Théa is the world’s first UAS to meet the high standards for an FAA Airworthiness Certificate, expanding its operational capabilities beyond those of any other commercial unmanned aircraft to allow legal flight over crowds, at night, and beyond. By providing unmatched aircraft-grade reliability (99.999 999 9%), Théa meets the stringent requirements necessary to go where consumer-grade systems can’t.
Théa has unmatched payload and flight-time capabilities, allowing you to do more
| No Payload | Full Payload (11kg) | |
|---|---|---|
| Weight (Ready to fly) | 27kg (60lb) | 38kg (83lb) |
| Flight time | 35 mins | 21 mins |
| Max Speed | 40kph (24mph) | 30kph (20 mph) |
| Climb rate | 7 m/s | 5 m/s |
| Radio Range | 1500m | |
| Operating Temperature | 120 to -20 deg F | |
Tech specs:
- 1100mm Diagonal
- 780mm x 780mm x 800mm unfolded
- 29in props
- 3 sets of high-power LiPo batteries
- 4000w of charging power for continuous flight
- Unmatched 99.9999999% reliability
Théa can handle the most demanding camera payloads, such as:
- Canon C500
- RED Epic X / Dragon
- Sony FS7
Théa has unprecedented flexibility
- Ability to fly at night, allowing you to capture striking footage
- Can fly with weights above 55lb to carry the best camera equipment
- Ability to fly beyond line of sight to capture footage that would be impossible to get otherwise
- The ability to fly over uninvolved people like crowds and roads to allow you to go where you couldn't before
Continuing Support
Support packages are available to back Théa’s unparalleled reliability with unparalleled service. We provide next-day guaranteed service, including required maintenance intervals for flight worthiness, as well as 24/7 support, so you never have to worry.
Contact us at: contact@enterprisedronesolutions.com
Comments
Just another hobby grade mash up. Tmotors and props...probably their esc as well.
And should probably read up more on part 107 before making such bold operational claims.
But everyone is jumping on the bandwagon because there's a sucker born every minute with more cash than brains to burn on a fancy flying tripod. So why not another over priced hobby multirotor masquerading as a commercial "drone" ?
Hi Gary
your finger is on the pulse, nice comments
It is actually interesting to me that what this copter is clearly designed to do is to haul around serious cameras on a movie or filming set, or possibly out doors in a closed or unpopulated open area).
It is not at all in a position to do that legally.
Even if an airworthiness certificate is issued, it would be under the experimental category and you simply can't use any experimental certificate for commercial purposes.
Basically it is good for testing and development and for personal use, demonstrating the aircraft and for recreation.
And you can't fly it under existing 333 or 124 regulations either since it is over 55 pounds.
Further there are already plenty of in use perfectly adequate aerial video UAS that carry the new lighter pro grade Red or Black 4-8K video cameras that are below the 55lb limit fully loaded.
They have really developed this thing in hopes that regulations yet to be conceived of and developed will allow them to use it.
And even then, as I said for most of those uses a well designed UAS heli would be a better and less expensive choice with much greater flying time, lighter weight and far more agile.
And for those that don't need quite that capability, existing well designed Quad or Hex (much cheaper) copters would perform perfectly adequately.
This seems to be a copter conceived and designed specifically for high end commercial use, that in fact has no market at all.
I think this is the right way to go. At some point we need to have drones that are as reliable as helicopters or jets. It should also be much easier since electric drivetrains have far fewer moving parts.
At some point the future, we shouldn't worry about this drone flying over our heads, just like we don't worry when an airliner flies over our heads. Sure, the operator can be an idiot, and we will need to have ways to prevent it, but aircrafts like this are surely a big part of the UAS future.
It's a nice looking craft, don't get me wrong, but I believe your introduction is either premature or presented with blind ignorance. Many....most of the UAS startups that come and eventually go are guided by driven and very smart people. The problem, they lack the fundamental business skills required to properly bring a product to market. Being thrilled and enthusiastic about your product will only sell it to those who accept your word as truth, those to naive to request validation and performance data, or people who impulsively buy on "cool factor." Take the words from this group to heart, work on your strategy....I want to see more UAS startups succeed!
A good way to test the waters though to reconfigure the pitch. :-)
@EDS
"@Dwgsparky it is a common misconception that a reliability rate of 10^-9 means that we could fly for a 100,000 years that is definitely not the case our aircraft has required maintenance every 200 flight hours, it means that if we fley a billion of our craft at the same time for an hour on average 1 would suffer a catastrophic failure (e.g. would fall from the sky)"
Wow, that statement tells me that either you or your organisation know nothing about measuring or proving reliability!. I hope and expect you have some amazing data to back up this claim. I know you dont have one billion aircraft in the stores waiting to be sold! maybe you have 10 that each flew for 2 seconds each!
You really believe that you can put 1 billion of your craft in the air for one hour (2 flights in your case ) and that only ONE will fall from the sky due to a failure? you have a better chance of winning the lottery than achieving this result.
Statistically it is shown that statistics can be shown prove anything to somebody. now come back to the real world!
What you are trying to tell us is that if you have produced 1 billion of your perfectly designed and perfectly built and perfectly tested aircraft with no operational use or wear that only one will fail,
How can you be so naive to believe your statements and to compare your figures to a manned aircraft? Are you forgetting the real reason that manned aircraft generally dont fall from the sky and kill people? Its called the pilot and the redundant systems. A pilot can make real world choices to prevent a system failure from being an aircraft crash. If your device has a system failure a crash is guaranteed.
Dwgsparky, Certified electrical control systems reliability engineer and safety officer for more than 30yrs.
Dont get me wrong , its an interesting device but keep the expectations reasonable.
The 99.9999999% are really hard to believe - especially when considering the X8 layout.
I have learned from several crashes that the X8 layout does not provide a lot of an reliability advantage over the usual quad, if any. One example: one of the lower prop fails - the debris kill the other prop of the same arm. Unlikely to happen? Maybe, but I have seen that twice in may be 100 or 200 flights.
I agree John! The operator part and their decision making process, and risk mitigation strategies are under-rated in most situations.
Though, when you are flying a heavy system over a crowd of people, the equation does require a high degree of system safety.
1. If it falls from the sky, its almost certain to hit someone in a dense crowd. People can't get out of the way, with the noise and entertainment of a concert venue they probably won't even notice the UAV, at least after the initial flyover.
2. If it hits them, high chance its going to be serious or life threatening, if not a fatality. On any risk assessment matrix, that is maximum consequence value.
3. Accounting for operator issues, good maintenance, etc, there is a very very low chance that it would fall from the sky over the crowd.
4. But that chance is still there, if you aren't using a UAV built with multiple redundancy and every part of that system being built to a high spec.
5. Very Small chance*extreme consequence = don't fly. Unless your risk tolerance is higher. But the FAA and other similar organisations (eg CASA in Australia), insurance companies, often the clients, etc, won't agree if you punch the numbers into that equation.
Honestly even a 1/100 chance of crash, in most situations, is not actually a risk issue! It depends on what you are going to hit if you do, and thus, the consequences. Those two things always have to be multiplied together in your decision making process. If you are flying in a remote area, and you crash every 100th flight, but the system replacement is $1000, there's zero possibility of collateral damage, and you are getting paid $500 for every flight, keep flying. It would make no sense if the chance of collatoral damage is zero to fly an insanely expensive UAV with a cheap payload, just to get the chance of crash down to 1 in a billion.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next