Volocopter - safest aircraft in the world

Hello Dan,

I fully agree, it all depends on better batteries with more power-density.
After this first success of "bevor unknown people", I would not bee supprised, if Airbus-Helicopters would´nt be interested in this little company and buy up the wrights. Time will show.

Rgds Klaus

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:04:51 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

I also agree that newer battery technology is needed to make this
anything more than a high-priced toy, but then that's what our
gliders are, aren't they?

--

Dan, 5J

Did you see where the site mentioned they were looking at/working on a "hybrid"? Until battery energy density improves (a lot) they will add in a small generator to extend flight time.

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:35:08 AM UTC-5, Kilo-Bravo wrote:
Just an amazing development and a futuristic kind of Ultralight-Helicopter.

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-6, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:04:51 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

I also agree that newer battery technology is needed to make this
anything more than a high-priced toy, but then that's what our
gliders are, aren't they?

--

Dan, 5J

Did you see where the site mentioned they were looking at/working on a "hybrid"? Until battery energy density improves (a lot) they will add in a small generator to extend flight time.

I hate to break it to you all but the time when battery capacity will approach the density of carbon fuels will come - never. I read up on that subject and there are limits in the direct conversion of chemical energy into electricity (which is what batteries do) that indicate we are not so far away from those now. We may improve by a factor of 2 but that is not what is needed to make electric flight a x-country activity. It boils down to the physics that chemistry is based on - and we understand those laws very well.
Herb

I saw that and think it's a good compromise - just like a
diesel-electric locomotive. I don't think batteries will achieve the
power density needed for practical cross country flight in my lifetime,
but that's no reason not to push the boundaries.

On 12/8/2015 7:26 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 12:04:51 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

I also agree that newer battery technology is needed to make this
anything more than a high-priced toy, but then that's what our
gliders are, aren't they?
--

Dan, 5J
Did you see where the site mentioned they were looking at/working on a "hybrid"? Until battery energy density improves (a lot) they will add in a small generator to extend flight time.

--
Dan, 5J

Dear pilot-friends,

mainly interesting discussion, despite using it as hey-mower, which is not worth to be discussed.

Beginning with Lilienthal, Wright brothers, Charles Lindbergh, Students of Darmstadt, Horten brothers, Wernher von Braun, Bertrand Piccard, just to name a few of earlier "fools", the time they presented their ideas, the overall laughter was assured "it never works!!!"
Most of those visionary aviators succeeded, some of them sure payed with their life for the idea.
Just because time was not ready for the idea at that time, material or production knowledge not yet available.
Would anybody had believed 80 years ago, man ever could fly to the moon and take a walk at its surface? To build a huge and heavy craft like a B747 or an A380?
Or 10 years ago, to build an electric powered twin-trainer like the Pipistrel, operated by quick-change battery-units small enough to fit in an ultralight trainer carrying two people and enabling flight training lasting 45 minutes?

Or the Airbus E-Van, a twin-trainer 550 kg empty-weight, max-speed 220km/h, battery-power at the moment just 40 minutes, but they are convinced of longer lasting batteries for the near future.

Sure nobody would have believed in all those "foolish ideas" 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. All of those foolish ideas came true. They are reality these days.

@ Even
Not being able to glide or autorotate is the worst case for any aircraft of course. Could be loosing an elevator or part of a wing, destruction of the free-wheeling clutch of a chopper or loosing a blade. All of this sure happened in the past - death trap as someone called it. The pilot of the Volocopter still has a last chance by activating its BRS and touch the ground safely, while a common chopper just falls out of the sky like a stone.

@ Herb and Dan
I´m fully convinced, we will have those battery density 2, maybe not in yours or my lifetime, but sometime later. Who cares about that? We already have fully electric-driven airplanes like the Sunseaker with battery and additional solar-cells at top of the wings, so they easily do cross-country flights.
Or the Solar Impulse of Bertrand Piccard, who does a flight around the world without a single drop of fuel, just by solar-power. Not yet compleated, but non-stop five days and 5 nights in the air, thats grate, thats future and thats not a simple ultralight by weight and wingspan!

Take a look at Dean Sigler´s fantastic website "http://blog.cafefoundation.org/". A scientist-based highly qualified website, where you can see what´s possibly already and what scientists all over the world are working at and what they think about future possibilities in battery-density - thinks like that.

Or check the websites of NASA, what scientists and students develop at research-places like the Armstrong Research Center: http://www.nasa.gov/aero/students-el...rplane-designs
High Voltage Hybrid ElectricPropulsion: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstron..._showcase.html

Great scientific visions I believe in to become true and sincerely hope to see one or the other getting true in my time of life.

Best regards from Germany

Klaus

Klaus,

I like your fire. Keep it up!

Regards and best of luck,
Dan

On 12/9/2015 3:28 AM, Kilo-Bravo wrote:
Dear pilot-friends,

mainly interesting discussion, despite using it as hey-mower, which is not worth to be discussed.

Beginning with Lilienthal, Wright brothers, Charles Lindbergh, Students of Darmstadt, Horten brothers, Wernher von Braun, Bertrand Piccard, just to name a few of earlier "fools", the time they presented their ideas, the overall laughter was assured "it never works!!!"
Most of those visionary aviators succeeded, some of them sure payed with their life for the idea.
Just because time was not ready for the idea at that time, material or production knowledge not yet available.
Would anybody had believed 80 years ago, man ever could fly to the moon and take a walk at its surface? To build a huge and heavy craft like a B747 or an A380?
Or 10 years ago, to build an electric powered twin-trainer like the Pipistrel, operated by quick-change battery-units small enough to fit in an ultralight trainer carrying two people and enabling flight training lasting 45 minutes?

Or the Airbus E-Van, a twin-trainer 550 kg empty-weight, max-speed 220km/h, battery-power at the moment just 40 minutes, but they are convinced of longer lasting batteries for the near future.

Sure nobody would have believed in all those "foolish ideas" 10, 20 or even 50 years ago. All of those foolish ideas came true. They are reality these days.

@ Even
Not being able to glide or autorotate is the worst case for any aircraft of course. Could be loosing an elevator or part of a wing, destruction of the free-wheeling clutch of a chopper or loosing a blade. All of this sure happened in the past - death trap as someone called it. The pilot of the Volocopter still has a last chance by activating its BRS and touch the ground safely, while a common chopper just falls out of the sky like a stone.

@ Herb and Dan
I´m fully convinced, we will have those battery density 2, maybe not in yours or my lifetime, but sometime later. Who cares about that? We already have fully electric-driven airplanes like the Sunseaker with battery and additional solar-cells at top of the wings, so they easily do cross-country flights.
Or the Solar Impulse of Bertrand Piccard, who does a flight around the world without a single drop of fuel, just by solar-power. Not yet compleated, but non-stop five days and 5 nights in the air, thats grate, thats future and thats not a simple ultralight by weight and wingspan!

Take a look at Dean Sigler´s fantastic website "http://blog.cafefoundation.org/". A scientist-based highly qualified website, where you can see what´s possibly already and what scientists all over the world are working at and what they think about future possibilities in battery-density - thinks like that.

Or check the websites of NASA, what scientists and students develop at research-places like the Armstrong Research Center: http://www.nasa.gov/aero/students-el...rplane-designs
High Voltage Hybrid ElectricPropulsion: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstron..._showcase.html

Great scientific visions I believe in to become true and sincerely hope to see one or the other getting true in my time of life.

Best regards from Germany

Klaus

--
Dan, 5J

Interesting tidbit of information that I haven't seen in the discussion so far, all hardware is built by DG.

Let's start with the safest aircraft in the world statement. I'm sorry but that's quite a claim without data or previous history. All aircraft these days are the safest in the world until a person gets behind the controls. What exactly makes this the safest? I operate some aircraft with up to 8 layers of system redundancy and millions of uneventful hours on the airframe - way more than any ga - but somehow this one is the safest? I'm waiting for the late night infomercial. Claims like this are simply ridiculous.

With that said, I love following developments in aviation and can appreciate qualities in everything out there.

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 08:35:05 -0800, Kilo-Bravo wrote:

Read the complete story:
http://ul-segelflug.de/f-a-e/519-vol...ehicle-in-the-
world.html


I did and am unimpressed. I see three major flaws:

1) As others have pointed out, it can't autorotate. Unless it has a lot
of excess power, almost any failure means you'll be on the way down
fairly fast regardless of what is under you. Why? If any one motor fails,
the corresponding opposite motor also has to be turned off (or at least a
number of opposite motors need to throttled) to maintain control, because
if the thing can't be kept absolutely level it will accelerate sideways
toward the dead motor and there's no way this can be prevented without
levelling the support disk because there's no way to generate any side
thrust. So, its a death trap unless it has at least 12% excess thrust
over and above MTOW and, to protect against a double motor failure, that
should be doubled.

2) The more I think about the 'single control column' control system the
less I like it. If pushing the stick forward means 'go forward', how do
you tell it to climb or descend? Control the vertical rate? I see push
buttons and one rotary knob with no markings of calibration. Same
laterally. If pushing the stick left means 'turn left', how do you tell
it to counter a side wind? Are you meant to crab, in which case surely
changing the yaw angle is a bit slow to counter side gusts?

3) I see no mention of control system failures. If all fly-by-wire fixed
wing aircraft have at least doubly redundant systems, surely this needs
them too, so why aren't they mentioned?

This doesn't seem much like 'the world's safest aircraft'. Maybe its the
worlds easiest aircraft for a neophyte to fly, but 'easy to fly' doesn't
mean the same as 'safe'.

Besides, its inefficient. 20 minutes on a charge when the Airbus Industry
E-fan can fly for a hour and both it and an electric Cri-Cri have crossed
the English Channel?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |