Cargo UAS set to deliver

3689608196?profile=originalBy Colin Jeffrey

With the number of multi-rotor drone concepts competing for a narrow market share, you really need a unique selling point if you want to get your project off the ground. In the case of the developers of the Cargo Unmanned Air System (UAS), their point of difference is to claim a massive 60 kg (132 lb) lift capacity for their proof of concept, with the promise of an eventual production unmanned aerial vehicle that can carry payloads of up to 400 kg (880 lb) with automated "sense and avoid" capability.

The UAS team envisage that items such as mail and parcels, food and water, or even medical supplies and emergency equipment could all be delivered more quickly and securely than is possible with ground transport. As such, they argue that the increasing overcrowding on highways could be avoided using such a system but, more importantly, they believe that in emergency situations such as floods where existing road infrastructure has been damaged or is otherwise impassable, their UAS could be deployed to deliver medical supplies or food to stranded people.

Full article here: Cargo UAS

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • To do:
    - hook up the FPV system

    - add the boom for the "bomber cam" and light

    - upload EPM-ready firmware, and do test video.

  • Meanwhile...back in the real 5KG lifter using EPM's is up and running. Won't loiter correctly without a payload (probably because it hovers at 25%). But flies ok with a 4kg load (it's all I could find at the time).

    Just waiting for a code dump from Randy, to do some autonomous stuff.




  • I can personally confirm Euan Ramsay second comment, Rob_Lefebvre (ala CAD pretty pictures comments, I've loads of them) and more importantly, after a year of wasted time and introductions, can confirm the same issue was had after I connected another UK investor, who had exactly the same experience right before  @Jakey Boy  and @Martin Hellier .  In the end,  I said to him, "you've talent, but you’ll need a lot more”.  Unfortunately, the steel cage such talent leads too, doesn’t allow for alot of blue sky views.  is the great reveal especially at 24min 30 sec and again at 25 min 05 sec   And guess what? If you search, you won’t find those patent filed in any system. When I asked he exploded. Tells you everything.

  • Cargo UAS are definately NOT "set to deliver"... Unfortunately, Simon Scott is a man who will quite credibly sell you tomorrow, but unfortunately tomorrow never arrives.

    He managed to extract around £3,500 from us in parts and equipment to develop a prototype that simply never materialised. His smug arrogance is merely reflective of the common northern fraudster he appears to be.

    'Cargo UAS' is just his latest incarnation in a long list of failed and dissolved companies. He has no capital, no credibility, no substence and no conscience. I wonder if you'll find a County Court judgement as easy to ignore as you have the people who foolishly invested in your baseless dreams Simon?

  • Lol,

    1. Original guy with product idea was lurking the whole time

    2. Juicy public feud brewing

      I need popcorn....

  • Comment by Jakey Boy yesterday

    Unfortunately the guy in question is neither credible nor reliable. Myself and a colleague invested some money into a company which he was a part of a few months ago. He ripped us off and is now using the prototype that we funded to look for further investment through KickStarter. He's been reported.

    Jakey Boy - How could we be using the prototype that you say you funded when its not even the same platform? Not a single item you sent over was used in the kickstarter platform! I informed you both that items you said would be ordered still hadn't arrived and you sent me a whats-app message saying "please send the outstanding items to your partner so they can be chased or ordered" but then emailed to say you were both pulling out!

    I notified you both that i was going to work on the other platform ready for Farnborough as the other items were still outstanding and to date, still haven't arrived. Is that my fault, fraud or me not being credible? It appears from the comments emailed by your partner and now your message on here, that both of you have spat your dummy out because i built a platform you wanted eventually, but you had both withdrawn from the project after i had offered to badge the new platform as the new companies and then claim you have been ripped off!!!

    The third-hand equipment you personally sent up for me to use hasn't been touched and is still in the box which will be sent back asap. Not a single item you and your partner contributed was used in the new platform and i will point out that well over £1000 of my own equipment was being put into the 30cm shelled x8 that still hasnt been finished due to both your actions. In addition i spent over 200 hours running around and putting the prototype together as well as spending my own funds to get components your partner failed to order. As you hae requested all the items back (which i have contacted your partners solicitor over) and you haven't transfered a single penny in cash, can you explain how you state Ive ripped you off please?

  • Maximization of "buzz words" and a drawing in CAD. Now looking for investors.
    (ok they have a prototype without any of them special features that are promised. Like payload.)

    The engine technology will apparently be petrol / disel generator and batteries... if they succeed, it is a world first for RC ... and generator will also be doubled up for fail-safe. yes... about that ...

    It will also handle "multi engine failure". How? For each engine that fails they lose 25% lift (the one that is broken and the one that is counter rotating, diagonally opposite).

    Coaxial engines have minimum 20% in losses in the RC context. Sure, the Russians have a turbo-prop planes with higher efficiency but it is not in RC context. Perhaps it is one more "worlds first".

  • CAD is getting so good, it's getting really hard to distinguish from an actual photo of a prototype, or a photorendering pasted onto a background.

    I've seen another case where somebody is trying to sell an aerial platform that, as far as I know, has never actually been built.

  • 8. Use the smallest battery compartment possible, to ensure both low capacity, and poor inaccessibility.

  • Design Objectives: Deliver heavy loads long distances.

    Design Decisions:

    1. Propellers with three blades to get worse efficiency.
    2. Selecting 8X frame to get worse efficiency.
    3. Covering 20% of the rotor surface to get worse efficiency.
    4. Propellers are high up and the payload far down. Hint: a multicopter is not a boat and dont need a keel.
    5. The little "wings"? By tilting the craft forward, the wings angled downward?
    6. The engines can not tilt. The propeller will hit the wing.
    7. Let the CAD-model have cool carbon fiber look!

    Perfect it looks great!

    Results: Small payload, short flight time and stability like a drunken sailor.

This reply was deleted.