91–100 of 246 posts
I wonder why the rotors are positioned so low. Should a propeller get fractured, the splinters would hit the pilot's chest and neck. OTOH putting the propellers above would change the shape and thus the aesthetics seriously.
Was wondering that too. Also can‘t the rotors be shrouded or does that affect the power/agility negatively?
> A complete vehicle is 92 000 USD and is delivered to you as a partially (50%) assembled kit for home completion. It contains everything you need, from the aluminium space frame to motor controllers, propellers and motors. You will also receive detailed build instructions. Seems odd to not deliver a fully assembled aircraft. Is there any regulatory reason? If cost is an issue, they could probably charge extra (such…
If it's less than 51% assembled by the manufacturer it's classified as "home built" and the manufacturer assumes no liability in the event of a crash.
From the video, it looks like this craft is limited to about 10 feet in altitude (certainly as high as I’d want to go, but I imagine their primary market at first is going to be thrill-seekers). And yet that’s really all you need for a lot of point-to-point transport, especially in rural areas (which I also imagine will be the only legal places to fly these for the foreseeable future).
The real limitations come from Part 103, which limits ultralights to uncontrolled airspace (Class G). These aircraft will be limited to 1200 ft. AGL in most of the country, and 700 ft. AGL near many airports and their associated approaches.
We have gained so much in terms of technological progress, consistently reducing the energy required to go from point A to point B, it surprises me how we are again increasing it for getting from point A to point B. The concept is great, but the push for mass market adoption bugs me. These things are not efficient modes of transport. It takes a lot of energy to move one person from A to B.
> We have gained so much in terms of technological progress, consistently reducing the energy required to go from point A to point B, it surprises me how we are again increasing it for getting from point A to point B. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to go from point A to point B as it did 10,000 years ago. What we've done is gotten better at packing more energy generation in a smaller volume/envelope.
Only against conservative fields like gravity, not against friction! When I bike 10 blocks, I use less energy than when I walk 10 blocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
helicopters also have one major advantage for manned applications: autorotation. there's at least a chance to survive loss of power in a helicopter. a quad with no power just falls.
I'm kind of surprised they use only 4. There are drones with 6 and 8 rotors, which can still fly if 1 fails, which they use in the film industry to fly heavier, more expensive cameras. There are also ways to get quads to fly on less than 4 rotors if one becomes damaged, although as a human I'm not sure I'd want to be in one doing it. Here's a Ted Talk with a live demo from 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwF…
20 minute flight time? Useless.
As a non-rich person it'd be useless to me even if I could afford it (I live near other humans) but I can absolute imagine some people I have met buying one.
I wonder why the rotors are positioned so low. Should a propeller get fractured, the splinters would hit the pilot's chest and neck. OTOH putting the propellers above would change the shape and thus the aesthetics seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's less than 51% assembled by the manufacturer it's classified as "home built" and the manufacturer assumes no liability in the event of a crash.
Wow very interesting. Curious if you have any source?
[1] https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-building/builderresources/g...
Maximum pilot weight of 210lbs? I suppose if I were rich enough to buy this I could also get myself a personal trainer.