4 ms·

Projects like this will eventually produce an airborne commuter vehicle, but: * It will resemble a scaled-up quadcopter (for which there's already an early pro

by lutusp 10y ago

Projects like this will eventually produce an airborne commuter vehicle, but: * It will resemble a scaled-up quadcopter (for which there's already an early prototype: http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-quadcopter-test-flights-nevada http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/8/11882458/ehang-passenger-qu...) * It will only happen when batteries are much better than they are now -- more energy density, longer lived, more efficient. The bottom line is that this idea, like so many around us, is waiting for decent batteries to be invented.

FabHK 10y ago
I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. The Volocopter, by way of contrast, has the rotors above the cockpit, has 18 rotors for redundancy, and is actually already flying for both unmanned and manned test flights, with preliminary approval by German authorities. In my view, it's a more sensible concept that's also further advanced already. http://volocopter.com/ http://volocopter.com/
- FabHK 10y ago
  Agreed though that the big problem for electric flight for now are the batteries. Note though that the issue is not so much energy density (energy per volume), but specific energy (energy per mass), currently at around 400 kWh/kg. Fossile fuel has a specific energy so much higher that it still wins hands down, even though a piston engine converts only about 10% of that energy into mechanical energy.
- lutusp 10y ago
  > I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. I think it's only because they're the first, their craft is really a rough prototype, and in five years they'll likely be forgotten. > With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. That's my reason for thinking they're engineers who aren't thinking of the needs and vulnerabilities of end users -- they aren't really thinking about end-user issues. > The Volocopter, by way of contrast ... * Much safer design, better protection against any single-point failure (the eHang can't afford to lose even one of its props and remain controllable). * But soo ugly. :) To me, the first large quad with protective shields around its props will signal a level of seriousness consistent with the supposed goal (end-user acceptance, non-prototype).

by lutusp 10y ago

FabHK 10y ago

I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. The Volocopter, by way of contrast, has the rotors above the cockpit, has 18 rotors for redundancy, and is actually already flying for both unmanned and manned test flights, with preliminary approval by German authorities. In my view, it's a more sensible concept that's also further advanced already. http://volocopter.com/ http://volocopter.com/

FabHK 10y ago
Agreed though that the big problem for electric flight for now are the batteries. Note though that the issue is not so much energy density (energy per volume), but specific energy (energy per mass), currently at around 400 kWh/kg. Fossile fuel has a specific energy so much higher that it still wins hands down, even though a piston engine converts only about 10% of that energy into mechanical energy.
lutusp 10y ago
> I don't quite get that the eHang commands such a presence in the public mind. I think it's only because they're the first, their craft is really a rough prototype, and in five years they'll likely be forgotten. > With the rotors where they are, it looks almost designed to maim and cripple passengers and bystanders. That's my reason for thinking they're engineers who aren't thinking of the needs and vulnerabilities of end users -- they aren't really thinking about end-user issues. > The Volocopter, by way of contrast ... * Much safer design, better protection against any single-point failure (the eHang can't afford to lose even one of its props and remain controllable). * But soo ugly. :) To me, the first large quad with protective shields around its props will signal a level of seriousness consistent with the supposed goal (end-user acceptance, non-prototype).