Single-seat Electric 'Air Scooter' crosses the Channel!

[CanAm]

Well not quite, unfortunately, according to this BBC news report yesterday

[GliderRider]

Plop!

[normalbloke]

No thanks. Ever.

[LimaDelta]

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

[JoshSm]

At least the little plastic coffin/Spinal Tap pod sort of floated enough to get out alive.

Not sure a lot of deep thought was involved especially about failure. Can see why they kept it so low all the way across.

[croyde]

Almost made it.

Like above has said, there's no way anything like this will be operated by Mr Jones on Acacia Avenue out of his reasonably sized back garden.

[normalbloke]

LimaDelta said:

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

YouTubers,influencers, and other attention wes.

[JoshSm]

normalbloke said:

YouTubers,influencers, and other attention wes.

So having it dump them out in the middle of the sea locked in a little pod will be a feature not a bug?

In that case I approve.

[crofty1984]

To be fair, he made it nearly all the way. It'll ultimately be a pointless plaything for millionaires, but hats off for inventing and building something.

[blueg33]

LimaDelta said:

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

[CanAm]

I couldn't see any registration on the "Air-Scooter". Microlights need to be registered, so does this thing sneak in under some obscure regulation, or were they just winging it, so to speak?

[Simpo Two]

blueg33 said:

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

The difference though is that we already have ways to fly across the Channel. Lindbergh was breaking boundaries; this is just a toy.



NB Did St Louis change sex?!

[LimaDelta]

blueg33 said:

LimaDelta said:

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

Not really. There are already light aircraft and helicopters which do the job for those who bother to take the time to learn and follow the rules. This, like all other similar attempts are completely pointless. Technically they offer nothing new, but no country is ever going to legalise unlicenced personal flying pods. Imagine them as the Surons of the sky and you'll understand the issues.

Lindberg stretched a new technology which went on to save days in transatlantic crossings, which opened up all kinds of mail routes across the globe, and moved society on in a similar way to email half a century later. Some bellend in an overgrown quadcopter is not Lindberg, or even Bleriot.

[blueg33]

Simpo Two said:

blueg33 said:

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

The difference though is that we already have ways to fly across the Channel. Lindbergh was breaking boundaries; this is just a toy.



NB Did St Louis change sex?!

Yes it identified as a mono plane and a bi-cycle Or it could just have been a typo

[Boatbuoy]

CanAm said:

I couldn't see any registration on the "Air-Scooter". Microlights need to be registered, so does this thing sneak in under some obscure regulation, or were they just winging it, so to speak?

There's a F-reg (possibly F-WLAB) on the vertically mounted rotor fin.

[CanAm]

LimaDelta said:

blueg33 said:

LimaDelta said:

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

Not really. There are already light aircraft and helicopters which do the job for those who bother to take the time to learn and follow the rules. This, like all other similar attempts are completely pointless. Technically they offer nothing new, but no country is ever going to legalise unlicenced personal flying pods. Imagine them as the Surons of the sky and you'll understand the issues.

Lindberg stretched a new technology which went on to save days in transatlantic crossings, which opened up all kinds of mail routes across the globe, and moved society on in a similar way to email half a century later. Some bellend in an overgrown quadcopter is not Lindberg, or even Bleriot.

Don't forget Alcock and Brown beat him to it by 8 years; he was just the first solo crossing.

[LotusOmega375D]

Probably just me, but I have never been impressed with the quadcopter type concept for drones and such like. Seems like the sort of thing you’d dream up in primary school.

[LimaDelta]

CanAm said:

LimaDelta said:

blueg33 said:

LimaDelta said:

I really don't understand the problem these sorts of contraptions are the solution to?

It seems like people are always trying to invent the flying car or Jetsons pod. I'm not sure who actually has any need or use for them, never mind the legal quagmire of actually operating them in a built up area (rule 5 anyone)?

Same could be said of Charles Lindbergh, flying the Spirit of St Louise completely pointless, ships could do the job very well.

Not really. There are already light aircraft and helicopters which do the job for those who bother to take the time to learn and follow the rules. This, like all other similar attempts are completely pointless. Technically they offer nothing new, but no country is ever going to legalise unlicenced personal flying pods. Imagine them as the Surons of the sky and you'll understand the issues.

Lindberg stretched a new technology which went on to save days in transatlantic crossings, which opened up all kinds of mail routes across the globe, and moved society on in a similar way to email half a century later. Some bellend in an overgrown quadcopter is not Lindberg, or even Bleriot.

Don't forget Alcock and Brown beat him to it by 8 years; he was just the first solo crossing.

Indeed. Though the tribute act was a bit quicker.

[LotusOmega375D]

Would the Phantom have managed to complete the same distance as the Vimy without inflight refuelling?

[LimaDelta]

LotusOmega375D said:

Would the Phantom have managed to complete the same distance as the Vimy without inflight refuelling?

Only on a carrier deck IIRC it refuelled several times for the 60th anniversary flight.