undefined | Better HN

0 pointsOnlineGladiator6y ago0 comments

In that case, what makes them more useful than helicopters?

0 comments

They aim to be much cheaper to run. Helicopters are mechanically complex so require a lot of maintenance, and have multiple single points of failure so you can’t skip the maintenance, and are demanding to learn to fly. The hourly rate of a helicopter is high.

Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With that done the piloting is easy.

OnlineGladiatorOP6y ago

Sure, they're trying to make it cheaper. But all of the eVTOL designs I've seen can't autorotate, making them much less safe (contrary to your implication about redundancy).

Everything I've seen about this space is people with big checks trying to cut corners to enter a new market, and it seems ripe to fail much like the 737-MAX.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/insid...

And that's ignoring all of the problems with the market itself, not to mention regulations, as well as logistical headaches of transporting between rooftops (which by the way, many cannot safely support landing pads - so now you also have to retrofit skyscrapers with incredibly expensive infrastructure).

To be fair you answered my question and I'm just being belligerent, so thank you for the response.

robotresearcher6y ago

The argument is that you don’t need to autorotate if you can land under control on 2/3 of your 16 motors and the failure rate of each is epsilon.

smattiso6y ago

The likelihood of failure is much lower with an eVTOL than a conventional helicopter. Additionally a BRS chute could work with eVTOLs in a way it couldn't with a normal heli.

1 more reply

malandrew6y ago

What makes you think people aren't working on all the problems you think they are ignoring? I personally know at least one person working each and every one of the problems you mentioned.

1 more reply

ngoel366y ago

They are all-electric, 100x quieter, notably safer, and significantly cheaper by the mile.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

robotresearcher6y ago

Electric motors are simple and reliable and all these companies use multiples so have some redundancy. Multi-rotors require computer control for stability. With that done the piloting is easy.

OnlineGladiatorOP6y ago

Sure, they're trying to make it cheaper. But all of the eVTOL designs I've seen can't autorotate, making them much less safe (contrary to your implication about redundancy).

Everything I've seen about this space is people with big checks trying to cut corners to enter a new market, and it seems ripe to fail much like the 737-MAX.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/12/01/insid...

To be fair you answered my question and I'm just being belligerent, so thank you for the response.

robotresearcher6y ago

The argument is that you don’t need to autorotate if you can land under control on 2/3 of your 16 motors and the failure rate of each is epsilon.

smattiso6y ago

The likelihood of failure is much lower with an eVTOL than a conventional helicopter. Additionally a BRS chute could work with eVTOLs in a way it couldn't with a normal heli.

1 more reply

malandrew6y ago

What makes you think people aren't working on all the problems you think they are ignoring? I personally know at least one person working each and every one of the problems you mentioned.

1 more reply

ngoel366y ago

They are all-electric, 100x quieter, notably safer, and significantly cheaper by the mile.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse