It would probably be more spectacular a test flight of 4 hours but i was very interested in performing this test because it is very near to real use of Hybrix.20. 4 or 4.5 hours are possible for demonstration test but operational flight time is around 3 hours with light payload to 2 hours for heavy payload.
Lately many customers are telling us about electric multi-rotors flying for 2 hours or hydrogen fuel cells with 4 hours of endurance. It would be interesting to see these multirotors with heavy payloads.
I hope you like it guys
Jose Luis Cortes
Quaternium
Comments
Rob, physics is hard science and led to obvious facts we can all google for, that you choose to name disinformation, because it does not suit your opinion which, by the way, is biased because of an obvious personal conflict of interest.
Yes. But, the engineering to do this is nothing compared to the work required get people to open their minds and accept that batteries will not provide extended flight duration anytime soon. And hydrogen fuel cells are expensive, difficult to use, and not suited to VTOL systems due to power density.
Hugues, until somebody does some real testing, such as crashing a large multirotor into a pig carcass and comparing the damage to a helicopter, we cannot talk about intrinsic danger. Your position is clear also, it is based on fear and misinformation. You have zero data.
I am one of very few people who flies, and crashes, both systems, and can compare the effects fairly.
Olivier:
I agree, Quaternium should be congratulated for being the first to have a multirotor that can fly even 1 hour, let alone 2 hours, with a usable payload. And far, far more affordable than a hydrogen fuel cell. And refuel anywhere. Nobody else has come close. Let's let the use-cases come from that.
I would like to see the vehicle flying in a wind and/or flying around at speed.
we were not talking about usage but about intrinsic danger of the vehicle. But let's not derail this post away. Your position is clear.
Jose Luis, congratulations to you and your company. Flying 2 hours+ with a 3.5kg payload on a multirotor architecture is no small feat. In fact you are one of the first if not the first to have achieved this. There has been similar work but when it comes to long time flying, but when it comes to flying with actual payloads there is also a lot of silence ...
@Todd: You pretty much sum it all, imho.
It will be interesting to see what architecture the Amazons, Googles, DHLs et al. ultimately settle on, if/when. Quadplanes and multirotors, if I had to guess.
Hugues, as I said, reckless flying. Roman hit himself in the head flying hurricanes at himself. Watch this video, and tell me why these incidents should be used to judge safe UAV usage? (it is NOT the Roman incident).
This is like telling somebody who really needs a snowmobile to do a job, that they shouldn't do it, because somebody died doing backflips on them.
BTW, helicopters come in small sizes too. And they are just as safe as small quads. I have a video of my 450 heli hitting a small pine tree, it cut off one twig, and fell helplessly to the ground. And I once crashed a 450 quad into a house at near zero speed, and it did $1000 dollars of damage. It cut the siding, and slashed the aluminum window trim and broke the window casing in several places as it fell.
No doubt traditional helis' still hold the belt when it comes to flight time and payload. I've flown gas helicopters with 2.1m rotors and multis with 28" blades, and the large gas helis' are far more intimidating and complex to operate and configure. Something about one meter carbon fiber blades spinning around 3k rpm makes me sweat. Repairing a heli that size when it crashes is far more labor intensive as well. I've tried in vain to steer people to traditional helicopters when duration and payload are desired. They're just too intimidating for most. I must admit though, when you do get one set up right, it's much more satisfying to see flying than a multi.
i agree large multicopters could hurt badly or even kill someone. Just dropping a few kilograms high enough on someone's head would kill him. Giovanni is actually reconciliating both viewpoints: you would rather use a heli for very high loads and endurance. Danger is greater with heavier and larger vehicles. Since for most normal users applications we do not need large heavy drones, it is better to stick with a smaller multicopter.
if you google rc helicopter death, you will find plenty: Roman, 19yrs old killed himself in 2013; other deaths described here, etc
Yeah, here we go again.
Hugues, can you point to a case of a UAV helicopter which has killed somebody? You cannot include sport helicopters flown recklessly. These pilots intentionally risk their own lives for the thrill of it.
There is the case of the Scheibel which suffered a navigational failure. Would you like to argue that a 200lb multirotor wouldn't have also killed them under the same circumstances?
I can show you a video of a large multirotor with propeller blades stabbed 6" into solid dirt.
Traditional helis now are serial killers and giant 20Kg 30" prop multirotors are safe crafts... but came on, guys! It's ridiculous. A swashplate with 2 links is complex mechanics, while 4 engines with a gas motor and generator is simple?
Giant multirotors, with 30" or larger props are dangerous exactly the same as a 700/800 class heli, probably even more in some cases.
I agree with Rob, the work on the hybrid drive it's interesting and cool, but I still don't see the point of giant multirotor, hybrid or not. When you go over certain dimensions, cost, weight, complexity surpass the ones of a traditional heli, while performance do not.
There are very few cases where you need heavy lifting and long endurance and a multirotor will be the better choice (I can just think of one or two).
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next