New item on my want list!

[peterb]

Basically an octocopter capable of carrying two people and as easy to fly as its baby counterpart.

Electrically powered with a petrol generator on board and a plethora of fail safe systems including (as a last resort) a ballistic parachute.

Target price around the $200,000 mark ( but you can reserve one for $1,000)

http://workhorse.com/surefly

https://youtu.be/UPjtZDsIR3Q

[DanceswithUnix]

I had been thinking the flat roof on our garage should go, but now I am thinking helipad

Shame about the cost, and the fact I couldn't currently commute in it as my work is right in an airport flight path.

[TheAnimus]

If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe

[Ttaskmaster]

Why not just go all out and get a PAL-V One?
That way you could drive through the no-fly bits and fly past the traffic...

[Saracen]

While I love the concept, I notice it has an unladen 'curb' weight of 1100 lbs.

I will bet my left gonad that aviation authorities, including the CAA, are going to be all over both the design, certification and manufacture of ANYTHING where the basic concept is flying an 1100 lbs, plus occupants, over the heads of the citizenry, and even more, over the qualifications of the people permitted to fly them. In short, you're going to need a pilot's licence and if you're going to that trouble and expense, it seems like an awful lot of money for something so slow and of such limited range.

So other than for stupidly rich people to fly around their own vast private estates, the application in the UK seems to be very limited to me. As a $200,000 toy ..... great.

[Lanky123]

Yep, I can see some prince or other in the UAE hopping from one skyscraper to the next without having to go downstairs. Possibly some stunts with energy drink advertising plastered over the sides of it. Not a lot else.

[Xlucine]

If this 'takes off' (ha!), it'll make the vuvuzela look quiet and civilised

[TeePee]

While I love the concept, I notice it has an unladen 'curb' weight of 1100 lbs.

I will bet my left gonad that aviation authorities, including the CAA, are going to be all over both the design, certification and manufacture of ANYTHING where the basic concept is flying an 1100 lbs, plus occupants, over the heads of the citizenry, and even more, over the qualifications of the people permitted to fly them. In short, you're going to need a pilot's licence and if you're going to that trouble and expense, it seems like an awful lot of money for something so slow and of such limited range.

So other than for stupidly rich people to fly around their own vast private estates, the application in the UK seems to be very limited to me. As a $200,000 toy ..... great.

1500lb MTOW, so 400lb 'useful load'. For two adults and fuel. That's only slightly less than the conventional and available Robinson R-22. Of course, the Robby cruises at 110mph, and can actually be close to that empty weight. This is vapourware pitched by someone who hopes no one can do maths.

[Lucio]

The concept is definitely a step in the right direction towards flying car. Whilst I'm sure the current UK regulations would require a full helicopters pilot licence, if it's even allowed at all, don't Quad/Hex/Octo-copters have a much lower level of flying difficulty due to their design?

[wazzickle]

This won't require a full UK pilots' licence, imo. The theory should be that this is as easy to fly (perhaps, easier) than a quadcopter drone. Perhaps, before they create a new flying licence category that distinguishes from those who have actually taken a few hours to learn how to fly this thing safely (but again, I would imagine their AI will need to be up to scratch in terms of taking a lot of things out of the hands of the pilot) and those who actually can't, they'll be safe and say 'no-one but full pilots' license' but it probably won't be long before there would be tests of around the order of a driving license.

That is, of course, all contingent on whether these things are commercial success, about which I'm a little more hazy than you guys.

[Saracen]

The concept is definitely a step in the right direction towards flying car. Whilst I'm sure the current UK regulations would require a full helicopters pilot licence, if it's even allowed at all, don't Quad/Hex/Octo-copters have a much lower level of flying difficulty due to their design?

Well, based on flying both heli's and quads in model size, hell yes, quads are easier. They're inherently pretty stable, and especially so with pretty basic AI support. Heli's, or at least collective pitch models (which is the principle "real" heli's use) are about as simple as trying to balance a marble on top of a bowling ball ... while riding a monocycle.. I.e. requires constant micro-adjustments just to hover, and if you take you mind off the game, well the marble does what it wants to do.

But that's models. With real craft, it's not just 'can you keep it in the air and get it to go more or less where you want', but it's pre-flight checks, radio procedures, rules and rehulations you MUST know, and so on, because you're putting something in the air and flying it over people's heads when if it comes down unexpectedly is VERY likely to kill anyone it hits. Also,, no doubt, navigation. Yeah, presumably it'll have satnav, but what if that fails? Can you fly it to a safe landing spot, while avoiding airports, MOD airspace, restricted areas like ports, nuclear facilities, power stations, and so on. All the usual ancillary skills required by pilots, fixed or rorary, will no doubt be required, because otherwise, imagine the furore when sooner or later one of these rich men's toys crashes through someone's roof and wipes out a family.

There's far more to being allowed to fly anything like this than just flying it.

[spacein_vader]

Well, based on flying both heli's and quads in model size, hell yes, quads are easier. They're inherently pretty stable, and especially so with pretty basic AI support. Heli's, or at least collective pitch models (which is the principle "real" heli's use) are about as simple as trying to balance a marble on top of a bowling ball ... while riding a monocycle.. I.e. requires constant micro-adjustments just to hover, and if you take you mind off the game, well the marble does what it wants to do.

But that's models. With real craft, it's not just 'can you keep it in the air and get it to go more or less where you want', but it's pre-flight checks, radio procedures, rules and rehulations you MUST know, and so on, because you're putting something in the air and flying it over people's heads when if it comes down unexpectedly is VERY likely to kill anyone it hits. Also,, no doubt, navigation. Yeah, presumably it'll have satnav, but what if that fails? Can you fly it to a safe landing spot, while avoiding airports, MOD airspace, restricted areas like ports, nuclear facilities, power stations, and so on. All the usual ancillary skills required by pilots, fixed or rorary, will no doubt be required, because otherwise, imagine the furore when sooner or later one of these rich men's toys crashes through someone's roof and wipes out a family.

There's far more to being allowed to fly anything like this than just flying it.

Isn't there also a reliability angle? A standard helicopter has an engine* driving a single rotor, if it fails in the air then you crash. A quadcopter has 4 of these, and given where they are positioned I'd imagine it's damned near impossible to avoid a crash if one fails. So you've gone from one opportunity for a catastrophic failure to 4.

Not to mention 4 lots of maintenance, spare parts, etc.


*I know some helicopters have twin engines driving a single rotor so are a bit more reliable, and things like the chinook have 2 rotors but I can't imagine they'd fare very well with one failing either.

[TheAnimus]

8 rotors spacein_vader, so lots of points of failure.

The ballistic parachute is interesting, but I wonder what altitude is required for function.

[Saracen]

Isn't there also a reliability angle? A standard helicopter has an engine* driving a single rotor, if it fails in the air then you crash. A quadcopter has 4 of these, and given where they are positioned I'd imagine it's damned near impossible to avoid a crash if one fails. So you've gone from one opportunity for a catastrophic failure to 4.

Not to mention 4 lots of maintenance, spare parts, etc.


*I know some helicopters have twin engines driving a single rotor so are a bit more reliable, and things like the chinook have 2 rotors but I can't imagine they'd fare very well with one failing either.

Yes, but a quad can still fly after a rotor failure, albeit that it needs pretty clever software and I wouldn't want to be sitting in one.

It's also not quite that simple for a heli, due to the autorotation manoeuvre. Simply put, detach rotors from a dead engine, put heli in a dive and feed back blade pitch to get the rotors spinning, rather like wind powering a windmill, only (hopefully) a lot faster. Then, right at the last moment, flare out and use the energy stored in the spinning blades to slow your descent.

Of course, flare too soon and you run out of effective blade lift before you run out of altitude, and flare too late and you run out of altitude before you run out of downward velocity. I.e. splat.

Whether that'd work on that weird oct/quad or not would depend, I'd think, on what the failure was, and what the machine's engineering is. If the rotor blades are directly electric powered, then I can't see any way to do that. But similarly, autorotation might work, or help, for an engine failure in a heli, but if the failure is linkages, or worse, a rotor fell off, then ...

[peterb]

Acccording to the blurb, it will fly if two of the 8 motors fail. It has two battery's, either one gives 5 minutes of flight if the main engine (driving a generator) fails so in the event of engine failure there is a minimum of 5 minutes (probably 10) minutes to land, and in the event of total systems failure a pyrotechnically deployed parachute operates to 'slow descent'.

[spacein_vader]

Yes, but a quad can still fly after a rotor failure, albeit that it needs pretty clever software and I wouldn't want to be sitting in one.

It's also not quite that simple for a heli, due to the autorotation manoeuvre. Simply put, detach rotors from a dead engine, put heli in a dive and feed back blade pitch to get the rotors spinning, rather like wind powering a windmill, only (hopefully) a lot faster. Then, right at the last moment, flare out and use the energy stored in the spinning blades to slow your descent.

Of course, flare too soon and you run out of effective blade lift before you run out of altitude, and flare too late and you run out of altitude before you run out of downward velocity. I.e. splat.

Whether that'd work on that weird oct/quad or not would depend, I'd think, on what the failure was, and what the machine's engineering is. If the rotor blades are directly electric powered, then I can't see any way to do that. But similarly, autorotation might work, or help, for an engine failure in a heli, but if the failure is linkages, or worse, a rotor fell off, then ...

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.

Acccording to the blurb, it will fly if two of the 8 motors fail. It has two battery's, either one gives 5 minutes of flight if the main engine (driving a generator) fails so in the event of engine failure there is a minimum of 5 minutes (probably 10) minutes to land, and in the event of total systems failure a pyrotechnically deployed parachute operates to 'slow descent'.

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.