Volocopter manned flight

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
It is slick, but still ...

apocalypse-now-ride-of-the-valkyries2-o.gif


It looks a bit impractical, and trying to reinvent the wheel a bit conceptually, perhaps.
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,839
33,898
136
I like it. One can crash without all that fiery death and stuff. You're still going to die, but any death that doesn't involve fire is more better than a death that does.

Anyway, if this becomes available and I could afford it, hell yes. "Low battery, please plug into charger." <Checks altitude> "Roh roh."
 

TwiceOver

Lifer
Dec 20, 2002
13,544
44
91
Is there something interesting here? I guess I don't get why it matters that someone scaled up a DJI Phantom. Is there an article that goes with the video?
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Is there something interesting here? I guess I don't get why it matters that someone scaled up a DJI Phantom. Is there an article that goes with the video?

If you know anything about helicopters then i's pretty easy to see how revolutionary this could be. You lose a couple rotors, no problem, the computer adjusts the output of the others. Steer with one hand using a single joystick: every chopper pilot who ever had an itchy nose just jumped for joy. It could ultimately be a _much_ more stable and controllable platform. No tail rotor, no complex coupling to allow for rotor disk tilt, rotors themselves are much smaller, and much easier to manufacture. Really power source is the only hurdle keeping something like this out of the mainstream, imo. I don't know what it's potential in heavy lift situations is either, but that's a minority of helicopter applications.
 

TwiceOver

Lifer
Dec 20, 2002
13,544
44
91
If you know anything about helicopters then i's pretty easy to see how revolutionary this could be. You lose a couple rotors, no problem, the computer adjusts the output of the others. Steer with one hand using a single joystick: every chopper pilot who ever had an itchy nose just jumped for joy. It could ultimately be a _much_ more stable and controllable platform. No tail rotor, no complex coupling to allow for rotor disk tilt, rotors themselves are much smaller, and much easier to manufacture. Really power source is the only hurdle keeping something like this out of the mainstream, imo. I don't know what it's potential in heavy lift situations is either, but that's a minority of helicopter applications.

I don't, so thank you for supplying some context.
 

twinrider1

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2003
4,096
64
91
On the plus side
I think maintenance costs would be less. Common recip engines cost around $15k-$20k to overhaul. Common time between overhauls is 2000 hours.
All you'd have to do on a brushless motor is replace the bearings at some point.

On the down side.
I don't think these things can auto-rotate. Low mass, fixed pitch. Probably going to drop like a rock. Possibly countered by having so many rotors/batteries.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
When they pair this with a lightweight engine/generator to extend range and reduce the need for batteries then they'll have something. Until then it's just a neat technology demonstrator.


Brian
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
I don't think these things can auto-rotate. Low mass, fixed pitch. Probably going to drop like a rock. Possibly countered by having so many rotors/batteries.

That's a very good point. I suspect you're right, but with the heavy redundancy on the power system maybe it's much less of an issue.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
If you know anything about helicopters then i's pretty easy to see how revolutionary this could be. You lose a couple rotors, no problem, the computer adjusts the output of the others. Steer with one hand using a single joystick: every chopper pilot who ever had an itchy nose just jumped for joy. It could ultimately be a _much_ more stable and controllable platform. No tail rotor, no complex coupling to allow for rotor disk tilt, rotors themselves are much smaller, and much easier to manufacture. Really power source is the only hurdle keeping something like this out of the mainstream, imo. I don't know what it's potential in heavy lift situations is either, but that's a minority of helicopter applications.

The biggest advantage with respect to helicopter i would think is no longer needing the swashplate and rods. I am always amazed to see what that fine piece of machinery has to be able to handle.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(aeronautics)

helicopter-rotor.gif





I think the osprey already has a big advantage from not needing that.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(aeronautics)
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
Power is the issue, it has been for decades. We need a leap in battery tech so bad, output and weight. Every year it's "this is the new battery tech!", never makes it to market.
 
May 11, 2008
22,551
1,471
126
Intermezzo here :
I was wrong, an osprey also need cyclic pitch control and collective pitch control.

A Tiltrotor is not A Helicopter
Although a tiltrotor aircraft can hover and has excellent maneuverability and handling qualities in vertical flight like a helicopter, it has other capabilities that greatly exceed those of a helicopter. Consequently, it is misleading and inaccurate to refer to a tiltrotor as a helicopter. A helicopter&#8217;s wing is its rotor (or rotors). The rotor blades are rotated about a shaft above the aircraft. As the rotors pass through the air, they create the lift so the aircraft can remain stationary over the ground &#8211; the process is called hovering. Varying the pitch of the rotor blades (as they rotate) provides control of the helicopter. The helicopter can move vertically up and down by increasing or decreasing pitch on all rotor blades simultaneously &#8211; a process called collective pitch control. The helicopter can control its movement over the ground by varying the pitch of individual blades, increasing or decreasing lift at selected points during blade rotation &#8211; a process called cyclic pitch control. The combination of collective and cyclic pitch-control gives the helicopter its excellent control characteristics in the hover. The helicopter&#8217;s thrust is almost always pointed upward. The helicopter achieves forward flight by tilting the plane of its blade rotation forward; thus, slightly tilting its thrust in the desired direction of flight. Tilting the thrust direction is an inefficient method for generating forward thrust. Consequently, it requires a great deal of power to achieve high speeds, while sustaining level flight. This characteristic of the helicopter, along with the high drag of its rotor system, and the problem of retreating blade stall (at higher speeds) accounts for the speed limitations of a helicopter. The tiltrotor achieves its lift and control in hovering flight in exactly the same way as a helicopter: proprotor system lift, collective pitch-control, and cyclic pitch-control. This gives the tiltrotor its excellent hover and slow flight-handling characteristics. However, the tiltrotor can tilt its proprotors from vertical to horizontal for providing thrust while relying on its wing for lift. In this mode, the tiltrotor overcomes many of the helicopter&#8217;s high speed limitations: Some of these helicopter&#8217;s limitations include: &#8226; High rotor system drag &#8226; Retreating blade stall &#8226; High vibratory loads A tiltrotor has characteristics uncommon to conventional single rotor helicopters or conventional airplanes. Of particular significance are the following: &#8226; The counter-rotating proprotors eliminate the yawing movement due to primary lift, which drives the requirement for an anti-torque device in single rotor helicopters. &#8226; The interconnecting driveshafts automatically deliver power to both rotors following the loss of one engine, which eliminates asymmetrical thrust during single engine operation.

With all these little rotors in the volocopter, it is not needed.
 

Brian Stirling

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,964
2
0
Power is the issue, it has been for decades. We need a leap in battery tech so bad, output and weight. Every year it's "this is the new battery tech!", never makes it to market.

Yes, power is a problem but there's other problems as well. Clearly batteries have the power to lift a copter like this as the video plainly shows, but the batteries, though powerful enough, do not have nearly enough capacity (energy) to maintain a long flight. The small consumer drones from companies like DJI have flight times in the 10 minute to 25 minute range and in order to get that you have to run the battery down to 20% or so and doing that shortens the lifespan of the pack.

And that brings you to the third factor -- pack lifespan. I own a DJI Inspire 1 Pro and the TB-48 battery pack, with 130WHr energy, will get me a maximum of about 15 minutes flight time but in order to not overuse the pack I try to land before I hit 30% which puts me at a flight time of more like 12 minutes and that's with a new pack. As the pack ages the capacity drops and the flight times drop with it. I don't know of anyone with more than 100 flights on a single pack before replacement and they cost $200 each.

The fourth factor is pack cost and although that's improving it's still pretty high. Assuming a 100 flight per battery and a cost of $200 per battery that works out to $2/flight. And, with declining flight times as the pack ages so that over the 100 flights the average flight time might be, say, 9 minutes that would put the cost per hour at more like $13/hr just for the battery and not counting the electricity to charge it.

Scale that up for a drone capable of carrying a human and capable of, say, a one hour flight and you'd be looking at a battery cost of someplace north of $1000/hr just for the battery.


Brian
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
If you know anything about helicopters then i's pretty easy to see how revolutionary this could be. You lose a couple rotors, no problem, the computer adjusts the output of the others. Steer with one hand using a single joystick: every chopper pilot who ever had an itchy nose just jumped for joy. It could ultimately be a _much_ more stable and controllable platform. No tail rotor, no complex coupling to allow for rotor disk tilt, rotors themselves are much smaller, and much easier to manufacture. Really power source is the only hurdle keeping something like this out of the mainstream, imo. I don't know what it's potential in heavy lift situations is either, but that's a minority of helicopter applications.

As another who was initially not overly impressed, this makes a lot of sense.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,839
33,898
136
I ride in helicopters fairly regularly and as impressive as they are, they scare the chit out of me. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE flying in helicopters but when one reflects on the stupidly large forces at work in a very light weight vehicle, it boggles the mind that helicopters don't tear themselves apart upon spool up. The volocopter looks interesting to me because it spreads those forces around a bit and appears to place less stress on any one piece. On the other hand, the same basic physics applies. Karlsruhe, Germany is at 400 feet above sea level. The flights I take routinely land at 7000-9000 feet msl. That's a work out for most light to medium helicopters. The power requirements to fly at elevation are significantly higher than for sea level flight.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Scale that up for a drone capable of carrying a human and capable of, say, a one hour flight and you'd be looking at a battery cost of someplace north of $1000/hr just for the battery.

And batteries are very heavy, which again has me wondering: why not rotax + generator? Carry just enough battery to store power for an automated descent in cases of engine failure.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
And that brings you to the third factor -- pack lifespan.

Yeah, I forgot to touch on that, but it's also a huge issue. These high drain devices just kill batteries with current tech. We need a new generation of batteries, OR something that will generate a significant amount on demand that's light and uses renewable fuel (pipe dream).
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Real cool stuff. But, the title of the youtube article refers to it as a revolution in urban mobility. That, I doubt. They're larger than cars - where do you park them? How do you control air traffic? The idiots on the road descend to helplessness if the power goes out to traffic lights - there are no traffic lights in the sky. An urban environment seems to have too high of a population density for these things to be safe - an accident overhead could send a pair of these, including perhaps a few functioning rotors, into pedestrian areas.


Now... If I could get one of these, and they had decent speed, say 60mph, out here in a rural area, I could run to the grocery store and back fairly conveniently.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,285
12,847
136
While it's pretty damn cool, I wouldn't call it a revolution. People have a hard enough time navigating cars in 2 dimensions. 3 dimensions would result in absolute chaos.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Real cool stuff. But, the title of the youtube article refers to it as a revolution in urban mobility. That, I doubt. They're larger than cars - where do you park them? How do you control air traffic? The idiots on the road descend to helplessness if the power goes out to traffic lights - there are no traffic lights in the sky. An urban environment seems to have too high of a population density for these things to be safe - an accident overhead could send a pair of these, including perhaps a few functioning rotors, into pedestrian areas.


Now... If I could get one of these, and they had decent speed, say 60mph, out here in a rural area, I could run to the grocery store and back fairly conveniently.

Yeah I don't know why they chose that headline, but I agree that it's a little absurd to think of legions of these things flitting around NYC Bladerunner style. When I watched the vid I was thinking much more in terms of some of the common rotorcraft applications. Ultimately it will need a lot more range, more carrying capacity, but go back and look at the earliest airplanes. There's a lot of room for innovation based on better control systems and software, more efficient motors, and of course hopefully someday better batteries.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
The biggest advantage with respect to helicopter i would think is no longer needing the swashplate and rods. I am always amazed to see what that fine piece of machinery has to be able to handle.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_%28aeronautics%29

helicopter-rotor.gif





I think the osprey already has a big advantage from not needing that.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(aeronautics)

Yep, producing a swash plate right is a pretty high precision operation to begin with.

Are some pretty high tolerances involved.

I've never been a big Osprey fan myself, but seems they finally got them to fly after 35 years or so in development.

Kinda of like what is going on with the F-35 these days.