If quadcopters would be better you would’ve seen countless designs for the military by now. Quad Copters work well in toys and any similar application because

If quadcopters would be better you would’ve seen countless designs for the military by now. Quad Copters work well in toys and any similar application because they fly primarily based on their insanely high trust to weight ratio. Helicopters don’t levitate on thrust. Things simply don’t scale in this manner, the cost of the components isn’t even the issue here the cost of maintaining a system that is certified for manned flight is, buying a helicopter is cheap keeping it flight worthy is the expensive part especially when it comes to commercial application. Literarily nearly every commercial aircraft has about as many maintanance hours as flight hours and in fact many have more. Just to put into perspective here is what the Airforce considers an aircraft that is efficient to maintain: >Reliability and maintainability are two outstanding benefits of the C-17 system. Current operational requirements impose demanding reliability and maintainability. These requirements include an aircraft mission completion success probability rate of 92 percent, only 20 aircraft maintenance man-hours per flying hour While smaller aircraft don’t require as much as 20 hours per each flight hour they would still require plenty of it to make scalability very difficult.