Are drone-style personal helicopters going to be a thing?

Are drone-style personal helicopters going to be a thing?

Other urls found in this thread:

philip.greenspun.com/flying/robinson-r22
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how many male children are there in english-speaking countries
youtube.com/watch?v=HorL1iie4YQ
ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_meet_the_dazzling_flying_machines_of_the_future/up-next#t-299228
youtube.com/watch?v=BYta-DQOINw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Yes.

I discussed it with a friend who has a degree in this stuff and pic related scared the poo outta him. So it will be good.

No.

They would be extremely dangerous: one mechanical failure and you will literally drop from the sky.
And they would consume a stupid amount of energy.

Pic related is a far more sensible design: converts between a road legal car and an autogyro.
Autogyro's are very safe and easy to fly.

never

>one mechanical failure and you will literally drop from the sky
>Autogyro's are very safe
Please explain why that is, because it seems backwards to me. Serious multirotors are supposed to survive the loss of several motors and the latest passenger model I've seen (pic) has an automatic parachute plus a backup battery in case the gasoline generator fails. Can an autogyro rely on autorotation like a big-boy helicopter to land safely in a technical emergency? That would be a major advantage, but otherwise I don't see it.

>one mechanical failure and you will literally drop from the sky.

Yeah, aircraft engines need to be rebuild after every so many hours of running

so... a helicopter?

wouldn't that flip over once it's over an angle threshold?

>Serious multirotors are supposed to survive the loss of several motors

Key word: supposed.
It's not uncommon for multi engine aircraft to loose all engines, it can for example be caused by an electrical or computer failure.

>Can an autogyro rely on autorotation

Which part of AUTOgyro is confusing to you?

A helicopter has a powered main rotor.

An autogyro can't take off vertically, but it's much simpler and therefore much safer.
Autogyro's also can't stall.

The main rotor is driven by the forward movement. So you are always in Autorotation. When the engine stops there are no drastic changes to the flight of the autogyro. Landing a Helicopter with Autorotation is much more difficult, because of the abrupt change when the motor stops.

>having 4 giant high velocity saws near your cockpit

looks like a smart idea.

That's how you know it's just a "concept" mock-up and not something that would ever fly.

>They would be extremely dangerous: one mechanical failure and you will literally drop from the sky.
You mean like planes?
So like car engines?

>Dubai
These guys really don't know what to do with their gazillion$.

>Which part of AUTOgyro is confusing to you?
From what I've read, in a small chopper you are kind of fucked when it comes to landing on autorotation if the engine fails. The difference is between a couple of seconds to react to it and a much easier 5-10 seconds in a larger one.
>Due to its light weight and low inertia rotor system, the R22 is not forgiving of pilot error or sluggishness. After an engine failure, real or simulated, you and the instructor will have 1.6 seconds to lower the collective and enter an autorotation.
philip.greenspun.com/flying/robinson-r22

A multi-engine plane can still fly with a dead engine and even a single-engine plane can still glide when the engine fails.

Are you brain damaged? When planes lose power they can still glide to some degree and make an emergency landing (depends on altitude, elevation and other factors though), planes don't just plummet out of the sky like nothing. Unlike Helicopters (and drones) which will plummet out of the sky if they lose power to their engines, as they have no gliding capabilities.

Are they even investing in high tech or is it all hotels and luxury resorts and shit?

>You mean like planes?

Planes don't drop from the sky when they have an engine or electrical failure.

>From what I've read, in a small chopper

It's not a small chopper.
It is an AUTOGYRO.

It is designed to land on autorotation.

You have been able to build/buy a single seat helicopter for a few thousand dollars since the 70s...

This won't take off anymore than those did... Its not practical...

>spend money on redundant motors and rotors
>skimp out redundancy of batteries and control system

With design decisions like these your choice of which one to use doesn't really matter.

The choice is between a flying machine that is inherently safe, and one that is inherently unsafe.

the top frame is too heavy

>engines too small
>unreliable in weather
>cuts the tail of a small heli cause muh flying car

No. People are already retards while driving on land and automation is a while away. Aircraft are probably going to become fully automated before cars, however.

>Sup Forums trying to discuss flying machines

Good fucking god DO NOT.

is that you a/n/on
[spoiler]nice digits[/spoiler]

>step out
>lose your legs

aircraft can easily be fully automated the main issues they face are easy to deal with with modern sensor hardware.

the issue is they would cost a stupid fucking amount, there is no economy of scale that will fix how expensive this shit would be. the flying shit im looking into getting costs 5000$ and even assuming you fly it 1 hour 2 times a week its fucked in 2-4 years, this will be great for people who can afford to commute this way, but it wont be average person shit.

Am I the only one that giggles when he sees the word cockpit?

You do realize you need to be above 18 years of age to post here at all?
At least don't call attention to it.

Certainly not.
wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how many male children are there in english-speaking countries

I don't know what you fruits were thinking about, I was thinking of pit related.

>drone helicopters
>easily hackable
>randomly crash

Nobody outside aviation knows why they call it that, so I expect not given the current state of Burger education.

Many aircraft have suicide angles that they cant recover from. Hardware/software safeties prevent them from reaching it though.

I have a PPL. I was going to go the commercial route a few years ago, but stopped at a PPL because I figured tech had a better future.

But yeah, aircraft are ridiculously expensive. My instructor told me to be careful with the aircraft doors because it costs about $5 to replace the latch and another $100 to get some guy to sign off on it. We're not going to reach a point where everyone has their own flying device anytime soon.

>I don't know what you fruits were thinking about
That there are up to hundreds of millions of people who share your sense of humor.

...

You won't need legs with the beauty, sir.

Helicopters can glide, it's called autorotation, although it's really more similar to steered parachuting than gliding like an aeroplane.

There's Beavis and Butt-Head in HD?

dunno, I just took a random image

>a thing?
"a thing?" What are you fucking 12? Use words you stupid motherfucker.
If you mean mass produced, plentiful, relatively inexpensive for what they are, and soon to be a staple of upper middle class then fuck no. You can already buy personal autogyros for less than a loaded SUV. Nearly every personal drone helicopter ITT starts at $200k and goes up from there. That "surefly" in an earlier pic? It carries enough fuel for one fucking hour of flight. These things only have the fact that they're slightly less expensive than a Robinson R-22 going for them. But if you're dropping a quarter million dollars you're well into the range that you don't fucking care about the extra cost so drone copters don't even have that. They're in a price niche that makes them a toy for the simultaneously rich and stupid and currently serve no practical purpose unlike their competitors autogyros and existing helicopters.

ITT we /n/ nao

But I don't want to wait 2 days for someone to reply to my post. I'm angry now and seeking immediate gratification just like the rest of Sup Forums.

What is stopping someone from making their own with 18650 cells? They only thing you need is a light weight cockpit.

no

a plastic bag blowing in the wind will cause a fatal crash

the only reason planes dont crash as much as cars is because they are isolated to use to and from designated airports

landing to and from residential zones would be suceptible to all kinds of hazards and will never work because people are literally too stupid

>"a thing?" What are you fucking 12? Use words you stupid motherfucker.
Seriously.

>18650 cells have shit energy density compared to gasoline or diesel and you fucking NEED energy density in aircraft which is why aviation grade fuels and toxic as fuck jet fuel exist
>most people can't even make a paper airplane that doesn't nosedive. Drones are infinitely more complex
>weight is a cursed blessing. weight lets an aircraft endure the weather but increases the energy cost of flight. There's a reason weighs 1100lbs, and even ultralight personal autogyros weigh in around the same as a motorcycle.
>there are legal hurdles and air worthiness tests to be done before you can even think of taking it off the ground
>in the time it took you to successfully build and license your aircraft you could have just worked at a job and bought an ultralight and had enough left over to pay for a year of gas while flying it back and forth to work.
If you want to "fly" on the cheap & easy take a hang glider off a cliff. Building your own drone for personal use is a massive waste of time with almost no payoff. You could call it a hobby but I would call it stupidity.

Roy halladay just died from one of these

"a" and "thing" are both words, you stupid motherfucker.

No he didn't.

probably, might become a thing, normal helicopters are hard to control while drone-style require no prior knowledge of flying.

>pic related is a far more sensible design
One mechanical failure and you drop to the ground like a rock that you are.

Read the thread, learn how an autogyro works.

it works like a helicopter, your rotor stops spinning you are shit out of luck,
>BUT ROTORS ARE MUH WINGS
You are going down no matter how much you think you can glide on it.

The episodes from 2011 were.

There isn't even an engine to fail and cause the rotor to stop, they're not powered.

There is a reason nobody never made and never will make a fullsize quadcopter.

While being very easy tocontrol in air they have SUPER AWFUL TWR, dry mass and payload capacity.

And iff you scale things up the strenght/power goes up ^2 as area while the mass goes up ^3 as volume.

So while it is not impossible to make its gonna be a shit and flop.
A tiny traditional or coaxial scheme helicopter would be vastly superior

>You are going down no matter how much you think you can glide on it.
Going down slowly is better than falling like a stone

Machine learning will make quadcopters unnecessary.

The thing is that a traditional helcopter is very unstable in air and the pilot has to wrestle a machine that is trying to kill him 100% of the time.

Quadcopters are stable but massively inferior in every flight related characteristic.

Machine learning however can control vehicles at absolutely superhuman levels.
At Ted Talk they even demonstrated AI controlling a SINGLE propeller helicopter something that was considered absolutely impossible before so AI could land a helicilopter even if the tail falls off, a human pilot could never hwndle that.

So no, quadcoptets are a gimmick for retards.

What about a VTOL plane for one person? You can glide in case of a failure, and it doesn't have to be extra heavy because you only need to do VTOL for a very small fraction of your entire trip, plus it could be light enough to implement a parachute in it in case of total failure.

youtube.com/watch?v=HorL1iie4YQ

Would that be safe enough for you safety atustis?

Which TED talk?

I'm on a phone right now so google it yourself.

>>there are legal hurdles and air worthiness tests to be done before you can even think of taking it off the ground

This isn't true at all. It can be easily classified and registered as experimental in the US.

I like Arab clothes, the headgear looks kinda formal with the black thing on top. But the sandals ruin everything

There are dozens of TED talks on AI, I asked because I couldn't find on google anything involving AI controlling a helicopter.

ted.com/talks/raffaello_d_andrea_meet_the_dazzling_flying_machines_of_the_future/up-next#t-299228

You wouldn't like wearing boots when it hits +50C outside

I was wearing skate shoes when it was 118ºF, I don't see why a few more degrees would change that.

The whole VTOL apparatus is a dead weight in flight.
There's also Osprey design but mechanical complexity makes it a flying death trap.

Perhaps AI could make it work though.

But then the AI could probably make any aircraft with TWR>1 take off vertically.
Just because a human pilot cant do it doesnt mean it's impossible.

The only reason we dont launch the real planes upwards is only becsuse a human can't handle it but an AI could.

>get some simple one prop plane
>turn it 90° upwards
>fly
>then land vertically on your tail.

Its not physicslly imposdible so an AI could be trained for it.

Stop saying autogyro you retarded piece of imbecile nigger shit son of an atheist whore. Autogyro is a spanish brand of gyrocopter you dumbass. You're like those soyboy idiots that call all computers Macs.
>Oh you have a Windows Mac?
>My cousin runs a GNU/Linux Mac
Kill yourself.

>Stop saying Kleenex you retarded piece of imbecile nigger shit son of an atheist whore. Kleenex is a brand name for "tissue."
Man, you must really piss your mom off when she gets sick. All she wants is a damned kleenex and you can't help but go full sperg

With expensive turbine engines it's cheaper and more efficient and easier maintenance to have one or two big ones rather then multiple smaller units.

But electric motors and ESCs are relatively cheap and reliable, especially if losing a single engine isn't a huge deal.

Also there's no practical way to enclose helicopter blades so they're not lethal as fuck to people on the ground.

The biggest problem will be battery capacity, presumably flights will only last ten or twenty minutes max with recharging either end.

That looks like it’s made to fall
I’d feel safe.

If you are making an electric helicopter the one with one large electric motor and one large propeller will still be much better than the one with 4 motors and 4 props on the sticks in every aspect including price and maintenance.

If we're talking reliability I would argue in favor of a coaxial scheme dual engine copter. So in case of one engine failure it could land on autorotation and some power from the remaining engine.

Imagine having 2 engines for every quadcopter propeller - that wouldn't take it's weigh off the ground.
>Also there's no practical way to enclose helicopter blades so they're not lethal as fuck to people on the ground.

There also is no way to enclose the car wheels to protect people in the middle of highway.
When a wehicle is falling down at you ducting the blades wont help you to much.

But no, you fags had to stop the Germans
youtube.com/watch?v=BYta-DQOINw

>misstep
>be fed through the fan

>turn
>driver goes flying

>why would a helicopter need to be a drone?
>why does the helicopter need 16 props?
why wouldn't you just use a fucking helicopter?

I like how we've totally abandoned jets and enclosed turbines in favor of these open props. Solid engineering.

I want to build a jet quadcopter

you need a skilled pilot to handle helicopter.
A quad/multicopter can be piloted by a child

Not gonna happen.
Jet engines have ramp up/down time way too slow to react to controls.

a turbine engine could however serve as a fenerator for hybrid Prius style transmission that would eliminate the neeed for battery and allow it to fly for extended periods of time

Have you ever seen someone nosedive a drone? No? Well there's your answer.

They're all inherently unsafe because they all hinge your life upon their main system not failing. That said, redundancy is the king. A single rotor craft only needs to lose one rotor, multirotor can stay up with upwards of 30% rotors going, depending on design and payload.

I've never seen a helicopter nosedive either.

How many aircraft have you designed/built that actually flew?

Does a kite count?

Those things would also scare the shit out of me.
Imagine someone going full "allahu agbar" in one of those.
Or imagine some guy in Las Vegas going full cowboy while hovering over a crowd of people.


>literally drop from the sky.

God damn it, just attach a few parachutes to it..


Autorotation is a meme.

Try to guess how many Helicopters have successfully managed to "land" with autorotation, even though it's theoretically possible.

Think about how huge the wings of a glider are. That's about the size you would need to not have an engine.

>Try to guess how many Helicopters have successfully managed to "land"

They succesfully crash land with some crew members surviving.

Which is a good thing.

All I'm saying is that it's inefficient.

No.
>Cars would be extremely dangerous: one mechanical failure and you would hit a wall like a brick.
>And they would consume a stupid amount of energy.

>Pic related is a far more sensible design: converts between a path legal horse and a horse cart.
>Horse carts are very safe to drive

This but unironically
Horses are much more safe than automobiles which are unsafe at any speed
GMO horses that dont need to eat so much or can tolerate an all soy diet are the future

The eggman one could have been made efficient with today's technology

Horses have better fuel economy too.

You're gonna need some adhesive medical strips when I'm done with you, faggot

Turbines have enclosures for aerodynamic reasons, not safety. There are no one to protect mid air and on a runway, all while that weight in metal could be fuel or payload instead. Also they have dogshit fuel efficiency and TWR, it's just they allow faster travel than prop aircraft (which have no ducts), not that you would care for that on a helicopter - hence they all prop powered, no jet hovercraft exists.

>Autorotation is a meme
The autogyro flies because of autorotation. Forward motion makes the large rotor spin, creating lift. If the engine cuts out, the autogyro will fly as long as it has forward speed. Making an emergency landing with an autogyro by using autorotation is a hell of a lot more feasible then landing a helicopter in the same way.