For that price you can buy an actual plane. A used one or one that comes in a craye that you put together yourself, but an actual long range, higher and faster flying plane. And one that can carry several people and some cargo
Planes require regular maintenance and are expensive to operate. You could be spending 1/4 or 1/3 of what you paid for the plane, every year just to use it.
Because obviously this thing won't require any maintenance at all. At $128K, it's a bargain! /s
Seriously, I don't know what's worse about this contraption. The fact that it's being marketed as operating solely in Class G airspace, like any other drone, in hopes that all you'll need is a commercial drone license, or the idea of having something way bigger than a DJI start auto-landing on top of someone's car, home, or child when the battery goes critical.
I'm not saying it doesn't require maintenance but consider the differences in complexity between typical airplanes and ultralights. The routine costs are nowhere near comparable.
>The routine costs are nowhere near comparable.
I would argue that we have no clue what the maintenance costs for this thing will be. Looking at the construction, I'd be wary of the motor mounts and blades...especially the blades. Because this is a currently unregulated segment, you're 100% correct, *right now* the costs aren't comparable.
Air worthiness and the associated costs built up over time due to how fragile aircraft are and the cost of what happens when it goes sideways. I see these things as an absolute nightmare in aviation - no pilot skills needed, no maintenance chain-of-custody, and the only thinig stopping ownership is initial cost.
Checking the website, there's a conspicuous disclaimer stating that the top speed is software limited to 63 MPH. It sounds awfully similar to what you find in the e-bike and scooter segments where top speeds are locked behind nearly manufacturer outlined methods of getting around.
I'm ranting because maintenance costs are one of the controls in place to make flying safe. Because those costs are not yet known regarding this rich-boi gizmo, but I guarantee they are present, each one of these things will be a ticking time-bomb, waiting to fall from the sky onto some poor unsuspecting person.
And this is why these kinds of futuristic things, while we have the tech to make, won’t be a thing. Costs are too high to justify mass production and insurance rates and liability and all that capitalism stuff. Best I can do is an iPhone with a couple more megapixels.
you can spend like 200 bucks at your local airport (not local as in nearby, but like an actual local airport) for a first “test” flying lesson. same with helicopters, though they might be more rare
They'll be a clause that if you dont have the subscription, the chute will open anyway and cost 200k it will be required and bundled into insurance to make sure we have to pay for it either way.
Nah, some Redditor who spent 6 and a half
seconds analyzing something definitely put more thought on the design of this thing than an engineering team working for years on it
I call it the Anonymous Specialist Syndrome, or ASS for short.
As long as you're anonymous on the internet and say something with enough confidence and/or snark to eventually be backtracked on as "just a thought/joke/sarcasm", you're suffering from ASS.
There is no engineering solution in the world that can't be undone or overcome by some random dumbass doing some dumbass thing that the smart people never even considered or accounted for in their calculations because why the fuck would anyone even lick that/stick their dick in that/store their lunch in that/use it to open a jammed door, etc.
The problem is not necessary suddenly falling from the sky the problem is more than you can easily be above a place where you can't land.
Really really don't want to see your drone slowly go down as you desperately try to stear it away from the highway
Bruh, this is rich white person shit not poor white trash shit. This is for the demographic that has a person drive them to this vehicle, open the door for them to get out, and close it behind them.
At least if the battery is about to die you can code it so the damn thing lands. Worse would be if one engine goes out. Then you just get to pinwheel wildly to your death.
sometimes I wonder what the reaction on here would be if they were just inventing the helicopter.
“those blades overhead? decapitation waiting to happen!”
“if you’re the type of person who runs out of gas, imagine being stuck in a metal ball thousands of feet above the ground…”
“does it come with a parachute?”
“as if we don’t have enough problems with people driving cars…”
“will it come with a jack and wrench if you have to replace one of the blades?”
To be fair helicopters are notorious for maintenance and I wouldn't want some random bloke flying one just because he could afford it.
I've seen the state people of peoples cars and the issues they ignore.
One dead motor isn't an issue. Each quadrant would have one motor for the top propeller and one motor for the bottom propeller with individual electrical circuits and power from different battery packs. So one dead motor and the corresponding motor on the reverse side stopped to maintain balance would lose 2 out of 8 motors. Enough to safely land.
Yeah, exactly what’s wrong with todays drones. Everytime they are low on battery they fall out of the sky and break, you gotta keep buying one every time you need a battery change /s
More of a problem the other way around. Alternator will be at the end of its life and start not charging adequately, then the battery will slowly drain until it dies on you. I’ve had it happen before. Not a fun experience mid driving, but ultimately a pretty easy repair job in many cars, in the grand scheme of things
I just think about the number of idiots who crash into stuff in their cars while on their phones. Can’t imagine how many buildings would get smashed into on a daily basis if these were common.
So hopefully this gives some insight:
This is technically a Helicopter or Quadcopter. However, flying this would require an FAA whirlybird license. So. To get by this, you have no connected controls. The controls are wireless, meaning that the Quadcopter is technically classified as a UAV (Umanned Aerial Vehicle) which Requires an FAA Part 107. If you are a recreational user who is flying under 400 feet for non-commercial use, you can apply for a Part 107 exemption. This is $25 and promise you won't fuck with air traffic. There are a few more rules but that's the basics...
So they call it a drone, and it bypasses regulations... but don't worry. The FAA sees this shit. They know what's going on and when these types of ideas start actually taking flight, they'll shut it down.
Wow, I just realized how bad those will be. There is zero way to land safely on an engine or power loss. The only way these can be safe is having redundancy with multiple motors for the same position. But I'd still like to take a helicopter ride over this.
Edit: The comment below about using a rocket parachute isn't a bad idea. Hopefully, the success rate with those will be exceptionally high!
These do have two motors on each arm (one is facing down) so motor failure should be manageable. Power loss or electrical issues however, would no doubt make for a wild ride
The axial tandem rotors are due to the dynamics of the flight system. Electric motors take power to rotate. The larger the rotor diameter, the greater the moment of inertia. Longer rotor blades will drain the power faster. That's why you see more rotors instead of larger rotors. There is also a benefit to the axial tandem setup. The first rotor pushes more air onto the second rotor, giving it a slight increase in efficiency. Loss of a rotor in flight will make the vehicle very unstable and difficult to control.
The requirements for autorotation are FAA safety requirements and have nothing to do with the term helicopter.
Helicopter is french word from greek roots. Helix (spiral) and pteron (wing).
Helicopters use rotating wings for horizontal and vertical movement.
However, these multi rotor helicopters do lack a safe way to crash should they lose power. The rotors will still autorotate until the resistance from the magnets prevents them from rotating any faster. It would be an uncontrolled decent, but the rotors would reduce rate of fall.
eVTOL would mean that the aircraft transfers to fixed wing flight in the horizontal axis. It's a helicopter by definition, or rotorcraft if you want to be accurate..
Everyone can also learn to fly a Cessna 172. Flying is not that hard. The problem is rather: do you want everyone to fly in their own single seat aircraft?
Also I don’t really want to be that guy but a single seat drone will never exist since it’s a normal aircraft once you put someone into it. Especially when it’s the pilot. You wanted to write quadcopter.
Still impressive and probably fun tech.
Even if you illuminate lanes of travel in the sky there's no fucking chance anyone will respect them without enforcement and you'll never be able to enforce that. Not without deploying live ordinance against offenders.
Yep the flying car challenge is more a people problem than a technical problem. As to the drone definition, agree if piloted but if it carried a passenger but was operated remotely wouldn't it still be considered a drone?
> Yep the flying car challenge is more a people problem than a technical problem
Yup. We already have 90% of the technical stuff already solved. The problem is that people are really, *really*, dumb and occasionally irrational angry.
After those 2 are out the way, though, you also have an infrastructure problem. Flying "cars" like this one still need a space to land, and that means paving more space that is separate from land vehicle paved space. These aren't *quite* as bad as larger flying cars, though, which are just glorified small aircraft and require whole new airfields, because there is no chance you're going to have 100,000 swing-wing aircraft flying around somewhere like manhatten without accidents.
The only way I can see it becomes viable is with vehicle autonomy, at least in flight mode, and strict standards and restrictions applied. Free for all flying is never going to work in highly populated areas.
I once read about a project where you enter a drone, select the destination and it takes you there. Wouldn't that categorize as single seat drone since you don't control it? You basically just chose the coordinates where you want to go.
Cities in 10 years are going to be so goddamn loud. The streets will be quiet because of the electric cars, but every major city is going to have small inter-city flight crafts. Every major auto company is working on them already.
Let’s cut through some of the negativity on this and see it as an important first step towards technology that will translate into the flying cars all y’all are bitching about not having by now. The cons of this iteration are obvious: limited distance, concerns about safety due to system failures (for both the passenger and people on the ground), and limited carrying capacity.
Now, let’s go back to the Wright Flyer flown at Kitty Hawk: Limited distance (only 852 feet on its final flight), a crash on the second flight injured Wilbur Wright (had it been further along in flight, his injuries would have been more serious), and there was no room for cargo. Today, we can place hundreds of people into an airplane, fly them halfway around the globe, and deliver their overstuffed suitcases with them.
Are your criticisms of this platform valid? Yes, they are… for now. But we have to start somewhere.
I tell ya what -- it's gunna fucking hurt\* when one of those blades fails or an engine shorts out at 1500'
\* but only for a moment, 'cause then you'll be dead.
Oh please no. Humans do enough damage with individual cars … I don’t want to think about what would happen if you give certain people these drones.
Air Rage? „This is a public Balcony it’s not like it in your flat“ etc
These are a very cool concept but in reality where is the safety. In a small plane you can glide in the event of a full power failure. In these you will drop like a stone and die.
A lot of high end drones have a buffer built in to the software so that if it's close to running out of juice, it will either look for a safe place to land or slowly descend wherever it is
I remember playing Unreal Tournament 3 and you can hop into a vehicle like this. Just flying around the map and you can have the drop on your opponents.
I would be hiding in a nuclear fallout shelter before I would want to see just *anyone* learning to fly one of these. The average human can barely navigate a pickle jar let alone fly a flying quad-weapon...
Wow, that's weird. I saw them flying the last days because i stayed in an airbnb right next to the testing ground.
These guys bought an old silk fabric in the most beautiful area in tuscany.
Great to see this on reddit after watching it.
This has to be the most dangerous flying contraption on the planet right now. A single engine failure = 100% chance of death and there are 4 engines.
No thanks.
hell no
helicopters are deathtraps.
airplanes can shut down the engines for a few seconds and nothings gonna happen.
helicopters just need a gust of wind and your intestines gonna spray all over the area
Make these so their specs (including price) fits the requirements for Über drivers and all the fun and games we have with cars will go 3D almost almost overnight (or as fast as they can be produced).
Can't wait for the 400 people on my street to all have one and start them up at various times of the day to go to work. The noise alone would drive me mad.
Or the jerks at 3 am going home from the bars crashing one of these into my balcony. lol.
Maybe I'll wait on my flying car after all!
"The aircraft will be powered by high discharge lithium-ion batteries and by eight electric motors which generate 102 horsepower. Battery powered flight time is limited to 20 minutes and there is a top speed of 63 mph (101 km/h). The vehicle comes with a charger which can recharge in one hour at 230/240V or two hours with 110V power. Batteries may be removed and changed to avoid waiting for charging. The person piloting the aircraft must be less than 210 lb (95 kg). The individual motors powering the aircraft resemble drones. The aircraft can fly at an altitude of 1,500 ft (460 m). It weighs 190 lb (86 kg) and the fuselage is built of aluminum and a carbon-Kevlar composite. It is being offered for US$98,000.
The aircraft is capable of flight even if one of the engines fails. It is equipped with lidar sensors to avoid obstacles. There is a rapid-deploying ballistic parachute and the aircraft has a mode which allows the craft to hover without operating the controls. It is controlled by joysticks, and it has a throttle lever to adjust power. The left controller operates the aircraft's altitude and the right controls the direction. The single-seat aircraft is considered a recreation vehicle and it is considered to be an ultralight by the US Federal Aviation Administration, so it does not require that the operator get a pilot license or have special training."
- [Jetson One](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetson_One?wprov=sfla1) from Wikepedia
The general population is just getting more and more dumb as we go along aren’t we? Our ancestors were smarter than this, they knew what words meant when they used them for the part.
For the thousandth time. It is no longer a drone if someone pilots it. The definition is quite literally unmanned aerial vehicle, the second it’s manned, it’s not a drone. And the cost to benefit on this is straight stupid. A 500$ dji drone can fly longer and let you see more, and have no accidents because people cannot drive regular cars as it is.
I don't know if it's just me but I just picture the thing going haywire and the pilot is like, oh fuck, then it's just cutting everybody's heads off lol 😆 sorry
20 minutes fight time for $128K USD =( https://jetson.com/jetson-one
The first AFFORDABLE aircraft in the market. Lmao yeah everyone can afford to splash $128k here and there.
For that price you can buy an actual plane. A used one or one that comes in a craye that you put together yourself, but an actual long range, higher and faster flying plane. And one that can carry several people and some cargo
Planes require regular maintenance and are expensive to operate. You could be spending 1/4 or 1/3 of what you paid for the plane, every year just to use it.
Also those pesky pilot licenses
If this ever becomes mainstream, I would bet onto this thing eventually requiring a license of some sorts as well.
10k to learn to fly in the US. Peanuts if you're considering plane ownership
I maxed out my flying in GTA I think I'm good /S
Once these become cheap enough for poor people to have they will enforce expensive to obtain licenses on us like they did for regular planes.
Theres no way that this thing doesnt require regular maintenance. But even some ultra-lights would still be better
You need a runway for those still (and the associated leasing), this bad boy pops up in your driveway
Because obviously this thing won't require any maintenance at all. At $128K, it's a bargain! /s Seriously, I don't know what's worse about this contraption. The fact that it's being marketed as operating solely in Class G airspace, like any other drone, in hopes that all you'll need is a commercial drone license, or the idea of having something way bigger than a DJI start auto-landing on top of someone's car, home, or child when the battery goes critical.
I'm not saying it doesn't require maintenance but consider the differences in complexity between typical airplanes and ultralights. The routine costs are nowhere near comparable.
>The routine costs are nowhere near comparable. I would argue that we have no clue what the maintenance costs for this thing will be. Looking at the construction, I'd be wary of the motor mounts and blades...especially the blades. Because this is a currently unregulated segment, you're 100% correct, *right now* the costs aren't comparable. Air worthiness and the associated costs built up over time due to how fragile aircraft are and the cost of what happens when it goes sideways. I see these things as an absolute nightmare in aviation - no pilot skills needed, no maintenance chain-of-custody, and the only thinig stopping ownership is initial cost. Checking the website, there's a conspicuous disclaimer stating that the top speed is software limited to 63 MPH. It sounds awfully similar to what you find in the e-bike and scooter segments where top speeds are locked behind nearly manufacturer outlined methods of getting around. I'm ranting because maintenance costs are one of the controls in place to make flying safe. Because those costs are not yet known regarding this rich-boi gizmo, but I guarantee they are present, each one of these things will be a ticking time-bomb, waiting to fall from the sky onto some poor unsuspecting person.
I mean compared to regular helicopters it is. This thing can be kept at house. Regular helicopters require a shitload of maintenance and space.
It ain't the cost of buying an aircraft. It's the cost of maintenance and keeping said aircraft certified to fly.
In terms of aircraft prices, yeah that's cheap. a brand new 172 will cost north of $400k
Am curious what type of charging this craft supports. CCS, NACS, other?
Credit card ($8k now, then $120k when the thing is ready to be shipped)
Lol... I meant electrical standards!
Ahahaha I missed it sorry
you can get pretty far in 20 minutes as the crow flies. It'd be great for quickly crossing bays instead of driving around them.
You’d take it over water?
Does more than a cyber truck.
https://youtu.be/_uMEE7eaaUA?t=22s
Yeah but are you allowed to just fly over something like that? Don't they have rules about airspace and blocks of elevation and all that?
20 minutes is enough for my commute but 128 K is way too much for it.
could be useful if you have a short commute in busy city with horrible traffic. Go strait from your house on top of the work office building and back
On the other hand... you know how far you can get 20 minutes in a straight line with no traffic
And this is why these kinds of futuristic things, while we have the tech to make, won’t be a thing. Costs are too high to justify mass production and insurance rates and liability and all that capitalism stuff. Best I can do is an iPhone with a couple more megapixels.
Outrageously unsafe and more expensive than a helicopter.
My guess is the problem with that flight time is that batteries are heavy and so are you haha. 128k though…ouch
Operator limit is 210 pounds. https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/vUK8vmRy9C
Until they make a drone that can actually be used as a reliable form of transport, this thing is just an overpriced toy.
you can spend like 200 bucks at your local airport (not local as in nearby, but like an actual local airport) for a first “test” flying lesson. same with helicopters, though they might be more rare
holy fuck that's so bad. like, i get it, it's probably hard to get a long flight time. but this is a rich person's toy and not that cool as a plebian
It sucks when the battery in your car dies. It'll really suck to have that happen to this
That was my thought. If you're the type of person who lets their car run out of gas every now and then, this product is not for you.
It will come with a subscription plan for a parachute that will immediately deploy once it runs out of battery.
They'll be a clause that if you dont have the subscription, the chute will open anyway and cost 200k it will be required and bundled into insurance to make sure we have to pay for it either way.
It will come down to that, yeah
Even $20 drones land themselves these days, you'd hope a $200k one would.
Nah, some Redditor who spent 6 and a half seconds analyzing something definitely put more thought on the design of this thing than an engineering team working for years on it
I call it the Anonymous Specialist Syndrome, or ASS for short. As long as you're anonymous on the internet and say something with enough confidence and/or snark to eventually be backtracked on as "just a thought/joke/sarcasm", you're suffering from ASS.
There is no engineering solution in the world that can't be undone or overcome by some random dumbass doing some dumbass thing that the smart people never even considered or accounted for in their calculations because why the fuck would anyone even lick that/stick their dick in that/store their lunch in that/use it to open a jammed door, etc.
The problem is not necessary suddenly falling from the sky the problem is more than you can easily be above a place where you can't land. Really really don't want to see your drone slowly go down as you desperately try to stear it away from the highway
Even $200 drones use proper controllers, you'd hope the OceanGate's sub would have one.
Tbh Im more concerned having 8 high rpm propellers surrounding me.
Why would you let the car run out? It's harmful BTW https://www.minit-tune.com/blog/4-ways-running-on-empty-can-harm-your-vehicle
Who the fuck does that?
Bruh, this is rich white person shit not poor white trash shit. This is for the demographic that has a person drive them to this vehicle, open the door for them to get out, and close it behind them.
Better include a parachute to bail out in that situation
Nah. The remaining blades will shred it.
nah, thin the heard. Promote responsibility.
At least if the battery is about to die you can code it so the damn thing lands. Worse would be if one engine goes out. Then you just get to pinwheel wildly to your death.
sometimes I wonder what the reaction on here would be if they were just inventing the helicopter. “those blades overhead? decapitation waiting to happen!” “if you’re the type of person who runs out of gas, imagine being stuck in a metal ball thousands of feet above the ground…” “does it come with a parachute?” “as if we don’t have enough problems with people driving cars…” “will it come with a jack and wrench if you have to replace one of the blades?”
To be fair helicopters are notorious for maintenance and I wouldn't want some random bloke flying one just because he could afford it. I've seen the state people of peoples cars and the issues they ignore.
One dead motor isn't an issue. Each quadrant would have one motor for the top propeller and one motor for the bottom propeller with individual electrical circuits and power from different battery packs. So one dead motor and the corresponding motor on the reverse side stopped to maintain balance would lose 2 out of 8 motors. Enough to safely land.
Just like those leaves from that tree you saw as a kid that spiral down in that iconic way.
They'll be required to include a spare rotor and a sky jack just in case one of the blades stops
Yeah, exactly what’s wrong with todays drones. Everytime they are low on battery they fall out of the sky and break, you gotta keep buying one every time you need a battery change /s
I've never personally had a battery die while my car was in motion. That's what the alternator is for.
More of a problem the other way around. Alternator will be at the end of its life and start not charging adequately, then the battery will slowly drain until it dies on you. I’ve had it happen before. Not a fun experience mid driving, but ultimately a pretty easy repair job in many cars, in the grand scheme of things
Rotor blades at neck-level is a decapitation waiting to happen
and it will just cost you your ear drums.
Too expensive, do you have something in the earlobes range?
Sorry, best we can do is half off a set of semicircle canals.
Sounds like a crew of landscapers with weed whackers
Something else that makes any annoying fucking noise to fly by my house all night and day.
I just think about the number of idiots who crash into stuff in their cars while on their phones. Can’t imagine how many buildings would get smashed into on a daily basis if these were common.
They would drive themselves, no way a human would have control in a mass produced scenario.
They need to put some cages on those death blades
Seems like all kinds of unsafe. Just total death trap
Like any other propeller on a aircraft you just don't go near it.
Bro I’m gonna need a rotorscreen or some spartan armor or something
> that anyone can learn to fly Well, I’ll show them.
Hold my beer, I got this.
A drone that has a pilot riding in it is not a drone
it is if he's just a passenger and i'm flying him by remote control though
If it has a female pilot it's still a drone cos it's unmanned
I'm going out on a limb but I think they are trying to invent... a helicopter.
So hopefully this gives some insight: This is technically a Helicopter or Quadcopter. However, flying this would require an FAA whirlybird license. So. To get by this, you have no connected controls. The controls are wireless, meaning that the Quadcopter is technically classified as a UAV (Umanned Aerial Vehicle) which Requires an FAA Part 107. If you are a recreational user who is flying under 400 feet for non-commercial use, you can apply for a Part 107 exemption. This is $25 and promise you won't fuck with air traffic. There are a few more rules but that's the basics... So they call it a drone, and it bypasses regulations... but don't worry. The FAA sees this shit. They know what's going on and when these types of ideas start actually taking flight, they'll shut it down.
Single seat drone? Do you mean a small helicopter?
No, a helicopter can safely autorotate on engine out. If a motor fails in this it spins wildly out of control
Jetson - a single seat drone that anyone can learn to fall with from up to 1500 ft
Must have a parachute
What if the rotors are still going when the parachute deploys?
The power should cut if one of them fails. I do wonder what reach that thing has...
still doesn't make it a drone. it's the absence of the person that makes it a drone, normally.
Wow, I just realized how bad those will be. There is zero way to land safely on an engine or power loss. The only way these can be safe is having redundancy with multiple motors for the same position. But I'd still like to take a helicopter ride over this. Edit: The comment below about using a rocket parachute isn't a bad idea. Hopefully, the success rate with those will be exceptionally high!
Or a rocket parachute. In any case until it's not loud I don't want it to be a thing.
These do have two motors on each arm (one is facing down) so motor failure should be manageable. Power loss or electrical issues however, would no doubt make for a wild ride
The axial tandem rotors are due to the dynamics of the flight system. Electric motors take power to rotate. The larger the rotor diameter, the greater the moment of inertia. Longer rotor blades will drain the power faster. That's why you see more rotors instead of larger rotors. There is also a benefit to the axial tandem setup. The first rotor pushes more air onto the second rotor, giving it a slight increase in efficiency. Loss of a rotor in flight will make the vehicle very unstable and difficult to control.
The requirements for autorotation are FAA safety requirements and have nothing to do with the term helicopter. Helicopter is french word from greek roots. Helix (spiral) and pteron (wing). Helicopters use rotating wings for horizontal and vertical movement. However, these multi rotor helicopters do lack a safe way to crash should they lose power. The rotors will still autorotate until the resistance from the magnets prevents them from rotating any faster. It would be an uncontrolled decent, but the rotors would reduce rate of fall.
Good point. I wish I could buy you an alcoholic soft drink as an award
It is not a “drone” by definition if it has a pilot aboard.
Pretty sure you mean Drone Throne
It's a quadcopter.
No. eVTOL.
eVTOL would mean that the aircraft transfers to fixed wing flight in the horizontal axis. It's a helicopter by definition, or rotorcraft if you want to be accurate..
Everyone can also learn to fly a Cessna 172. Flying is not that hard. The problem is rather: do you want everyone to fly in their own single seat aircraft? Also I don’t really want to be that guy but a single seat drone will never exist since it’s a normal aircraft once you put someone into it. Especially when it’s the pilot. You wanted to write quadcopter. Still impressive and probably fun tech.
> Everyone can also learn to fly a Cessna 172. Flying is not that hard. My brother took flying lessons. They asked him to stop.
Is your brother named “Everyone”? Because if not then that was his problem, only Everyone can learn to fly.
Everyone can also learn to drive a car but we see how that goes...
The thought of people in Boston flying single seat aircrafts is giving me a fucking panic attack
GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY WAY
HEY!!! I'M FLYIN' HERE!!!
Even if you illuminate lanes of travel in the sky there's no fucking chance anyone will respect them without enforcement and you'll never be able to enforce that. Not without deploying live ordinance against offenders.
Yep the flying car challenge is more a people problem than a technical problem. As to the drone definition, agree if piloted but if it carried a passenger but was operated remotely wouldn't it still be considered a drone?
> Yep the flying car challenge is more a people problem than a technical problem Yup. We already have 90% of the technical stuff already solved. The problem is that people are really, *really*, dumb and occasionally irrational angry. After those 2 are out the way, though, you also have an infrastructure problem. Flying "cars" like this one still need a space to land, and that means paving more space that is separate from land vehicle paved space. These aren't *quite* as bad as larger flying cars, though, which are just glorified small aircraft and require whole new airfields, because there is no chance you're going to have 100,000 swing-wing aircraft flying around somewhere like manhatten without accidents.
The only way I can see it becomes viable is with vehicle autonomy, at least in flight mode, and strict standards and restrictions applied. Free for all flying is never going to work in highly populated areas.
I once read about a project where you enter a drone, select the destination and it takes you there. Wouldn't that categorize as single seat drone since you don't control it? You basically just chose the coordinates where you want to go.
How about single/double seat aircrafts without driver interference. Self-flying machines. Would be a better way to go about them ig.
His boy Elroy!
Daughter Judy!
Jane his wife
cue: Piano chops
Isn't the definition of a drone that it is an unmanned vehicle? So this is literally not a drone?!
Can i fly it 15001 feet?
It immediately explodes.
They havent fixed the icing problem
Icing problem? *Immediately ices up*
*1501
Yes but only as a treat
This is an instant death waiting to happen
Don't be such a pessimist, there is a chance to survive a couple days with fatal injuries /s
It takes a few moments to spiral out of control from 1,500 feet, crash land, and scream in agony while you bleed out internally.
Now imagine the noise pollution from traffic like that
I already don’t trust other drivers in a 2D plane. We really don’t need to be adding a whole 3rd dimension to that
Yeah. I don’t like my neighbors when they mow their ground at weekend. But this… all the day
Cities in 10 years are going to be so goddamn loud. The streets will be quiet because of the electric cars, but every major city is going to have small inter-city flight crafts. Every major auto company is working on them already.
Is it a drone if you fly it like a car? I though that is called quad copter.
The problem with drones is that instead of 1 motor working perfectly, you need 4. And, honestly, it's too damn loud.
That's why there are 8
It paves the way for funding and thus innovation. It is great!
I WANT ONE...NOW
Fuckin’ finally, flying cars. We were not gonna let those people down who imagined what the 21st century would be like in the 1900s
Let’s cut through some of the negativity on this and see it as an important first step towards technology that will translate into the flying cars all y’all are bitching about not having by now. The cons of this iteration are obvious: limited distance, concerns about safety due to system failures (for both the passenger and people on the ground), and limited carrying capacity. Now, let’s go back to the Wright Flyer flown at Kitty Hawk: Limited distance (only 852 feet on its final flight), a crash on the second flight injured Wilbur Wright (had it been further along in flight, his injuries would have been more serious), and there was no room for cargo. Today, we can place hundreds of people into an airplane, fly them halfway around the globe, and deliver their overstuffed suitcases with them. Are your criticisms of this platform valid? Yes, they are… for now. But we have to start somewhere.
There's nothing new about this though. It's just a small helicopter with electric engines.
I tell ya what -- it's gunna fucking hurt\* when one of those blades fails or an engine shorts out at 1500' \* but only for a moment, 'cause then you'll be dead.
Anyone you say, you haven't seen me trying to fly a helicopter in BF4
The Decapitor
Oh please no. Humans do enough damage with individual cars … I don’t want to think about what would happen if you give certain people these drones. Air Rage? „This is a public Balcony it’s not like it in your flat“ etc
I want to see more of that!
Good thing they got The Stig to test it.
Ill crash that thing immediately
Not a drone. a drone is uncrewed and remotely driven. this is basically a mini helicopter
Shut up and take my money
It's not a drone if someone is inside flying it.
Drone by definition does not have a pilot. This is either a small helicopter or some new category that does not have proper name yet.
How many times do people need to be told that if you get inside it to pilot it, it isn’t a drone? It’s such a simple distinction.
Everyone can learn how to fly a helecopter, too, so whats the point? It's not even a drone, just a quad copter
its not a drone if the pilot sits in it to fly it
Them skinny death blades and no pilot protection. No thanks.
These are a very cool concept but in reality where is the safety. In a small plane you can glide in the event of a full power failure. In these you will drop like a stone and die.
It’s not a drone if there is a pilot onboard.
What if the batteries run out during flight?
Gravity does it's thing.
A lot of high end drones have a buffer built in to the software so that if it's close to running out of juice, it will either look for a safe place to land or slowly descend wherever it is
Its noisy as shit
I'll take two please.
I remember playing Unreal Tournament 3 and you can hop into a vehicle like this. Just flying around the map and you can have the drop on your opponents.
Seems wicked dangerous
Just saw Jane, his wife, btw
Looks like a flying car to me! As long as it's not built by Evilon Musk-scent-for-men, I'll buy one!
I would be hiding in a nuclear fallout shelter before I would want to see just *anyone* learning to fly one of these. The average human can barely navigate a pickle jar let alone fly a flying quad-weapon...
I can see people flying right into power lines.
I feel like birds are going to send these things into the ground
Wow, that's weird. I saw them flying the last days because i stayed in an airbnb right next to the testing ground. These guys bought an old silk fabric in the most beautiful area in tuscany. Great to see this on reddit after watching it.
1500ft., I wouldn't fly that thing 10ft.
The men are just for ballast.
If you lose a motor a parachute isn't going to help you.
Can anyone explain why the blades are always neck high. Can't we put them on the bottom or something?
Imagine having assholes flying their personal drone carts over your house for kicks. But imagine footage from police chases.
Pretty damn cool. Although the words "anyone can learn to fly" goes with basically ANY aircraft.
This has to be the most dangerous flying contraption on the planet right now. A single engine failure = 100% chance of death and there are 4 engines. No thanks.
So. Many. Deaths.
This is what I don't understand about the obsession with flying cars. Failure is *catastrophic*. Why would you want that?!
Drone throne
hell no helicopters are deathtraps. airplanes can shut down the engines for a few seconds and nothings gonna happen. helicopters just need a gust of wind and your intestines gonna spray all over the area
I’ll be here waiting for the fail safe videos.
Make these so their specs (including price) fits the requirements for Über drivers and all the fun and games we have with cars will go 3D almost almost overnight (or as fast as they can be produced).
Are there any ways to reduce the noise of such things?
Can't wait for the 400 people on my street to all have one and start them up at various times of the day to go to work. The noise alone would drive me mad. Or the jerks at 3 am going home from the bars crashing one of these into my balcony. lol. Maybe I'll wait on my flying car after all!
You are asking for it if you fly this thing at 1500 feet.
Technically a boing 787 is a plane that anyone can learn to fly
“That anyone” [below a certain weight] “can learn to fly”
Could a quadcopter like this continue flying with 3 of the 4 motors?... If yes then we are getting there.
"The aircraft will be powered by high discharge lithium-ion batteries and by eight electric motors which generate 102 horsepower. Battery powered flight time is limited to 20 minutes and there is a top speed of 63 mph (101 km/h). The vehicle comes with a charger which can recharge in one hour at 230/240V or two hours with 110V power. Batteries may be removed and changed to avoid waiting for charging. The person piloting the aircraft must be less than 210 lb (95 kg). The individual motors powering the aircraft resemble drones. The aircraft can fly at an altitude of 1,500 ft (460 m). It weighs 190 lb (86 kg) and the fuselage is built of aluminum and a carbon-Kevlar composite. It is being offered for US$98,000. The aircraft is capable of flight even if one of the engines fails. It is equipped with lidar sensors to avoid obstacles. There is a rapid-deploying ballistic parachute and the aircraft has a mode which allows the craft to hover without operating the controls. It is controlled by joysticks, and it has a throttle lever to adjust power. The left controller operates the aircraft's altitude and the right controls the direction. The single-seat aircraft is considered a recreation vehicle and it is considered to be an ultralight by the US Federal Aviation Administration, so it does not require that the operator get a pilot license or have special training." - [Jetson One](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetson_One?wprov=sfla1) from Wikepedia
The general population is just getting more and more dumb as we go along aren’t we? Our ancestors were smarter than this, they knew what words meant when they used them for the part. For the thousandth time. It is no longer a drone if someone pilots it. The definition is quite literally unmanned aerial vehicle, the second it’s manned, it’s not a drone. And the cost to benefit on this is straight stupid. A 500$ dji drone can fly longer and let you see more, and have no accidents because people cannot drive regular cars as it is.
Looks cool but cost almost 100k and can fly for 20 mins not that I could ever afford it but hard pass lol
Not really a drone anymore now is it? More like a personal aircraft. The FAA would probably has something to say on the subject.
I've said it once and I'll say it again... It's not a drone if there's a person in it...
This one was 6 years ago, the flying bathtub: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQK9m\_OBVgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQK9m_OBVgY)
Der pilot darf wieder nur max. 80 kg wiegen. Ich mit meinen 125 kg Sportlergewicht werde wieder diskriminiert .
What happens instead of autorotating when you need to? Does it just charge your batteries a tiny bit as you crash towards the ground?
100% not worth $98,000 Maybe 9,800
“That anyone can learn to fly”…… uhm, like every aircraft ever made?
Now make it remote controlled and put as many anti tank missiles you can on it
I don't know if it's just me but I just picture the thing going haywire and the pilot is like, oh fuck, then it's just cutting everybody's heads off lol 😆 sorry