AT Friday 10 August 2018 09:19, John Doe wrote:> Personal helicopters look great, but... > For short trips, a helicopter might be ideal except for lack of > safety. How can you add a parachute to a helicopter? You can't soar, > so you are coming straight down if anything fails.It should be able to auto-rotate. Commercial helis usually can do that. The landing is just a bit uncomfortable, not very good for your back. -- Reinhardt
OT: Personal aircraft, vertical takeoff and landing
Started by ●August 9, 2018
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
John Doe wrote:>Personal helicopters look great, but... >For short trips, a helicopter might be ideal except for lack of >safety. How can you add a parachute to a helicopter? You can't soar, >so you are coming straight down if anything fails.Those are relatively safe in case of engine failure, the mechanism is called 'autorotation': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation Of course when something breaks all bets are off.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On 08/09/2018 11:59 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>> fredag den 10. august 2018 kl. 01.24.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com: >>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>>>> On 08/09/2018 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>>>>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >>>>>>>>>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >>>>>>>>>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >>>>>>>>>> compartment does not rotate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >>>>>>>>>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >>>>>>>>>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >>>>>>>>>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >>>>>>>>>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >>>>>>>>>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >>>>>>>>>> aircraft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >>>>>>>>>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >>>>>>>>>> short trips. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >>>>>>>>>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >>>>>>>>>> Convergence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >>>>>>>>>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >>>>>>>>>> designer's fantasyland. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And a good way to die. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering >>>>>>>> equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good >>>>>>>> idea at the time... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a number of small islands in Narragansett Bay where >>>>>> undeveloped real estate is still pretty cheap, not exactly Bahamas >>>>>> living or anything most of the year. >>>>>> >>>>>> I mentioned to my GF I might pick up some land there somewhere she asked >>>>>> how I would get there and I said "Helicopter" which she thought was >>>>>> absurd but compared to the time and expense of owning, mooring, figuring >>>>>> out what to do with it in the winter, etc. of a small powerboat I feel >>>>>> like a little ultralight helicopter wouldn't be a bad option. >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably safer too because you're not spending as much time "commuting" >>>>>> on the water. It's only about 3 miles of open water you have to cross >>>>> >>>>> Didn't Kennedy die there? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Jr. crashed his plane on the way to Marthas Vineyard >>> >>> Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. >> >> Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization >> does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of >> self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private >> citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk >> them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety >> under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is >> and bumping into things will be unlikely. >> >> It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have >> the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a >> commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really >> there to make it practical then either. > > I never heard that the GM EV wasn't good enough. Maybe the batteries didn't have the range, but we have solved that problem now. Some engineers are good at solving problems. Others like to say "it can't be done"!The range was about the same as the Leaf. Most owners liked them I guess. It cost too much to build even in moderate volume to make money selling. The word I was looking for was probably not "practical" but "practicable" that is to say a Leaf that costs $80,000 to manufacture is not really a sensible car for anyone to buy at retail price.>>> As usual many here go off in hysterics about a new idea. >>> >>> Rick C. >>> >> >> Personal air transport for non-professionals/flying cars isn't really a >> new idea it's probably almost as old as aviation. Many have tried and >> many have failed. > > Yeah, same with the lightbulb until Edison found the right material. > > What's your point? > > Rick C. >
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
AT Friday 10 August 2018 13:41, 698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org wrote:> John Doe wrote: >>Personal helicopters look great, but... >>For short trips, a helicopter might be ideal except for lack of >>safety. How can you add a parachute to a helicopter? You can't soar, >>so you are coming straight down if anything fails. > > Those are relatively safe in case of engine failure, > the mechanism is called 'autorotation': > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation > > Of course when something breaks all bets are off.No, yet can bet on the direction. ;-) -- Reinhardt
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On 10/08/2018 1:53 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.https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41399406> 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.-- Cheers, Chris.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:> On 08/09/2018 11:59 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > >> On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: > >>>> fredag den 10. august 2018 kl. 01.24.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > >>>>>> On 08/09/2018 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe > >>>>>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include > >>>>>>>>>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" > >>>>>>>>>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger > >>>>>>>>>> compartment does not rotate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" > >>>>>>>>>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available > >>>>>>>>>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of > >>>>>>>>>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The > >>>>>>>>>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of > >>>>>>>>>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the > >>>>>>>>>> aircraft. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if > >>>>>>>>>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for > >>>>>>>>>> short trips. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC > >>>>>>>>>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite > >>>>>>>>>> Convergence. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just > >>>>>>>>>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a > >>>>>>>>>> designer's fantasyland. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And a good way to die. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering > >>>>>>>> equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good > >>>>>>>> idea at the time... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are a number of small islands in Narragansett Bay where > >>>>>> undeveloped real estate is still pretty cheap, not exactly Bahamas > >>>>>> living or anything most of the year. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I mentioned to my GF I might pick up some land there somewhere she asked > >>>>>> how I would get there and I said "Helicopter" which she thought was > >>>>>> absurd but compared to the time and expense of owning, mooring, figuring > >>>>>> out what to do with it in the winter, etc. of a small powerboat I feel > >>>>>> like a little ultralight helicopter wouldn't be a bad option. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Probably safer too because you're not spending as much time "commuting" > >>>>>> on the water. It's only about 3 miles of open water you have to cross > >>>>> > >>>>> Didn't Kennedy die there? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Jr. crashed his plane on the way to Marthas Vineyard > >>> > >>> Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. > >> > >> Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization > >> does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of > >> self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private > >> citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk > >> them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety > >> under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is > >> and bumping into things will be unlikely. > >> > >> It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have > >> the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a > >> commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really > >> there to make it practical then either. > > > > I never heard that the GM EV wasn't good enough. Maybe the batteries didn't have the range, but we have solved that problem now. Some engineers are good at solving problems. Others like to say "it can't be done"! > > The range was about the same as the Leaf. Most owners liked them I > guess. It cost too much to build even in moderate volume to make money > selling. > > The word I was looking for was probably not "practical" but > "practicable" that is to say a Leaf that costs $80,000 to manufacture is > not really a sensible car for anyone to buy at retail price.practicable - able to be done or put into practice successfully practical - likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. So what is the difference exactly? I understand Tesla originally sold the roadster for $200,000. What makes you think they couldn't have sold a few of the EV1 (I think they were called) at a profit even if it cost $80k to build? Rick C.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On 08/10/2018 02:25 AM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> On 08/09/2018 11:59 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>>>> fredag den 10. august 2018 kl. 01.24.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>>>>>>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >>>>>>>>>>>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >>>>>>>>>>>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >>>>>>>>>>>> compartment does not rotate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >>>>>>>>>>>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >>>>>>>>>>>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >>>>>>>>>>>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >>>>>>>>>>>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >>>>>>>>>>>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >>>>>>>>>>>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >>>>>>>>>>>> short trips. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >>>>>>>>>>>> Convergence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >>>>>>>>>>>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >>>>>>>>>>>> designer's fantasyland. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And a good way to die. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering >>>>>>>>>> equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good >>>>>>>>>> idea at the time... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a number of small islands in Narragansett Bay where >>>>>>>> undeveloped real estate is still pretty cheap, not exactly Bahamas >>>>>>>> living or anything most of the year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I mentioned to my GF I might pick up some land there somewhere she asked >>>>>>>> how I would get there and I said "Helicopter" which she thought was >>>>>>>> absurd but compared to the time and expense of owning, mooring, figuring >>>>>>>> out what to do with it in the winter, etc. of a small powerboat I feel >>>>>>>> like a little ultralight helicopter wouldn't be a bad option. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably safer too because you're not spending as much time "commuting" >>>>>>>> on the water. It's only about 3 miles of open water you have to cross >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't Kennedy die there? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jr. crashed his plane on the way to Marthas Vineyard >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. >>>> >>>> Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization >>>> does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of >>>> self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private >>>> citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk >>>> them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety >>>> under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is >>>> and bumping into things will be unlikely. >>>> >>>> It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have >>>> the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a >>>> commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really >>>> there to make it practical then either. >>> >>> I never heard that the GM EV wasn't good enough. Maybe the batteries didn't have the range, but we have solved that problem now. Some engineers are good at solving problems. Others like to say "it can't be done"! >> >> The range was about the same as the Leaf. Most owners liked them I >> guess. It cost too much to build even in moderate volume to make money >> selling. >> >> The word I was looking for was probably not "practical" but >> "practicable" that is to say a Leaf that costs $80,000 to manufacture is >> not really a sensible car for anyone to buy at retail price. > > practicable - able to be done or put into practice successfully > > practical - likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. > > So what is the difference exactly? > > I understand Tesla originally sold the roadster for $200,000. What makes you think they couldn't have sold a few of the EV1 (I think they were called) at a profit even if it cost $80k to build? > > Rick C. >Tesla roadster is fast and cool-looking sports car/supercar like a Ferrari, the EV1 was a commuter car like a Camry or Corolla but a bit odd-looking and a 0-60 time of optimistically around 9 seconds and limited to 80 mph, not exactly a performance beast.
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On 08/10/2018 04:55 AM, bitrex wrote:> [Snip!] > Personal air transport for non-professionals/flying cars isn't really a > new idea it's probably almost as old as aviation. Many have tried and > many have failed.Thank goodness! I wouldn't want everyone to have his own personal flying thing in the yard. Do you imagine the noise and the nuisance? Ordinary ground traffic and existing aviation are bad enough already! Jeroen Belleman
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
On 08/10/2018 02:25 AM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote:> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:47:58 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >> On 08/09/2018 11:59 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:56:04 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2018 09:49 PM, gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:31:12 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: >>>>>> fredag den 10. august 2018 kl. 01.24.16 UTC+2 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 04:36 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:25:20 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 08/09/2018 01:57 PM, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:48:33 -0000 (UTC), John Doe >>>>>>>>>>> <always.look@message.header> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not evaluate the unusual example... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/-cCoPBGq-iA >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...I just happened across it when looking up aircraft that include >>>>>>>>>>>> vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). I doubt "motion sickness" >>>>>>>>>>>> occurs since (if you look closely you might notice) the passenger >>>>>>>>>>>> compartment does not rotate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The idea of "imagining fender benders that fall out of the sky" >>>>>>>>>>>> sounds silly considering the fact collision avoidance is available >>>>>>>>>>>> even on inexpensive RC aircraft. If you add in FCC requirements of >>>>>>>>>>>> beacons and such, you have very reliable collision avoidance. The >>>>>>>>>>>> poster should not have to be told that... Electronics takes care of >>>>>>>>>>>> all sorts of things these days, even including stability of the >>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Helicopters are very risky. Even a quadcopter crashes and burns if >>>>>>>>>>>> one motor fails. A copter with five or more motors might be good for >>>>>>>>>>>> short trips. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Besides the XK X520 and Mirage E500, there are other model RC >>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft that include VTOL, like the E-flite X-VERT and the E-flite >>>>>>>>>>>> Convergence. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal air transportation is teeming with possibilities. Not just >>>>>>>>>>>> this, but also powered paragliding and powered hang gliding. It is a >>>>>>>>>>>> designer's fantasyland. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And a good way to die. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thinking about getting into aviation products is like the engineering >>>>>>>>>> equivalent of "I'm thinking about buying a boat." It seems like a good >>>>>>>>>> idea at the time... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/431/312/67e.jpg> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why buy a boat when you can throw your money directly into the water? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a number of small islands in Narragansett Bay where >>>>>>>> undeveloped real estate is still pretty cheap, not exactly Bahamas >>>>>>>> living or anything most of the year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I mentioned to my GF I might pick up some land there somewhere she asked >>>>>>>> how I would get there and I said "Helicopter" which she thought was >>>>>>>> absurd but compared to the time and expense of owning, mooring, figuring >>>>>>>> out what to do with it in the winter, etc. of a small powerboat I feel >>>>>>>> like a little ultralight helicopter wouldn't be a bad option. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably safer too because you're not spending as much time "commuting" >>>>>>>> on the water. It's only about 3 miles of open water you have to cross >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Didn't Kennedy die there? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jr. crashed his plane on the way to Marthas Vineyard >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's the ticket. Flying is not so easy. That's why you have to have training and must pass flying tests to get a license. Even if they make personal VTOL planes, not so many will be able or willing to get a license. You also won't be allowed to land it in your town house parking lot. >>>> >>>> Over time (taking the optimistic position technological civilization >>>> does have some time left) there'll probably be a confluence of >>>> self-driving car technology and VTOL drone technology such that private >>>> citizens will be able to have a lil Jetsons drone-pod that can whisk >>>> them around over ranges of say dozens of miles in comfort and safety >>>> under autonomous control, every pod will know where every other pod is >>>> and bumping into things will be unlikely. >>>> >>>> It sounds more like 2040-2070 tech than 2018. Don't think we quite have >>>> the knowledge or skills to do this right yet. GM tried building a >>>> commercial EV in the late 90s, it was okay but the tech wasn't really >>>> there to make it practical then either. >>> >>> I never heard that the GM EV wasn't good enough. Maybe the batteries didn't have the range, but we have solved that problem now. Some engineers are good at solving problems. Others like to say "it can't be done"! >> >> The range was about the same as the Leaf. Most owners liked them I >> guess. It cost too much to build even in moderate volume to make money >> selling. >> >> The word I was looking for was probably not "practical" but >> "practicable" that is to say a Leaf that costs $80,000 to manufacture is >> not really a sensible car for anyone to buy at retail price. > > practicable - able to be done or put into practice successfully > > practical - likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. > > So what is the difference exactly? > > I understand Tesla originally sold the roadster for $200,000. What makes you think they couldn't have sold a few of the EV1 (I think they were called) at a profit even if it cost $80k to build? > > Rick C. >After the experiment was over as I recall the story they took them back from all the owners stripped them for parts and crushed them, much against the wishes of many of their drivers. That was probably a good idea though having a bunch of California tech nerd/green obsessives cruising around in used EVs for decades telling anyone who will listen whatever their interpretation of why they weren't available for sale to anyone else anymore sounds like a PR disaster, you just know it's not going to be anything flattering. That is to say they understood their "market" at the time and smashing all the cars to bits was probably the better option than trying to please their former owners lol
Reply by ●August 10, 20182018-08-10
AT Friday 10 August 2018 14:53, 698839253X6D445TD@nospam.org wrote:> Reinhardt Behm wrote >>No, yet can bet on the direction. ;-) > > Hard to tell, I was reading about a case in America I think it was, where > a screw in the pitch change rod to the rotor mechanism fell out, > the pitch could not be altered, and the heli kept gaining altitude. > You cannot reduce motor speed, changes in altitude are controlled by the > rotor mechanism. One of the passengers had to hang out outside and connect > something to the control mechanism and only then could they make an > emergency landing. > > That mechanism should be checked before every take off, climb on the > thing, look if it is still OK. > Very nice piece of mechanics actually: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor#/media/File:Fully_articulated_main_rotor_head.svg> > :-)Normally you can control engine speed. I had a RC heli with a similar problem. When the connection between controller and heli was lost it went to full thrust and climbed until the batteries ran dry. Once it got lost in such a situation. Using Bluetooth for the connection was just broken by design, going to full thrust was the other design error. -- Reinhardt
