3 ms·

Wow, those are gonna turn someone into ground meat at some point. I'm not sure that having that many propellers at knee and waist level is a good idea. These

Wow, those are gonna turn someone into ground meat at some point. I'm not sure that having that many propellers at knee and waist level is a good idea. These seem like less safe helicopters?

Animats 6y ago
That's a problem. You don't want anyone anywhere near those things on takeoff and landing. Which is a problem if they use them for package delivery. However, the eHang really does fly, it really does carry people, and it works well enough they sent a reporter for the SCMP up in it. Closest thing to a flying car so far.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  This design is basically not safe to use except on controlled access helipads; landing elsewhere is eventually going to turn someone into hamburger meat. It's really not any different from a small helicopter, which have existed for decades. How is this any closer to a flying car? The key aspect of a flying car is that it's safe to drive around on roads and fly around in the air. This thing can't do roads at all, not the driving nor even safely taking off or landing on them.
  - 7952 6y ago
    The rear rotor of a helicopter will occasionally do that also. Although it could be better with a craft that can easily turn on and off in an instant. A helicopter is often accessed by humans when powered up
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      The difference with the helicopter is that you can approach it safely from almost any angle to board/deboard, just don't approach from the tail, whereas this flying car thing has a ring of death all the way around the outside. And having the option of leaving the thing running has some advantages too. I'm just not buying that this design solves any problems. At most it miiiight be a cheaper helicopter, but right now, it looks substantially less capable than helicopters too, and it seems like its failure mode is worse (helicopters can survivably land through autorotation even with a full loss of power; N-copters can't). So I'm not really seeing the benefits of this design.

Wow, those are gonna turn someone into ground meat at some point. I'm not sure that having that many propellers at knee and waist level is a good idea. These seem like less safe helicopters?

Animats 6y ago

That's a problem. You don't want anyone anywhere near those things on takeoff and landing. Which is a problem if they use them for package delivery. However, the eHang really does fly, it really does carry people, and it works well enough they sent a reporter for the SCMP up in it. Closest thing to a flying car so far.

CydeWeys 6y ago
This design is basically not safe to use except on controlled access helipads; landing elsewhere is eventually going to turn someone into hamburger meat. It's really not any different from a small helicopter, which have existed for decades. How is this any closer to a flying car? The key aspect of a flying car is that it's safe to drive around on roads and fly around in the air. This thing can't do roads at all, not the driving nor even safely taking off or landing on them.
- 7952 6y ago
  The rear rotor of a helicopter will occasionally do that also. Although it could be better with a craft that can easily turn on and off in an instant. A helicopter is often accessed by humans when powered up
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The difference with the helicopter is that you can approach it safely from almost any angle to board/deboard, just don't approach from the tail, whereas this flying car thing has a ring of death all the way around the outside. And having the option of leaving the thing running has some advantages too. I'm just not buying that this design solves any problems. At most it miiiight be a cheaper helicopter, but right now, it looks substantially less capable than helicopters too, and it seems like its failure mode is worse (helicopters can survivably land through autorotation even with a full loss of power; N-copters can't). So I'm not really seeing the benefits of this design.