Would you get in one of these?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
Would you get in one of these?
The Chinese company EHang believe they gave created a practical person carrying drone.
Here is quick intro. . So given that this thing will soon be flying, would you get in it? It would be interesting to hear your responses, either way.
Now if our past in an indication for the future holds and these things are successful then we can expect bigger, faster versions with more payload and greater range. Then will you get in one?
This could be the future transport for the weathy.
ps. My own thoughts will be posted later.
Here is quick intro. . So given that this thing will soon be flying, would you get in it? It would be interesting to hear your responses, either way.
Now if our past in an indication for the future holds and these things are successful then we can expect bigger, faster versions with more payload and greater range. Then will you get in one?
This could be the future transport for the weathy.
ps. My own thoughts will be posted later.
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 18th February 2017 at 18:56. Reason: Bad link and no picture. Sorry.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,842
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
This sort of device was being promised in the 1960s. Whilst they may have got the flying technology right at last - they haven't sorted out the ATC problem. If you think humans are not so good with cars - best to stand on the pavement and be ready to jump out of the way when two of these have a prang at 500ft.
Joined: Aug 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,829
Likes: 165
From: se england
I used to have a telecoms colleague who was a rigger, worked on sometimes very high masts and towers, arent you scared ever at that height people always asked him and he answered -'anything over twenty feet and you are dead anyway.
So as I assume these things will fly at considerable more than twenty feet above ground then they are inherently dangerous and non fail safe even if they are not up the flight levels.
The dilemma is are they safer now with no conflicting traffic or is it best to wait five years until the bugs are cleaned up but then there may be lots of others out there to collide with
So as I assume these things will fly at considerable more than twenty feet above ground then they are inherently dangerous and non fail safe even if they are not up the flight levels.
The dilemma is are they safer now with no conflicting traffic or is it best to wait five years until the bugs are cleaned up but then there may be lots of others out there to collide with
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 340
Likes: 22
From: On BA58/59
The vision shared with us then youngsters on TV via the Jetsons, Blue Peter and Tomorrows World is here at last. John Noakes would have had a go.
However, think I'll continue to take Uber and sit out the traffic jam.
However, think I'll continue to take Uber and sit out the traffic jam.
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
From: UK
If they do start up it'll be in the sandpit by the sound of it and we'll be waiting for decades to see how well they work before the CAA allow them here. By then they'll either be long forgotten or safe. Either way I'm happy for them to take the chance at a healthy distance.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
Not such a positive response then. But I'm not surprised. Personally, I think the first 100,000 passengers should look like one of these.
What worries me is that the these things might be accepted because of media pressure, from all quarters. But I'll only get in one once certain things have been put in place. To start with I'd like to see as proper maintenance procedures, repair programmes and qualified engineers in place to look after the physical device. I'd also like be convinced that it will fly through windshear, turbulence, will miss-unexpected obstacles in its path, will divert if necessary, will have battery assurance programme, will deal with engine and prop failures and so on an so forth. I'm not convinced this has been done.
But I predict the first victims will sliced to bits by the props...
What worries me is that the these things might be accepted because of media pressure, from all quarters. But I'll only get in one once certain things have been put in place. To start with I'd like to see as proper maintenance procedures, repair programmes and qualified engineers in place to look after the physical device. I'd also like be convinced that it will fly through windshear, turbulence, will miss-unexpected obstacles in its path, will divert if necessary, will have battery assurance programme, will deal with engine and prop failures and so on an so forth. I'm not convinced this has been done.
But I predict the first victims will sliced to bits by the props...
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Sussex UK
If they do start up it'll be in the sandpit by the sound of it
http://whatson.ae/dubai/2017/02/pass...dubai-by-july/
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 906
Likes: 102
From: Southampton
On the ground, those rotors are likely to be pretty dangerous. You can't just plonk it down if people are about. And if you can't just plonk it down when you want to stop off at the shops, it's going to be pretty pointless.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
I'll guess with one rotor/motor failed per arm you would land safely. With two failed on one arm you would lose 50% of your lift and the outcome would be more interesting, I'm sure. I'm also convinced auto-rotation is not possible as the propellers are fixed pitch.
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 22nd February 2017 at 20:59. Reason: As ever, spelling.
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
From: NI
Personally, I think the first 100,000 passengers should look like one of these.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 423
Likes: 1
From: Malvern, UK
The concept of the “fan at each corner” flying car has cropped up repeatedly every few years since the 1950s. Typical designs involved belt drive from a single engine such that the loss of a single belt, let alone the engine would have been fatal!
The two things that have changed over the last decade that make the whole prospect more realistic are: Light weight high capacity batteries able to drive independently controlled electric motors; Enough portable computing power to provide computer controlled stability.
This latest concept is, I believe, able to handle the loss of two rotors even if they are on the same arm. That is interesting because I assume it means not only that the four rotors on two opposite arms are able to support the total weight, but also that the rotors on the third ‘good’ arm are able to rapidly switch between forward and reverse to offer the necessary balancing.
I think Piltdown Man does a good job of listing the other issues important issues though…
For me, 10 000 hours of operation without death or serious injury will the minimum for considering a flight in one.
The two things that have changed over the last decade that make the whole prospect more realistic are: Light weight high capacity batteries able to drive independently controlled electric motors; Enough portable computing power to provide computer controlled stability.
This latest concept is, I believe, able to handle the loss of two rotors even if they are on the same arm. That is interesting because I assume it means not only that the four rotors on two opposite arms are able to support the total weight, but also that the rotors on the third ‘good’ arm are able to rapidly switch between forward and reverse to offer the necessary balancing.
I think Piltdown Man does a good job of listing the other issues important issues though…
I'd also like be convinced that it will fly through windshear, turbulence, will miss-unexpected obstacles in its path, will divert if necessary, will have battery assurance programme, …
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO
Well, a quick peek at the website in the OP shows that it's got eight props and eight motors, so it should be able to overcome a single motor failure.
But if the artist's rendition is accurate, I'm not sure I'd like sitting over that many LiIon batteries.
And one statement bothers me:
"Safely" and "nearest possible area" could be conflicting, depending on how smart the thing is. In an urban setting, "safely" for it might not equate to "safely" for folks on the ground.
As far as would I get into it, sure. Would I stay in if it made noises like it was going to spool up and take off?
Prolly not, at least not right away.
But if the artist's rendition is accurate, I'm not sure I'd like sitting over that many LiIon batteries.
And one statement bothers me:
If any components malfunction or disconnect, the aircraft will immediately land in the nearest possible area to ensure safety.
As far as would I get into it, sure. Would I stay in if it made noises like it was going to spool up and take off?
Prolly not, at least not right away.
