New item on my want list!

[DanceswithUnix]

This won't require a full UK pilots' licence, imo.

I imagine that is the angle they are hoping for, in the same way that some microlights are exempt.

[peterb]

Ah, wasn't aware a quadcopter could continue flight in event of a failure, doesn't sound like a pleasant experience though.

As for helicopters, I think we're both right. I was unaware of the autorotation concept, but the end result is still a crash. In case of autorotation it might make it a survivable one.

I love flight and flying, but would never willingly go in a helicopter. It's irrational but to me a plane without power is an overweight glider, a helicopter without power is a fancy shaped anvil.



That's a fair amount of redundancy. I wonder if the parachute 'slows descent' to the extent it'd save your life or if it just means the body is identifiable afterwards.

Autoration done properly ends up with a controlled landing in which both pilot and helicopter are undamaged. Its a technique regularly practised buy helicopter pilots and works in the event of total power failure - in effect converting the potential energy of gravitational attraction into kinetic energy to drive the rotor blades.

A multirotor needs power to keep on flying - the props are too small to provide lift by auto-rotation, but provided there is a power source, it can fly in the event of loss of a motor (or two, depending on the power of each motor)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Chinese version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8shiw6zY_A

[Lanky123]

That's a fair amount of redundancy. I wonder if the parachute 'slows descent' to the extent it'd save your life or if it just means the body is identifiable afterwards.

There are numerous off-the-shelf systems designed for far heavier loads than this. From a quick google see here for an example designed for a Cessna 182 (slightly heavier than this). I would expect if you land on soft, flat ground there might not even be much damage to the craft. I'd be more worried about landing area than rate of descent (if everything else had failed you take your chances though obviously).

[spacein_vader]

There are numerous off-the-shelf systems designed for far heavier loads than this. From a quick google see here for an example designed for a Cessna 182 (slightly heavier than this). I would expect if you land on soft, flat ground there might not even be much damage to the craft. I'd be more worried about landing area than rate of descent (if everything else had failed you take your chances though obviously).

I'm not doubting the technology, and the weight wouldn't be my concern. My worry would be the height at which the failure occurred. A swift Google gives the flight ceiling of the Cessna as 18,000 ft, this thing has a max of 8,000 and appears to be designed for use at much lower levels than that. Would the parachute have the time to slow the decent sufficiently?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I would be more worried about the free rotors which could potentially cause injury on take off and landing,especially if people don't have the proper training.

[peterb]

I would be more worried about the free rotors which could potentially cause injury on take off and landing,especially if people don't have the proper training.

Probably no more dangerous than the tail rotor on a helicopter or the props on a light aircraft. In fact probaly less as engaging the props will be done immediately before vertical take off, whereas a light aircraft needs to engage the prop for taxiing, and will be running for pre-flight checks on the ground.

A helicopter might not start its engines until all personnel are on board, but often it will, and so expose personnel to risks during embarkation/disembarkation. A helicopter is also subject to 'blade sail' while the engine/main rotor blade is getting up to operational speed.

[Lanky123]

I'm not doubting the technology, and the weight wouldn't be my concern. My worry would be the height at which the failure occurred. A swift Google gives the flight ceiling of the Cessna as 18,000 ft, this thing has a max of 8,000 and appears to be designed for use at much lower levels than that. Would the parachute have the time to slow the decent sufficiently?

Altitude loss of 260 - 290 ft given in that Cessna example. So for sure there's a window where it's not useful but a good backup to include for many scenarios.

[peterb]

Altitude loss of 260 - 290 ft given in that Cessna example. So for sure there's a window where it's not useful but a good backup to include for many scenarios.

If the parachute is deployed pyrotechnically, shooting it upwards, then the minimum altitude reduces, although obviously there will still be a minimum. (the same is true for helicopter auto-rotation - there is a combination of forward speed and altitude that determines whether auto-rotation can be established to enable a safe landing - take off and landing are the highest risk phases, one reason why a rolling take off for a helo is safer, where possible, as it already has a forward velocity to establish auto-rotation at a lower altitude. If a rolling take off isnt possible, the pilot will transition to forward flight as soon as possible while gaining altitude for the same reason.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Probably no more dangerous than the tail rotor on a helicopter or the props on a light aircraft. In fact probaly less as engaging the props will be done immediately before vertical take off, whereas a light aircraft needs to engage the prop for taxiing, and will be running for pre-flight checks on the ground.

A helicopter might not start its engines until all personnel are on board, but often it will, and so expose personnel to risks during embarkation/disembarkation. A helicopter is also subject to 'blade sail' while the engine/main rotor blade is getting up to operational speed.

The only thing is a helicopter is flown by people with pilot training and you can't just land it anywhere when you feel like it I suspect.

These kind of vehicles are being marketed towards normal people,so the point is I can see open rotor vehicles actually causing injuries if some idiot decides to just plonk it down in their front garden when someone is walking past.

Its bad enough on the road when people can't even drive properly and end up scraping cars,knocking wing mirrors off,etc.

I would rather the whole takeoff and landing process was somewhat automated TBF!!

[peterb]

The only thing is a helicopter is flown by people with pilot training and you can't just land it anywhere when you feel like it I suspect.

These kind of vehicles are being marketed towards normal people,so the point is I can see open rotor vehicles actually causing injuries if some idiot decides to just plonk it down in their front garden when someone is walking past.

Its bad enough on the road when people can't even drive properly and end up scraping cars,knocking wing mirrors off,etc.

I would rather the whole takeoff and landing process was somewhat automated TBF!!

Indeed, so I wuld expect some form of mandatory training and/or skill assessment to take place - navigation, air law and safety as well as actual operation, so a license or certificate of competency might be required, just as is required to drive a car, or fly any aircraft with a MTOM > 20Kg. (And a certificate of airworthiness would also be mandatory)

[wazzickle]

Can't help but think of this scene

https://youtu.be/rvQEJH_6kzs?t=270

[peterb]

Can't help but think of this scene

https://youtu.be/rvQEJH_6kzs?t=270

Accidents of that sort were not unknown - all to easy to walk into a spinning propellor disc. Aircraft pans are dangerous places!

[TeePee]

These Parachutes have been around for a while, made by a company called BRS. Here's a decent video which shows a 'save'.



As you can see, it's not 'soft' and back injuries are common. The airframe is irreparable. But some people survive. The contentious part is that some aircraft cannot meet stall/spin recovery certification standards, and are certified with a parachute instead, which is a dubious equivalence.

The other issue is, we're back to weight. A BRS system for a 1500lb aircraft weighs about 45lbs. Two 7.5 kwh batteries probably add up to about 160lbs. How much do those eight motors weigh? 35lbs each? And they still need an engine and generators. Compared to the Robinson, where do they cut all that weight?

[TeePee]

For an autorotation, the helicopter is hardly falling. The descent is slowed by the air moving through the rotor disk, causing it to spin, and providing control to the pilot. He can then glide, (with a pretty bad ratio) and use the energy of the forward motion and in the spinning disk to bring the helicopter to a gentle touchdown.

[TheAnimus]

I think the problem is that auto rotation is such a demanding task that gives very limited options, given helis often fly low in the first place by the time the pilot has identified a failure, realised it's time to auto rotate they might not have the luxury of being able to do so into a safe area.

It's a heck of a lot easier to trim for 65knots and glide away.