/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10983911
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

>>10983911
when people say "car" they mean an easy to operate appliance that everyone can afford.

helicopters are overcomplicated death traps that don't really want to fly.

>>10983923
>all aircraft of every design now and in the future are overcomplicated death traps that don't really want to fly.

That's how gravity works.

>>10983923
Do you want it to be able to hover? Then it's going to be complicated and autorotation is your best case scenario for unpowered landing. If people want magic flight then they should stop fucking asking why it hasn't happened yet and be embarrassed for ever thinking it would.

Maybe we could reach the easy to operate criterion through automation, but that's about it.

>>10983923
>easy to operate
But, copters are pretty easy to operate. However, most people are complete fucktards when it comes to controlling a car on flat ground. I can't imagine adding the Z axis to that same equation without the required 35–45 hours of flight time just to get the license.

>>10983923
>helicopters are overcomplicated death traps that don't really want to fly.
Confirmed.
t. Helicopter mechanic
Fuck those things.

>>10983923
>overcomplicated death traps
So, like most vehicles then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcSC-HittRM

>>10984155
Here's the thing though. The only reason a helicopter is more dangerous than a car is that the helicopter is flying.

>>10984319
Actually its hovering

Para motors are essentially a flying car but the aviation Jews won’t let us fly

>>10984348
You know helicopters can also move sideways, right? When you move sideways under power in the air that's called flying.

>>10983923
Cars are also overcomplicated death traps

>>10984660
even a chimp can drive a car

>>10984348
Fuck your actually.
>>10984319
That wasn't me. But turbines spin at ungodly rpm and shit leaks all over and dust gets in people's eyes. Mostly, you're right. I don't think girls can put on eye makeup and fly tho.

>>10984706
>But turbines spin at ungodly rpm and shit leaks all over and dust gets in people's eyes.
Well if you know a way to fly without pushing large amounts of gas around I'd love to hear it.

>>10983923
This
>>10983911
Fuck you OP, why do you hate progress?
>>10983922
I don't know why they make these things. Surely anyone with a brain knows that a rotorcraft which can barely cancel it's own weight is useless?
>>10983938
Uhm what is a multirotor?
>>10983956
if they were easy to operate everyone would be flying them. Helicopters are hard as fuck to fly.
>>10984371
Paramotors can't hover therefore they don't meet the flying car criterion.

>>10984721
If I did, I wouldn't tell you.

>>10984770
>Fuck you OP, why do you hate progress?
Complaining about not having flying cars yet when helicopters exist is not progress. I would love to see aeronautics progress but expectations should be tempered and whining should stop.

>Uhm what is a multirotor?
What problem is that supposed to address that would point us in a generalized Jetsons direction?

>>10984775
Fair enough

>>10983922
It's probably incredibly loud (but then again, most bikers would like that), and runs out of fuel/battery in less then 30 seconds, but it's still cool.

>>10984828
I'm terrified imagining the turning radius of one of those travelling at appreciable speed.

>>10984803
As your second reply already pointed out helicopters are impractical for the vast majority of people. The flying car is a concept that has certain capabilities that helicopters do not. Ease of use, automation, operation in confined spaces, low maintenance.
>What problem is that supposed to address
Multirotors don't need the complex blade pitch control mechanism, they're direct drive, simple as can be.

Electric motor/battery technology has exploded in recent years. you're a dinosaur if you think there won't be any new forms of hovering craft soon.
>>10984828
Depends on the noise, open propellers give off a low hum which nobody likes. Ducted fans give off a high pitch jet sound if they have enough blades, this is arguably more agreeable

>>10984803
Helicopters are hard to fly bro. I know how to do it and I can't even do it. Whatever ever happened to those gyro cars?

>>10984866
>Multirotors don't need the complex blade pitch control mechanism, they're direct drive, simple as can be.
That arguably addresses one problem while making several other problems worse. First off, those rotors aren't necessarily redundant. In the case of quadrotors you're falling out of the sky if even one of them fails. But you're perhaps better off for reliability. Except that thing is completely uncontrollable without computer assistance and in the event of power failure you can't do an autorotational landing due to aerodynamic instability.

There are other drawbacks though, notably in energy efficiency. Pitch control lets you optimize the pitch for the current conditions which has considerable performance benefits, and smaller rotors are less efficient than smaller ones and for the same total rotor disc area you need to take up more space.

But we could completely remove the complexity and endurance issues and this still wouldn't be good for consumers for reasons of safety and practicality for takeoff and landing.

>Electric motor/battery technology has exploded in recent years. you're a dinosaur if you think there won't be any new forms of hovering craft soon.
There's no hint that it might ever reach the performance/endurance combination of an engine. Batteries are great for small drones.

>>10984878
If you can't do it then you don't really know how to do it. And what the fuck is a gyro car?

>>10983911

The problem with calling that a "flying car" boils down to one word:

Parking.

>>10984902
>In the case of quadrotors you're falling out of the sky if even one of them fails
Backup rotors?
>Pitch control lets you optimize the pitch for the current conditions which has considerable performance benefits, and smaller rotors are less efficient than smaller ones and for the same total rotor disc area you need to take up more space.
Some users will be willing to trade efficiency for compactness and ease of use.
>There's no hint that it might ever reach the performance/endurance combination of an engine
Again low flight time is something people would be willing to trade for ease of use.

>>10984913
You could improve storage with a folding rotor, but at the end of the day you're still going to need a sizeable landing pad. There was never any hope of avoiding that, which is a big part of my point.

I'd like to add a few more problem words:
Air Traffic Control
Cost
Training

>>10984931
>Backup rotors?
Why do you think no one currently does this?
>Some users will be willing to trade efficiency for compactness and ease of use.
Multirotors do not improve compactness or ease of use.

>>There's no hint that it might ever reach the performance/endurance combination of an engine
>Again low flight time is something people would be willing to trade for ease of use.
You didn't do a great job of dodging that reaming about how battery technology wasn't holding back this concept.

>>10984946
no one does it because drones don't carry humans
of course multirotors are easier to use and more compact. they're direct drive and completely autonomous. if the multirotor is ducted it will be smaller for the same power than an equivalent helicopter
with current battery times you could fly for up to 20 minutes, that's enough to do something useful.can be extended with hybrid solutions such as fold out wings in flight

>>10984969
Why do you think no one puts backup rotors on rotorcraft that transport humans, some of which are multirotors?

>of course multirotors are easier to use and more compact. they're direct drive and completely autonomous.
You can do that with a regular helicopter, and because you almost certainly won't want to use batteries I wouldn't count on the multirotor being direct drive

>if the multirotor is ducted it will be smaller for the same power than an equivalent helicopter
This isn't actually true. It would be smaller than an equivalent unducted multirotor for the same power (maybe, though the weight necessary for the ducts will seriously cut into your margins at this scale) but will not be smaller than the equivalent single rotor helicopter.

>with current battery times you could fly for up to 20 minutes
That's not even necessarily enough time to find a parking spot, and this will be much heavier and more expensive than the equivalent engine-driven system. And why not just use an engine? If you really want direct drive multirotor you could set it up as a battery buffered electric transmission, but I'm still not seeing how it would be better than a helicopter.

>can be extended with hybrid solutions such as fold out wings in flight
Oh joy, more weight and complexity, now with the added bonus of the horrendously dangerous aerodynamic problems that plague the Osprey.

>>10984984
>Why do you think no one puts backup rotors on rotorcraft that transport humans, some of which are multirotors?
because it's really new technology, probably no-one has thought of it/tried it. no reason why it wouldn't work.
>You can do that with a regular helicopter, and because you almost certainly won't want to use batteries I wouldn't count on the multirotor being direct drive
it is possible but harder and therefore costlier to make a helicopter autonomous. We are talking about battery multirotors here
>This isn't actually true
Ok my mistake
>That's not even necessarily enough time to find a parking spot,
Lol parking spot is planned. Autonomy.
>this will be much heavier and more expensive than the equivalent engine-driven system
To lift a person you need about 30kW. A 30kW 2 stroke would weigh about 30kg. The same power can be provided by six 5kW electric motors which weigh about 2kg each. That's 12 kg. Add in the batteries and it's about equal.
>And why not just use an engine?
Because electric is way simpler and easier to automate. Literally why multirotors got so popular in the RC world.
>Oh joy, more weight and complexity,
Was just a suggestion it's not necessary.

I've had these arguments here before. The problem with people like you is that you think in black and white terms of efficiency. "if it's not max efficient it's useless" Everything you said about gas helicopters being more efficient with longer flight time is true yet the RC market is dominated by electric multirotors. Some even fly just 5 minutes yet people still buy them. Why? because there's more to product design than raw efficiency. Electric multirotors are easy as shit to put together and fly. This is why they will be more popular in the personal aviation market because people want something that is cheap, low maintenance and easy to operate.

>>10984984
I'm done arguing with you but one more thing I'll add is that a massive advantage of multirotors is that kinetic energy is split between rotors. Therefore if you're flying in a cramped space and hit something it's not such a big deal. hell you can even enclose the rotors for complete safety, something you cant do with a helicopter.

>>10984969
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-helicopters-use-ducted-fans-for-their-main-rotors

>>10983911
They have been invented but technically helicopters are not flying cars because a flying car should be able to function as both a car and an aircraft.

We're likely to see fully autonomous passenger quadrotors become a thing in the next few decades though. They will likely be used as taxis/ubers for all but the very wealthy though.

>>10984934

So the definition of "Flying car" includes:

> It can fly you to all the places you would normally drive to.

No such device exists, so there are no flying cars yet.

>Air Traffic Control
>Cost
>Training

Those are the problems that prevent more people from buying and using aircraft. (IMHO) A successful flying car would have to be self driving and positionally networked to the other flying cars, so Air Traffic Control and Training would be taken care of. As for cost, well lots of things start out as rich folks toys. That will be what it will be.

>>10984660
>overcomplicated
No
>>10984660
>dath traps
Yes

>>10983911
a helicopter without rotors that's what people want, why is that so hard for you? you scientists can't even solve simple crap like this (or growing hair) and you expect me to trust you on climate change?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qotuu8JjQM

This is close to an ideal flying car-the only downside is range, but that's going to improve with the new wave of battery tech, probably to about 500-600 kilometers within a decade.

>>10984770
>if they were easy to operate everyone would be flying them.
They are easy to operate. People just don't like them for a host of reasons. Because they are so easily used as weapons either accidentally or directly there are many hurdles people must overcome before their government will even allow them to use anything over lightweight copters. Next is price point for workload and fuel costs. Fuel is fucking expensive (100LL $4.50-$8 at like 5-8 miles per gallon). Copters at a low price point are not worth much for workloads. It is far cheaper to use a ground vehicle for both commuting and hauling for the average person. Shit, just the massive amount of noise they make keep a large number of people away from them.

Basically, flying anything is useless for the average person simply because lift is a fucking bitch.

>>10985098
>self driving
Automated flying is light years ahead of automated driving and has been since like 1912 or something.

>>10985235
>but that's going to improve with the new wave of battery tech, probably to about 500-600 kilometers within a decade.
kek no. That's not how energy density works. We've already pushed battery tech up to a wall. The advancements from now on will be in tiny amounts. It is more about energy efficient devices now than better batteries. Batteries are fucking horrible for anything flight based. You need a better energy density to power something like that and make it actually useful for more than grant fodder.

>>10985098
>So the definition of "Flying car" includes:
>> It can fly you to all the places you would normally drive to.
>No such device exists, so there are no flying cars yet.
Then it requires antigravity since aircraft won't work in small tunnels or garages. The corollary to this is that anyone who expected to have this by now or expects it will happen any time in the next century should contact me about this great property deal I have.

>>10984866
>Electric motor/battery technology has exploded in recent years.

Samsung can attest to this.

>>10985102
Nah, they're pretty overcomplicated. With current technology you could make a car with fewer moving parts and better fuel efficiency, but patents and consumerism won't allow for it.

>>10985773
>fewer moving parts
Which moving parts would you delete?

>>10985784
Three of the wheels just for starters

>>10985784
I'd start with the whole engine. I'd replace it with a nutating disk engine which is smaller, lighter, has fewer moving parts, and is self-supercharging. I wouldn't be able to sell it afterwards though, as the owners of the patent just want to use it for drones.

>>10985792
Those engines destroy themselves pretty quickly and don't scale up well. Drones are one of the few decent applications for them.

>2019, and I am forgotten.
Why the fuck did the autogyro not take off? (ehehehehehee...) They were better than helicopters in almost every way, not to mention the advantage of being idiot proof and not a fucking death trap.

>>10985798
Yeah, I'll take the smaller, more powerful engine with half as many moving parts for a bit of extra maintenance. Besides that I'm sure it's a materials issue that will be solved before long.

Either way, the brakes would be the next thing to go. Keep the E-brake, but the rest would be replaced with electromagnetic brakes that feed energy into a KERS. Even a small KERS will increase your fuel efficiency by 20% and electromagnetic brakes have fewer moving parts and last longer.

>>10983911
Indeed we do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCP_2jVpuc4
>>10983923
>>10983956
A marine can now fly a helicopter with an ipad, see video above
>>10984934
>>training
see video above, we already have self flying helicopters. It's much easier to make something self flying than self driving because there's a lot less shit to run into in the air
>>air traffic control
you have absolutely no idea how incredibly bad the air traffic control situation is right now. ATC is SEVERELY underfunded and air traffic is increasing. Because we aren't adding infrastructure RIGHT NOW, we're locked into a situation we're there's going to be a shortage in the future. The tech for managing all these self flying helis isn't too far off, but the politics necessary to build the infrastructure is decades away.
>>10984803
>>multirotor
supposedly multirotors can be quieter. If you decrease the rotor size then noise becomes less. Instead of one big wocka-wocka from the blade going around, you get a bunch of smaller wocka-wocka's, and because they're all out of phase they ain't as bad. At least that's the idea. No idea if it works.

Isn't Elon already working on a vacuum maglev network of pipes in order to fund his ever lasting fame in space while tactically trolling stock owners more than Donald Trump's (associate managing his) twitter handle?

>>10985808
>Why the fuck did the autogyro not take off?
It is a cultural thing and why not everyone owns a Cessna 172.

>>10985033
>Because electric is way simpler and easier to automate. Literally why multirotors got so popular in the RC world.
Yes, because the best solutions for real cars are the best solutions for RC cars, naturally.

>The problem with people like you is that you think in black and white terms of efficiency.
Yes, dying if you spend more than 20 minutes getting to your destination isn't a practicality problem at all.

>>10983911
>>barring antigravity
I do wonder if there are any phenomena out there that seem like antigravity? So the easiest thing is are there better ways of throwing air at the ground than a propeller? Terence Tao proposed building computers and machines that move fluid around out of fluid. So perhaps if we solve the navier stokes equations we can envisage building a machine out of fluid around our car that pushes it up some how. Perhaps we can even move a larger mass of air than a propeller with this hypothetical fluid machine, meaning we don't have to move it as fast to stay up, meaning we don't fuck up everything on the ground with propwash as much. There's also acoustic levitation. So perhaps there's a way of using acoustic radiation pressure to fly? Although sound frequencies high enough that they aren't audible to humans don't propagate all that far in air. But hey, perhaps we can exploit this to use acoustic streaming to fly. Acoustic streaming is where a fluid absorbing sound actually induces a flow! Because of momentum conservation might this imply that a device which produces an acoustically driven flow feels thrust?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_streaming

>>10985808
Well for one thing they need runways for takeoff

>>10985842
It would get you a meter or two off the ground at most. Why not just drive at that point?

>>10985792
Those seem ineffective for automotive purposes so far but yeah, so we're pistons. Two strokes are currently garbage but have less parts and more power. If ever given a chance, they could do well. Maybe with propane.

>>10985871
Turbine engines also have fewer parts. Less isn't always more.

>>10985875
No shit. Turbine engine are spinning hot garbage. And they don't really all have less parts iv you count each blade on a rotor. Those are parts.

>>10985893
In some cases the entire rotor is cast as a single part. Even if not, the rotor is still one moving part under the typical definition.

>>10985033
>Lol parking spot is planned. Autonomy.

You can’t just wave “automation” around like a magic wand and act like it’s going to solve all problems with ease. There are actual real problems here that need to be considered. This isn’t “Design for Dreaming” or any of the other postwar “kitchen of the future” adverts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xVuthG4f2oc

>>10985894
>typical definition.
Each of those parts have a part number and a serial number "but actually." Also the fuel control unit has more parts than a typical motorcycle.

>>10985842
>So perhaps if we solve the navier stokes equations we can envisage building a machine out of fluid around our car that pushes it up some how


“Fluid around our car that pushes it up somehow”—you mean...a rocket?

“Solv[ing] the Navier-Stokes equation”—solving an equation is not the same as engineering a solution to a problem.

“Terrence Tao” &c.—he’s certainly an interesting guy. But I think he’d agree that a fluid computer (logic operations) is a bit different from a Navier-Stokes levitator. But on the fluid computer topic, I think MIT did something with bubbles and microfluidics. It’s a little slow though.

>>10985033
>To lift a person you need about 30kW
At 7.3 kg/kW (12 lb/hp, see image), that's going to get you 220 kg of vehicle + payload. With specific battery energy of 720 kJ/kg (probably better than you'll get with the fast discharge batteries this needs) you'll need 62.5 kg of battery after assuming an 80% efficiency in conversion from electric power to shaft power. We can say a large person is another 100 kg. Add in your six 2 kg electric motors and we've got 45.5 kg left for the rotor booms, chair, overall structure, landing gear, avionics, and other features. Our assumed disk loading of 12 kg/m^2 (2.46 lb/ft^2, again see image) gives total swept disk rotor area of 18.3 m^2, which works out to a 1 meter radius per motor. If we arrange these 6 rotors in a circular pattern with .2 m spacing between rotor disks, we get a total vehicle footprint that's about 6.4 meters in diameter.

So that's 120 kg empty and 6.4 meters diameter for the electric multirotor with 20 minute flight time.

>A 30kW 2 stroke would weigh about 30kg
And gasoline is 45.72 MW/kg. I'll assume the same disk loading as the electric case in a conventional helicopter, and 25% efficiency in converting chemical energy to lift power. This is less than typical efficiency because there's also power usage for the tail rotor, which provides no lift. I'll be assuming the same 100 kg human cargo, but I'll allow a more generous TWO HOURS of flight time. I'll also use 45.5 kg for everything that isn't human, engine, or fuel, despite the fact that this helicopter only needs one tail boom instead of 6 rotor booms and the tail rotor is much less powerful than the 6 main rotors on the electric multirotor. I'll assume 1.1 kg/shaft kW for the engine.

Then we get shaft power:
P = [145.5 kg] / ([7.3 kg/kW] - [1.1 kg/kW] - [3600 s] / [11430 kJ/kg]) = 26.1 kW with a 28.7 kg engine and 16.5 kg of fuel.

This works out to a conventional helicopter that's 90.7 kg empty with a rotor diameter of 4.5 meters.

>>10985816
>see video above, we already have self flying helicopters. It's much easier to make something self flying than self driving because there's a lot less shit to run into in the air
Sure, when you've got a nice open field to land in. Honestly the infrastucture and engineering limitations are the bigger problem.

>The tech for managing all these self flying helis isn't too far off
I want you to imagine most of the workers in a large office building all clocking out around 5:00 and each trying to take off in their own helicopter inside an hour.

>supposedly multirotors can be quieter. If you decrease the rotor size then noise becomes less. Instead of one big wocka-wocka from the blade going around, you get a bunch of smaller wocka-wocka's, and because they're all out of phase they ain't as bad. At least that's the idea. No idea if it works.

It works a bit. It's at best 50% quieter though (meaning about 3 dB less or worse), and without pitch control that's only going to be in the conditions that the fixed-pitch blades are optimized for.

>>10985904
You can do single part turbines though and fuel control for a turboprop is one area where large improvements probably are possible in the nearish future if it's deemed to be an important area for improvement. It will help if the vehicle isn't being designed for the sort of high performance applications that most helicopter development currently works towards. Still, I wouldn't hold my breath.

>>10986095
>You can
Yep. And I'm sure you know the pros and cons. Simply getting a turbine engine started would be beyond the learning capabilities of a lot of people and if it were solely left to automation, you end up with a very complicated system. Human judgement is still trumping the dummy light. But yeah, I don't disagree that the future will happen. I hope it will.

>>10985844
Hmmm?

>>10985033
I was already at the length limit in >>10986064 but I have a few more things to point out. First, the additional mass being allowed for "everything else" is almost certainly not enough in either case. Second, your 1 kW/kg figure for a fuel-burning engine is way low. Car engines easily go past 2 kW/kg, and that's with 4-stroke engines.

>The problem with people like you is that you think in black and white terms of efficiency. "if it's not max efficient it's useless"
The problem with you is that, as has been amply demonstrated, you're talking out of your ass and willing to sacrifice safety in the name of "practicality" in the hopes that automation will magically make everything work.

I on the other hand look at VTOL aircraft, see that efficiency is already a major limiting factor in technology adoption, and conclude that using options which make that problem even worse are unlikely to lead to mass-market adoption of the technology. That plus a startup is probably a great way to separate gullible boomer investors from their money though.

>Electric multirotors are easy as shit to put together and fly.
The main reasons quadrotors are so popular for drones are:
1) Simplicity to an extent that is only really necessary for cheap crap and COTS projects
2) There isn't much size constraint for small drones
3) Very powerful attitude control which is useful for extreme angular (but not positional) stability as a sensor platform, or for high maneuverability aerobatics
4) If you crash it at low speed and it doesn't fall too far there's a good chance that you only need to replace a rotor or two. This is mostly because of scaling laws and will not work at large sizes. Also a rotor failure on a quadrotor that can fly people around is still quite capable of cutting lots of people in half so fixing the vehicle cheaply is a secondary concern at that point.
5) People use them for applications that don't require much payload
6) They don't need to get beyond line of sight

>>10986151
Those are not autogyros. Autogyros do not have powered main rotors. They operate only in autorotation. You could hypothetically make an aircraft that takes off as a helicopter, then disengages the main rotor and operates as an autogyro but given how dangerous the transition from powered flight to autorotation is in helicopters I'm not sure that's a great idea.

>>10985792
Nutating disk engines are off-patent. Specific improvements to the idea may still be patented, be the original patent is from 1993.

Also the UAVs that NASA was investigating possibly using nutating engines for were potentially quite large (up to 75 kW propulsive power, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060056193.pdf ). I'm not sure where that avenue of research has led, but I assure you that it would have good military applications.

>>10986164
That is exactly what those are doing in that video. The maneuver is called a, "jump takeoff." They use a clutching transmission system to spin the rotors until it takes off then disengages the transmission to that rotor and performs like a normal autogyro while in flight.

>>10986164
>>10986188
There are ones that use rockets/tipjets on their blades to do VTOL, which don't run while normally flying.

>>10986169
>Nutating disk engines are off-patent
That's sick as hell. I swear I saw that the current patent holders were the Marquardt corporation who, surprise, make military drones.

>>10986412
They might well have a patent on an improvement which is necessary for practical application

>>10986541
I guess I'll look into it some more

>>10984198
Is that a little RC/Drone copter, or full sized?

>>10986620
RC

>>10986620
The laws of physics demand that it is a small RC.

>>10986712
It's not the car, it's the driver.

>>10986095
>>I want you to imagine most of the workers in a large office building all clocking out around 5:00 and each trying to take off in their own helicopter inside an hour
I want you to imagine a sky literally black with package delivery drones. Nature can do something like this and now we're starting to see ATC approaches that can handle this. One is put comm nodes throughout your city that the drones talk to and say where they are, what they are, and where they want to go. The comm nodes say things like you're good, watch out for drone 3 over here, go this way instead, or get the fuck out there's an emergency vehicle coming. We're not quite there yet. This requires infrastructure and worse yet standards for how the drones talk to each other and the comm nodes. Maybe even laws.

>>10983956
what's scary about the mosquito is the fact that the roter is connected to the engine via a belt.

why the fuck is is designed that way?

>>10986909
It's a lawn mower engine. How much do you need?
Something that small and light you wouldn't fall out of the sky if it snapped you'd be more than able to make a controlled landing and replace the belt instead of fucking with a gear shaft.

Son, let me tell ya, we had flying cars in my day, you don't got to reinvent the wheel.

>>10986904
Here's the thing though. If a small bird hits another bird with its wing by accident it's okay. We might be able to achieve that with small drones, but definitely not with large aircraft.

>>10986933
Why not a chain though?

>>10987075
>>If a small bird hits another bird
they still don't collide anon. If a small bird hits another bird it's likely to get eaten.

>>10983923
Does this look hard to fly?

>>10987148
It looks easy to crash.

>>10987153
So is a car.

>>10987148
>>10987153
I've seen a few crash. Probably a better record than helicopters. You gotta fly it into the ground yo land though. Note all the people to wrangle it.

>>10983911
ITT: YALL ARE BEHIND THE TIMES.

BOEING, NASA PERSONAL AIR VEHICLE.
<-------------
Electric, VTOL aircraft. Fully autonomous. It's real, it's happening, objectively, it's a fucking Boeing and NASA project.

>>10987170
cont
EHANG 184 from China
Fully autonomous. Testing for months, zero crashes.

This is the future. Stop arguing, stop being autistic "Grr no I want to be mad and contrarian reee!" It's happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgw8K-NJ024

>>10987155
Just like a car.

>>10987178
>can’t tell the difference between a helium and hydrogen blimp

>>10987176
What’s the price tag?

>>10987176
No bumpers around the blades makes me nervous

>>10987198
Less dangerous than a chinese escalator.

>>10987176
>This is the future
Well, I'll be.. About fucking time. Of course this won't be the first time the future almost happened. Pic was 1988

>>10987146
We're talking about two sparrows bumping here, not a pigeon colliding with an eagle

>>10987170
That thing has nothing to do with NASA as far as I can tell and while it might have longer range than a helicopter I'm not seeing anything that suggests it will be easier to park.

>>10987176
Well if it hasn't crashed then it MUST be practical for the average consumer.

>>10987198
Yes, because bumpers on cars are well known for never bending inwards during collisions, and as long as that doesn't happen the rotors will be fine.

>>10987176
>10 mile range
Don't spend it all in one place, kiddo

>>10987220
they don't collide.

>>10987240
>they don't collide.

I mean, in an ideal world.

>>10987254
They. Don't. Collide. IRL. And yes small birds colliding is still bad for said small birds.

>>10987170
>It's real, it's happening, objectively, it's a fucking Boeing and NASA project.


NASA is well-known for the speed with which it brings consumer goods to market. Also, Boeing/NASA have never done experimental, high-risk projects before. Ever.

>>10987264
>They. Don't. Collide. IRL.

Unclear. Antecedent. Define. 'They.'

>>10987153
kek

>>10983911
Don't you ever put the godteir halo on the se plane as these pleb cars ever again. Also helicopters don't have wheels. That was the point of the flying car. It could fly and drive.

>>10987287
>That was the point of the flying car. It could fly and drive.


Please point to the wheels on this vehicle.


Also, some helicopters have wheels.

>>10987316
>Please point to the wheels on this vehicle.
Please point to the ground in that universe?

I'm honestly more amazed that people can take off and land in those things successfully than I am by anything it does once it's in the air.

>>10987240
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbuJJS6skyU

>>10987326

Dudes there's a hoverbord-riding man in france and that has an assault rifle

>>10987337
Dozens of people have taken a space rocket to the moon but that doesn't mean you average citizen is ever going to own a surface-to-orbit transport.

>>10985671
Herp Derp

>>10987240
You are a retard. That happens all the time.

>>10987148
>1 out of 3 that I've watched crashed as I was watching them
I can't say the same for planes and copters. I've seen 100s of those and never once saw one crash.
/anecdote

>>10987170
>>10987176
>The following flight tests with a 1:4 scale concept aircraft
Good luck with a full sized one using only battery power. lol

>>10987327
Yeah, that's the main thing with all aircraft. They are piss easy to fly. It is the landing that is difficult and it isn't all that difficult. In fact, during pilot's training most of the hours you rack up are spent taking off and landing with just enough time to turn around back to the air field for a landing approach. It is the most boring as fuck thing ever really. It is the equivalent to practicing parallel parking for 25 hours.

>>10987686
Learn to read a chart you moron.

>>10987686
Great. Maybe with this we'll be able to make electric helicopters that are STILL 6 METERS WIDE

>>10987686
That's the exact same thing though.

>>10987176
mosquitoes look much cooler than this gay shit and they're probably cheaper, fly better, and have a longer runtime.

>>10989059
All that plus this one >>10985668 is considered "light weight" and doesn't require a pilot's license. The rest do and that model minus the flotation devices also require it. The flotation devices serve as a weight loophole for that. The mosquito also comes in a turbine version.

>>10989118
Do any of the models have doors?

>>10988774

>>10989153

I prefer this aesthetic.

>>10987087
Maybe just saving on weight?

>>10987087
>chain
>>10990197
I'm thinking a saving on cost. Pulley weight more than sprocket but save on standard parts with no machinist work.

https://youtu.be/aU3BvEg0gNc

>>10983911
What if we add a lightweight chassis and tires to the underbody of the helicopter so it can double as both

>>10990353
The more useful ones do.

>>10990551
Those aren't powered wheels though, are they? For something heavier than an ultralight that's intended for the consumer market some electric motors that it drive at parking speeds would be a good feature.

>>10990262
Wow, it's amazing how much performance benefit you get from using fuel instead of batteries. A shame that the extreme downdraft from it means that it would never be approved for non-emergency use in residential areas. Also, holy fuck @ 1.5 mpg. That's going to hit your wallet hard.

>>10983956
*Y not z

>>10983956
people and computers haven't even managed to figure out how to stop trains from crashing into each other and those fucking things move on a single axis. the future is never going to come.

>>10992115
Aside from hardware failures and user error, I'm not sure what you're talking about with your train example

I'll grant that aircraft are much more difficult