[HN Gopher] Hexa Lift: Single person drone
___________________________________________________________________
Hexa Lift: Single person drone
Author : thunderbong
Score : 55 points
Date : 2023-06-18 15:34 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.liftaircraft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.liftaircraft.com)
| davidy123 wrote:
| I was trying to find out how noisy this thing is, I'm guessing it
| won't be pleasant to be around.
| thih9 wrote:
| 18 rotors, in case anyone else is wondering.
| strangattractor wrote:
| Never thought something could make you look more nerdy than a
| Segway but I was wrong.
| messe wrote:
| You may enjoy the Sinclair C5 then:
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/onlyinbritain/getty-...
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > making an expensive and inaccessible experience available to
| everyone
|
| Too sad the marketing bullshit obfuscate what is the target here.
| maxerickson wrote:
| They say that you will be able to buy an 8 to 15 minute flight
| experience once they launch.
|
| Seems like that is their target.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| AaaS, aircraft as a service.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Oh thanks but by "target" I meant "end users that will pay
| for that ~10min experience.
|
| I thought that would be obvious... so side question: how
| would you have phrased it?
| maxerickson wrote:
| Target audience probably. "Target" reads as "what are they
| doing", Target audience" reads as "who will be interested
| in what they are doing".
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Thanks! That's helpful.
| TylerE wrote:
| Segway 2.0, now 10x more deadly.
| mtmail wrote:
| Yeah, it says "LIFT doesn't sell aircraft, we're the first
| company in the world to offer electric multi-rotor flying as
| an experience". Their marketing is also to investors and they
| might sell aircraft in the future but right now it's just
| short supervised (ground station) flights.
| 1024core wrote:
| San Franciscans are already upset about the Cruise cars[1]; can't
| wait to see how delighted they'll be to see/hear these loud
| drones buzzing around over the City.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/Cruise/status/1667549213557927936
| Animats wrote:
| The "Invest Now" button just screams "scam".
|
| Others have built human-scale multirotor electric aircraft. eHang
| has been demoing theirs for years.[1] eHang has 16 motors and 16
| props. They've been through a few iterations on the design, so
| they're past the prototype stage. But they seem to be kind of
| stuck. These drone-based things are so limited in range due to
| battery capacity and weight constraints that they are not yet
| useful.
|
| Aviation Week and AAM have a "reality index" for companies in
| this space. Currently, Joby Aviation and Volocopter lead,
| followed by a three-way tie between Archer Aviation, Beta
| Technologies and EHang.[2]
|
| Joby [3] is a 6-prop tilt rotor with a minimal wing. It can take
| off and land vertically, but flies more like an ordinary
| aircraft. This takes less energy than helicopter mode. Joby's
| range record is 151 miles in a 77 minute flight, going round and
| round over an airport. This is a complicated aircraft and takes a
| skilled pilot plus considerable computer power.
|
| Volocopter [4] has 2 seats, 18 props, and really good renders on
| their web site. They're demoing at the Paris Air Show, starting
| tomorrow. They're working, slowly, towards type certification in
| Europe, then certification as an air carrier. Range limit maybe
| 60 miles.
|
| There's still the clown car of the industry - Moller. Real Soon
| Now for over 50 years.[5] Apparently "inactive", but the web site
| is still up. They once did get a prototype, running on a large
| number of small Wankel engines, to hover while connected to a
| crane for backup.
|
| [1] https://www.ehang.com/
|
| [2] https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-
| mobility/lea...
|
| [3] https://www.jobyaviation.com/
|
| [5] https://moller.com/
|
| [4] https://www.volocopter.com/
| [deleted]
| le-mark wrote:
| I've often wondered if smallish internal combustion engines
| (with variable pitch propellers presumably) could increase
| range at the cost of some weight. Maybe someone familiar with
| the trade offs could comment?
| 0xr0kk3r wrote:
| Super wobbly. Looks like the structure holding the rotors
| together has a lot of flex in it. Makes my engineering brain
| panic.
|
| I could see this being a rescue device for difficult terrain
| where a helicopter can't fit.
|
| Recently some coast guard pilots had to risk their lives to save
| a dog on a hard to reach beach. This thing could have zipped into
| a tighter space than a chopper and been out in under 15 minutes.
| soderfoo wrote:
| >No Runway or Pilot's License Required.
|
| Curious how this is exempt from FAA regulations.
|
| It looks neat and all, but it goes without saying... what could
| possibly go wrong?!
| ortusdux wrote:
| It is exempt from license requirements, not FAA regulations.
| Ultralights and paragliders are the same way. Most anyone can
| buy and fly a powered or unpowered ultralight without a license
| as long as they comply with the FAA's strict regulations:
|
| https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aviation-interests/ultralights/getti...
| [deleted]
| tzs wrote:
| It's a powered ultralight aircraft, which is covered under part
| 103 of the FAA regulations.
|
| There are no licensing, knowledge, age, experience, or medical
| requirements for pilots of ultralights.
|
| For the aircraft itself there are no certification standards,
| other than it has to meet the definition of a powered
| ultralight. That is: -only one seat -is
| only used for recreational or sport flying -does not have
| an airworthiness certificate -weighs less that 254 pounds
| empty (not counting safety equipment and floats) -has a
| maximum fuel capacity of 5 gallons -does not exceed 63
| mph in level flight at full power -power off stall speed
| does not exceed 28 mph
|
| Ultralights can only be flown between sunrise and sunset,
| unless they have an anti-collision light visible for 3 miles
| and are in uncontrolled airspace in which they can fly 30
| minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.
|
| They cannot be flown over any congested area or over an open
| air assembly of people.
| xeonmc wrote:
| So looks like the regulation is just saying
| - flying the craft should be a risk to only yourself and not
| anyone else
|
| I would look very carefully at the terms and conditions about
| liability waivers and safety guarantees of the product.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's not like they are going to be able to cover up a bunch
| of deaths or severe injuries.
|
| (Not an endorsement, it looks like investor story time to
| me, just that they still have a pretty solid incentive to
| not kill people)
| mysterydip wrote:
| I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they
| stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights
| I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a wing or
| parachute holding a tiny engine and a seat. Maybe the
| materials are some new composite?
|
| I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity
| for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the
| "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average?
| Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight"
| towards my design?
| sokoloff wrote:
| How would the batteries be "free weight"? They're neither
| safety equipment nor floats.
|
| You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery
| discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in
| it.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| If the batteries are removable, is"without fuel" without
| batteries or without charge?
| sokoloff wrote:
| The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of
| anything other than safety equipment (to include
| floatation). The battery weights don't count only so long
| as they're left behind.
| mysterydip wrote:
| it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are
| not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container.
| They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included
| because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I
| don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme
| and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a
| frame for no "weight cost".
| wongarsu wrote:
| If the batteries are removable and can only be charged
| outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not
| counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are
| something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel).
| But I don't think that argument would fly once the
| batteries have a structural purpose.
| zuminator wrote:
| Under "aircraft" [0] the website states the vehicle is 432
| lbs. But it also says it's compliant with the FAA's Powered
| Ultralight classification.
|
| [0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft
| sokoloff wrote:
| Their FAQ says:
|
| > In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part
| 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA's Powered Ultralight
| classification for which FAA certification is not
| required or available. The base weight limit for Powered
| Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional
| weight allowances for floats and safety equipment.
|
| They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear
| counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be
| wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn
| an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn't be
| the first startup to pretend the FARs said something
| other than they did.)
| StrangeATractor wrote:
| I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their _interpretation_ of
| what they say is what 's really the law, not what's
| written in the FAR.
|
| About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as
| he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but
| the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at
| near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this,
| they really put the screws on him because in their
| interpretation he was _flying_ under the bridge (very
| illegal), _even though he wasn 't airborne_. Nowhere to
| my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between
| floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this
| they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but
| they really went after him for it.
| electroly wrote:
| This seems wild to me (I believe you, it's just wild). A
| quadcopter has to be registered above 250 _grams_ , this
| requirement goes away if there's a human inside?? Feels like
| this area between an unmanned drone and the smallest manned
| airplane is missing regulation.
| tomrod wrote:
| Not every space needs to be regulated. Presently, ultra
| lights aren't crowded and adhere to rules. Once people want
| to use these to simplify their commutes it will become a
| regulated space.
| electroly wrote:
| While true in the general sense, I specifically think
| this particular space should be. This is an insane device
| to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or
| training. I honestly feel the same way about my 249g
| drone, to a lesser extent--I should have needed to prove
| that I'm not an idiot before firing it up, but I didn't
| have to. I both injured myself and lost the drone because
| I actually am an idiot. I can't imagine what kind of mess
| I could get into with this size of device.
| notatoad wrote:
| i think it makes sense that there's a lot of regulation in
| an industry where products are widely available, and
| there's not a lot of regulation in an industry where
| products don't exist beyond a few isolated prototypes.
|
| this seems like an example of regulatory systems working in
| a sane way. regulation should follow reality, not lead it.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah I think the fact that somebody is in it means that
| they'll take some more care over things than a drone pilot.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I'd rather crash a drone than crash the aircraft I'm in.
| That, and drones are harder to fly because you have the
| wrong perspective.
| [deleted]
| antipotoad wrote:
| Flights are within a geofence, overseen by flight crew who can
| take over remotely at any time. Still surprising no license is
| required.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Sounds more like an amusement park ride than flying an
| aircraft.
| bentcorner wrote:
| It does seem like that.
|
| > Check in at the LIFT location coming soon to your city.
| Before your first flight, you'll sign a waiver and watch
| our orientation and safety videos.
|
| > ...
|
| > When in Beginner mode, you will go through an on-screen
| tutorial - learning maneuvers just like in the simulator.
| After the tutorial, you will be free to fly around the
| designated, geofenced flight area for the remainder of your
| 8-15 minute flight. Build flight experience and unlock
| Sport and Group flying modes.
|
| edit:
|
| Looks like this is just their 1st step:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKs0k7LCM8
| choeger wrote:
| These things won't be successful before drone deliveries are
| wide-spread.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Can't wait to buy a clone kit off aliexpress.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I'm waiting for this, in a form factor of a broom... then ...
| Quidditch!
| qingcharles wrote:
| From the site - flight time is 8-15 minutes.
|
| We badly need a battery revolution...
|
| (Or Tesla-style power-beaming)
| willio58 wrote:
| A decade ago 8-15 minutes on an electric aircraft like this
| would be impossible. A decade from now we'll be to an hour,
| which I'm sure would cover 99% of cases unless you really want
| to be droning state to state haha
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > A decade ago 8-15 minutes on an electric aircraft like this
| would be impossible. A decade from now we'll be to an hour,
| which I'm sure would cover 99% of cases unless you really
| want to be droning state to state haha
|
| Be careful about projecting from hype directed at investors
| but not actually publicly available.
|
| I mean, if we projected from Moller skycar PR from the 1990s
| on (when it was heavily marketed to investors and first made
| available for preorders) the sky would be filled with
| personal VTOLs today.
| Animats wrote:
| Moller goes back _much_ further than the 1990s. Here 's the
| product brochure from 1974.[1] Full-scale production in
| 1976! Called "Discojet Corporation" back then.
|
| [1] http://downside.com/scams/moller/
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yes, I referred specifically to the Skycar, which was the
| last major effort, but yeah, Moller was playing that game
| for a long time.
| thih9 wrote:
| Their FAQ mentions a hybrid system with better results:
|
| > What's the maximum distance you expect HEXA to be able to fly
| with this hybrid version?
|
| > a. 60-90 miles in 60 minutes
|
| source:
| https://www.liftaircraft.com/_files/ugd/ce21ec_0e727e43682b4...
| uzerfcwn wrote:
| Is many small propellers really more efficient than few big ones?
| Even if they didn't want to make a mini-helicopter, they could've
| also went with a 3-4 rotor design.
| ralegh wrote:
| I'd assume it's more about redundancy - 1/18 failed motors vs
| 1/4 would be much safer to land. Also means the replacement
| motors would be cheaper (individually). Like the starship
| booster.
| wongarsu wrote:
| And having more redundancy presumably means you can build
| each one cheaper and don't have to inspect them as much.
|
| Smallish helicopters aren't that expensive. Maintenance and
| fuel are though. Going electric already helps with the fuel,
| going for many motors helps with the maintenance.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| I worked in this space for years. The answer is no. If you
| evolve a multirotor design to be more and more efficient you
| will end up with fewer, larger rotors, until the time comes
| that you require variable pitch to have sufficient control
| bandwidth. At which point you have a helo.
| philipov wrote:
| How is this a drone if the pilot is on board?
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Language is an always evolving thing.
|
| It looks like a (huge) drone so it's called a drone.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Is a hacker a person who makes furniture with an axe, a
| competent and curious programmer, or a nefarious nogoodnik?
| civilitty wrote:
| He's clearly a woodchuck. A good-fer-nufin woodchuck.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How is this a drone if the pilot is on board?
|
| Its remote controlled as well as being locally piloted. Its a
| drone that happens to also have local controls.
|
| _"Every second of your flight is monitored by our highly
| trained and licensed primary and secondary flight controllers,
| with whom you'll have radio communication who and can take over
| remote control of your aircraft at any time, if necessary."_
| qup wrote:
| In the RC community, "drone" is the new word for "multirotor",
| "quadcopter" etc.
|
| There was a push, years back, to not use the word, but
| eventually everyone caved.
|
| This thing is just a beefcake of a quadcopter, sorta, so I'm
| not surprised to see that word thrown around.
|
| Also, the company doesn't seem to use that word on the
| homepage, at least.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-18 23:01 UTC)