3689676997?profile=original

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Chinese drone maker Ehang Inc. on Wednesday unveiled what it calls the world's first drone capable of carrying a human passenger.

The Guangzhou, China-based company pulled the cloth off the Ehang 184 at the Las Vegas Convention Center during the CES gadget show. In a company video showing it flying, it looks like a small helicopter but with four doubled propellers spinning parallel to the ground like other drones.

The electric-powered drone can be fully charged in two hours, carry up to 220 pounds and fly for 23 minutes at sea level, according to Ehang. The cabin fits one person and a small backpack and even has air conditioning and a reading light. With propellers folded up, it's designed to fit in a single parking spot.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3387777/Chinese-drone-maker-unveils-human-carrying-drone.html#ixzz3wVeW1ce9 

I wonder if it uses PixHawk? Comments? 

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

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

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Great CG job on the video. Open blades, no guards, minced puppy or 2 year old say can you.

  • @John_Bond we need less PR stunts and more real science. You can shoot yourself out of a cannon if you want but it's not going to be an interesting landing. An aircraft that relies on a network connection to avoid mishap is not forward thinking. Helicopter with flight controls is safer than this death trap. That being said, I would still like a flying car, just not this one. :) CES brings out the fringe for sure, remember the 'C' stands for consumer. Cheers.

  • Controlled with a Microsoft Surface tablet? What could possibly go wrong?

  • @John Bond, if the FAA had existed early 20th century, the Wright brothers would not have gotten off the ground as it's pretty certain an FAA bureaucrat would not have issued an 'air worthiness' permit to that contraption which was clearly too dangerous for anybody to attempt to start, let alone attempt to fly it. 

    I also wonder what would have happened to them if they had failed to register their craft before attempting to fly such a contraption that was not 'approved' by some overbearing unionized bureaucrat after years of pre-flight testing to insure it was 'safe'. 

  • Fixed pitch large props will make control "interesting", and no range extender generator.

    CES had other interesting news like Walkera teaming up with a methanol fuel cell maker to make a range extender generator.

    GenSmart

    A small pipedream is a diesel range extender based on a RamGen supersonic rotary ramjet turbine. The following paper describes a shockwave ignited premix air stream (carburator) style engine that might be good base design, provided you had matched counterrotating pairs to null the torque from such high rotation speeds.

    AIAA 2006-4169 Inside-out Rotary Ramjet Turbogenerator

    Range Extender | GeneratorSmart
  • For those in the US, remember the FAA motto ... "Only the finest in 20th century aviation".

    If it didn't exist in 1980 then they will do their best to make sure it doesn't exist now.

    Sure it's mostly a PR stunt, but craft like it are coming soon.  Just not in the aviation backwaters of the US.

  • So I watched their video and still didn't see it actually fly? WTF? Totally the Lily on steroids. So tired of the hype. 

  • Just got technical specifications from Ehang CEO

    rated weight 100 kg

    total energy consumption 14.4 kWh

    charging time 2 up to 4 hours

    average speed 100 km/h

    net weight 200 kg

    maximum rated power 106kw (8 motor)

    hover time 23 min

  • You need to be a member of DIY Drones to fly Ehang 184

    Ehang can raise B$1 within one year and 10,000 preorders

    I plan to offer Ehang my Pizza Delivery Drone, Mind Controlled Drone by Hybrid Drone Factory ;)

  • Really cool but... does it make sense to use a multi rotor config at this size (vs single rotor / heli)?

    I am not even referring to efficiency, where a single rotor is obviously superior.

    Their main argument is safety, but is it really safer? While the fixed pitch rotor is mechanically simpler than the cyclic, there are eight of them, and they require a Gyro/Accelerometer/Magnetometer/FC stabilization at all times to fly and even with redundancy we know these electronics might fail at some point, and then there is no backup as one can't pilot multirotors manually (we need the gyros and FC at least).

    A 700 size RC heli can cut a person in half, while a similar size multirotor can't, making multirotors much safer up to 10kg or so. But at the size of this E-184, each rotor is lethal anyway...

    So how is this config safer than a heli?

This reply was deleted.