Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Trent772
#1877796
Hmmmmm,

It seems to be operating in and close to ground effect from the thrust from the rotors, let's see it at 2,000' :pirat:
StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877820
Grelly wrote:Every time I see something that looks like that I wonder how many children/pets/etc will need to die running up to greet daddy before they make it compulsory to shroud the props.

(Sorry)


Probably a fair point. IMO :lol:

I think it's a bit gimmicky compared to say a real plane... but if it gets more of the public interested of the possibilities of going up into the sky rather than wallowing endlessly down into the mud and bloody earth all the time it gets my vote.

Beyond the limited possibilities of a Jetson 1 of course! Also how much? You will probably always be able to get a thruster cheaper. :lol: It's like model aircraft IMO, fantastic machines but for the price of some of them (10s of Ks) you could buy a real plane (yes I am including microlights in real planes!).
By low&slow
#1877840
low&slow wrote: . . . a whole new licence required.

No, I'm wrong, EASA wants a type rating on a (A) or (H) licence.

Not an easy one to get, though, you will need a CPL + IR + ATPL knowledge + MCC certificate & 100 hours multi-pilot time + 40 hours of instruction in the other type of aircraft, ie (H) time for (A) holders & vice versa.
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1877855
rf3flyer wrote:I greatly dislike these flying food blenders and if they are the future I'm glad my flying career covered real aeroplanes!


Yes, It's an appliance not a machine. :lol:
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887365
I don't quite understand why they don't make the riggers into some wing type profile as that would enable the rotors to be ducts - which are much more efficient and protective and even stubby wings would offset some of lift requirement to be delivered by that rather than just the rotors.

Flight time for the thing as is must be measured in minutes rather than anything more substantial.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1887454
Good lord! That second video is like a recurring nightmare I have, except I’m flying down the ever narrowing forest path in my Commander and unable to pull up due to the overhanging canopy. It usually concludes with having to taxi along the path until the point the wingtips and prop contact something. Seems to go on for hours.
Analysis please?
By Cessna571
#1887465
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I don't quite understand why they don't make the riggers into some wing type profile as that would enable the rotors to be ducts - which are much more efficient and protective and even stubby wings would offset some of lift requirement to be delivered by that rather than just the rotors.

Flight time for the thing as is must be measured in minutes rather than anything more substantial.


I was thinking about this too, they can’t afford the drag or weight I presume.

That’ll only give them lift when moving in a specific plane, AoA is going to start being a problem.

Only has enough power for a 20 min flight anyway, so nothing to spare.

Certainly can’t start putting variable geometry anything on it and anything else is going to be wrong for a percentage of the time with no power to overcome the wrongness.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1887501
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're all "This is great"and "Oh wow" now but just wait until they become the next Boris bike or electric scooters that can be hired for pennies only to be cast aside on a whim like a ginger stepchild*.

How will you like them then, eh?







* Moderator inbound in 5......4........3......... :D
Nick liked this