Gatwick drones -what utter stupidity and selfishness

[TheLurker]

No I didn't miss it, the drone "lost",

Ermm, I think you may have missed the fact that in the Chilean incident the passenger in the helicopter was hurt when the drone smashed through the canopy.  As it weighed 0.75kg I assume the passenger was quite badly hurt.

[jiberjaber]

Meanwhile in Germany...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1363806958843748358

[Davef]

No I didn't miss it, the drone "lost",

Ermm, I think you may have missed the fact that in the Chilean incident the passenger in the helicopter was hurt when the drone smashed through the canopy.  As it weighed 0.75kg I assume the passenger was quite badly hurt.

Unlucky to be bopped on the end of the nose.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The "human capable" drone in the Goodwood incident – would the human in the drone have been a passive passenger, at the mercies of the controller on the ground? That sounds scary. Or would they have been in control of the machine? In which case it surely ceases to be an unmanned aerial vehicle and they would presumably require a private pilot's licence.

[Diver300]

The "human capable" drone in the Goodwood incident – would the human in the drone have been a passive passenger, at the mercies of the controller on the ground? That sounds scary. Or would they have been in control of the machine? In which case it surely ceases to be an unmanned aerial vehicle and they would presumably require a private pilot's licence.

It was a scale model of the human capable machine. It was over half size, but smaller and lighter than one that could carry a person.

The designers hadn't properly looked at the failure modes of the model. I hope the crash made them stop or at least take time to work out what could go wrong with a bit more care.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It reminds me that in Bristol we're getting "flying taxis" in 2023 (yes oh yes that date is absolutely entirely guaranteed cast-iron definite, I read it in the Brizzle Post), which it seems are basically large drones. Presumably with a pilot. (The idea is they will take well-heeled passengers from the city to the airport – about ten miles – and vice versa, rather than general taxi services, so it does make a bit of sense.)

[TimC]

While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.

[Mr Larrington]

While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.

Yes, they can be a bit on the large side:



 

[Diver300]

While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.

I don't think that a quad rotor craft can be controlled with one rotor inoperative. Control of roll, pitch, yaw and power are all needed.  With three rotors, there are only three control inputs so it can't work.

A helicopter has cyclic (fore-aft and left-right, so two controls) plus collective and tail rotor power. A fixed wing has ailerons, rudder, elevators and power, but they are usually stable in flight so you can get away with fewer. Multi-rotor craft are unstable in all directions so all four are needed.

A 6 rotor machine may be able to control will the loss of one rotor.

[TimC]

Yes, I know how a helicopter works. I can, at a push, even describe retreating-blade stall and vortex ring (RAF A2 fixed-wing QFI, so my description might be a bit superficial!).

I believe a quad-rotor can be controlled with the loss of a rotor if each rotor is gimballed, which would allow each rotor to give an element of sideways thrust. The loss of a motor is probably more easily resolved with back-ups. The point is that if it looks economically viable, it will be done. If it looks likely that it won't be cheaper than a single-rotor helo, it won't happen.

[Beardy]

Yes, I know how a helicopter works. I can, at a push, even describe retreating-blade stall and vortex ring (RAF A2 fixed-wing QFI, so my description might be a bit superficial!).

I believe a quad-rotor can be controlled with the loss of a rotor if each rotor is gimballed, which would allow each rotor to give an element of sideways thrust. The loss of a motor is probably more easily resolved with back-ups. The point is that if it looks economically viable, it will be done. If it looks likely that it won't be cheaper than a single-rotor helo, it won't happen.

From a purely redundancy pooling of view, helicopters are just about the daftest idea for getting aloft that there is, a position that they haven’t exactly shown to be erroneous over the years. That said, I don’t actually know what their failure rate is in comparison to fixed wing, though their operational capabilities have largely negated any increased risk.
Multi rotor with demonstrable redundancy capabilities may improve the safety shortcoming, real or perceived, and is something that will be required if they are to fly over dense population centres. 

[TimC]

Indeed. I hate them with a passion. But that's not an entirely rational response!

[Beardy]

As a glider pilot I can’t really get any further away from helicopters while remaining in a structured aircraft  I like the idea that there are two ways to fly, with finesse or with an engine, although tour CFI* once opined  that anyone could fly, it was doing it at speed that took the skill.

* Tom Eagles, also a jet pilot instructor in the RAF. How cool is that, a flying instructor called Eagles. Perhaps one for the nominative determination thread 

[TimC]

I had a student called eagles. Her dad was a Royal Navy test pilot of some renown. She is now a B777 Captain with BA. Sadly, I don't know Tom - it would be funny if he were Anna's son!

[Beardy]

I had a student called eagles. Her dad was a Royal Navy test pilot of some renown. She is now a B777 Captain with BA. Sadly, I don't know Tom - it would be funny if he were Anna's son!

I think him being her son is unlikely given that I learnt to fly in the 80s and he was club CFI and a senior RAF flight instructor at the time. 

[Davef]

While the projected in-service date seems wildly optimistic, there's a lot to be said for the quad-rotor concept as a replacement for single-rotor helicopters. Ground footprint is one of the disadvantages, but if the mechanics of control after the loss of a motor or rotor can be resolved, I see a place for it as transportation.

I don't think that a quad rotor craft can be controlled with one rotor inoperative. Control of roll, pitch, yaw and power are all needed.  With three rotors, there are only three control inputs so it can't work.

A helicopter has cyclic (fore-aft and left-right, so two controls) plus collective and tail rotor power. A fixed wing has ailerons, rudder, elevators and power, but they are usually stable in flight so you can get away with fewer. Multi-rotor craft are unstable in all directions so all four are needed.

A 6 rotor machine may be able to control will the loss of one rotor.

https://youtu.be/bsHryqnvyYA

[TimC]

I had a student called eagles. Her dad was a Royal Navy test pilot of some renown. She is now a B777 Captain with BA. Sadly, I don't know Tom - it would be funny if he were Anna's son!

I think him being her son is unlikely given that I learnt to fly in the 80s and he was club CFI and a senior RAF flight instructor at the time. 

Ah, which puts him a good bit older than Anna, who was around 20 in 1987, when I took her on. Oh well.