49 Comments

  1. No 4 is not safe. A strong wind would knock it upside down. No 3 is cool, people in third world countries don’t need a bridge to cross a river. No 1 has a ton of potential as a ski taxi.

  2. In these crazy times, think that drones should only be used by the military, law enforcement and first responders and all must be registered and require a special license!

  3. To all the people that say "it isn’t a drone if someone is in it". Well, that’s not necessarily true. If there are controls and it is being piloted by the person inside, then no, it’s not a drone. But that’s not the idea here. The concept is to have a fully automated flying drone that you can climb in (or put material in) and it will fly itself to your destination. If it needs a pilot, it defeats the purpose – then it’s just a really expensive, inefficient, electric helicopter that needs a pilot, air clearance, flight plan, massive insurance etc. etc.

  4. These are really a hoot! As Rated Rotary Wing pilot with Type Ratings and certificates for INSTH (instrument) and CFI (Certified Flight Instructor) , military (Vietnam) and civilian time, I can say I’m very impressed with the software and navigation/automation technology in the drones today. However, getting in and flying, (or considering the flight automation software, "riding" is a better description) in one of these designs, is a completely different matter. The test pilots in this video have a "pair" the size of basketballs. Note to test pilots on aerodynamics and in-flight power failures: Fixed wing aircraft, glide, Rotary wing (helicopters) auto-rotate, LAAAV/Drone vehicles possess neither capability, having the aerodynamics of a simonized brick. Without power, they fall straight down. I strongly suggest re-reading Galileo’s observations at the Tower of Pisa and what was learned about terminal velocity before operating an LAAAV.

    Some quick observations on each design:

    #5 – The "Exercise Ball" for hard landings, is a very creative safety feature. I wonder how high he would bounce, if he lost power at a 5′ foot hover. Can’t imagine how high the rebound would be from 250′.
    #4 – I don’t think the dome is to keep off the rain. Someone (an engineer?) obviously figured out that if one or more of dozens of blades failed, the direction they may take. I can’t tell, but is that a big cushion under the seat? *see #5
    #3 – At least he’s no higher than the middle diving board at the pool. But, he’s strapped to a anchor. Stay away from the deep end.
    #2 – Slick, actual engineering attempt, high landing gear for hard landing deceleration for power failures below 3′ hover…may come away with only spinal compression instead of a broken back. Above 3′ forget it. (see terminal velocity) This thing has one hell of lot of moving parts. Each with the potential of failure. If one fails what happens to the others? Redundancy? Don’t think so. Rule of thumb: Increasing the number of moving parts exponentially increases the odds of having a catastrophic failure.
    #1 – Great video quality. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the flight scenes were actual manned flights. Video editing perhaps? Like the name "Ehang" and the acronym LAAAV, easy to remember. Impressed with the of emphasis on "Safety", but never mentions what actual safety engineering features are inplace. The rotors appeared to be fixed pitch. See comment on "aerodynamics of a simonized brick’ in first paragraph. Maybe, they have auto-deploring drogue chutes? Adds a lot of weight, and aren’t too effective below 500′ AGL, where the FAA has restricted their operation.

    Although, I’m considering getting a Drone w/video to capture some of my great fishing moments, (I can always edit in the fish later).

  5. If you have hundreds of taxi passenger/ delivery drones flying around it’s going to be noisy. They will need to employe silencing technology if they are to produce drones with less buzz.

  6. SAFETY BY DESIGN? Idiots. NOTHING that requires 4 motors, one in each corner, is safe. One eng goes out…. Down you go! That’s a death trap.

  7. They are called MRLA-VE I designed the first one for fighter jets the name is stands for r for richard l for lee a armstrong m for maker ve is for vehicle which for my name but if you move the letters around it spells marvel lol I now have water craft that changes everything its my second marvel

  8. No-one was in #2 doesn’t count. Human transport means human occupied NOT sandbag occupied. No-one had the guts to climb in it?
    #1 is a PURE hoax and doesn’t exist. Computer graphics and scale models don’t count.

  9. i like the ehang but it has flaws such as autonomous control by gps. as new ways have recently been discovered to jam signals and shut down motors in flight. this raises a serious safety issue. if it is getting its signals by air then it is not safe! it will need a full system computer in the ehang as wifi is so easily hacked! if safety is the most important then keep designing the in flight control system so it can read its own maps and you will need a company satellite to keep it private at the least. big investments for greatness. great job so far! i will keep watching for new developments.

  10. do they know the chopper has already been invented?! and its safer than these drones. Seems like we are going backwards instead of forward.

  11. It’s just incredible, I still hope I can ride in this ship before I even die. Congratulations to all those who made these incredible flying machines.

  12. It’s like a drone that carries a human a omg it’s never done before an easy solution is I don’t care we have helicopters I guess it’s not really a drone because it’s not an rc it’s like if u are stranded at sea u can have a drone come and help you
    Or u can use a helicopter and not run out of battery and get there faster
    Like if u agree
    Got some people r dumb

  13. need an anti-matter powered propulsion system, this battery crap just sucks.

    I wouldn’t mind sleeping in a sound proof coffin that flies me from NY to Calf in 8 hours. If they get the power source stuff figured out it would be an amazing transport system. I could have one in my backyard and enter my destination and just sit back and read a magazine or sleep until I’m there. Same with the computer driven cars. So tired of wasting time driving or using airports.

  14. absolute safety by design, is why I don’t trust this product. " maximum safety by design" is more like it and closer to reality!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


wp-puzzle.com logo