https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/uber-flying-car-prototype.html
A passenger aircraft from a company with less than stellar safety records.
What could possibly go wrong?
I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.
At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues. What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?
Reminds me Mrs Weasley ranting about his son stealing her husband's enchanted flying car.
The flying cars, which the company hopes to introduce to riders in two to five years,
Now it's Airbus's turn: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-28/airbus-steps-up-push-for-flying-taxis-on-demand-helicopters
At least they are not promising anything within 5 years.
I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?
QuoteThe flying cars, which the company hopes to introduce to riders in two to five years,
Yeah, right. I'm sure it will.
Even with the safety issues sorted (which I don't see happening any time soon), any clue how to work one's way through the legal matters of civil aviation?
I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.
At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues. What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?
I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.
At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues. What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?
Not to mention the Deadmans curve region, where even helicopters with trained pilots are going to make a hole if they lose power.
Until someone solves the survivability issue between 10 feet and the minimum effective height of a parachute, then humans in drones will never take off. Although, perhaps this is Darwin at work.
I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?
I would feel a lot safer in a traditional helicopter.
At least you have autorotation techniques that can be utilised in the event of power failure or tail rotor issues. What emergency facilities do their unpiloted aircraft have?
Not to mention the Deadmans curve region, where even helicopters with trained pilots are going to make a hole if they lose power.
Until someone solves the survivability issue between 10 feet and the minimum effective height of a parachute, then humans in drones will never take off. Although, perhaps this is Darwin at work.
Well, that's actually a solved problem - it is called a zero-zero ejection seat. On the other hand that isn't going to fly in an aircraft with untrained passengers on board, never mind the costs (both the seats and their maintenance).
And a bit higher up (>400 feet, >900 feet if in a spin) you can use a ballistic parachute - those are common in small general aviation planes, e.g. Cirrus SR22. However, again, it requires a trained user - e.g. if the crew isn't strapped in tight when the chute activates they are going to be pretty badly injured.
Both are actually going to be a bit easier to use on a multirotor than a heli because they may not have to fire through the rotor disk (well, depends on where the rotors are and whether they overlap the cabin or not).
No it is not a solved problem _for drones_
Has any drone manufacturer integrated an ejection seat? Start talking about that and watch the masses lose interest in flying around in a drone real fast. Training or not that isn't an option.
Ballistic parachutes are exactly what I meant when I said parachute Still harder than it looks, as you said, and only part of the solution.
So the original statement stands. No humans in drones for the masses until the low altitude survivability issue is solved (properly).
I can understand why Airbus would work on that - airborne vehicles are kind of their field - but I can't see this turning into any useful reality. This would be much too costly, polluting and extremely difficult to scale up (would you really want a crowded sky above your head?). What do you guys think?
This isn't supposed to be scaled up, this is for the elite, a result of current wealth disparities ... although after the first couple die in them I doubt it will survive.
Fifty years ago, a helicopter company called New York Airways whisked passengers from the rooftop of the iconic Pan Am Building in midtown Manhattan to any city airport in just 10 minutes. A fatal accident in 1977 brought that era to an end.
I had a conversation with a guy at work (proper Engineer, clever guy, highly qualified, however he was British) who was adamant that Uber type 'driverless' drones would be in common use before driverless cars.
I had a conversation with a guy at work (proper Engineer, clever guy, highly qualified, however he was British) who was adamant that Uber type 'driverless' drones would be in common use before driverless cars.
I'm inclined to agree. You aren't likely to have to deal with a bicyclist walking their bike across your path.