You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.
OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing
Started by ●August 9, 2018
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/08/2018 11:51 PM, John Doe wrote:> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem > is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably > helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about > developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing > (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL > radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). > > Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... > https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > > Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes > efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.If it doesn't cost a million bucks, that is. Cheers Phil Hobbs
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/08/2018 11:51 PM, John Doe wrote:> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem > is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably > helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about > developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing > (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL > radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). > > Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... > https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > > Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes > efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >No aircraft that doesn't have an aerodynamic profile sort of like a "regular plane" (technical term) is ever going to be very efficient at cruising at significant speed. The V-22 Osprey is a thing but it isn't cheap, not likely you'd ever recoup its cost vs. some other type of aircraft in any commercial application if you weren't getting a "government discount", and reliability was problematic for a long time. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey> basically I don't think anyone knows currently how to build a safe reliable aircraft that combines the features you state for a reasonable cost, there's consumer demand for many things that don't exist like ponies that can talk and grant wishes etc. Helicopters work pretty well and there's probably still room for fuel efficiency improvement there
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:51:07 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem > is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably > helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about > developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing > (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL > radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). > > Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... > https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > > Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes > efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand.They seem to be a aeronautical think tank. I don't see anything mentioned on their web site about this design. I expect they were paid to study it and when the customer got what they wanted no more research. Rick C.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 10:15 AM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:51:07 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote: >> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >> >> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. > > They seem to be a aeronautical think tank. I don't see anything mentioned on their web site about this design. I expect they were paid to study it and when the customer got what they wanted no more research. > > Rick C. >For a UAV-sized vehicle I would think you could build an aircraft similar to the Osprey but with a ICE-electric powertrain, that is to say use drive motors on the propellers that you route power to electrically from an engine somewhere else. The Osprey has a Rube Goldberg mechanical power routing scheme because the engines must be in the propeller nacelles. Sounds an easier design task than making that...thing...work.
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 10:42 AM, bitrex wrote:> On 08/09/2018 10:15 AM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:51:07 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote: >>> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >>> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >>> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >>> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >>> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >>> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >>> >>> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>> >>> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >>> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >> >> They seem to be a aeronautical think tank. I don't see anything >> mentioned on their web site about this design. I expect they were >> paid to study it and when the customer got what they wanted no more >> research. >> >> Rick C. >> > > For a UAV-sized vehicle I would think you could build an aircraft > similar to the Osprey but with a ICE-electric powertrain, that is to say > use drive motors on the propellers that you route power to electrically > from an engine somewhere else. The Osprey has a Rube Goldberg mechanical > power routing scheme because the engines must be in the propeller nacelles. > > Sounds an easier design task than making that...thing...work.Or you could keep them where they are but link them electrically across the wings rather than mechanically
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:>You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >(VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). > >Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > >Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness machine. Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
> there's consumer demand for many things that don't exist like > ponies that can talk and grant wishes etc.The quintessential straw man. One of the most idiotic non-arguments ever. A clear sign of mental incompetence. There has never been a better example of the saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." -- bitrex <user example.net> wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx21.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail > Subject: Re: OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > References: <pkgdn7$ekj$1 dont-email.me> > From: bitrex <user example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <pkgdn7$ekj$1 dont-email.me> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 31 > Message-ID: <2YXaD.1403$wb3.833 fx21.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2018 14:11:10 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:11:09 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 2396 > X-Received-Body-CRC: 2406712603 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:519948 > > On 08/08/2018 11:51 PM, John Doe wrote: >> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >> >> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >> > > No aircraft that doesn't have an aerodynamic profile sort of like a > "regular plane" (technical term) is ever going to be very efficient at > cruising at significant speed. The V-22 Osprey is a thing but it isn't > cheap, not likely you'd ever recoup its cost vs. some other type of > aircraft in any commercial application if you weren't getting a > "government discount", and reliability was problematic for a long time. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey> > > basically I don't think anyone knows currently how to build a safe > reliable aircraft that combines the features you state for a reasonable > cost, there's consumer demand for many things that don't exist like > ponies that can talk and grant wishes etc. > > Helicopters work pretty well and there's probably still room for fuel > efficiency improvement there > >
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 12:20 PM, John Doe wrote:>> there's consumer demand for many things that don't exist like >> ponies that can talk and grant wishes etc. > > The quintessential straw man. One of the most idiotic non-arguments > ever. A clear sign of mental incompetence. There has never been a > better example of the saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and be > thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." > >Yeah the reason it hasn't been done already is because you're a huge genius and the first to think of these ideas. "What about developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability." What about it? What's your plan son or do you just wanna be the "ideas guy"?
Reply by ●August 9, 20182018-08-09
On 08/09/2018 11:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:51:04 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >> You might have noticed attempts at making personal drones. One problem >> is very limited flight time/distance. Greater than four engines probably >> helps with safety, but it's still inefficient. So... What about >> developing such large drones but with vertical takeoff and landing >> (VTOL) capability. There are apparently an increasing number of VTOL >> radio controlled aircraft (XK X520, Eachine Mirage E500). >> >> Here's an interesting design, perhaps abandoned... >> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >> >> Anyways... A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that includes >> efficient and safe cruising should be in high demand. >> > > Looks like an expensive, dangerous, inefficient motion sickness > machine. > > Personal aircraft for general city transportation won't happen. > Imagine fender benders that fall out of the sky. > > Some helicopter-like things will probably be used for very expensive > VIP transport from city centers to airports. With parachutes. > > >A vertical take off and landing cargo aircraft that has efficient and safe cruising seems like your classic Formula 1 dump truck engineering problem of contradictory constraints given what we currently know about physics. Or like how a rocket would prefer to be packed with fuel and lightweight but the structure to hold the fuel is heavy. Some kind of powerful anti-gravity propulsors like in the Matrix movies would improve things
