Volocopter VC200 - First certified manned Multicopter

[Prysin]

On 13/04/2016 at 1:39 AM, ivan134 said:

You should tell them that...

he should tell Obama how to get rid of ISIS, and Russia how to fix their economy too while he is at it

[steini1904]

Oh, Jesus...

 

At least you're now talking primarily about very small multirotors.

 

59 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

You ever seen a helicopter flying at 50 feet between buildings?

Yes. About 20-30 times. The hospital I worked next to for some time had an old (on the ground) and a new (on the roof) helipad. They built new houses around the old one when it went out of service and wanted to turn it into a parking lot, but then there were problems with the new one and they had to use the old helipad for some time.

 

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

ou don't need a license for ultralights

Can't tell you anything about that, I'm an EECS student, not a freaking lawyer. 

 

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

swing out arms and wheeled chassis

Swing out the rotor blades? Not much difference here.

 

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

If you think a helicopter, or even a truck, is more efficient for getting a single 25 pound package 20 blocks in rush hour you are insane.

And yes, both helicopters are battery powered.

 

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Life Flight helicopters also cannot fly in between buildings and cannot land IN the scene of an emergency.

Former answered above. Latter: Ever seen an helicopter evacuation in Vietnam or a rescue of a climber stuck on a wall? They can and they do. Not for a "normal" emergency, since having a helicopter landing directly next to you will probably put you under a lot of stress and blow all your medical equipment away. Also they don't want any bystanders near the helicopter. A multirotor isn't going to change anything here.

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

With new tech in firefighting and hazmat response drones will become even more useful.

Drones are only the platform. The platform could be anything. Cars, stationary devices, humans, you name it. That model sized vehicles - including drones - will become more interesting because of that is nothing special.

 

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Why would you need large for security or surveillance?

 

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

single passenger capable vehicle for a security agent to make personal visitations or response?

Also e.g. police tracking a suspect or speeding car. Small vehicles just don't have enough payload capacity for carrying the huge camera and lens systems and can't stay up for a long time.

 

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

The cost out of pocket,

Helicopters are cheaper

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

the fuel costs,

Helicopters are more efficient

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

the coverage area

Helicopters have higher payload capacities and are more efficient and therefore have a lot higher range. Also they're a lot faster and way less influenced by turbulence, which allows for operation at worse weather conditions.

 

The only thing they're having against them is that they require maintenance by rained personal, while any kindergarten kid can "maintain" the average model sized multirotor.

 

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

If you think teachers and healthcare are "infrastructure" you have issues.

I said part of the infrastructure. Huge difference. Although that's very abstract and only applies to the "teacher". Health care, education, law, financial system, regulations and standards are all infrastructures on their own. How about you just google the term before making such statements? Although nobody I'm dealing with seems to know what infrastructures are anymore. It's ... sad.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Performance is not an issue with the tech.

Tech is not the issue here. It became actually quite good. The problem is simple physics. Without additional compression, the pressure potential a faster spinning rotor can achieve just doesn't scale linearly. And therefore sacrificing surface area of a rotor for higher rpms just wont do any benefit.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

The complexity is in the software, and taken care of there.

What? Did you even read what I wrote? You can't compensate for inactive (?) factors through software. How are you going to compensate for the low manufacturing precision and resonance, that's (e.g.) causing the screws to loosen, in software?

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

building proof of concept models

Because mass and distance, 2 of the most important factors in physics, aren't of any relevance.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Who said the Chinook wasn't a great design?

Basically me, because I'm going batsh#t on large multirotors.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Any limitation on speed will be by regulation, not a limitation of the tech.

Sure, because screw air drag, turbulence, air density and pressure potentials.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

that "instability" lends itself to agility

That instability leads to a huge series of very fast small adjustments, that are wasting a lot of energy and are introducing a major point of failure: If the software screws up, the device is going to kiss the ground.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

multirotor design by default allows the reaction and maneuverability

Multirotors are a lot less maneuverable and and a lot slower in terms of reaction than helicopters. I challenge you:

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

flying so fast

Beat me to it:

172MPH

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

flying balls to the wall over complex, sharply cornered, courses.

Very interesting, but I'd rather see it done with helicopters if I had a choice. Not going to happen, since they're a lot heavier and can do lots of damage on impact, but I'd probably go there to watch it live. As long as it's not further than 10km away from home. Else screw it.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Gearing was little to with power loss and more to do with more moving parts and failure points.

That point is especially not favoring multirotors. Until now I've never seen a well maintained and used to specification gearbox fail.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Just as YOU are not responsible if someone steals your car and crashes it into a storefront.

The problem is, that the vehicle will most likely crash itself. Except if all they do require to fly one of these things is passing the kindergarten entrance exam and are giving the people manual control.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Overcrowding: at the altitudes we are speaking of there is no over crowding.

Your quads are not the only ones up there. You're forgetting about the most obvious ones: Low flying helicopters, planes (rather rare, except when close to airports) and of course wildlife. There's a good reason why they're trying to get rid of birds around airports.

 

3 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

Can't brake or change directions fast?

You're again forgetting about other vehicles:

 

4 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

You think they cannot follow the drone or find its operator?

Whatever that guy had been trafficking into the country is long gone before the police arrives.

 

Weapon, drugs and human trafficking 101: Make sure it's someone else's problem as soon as you can. And if that means dropping it into a lake during a flyby.

[HalGameGuru]

This got very long very fast.

 

TL;DR

Most of your bogeymen are developmental hurdles not discounts to the future of the technology. Nor its application. Even dirigibles are on the way back. Sadly electric is the future for most all vehicles. Quads are going to be a big piece of urban transportation in the tech future. And just to be clear, your RC videos were delightful, and I'd love to see someone try to deliver packages with an RC copter just as much as with a quad, but the argument is for quads, or RC helis for that matter, taking the place of UPS trucks, Ubers, hotshot couriers, and making new niches that were once tacked on to trucks, helicopters, or cherry pickers. I consider RC helis as much a contender in these endeavors as quads. If you can find someone trying to use them to deliver packages or make residential friendly commuter vehicles please share them.

 

Spoiler

Almost every one of those "inherent issues" is something that has been taken care of or is being worked on. Resonance, turbulence, screws loosening? Known, and compensated for, sometimes hilariously simply, sometimes complexly or in software. 

 

I don't believe I ever said helicopters couldn't do that, I said multi's could, same kinds of things, some do so inside their own footprint, under inertia or in hover, and the quad is doing it without articulated rotors, when those become as demanded for on quads as they are NECESSARY for helicopters I am sure they will fulfill their niche well.

 

We have some very nice RC parks around Houston, helicopters, airplanes, drones, jets, rockets, always fun to watch. As for the flying between buildings that is very much dictated locally, in much of america aircraft seeking to fly in a crowded urban space require ducted rotors (a major hurdle to many "flying car" or commuter flying vehicles here). Airplanes or helicopters cannot fly in or around most any built up area or structures(I'm not sure if ultra-lights are even allowed to). And those RC machines you are showing range from around 800 to the thousands. High performance quads, with FPV, built for racing, can be had for as little as 200-250. Efficiency isn't just dollar per mile or mile per gallon, hardware, maintenance, pilot, invested time, machine down time, a myriad of aspects come into efficiency. And the biggest knock against multis, same as anything electric is storage. Circuitry, wiring, controllers, motors, etc. are starting as efficient as everyone else's products. If power storage improves enough you may see a bigger push for the higher amperage single-motor single or multi rotor options. Akin to a single turbine powering the whole machine in helicopters.

 

"Big" and "heavy" cameras are not an argument, outdated equipment is no mark against quads. The new FLIR cameras are GoPro sized. And as it sits payload for quads or octas is defined by price as its still hobbyist focused rather than product focused. Bell or Sikorsky start pumping out quads or octas you can bet they will have proper respectable payload specs. I think most police forces would love having a dozen camera and radar equipped drones for the price of a single traditional helicopter, I'd rather not see more tools in the hands of the state, but the capability is there.

 

The video of two RC helicopters lifting the woman is very interesting, unfortunately its not an argument against quads, if anything it supports the utility of them. I love helicopters, its one of the vehicle types I hope to one day be licensed to operate. Doesn't change the fact that quads and octas are gonna be doing the same things more easily. I too wouldn't mind seeing RC Helicopter races, heck I'd love to see 20's era style airplane races make a mass market comeback. Not just SOME saturday mornings when there isn't a NASCar repeat or bass fishing. But, just like with battlebots, it's gonna be a question of audience reception, if RC planes and helis cannot pull the audiences quads can, that sucks, but theres not a lot we can do about that, and little ESPN wishes to do about it. They go where the audience IS, not where they MIGHT be able to build one.

 

I don't know where you live that you have dozens of helicopters and airplanes zooming around at 100 feet. None of these vehicles would be flying near airports, birds will always be an issue, but drones can avoid collisions, and stop their rotors on a dime to coast past transient interference. IF they become as big an issue for multis as they are for turbofans or helis remedial actions will be taken. It would be nice if ultralights or flying cars had taken off in a big way so we'd have more apples to apples developments to compare to, but in the end quads are going to have to weather their growing pains in whatever way they can.

 

I could care less about potential criminal activity. It's no blight on the tech. Property rights trump all. Criminals using guns is no argument against moral actors possessing and making use of them. Same with quads. I was speaking more on your earlier argument of policing and "traffic" not overt criminal victimization. 

 

I find it interesting you are taking my arguments as some slight against fixed wing or rotary wing aircraft, I love them, never wanna see them go, but quads are going to be able to fill the gaps of activities they cannot do, whether by design, regulation, or economics, and will grow into doing the things they CAN do, over time, economics may be a bigger factor than any utilitarian arguments we may have back and forth. I'd love to see a melding of the disparate techs take its place as well. I have seen some wonderful theoretical designs of fixed wing aircraft with large ducted fans in the wing roots and smaller ones at the nose and tail for vertical take off that then rotate perpendicular to provide forward thrust and the wings take over generating lift. Even MORE efficient. Electric turbofan replacements, adjustable geometries, articulation, stacked rotors, convertible aircraft, so many techs developed for existing aircraft are going to be incorporated into multirotors over the next few years it is going to be insane. The volocopter is no Tesla, but it could be a Segway. Interesting, gets people involved, pushes development forward. Things like the Carver and the C-1, can point to the segway for spiritual inspiration. The volocopter could lead to newer and better things derived from the same tech, and others are working on the same things. http://www.ehang.com/ehang184 And the crazy thing is if not for government regulation and intervention a lot of what quads promise could have been done ages ago with established tech. Workable flying cars have existed since the 60s and 70s. Not always pretty, not always very useful, or effective.

 

Most of your bogeymen are developmental hurdles not discounts to the future of the technology. Nor its application. Even dirigibles are on the way back. Sadly electric is the future for most all vehicles. Quads are going to be a big piece of urban transportation in the tech future. And just to be clear, your RC videos were delightful, and I'd love to see someone try to deliver packages with an RC copter just as much as with a quad, but the argument is for quads, or RC helis for that matter, taking the place of UPS trucks, Ubers, hotshot couriers, and making new niches that were once tacked on to trucks, helicopters, or cherry pickers. I consider RC helis as much a contender in these endeavor as quads. If you can find someone trying to use them to deliver packages or make residential friendly commuter vehicles please share them.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by HalGameGuru
TL;DR

[HalGameGuru]

Between modern polycarbonates, carbon fiber, injection molding, 3D printing, computer/electronic control, the ubiquity of computer aided milling and cheaper milling machines I cannot wait to see what is going to be developed in sheds and tech workshops over the next few years. The Volocopter is an ungainly early work, but I hope we are soon to see a rapid improvement across the industry

[HalGameGuru]

I'm confused what an Apache crashing has to do with our discussion?