RE: Airspeeder aerial racing series announced
Discussion
big_rob_sydney said:
I'm out of the loop on the detail, but I believe ehang actually flew real people in dubai last year?
As Eric MC has said. Just because it is physically possible, does not mean it is remotely close to becoming normal for the majority of the populous.As an example, jet backs have been a reality for decades and really do exist. But you don't see business people flying in and out of the city using them. Or even troops of soldiers.
300bhp/ton said:
big_rob_sydney said:
I'm out of the loop on the detail, but I believe ehang actually flew real people in dubai last year?
As Eric MC has said. Just because it is physically possible, does not mean it is remotely close to becoming normal for the majority of the populous.As an example, jet backs have been a reality for decades and really do exist. But you don't see business people flying in and out of the city using them. Or even troops of soldiers.
What I said was that it people had already been up in them and the technology is not "pie in the sky", but it's actually here, right now.
Now both of you are reframing the argument to say it's not "normal", and even comparing it to jet packs.
Jet packs have a very small operating window, meaning you cant fly very far. It's also quite a different use case, in that, what do you do with the equipment once you've got to where you're going?
Additionally, you now want to talk about regulatory obstacles, and want to draw the link that because of that, the technology itself is immature. The obvious flaw in that argument, is that a political circumstance is not the same as a technical possibility. I'm sure if you think about it, you'll find examples all through life where something makes sense, but the politics has got in the way. And in no way does that mean the underlying issue is somehow faulty, but rather that there may be other factors at play.
Listen, if you want to be doubting Thomas', go for it. I just don't see how that helps the world progress.
Lots of technology gets invented but never gets taken up - because it is pointless and/or cannot be used effectively or is superseded very quickly before it could get a toehold.
One of the great mis-sayings of all time is "necessity is the mother of invention". No it's not. Playing around with mad ideas is the mother of invention. Some ideas are madder than others.
This one is pretty mad and will lead to nothing for a very, very long time, if ever.
One of the great mis-sayings of all time is "necessity is the mother of invention". No it's not. Playing around with mad ideas is the mother of invention. Some ideas are madder than others.
This one is pretty mad and will lead to nothing for a very, very long time, if ever.
It didn’t go to plan at Goodwood yesterday with a crash and AAIB sent to scene.
https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/people/investiga...
https://www.chichester.co.uk/news/people/investiga...
AnotherClarkey said:
I looked at a few of the airspeeder videos - it all looks a bit shonky to be honest. I'm not sure if a ballistic parachute will be any use in the flight regime they are proposing.
They all seem to be flying in ground effect and even at 20 metres, I'd guess they'd hit the ground before a ballistic parachute even deployed.A bit more here: https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/tech-innovation/tes...
The description of what happened is slightly worrying, no wonder the CAA/AAIB are on the case
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-aaib-has-se...
The description of what happened is slightly worrying, no wonder the CAA/AAIB are on the case
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-aaib-has-se...
Eric Mc said:
I hadn't realised that it was a demo of the Airspeeder concept. It seems even more of a joke now.
They were doing demo runs for the press at the motor circuit although the PH article says for the public which was incorrect. I think it was lucky to land in a farmers field and not on the main event site.
Now it was operating close to the VOR/DME which is a radio transmitter would they have an impact on the signals used to control drones?
ecsrobin said:
They were doing demo runs for the press at the motor circuit although the PH article says for the public which was incorrect.
I think it was lucky to land in a farmers field and not on the main event site.
Now it was operating close to the VOR/DME which is a radio transmitter would they have an impact on the signals used to control drones?
It's a good point, esp. if there is transmitter nearby. I suspect electromagnetic compatibility will certainly form a part of the AAIB investigation given it's unarguable relevence to a system like this.I think it was lucky to land in a farmers field and not on the main event site.
Now it was operating close to the VOR/DME which is a radio transmitter would they have an impact on the signals used to control drones?
DavieBNL said:
ecsrobin said:
They were doing demo runs for the press at the motor circuit although the PH article says for the public which was incorrect.
I think it was lucky to land in a farmers field and not on the main event site.
Now it was operating close to the VOR/DME which is a radio transmitter would they have an impact on the signals used to control drones?
It's a good point, esp. if there is transmitter nearby. I suspect electromagnetic compatibility will certainly form a part of the AAIB investigation given it's unarguable relevence to a system like this.I think it was lucky to land in a farmers field and not on the main event site.
Now it was operating close to the VOR/DME which is a radio transmitter would they have an impact on the signals used to control drones?
AnotherClarkey said:
It's a shame really because the idea is intriguing. I wonder how it could be made reasonably safe given the speeds and altitude? Just let it crash with the pilot in a protected cell and crumple zones/airbags? Could a kind of zero/zero ballistic parachute be made to work?
I think weight is going to be the problem here. A zero/zero ejector seat is a pretty heavy lump of equipment. And these things seem to be limited to a gross weight of 450 kg to comply with US legislation. I don't think there'll be much leeway after you add batteries and a pilot. AshVX220 said:
A quick google suggests that from 10m height, you'd hit the ground at 50Km/h. (sorry, it was a metric site I found).
Plus the 120mph forward motion.
F1 drivers can walk away from much higher impacts.
Falling from height, tumbling perhaps at the same, would make such an impact far more unpredictable regarding G force loadings than a car crash. Also, fitting crash structures into a flying machine implies weight and soon starts to degrade the flyability of the device where it just all becomes a bit pointless.Plus the 120mph forward motion.
F1 drivers can walk away from much higher impacts.
And frankly, if the things are only buzzing around at 120 mph (which is not that fast for an aircraft), with due respect, the average remote control model aircraft display would be at least as exciting - if not more so.
I remain to be convinced about the whole point of this project.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff