IDD15 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Nigel R said: The necessity of Certifying a multi rotor for use in anywhere you'd actually want an air taxi will quickly sort out the dreams and reality. We already have multi rotor full size aircraft. Count them on the fingers of one hand. Then compare to the numbers of single rotor helicopters. Minimum viable thing here is basically a Hughes 500. Etc. Quite agree re the challenges in getting certification but if the operating costs of say the volocopter are significantly lower than your average small heli then that may be enough to swing the argument. As you are very probably aware small helicopters are ferociously expensive to run and maintain with so many parts needing replacement or complex servicing after quite low hours in comparison with fixed wing. I have only ever been lucky enough to experience a couple of short hops in a Jet Ranger, but even in a turbine powered helicopter I was quite taken aback by the noise and vibration in the cockpit. I see only 18 moving parts in the Volocopter and probably three maybe even four times the redundancy over a single rotor helicopter. I think I would feel safer in the Volocopter than in a piston powered R22. It is going to be really interesting to see how this all pans out… idd 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Presumably if there are only 18 moving parts, it's fixed pitch - like the old Piccolo helicopters. No auto-rotation possible ......... wonder what happens if it loses power....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul De Tourtoulon Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I think that as you say all the expense of helicopter servicing, multirotors will soon get the flying certificates and replace the smaller ones like the Robinson 22 and 44. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said: I think that as you say all the expense of helicopter servicing, multirotors will soon get the flying certificates and replace the smaller ones like the Robinson 22 and 44. Maybe, but the market will be the decider. I don't think 'replace' is the correct term, perhaps 'alternative' in certain circumstances. Modern helicopter technology and engineering are very well understood and reliable and have proved to be suitable in a wide variety of environments. If you've seen TV programmes about the Aussie ranchers that use helicopters for mustering huge herds of cattle or whatever, it's difficult to conceive where an electric version would have an advantage. Just one example, I'm sure they're many more. I'm all for research and if companies wish to investigate new technology and as a side line create new jobs and provide training for young engineers etc that can only be a good thing for the future - I'm even in favour of government help in the form of tax breaks and grants. It might not be the final product that is the success, but if on the way it encourages people into engineering and other skills, then surely that must be a positive thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul De Tourtoulon Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Cuban8 said: TV programmes about the Aussie ranchers that use helicopters for mustering huge herds of cattle or whatever, it's difficult to conceive where an electric version would have an advantage. Maybe a hybrid version with a standard car engine on a generator / battery would be the answer. You never know it could catch on and equip cars,,,😄 Edited March 20 by Paul De Tourtoulon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 16 hours ago, IDD15 said: I see only 18 moving parts in the Volocopter and probably three maybe even four times the redundancy over a single rotor helicopter. You cannot (and, nor can I) simply look at a picture and say "I see more redundancy therefore must be safer" because the actual safety and actual engineering behind both those craft is totally invisible to a casual observer, which, I think, is what you and I both are. The real value in any aircraft is in the guarantees that certification provides. Neither of us know what Velocopter have got in the bag so far - although I will note they are late with their TC. 6 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said: No auto-rotation possible ......... wonder what happens if it loses power....... Splat. Or more likely, a parachute pops out the top and it lands on the nearest field/person/house. 1 hour ago, Cuban8 said: Modern helicopter technology and engineering are very well understood and reliable and have proved to be suitable in a wide variety of environments. Got it in one. If, and it does look like quite the big if right now, multirotors can beat helicopters as an overall package, then they will win out. And I will fly to my job at the nuclear fusion power plant in one. 😈 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Walsh Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Meanwhile in India 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDD15 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 22 hours ago, Nigel R said: You cannot (and, nor can I) simply look at a picture and say "I see more redundancy therefore must be safer" because the actual safety and actual engineering behind both those craft is totally invisible to a casual observer, which, I think, is what you and I both are. The real value in any aircraft is in the guarantees that certification provides. Neither of us know what Velocopter have got in the bag so far - although I will note they are late with their TC. And I will fly to my job at the nuclear fusion power plant in one. 😈 From Volocopter web site: "VoloCity air taxis feature multiple redundant systems, making this aircraft virtually fail-safe. The rotors, electric motors, batteries, avionics, and display all have at least two replacements. This actually exceeds the technical requirements and should give you the peace of mind to sit back, relax, and enjoy the view." I've been following electric aviation developments for quite a while and was aware that redundancy was being built into the Volocopter systems. As @Cuban8 rightly said the market has also got to want these systems as well so if you can provide a step change in safety, and in one of their videos Volocopter are claiming it as safe as an airliner(!), that is a big selling point. So it wasn't too "shabby a statement" to make, but yes it could have been worded better. You do realise that when you're commuting to the fusion power plant you'll do it by transporter/teleporter, aviation will be just soooo last century! 😉 idd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDD15 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 For any DF aficionados out there here is another EVTOL currently in development... Lilium in transition idd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDD15 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 What to do if you forgot to put your BlackFly on charge overnight! 😁 BlackFly Parachute Test idd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Not going to go into much depth but I will say that including the redundant copies of various bits of hardware makes me extremely suspicious of the quality of the parts being duplicated in this manner. Another way of putting it is, they are so certain these critical parts will fail, they are fitting extra ones to take over when it happens. This doesn't feel like a project that is inspiring confidence in its basis for certification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Dunno, if it's easy to build extra safety into something, why wouldn't you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinFlynn Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 10 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said: Dunno, if it's easy to build extra safety into something, why wouldn't you ? Weight, cost & complexity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Because replication and redundancy comes with its own issues, it's not necessarily easy, and in life-or-death scenarios such as this, a glib sales pitch means squat. If there are two spare rotors going up, now you have a problem regarding re-routing power around between the other rotors? You've added complexity to the control systems now. Are the rotors truly redundant? As in, any and all mission scenario is possible with one or two not working or not present? Or "redundant", as in, not really redundant, but you can limp down to the ground without fatal impact? Whatever the answers - taking three copies of multiple systems up into the air is cargo you don't want to be carrying, that's reduced range or time. End of day, I wouldn't say it's extra safety in the slightest - far from it, they're doing this in order to meet basic safety needs of the cert basis. Why repeat a system three times otherwise? Customer pays extra for extra copies. As an aside, and this is a total straw man argument - the kind of language you are seeing from these kind of places is exactly the same as was seen from that ill fated Titantic tourist submarine. At its core, it was a sales pitch of "it's brilliant, because <waves hands like Paul Daniels> technology". They also thought taking multiple copies of mission critical systems onboard was "extra safety", too. And don't even mention the technology (or total lack of) in the hull of that death trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 I should say, despite what you might think given previous postings, I do find the whole field of manned multirotors interesting. I simply don't think that going off half baked, with people inside these things, over places with people living in them, is the right answer. It isn't 1903, we're not the Wright brothers, this isn't precisely a new field of knowledge we're exploring and discovering, and we do know how to do safety critical engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 And imagine the queues at MaccyDs to charge the things.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinFlynn Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 4 minutes ago, Nigel R said: I should say, despite what you might think given previous postings, I do find the whole field of manned multirotors interesting. I simply don't think that going off half baked, with people inside these things, over places with people living in them, is the right answer. It isn't 1903, we're not the Wright brothers, this isn't precisely a new field of knowledge we're exploring and discovering, and we do know how to do safety critical engineering. Given the cozy relationships between manufacturers and their regulatory bodies we have seen in various industries in recent times I'm not so sure we do know how to do safety critical engineering any more. The almost religious pursuit of net zero will, I fear, push all other considerations to a distant second place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Quote Given the cozy relationships between manufacturers and their regulatory bodies we have seen in various industries in recent times I'm not so sure we do know how to do safety critical engineering any more. Not every aviation company is in that place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.