Developer Comment by John Arne Birkeland on April 17, 2012 at 2:05am

Depending on how you choose to see it, the world "outside" USA has been ahead for years. The Yamaha RMAX has been commercially operational since 2002, and was probably a functional prototype long before that.

http://rmax.yamaha-motor.com.au/

Developer Comment by John Arne Birkeland on April 17, 2012 at 2:11am

Correction. I did some more googling and found this in a press release.

Yamaha Motor Co. LTD began developing industrial-use, unmanned helicopters in the 1980s. In 1990 we delivered the first unmanned helicopter for crop dusting. Among a total of 1,565 unmanned helicopters, 1,220 units of Yamaha unmanned helicopter have been sold and are in use as of October 2001, in Japan.

Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on April 17, 2012 at 3:07am

The RMAX is a great platform, its a pity the Japanese decided to go big for medical robotics rather than flying ones.

If you want to turn back the clock there are many examples of tip top stuff outside of the USA. The predator was designed in Israel after all.

I have deep deep posh factory envy looking at that video. 

Comment by R. D. Starwalt on April 17, 2012 at 4:24am

The integration of a commercial flying platform and a media company camera targeted to outdoor/sports coverage seems natural. There is no basis for international competition but, rather, collaboration.

Brain Farm website

Although a US company, it is not totally clear that the Cineflex camera (married with the Shiebel copter) is made here.

Arriflex cine cameras were not developed in the USA (Germany also) yet we use (and used) tens of thousands of them in assorted industries.

I agree with Gary M... factory envy. Geez I wish I were 20 years younger. What a cool biz to get into.

Developer Comment by R_Lefebvre on April 17, 2012 at 4:57am

Very interesting, a beautiful machine for sure.  But a few things I find curious.

No roll axis on the gimbal?  And the gimbal is mounted in an unusual place, behind the gear.  It can only pan 45° without the landing gear getting in the way.

To me, it seems like the camera was added as an afterthought to the Scheibel copter, and due to the design of the machine, they needed it right under the CG.  They also didn't want to move the landing gear.  It seems like it's not optimized for carrying a camera?

Comment by Sami Finnila on April 17, 2012 at 5:20am

... and it's pretty big, complicated and most certainly very expensive. You can carry a RED Epic with an average-sized octocopter so I think that's the kind of platform that's going to steal the show in film making as there's really no reason going big in nothing but the high-end of feature films. Might be I'm wrong, of course.

Developer Comment by R_Lefebvre on April 17, 2012 at 6:26am

It does offer a ton of range and endurance that no small helicopter can match.  In fact, it's an order of magnitude greater.  But the price is probably 2 orders of magnitude higher.  I can't imagine anybody using it other than top level filming industry.

This thing, frankly, is a military grade UAV.

Comment by Coptaire on April 17, 2012 at 6:46am

The bar has been raised, from an AP multirotor point of view.

The bar has been lowered, from an heli crew point of view.

Moderator Comment by Gary Mortimer on April 17, 2012 at 7:07am

Movies will buy in the best they can and this machine will pass certification standards. Size is going to matter soon when you have to use approved connectors and other heavy stuff to be legal.

Your right Coptaire, its like a limbo highjump sort of competition depending on where you stand.

Developer Comment by R_Lefebvre on April 17, 2012 at 9:16am

I heard this thing costs in the millions?  If that's the case.... how is it better or cheaper than a manned helicopter?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page