/g/ didn't seem impressed. https://www.youtube.com/wat

>>7987250

>/g/ didn't seem impressed.

Quadcopters aren't particularly good helicopters.

>>7987265
technically it's not "quad" since there's 18 of them.

but the thing practically flies itself. how is that not a good thing?

>>7987271
what advatages does it offer?
because I ai't seeing it.

>>7987379
lower maintenance costs

>>7987380
How much does it cost compared to a regular helicopter? Can it do everything a regular helicopter can do to the same effectiveness? Are the maintenance savings worth it at all factoring in the potential losses above? No? Well then now we know why noone is impressed.

>/g/ didn't seem impressed.
Well, it's not a picture or a loli so of course they wouldn't care about it.

Yolocopter would have been a beter name.

>>7987250
power consumption?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY

>>7987250
because you missed relevant part
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v5iMeRl5Qo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkiyiSdZzXk

>>7987455
Or a hardware spec circlejerk despite never playing any even remotely intensive games.

>>7987265
>Quadcopters

>/sci/ - Science and Math

And this moron can't even count. GB2/b/ kid.

>>7987547
They can only set off when all 12 seats are occupied!
How ridiculous.

>>7987748
wut?

>>7987724
/diy/ usually has an ongoing RC aircraft / quad-copter thread. Try there.

>>7987271
It is hardly flying itself.

>>7988025
did you see the guy just sitting there, waving both hands while it hovered, and then he barely touched the stick to move around? it looks WAY easier than flying a regular chopper.

>>7987383
>How much does it cost compared to a regular helicopter?
Probably less because electric motors are cheap.
>Can it do everything a regular helicopter can do to the same effectiveness?
Probably more because no tail rotor.
>Are the maintenance savings worth it at all factoring in the potential losses above?
Basing a question on speculation.
>No?
Asking a rhetorical question in reply to a question based on speculation.
>Well then now we know why noone is impressed.
Forced conclusion. Things to be impressed by: quieter than helicopter, no tail rotor, robust to engine failure therefore safer.

Why are skeptics such faggots?

>>7987717
My god, you just described the entire board. kek

>>7987920
Not anymore,a s it seems. There were like the same 20 contributors to the boards posting the same photos every time a new one was created.

>>7988080
Not eager to bring you down of your cloud, but:
>Electric motors are cheap
Yes, but fuel propelled aircraft are more efficient and lasts more, plus the fact that recharging anything electrical tends to cost more and, in some cases(depending of the electric generation) ends up burning fuel, coal, petrol, etc.
>Probably more because no tail rotor.
Yes, maneuverability in multis tends to be incredible due to stability. But again, you are not running 1-2 motors as in helis; in this case, you are running 18.
>>Are the maintenance savings worth it at all factoring in the potential losses above?
This an emerging technology and, as in every kind of recent tech, the costs will be high at the beginning, its demand will determine if its worth as transportation.

So yeah, the hype of quads is great, and their potential vast, but as long as they aren't as efficient as conventional aircraft, we won't see a change in the industry.

>>7987471
Seconding this.

>>7987250
Pros:
>cheap to operate and to maintain
>multiple redundant rotors make a rotor strike or an engine failure harmless
>doesn't use directly any fossil fuel
>costs roughly like a new conventional two seat helicopter (like the Robinson R22)
>extremely simple and with only a handful of moving parts
>can fly unmanned

Cons:
>new and untested (in the sense of not being used by thousands of people for thousands of hours in any weather condition for dozens of years)
>the market is filled with cheaper helicopters, not counting used conventional helicopters that cost a fifth of a new one
>multiple rotors are less efficient than a single big one and make a different more buzzing noise
>can't autorotate
>batteries have limited service life
>limited speed and range

>>7989666
Forgot to conclude:
Is it nice that such a rotorcraft is being made? Yes.
Is there any reason to get excited over it? No.

>>7988080

>robust to engine failure therefore safer

i feel like the total lack of inertia in those rotors would mean autorotations are unlikely, a plane can glide when its engine dies, a helicopter can autorotate, a quad copter just sinks.

maneuverability (standstill turning) much lower due to no tail rotor. smaller blades = less wind displacement = less potential for heavy lift + altitude flying. no tail rotor also means a large copter would be very susceptible to gusting. single stick with no pedals means there is obviously very little pilot control in the grand scheme of things. notice when he tilted the stick forwards he had very little response from the aircraft, as well. how do you trim it if the disk is down/forward?

>>7987547
HOP SCHWIIZ

>>7987748
Yeah, what the hell was that

>>7989804
Quite a lot of the motors would have to fail for this to be a problem. With 18 engines you have a lot of redundancies. And even if enough rotors failed to make you sink the plan is to travel at 5 m above the ground.

>>7989666
>>batteries have limited service life
Most things have a limited service life but batteries are at least easily replaced. Also batteries can be recycled.

>>7990423
>Quite a lot of the motors would have to fail for this to be a problem
that's no argument against the inherent lack of autorotation of n-copters
if power supply to the engines fails you end up with 18 dead engines, and none of them will autorotate

>>7987250
because it's a shit piece of engineering.

>>7990423
really, is it hard for you to picture all 18 shutting off together? If you've got a central problem that prevents power from being supplied to all of them you've got barely two seconds before you drop like a rock.

And since I guess it's meant for low altitude flying you won't have the chance to do much to save yourself. So I wouldn't ride in one.

File: G.jpg (44KB, 500x157px)

44KB, 500x157px

>/g/ didn't seem impressed.

>>7987250
You shouldn't have come here OP, this is contrarian central. I am actually worried by this because I'm working on similar systems so that's proof that it's good.
>>7987265
The only disadvantage to multirotors is that they are less efficient. otherwise they are better because they have less energy per blade, easier to control and way simpler.

>>7989666
>$250,000
Wew I'm saved, This will sell because of the fact that it's automatic but it won't make a huge dent in the market. Mine is around the $20,000 mark.

File: 1446236744191.gif (317KB, 407x405px)

317KB, 407x405px

>>7990822
>muh contrarian boogeyman

>>7990842
But it's true. Name one new idea that /sci/ has supported from the beginning. SpaceX reuseable rockets? Nope, I distinctly remember the majority of this board laughing at it during their debut.

>>7990766
>really, is it hard for you to picture all 18 shutting off together? If you've got a central problem that prevents power from being supplied to all of them you've got barely two seconds before you drop like a rock.
...unless they haven't got a single central power system.

>>7989666
>>7989669
>Is there any reason to get excited over it? No.
It's a low-maintenance, fault-tolerant, potentially-inexpensive design that doesn't need a skilled pilot. It's a multicopter drone big and safe enough to carry people.

This is the flying car people were talking about in the 50s. Like cellphones, these are going to end up getting used in some places instead of building conventional infrastructure.

>>7987250
It'd be really neat if the support structure holding the blades became one rotor itself such that upon command, the 18 small rotors would fix and the copter could autorotate on descent. It would most likely save in energy, but I've never so much as dicked around with an RC helicopter so I have no idea of the viability.

Either way, cool video. I'd be curious to see the math (if any) which bolsters the efficiency of having 18 blades as opposed to 16, 14, etc etc.

File: AH64.gif (2MB, 299x299px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 299x299px

>>7989666
>can't autorotate
Fucking dropped. Not worth the risk for me, even if it does have redundant rotors.

>>7991035
>>7991080
Fuck you all /sci/ I've been making flying car/hoverboard threads on /sci/ for months and you all laughed at it saying "batteries are shit" "it will never be licensed" etc but now you see it you're all "itz da footure". I swear to god I'm the only free-thinker on this board, everyone else is clearly a contrarian dickhead.
>It'd be really neat if the support structure holding the blades became one rotor itself such that upon command, the 18 small rotors would fix and the copter could autorotate on descent.
Damn that's an idea that I wanted to patent, oh well I have others.
> I'd be curious to see the math (if any) which bolsters the efficiency of having 18 blades as opposed to 16, 14, etc etc.
It's less efficient, higher disc loading. The reason why they chose that many propellers I presume is because they could only put so much power through one motor.

File: 2a640f61f0.gif (308KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 600x338px

>>7990847
doesn't change the fact that you make yourself sound like a cookiecutter "ur just not open minded enough -_-* baka" faggot
with this sentiment you basically put yourself on the opposite end of the retardation spectrum when it comes to discussing new ideas/inventions

you've noticed correctly that this whole contrarian vs pipe dreamer thing that has been going on for quite some time now
but I'd rather have a bunch people telling me that my idea sucks because of X, Y and Z than be stuck in an echochamber filled with morons superficially praising my idea while lacking basic engineering skills
if you have a working idea you should have no problem defending it from "naysayers"
but if your first move against people bashing your idea(no matter how sophisticated or retarded this bashing may be) is to call them contrarian, then I have some bad news for you

>>7991125
>Fuck you all /sci/ I've been posting shitty memeboard kikestarter video links on /sci/ for months
ftfy

>>7991035
>unless they haven't got a single central power system.
ah, yes, of course
18 batteries for 18 engines with 18 instances of the same control system, all connected with 18 energy and information pipelines
makes perfect sense

>>7991263
Only one was kikestarter, the other wasn't and it worked just as good as the copter that you are now jacking off to in this thread except that it didn't fly as long.
>>7991242
I said electric copters could fly for a few minutes in the near future, /sci/ said I was full of shit, now I've been vindicated.

>10 trillion rotors
who /efficient/ here

>>7991101
>>can't autorotate
>Fucking dropped. Not worth the risk for me
This is kind of like an old-time biplane pilot saying of an airliner, "No parachute? Fuck that!" Never mind that the airliner is about a thousand times safer than an old biplane even with the parachute.

If you have to autorotate in a helicopter, you are having a bad time. There's a single point of failure that has failed, and now you're crashing. You may manage to crash softly in a suitable location, or you may not.

If you get a rotor failure on this thing, you're going to fly to your destination, and then get it fixed, and get all the other rotors looked at.

Before you say, "But what if you get a simultaneous failure of many rotors?!", that's a scenario like having your helicopter lose its main rotor entirely or losing all control so you just tip over and dive into the ground. Autorotation doesn't work for every kind of failure, it's mostly for if your engine dies, something that can happen with a similar probability to a single rotor failure on a YOLOcar.

You're attached to autorotation because in your mind, the vehicle could lose power at any time, and autorotation's the thing that will save you. But a helicopter can lose the ability to autorotate at any time, with a probability that's higher than this thing losing enough rotors simultaneously to fall out of the sky.

>>7991388
OP's copter is shit too, I was just too lazy to post til now.

>>7990847
EM drives.

>>7991125
>but now you see it you're all "itz da footure". I swear to god I'm the only free-thinker on this board, everyone else is clearly a contrarian dickhead.
kek

it's a shit idea. Everyone has thought about this at least once in their life, and everyone dismissed it before they engaged in such a shitty project.

>>7991409
Why is it a shit idea? It's clearly a good idea, people are pouring money in this and have supporters. But oh no some neckbeard thinks it's all BS. Tell that to eVolo.

>>7991279
So you think they went to the trouble of building enough rotors to tolerate failures, but then made the batteries a single point of failure?

You're talking about this as if it's implausible to not package up all the batteries into a single point of failure. They're batteries, for fuck's sake.

>18 instances of the same control system,
So you're just here to shitpost?

I would expect the problem with this is going to be the same problem that plagues most of these quad-copter things: Power density. You'll have a hard time keeping it light enough to fly while packing enough batteries into it to give it a flight time that's greater than 10 minutes.

>>7991418
so what?
You clearly have no clue about business. It's a risk people who have no vision take.
This will never work, this will never sell, this will never be widely used.
It's weak, risky, inefficient.
It's a toy for nerds who want to say "look mommy I finally came out of the basement. Also I can fly for 5 minutes at an altitude of 2 meters", nothing more.
I won't invest money in this. Feel free to do so yourself.

File: 1456331962404.png (1MB, 852x854px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 852x854px

>>7991431
>they went to the trouble of building enough rotors to tolerate failures
yeah that one needs citation for sure
all they provide is a video of their test flight, an interview consisting of nothing but self-praise and a website which unironically lists "-Just imagine..." as a product feature
they should just stop this hip and vague starter-up rhetoric bullshit and start throwing out hard facts about their system

>>7991452
>>they went to the trouble of building enough rotors to tolerate failures
>yeah that one needs citation for sure
>hurr durr, I need you to hold my hand through this one, I don't see why we should expect an 18-rotored manned multicopter to have any redundancy for safety, and I'm not able to look it up myself
Oh my god, you fucking retard, read literally ANYTHING about this before asking for citations on the most basic facts about the subject at hand.
http://www.volocopter.com/index.php/en/kontakt-en/faq-en

It's designed for up to four simultaneous rotor failures.

File: McFly.jpg (54KB, 900x900px)

54KB, 900x900px

>>7987271

>mfw rotors multiply, getting smaller and smaller
>no longer visible
>shit appears to magically float on air

Hoverboard a little late, still confirmed.

File: 1449093819619.gif (482KB, 250x210px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 250x210px

>>7991470
>putting basic product features like price, recharge time and safety into an faq list hidden within the CONTACT part of your webpage, instead of the actual product page
yeah, their inability to code a webpage worth a shit is absolutely my problem,
fucking fagtron

>>7991481
seems plausible to me.

why wouldn't 1000 tiny rotors work just as well, if not better than 18?

anyone? bueller?

>>7991486
Practically everything where they talk about the product, every news story, has some mention of the ability to tolerate rotor failures.

Besides that, you should take one look at it and conclude that it's intended to have redundant propulsion. That's not something a reasonably intelligent person would need to be told, let alone express doubt over.

Don't pull this [citation needed] shit as a substitute for the most basic of background reading.

>>7991512
because fluid viscosity doesn't scale.

>>7991470
> "the Volocopter has a parachute rescue system"

Regular helicopters just got rect. It's over for them.

>>7991516
why not? it clearly scales from one to 18, so why not 18 to 100 or to 1000?

>>7991514
>the most basic of background reading.
basic background reading is going to their page and look at what they write about their product
which I did
looking up 3rd party news sites is neither basic background reading nor something I'd ever consider valuable technical information about a product supposed to make mad dosh in the aerospace industry

Horrible efficiency, aerodynamics, weight (batteries), range and so on. Neat idea, but this one isn't going anywhere far in all meanings of the word.

>>7987250
>>7989666
>>7989669

the real advantage is that they are easier to control because electricity in is directly proportional to torque out, so they can run off of electronic control loops. This is how they achieve the ease of control he talks about in the video.

Avoiding use of fossil fuel isn't about "muh green helicopter," it's about the cost of helicopter fuel. I bet the Volvocopter can literally plug into the wall, making it all but free to fly since it's entirely electric.

From the Volocopter website:
> Yes, the Volocopter is much more pleasant in terms of its acoustics due to its design and above all much quieter than conventional helicopters.
The noise it makes is a major selling point. It opens up a large number of potential applications. Do you realize that noise of aircraft is a big deal in aviation sense the FAA regulates aircraft noise over residential areas?

This also means that it doesn't need a single moving part to control the aircraft. No swashplate, tail rotor, gear box, etc.. To say it is easier to buy and maintain is a gross understatement. Do you realize a robinson R22 costs 120k per overhaul, and almost 300k new? The Volvocopter website doesn't give price, but I assume it's less than 100k to buy.

>>7991528
>it scales to 18
It does, but the efficiency takes a very big hit.

>>7991542
>this one isn't going anywhere far

You and all the other "trolls" here fail miserably.

It's maiden flight with a real-life person worked fantastically. Even if that's as good as it gets, it's clearly a proven, viable concept that will only expand and get more popular.

>>7991543
Maintenance must be a bitch on it, though. 18 engines and propellers.

>>7991545
>It does, but the efficiency takes a very
And you know this, how?

Link to something that proves what you're saying.

>>7991554
And it's still very far behind conventional helicopters. There's a reason why helicopters are designed with one, large rotor instead of multiples of smaller ones.

>>7991528
no, it does not scale. its a property of the fluid that varies with density. there reason why small scale wind tunnels do not work is because in order to match reynolds numbers there would be a point where the fluid would start to go above 0.3M, and you have to worry about compressibility effects and heat transfer.

same thing here really. the rotors are limited to how small they can get.

>>7991559
>There's a reason why helicopters...
Yeah, because until recently, it's been the only practical way to construct them. The advent of small electric motors and high-density batteries have changed things. The traditional helicopter's days are numbered. It's only a matter of time now.

>>7991558
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node86.html
Here, for example.

>>7991539
>basic background reading is going to their page and look at what they write about their product
>and seeing that it's a shitty useless pre-launch corporate website for a company with nothing to sell and just giving up
>then accusing other people of making up facts without using google or anything

>looking up 3rd party news sites is neither basic background reading nor something I'd ever consider valuable technical information about a technology under development with nothing available for sale
You understand that you're a complete idiot, right?

This thread is about the new video of their first manned flight. You expected to go to their site and look up detailed product specifications or something, a few days after they test their prototype for the first time?

>>7991560
ok, so what's the limit? Is 18 the max, with no possible way of going to 20? seems very unlikely. what about 30 or 50 rotors?

>>7991571
But not really in materials department. Look at how low aspect ratio those propellers have. And you can't make them better without making them break.

>>7991572
over my head for the most part.

is there a chart or graph somewhere that indicates "x rotors / area" as an absolute limit?

>>7991588
There's no absolute limit as such, but keep in mind that only the front props are working with best efficiency. All the other ones are working in downwash conditions.

>>7991581
people pay me good money to do the kind of calculations you are asking.

>>7991599
so, being as smart as you are, what's your best guess for the volocopter? If they kept the same size (outer circle), how many rotors could they cram in there?

File: 1459888155744.jpg (7KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x187px

>>7991575
>You expected to go to their site and look up detailed product specifications or something, a few days after they test their prototype for the first time?
>prototypes do not have technical specifications
>putting product information in a hidden faq instead of the actual product showcase page is somehow a legit way of doing things

>>7991555

Not really, electric motors only really have 3 points of failure: the brush (assuming these motors are brushed) and the two bearings

>>7991609
>brush
KEK

>>7991604
>>putting product information in a hidden faq instead of the actual product showcase page is somehow a legit way of doing things
This isn't about whether they made a good website. This is about whether you made any effort to be informed before you came here and started arguing as if you weren't lazy and ignorant.

I guess there's no point in talking to garbage like you. You're never going to take the point.

>>7991612
The point is - no matter how many engine/prop units you're going to cram in there, the frame is very inefficient, the propellers are very inefficient and that thing was done "because we can" not "because it's good".

>>7991601
> If they kept the same size (outer circle), how many rotors could they cram in there?

thats a whole different story. strapping more engines to something doesn't do what you think it does.

the reason this guy is using a multirotor set up is because he wants small rotor diameters. the smaller the rotor diameters, the more responsive the rotors are to fine speed control. and that control is what its all about. thats how its a "safer" concept than a helicopter because you have this fine motor control attached to a computer that makes flying it as easy as driving a car.

to ask "how many engines can he strap to it?" is a non question.

>>7991617
They achieved flight that was very stable and very easy to control that lasted for at least a few minutes. How is that not good? If they manage to get more flight time, and can make it lift as much as a regular helicopter, then they've pretty much made helis obsolete.

>>7991630
>if
We'll talk then. But it's not going to be anytime soon, I'm afraid.
And my RC helicopter is very stable and easy to control due to electronics onboard, so I see no advantage in this field.

>>7991628
>a non question

No. That's the heart of the matter. How tiny and how many can there be before it looks like hoverboard-type of magic, you know, where you can't quite see the rotors because they're so small and quiet, and the flying machine looks like it's just hanging in mid-air.

>>7991633
You can't ride in your RC copter, can you? That thing's a mere toy. The Volocopter is an actual practical mode of transportation, that again -- HAS BEEN PROVEN TO WORK.

>>7991644
You're saying that helicopters are any harder to control? It's not the 60s anymore, helis can hover by themselves, fly on their own and do everything autonomously now.
As I said, helicopters have done it before, with much greater efficiency.

>>7991542
How can /sci/ be this autistic, the point isn't to compete with gas helicopters it is to provide an easier to fly alternative. RC helicopters are also available gas powered but until the electric quads turned up nobody but /diy/ neckbeards were ever interested in RC aircraft. Now every kid with a camera is using one even though gas RC helicopters still have way longer flight times. As usual /sci/ is so autistic that they can only ever think in numbers "hurr efficiency is the be all end all of a product" You all vastly underestimate the advantage of ease of use.
>>7991543
It's $345,000 I guess because of the advanced batteries that they must be using but you're right the maintenance is guaranteed to be cheaper. And as battery tech improves that price will come down.

>>7991652
And again - it's easy to use, but so what? Stabilisation augmentation and autopilots aren't exactly new technology - every helicopter can be just as easily flown.

>>7991650
So you're saying heli's are just as easy to operate as the Volo?

I really had no idea, and I think you're full of shit.

I've only ever known helis as being super difficult to operate, requiring your full attention and both hands and feet to control. AND, they're loud as shit.

>>7991652
The price is most likely because they've created something that hasn't existed before. It's a one-off. Once production scales up, it's bound to decrease in price.

>>7991650
Not a human sized one

>>7991661
A helicopter without any electronics is difficult to manage but if you stripped Volo of its electronic helpers, you wouldn't be able to even take off.
A helicopter with electronic assist systems can be just as easy to control. But taking control away from the pilot is a huge can of worms and problems, so it's usually not done on a huge scale.

>>7991650
nah
this is factually wrong in every possible way

File: Boeing-ULB.jpg (37KB, 534x371px)

37KB, 534x371px

>>7991669
How about two human sized, then?

>>7991617
Am I still talking to the same idiot? The moron who thought that glancing around the corporate website and failing to find the FAQ was enough background reading to feel qualified to make judgements and argue about this?

Let me guess: you also didn't bother to watch OP's video, where the rider gave his impression of the experience of flying in it?

This is radically different from a helicopter. No, it's not better in every way. There are trade-offs. This is not a complete replacement for helicopters, and isn't meant to be. But it's better than helicopters in important ways:
- no skilled pilot needed
- can fly empty to pick passengers up
- extremely precise flying
- insensitive to aerodynamic conditions
- starts and stops like flipping a switch
- much safer

It flies like a quadcopter. For medevac, they're going to be able to take off on a moment's notice, bee-line to the patient, land in a street or yard, load him up, bee-line back to the hospital.

When this tech is mature, it's going to be like a sci-fi flying car.

>that thing was done "because we can" not "because it's good".
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the voice of ignorance and incomprehension.

>>7991639
your assumption was keeping rotor diameter the same. which means keeping the thrust to weight ratio of the engine roughly the same, the motor efficiency the same, etc.

vehicles don't scale like that, "MORE ENGINE" isn't a design philosophy.

>you know, where you can't quite see the rotors because they're so small and quiet

that will probably never happen because rotors that small would have to hit like Mach 5, so unless we made some really big breakthroughs in material, power, motor, battery, and computer technology, i wouldn't hold my breath.

>>7991693
>keeping rotor diameter the same

I don't consider the outer circle to be a "rotor".
There's 18 rotors, all housed in the support frame, which has an outer diameter. My question is simply: Can they double the rotors (reducing their size as needed) to fit the same outer circle? How about tripling them? Where's the ultimate limit?

>>7991660
Are you retarded? Autopilot=/=completely autonomous. A 747 has autopilot, can anybody jump in and fly one?
>>7991664
>>7991644
>>7991630
All you people supporting the eVolo where were you when I made my hoverboard threads? I was advocating literally the same thing saying that battery power will soon advance to the point where cheap and easy autonomous flight will be a reality and everybody on /sci/ scoffed saying that batteries will never improve to make it feasible. I got treated like I was trying to market anti-gravity.

I don't mean to toot my own horn but I still think that the hoverboard is a better idea than the volocopter FOR NOW simply because batteries are still so bad that it's not worth carrying the weight of a capsule especially when you aren't going to be traveling for long enough to need it.

>>7991705
And along the same lines... What's the smallest area of circle needed? Could they reduce the size a bit, or have they already discovered the minimal circle needed?

>>7991705
>Can they double the rotors (reducing their size as needed) to fit the same outer circle? How about tripling them? Where's the ultimate limit?

why would you do that? singular big rotors are more efficient. did you miss my post about why they used small rotors in the first place?

you lose efficiency as you scale down.having more rotor density doesn't do anything beneficial. it doesn't give you more thrust or speed. ideally you would want as few rotors as possible, only enough to give you that super fine control i was talking about.

thats the conundrum. the more rotors you add, the better the control, but also decreases flight time and overall power. less rotors gives better efficiency but is less stable.

File: Untitled.png (5KB, 217x116px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 217x116px

>>7991716
sorry, it's just the samefag. (OP, actually)

>>7991705
Diameter doesn't matter it's all about total swept area. Lots of circles within a circle the total of each area becomes smaller and smaller. I'm sure there's some theorem for this.

>>7991725
ok, so adding more rotors is just plain stupid and impractical then? I can live with that (your opinion anyway).

>>7991728
Lol. Yes I did think it odd that my near identical concept got trashed yet there are mysteriously supporters everywhere for this.

>>7991731
>Diameter doesn't matter
well it matters in the sense of "how small and portable can it possibly be?" (because why make it any larger than absolutely necessary, right?)

>>7991688
No, you're talking to another idiot.

That thing is easy to control due to very simple aerodynamic phenomenon, but the excess stability is also one of its downfalls - this thing lacks speed.

>no pilot skill needed
It's always a good thing.
>can fly empty to pick passengers up
Cool thing
>extremely precise
This thing has some big moments of inertia, so it can't be really quick on all the axes.
>insensitive to aerodynamic conditions
Such as what? Wind? Turbulence? Vortex ring?
>starts and stops by flipping the switch
Multi-engine supersonic bombers can do that, too. It's not common due to no real need for such systems.
>much safer
Since it can't fly too high or too fast, it's bound to be safe. No autorotation means instant crash when the control system fails.

>>7991716
>can anyone jump in and fly one
Yes, but it's not advisable. There's a reason why pilots are extensively trained and onboard computers are only allowed to do so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbllOgq9yXs

As for your hoverboard thing - calculate the "disk loading" of the hoverboard and compare it with quadrotor loadings and real helicopter loadings. See for yourself.

>>7991721
There's no "theoretical" limit, but practical limit is due to engine size limitations and strength of propeller.

>>7991740
>instant crash
well, it does apparently have parachute, so that's gotta count for something.

>>7991745
Just like with autorotation in helicopters, the parachute has an H-V envelope where it won't work properly. Falling down from - say - 10 meters would probably be catastrophic, with or without a chute.

>>7991740
I done plenty of calculations, my hoverboard will fly fine. There's no capsule so the disc loading ends up around the same.

>>7991747
I thought I saw their test video where it was sort of an "explosive" parachute, where it could quickly inflate with air asap. I don't know shit about parachutes though.

>>7991752
Obviously, otherwise it would be next to useless (normal parachutes need a few hundred meters to work safely).

>>7991749
The less rotors and engines, the better - especially in such a efficiency-critical application like this.

File: 9f1ebb3898.gif (953KB, 500x375px)

953KB, 500x375px

>>7991688
>When this tech is mature, it's going to be like a sci-fi flying car.
why would you want to evolve this into a car
private flying costs a fortune relative to other hobbies
and compared to car-ownership the amount of people owning private aircrafts are slim
private is no real chance of making money consistenly

for the professional market the system is too simple, which limits utility for people who fly helicopters for a living

they need to monetize on the automization potential of this
build a sophisticated flight software with an industry-accessible interface(both hardware- and software-wise) to go with it
suddenly you have an endlessly scalable system of heavy lift drones which can be programmed for everything from logistics to manufacturing
if they do this correctly and push their unmanned designs over the manned ones they are bound to rake in millions and millions of dollars with this

>>7991761
>bound to rake in millions and millions of dollars with this
Seems inevitable. They've gone from zero to human-flying machine in just a few years. It's only going to improve. They don't seem to be some nobodies dicking around with a backyard-project that will get nowhere. It's already taken-off. Literally.

File: 1454437263562.png (138KB, 302x302px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 302x302px

>>7991779
>mfw their company location is a mere 100km away from my place
might slip them a resume, just for the heck of it

>>7991740
>>extremely precise
>This thing has some big moments of inertia, so it can't be really quick on all the axes.
A multicopter like this doesn't need to tilt to translate. It can stay horizontal while landing in a cross-wind. A quadcopter couldn't, but with this many rotors, you can put them on different angles and have this capability.

>this thing lacks speed.
There no reason why it has to be slower than a helicopter. Helicopters have speed problems because of their large rotors with high tip-speeds, which get asymmetrical lift with horizontal velocity, and go transonic long before you reach the speed of sound.

Besides, it'll be fast at starting, taking off, and landing, which is the most important kind of speed for short hops.

>No autorotation means instant crash when the control system fails.
Helicopters don't autorotate when the control system fails. They just pitch over and crash. Autorotation is for when the engine fails but you still have control. You have to actively pilot it if you want a good result.

There's no heavier-than-air flying machine that can tolerate a total control system failure (and yes, purely mechanical control systems can also fail).

>>7991948
>angled propellers
We're already talking about a hella inefficient design, why make it worse?
>There no reason why it has to be slower than a helicopter.
There's 18 reasons why it'll be slower - connected by even more reasons. That thing has huge drag and there's no going around it.
>(and yes, purely mechanical control systems can also fail)
While it is certainly in the realm of possibilities, the helicopter control system consists of two sticks mechanically connected with the swashplate. Those things are pretty much failure-proof.
And multirotors can't do autorotation due to shit efficiency of the propulsion and airframe, nothing else (I assume this thing has variable-pitch blades).

>>7991967
>I assume this thing has variable-pitch blades
the n-copter design controls movement solely by RPM modulation of the engines
there's no need for variable pitch blades

>>7991975
>there's no need
Jesus Christ, you say like it's actually a good thing. The ONLY good thing about it is that it's cheaper and has less parts. Responsiveness, efficiency, maneuverability are all going down the drain this way.
What's the speed limit on this thing? 100km/h?

>>7991987
>speed limit

who knows what the max limit will ultimately be. It's a brand new thing, ya know? I can't wait for them to do flips and loops and shit and push it to the limit.

>>7991995
>flips and loops
I wouldn't hold my breath. Variable RPM engines with constant pitch props mean neither maneuverability nor velocity.

>>7992011
well little remote-control helis and quad can do it, so why not a scaled-up version?

>>7992018
on the other hand, they might pull a lot of Gs too, so maybe it wouldn't work.

can real helis do flips and shit?

>>7991987
>The ONLY good thing about it is that it's cheaper and has less parts.
>ONLY

That's a big deal.

>>7992011
>Variable RPM engines with constant pitch props mean neither maneuverability nor velocity.
Jesus, you don't know anything about multirotors. Just in here, shooting your mouth off. Totally fucking ignorant.

These are electric motors. Variable RPM doesn't make them any less powerful. It's just a matter of electronics. About the only fixed-RPM electric motors are synced to grid frequency. Electric motors can be very powerful for the weight, and they can vary their speed on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis.

It's a brute force approach. Not particularly efficient, but as agile and fast as you want to make it. This should work up to any speeds that would be appropriate at low altitudes.

>>7987250
Better vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYsDcoS5Gt8&ebc=ANyPxKocklGaLPbCg7j-HWgOLK6NXWnT1216Rq9fuSXXywVfqEqi_Skgy7Up3hPfwoV6ft2uEt2PU9CVOoIfWukvtbgr7QSeOQ&nohtml5=False

>>7992042
There's a huge difference in lag between variable RPM and variable pitch solutions. Do you have ANY idea about the subject?

>>7992052
>There's a huge difference in lag between variable RPM and variable pitch solutions
which is why nobody outside of small DIY projects bothers to put variable pitch control into their quadcopter design, right? :^)

>>7991987
>What's the speed limit on this thing? 100km/h?
No idea about this specific design, there's no reason it can't be fast, but let's say it is 100 kph.

Imagine it in an air-ambulance role. It's ready to go any time at an instant's notice. Paramedic hops in, pushed the button, he's flying. Straight-line flight to the patient at 100 km/h. Land in the street or lawn. Load him up. Push the button again, straight-line flight back to the hospital at 100 km/h.

You could have people to the hospital in one quarter the time of an ambulance that has to follow the streets, stick to safe speeds, and deal with traffic.

>>7992072
Are you dense on purpose? Constant RPM props are useful only on small builds with low inertias. Anything bigger and you lose a load of control response and forward-flight efficiency.

>>7992079
>drones magically do not adhere to FAA regulations
>they will always get a straight-line flight corridor just by default because that's absolutely how airspace management operates
>rotor disc with a diameter of 50+m because medical equipment, patient, paramedic, and emergency physician are roughly 3 times the payload of the current rotor disc
>drone apparently doesn't need to scout the landing zone
>which will absolutely positevly not work autonomously in anything but clean room conditions
have you ever worked inside a paramedic helicopter?
my gut instincts tell me you didn't

>>7992108
>drones magically do not adhere to FAA regulations
FAA regulations are based on actual handling properties and other safety considerations.

No, computer-controlled multicopters will not be restricted in the same way piloted helicopters are because they don't pose the same risks to the public or to other air traffic.

>medical equipment, patient, paramedic, and emergency physician
Ambulances don't normally take an "emergency physician" to the site, and getting the patient to the hospital fast is better than bringing a lot of medical equipment to the patient.

Also: you don't need to bring everything and everyone back to the hospital that you took to the patient. It's the patient who needs emergency transportation. Conventional transportation can be used for returning stuff brought to the site.

>which will absolutely positevly not work autonomously in anything but clean room conditions
Okay, I'm done talking to you. Fucking moron.

>>7992144
>No, computer-controlled multicopters will not be restricted in the same way piloted helicopters are because they don't pose the same risks to the public or to other air traffic.

Exactly, because they're a much bigger threat so far.

>Ambulances don't normally take an "emergency physician" to the site, and getting the patient to the hospital fast is better than bringing a lot of medical equipment to the patient.

Every of the three (or more) people on the crew are highly trained. Plus, they take a shitload of cargo, life support and monitoring equipment.

>Okay, I'm done talking to you. Fucking moron.

I'm working on image processing system for a UAV - it's a huge undertaking even for a single camera (you basically need a pretty strong i5 or i7 PC on board). Using radars, lidars, cameras and some other stuff to find a compatibile landing site closest to the emergency site is something we can't do yet.

>>7992144
>Ambulances don't normally take an "emergency physician" to the site, and getting the patient to the hospital fast is better than bringing a lot of medical equipment to the patient.
>Also: you don't need to bring everything and everyone back to the hospital that you took to the patient. It's the patient who needs emergency transportation. Conventional transportation can be used for returning stuff brought to the site.
If you've never had any emergency medicine training why are you giving opinions like you have?

>>7991758
well that means my hoverboard is better - 8 rotors as opposed to 16.
>>7991786
>100km
Is that close in Burgerstan? The Queen of England lives 5km from me.
>>7992081
As brushless motors improve and carbon fiber props get lighter this torque response will improve. We are already seeing, 10 years ago even the relatively small props on the eVolo would have been uncontrollable.

File: 1438794571924.jpg (11KB, 210x250px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 210x250px

>>7992144
>and getting the patient to the hospital fast is better than bringing a lot of medical equipment to the patient.
yeah no
you have no idea what you're talking about

>>7992162
>Need an i5 or i7
Is that what Jewtel told you? C'mon nigger you can do a lot with ARM these days.

>>7992173
Not image processing on a 4k 60 FPS camera.

>>7992169
Yeah. 100km is at most 60 miles. You can get there in literally an hour on a freeway provided that you're not speeding but let's admit it, everybody on a highway drives at least 5 - 10 mph (approx. 8 - 16 km/h) faster than the speed limit.

>>7992177
Why do you need 4k to find a landing site? You do know that Mars landers use 90's technology right?
>>7992185
I have always wondered what is the difference between a freeway, highway and expressway? From pictures I've seen they all look like what we would call a motorway (six lanes, max speed limit) but you have three different names.
And yeah lol same here everyone does 5 or 10 over. What's the official limit in murica? Here it's 70 mph

>>7992211
Yes, but landing on Mars is less complicated than what we're doing, actually.

>>7992211
well I think a freeway is "free" (as in no tolls).
highways are generally 2 lanes, but sometimes 4, with a lower speed limit than interstate highways. idk about "expressway"

>>7992222
So a highway is an "A" road?

>>7992224
idk. googling "a road" shows pics of..... roads. so.. um, yeah.

highways are just like regular streets, but usually much straighter and with higher speeds.

and interstates are faster highways with more lanes. (basically the ultimate road).

>>7992238
So an interstate is a motorway. makes sense now.

>>7987250
garbage dubstep music. Why do people feel compelled to ruin videos with shitty music on youtube? If they just used no music they would get more views and likes.