3 ms·
Did I miss the reference to or evidence of VTOL?
by jack_riminton 4y ago
Did I miss the reference to or evidence of VTOL?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- EthanHeilman 4y agoI was really curious about this as well. Mach 0.8 is less impressive to me than VTOL, but the article didn't provide any details on how VTOL would work.
- sokoloff 4y agoExactly. Mach 0.5 (or even 0.4) point to point would be a huge win for a lot of use cases.
- squarefoot 4y agoThe shown prototype indeed isn't VTOL, but this one is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV_AVsscuBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV_AVsscuBk
- detrites 4y agoDoesn't seem to be wobbling itself up to Mach 0.8 - do both claims belong together?
- fastball 4y agoThe VTOL part obviously isn't Mach 0.8
- jack_riminton 4y agoThis is a completely different design. Also looks far far smaller than a quarter scale
- jaclaz 4y agoIt shows that I am getting old, but "prototype" is IMHO a big world, both videos show what I would call "RC models".
- squarefoot 4y agoYes, used the wrong term of course, I meant something to show the idea.
- jaclaz 4y agoI know, I was trying to highlight how at the moment (like so many of these "innovative" startups) not much of substance is shown. The article itself seems to alternate between deecribing something that already exists and the theoretical calculation about something that will (hopefully) be built.
- hef19898 4y agoThat's not even close to a technical demonstrator, it is a wind canal model.