World’s largest multirotor makes successful maiden flight(suasnews.com)
suasnews.com
World’s largest multirotor makes successful maiden flight
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/04/28563/worlds-largest-multirotor-makes-successful-maiden-flight/
10 comments
Ok, screw flying cars. We are now one step closer to a flying Winnebago.
Needs some jets strapped to it, wired to a button labeled 'Ludicrous Speed'.
Needs some jets strapped to it, wired to a button labeled 'Ludicrous Speed'.
Some JATOs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ (action at 37 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXfK4ypirI
They can be dangerous...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hru0z9WJwKo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ (action at 37 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXfK4ypirI
They can be dangerous...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hru0z9WJwKo
I prefer the far more personal version:
http://vimeo.com/86054588
http://vimeo.com/86054588
I don't get why it needs massive heavy tyres. Wouldn't it be better to have a mobile platform from where it lifted off from saving quite a bit of weight. I mean the wheels and suspension must way rather a lot. This is a supply unit.
The off road driving module is optional. From the article "Additionally, the modular automobile portion of the vehicle can be removed for additional payload capacity or replaced with a boat hull or an amphibious hull for water operations."
You may be supplying or evacuating casualties from an area covered in trees, buildings, or enemy arms. You don't want to load and unload in a landing zone, it takes time, men, and equipment and makes a target.
If it's intended for tactical uses, it needs to be more robust to take more abuse in unfriendly terrain. ;)
It should have a detachable undercarriage which it can land onto to get the off road capability, while without that - it would just have regular stilt-like legs...
Actually - an autonomous under belly with engine for driving around - which can be mated to the flight portion (where the flight capability was not removed by mating) would be interesting.
Basically you have a waypoint where the mating happens; flight body returns to way point for pickup & mating -- as does the drive train.
Drive train carries casualties/supplies to the waypoint for transport/extraction...
Actually - an autonomous under belly with engine for driving around - which can be mated to the flight portion (where the flight capability was not removed by mating) would be interesting.
Basically you have a waypoint where the mating happens; flight body returns to way point for pickup & mating -- as does the drive train.
Drive train carries casualties/supplies to the waypoint for transport/extraction...
You are onto something there. You can get the flight portion to nip off for supplies and come back while you continue on your journey.
I think the idea is that it can drive quickly overland where it is smooth enough for wheels, but still have the multiple rotors to be able to go over things that it can't easily drive over
And you get the benefit that driving consumes a lot less fuel and may actually extended the range depending on the usual ratio between driving and flying.
What's the connection between autonomous flight and (no-swashplate) multi-rotor? If multi-rotor is useful, why haven't miltaries used them with pilots? Why are autonomous helicopters overwhelmingly multi-rotor?
Autonomous helicopters are multi-rotor for simplicity and reliability. A quadcopter has only 4 moving parts (not even any gears!) and that makes it just about the simplest possible mobile robot, simpler even than wheeled robots (mechanically).
Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable, batteries don't scale well, and combustion engines have slower throttle response (not to mention hundreds of moving parts that eliminate the simplicity advantage).
Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable, batteries don't scale well, and combustion engines have slower throttle response (not to mention hundreds of moving parts that eliminate the simplicity advantage).
I wonder if anyone's looked into turbo-electric power trains for helicopters. They work well enough in ships and trains. There might be all sorts of reasons they wouldn't work in a helicopter, though.
A turbo-electric drive wouldn't magically achieve a faster throttle response, but it might make it faster to shift the power from one rotor to another, which might be what's really needed.
A turbo-electric drive wouldn't magically achieve a faster throttle response, but it might make it faster to shift the power from one rotor to another, which might be what's really needed.
That doesn't help too much. You're mostly just stating advantages/disadvantages of one design over the other, without explaining why this should be correlated so very strongly with manual/autonomous control.
> Autonomous helicopters are multi-rotor for simplicity and reliability
Simplicity (less upkeep) and reliability (safety) seem more important for expensive, manned helicopters! So this argument, on its face, contradicts what we actually see. The only argument working in the right direction is something like "simplicity for tiny vehicles (which are necessarily unmanned) is important because number/complexity of parts makes up a larger fraction of total cost compared to large vehicles where raw materials dominate".
> Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable
Large helicopters are expensive. The computers necessary to stabilize them are going to be just a tiny cost. On the other hand, for a drone the computers could be a sizeable fraction of the price. So, again, this argument appears to go against reality.
> batteries don't scale well,
Then why is this truck-sized vehicle (presumably using internal combustion) a multi-rotor?
> and combustion engines have slower throttle response
Ok, so this is close to an answer. The (weak) argument would be "humans want quick throttle response but robots don't much care". But this isn't too convincing, as I could easily see it being true that humans are better able than robots at compensating for slow responses.
> Autonomous helicopters are multi-rotor for simplicity and reliability
Simplicity (less upkeep) and reliability (safety) seem more important for expensive, manned helicopters! So this argument, on its face, contradicts what we actually see. The only argument working in the right direction is something like "simplicity for tiny vehicles (which are necessarily unmanned) is important because number/complexity of parts makes up a larger fraction of total cost compared to large vehicles where raw materials dominate".
> Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable
Large helicopters are expensive. The computers necessary to stabilize them are going to be just a tiny cost. On the other hand, for a drone the computers could be a sizeable fraction of the price. So, again, this argument appears to go against reality.
> batteries don't scale well,
Then why is this truck-sized vehicle (presumably using internal combustion) a multi-rotor?
> and combustion engines have slower throttle response
Ok, so this is close to an answer. The (weak) argument would be "humans want quick throttle response but robots don't much care". But this isn't too convincing, as I could easily see it being true that humans are better able than robots at compensating for slow responses.
The article says
>The patented AT Transformer technology combines the capabilities of a helicopter, such as the ability to take off and land anywhere, with the capabilities of an off-road automobile.
I'm no expert, but it's clear the design was driven by very different requirements than a classic helicopter. Maybe there were many fancy considerations, or maybe they just slapped something together on the basis that bolting 3+ rotors to any old brick will give it flight and great maneuverability.
>The patented AT Transformer technology combines the capabilities of a helicopter, such as the ability to take off and land anywhere, with the capabilities of an off-road automobile.
I'm no expert, but it's clear the design was driven by very different requirements than a classic helicopter. Maybe there were many fancy considerations, or maybe they just slapped something together on the basis that bolting 3+ rotors to any old brick will give it flight and great maneuverability.
Just outfit it with a bed, kitchen, and a bathroom, and you have a pretty stylin' motor home that can get you almost anywhere on this planet.
[deleted]
This quad is allot biger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVelo_Atlas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY
This one might be even larger, it's kind of a hybrid configuration though.
Also, isn't a Chinook technically a multirotor?
This one might be even larger, it's kind of a hybrid configuration though.
Also, isn't a Chinook technically a multirotor?
The article mentions in passing the defining feature of multirotors: they are controlled by rotor speed only. No swash plate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter)
That might be the unofficial defining feature but a multirotor rotorcraft is simply one with multiple rotors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirotor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirotor
OK, I guess so. But the surge in interest in multirotors is almost entirely in the simple no-swashplate designs with electronic attitude control.
The Chinook is a crazy machine, but does not have much in common with a quadrotor except for the very minor feature of having more than 1 rotor.
The Chinook is a crazy machine, but does not have much in common with a quadrotor except for the very minor feature of having more than 1 rotor.
Thanks for pointing that out though, I wasn't aware that most people considered that term to mean that.
I have a huge interest in drones (as I'm sure many of us do) and think it would be really neat to have a personal drone that can follow us around, can do random tasks, and maybe even defend/guard us if necessary. I doubt someone would mug a person with a drone following them.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airdroids/the-pocket-dr...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=533a9_dfg4c
I have a huge interest in drones (as I'm sure many of us do) and think it would be really neat to have a personal drone that can follow us around, can do random tasks, and maybe even defend/guard us if necessary. I doubt someone would mug a person with a drone following them.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airdroids/the-pocket-dr...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=533a9_dfg4c
Wow, the heli-blimp looks like something I would have built in Kerbal Space Program (A game which lets you build spaceships and planes). Its a bad idea, and it looks like they thought adding a lot of cross-beams would make it stable. "Guess and Check" might have worked for HS Calculus, but it's not a good way to build a flying machine on a Navy contract.
Blimps are making a comeback apparently. I think the goal is to use them as a central relay for communications and to put a bunch of cameras and sensors on them. Possibly even release smaller drones and allow drones to refuel or recharge on them, kind of like a "mothership".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3n5cUaG5fg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72GPZ3MI2M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3n5cUaG5fg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72GPZ3MI2M
Tethered blimps are already in use by the US military and border patrol: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-v...
I expect we'll see more and more of this. Military stuff aside, they could be useful for early fire detection in high risk areas of CA, etc.
I expect we'll see more and more of this. Military stuff aside, they could be useful for early fire detection in high risk areas of CA, etc.
Yeah, those are cool, and a really good idea. Some great outside-the-box thinking, "let's put blimps everywhere!"
They're a lot larger than I thought after seeing that photo you linked to. I always assumed they were the size of a small car or even smaller.
I think they're also combined with the boomerang shooter detection system, and probably other sensors to give troops as much data as possible (wind speeds for shooting would probably be helpful).
Also, the chrome version (with solar panels on top!) http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-v...
They're a lot larger than I thought after seeing that photo you linked to. I always assumed they were the size of a small car or even smaller.
I think they're also combined with the boomerang shooter detection system, and probably other sensors to give troops as much data as possible (wind speeds for shooting would probably be helpful).
Also, the chrome version (with solar panels on top!) http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-v...
[deleted]
I'm surprised that those engines have fast enough delta-input to delta-thrust response to make it reasonably responsive?
Doesn't the world already have enough war toys? Why not make something that actually helps mankind?
I would like to introduce you to the principle of dual use. However I imagine you are already familiar with it. Surely you do not consider nmap and gdb to be criminal tools? Was ARPANET a war toy? Is GPS a handy location service for civilians or nuclear warriors?
In order to drive the nail home[^1] in the instant case here are some references for drones and anti-poaching:
Elephants and rhinos benefit from drone surveillance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25056-elephants-and-rh...
Google gives $5 million to Drone Program That Will Track Poachers: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/google...
[^1]: How do you classify the hammer: carpenter's best friend or murderer's skull bludgeoning tool?
In order to drive the nail home[^1] in the instant case here are some references for drones and anti-poaching:
Elephants and rhinos benefit from drone surveillance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25056-elephants-and-rh...
Google gives $5 million to Drone Program That Will Track Poachers: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/google...
[^1]: How do you classify the hammer: carpenter's best friend or murderer's skull bludgeoning tool?
You mean a truck that can cross a river, say, despite a damaged bridge, is not something that might help?
Why then not develop this in the first place instead of first building a military vehicle and maybe later reusing it for different purposes?
The military need it is being built for is "casualty evacuation and cargo resupply". The only thing really distinctly military with regard to these is that the military happens to be a large single customer who, if they purchase it, will secure the future of the company in one fell swoop.
Which is one reason to focus on military first.
Its not really "reuse for different purpose" when you also sell the same thing to civilian customers who have the same kind of needs.
Which is one reason to focus on military first.
Its not really "reuse for different purpose" when you also sell the same thing to civilian customers who have the same kind of needs.
The simplest reason is that the military has the funding and will take risks on new things that the others will not. They also stress the heck out of things, and the military is willing to develop and iterate on things that civilians would get sued over.
Funding
Do you realise that almost all the development of early computers was to contribute to the war effort? Usually to get things done, you have to create things that help a subset of mankind in a specific way.
I realize that. And not only the computer stuff but a lot of things in different areas from advances in medicine to rocket technologies.
But why should we continue this road? We have been living in a world where you can no longer have any serious war for more than 60 years. There are nuclear weapons and having a war is just the dumbest thing you could do.
You can still invade Iraq or Chechnya or Ukraine and beat down a less powerful state but for this we have more then enough weapons, no need to get new ones.
But why should we continue this road? We have been living in a world where you can no longer have any serious war for more than 60 years. There are nuclear weapons and having a war is just the dumbest thing you could do.
You can still invade Iraq or Chechnya or Ukraine and beat down a less powerful state but for this we have more then enough weapons, no need to get new ones.
[deleted]
This isn't a weapon, it's an easy-to-fly truck (whereas helicopters are notoriously difficult to fly). Armies need trucks, for humanitarian missions as well as conflicts. Some companies target the military as a first customer because if a product does what they need they'll buy at scale and you can recoup the development costs in a much shorter timeframe.
You are right, plus this is an absurd over-sized gadget. I doubt you could pack it into an aircraft carrier that easily. And if you did get it off to its 'humanitarian military duties' imagine, trundling along a road, taking up both carriageways, I am sure that a few kids with rocks could disable those rotors if the telegraph poles don't get there first. It has no real application hence it is a military 'maybe we need one of these too' gadgets.
Look again. It is less than a lane wide with the blades stowed.
Because if we ever scale the military-industrial complex back we might find out that automation has destroyed even more jobs than the wildest luddite fears.
... I mean or not but it's a trillion dollars or so a year you can't cut spending without destroying the entire state of new mexico.
... I mean or not but it's a trillion dollars or so a year you can't cut spending without destroying the entire state of new mexico.
And recent events confirm the wisdom of that course.
Wait...
Wait...
China before mongol invasion was like that. Too bad they hated their own warriors, we could had industrial revolution 7 hundred years earlier.
[1] earthroamer.com