Is this real? I'm very skeptical about hits being real.

Yes, it's basically a very dangerous GEV.

>>8036691
It's totally legit. I am a fan of Colinfurze, he does a lot of propulsion based stuff like this. Modern two-stroke engines weighing 20 kg can put out over 50 horsepower so a pair can easily lift a person off of the ground. Despite what everyone thinks the reason why personal flying machines don't exist isn't because our engines aren't good enough but rather for reasons of control. As you can see he simply hasn't bothered with control, I presume he just tuned the throttles to match and hoped they stayed that way for the whole flight. No control surfaces either, just shift around weight. So in short it's not as spectacular as it looks, anyone can do this with a big enough prop and fancy Japanese two-stroke engines, it's the control that's the problem. Colinfurze is a joker, check out his homemade turbojet videos. What I really like about this dude is that despite being a plumber with zero engineering training everything he builds werks. Note that there was an official company trying to create a marketable hoverbike of similar design and that didn't even get off of the ground.

There's no reason it couldn't be real.

As >>8036732 points out, it doesn't rise out of ground effect. It's closer to an inefficient hovercraft than a helicopter.

He also only ever flies it briefly, and never really has it under control.

It's possible for it to be fake, but it's also entirely possible for it to be real.

>>8036760
>It's possible for it to be fake, but it's also entirely possible for it to be real.
I'd point out that if it were fake you'd expect him to make it look a little better. As it is, it's about as stable and safe as riding a unicycle while holding a weed whacker in each arm.

>>8036773
>if it were fake you'd expect him to make it look a little better.
If it was fake and looked better, it would also look more fake.

>Every time some small hovering device appears on Youtube there's always a load of people wondering if it's faked
>I've been telling /sci/ for ages that hovering machines are the way to get youtube views and kickstarter bux ever since BTTF 2015
>For the public is clearly easily amazed by anything that hovers even if it's not very useful
>/sci/'s autistic userbase ignores the obvious public interest, instead focuses on the fact that they are inefficient.
And that is why you will never be rich.

File: Xbro.png (194KB, 467x491px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 467x491px

>>8036746
>didn't even get off of the ground.

Cool channel - I'm going to follow this guy

>>8036796
1) This took exceptional build skills to make, especially in such a short time.
2) He put life and limb at considerable risk.
3) There's no Kickstarter or other high-revenue followup.
4) People get more views for playing video games.

The reality is, not many people could pull this off.

>>8036821
>This took exceptional build skills to make, especially in such a short time
You have to put in effort to make money
> He put life and limb at considerable risk.
Because his design was very crude and he was just doing it for fun
>There's no Kickstarter or other high-revenue followup.
Because he isn't marketing it and his other videos get 1 million plus views so he is making youtube bux.
> People get more views for playing video games.
Very rare to get a million views doing that.
>The reality is, not many people could pull this off.
I'm working on an electric version, even simpler and safer than petrol.

As usual whenever /sci/ is presented with an opportunity they throw out all kinds of excuses as to why it wouldn't work, is stupid, is too hard, not worth their time etc etc. Classic "smart but lazy"

>>8036845
>You have to put in effort to make money
It's not just a matter of effort, but also talent and life circumstances.

>> People get more views for playing video games.
>Very rare to get a million views doing that.
Very rare to get a million views clowning around with bodged-together vehicles and goofy tools.

>>The reality is, not many people could pull this off.
>I'm working on an electric version, even simpler and safer than petrol.
Ah, this explains your warped-reality attitude. A nobody trying "the same thing" expecting to get rich off of it.

Colin Furze has amusing ideas, executes them brilliantly, uses good camerawork and editing, and acts as this very fun, distinctive, engaging character. All of these are essential to his success. Furthermore, to make money on youtube views, you don't just need one or two videos that get a lot of views, you need to crank out a stream of hits on a regular schedule.

That's why "Let's Play"ers are the biggest winners in youtube fame: they make loads of videos at little cost or effort, and people pick favorites and keep coming back to them. Of course, they have to win in the competition for viewers.

Holy shit is that dangerous. Colin furze is a cool dude, but I really worry about his safety.

>>8036964
At least he tucked his safety tie in so it didn't pull him into the props.

I wonder if there IS any way to control it
It just looked like he was shifting is weight around, anyone think that if the fans were angled a bit forward he could get it to go forward and he could maneuver it by leaning side to side? I feel like there's a million ways to make it better but I can't test them and I'm not an engineer

>>8036994
There's no reason why you can't design a hovering vehicle to be passively stable and steer it by leaning. It's been done in the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XzDMlhk4Sw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aVIzyWO1HE

This trash version is just getting attention because an amusing, relatable character threw it together for fun in a few weeks and presented it in an entertaining way.

>>8036691
Jesus fuck. He's getting crazier now that he has benefactors paying more and more money. I fucking love it.

>>8036918
One guy all he did was stand on a drone for 60 seconds and that netted him 8 million views. Arcaboard is even worse yet I'm pretty sure that's over a million views also. Pajeets out there are doing all kinds of crazy shit to make money while you sit back saying "meh too hard" then you have the cheek to waddle over to /pol/ to complain about them being richer than you due to some conspiracy.
>>8036964
He fired up a jet engine without any safety glasses. What if the thing blew up?
>>8036994
Vectored thrust would be the best way.
>>8037023
You're a retard. if it's passively stable then it cannot be easily steered. The wright brothers worked this out a hundred years ago. Everyone before them was failing because they tried to make their aircraft passively stable. Great but now it always wants to go in one straight line. Wright bros realized that having an unstable craft that needs constant pilot input is much more maneuverable. That 1950's platform met the same problem, it was designed to want to stay upright meaning the pilot had to fight it to get it to turn. This is how /sci/ shows it's narrow-mindedness; Someone talks about flying platforms /sci/ says "hurr its been done before". Not really because it failed. Redoing it now and replacing the ducted fan induced passive stability with an unducted unstable system held up with computer-controlled vectoring is a good idea. Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

>>8037023
>trash version is just getting attention because

It works, has better production parts because it is the 21st century, and youtube exists now. Unlike the 1940-50s.

It isn't getting much attention at all really.

>>8036994
Using your body to steer it is actually the best solution. It is a lot like using a surf board in that regard; or even when steering a normal bike around sharp turns for instance. If it was very powerful and could hold extra load then yes you could put a stabilization system on it and on that a steering system. But, making something stable is often times the wrong way to go about things. Especially something like this.

>>8037054
>Vectored thrust would be the best way.
Fuck I can't even begin to figure out how to make that work.
I thought maybe you could tilt the front fan a little bit forward to make sure it goes forward regardless of whether or not you're leaning forward and then letting it turn left and right kinda like a motorcycle's steering
Would it work even better if it had two propellers on each engine like >>8037023 to give it even more lift

>>8037069
Except it's much harder than surfing because when you surf you're being carried by the waves and only have to worry about leaning side to side. When you start flying you'd have to worry about moving forwards which is really hard to do on top of worrying about steering.

>>8037069
No absolutely not. The #1 argument against these sorts of things is that they are dangerous. people can barely drive safe on the roads, imagine hundreds of these flying around a city, carnage. Complete automation is the way to go. That way it actually ends up safer than it's road counterpart.
>>8037070
Put paddles under the propellers and move them with servos.

Remember two propellers per engine = transmission = weight

seems a little fucking dangerous since u have a large lawn motor spinning like 1 foot from your leg

>>8037093
>Put paddles under the propellers and move them with servos.
No idea how that would work at all.

>>8037107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
>>8037101
hence the cage

>>8037092
Put in computers & some fly by wire shit, thats how flying vehicles are made nowadays

Or just make them naturally stable

>>8037109
That cage is hardly sufficient.

>>8037113
Or is it?

>>8037093
>people can barely drive safe on the roads

Anon, have you gone stupid? No one will be using these on roads, ever. They will never be a viable technology. It is merely 100% cool-factor. Nothing more. You'd never get them licensed to be on a road and there will never be a mass call for such laws to come into place. No one is going to give a shit about stuff you can't carry 50lbs of groceries in or can't fly more than 100 yards.

This is because the most efficient and proper technology to move 1 person around in the air has already been made. They are called helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding. All of which are regulated and only licensed people can operate them (powered paragliding doesn't require licensing in most countries, but it is regulated in most countries).

Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.

A hoverbike is as relevant to traveling in society as a trampoline.

>>8037092
Kinesthetic control is easily the most intuitive means of controlling light aircraft like this.
>>8037107
It would work. The V-2 and SCUD missile, Hiller Flying Platform, Piasecki Airgeep, Williams X-jet and several other aircraft have already demonstrated the viability of thrust vanes for control.
>>8037113
You've obviously never ridden an airboat.

>>8037054
>One guy all he did was stand on a drone for 60 seconds and that netted him 8 million views.
Even if the revenue from 8 million views would pay for a drone you can stand on, it wouldn't leave you with big profits. You don't understand how this works. Just getting attention once isn't how you make significant amounts of money.

The peak revenue for 1 million views was about $2,000, and that was before ad blockers got popular (you get paid for people watching ads, not for your views).

>you sit back saying "meh too hard" then you have the cheek to waddle over to /pol/ to complain about them being richer than you due to some conspiracy.
You sure have a rich fantasy life.

>That 1950's platform met the same problem, it was designed to want to stay upright meaning the pilot had to fight it to get it to turn.
Nobody said that passive stability is the optimal solution, but it's a hell of a lot better than unstable and no control. This design obviously isn't going anywhere. He's made a funny video about a useless vehicle, and now he's on to the next unrelated spectacle.

Anyway, the handling characteristics weren't the fatal flaw of the flying platform (indeed, it was extremely easy to learn to fly the thing, which was the point), rather it was simple things like speed, range, flight ceiling, noise, and weight that caused its cancellation. Small ducted fans are a very inefficient way to hover. It was only good for low, slow, short-range hops, and it was a few hundred pounds and relatively delicate, so it was difficult to transport to the use site. No significant military application, and not safe enough for civilian recreational use (an engine failure would cause it to just fall).

>>8037144
>A heavier-than-air flying machine is impossible
>The jet engine will never be more efficient than a propeller
>Rockets won't work in space
>There's a market for maybe five computers in the world
Being cynical doesn't pay off friend. The pace of technology will march on without you.
>No one will be using these on roads
Why would you use it on the road? The whole point is to be free of roads. You have clearly never lived in a country with shit roads.
>They will never be a viable technology
Why is that, engines and batteries have the power, the only barrier is control but even that is falling doe to microprocessors
>It is merely 100% cool-factor
It amazes me that /sci/ is so autistic as to realize that a product doesn't have to be useful to be financially viable. Furthermore there are uses for it. If there's a use for a helicopter there's a use for a smaller cheaper version. Duh.
>This is because the most efficient and proper technology to move 1 person around in the air has already been made. They are called helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding
Again more autism. efficiency =/= better product. Smartphones are ridiculously inefficient, does 10 things at once pretty badly and with 5 hours of battery life. Compare this to the professional quality of separates and doesn't need to be charged for days. Convienience is a factor to consider. Theres a reason why barely anyone uses the machines you list, because they are inconvenient. Joe bloggs doesn't have a runway, joe bloggs doesn't want to fuck around with parachutes, joe bloggs doesn't want helicopter training
>Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.
Funny you mention quadcopters because despite RC helicopters being old as the hills and more efficient, they have never been very popular outside hobby circles while quads have exploded on the mainstream market. Why because they are simpler.

>>8037176
He is planning on selling an improved version and many people are interested. Dismissing ideas gets you $0, giving them a chance may get you some money. It's a no brainer which to choose.

>>8037195
No, anon, we won't have hover bikes in the future for common transport of anything. It will always be a niche thing.

>>8037144
>helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding
>Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.
This is a pretty fucking stupid claim.

Autogyros and powered paragliding obviously don't have the precision control for routine use in cities. Helicopters are better, but not by enough. They need big helipads or open fields to land in.

Fly-by-wire multicopters can have rotor-out capability (not some desperation maneuver like autorotation, but the ability to actually continue flying normally), and land in any space as big as their footprint, practically ignoring cross-wind.

It's true that they won't have the same long range or be a full replacement for helicopters, but they'll still be useful for rapid point-to-point transportation, such as emergency response, or even high-priority taxi or courier service.

File: 1343973272198.jpg (54KB, 800x804px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x804px

>>8036691
>almost loses his arms an legs to two land-mowers for views on jewtube
topmost kekkeroonio

>>8037206
well we will see.
>>8037222
finally someone on my side

>>8036796
Then do it faggot. Build one and take video.

>>8037204
>Dismissing ideas gets you $0, giving them a chance may get you some money. It's a no brainer which to choose.
Dismissing ideas loses you $0, giving them a chance may cost you all your money, and in a case like this, your life.

See how this actually works?

>He is planning on selling an improved version and many people are interested.
Regardless of whether he's talking about selling it, it's never going to go anywhere.

Bodging something together for youtube views is one thing, actually bringing an aircraft to market is something very different.

Besides, this isn't even technically impressive. It's just impressive that an amateur did it on a low budget.

File: 1461883136811.jpg (70KB, 798x801px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 798x801px

>>8037222
>such as emergency response, or even high-priority taxi or courier service.

lol so much delusion ITT.

Why is /sci/ so full of kids with no sense of reality at all?

>>8037222
>Autogyros and powered paragliding obviously don't have the precision control for routine use in cities.
"Routine use" of any aircraft in cities is a fucking retarded notion.

>>8037258
I will. that's why I'm defending the technology for I work on it myself. Replies such as >>8037349
only motivate me more.

>>8037359
You think I don't want it? No, I just know it won't be relevant. We've had the tech to do this for 50+ years but only DIYers in backyards do it. There's a big reason for that.

>>8037357
There's different levels of "routine". Helicopters are routinely used in cities for traffic reporting and some other things, almost all based on being used as a viewing platform.

Even though it would be highly advantageous to use something like a helicopter to quickly pick up injured people or deploy police officers, helicopters (especially with human pilots) aren't reliable and precise enough to be trusted flying between buildings and landing in parking lots and streets.

Multicopters are much more capable of avoiding collisions in tight spaces, with unpredictable winds, which means they'll be far more suitable for landing in cities.

Furthermore, removal of the skilled pilot and use of low-maintenance electric motors and batteries mean that they can sit on standby, ready for use at a moment's notice, at low cost.

By "routine" I don't mean, "everyone will have their own and fly in them every day", I mean they'd be common sights and used every day in cities, and over the course of their lives, most people would fly in one for one reason or another.

>>8037447
I already told you that the difference between now and 50 years ago is electronic control and automation. No serious company has done it because companies don't take risks with completely new far out products. If you have a million to invest do you a) manufacture a new car or b) make a flying motorbike?

>>8037465
>companies don't take risks with completely new far out products

They do that every year. Guess what ones become successes? The ones who make cars.

We had fly-by-wire tech 50 years ago, anon. If fact, we've had it for over 80 years.

>>8037463
You know what m8? No point in arguing with these contrarians. They want the world to stay boring and autistic just like their textbooks. You are clearly interested in this so email [email protected] and I'll fill you in on my personal aerial vehicle research.

The only real uses I can see for this is like a marsh land but even then vehicles exist to traverse that

>>8037487
It is being realistic, not contrarian.

It is as useful as tanks with legs.

>>8037478
And it was expensive as shit, closed source and not as good as what we have today. are you seriously debating with me that computer technology isn't miles batter than what it was 50 years ago?

>>8037493
Here are two stories of how views such as yours hold back technology.

Repeating rifles existed since the 1850s but didn't become widely used until the 1890s. Why? Because top brass said they were unreliable and "single shot was good enough" despite soldiers who bought them out of pocket reporting spectacular success with them.

Frank Whittel came up with his jet engine ideas in the 1920s so why did the first jet plane fly in the 1940s in another country at war with his? Because the RAF ignored his idea because "propellers were good enough" and this new idea was inefficient so why bother changing? Germans had more of a can-do attitude and stole his patents. Only then did the RAF change their mind about it.

So now today you are trashing PAVs because "helicopters are good enough"? Nothing is ever good enough in the world of engineering, there is always room for improvement.

>>8037478
>We had fly-by-wire tech 50 years ago, anon. If fact, we've had it for over 80 years.
First of all, I don't think you know what "fly-by-wire" means, if you think we've had it for over 80 years. 80 years ago was 1936. There weren't even programmable computers then.

Fly-by-wire conventionally refers to computer control, with the pilot only giving input into the flight computer. It certainly wasn't viable for any low-cost system at least until the 1980s, and didn't make low-cost systems that could surpass human pilots until the 2000s.

Conventional analog flight systems are designed around the limitations of the human pilot. They have inherent stability and relatively few control mechanisms, presenting the pilot with a relatively simple, static situation, and providing straightforward ways to control how it will change.

Drone flight systems are increasingly designed to take advantage of a fast modern computer's ability to adjust dozens of control variables in response to sensor inputs thousands of times per second.

Accordingly, the physical configuration of the drone may look strange, silly, or generally incomprehensible, yet perform in ways that a piloted vehicle just can't.

A piloted VTVL vehicle will always need sufficient landing space to drift with the changing wind, while a drone VTVL can be designed to hover rock steady in gusty conditions, and land on a dime.

>>8037495
>but but but

lol Okay, kid.

>>8037517
>So now today you are trashing PAVs because "helicopters are good enough"?

More than that. Helicopters put all "PAVs" to utter shame, even if you count in the sci-fi ones.

>>8037545
Just google the history of fly-by-wire. lol Tard.

>>8036691
>>8036746
>>8036812
>>8036821
stop shilling

>>8037359
So why are you fapping about it on an internet forum instead of designing one? You can do almost everything in software these days kid

It will be a niche thing though.

>>8037545
>Fly-by-wire conventionally refers to computer control,

CNC != NC != FBW != RFR

you can remote control a device without a fucking computer anon, especially "by wire" contrasting "by wireless" (but don't forget analog RF too)

>>8037556
>>8037546
Fly-by-wire does conventionally refer to computerized control. That's what people use it to mean.

Anyway, we were explicitly discussing computerized control systems, so bringing up this other shit is irrelevant.

>>8037549
I didn't start this thread, I just got dragged into an argument.
>>8037556
moving the goalposts

>>8037547
Stop shitposting, isn't it past your bedtime?

File: gty_gyrocopter_jc_150415_16x9_992.jpg (48KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 992x558px

>>8037574
The point is that it doesn't matter what you use. Human controlled or computer controlled. Both can work and both can work well. Only the human factor comes with fatigue and other human-related problems.

If you really want to show what this tech can do, show vids like this:
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1460967173541.webm

Then realize that a hoverbike and a quadcopter cable of carrying a human is still a crappy inefficient idea. Just use a helicopter or gyrocopter since both are already being used for the same purposes.

>>8037639
>Only the human factor comes with fatigue and other human-related problems.
>other human-related problems
Like a general lack of precision control and inability to compensate for gusty wind conditions to fly between buildings and land in a tight area.

>Just use a helicopter or gyrocopter
How many times do I need to explain it to you that these designs are not suitable for landing at arbitrary addresses in urban areas, even in emergencies?

>>8037639
You're kind of defeating your own argument. Our argument is that autonomous multirotors will finally make flight easy and personal yet you advocate machines which are not widely used by the general public thus reinforcing our point that what's currently available isn't good enough.

Our argument is that there is a niche between the car and a helicopter that is still yet to be filled but you keep harping on that the helicopter can do helicopter things better. That's great and it can keep on doing that, the PAV isn't intended to compete it's to fill a gap. Helicopters can't easily land in cities, helicopters are not autonomous, helicopters are loud, helicopters have more dangerous blades due to all the energy being in one single blade as opposed to four or eight. helicopters are more maintenance intensive and helicopters are more expensive.

As for the gyrocopter and the paraglider, one needs a runway, the other has parachutes that can get tangled in urban areas. Finally they are even worse than the helicopter because neither can hover.

The sheer fact that your machines are rarely seen in the sky is proof that they are not good enough. To be honest this argument should have ended from when i pointed out that quadcopters are way more popular than RC helicopters even though the RC helicopter is much more efficient and has been around for way longer. Youa re completely and utterly failing to appreciate the benefit of simplicity, your mind is one track and heavily autistic "efficiency! efficiency! efficiency! " again and again as if that's the be all end all of a product. I've given so many examples where something became popular despite being less efficient.

>>8037716
Helicopters can be autonomous. Why wouldn't a personal air vehicle be loud?

Umm... isn't most of the energy in a helicopter stored as potential energy when it's hovering in the air? Why wouldn't a human rated aircraft be maintenance intensive?

>>8037739
>Helicopters can be autonomous
Well where are they? if this were true then all those helicopter pilots would be out of a job.Perhaps it is possible but it's a lot more difficult than a simple direct drive quad.
>Umm... isn't most of the energy in a helicopter stored as potential energy when it's hovering in the air?
Read a book on circular motion faggot. blade kinetic energy is proportional to the square of it's radius. a helicopter blade strike is a lot more violent than a quad blade strike. Also quads can be ducted which protects the blades helicopters cannot
> Why wouldn't a human rated aircraft be maintenance intensive?
Quads use direct drive, fixed pitch. Much simpler than transmission + variable pitch

File: helicopter.jpg (55KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x430px

>>8037671
>How many times do I need to explain it to you that these designs are not suitable for landing at arbitrary addresses in urban areas, even in emergencies?

You don't know very much about copters at all.

>>8037716
No, I'm saying he wants a hoverbike, which isn't going to happen unless he builds it himself. There will not be some hoverbike revolution where we see them used as much as normal motor bikes and we will never see them for emergency rescue.

There is no niche between car and helicopter because the helicopter does do everything the hoverbike can do and more.

>The sheer fact that your machines are rarely seen in the sky is proof that they are not good enough.

It is because a ground vehicle is more efficient and no one really gives a shit about flying. Those who do give a shit, do fly. Those jobs that need a flying vehicle use a helicopter.

The reason I posted the webm is to show that while yes, the control system is easy as cake, it doesn't fucking matter at all because the instant you start to scale it up to human sizes you simply switch to a helicopter.

I can't even imagine how deluded you people must be to think anything a hoverbike or a quadcopter big enough to carry a human is even remotely more useful than a small helicopter.

File: helocopters.jpg (291KB, 946x910px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 946x910px

>>8037748
>>Helicopters can be autonomous
>Well where are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc

>>8037749
Here we go with the fucking efficiency again. How can someone be this autistic?

More retarded market research.
>"because no-one is flying means no-one wants to fly"
Uh huh everyone wants to sit in traffic right? Everyone wants to fight through mud, landslides, snow and all kinds of shit out in the country right? You could have made the same retard assumption about tablets
>"everyone who wants to access the internet will use a computer therefore no-one will buy a tablet!"
That's how retarded you sound. There were people out there with nowhere to put a computer, couldn't be bothered to pay for a computer etc that now use tablets. It's called a niche. /sci/s understanding of marketing is catastrophically bad.

Anyway I'm done arguing with you, the market backs me up. The volocopter just came out and already it's hugely popular proving my point that there is a market for short range multirotors.

>>8037760
>Unmanned
>Military
Gee, I'll go pick one up from the store right now and fly to work in it.

>>8037770
>volocopter

Are you an idiot? That's an electric helicopter.

>Here we go with the fucking efficiency again. How can someone be this autistic?

Oh I don't know, the fact that helicopters are better in every single way except cool factor? That might have something to do with it.

>>8037780
>fly an unmanned vehicle to work
>unmanned

Are you an idiot too?

>>8037770
>Uh huh everyone wants to sit in traffic right?

Google and Germans already have autonomous car. Which, once fully implemented with proper orchestrational systems will completely stop tings like traffic jams from happening.

>>8037783
it's a multirotor and flies for 20 minutes. It could have copied a "car" design by ringing the propellers around the capsule but they instead decided to closely follow the helicopter look by putting them above. Either way it's the same thing as what I am talking about and backs up what i say that there's a market for inefficient short range machines by virtue of their ease of use, low maintenance and autonomy. Congratulations on working out that multirotors, hoverbikes, whatever are all types of helicopter in the end.
>Oh I don't know, the fact that helicopters are better in every single way except cool factor? That might have something to do with it.
Well for like the third time please explain why RC quadcopters are more popular than RC helicopters?
>Are you an idiot too?
So you don't understand greentext sarcasm?

>>8037547
That guy is pretty famous, I don't think he needs to be shilled.

>>8037783

Face it you lost the argument completely and utterly. While I have given a ton of evidence of things that were inefficient, even laughed at at inception yet managed significant market share and carefully explained why helicopter, gyrocopters etc are not perfect all you have done is repeatedly shout "PAVs are dumb! PAVs are dumb! PAVs are dumb!

File: 210038_original.png (11KB, 323x303px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 323x303px

>>8037795
It is a helicopter. Which is better than a hoverbike.

The reason the rotors are the best most efficient design is because they are above the main weight. What you want to do is essentially putting the basket on top of a hot air balloon. That's how retarded a hoverbike is.

>Well for like the third time please explain why RC quadcopters are more popular than RC helicopters?
>RC

We are talking about stuff large enough to carry a human being. You can't simply scale up stuff, put humans/payload on them, and think everything is going to be the exact same. Physics doesn't work that way, rendering them far less efficient than helicopters.

>>8037811
I'm talking about lift efficiency. Do you even know what that is? Helicopters are better in every single way. There's nothing at all you've said to disprove that. Every bit of "evidence" posted has been to your argumentative detriment.

>>8037749
>You don't know very much about copters at all.
>I can't even imagine how deluded you people must be to think anything a hoverbike or a quadcopter big enough to carry a human is even remotely more useful than a small helicopter.
When you argue like this, it just shows that you can't come up with coherent objections.

A big rotor makes a vehicle easily affected by gusts of wind. A big exposed rotor with high tip speeds makes it very dangerous to nearby people.

You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter. It will simply not be as suitable for landing in tight spaces.

If you look at a "hoverbike" type of design, typically you'll see caged propellers or ducted fans, which can survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots, so it's tolerant of tight spaces in a different way.

>>8037827
We are talking about hoverbike vs helicopter as the main topic.

One anon mentions "volocopter" as a solid rebuttal as why it is better than helicopters. Which goes right along with your argument. Unfortunately, the "volocopter" just so happens to be a helicopter too. One that has 18 electric motors on it. Which is miles better than a hoverbike in every single situation possible. Even the highly specific ones you come up with, because you keep forgetting how inefficient a hoverbike really is.

>>8037827
>>You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc


>> survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots

if you're bumping into stuff, you have problems.

You aren't making very good arguments for multirotors. I am surprised you haven't made the redundancy argument.

>>8037818
>efficiency, efficiency, efficiency
Seriously are you autistic? We already worked out long ago that something inefficient can still be useful yet you still keep trotting out this one arguument. I don't understand what you are trying to achieve for no-one is claiming that multirotors aren't inefficient.

The volocopter is a scaled up multirotor. The omni hoverboard is also. Both carry humans.
>>8037839
A hoverbike is a helicopter you retard. What you think we are using anti gravity? When we say "helicopter" we mean the single rotor variant, however all craft with powered rotors fall under the helicopter umbrella. So you can't say the volocopter is better "because it's a helicopter". The hoverbike would look just like a helicopter too if he had put the two rotors above. If you think the volocopter is good then you have just admitted that you lost the argument because it is the exact radical departure from the (single rotor) helicopter that we are advocating, fully autonomous, multirotor, cheap. it has the exact same issues as the hoverbike being inefficient and short range yet it was warmly received when it was unveiled. Therefore why on earth are you arguing that if one were to put the rotors around the person instead of above to make something more akin to a bike or car this would magically make it the worst idea in the world?

>>8037818
>The reason the rotors are the best most efficient design is because they are above the main weight.
So basically you have no clue about this stuff.

>I'm talking about lift efficiency. Do you even know what that is? Helicopters are better in every single way.
...as long as "every single way" means "lift efficiency".

Lift efficiency is improved by having a large rotor area. To hover efficiently, you want to push a lot of air at a low speed. However, this also means it's easily influenced by the motion of the air around it, which makes conventional helicopters bad at precision flying. It also means that they have large exposed rotors with high tip speeds, which makes it dangerous to be near and intolerant of even light bumps with obstacles.

All in all, it's a very bad combination when it comes to landing, which is why helicopters are usually only landed in wide open spaces.

>>8037839
>the "volocopter" just so happens to be a helicopter too.
About as much as a hoverbike is.

>>8037884
>Uses RC as proof that human sized helicopters are easy to fly-by-wire
bet you think they can fly upside down too.

>>8037884
>>>You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc
You aren't stupid enough to think this is a counterargument, are you?

>>> survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots
>if you're bumping into stuff, you have problems.
If you assume everything always goes perfectly, you're not thinking realistically.

>>8037886
When it comes to aircraft "inefficient" refers to lift. This translates to travel time and distance. It is extremely important. In fact it is one of the most important things about aircraft.

A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.

It seems I'm talking to someone who does not know a single thing about any aeronautical science. All the proper terms have been used to tell you why, but you keep babbling on like you don't know what they mean.

>>8037891
Tell that to Chuck Aaron. lol

But that is true.

>>8037890
>About as much as a hoverbike is.

It isn't a helicopter. Where are you getting that at?

>Lift efficiency is improved by having a large rotor area

The instant you start making it bigger to support a human, electronics, and payload it is no longer better than a helicopter.

>>8037897
>When it comes to aircraft "inefficient" refers to lift. This translates to travel time and distance. It is extremely important. In fact it is one of the most important things about aircraft.

Well volocopter BTFO that because it has a 20 minute flight time

>A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.
No colinfurze's hoverbike just sucks, it is entirely possible for a well designed one to fly out of ground effect. Even the omni hoverboard which just used fucking batteries managed to rise 15 feet into the air.
>It seems I'm talking to someone who does not know a single thing about any aeronautical science. All the proper terms have been used to tell you why, but you keep babbling on like you don't know what they mean.
I know what efficiency means, what is really important is that you don't know a thing about marketing. All that matters to your autistic mind is perfect aerodynamics.

>>8037897
>A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.
Jesus you're stupid.

NOBODY else here has been talking about "hoverbikes" as meaning "bike-shaped hovercraft that can't climb out of ground effect".

There's no reason that a bike-shaped multirotor can't fly higher. Yes, it's inefficient. Yes, it will therefore be relatively short-ranged. No, that doesn't mean nobody will want them for recreational use, or that they won't have any practical applications.

>>8037906
>Needs a highly trained stunt pilot to do
anyway back on topic
>It isn't a helicopter. Where are you getting that at?
A helicopter is anything with one or more powered rotors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter
But for the purposes of this argument a helicopter is the thing you are defending, the single rotor variable pitch type.
>The instant you start making it bigger to support a human, electronics, and payload it is no longer better than a helicopter.
My god it's like banging my head against a brick wall
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME
I KNOW MULTIROTORS ARE LESS EFFICIENT THAN HELICOPTERS
BUT THEY CAN DO SOME THINGS MORE EASILY AND CHEAPER THAN A HELICOPTER
LIKE LAND IN A PARKING SPACE NEAR A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD WITHOUT CUTTING HER HEAD OFF
NOT NEEDING A PILOT
AND NOT COSTING A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS

>>8037912
>Well volocopter BTFO that because it has a 20 minute flight time

It is a helicopter though. also, 20mins of flight time is shit when you are looking for a place to land because human error fucked something up at your LZ.

>hoverbike isn't a hovercraft even though it says "hover" in the name and is only ever supposed to be "low flying" using ground effect.

Oh shit dude, really? This thread is so over. You've dropped off the deep end here.

>marketing

You mean Cool Factor? Like what was stated 50 posts ago? Yeah, hoverbikes have a much higher cool factor than helicopters. But, their many limitations won't let them become as popular as you want them to be.

File: 1453947099834.jpg (12KB, 250x214px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x214px

>>8037916
>>8037917
>sudden realization that a hoverbike is just a hovercraft
>got rekt hard
>damage control "DAMAGE CONTROL" in all caps

Dude. I don't even.

>>8037916
>NOBODY else here has been talking about "hoverbikes" as meaning "bike-shaped hovercraft that can't climb out of ground effect".

Then don't use the term "hoverbike". Or did you not know what that meant?

>>8037917
>But for the purposes of this argument a helicopter is the thing you are defending, the single rotor variable pitch type.

No, I'm talking about helicopters in general. That includes the volocopter. Hoverbikes are not helicopters.

Lift Inefficiency also means fuel inefficiency which makes them more expensive to operate. Which is fine if you have a super cheap power source like solar powered batteries. That can lower the costs. But, the same thing can be done with a helicopter and has been done already....and it performs better than your non-ground effect hoverbike or whatever that thing has turned into now (a unicorn maybe?)

>>8037920
It is a helicopter though.
They are all helicopters you mongoloid. What is the difference between the Volo and the Omni? Go on tell me? Both are electric fixed pitch fly-by-wire direct drive multirotors only difference is one you stand on, the other you sit under. Totally different to the swashplate and transmission mechanical joystick controlled machine you are defending.
> because human error fucked something up at your LZ.
There's no human error because it's autonomous and you would fly with some reserve power.
>hoverbike isn't a hovercraft even though it says "hover" in the name and is only ever supposed to be "low flying" using ground effect.
First of all do hoverboards hover? Second of all you are assuming hoverbikes are hovercraft after seeing a few budget demonstrations.
>But, their many limitations won't let them become as popular as you want them to be.
Well we will just have to sit back and see how well the Volo and Omni do.

>>8037934
>No, I'm talking about helicopters in general. That includes the volocopter. Hoverbikes are not helicopters.
You're cherrypicking, your moving the goalposts you're doing all kinds of autist shit to avoid the fact that the success of the Volocopter kills your argument dead. The Omni hoverboard flew as high as the Volocopter did and even had less rotors so it was ironically more efficient as well. Just because it has the word hover in id doesn't mean it's a GEV
>Lift Inefficiency also means fuel inefficiency which makes them more expensive to operate
First of all why are you still harping on about efficiency? Secondly you save on maintenance costs and the one off purchase costs. finally 20 minutes of electric power isn't that expensive.

Anyway If you throw out one more efficiency based argument I am just going to ignore it. we have already said a million times that this isn't a significant concern from a sales perspective. You don't have any other arguments apart from "it's inefficient"

>>8037938
Fucking autists man.They're stuck in their world of numbers, can't comprehend market trends and niches.

>>8037937
>There's no human error

You doubt the power of stupidity?

>It is a helicopter though.

lol No. In no definition is a hoverbike a helicopter. Just use a car. If you want to fly, use an actual helicopter. We all know what a hoverbike is, except you.

>one you stand on

That's a "man blender". A completely worthless invention that heralds the stupidity of the Engineering class when left to their own devices. Given how deadly you think single rotor helicopters are around little children in a parking lot, you may be horrified when someone lands on a child with this thing and it becomes confetti.

>the other you sit under

This is a correct and more stable design that is properly engineered.

>>8037954
That isn't cherry picking, that's repeating the same thing 20 times in the same thread and someone else moving goalposts to suit their ignorance.

Volocopter is a helicopter. LOL

>Omni hoverboard

That's not a hoverboard, it doesn't rely on ground effect.

Good luck getting 20 more minutes of charge time while stuck in pattern waiting for shit to clear in the LZ during an emergency.

>>8037958
You're just an ignorant dumbshit that knows fucking nothing about aircraft, real world markets, real world trends, and thinks a "niche" is something big.

I can tell you one thing. Pro-hoverbike people are right up there with the flatearth, pyramid power, perpetual motion and overunity crowd.

>>8037965
>"man blender"
Chicken wire doesn't exist right?
>This is a correct and more stable design that is properly engineered.
You claim to be an engineering genius yet spout the pendulum rocket fallacy? The Omni board was perfectly stable.
>That isn't cherry picking, that's repeating the same thing 20 times in the same thread and someone else moving goalposts to suit their ignorance
And i told you 20 fucking times that inefficiency doesn't fucking matter yet you still repeat "inefficiency" like a fucking autist
>That's not a hoverboard, it doesn't rely on ground effect.
It's a board you hover on, ground effect has nothing to do with it.
>I can tell you one thing. Pro-hoverbike people are right up there with the flatearth, pyramid power, perpetual motion and overunity crowd.
Okay kid.

>>8037965
fuck man I'm gonna remember this, when i sell my first hoverbike I'll remember when /sci/ told me that the idea was pyramid power-tier tinfoil bullshit

>>8037982
>inefficiency doesn't fucking matter

Laughable. Really.

>hoverboard

It really is just a coolfactor name they gave it. It really isn't a hoverboard.

>>8036845
>I'm working on an electric version, even simpler and safer than petrol.
>>8037989
>when i sell my first hoverbike

Pics of what you have made so far?

>>8037989
>/sci/ told me that the idea was pyramid power-tier tinfoil bullshit

English not your first language or do you have bad reading comprehension? The statement said that you are like people who believe in that stuff. Ergo, you are completely ignorant, nay willfully ignorant.

>>8037993
it's a board that hovers.
>>8037996
I haven't started construction yet. i am currently finishing off a large drone that will test out electronics and my ability to accurately predict thrust and power consumption. Once that is done then I will put together the parts for a 60 second hover based on experimental data from the drone and finally the full machine will be released end of next year. There will be two versions, the main model with eight 30 inch propellers, 20 minute flight time, flying car sized, approximately £15,000. the second model is more of a fun sport hoverboard, eight 400 mm ducted fans, 10 minute flight time, £5,000. 400 mm ducted fans don't exist so I have to design these myself. Doing that now in parallel with the drone.
>>8037999
I'm /x/ tier now, I like that, i'm renegade, on the fringe.

>>8037996
The point of the 60 second hover is to gain funding by the way.

File: nicholas-cage.gif (3MB, 170x144px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 170x144px

>>8038014
>I haven't started construction yet

>>8038017
Patience anon, you will get your hoverbike soon.

>ctrl+f
>flike
>no results
https://youtu.be/H0epgrI4CDs

And you guys are seriously impressed with that piece of shit analog hoverbike

>Volocopter
What exactly is the point of that? Its less efficient while being as big as a helicopter and ugly as fuck. Exactly what does it provide that an electric helicopter wouldn't?

>>8038042
Oh yeah i forgot about that, see more hoverbikes coming to market. Hoverbikes are the future.

File: Worthless Hoverbike.webm (3MB, 640x286px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x286px

>>8038062
That's not a hoverbike though. Are you daft?

This is a hoverbike, which is as worthless as it looks.

>>8038050
It is a helicopter. You're right, it'd be way better to use a single rotor. It'd need to be specially designed and not a conversion of course. Regardless, current battery to weight ratios puts anything you make under the 30 minute flight time mark. It is better to use combustible fuels until batteries are far better.

A few of my neighbors have Mosquito helicopters. One of their RC models is just about the same size as those. They are constantly flying around the farms with the Mosquitos landing willy-nilly in the fields. They are so small and light that you don't need to register or have a pilot's license to fly the ultralight versions. They have 1-4 hour flight time (60-250 miles) depending on the model you get and if you get extra fuel tanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5NTDVXiTiI

>>8038062
>market

Kek, there's a handful of people making hoverbikes (which don't work well and are inefficient as fuck) but no legitimate company is making them. Meaning there's no "market".

>Volocopter

lol What is funny is that they tout this as the world's first electric helicopter when a year before the 1st prototype was made there were electric helicopter conversions.

File: 1440436643948.gif (612KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 500x341px

>>8037195
>I have nothing to address the actual points of the discussion so I'll just mention computers and airplanes being once thought impossible as if it has any merit
kek, totally didn't see that one coming

>>8037222
>emergency response
oh shit, it's that retard again
your delusions of strapping paramedics onto drones has been BTFO'd multiple times already
when will you finally drop this act and start acquiring some actual, tangible knowledge on the stuff you're so desperately spouting shit about?

File: 1438615326674.jpg (3KB, 125x120px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x120px

>>8038014
>I'm /x/ tier now, I like that, i'm renegade, on the fringe.
revolutionizing the aerospace industry, one uneducated shitpost at a time

File: pure disgust.jpg (19KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 255x255px

>that annoying bong voice
couldn't make it past 5 seconds

>>8038791
self hating chav detected

>>8038694
LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY HOVERBIKE

>>8036691
It is real. Such item is makeable with The Poincare Conjecture and similar documents - perhaps Numerical Analysis theorems too.

>>8038689
>your delusions of strapping paramedics onto drones has been BTFO'd multiple times already
Oh, it's that guy who keeps posting weak-ass objections based on ignorance and incomprehension, then declaring he BTFO'd me.

Your whole argument has always consisted of:
a) assume a large multicopter drone has all the limitations, hazards, and expenses of a helicopter,
b) assume it additionally has the limitations and disadvantages of a real multicopter drone,
c) assume it has some other limitations and disadvantages that you just made up.

You refuse to acknowledge any advantages whatsoever to a computer-controlled electric multicopter design over an internal-combustion helicopter with a human pilot, then act as if you're participating in a good-faith discussion.

Enjoy "winning the argument" in your own head for the rest of your life.

>>8037144
?
The only thing that stops flying vehicles from being made today is regulation

You'd rather spend hours in fucking traffic jams?
Roads are not cheap, if people driving had to pay the real costs for roads, then a flying vehicle makes complete sense.

File: la-trb-palm-springs-plane-parade-20141028.jpg (979KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 2048x1536px

>>8039263
>The only thing that stops flying vehicles from being made today is regulation

There he is, going off the deep end again.

>>8039258
>multicopter

You were talking about a hoverbike which isn't a helicopter or multicopter. For which there is no advantages over anything else. You can't even get them off the ground to be useful.

Regardless, there are no advantages of an electric multicopter over a helicopter. Maybe there will be in 100 years when battery power density is greatly increased.

>>8039277
Call me when Tesla produces their first electric tilt rotor vehicle for consumer use

>>8039286
>>8039263
I don't understand your problem. People, ever DIYers make flying vehicles every year, get them licensed if they are not ultralight and fly them. The power/fuel type doesn't really matter.

However, as I've been saying common-day, electric, rotor-lfted aircraft are not a part of our future. We'll be lucky if our grandchildren will see them.

>>8039310
You are prohibited from flying over a congested area
Tons of people would fly to work every day, if they could

>>8039368
That has nothing to do with them not being made. That's just common fucking sense. An entire city based around air transport would be a monumental exercise in utter waste and inefficiency.

Which is why ground-based public transportation exists. It is why automated vehicles are being developed.

>>8039394
ground road based traffic is a 2d problem
Flying is 3d
Buying up properties to build roads/roads/subways/etc is extremely expensive
Maintaining millions of miles of roads is extremely expensive
Ground traffic is for socialist public transit, or trucks/heavy loads

Flying is the future

>>8039422
There's no future in personal air transport in the ways you are envisioning it. It is a pipedream that will go no where because there are already well established modes of transportation that are far better than your hoverbike shit will ever be pound-for-payload-pound..

>>8039737
Who's talking hover bike?
Hoverbikes can't leave ground effect, so offer no advantage over wheels

I'm talking actual flying vehicles which ANYONE who has ever driven a car in a city would support.

>>8039761
This entire thread is talking about hoverbikes. Regardless, flying isn't a good idea in cities. Hence, you are not allowed to do so without special permits and such. Even a fleet of automated passenger transport is a retarded idea. People who complain about traffic need to take the fucking subway.

>>8039769
Maybe if you goddamn liberals hadn't filled the west with shitskins, the public transit would be something that people could use.

>>8039780
Just because your hoverbike is shit doesn't mean you can throw in all your other problems into this thread. Go vent on /pol/ or something.

>>8039284
>>>>Fly-by-wire multicopters can have rotor-out capability (not some desperation maneuver like autorotation, but the ability to actually continue flying normally), and land in any space as big as their footprint, practically ignoring cross-wind.
>>>your delusions of strapping paramedics onto drones has been BTFO'd multiple times already
>>Oh, it's that guy who keeps posting weak-ass objections based on ignorance and incomprehension, then declaring he BTFO'd me.
>You were talking about a hoverbike
Yup, this is how a discussion with absolute human garbage goes.

File: 1461524407892.gif (926KB, 500x579px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 500x579px

>>8039960
>wildly moving goalposts is okay in any discussion so long as it puts you into a positive light; especially if it is technobabble you personally thing is smart-sounding

>>8037463
>Even though it would be highly advantageous to use something like a helicopter to quickly pick up injured people or deploy police officers, helicopters (especially with human pilots) aren't reliable and precise enough to be trusted flying between buildings and landing in parking lots and streets.
They are, the major reasons why it never happens is because a) it's a nusiance and b) insurance companies won't have it.
>Multicopters are much more capable of avoiding collisions in tight spaces, with unpredictable winds
No, they aren't.

>>8039966
>>8040211
>>Oh, it's that guy who keeps posting weak-ass objections based on ignorance and incomprehension, then declaring he BTFO'd me.
Absolute human garbage.

Hey guys, did you know that the hoverbike is more efficient than a helicopter? The most efficient possible flying vehicle is a flying fuel tank and the hoverbike is closest to this.

>>8039258
>has never heard of the concept of the golden hour
>hasn't spent a single minute on an ambulance, let alone a paramedic helicopter
>thinks that he knows shit about what's actually important in emergency Air extraction

The only guy assuming shit out of ignorance here is you, I on the other hand have been riding shotgun as EMT for 5+ years and know what's actually important in emergency rescue

>>8036691
It's real. I doubt it will levitate for more than a few minutes, probably burns a lot of fuel.

>>8036691
>propellers
When is this meme going to die? At least one kid in Britain lost their eye after a drone propeller sliced it open. Imagine what the propellers on this thing could do to someone.

>>8040922
Stick your dick in it and find out.

Seriously though, everything is fucking dangerous. Good thing too since healthcare is fucking amazing and stupid people are no longer dying before breeding.

>>8040766
You, nor anyone else in this thread who is pro-hoverbike, have yet to post a single credible use or pro-anything to back up your completely baseless claims.

You have zero real world experience.
You have read too many sci-fi books and watched too many sci-fi movies and tv shows.
You think will power and thought will prove you correct and make your ignorant and convoluted ideas a reality.

>>8040766
I fly full-size helicopters, I have a pretty good idea of what their capabilities are, and why I can't land wherever the fuck I want in the middle of a goddamn city.

I also fly both RC helis and RC multicopters, and my helicopters have considerably better wind penetration and are no more difficult to maneuver through tight spaces when the same control mode is used.

You do have a point about using computer control to augment pilot capabilities, but pushing multirotors the way you are is utterly retarded. Their ONLY advantages are mechanical simplicity and robustness. In every other regard they are only equal or inferior to helicopters.

>>8041020
You know all the automation for control in quads? Why not put that in normal single-rotor copters?

>>8040865
>>hasn't spent a single minute on an ambulance, let alone a paramedic helicopter
>I on the other hand have been riding shotgun as EMT for 5+ years
This again. Holy shit, so fucking stupid.

Back to: >>8039258
>Your whole argument has always consisted of:
>a) assume a large multicopter drone has all the limitations, hazards, and expenses of a helicopter,
>b) assume it additionally has the limitations and disadvantages of a real multicopter drone,
>c) assume it has some other limitations and disadvantages that you just made up.

Regardless of the high probability that you're bullshitting about your history, experience with a "paramedic helicopter" has precisely 0 relevance to understanding either the performance or cost of a computer-controlled multicopter.

A conventional helicopter simply can't fly on a moment's notice directly by a beeline path to an arbitrary address in a city and land in any space the size of two parking spots, and even if it could, it would cost too much and put the public at too much risk.

You don't fucking get that when this stuff is mature, you'll really be able to just set the destination, and it will *immediately* fly directly to it and land, be *immediately* safe to debark and approach, and once loaded, *immediately* take back off and fly directly to the nearest hospital.

It's all about putting a computer in control, and designing the propulsion to take advantage of the computer's ability to respond to changes in the environment within the millisecond.

>>8041020
>no more difficult to maneuver through tight spaces when the same control mode is used.
So, when you use crude manual piloting, your toy helicopters and toy quadcopters are each capable of more precise maneuvering than your piloting abilities as a human allow.

What a convincing fucking argument about the ultimate design potential of these technologies.

>Their ONLY advantages are mechanical simplicity and robustness. In every other regard they are only equal or inferior to helicopters.
First of all, those are major advantages. Secondly, just because you play around with these things doesn't mean you understand their design, let alone how they scale.

You only scale up a helicopter by increasing the main rotor size, which necessarily makes it less responsive and precise. You can scale up a multicopter by adding more rotors, maintaining the same responsiveness and precision at a larger size, hence things like the Volocopter with 18 rotors.

You can also lay them out more freely, shroud them, make them more visible, and do other things that make it safer to land in tight spaces, and to approach shortly before or after landing, or while it's hovering near the ground.

>>8041100
? Any conventional helicopter design will be better than some multi-rotor electrical design which makes less efficient usage of lifting power

Literally no reason why a conventional helicopter couldn't do exactly what you are saying anyways

File: 1441576850204.jpg (66KB, 419x249px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 419x249px

>>8041100
>experience with a "paramedic helicopter" has precisely 0 relevance to understanding either the performance or cost of a computer-controlled multicopter.
because this is not aboud performance or cost of a computer controlled multicopter
it's about how this is relevant to the application of emergency air extraction

>land, be *immediately* safe to debark and approach, and once loaded, *immediately* take back off and fly directly to the nearest hospital.
you're stuck in the mindset that emergency medical response works by driving towards the patient, loading him on a stretcher and rushing him to the hospital
that may have been the case back in the 80's, but things have changed drastically while you were in your basement building mad meme drones

stabilizing the patient is way, way more important than the speed at which he's being transported towards the nearest hospital
this takes time, hence GOLDEN HOUR, not golden minute
the helicopter waits for the patient, not the other way around
the fate of a patient whose medical situation indicates the need for air extraction is not decided by the speed or agility of the helicopter transporting him - full stop

now onto the actual technical details of drones versus helicopter, which you seem to be so hellbent about
>when this stuff is mature
"mature" implies that this drone can carry all of the equipment usually crammed into a paramedic helicopter, and an additional paramedic and emergency physician on top
one has to wonder what magical engines, props and batteries you have devised that will be able to carry all of this while retaining enough range to actually fulfill an adequate operational envelope to even be considered worth looking into

stop getting stuck on advantages/disadvantages
look into how things are actually done in the medical field before you proclaim your vision of actually being an improvement to it

>>8041172
>>8041000
>>8039769
>>8039737
This entire thread is Dunning-Krueger at it's finest.

Here we have a bunch of guys who don't know anything else but calculus and some mechanics giving their opinion on economics.

Anyone with half a brain knows that more choice = more sales. What you are all advocating is practically communism; one product to satisfy everyone. Right now when it comes to hovering machines there is ZERO choice, it's either helicopter or.....helicopter. In a capitalist market this is absolutely terrible because people want choice. Look at tablets, the world could keep on turning without them seeing as PCs do everything they can do better and laptops are portable. But still even with two choices tablets still got popular.

There is plenty of room for hoverbikes, hoverboards, flying cars, whatever because they appeal to the person who doesn't want to or can't learn how to fly, doesn't want to spend a quarter of a million dollars on a helicopter, wants to be able to hover and/or land in an area the size of a parking space and doesn't want one massive exposed blade swinging around.

Efficiency isn't a huge deal to the consumer. List of stupidly inefficient products that still sell:
>Sports cars
>Smartphones
>RC turbojets (gas turbines do not scale down well at all, fuel consumption is comical, much better to use a 2 stroke for similar power yet the RC community DGAF because it looks cool)
>Quadcopters
>Electric bicycles (Road bikes are way faster you could say the people who buy these things should just learn to pedal and save electricity)
>Segway "hoverboards" (Taking the bus, car, bike, anything is much more efficient)
To the last one if it was pitched here before being released everyone would have said it would never take off. The last attempt failed, they are inefficient and slow, there's no serious vital use for it, yet despite all of this they are still popular. This is why being a contrarian is stupid, for you never know until you try.

>>8041204
Paramedic rides on hoverbike, drone follows behind with equipment.

And the sky is the limit when we look past batteries into hybrid tech.

File: 1445203045805.jpg (15KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x250px

>>8041224
>There is plenty of room for [..] flying cars, whatever because they appeal to the person who doesn't want to or can't learn how to fly
do you even basic aviation, bro?
you think that by making most of the process of flying computer controlled you're able to magically skirt aircraft regulations and put untrained retards into the seat of a flying machine
protip: you won't

>>8041230
>addressing multiple points with a shitty oneliner
yeah, nah

>>8041232
Well yeah. You don't need a license to fly an ultralight already. Problem is no ultralights can hover beyond those mini Japanese homebuilt helicopters that are nothing but a blade which no-one really wants to ride in. And even if you did you still have to learn to fly it. Autonomous multirotors take zero skill.

>>8041235
>Butthurt that his entire paragraph long argument got destroyed in one line

>>8041204
>stabilizing the patient is way, way more important than the speed at which he's being transported towards the nearest hospital
Sure, as long as you assume that getting the patient to the hospital is slow.

If it takes you less than half the time to get to the patient, and less than half the time to get him back to the hospital, you're taking better care of the patient even if you do absolutely nothing to stabilize him.

There is no possible justification for delaying care so it can be administered in the field after 15 minutes of driving a conventional ambulance rather than in the emergency room after 10 minutes of rapid-dispatch air retrieval.

>"mature" implies that this drone can carry all of the equipment usually crammed into a paramedic helicopter
How are you so bad at understanding this?

Again: ambulances and air ambulances carry so much stuff because they're fairly slow and can't be sped up much by leaving the stuff behind.

Air ambulances are mostly used in remote areas, not stationed at every hospital with an emergency room for short trips in cities. They take considerable time to reach the patient, and considerable time to bring the patient to the hospital.

Anyway, if you're that determined to bring a pile of stuff to the patient, you can send more than one vehicle.

This reminds me of a thread on /diy/. Some anon said he was working on a delivery drone, there was like 200 replies of people laughing at his idea saying it's a dumb meme that's going nowhere and then a few months later he returned with news about the Amazon delivery drone. This time it was the same 200 reply spergout but 1/3 of the board finally admitted that he had a point. The rest were just too childish to admit that they got it wrong. So probs the same thing will happen here. OP's hoverbike idea will get released by some company, the news will get posted on /sci/ and /sci/ will push their head further into the sand.

File: 1458679624491.jpg (44KB, 391x387px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 391x387px

>>8041265
>If it takes you less than half the time to get to the patient, and less than half the time to get him back to the hospital, you're taking better care of the patient even if you do absolutely nothing to stabilize him.
no
that's spanish for no
you have no idea how this stuff works, so why do you still feel the need to spout factually wrong statements like these

>Again: ambulances and air ambulances carry so much stuff because they're fairly slow and can't be sped up much by leaving the stuff behind.
we carry so much gear because we need to be able to deal with every conceivable combination of medical emergencies
if we're lucky we get a rough information of what and who to expect when going out there
but most of the time you end up wit h something like "unknown chest pain, 50M" and go for it
'dropping gear to speed things up' is a batshit retarded idea leading to a whole boatload of what-if's and could-have's which do nothing but put the patients life in jeopardy

File: already in the news.png (295KB, 726x971px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 726x971px

Look at this shit, the guy has already made the national news just by hovering two feet off of the ground in something he slapped together in the shed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3565291/Forget-hoverboards-s-HOVERBIKE-Watch-eccentric-engineer-fly-floating-bicycle-shoots-fireworks.html

And /sci/ says that there is no public or media interest in hoverbikes.

Holy shit guys look at this, he was actually sponsored by Ford.

http://unlearn.ford.co.uk

So now we global, world-famous automobile company supporting the hoverbike idea yet /sci/ says it's all bullshit. Get with the times guys.

File: 1456584636008.jpg (279KB, 584x554px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 584x554px

>>8041347
>Get with the times guys.

>>8040999
Control is the only issue really, once that is down the pros will out weight the costs. People die more to car crashes than plane crashes yet a lot of people back up ground transportation just as an overall. Once PATs start getting up and going state taxes will be paying for only guard rails instead of thousands of miles of paved black shit on the ground. Plus because of the required 2 hands assuming for handle bar control, it would discourage phone use or any other distraction

>>8041331
>>If it takes you less than half the time to get to the patient, and less than half the time to get him back to the hospital, you're taking better care of the patient even if you do absolutely nothing to stabilize him.
>you have no idea how this stuff works, so why do you still feel the need to spout factually wrong statements like these
You have no capacity for reasoned argument, so why do you still feel the need to post in a discussion where people explain things and support their positions?

You're effectively making a claim that getting the patient into the emergency room in 10 minutes is less useful than getting an ambulance to the patient in 15 minutes. I know from how you've behaved so far that you're not going to acknowledge that, give any sensible reason for it, or justify it.

You're just going to talk as if it's obvious, of course, that being seen by a paramedic with an ambulance in 15 minutes is better than being seen by a paramedic in 5 minutes with minimal equipment then a doctor in an emergency room in 10. Then when I challenge you on it, you're going to scoff at how ridiculous I'm being and ramble off on another tangent.

Over and over, you just make assertions, denials, vague implications, ad hominems, appeals to authority, and non-sequiturs.

Stop being garbage.

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

7KB, 250x187px

>>8041350
>using death rates of planes vs cars as an argument for personal air transportation
jesus christ dude

>>8041349
This is clearly the beginning of a new era in transportation. In 2014 the world's first hoverboard flew and it was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records at 279 m

Now only 2 years later that has been smashed, the new Guinness record is fucking two and a quarter kilometers. A near 10x jump in 2 years

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/30/11535778/franky-zapata-guinness-world-record-hoverboard-flyboard-air

File: 1452788162237.gif (1MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x300px

>hoverbike
>payload on TOP of the thrust

It is like /sci/ somehow summoned an ubertard.

>>8041257
>>8041224
The amount of ignorance in these posts and thread is fucking astounding. There's no reason at all to even try to refute any point made in the posts because they are so absurdly stupid and willfully ignorant. God, I hope they are trolling.

>>8041230
>solving the problem by putting even more birds in the air

Jesus fucking Christ.

>>8041324
I remember those threads. The OP of it and Amazon are still fucking stupid for every single reason listed in the thread in question. Just because a company wants to do it doesn't make it a smart idea. Last I read they were still trying to lobby to get laws to allow it to happen.

File: 1452628671383.jpg (276KB, 1656x1009px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1656x1009px

>>8041265
>Sure, as long as you assume that getting the patient to the hospital is slow.
>and the rest of this ignorant video game addled post

wow, just fucking W-O-W

>>8041333
Yeah, he single handedly took over like 20 pages of googles searches for "hoverbike" overnight. lol

>And /sci/ says that there is no public or media interest in hoverbikes.

There isn't. lol That's not how it works. He also isn't the first and it also isn't the best one made. It is just the DIY aspect of it and of course it is Colin Furze.

>>8041366
I like how every anti-hoverbike fag including you has ignored my posts on the fact that they're in national newspapers, Ford is sponsoring them and one just smashed the Guinness book of World records by a factor of ten. But fuck all that right? Only the opinions of a neckbeard with no innovative ideas of his own so he shits on others matter right?

>>8041362
ok yeah, pretty low brow. But since we don't have stats on death rates, improper use caused accidents by PATs, there isnt much of an argument for safety. Imagine how people felt about the transition from carriages to cars. Everyone disowned them because of all their initial doubts and problems, now look at where are today. Instead of naming problems let them arise so we can beat them, thats all im trying to get at.

>>8041374
You can DIY a paraglider and it won't make the national news. If he had made a proper controllable one that made it out of ground effect and tried to sell it then there is clear proof that he'd have no problem gathering interest.

>>8041376
>But fuck all that right?

Correct. It is meaningless. You haven't a clue how marketing even works let alone anything else at all.

>>8041386
Jesus, you people are such retards. Colin did not make a "working" hoverbike. You can't make a working one that is worth a fucking damn. Why? Because weight/lift ratio won't allow it. You end up with a terrible piece of equipment that is shit to steer, shit speed, shit everything. How do I know? Because there's a company that already makes the fucking things and they are still shit.

If you make something that can lift out of ground effect, then it is no longer a hoverbike and you've just graduated to something completely different. At which point it'd be better to just have your payload under the rotors.

File: 1445208077987.jpg (76KB, 666x499px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 666x499px

>>8041359
>Over and over, you just make assertions, denials, vague implications, ad hominems, appeals to authority, and non-sequiturs.
says the layman to the EMT in a discussion about emergency medical procedures
yeah dude, you got it all figured out :^)
you're better than all these people who worked on progressing emergency medical care to the standard it is now

you know better than them what's actually important in the business you've never set a foot in

>You're effectively making a claim that getting the patient into the emergency room in 10 minutes is less useful than getting an ambulance to the patient in 15 minutes.
kek, you got it so backwards it hurts to read
you're the one making the baseless claim, I'm the one talking from professional experience
minutes do not count when it comes to bringing a patient back to the hospital
the care the patient receives on-site counts
which is why doctrines have changed over the decades from
1) RUSH TO SITE
2) STRAP PATIENT ONTO STRETCHER
3) RUSH BACK TO HOSPITAL
to
1) RUSH TO SITE
2) ASSESS PATIENT
3) COMMENCE NECESSARY EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROCEDURES
4) STABILIZE PATIENT FOR TRANSPORT
5) RUSH BACK TO HOSPITAL

drones are not going to revert 20+ years of progress
just because you THINK that driving unstabilized patients to the hospital is the proper way of handling medical emergencies does not make this retarded statement a fact

go to your local hospital
wait in the ER until the next poor sap is being brought in on a stretcher
on their way out ask the paramedics how they would feel if the transportation of a patient with life threatening injuries back to the hospital was done with only minimal equipment
wait for them to laugh you out of the ER, because that's exactly what will happen

>>8041394
The last time I was in an ambulance it WAS a hospital with all the stuff they have in there. The actual hospital is actually less prepared for first aid because first responders do that job.

I think you should probably stop replying to the hoverbike guy. It does you no good at all and he is so willfully ignorant that he won't listen to reason.

File: Someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png (38KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x550px

>>8041403
>I think you should probably stop replying to the hoverbike guy
pic related
but you're right

>>8041385
I agree with you but still have to call you a faggot for shoehorning yet another "X was once thought impossible too!" into this thread

File: 1445198255506.png (471KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 500x500px

>>8041376
>has ignored my posts on the fact that they're in national newspapers
you posted a fucking dailymail link
clickbait =/= national news

>>8041408
The funny thing is that single rotor helicopters are already a thing. They are already far more effcient than any hoverbike could ever hope to be simply because of the difference in the fundamental design of each one.

Now, since helicopters are already so much better, you'd assume that we'd have helicopters everywhere doing everything the pro-hoverbike guys says will be done with hoverbikes.

Yet, we don't do that. We still have ambulance trucks on the ground. We still use buses, trains, cars, trucks, etc on the ground. The only times helicopters are used is after first responders call it in for the emergency or the location is so remote that there's no other quick way to get to the location.

In cities, everyone does not use a helicopter or even a automated-piloted helicopter. Theoretically they should. The entire rush hour traffic crowed should be blackening the skies with helicopters. But, they don't.

Even as efficient as helicopters are and as cool as they are, they are still noisy as fuck, the fuel still costs an ass load of money, and air space which looks so open and broad is just as 2D as the streets due to flight corridors/approaches. Being in a hoverbike aerial traffic jam on approach to your LZ with 5 mins left of battery time while still 50 feet in the air doesn't really sound very good to me.

So, like how may rotor-aircraft even have their payload above the rotors?

>>8041394
>>You're just going to talk as if it's obvious, of course, that being seen by a paramedic with an ambulance in 15 minutes is better than being seen by a paramedic in 5 minutes with minimal equipment then a doctor in an emergency room in 10. Then when I challenge you on it, you're going to scoff at how ridiculous I'm being and ramble off on another tangent.
Wow, nailed it.

>>Over and over, you just make assertions, denials, vague implications, ad hominems, appeals to authority, and non-sequiturs.
>says the layman to the EMT
Do you even read what you're writing?

It's like there's some wire cut in your brain.

First of all, nobody is going to believe you're an EMT just because you claim that you are. Would you accept my position if I told you I was actually the Surgeon General of the USA? Of course not, because I'm an anonymous person on the internet, just like you.

Secondly, even if we did believe that you had relevant personal experience and training, we'd still expect you to give a reasoned argument in support of your position. Not assertions, not opinions, not heaps of scorn on the opposing position, actual reasons for why other people should believe what you believe.

We're not talking about something you'd know as a matter of fact from that experience or training, but about scenarios involving new technology. Given the choice, most people would rather be seen by a doctor in a hospital within 10 minutes, rather than seen by a paramedic in an ambulance within 15 minutes. The advantages of it are obvious.

Nobody's disputing the idea that, all else being equal, it's better to have a well-equipped ambulance. The point in dispute involves a scenario where all else is NOT equal, where with one option you could have the patient into an actual hospital sooner than the well-equipped ambulance arrives in the other option.

Stop. Being. Garbage.

>>8041455
>nobody is going to believe you're an EMT

See >>8041394 this is the type of shit you have to deal with when talking to a complete fud. You can even be there in person talking to him and show him your IDs and he'd say they are fake. Though realistically, he'd probably relent since you EMT types have a presence about you that makes retards shut up and go along.

>>8041455
>nobody
>we
>we'd
>other people
>We're

I believe you mean "you" because I'm sure no one else disputes that he's an EMT. Shit, I knew 3 of them growing up. What he says makes sense.

>>8041472
>>8041403
>>8041480

Samefag as claims-to-be-EMT-guy or just same level of idiocy?

>What he says makes sense.
He is literally claiming that it's better to be seen by a paramedic in an ambulance in five minutes, than to be seen by a doctor in an emergency room now.

If he's an EMT, he is TERRIFYINGLY incompetent.

>>8041455
>Given the choice, most people would rather be seen by a doctor in a hospital within 10 minutes, rather than seen by a paramedic in an ambulance within 15 minutes. The advantages of it are obvious.
you tell me that I don't have an argument to support my position, yet you don't bother to validate this huge claim your whole concept revolves around to begin with
does occams razor ring any bells?

I've posted enough knowledge on the subject to establish my point as valid
you being unable to follow it is not my problem at all and I really don't give a shit anymore
claiming to be an EMT isn't even in the same ballpark as claming to be a surgeon
if you really want to start generating knowledge on the topic for yourself just sign up as volunteer in your local rescue department and see for yourself how applicable your grand idea is to the reality of the field
will crush your dreams really quick, I promise that

>>8041494
>seen by a paramedic in an ambulance in five minutes, than to be seen by a doctor in an emergency room now.
drones confirmed for instant teleportation devices

File: Hoverbike accident.gif (4MB, 425x425px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 425x425px

>>8041494
>Samefag

>>8041497
>>Given the choice, most people would rather be seen by a doctor in a hospital within 10 minutes, rather than seen by a paramedic in an ambulance within 15 minutes. The advantages of it are obvious.
>you don't bother to validate this huge claim
So you got caught saying stupid things, believing them and hoping they'd be believed, and now you're trying to make it a win in your own mind by saying stupid things you know are stupid.

Human garbage.

>>8041494
>He is literally claiming that it's better to be seen by a paramedic(+emergency physician, FTFY) in an ambulance in five minutes, than to be seen by a doctor in an emergency room now.
the fun starts once you realize the stupidity of your sentiment that "scooting around with a completely unstabilized patient is perfectly a-OK as long as the end of the ride is at a hospital :^)"

File: 1438615249791.jpg (53KB, 515x515px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 515x515px

>>8041518
that's what you're intepreting
I'm not responsible for fixing your own retarded conclusions which exist for nobody but yourself
but hey, everyone else agreeing is a samefag anyway, makes the whole thing more convenient

>>8041522
Nobody said "completely unstabilized". This is a strawman argument. Keep working your way through every possible logical fallacy, though.

Still talking about sending a paramedic or two out. Still talking about sending basic equipment and supplies. Hell, even sending a doctor out is more viable when they're going to be coming back to the hospital so quickly.

Anyway, a straight boost to the nearest emergency room isn't going to be much more of a ride than the stretcher ride of moving the patient to the ambulance.

>>8041572
>Still talking about sending basic equipment and supplies
>implying you know what constitutes as basic equipment in emergency response in the first place
he really did it, the absolute layman

File: 1447710478768.jpg (48KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 766x960px

>>8041572
>coming back to the hospital so quickly.
>a straight boost to the nearest emergency room isn't going to be much more of a ride than the stretcher ride of moving the patient to the ambulance.
drones once again confirmed for instant teleportation devices

Flight is not more fuel intensive than ground travel

>>8041626
It is when the craft is inefficient as fuck.

>hoverbikes are the future!!!!!

This reminds me of those "tanks with legs are the future!!!" posts from a few years back.

>>8041392
Exactly! It was fucking shit yet it still made the national news.

>You can't make a working one that is worth a fucking damn. Why? Because weight/lift ratio won't allow it
You can never do this, you can never do that, what happened to all these sorts of people throughout the ages? They were silenced. Especially when they have zero evidence to back up their claims. It's literally as easy as putting more propellers on and then you will get out of ground effect. The Hillier Flying Platform managed it so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about saying there isn't the power to weight ratio
>>8041394
You dumb fuck what if you're out in the woods? How is an ambulance gonna get to you? Helicopter? The local hospital can only afford two and both are out delivering an immigrant's baby.
>>8041635
If the legs were good then it actually would be. Tanks really struggle in bad terrain. Imagine something with the size and agility of a T. Rex. Just because a tech currently sucks doesn't mean you should dismiss it.

>>8041949
All the rest made the news too. Still no one gives a shit a month later.

>If the legs were good then it actually would be. Tanks really struggle in bad terrain. Imagine something with the size and agility of a T. Rex. Just because a tech currently sucks doesn't mean you should dismiss it.

Just use a helicopter instead.

>>8041949
>Imagine something with the size and agility of a T. Rex.

4chan is an 18 year old or older only website. If you are under the age of 18 you are not allowed to post.

>>8041949
>You dumb fuck what if you're out in the woods? How is an ambulance gonna get to you? Helicopter? The local hospital can only afford two and both are out delivering an immigrant's baby.

If a helicopter can't get to you in the woods a hoverbike won't be able to either. Not everywhere is like Endor.

>>8041972
>>8041980
Oy vey I give up man. There are three people arguing here, one group saying it's all total bullshit a complete waste of time, and another apparently arguing that it's useful for medicine or whatever. I was the one arguing that despite inefficiency and even if it has no immediate use it will still sell. You should not be arguing with me over this, this is outside the realm of science and maths, this is business and marketing. I have given so many examples of apparently useless inefficient products that still find a niche somewhere yet you completely ignore this and keep on insisting that you can cover a worldwide market with just one single product. I just don't even... This is basic fucking economics that I've been trying to tell you yet you think you know better just because you're well versed in aerodynamics. Dunning Fucking Krueger.

I am done, /sci/ is arrogant and cocky as fuck, /sci/ knows everything, /sci/ can predict anything even that which has nothing to do with science. I however will give hoverbikes and the like a chance because I am not arrogant enough to think that I can predict global market trends 10 years in the future.

File: heli-lifting christmas trees.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>8041032
>Why not put that in normal single-rotor copters?
They do. It's called a flybarless controller. Prior to their development, they used flybars instead to provide stability mechanically.

The reason helis rarely use auto-level like quads usually do is the simple fact that a newbie pilot who needs it will generally buy a robust and crashworthy quadcopter instead, so there's not much demand for it with CP helis.
>>8041135
>So, when you use crude manual piloting, your toy helicopters and toy quadcopters are each capable of more precise maneuvering than your piloting abilities as a human allow.
What the fuck are you on about?
>First of all, those are major advantages.
Yes, they are. For an RC model which will very likely crash from time to time, they absolutely are. For a manned aircraft where crashing is pretty much unacceptable, it's not a worthwhile advantage at all.
>Secondly, just because you play around with these things doesn't mean you understand their design, let alone how they scale.
I have an engineering degree as well. I've had conversations with Frank Robinson about the helicopters he designed work. I know EXACTLY how they work and how they scale. Suck a dick, Mr. Armchair Engineer.
>Youu only scale up a helicopter by increasing the main rotor size, which necessarily makes it less responsive and precise.
Oh my god, shut the fuck up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw2wviQAXYw
>hence things like the Volocopter with 18 rotors.
The Volocopter has 18 rotors because it's using fucking model-aircraft motors. Having more motors does not improve response and controllability; if it did all these acro and racing multirotors would be hexes or octos.

>>8042001
Yet despite all the advantages and abilities of RC helicopters "shitty" quadcopters are still way more popular. Why has all the people claiming that inefficient products don't sell well still not explained this?

>>8038576
I would kill myself so fast with one of those little helicopters....

File: 1459448660318.jpg (99KB, 500x636px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x636px

>>8041949
>If the legs were good then it actually would be. Tanks really struggle in bad terrain. Imagine something with the size and agility of a T. Rex. Just because a tech currently sucks doesn't mean you should dismiss it.
this reads like a textbook mecha fagpost straight out of the unholy depths of shit-tier mech threads posted on /k/
uncanny as fuck

>>8042006
>Yet despite all the advantages and abilities of RC helicopters "shitty" quadcopters are still way more popular.
Yeah, because you can crash them pretty roughly and they'll usually be ready to fly again with as little as a $5 propeller swap. Scale it up to carry people and that's not gonna be the case anymore.

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

11KB, 210x250px

>>8042006
>using commercial sale figures of RC helicopters vs RC drones as a legit argument for manned flight applications
holy shit, you just went full fucking retard

>>8042001
>They do. It's called a flybarless controller. Prior to their development, they used flybars instead to provide stability mechanically.
>The reason helis rarely use auto-level like quads usually do is the simple fact that a newbie pilot who needs it will generally buy a robust and crashworthy quadcopter instead, so there's not much demand for it with CP helis.

I was meaning non-RC.

>>8042019
>just went

lol There's 200 replies ITT. He went FFR about 30 posts in or something.

File: 1370963764182.gif (2MB, 330x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x200px

>>8041949
>Tanks really struggle in bad terrain
the sad thing is you're serious and will dismiss anything invalidating your uneducated shit opinion
you mecha fags really need to die, it would make /k/ a better place

File: 1449943211021.jpg (550KB, 3196x1800px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 3196x1800px

This entire thread is pic related.