a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Electric motors are quite reliable and it could possibly descend safely if > one failed. It is light enough one could even fit a parachute I suppose. > Good point. The Cirrus airplane is equipped with a parachute. Their website says: " In fact, there are 117 people alive today because a Cirrus pilot pulled the chute in time to avert a tragedy." http://cirrusaircraft.com/flight-training/caps-training/ You're probably right it would be better to land on tarmac or concrete. I > think vertical takeoff and landing is essential for widespread use and then > the problem of downwash would be common for any such vehicle. > I think it does allow vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL). Any helicopter does. I think an initial market might be something like shuttle service from the roof of an upscale hotel to an airport. Mind you, I wouldn't ride in it! When a new model of a conventional airplane comes out, they use the first several aircraft to carry cargo rather than passengers. That way if it crashes you lose only the pilots. They used to do that, anyway. For this quadcopter gadget, I suggest it would be a good idea to deploy a hundred machines for short-haul freight operations at companies such as Amazon. Amazon is developing small drones for delivery to end users. I think it will be long while before that is possible, especially in urban areas where there is a tangle of overhead electric and telephone wires. A larger drone that flies from a depot to a distribution center is more practical. I think you need a range longer than 10 miles for this. If it only 10 miles you might as well send a truck, even in Manhattan.
