5 ms·

Twenty minutes of flight time is reasonable for a drone with swappable batteries. It seems next to useless for manned flight. In comparison the cheapest airplan

by causi 3y ago

Twenty minutes of flight time is reasonable for a drone with swappable batteries. It seems next to useless for manned flight. In comparison the cheapest airplane, the Cessna 175 Skylark, has a flight endurance of 4.3 hours.

jcgrillo 3y ago
Yikes that's scary. In a Cessna or similar once you get into your reserve (figure ~45min running time) it becomes very urgent to get on the ground asap. And this thing looks like it glides about as well as a brick. EDIT: worth quoting: > it can fly at a cruise speed of 55 knots to a range of about 20 miles (32 kilometers) with 20 percent battery reserves left That's four minutes of "reserve power" lmao. Absolutely not, no thanks. EDIT: to put this into perspective, if you're flying at 7500ft and you hit your 4min reserve, you would need to fly straight down at over 20mph, and then aggressively slow your descent during the last few seconds in order to not die.
- porphyra 3y ago
  On the bright side, it seems like it can land anywhere and doesn't require a runway.
  - jcgrillo 3y ago
    It sure can land anywhere, and once those batteries die you'll have a very high likelihood estimate of exactly when and where it'll do so ;)
  - nosequel 3y ago
    Like a helicopter, but with way less range, payload, and capabilities.
    - serf 3y ago
      well, and with no alternative to landing w/ power. at least a helicopter can take a glide path.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    With no landing gear, it can only land on soft surfaces without damaging itself. The pilot's visibility is compromised during landing making it dangerous to set down near any infrastructure that will kill you.
- maskull 3y ago
  Neither the Cessna nor many helicopters (autorotation) need power to land. I wouldn't want to get into one of these e-bricks!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- KeplerBoy 3y ago
  Something tells me you're not supposed to fly this thing at 7500ft for a multitude of reasons. The energy needed to get you to that altitude would probably be prohibitive.
kwhitefoot 3y ago
They have rather different performance characteristics, each can do things the other cannot. According to Wikipedia Cessna 175 production ceased in 1962; if that is true it's not really a fair comparison.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  They might have meant the 172 skyhawk which is what the skylark is based on and is still available. If you want applesto apples check out the Mosquito helicopter. One person experimental/ultralight helicopter that can basically match this thing for performance
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    There's an electric version of that under development too. https://evtol.news/composite-fx-xe-volt-mosquito-proof-of-concept https://evtol.news/composite-fx-xe-volt-mosquito-proof-of-co...
gpm 3y ago
Seems more analogous to a helicopter than a cessna. VTOL makes it a lot easier to actually use this. You don't need to go to an airstrip - as a rich person toy that means its much more readibly available. As a method of transportation that means that opens up a lot of trips - probably primarily commuting - even if you are limited to 32 km range and destinations where you can arrange a clear area to land.
- jcgrillo 3y ago
  Helicopters can auto-rotate if you lose power, I'd be interested to see what it's like to deadstick land one of these. I guess that's what the whole-aircraft ballistic parachute system is for? IIRC in other airframes if you deploy that it's basically a write off.
  - sitzkrieg 3y ago
    the dead sticking result is probably measured by meters below grass
    - kibwen 3y ago
      The good news is that, at 343 pounds when empty, they won't need to dig too deep to recover your body.
  - pests 3y ago
    They have parachutes for airplanes. edit: I didn't read the end of the comment that mentioned the whole-airplane system already, apologies.
    - jcgrillo 3y ago
      Right, but if you deploy the parachute you can kiss your airplane goodbye. It's totalled at that point and will never fly again. So in this case that's a $190k decision. Why not instead just fly an airplane (or helicopter) that is good at being an aircraft? If your budget is $190k you have some incredible options available.

by causi 3y ago

jcgrillo 3y ago

Yikes that's scary. In a Cessna or similar once you get into your reserve (figure ~45min running time) it becomes very urgent to get on the ground asap. And this thing looks like it glides about as well as a brick. EDIT: worth quoting: > it can fly at a cruise speed of 55 knots to a range of about 20 miles (32 kilometers) with 20 percent battery reserves left That's four minutes of "reserve power" lmao. Absolutely not, no thanks. EDIT: to put this into perspective, if you're flying at 7500ft and you hit your 4min reserve, you would need to fly straight down at over 20mph, and then aggressively slow your descent during the last few seconds in order to not die.

porphyra 3y ago
On the bright side, it seems like it can land anywhere and doesn't require a runway.
- jcgrillo 3y ago
  It sure can land anywhere, and once those batteries die you'll have a very high likelihood estimate of exactly when and where it'll do so ;)
- nosequel 3y ago
  Like a helicopter, but with way less range, payload, and capabilities.
  - serf 3y ago
    well, and with no alternative to landing w/ power. at least a helicopter can take a glide path.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  With no landing gear, it can only land on soft surfaces without damaging itself. The pilot's visibility is compromised during landing making it dangerous to set down near any infrastructure that will kill you.
maskull 3y ago
Neither the Cessna nor many helicopters (autorotation) need power to land. I wouldn't want to get into one of these e-bricks!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
KeplerBoy 3y ago
Something tells me you're not supposed to fly this thing at 7500ft for a multitude of reasons. The energy needed to get you to that altitude would probably be prohibitive.

kwhitefoot 3y ago

They have rather different performance characteristics, each can do things the other cannot. According to Wikipedia Cessna 175 production ceased in 1962; if that is true it's not really a fair comparison.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
They might have meant the 172 skyhawk which is what the skylark is based on and is still available. If you want applesto apples check out the Mosquito helicopter. One person experimental/ultralight helicopter that can basically match this thing for performance
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  There's an electric version of that under development too. https://evtol.news/composite-fx-xe-volt-mosquito-proof-of-concept https://evtol.news/composite-fx-xe-volt-mosquito-proof-of-co...

gpm 3y ago

Seems more analogous to a helicopter than a cessna. VTOL makes it a lot easier to actually use this. You don't need to go to an airstrip - as a rich person toy that means its much more readibly available. As a method of transportation that means that opens up a lot of trips - probably primarily commuting - even if you are limited to 32 km range and destinations where you can arrange a clear area to land.

jcgrillo 3y ago
Helicopters can auto-rotate if you lose power, I'd be interested to see what it's like to deadstick land one of these. I guess that's what the whole-aircraft ballistic parachute system is for? IIRC in other airframes if you deploy that it's basically a write off.
- sitzkrieg 3y ago
  the dead sticking result is probably measured by meters below grass
  - kibwen 3y ago
    The good news is that, at 343 pounds when empty, they won't need to dig too deep to recover your body.
- pests 3y ago
  They have parachutes for airplanes. edit: I didn't read the end of the comment that mentioned the whole-airplane system already, apologies.
  - jcgrillo 3y ago
    Right, but if you deploy the parachute you can kiss your airplane goodbye. It's totalled at that point and will never fly again. So in this case that's a $190k decision. Why not instead just fly an airplane (or helicopter) that is good at being an aircraft? If your budget is $190k you have some incredible options available.