Proximity Dubai

[BillyVance 34]

Shoddy construction.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[MikeJD 0]

quade

Oh I'm all for Dubai being the testing ground (sky?) for that.

Geebus. Seriously, I think there are so many things wrong with that drone air taxi design I can't even go into it.

I mean, yay if it ever actually works, but I see a lot of dead passengers.

Despite the suggestion that the guy actually travels in that thing at the end of the ad, he is quite conspicuously not inside it when it takes off.

[DJL 235]

Is there something about a quadrocopter that makes it inherently better a tried and true helicopter?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 4]

DJL

Is there something about a quadrocopter that makes it inherently better a tried and true helicopter?

I think a quad might have advantages as there are fewer moving parts. From a power plant perspective, just eight in this; four top and for bottom rotors. Nothing else moves. Even the simplest of traditional helicopters has hundreds of moving parts and they're all trying to separate from each other.

However, the design shown is insane. It would be MUCH safer with prop guards of some sort or if the motors were above the cabin well above head height. Ideally for a quad you'd want the CG to be exactly in line with the props though, so prop guards seem like the way to go. Nicely designed, they might even be able to function a bit like fan ducts although you'd want to find a balance there as big fan ducts would mean drag in horizontal flight.

The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MikeJD 0]

quade

The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

Thinking about it in those terms, the quad design does lend itself better to some sort of parachute recovery system activated by AAD - that might be feasible, given that I'm assuming this vehicle is significantly lighter than your typical small fixed-wing aircraft. Heck, you could even design it to jettison the whole chassis/ motor assembly in an emergency (but, look out below!) - or perhaps a parachute canopy combined with autoration effect from the rotors would be a better idea.

[Phil1111 1,149]

MikeJD

***
The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

Thinking about it in those terms, the quad design does lend itself better to some sort of parachute recovery system activated by AAD - that might be feasible, given that I'm assuming this vehicle is significantly lighter than your typical small fixed-wing aircraft. Heck, you could even design it to jettison the whole chassis/ motor assembly in an emergency (but, look out below!) - or perhaps a parachute canopy combined with autoration effect from the rotors would be a better idea.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/brscanister1350SP.php

Maximum aircraft weight: 1350 lbs. (612 kg)
Maximum deployment speed: 138 mph (222 kph)
Softpack weight (1): 29 lbs (13.2 kg)
Softpack dimension (2): 16" L x 10" W x 6" H (41cm x 25cm x 15cm)
Gores (panels): 32
Nominal diameter: 40 ft (12.2 m)
Square area: 1257 ft(2) (117 m(2))
Repack cycle: 6 yr. or 1 yr. (externally mounted softpacks)
Riser: 13,500 lbs. (6,124 kg)
Suspension lines: 400 lbs. (181 kg)
Exclusive device "slider": Yes
Service life: 25 Years
Solid fuel rocket: BRS-460
Minimum total impluse: 400 N-sec.
Igniter (mechanical): Redundant Primers with Pyro. Booster
Minimum peak Thrust: 79 lbf (36 kgf)
Minimum burn time: 1.3 seconds
Service life: 12 years

[quade 4]

MikeJD

***
The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

Thinking about it in those terms, the quad design does lend itself better to some sort of parachute recovery system activated by AAD - that might be feasible, given that I'm assuming this vehicle is significantly lighter than your typical small fixed-wing aircraft. Heck, you could even design it to jettison the whole chassis/ motor assembly in an emergency (but, look out below!) - or perhaps a parachute canopy combined with autoration effect from the rotors would be a better idea.

The thing about ballistic recovery is, just like in skydiving, you really do need to deploy above a certain height in order for it to be of any benefit.

So sure, put on an BRS, but my guess is it will rarely be used in situations where it will actually be helpful.

Oh, and one more reason you'd need prop guards of some sort. Imagine the look on the passenger's face when the BRS is deployed only to have it fouled / entangled by the props.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 1,149]

quade

******
The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

Thinking about it in those terms, the quad design does lend itself better to some sort of parachute recovery system activated by AAD - that might be feasible, given that I'm assuming this vehicle is significantly lighter than your typical small fixed-wing aircraft. Heck, you could even design it to jettison the whole chassis/ motor assembly in an emergency (but, look out below!) - or perhaps a parachute canopy combined with autoration effect from the rotors would be a better idea.

The thing about ballistic recovery is, just like in skydiving, you really do need to deploy above a certain height in order for it to be of any benefit.

So sure, put on an BRS, but my guess is it will rarely be used in situations where it will actually be helpful.

Oh, and one more reason you'd need prop guards of some sort. Imagine the look on the passenger's face when the BRS is deployed only to have it fouled / entangled by the props.

It would be easy enough to put a emergency brake on the motors, shear pins on the props, etc. in the event of emergency parachute deployment. Min deployment altitude 80 meters
http://www.stratos07.cz/en/products/rescue-systems/summary-of-all-rescue-systems

I'd go for a ride in one after 10,000 hours proven flight time.

[quade 4]

Phil1111

*********
The advantage I can see for a pure helicopter is the ability to auto-rotate. Since this is automated taxi without a pilot on board I don't realistically see that as being an option anyway. It's a bit much to think of automating autorotations and avoiding objects on the ground at this point. If you're going down in this type of thing right now, you're going down.

Thinking about it in those terms, the quad design does lend itself better to some sort of parachute recovery system activated by AAD - that might be feasible, given that I'm assuming this vehicle is significantly lighter than your typical small fixed-wing aircraft. Heck, you could even design it to jettison the whole chassis/ motor assembly in an emergency (but, look out below!) - or perhaps a parachute canopy combined with autoration effect from the rotors would be a better idea.

The thing about ballistic recovery is, just like in skydiving, you really do need to deploy above a certain height in order for it to be of any benefit.

So sure, put on an BRS, but my guess is it will rarely be used in situations where it will actually be helpful.

Oh, and one more reason you'd need prop guards of some sort. Imagine the look on the passenger's face when the BRS is deployed only to have it fouled / entangled by the props.

It would be easy enough to put a emergency brake on the motors, shear pins on the props, etc. in the event of emergency parachute deployment. Min deployment altitude 80 meters
http://www.stratos07.cz/en/products/rescue-systems/summary-of-all-rescue-systems

I'd go for a ride in one after 10,000 hours proven flight time.

Might want to check that spec on deployment altitudes. It assumes horizontal flight to begin with. It's the difference between immediate deployment from a hop-n-pop vs base jump. Wildly different results.

Also, I have an aversion to parts flying off aircraft in emergency situations over populated areas. Since this is specifically designed with the intention of it being a taxi in cities, it seems to me it's unethical to shed parts to save one person and have them raining down on others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 235]

Interesting forum read regarding why quadcopters aren't viable as full-sized human-carriers.

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3300/why-havent-quadcopters-been-scaled-up-yet/3305

A more realistic city-top mode of transportation would be something like the dirigibles being developed now but probably still wouldn't be economical for personal transport.

I could envision a sci-fi city in the future where at level 1000 of each building there's a docking collar where airships could pick up or drop off passengers too poor to pay for the teleporter (aka beaming).

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 1,149]

That system uses a rocket motor to achieve line and tether stretch from the deployment vehicle.

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

and

http://www.stratos07.cz/en/video---photogallery/video

I would agree about flying parts, but military ejection systems lose a seat, canopy parts and drogue mechanism during use.

[quade 4]

Phil1111

That system uses a rocket motor to achieve line and tether stretch from the deployment vehicle.

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

and

http://www.stratos07.cz/en/video---photogallery/video

I would agree about flying parts, but military ejection systems lose a seat, canopy parts and drogue mechanism during use.

Yes, but understand the area of operation is wildly different. If you're sitting in a military jet with an ejection seat, you're generally not flying low over the middle of a major city unless you're on a mission to drop far worse things.

As for line stretch in a BRS, yes, that's what the rocket does. It does not, however, actually inflate or slow down the vehicle until the parachute opens.

On the other hand, like I said with my comparison to a hop-n-pop vs base jump, deploying in horizontal flight allows for inflation and slowing down almost immediately and with full inflation with much less of an altitude loss than if from say, a hover.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 1,149]

Agree. For now its all "Rube" Goldberg and for me anyway a dangerous looking contraption.

Thats not to say there aren't people ready to hop in such a machine. But Dubai might be a good place to test such stuff.

[DJL 235]

Phil1111

Agree. For now its all "Rube" Goldberg and for me anyway a dangerous looking contraption.

Thats not to say there aren't people ready to hop in such a machine. But Dubai might be a good place to test such stuff.

I typically embrace all things related to tech and air travel but I'll watch from the sidelines on this one. Just another version of the personal flying car that's been soaking up investor money ever since The Jetsons first aired. Some type of powered parachute could do all of this and take advantage of the lift efficiency inherent in an airfoil. If UAV tech can be used for take-off and landing on a quadcopter it can be used on a powered parachute. It's just not as sexy.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher