to the Heaviside step function. Which of course, looks like a vertical takeoff, and implies that this project is a "step function" in flying transportation, etc..It's a pretty great name.
The function is named after the person.
> The Mountain View, California-based company calls it Heaviside, after noted physicist and electrical engineer Oliver Heaviside, who advanced a variety of theories and innovations in mathematics, electronics, and communications in the early 20th century. I like this idea of naming things after people who've contributed to the field. Mount Everest's name came from a British surveyor and geographer George Everest. Bra…
I'm psyched they named it after Heaviside. For the caliber, scope, and importance of his contributions, he is extremely under appreciated. Most of the people who have heard the name only know of the step function, but much of how electrical engineering is done (and named) is due to him. Some things that could reasonably have his name attached (intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive): Maxwell-Heaviside equations…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your quote refers to the "jesus nut": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut , which doesn't apply to newer helicopters.
I'm curious - surely there's still some single point that would let the rotor fly away? What does it mean that newer helicopters "doesn't have" this? I mean the rotor is attached? It's a single axel? There are scenarios where the rotor falls off?
On the older 'teetering head' designs like the Huey, you can bump the mast (rotor shaft) in aggressive nose overs or low g conditions which would also separate the rotors from the aircraft.
[0] https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=213384
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHC_Helikopter_Service_Flight_...
> The Mountain View, California-based company calls it Heaviside, after noted physicist and electrical engineer Oliver Heaviside, who advanced a variety of theories and innovations in mathematics, electronics, and communications in the early 20th century. I like this idea of naming things after people who've contributed to the field. Mount Everest's name came from a British surveyor and geographer George Everest. Bra…
I'm psyched they named it after Heaviside. For the caliber, scope, and importance of his contributions, he is extremely under appreciated. Most of the people who have heard the name only know of the step function, but much of how electrical engineering is done (and named) is due to him. Some things that could reasonably have his name attached (intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive): Maxwell-Heaviside equations…
In that case I think you'd have to be sure you were building something great or at least challenging before you take on their name. Which has to be considered but regardless it's a nice gesture and the aircraft name which can change easier than a company name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is about how much noise your aircraft are allowed to create. Sounds good. The same rules should apply to lawn mowers, motor bikes, construction, bars, stereos, drones, public transport, bands, dogs, children...
Construction is temporary. Stereos and bands are played to bring enjoyment; the sound produced is the point, not a byproduct of some other motivation so those should get more of a pass. Many cities already enforce laws against persistently barking dogs and those laws can work just fine. I'm with you regarding motor bikes and public transport but the same rules should not apply to the others. They can have their own r…
To suggest this new vehicle has to operate at a level to not drown out birds before it can fit into society is silly. It's reasonable to place restictions on their use, e.g. you shouldn't be able to takeoff and land in quiet residential neighborhoods, instead limit them to landing on the tops of very tall buildings or transport hubs.
Also, if people are allowed to use lawnmowers and loud exhausts on motorbikes, and have been doing so for years, suggesting a new technology has to be subject to more stringent restrictions is a little unfair.
> The Mountain View, California-based company calls it Heaviside, after noted physicist and electrical engineer Oliver Heaviside, who advanced a variety of theories and innovations in mathematics, electronics, and communications in the early 20th century. I like this idea of naming things after people who've contributed to the field. Mount Everest's name came from a British surveyor and geographer George Everest. Bra…
It would be a good idea to use better baselines for noise pollution than helicopters and airplanes of today. Perhaps like this - Life in the Spanish City that banned cars. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/sep/18/paradise-life... This is about how much noise your aircraft are allowed to create. What you should be able to hear in the street are "the tweeting of birds in the camellias, the tinkle of coffee spoons…
> This is about how much noise your aircraft are allowed to create. Sounds good. The same rules should apply to lawn mowers, motor bikes, construction, bars, stereos, drones, public transport, bands, dogs, children...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about this aircraft but this appears to be a winged aircraft which unlike quadcopters and helicopters,losing an engine or rotor does not translate to a crash(?) because it had n number of rotors on each side,if one is lost,you lose altitude maybe and turn off matching rotors on the other side,which naively appears safer than a helicopter.
Wings don't help if you are below the stall speed.