World’s largest multirotor makes successful maiden flight

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/04/28563/worlds-largest-multirotor-makes-successful-maiden-flight/

by Varcht • 12 years ago

46 44 12 years ago

suasnews.com

danbruc4• 12 years ago

Doesn't the world already have enough war toys? Why not make something that actually helps mankind?

cimbal• 12 years ago

You mean a truck that can cross a river, say, despite a damaged bridge, is not something that might help?

danbruc4• 12 years ago

Why then not develop this in the first place instead of first building a military vehicle and maybe later reusing it for different purposes?

dfc• 12 years ago

I would like to introduce you to the principle of dual use. However I imagine you are already familiar with it. Surely you do not consider nmap and gdb to be criminal tools? Was ARPANET a war toy? Is GPS a handy location service for civilians or nuclear warriors?

In order to drive the nail home[^1] in the instant case here are some references for drones and anti-poaching:

Elephants and rhinos benefit from drone surveillance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25056-elephants-and-rh...

Google gives $5 million to Drone Program That Will Track Poachers: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/google...

[^1]: How do you classify the hammer: carpenter's best friend or murderer's skull bludgeoning tool?

sean-duffy• 12 years ago

Do you realise that almost all the development of early computers was to contribute to the war effort? Usually to get things done, you have to create things that help a subset of mankind in a specific way.

danbruc4• 12 years ago

I realize that. And not only the computer stuff but a lot of things in different areas from advances in medicine to rocket technologies.

But why should we continue this road? We have been living in a world where you can no longer have any serious war for more than 60 years. There are nuclear weapons and having a war is just the dumbest thing you could do.

You can still invade Iraq or Chechnya or Ukraine and beat down a less powerful state but for this we have more then enough weapons, no need to get new ones.

Zigurd• 12 years ago

And recent events confirm the wisdom of that course.

Wait...

qwerta• 12 years ago

China before mongol invasion was like that. Too bad they hated their own warriors, we could had industrial revolution 7 hundred years earlier.

awjr• 12 years ago

I don't get why it needs massive heavy tyres. Wouldn't it be better to have a mobile platform from where it lifted off from saving quite a bit of weight. I mean the wheels and suspension must way rather a lot. This is a supply unit.

jffry• 12 years ago

I think the idea is that it can drive quickly overland where it is smooth enough for wheels, but still have the multiple rotors to be able to go over things that it can't easily drive over

danbruc4• 12 years ago

And you get the benefit that driving consumes a lot less fuel and may actually extended the range depending on the usual ratio between driving and flying.

jws• 12 years ago

You may be supplying or evacuating casualties from an area covered in trees, buildings, or enemy arms. You don't want to load and unload in a landing zone, it takes time, men, and equipment and makes a target.

midas007• 12 years ago

If it's intended for tactical uses, it needs to be more robust to take more abuse in unfriendly terrain. ;)

cstejerean• 12 years ago

The off road driving module is optional. From the article "Additionally, the modular automobile portion of the vehicle can be removed for additional payload capacity or replaced with a boat hull or an amphibious hull for water operations."

samstave2• 12 years ago

It should have a detachable undercarriage which it can land onto to get the off road capability, while without that - it would just have regular stilt-like legs...

Actually - an autonomous under belly with engine for driving around - which can be mated to the flight portion (where the flight capability was not removed by mating) would be interesting.

Basically you have a waypoint where the mating happens; flight body returns to way point for pickup & mating -- as does the drive train.

Drive train carries casualties/supplies to the waypoint for transport/extraction...

lotsofmangos3• 12 years ago

You are onto something there. You can get the flight portion to nip off for supplies and come back while you continue on your journey.

thomaswmeyer• 12 years ago

Just outfit it with a bed, kitchen, and a bathroom, and you have a pretty stylin' motor home that can get you almost anywhere on this planet.

lotsofmangos3• 12 years ago

Ok, screw flying cars. We are now one step closer to a flying Winnebago.

Needs some jets strapped to it, wired to a button labeled 'Ludicrous Speed'.

dm26• 12 years ago

Some JATOs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ (action at 37 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXfK4ypirI

They can be dangerous...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hru0z9WJwKo

samstave2• 12 years ago

I prefer the far more personal version:

http://vimeo.com/86054588

callesgg• 12 years ago

This quad is allot biger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVelo_Atlas

dm26• 12 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jENWKgMPY

This one might be even larger, it's kind of a hybrid configuration though.

Also, isn't a Chinook technically a multirotor?

jsumrall• 12 years ago

Wow, the heli-blimp looks like something I would have built in Kerbal Space Program (A game which lets you build spaceships and planes). Its a bad idea, and it looks like they thought adding a lot of cross-beams would make it stable. "Guess and Check" might have worked for HS Calculus, but it's not a good way to build a flying machine on a Navy contract.

robotresearcher2• 12 years ago

The article mentions in passing the defining feature of multirotors: they are controlled by rotor speed only. No swash plate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashplate_(helicopter)

ChuckMcM• 12 years ago

That looks like the next earthroamer RV chassis :-). A number of folks have said to me that quad/hexcopters dont scale up to man capable sizes, this seems to contradict that. I can imagine the engine out scenarios will be challenging.

[1] earthroamer.com

jessriedel2• 12 years ago

What's the connection between autonomous flight and (no-swashplate) multi-rotor? If multi-rotor is useful, why haven't miltaries used them with pilots? Why are autonomous helicopters overwhelmingly multi-rotor?

modeless• 12 years ago

Autonomous helicopters are multi-rotor for simplicity and reliability. A quadcopter has only 4 moving parts (not even any gears!) and that makes it just about the simplest possible mobile robot, simpler even than wheeled robots (mechanically).

Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable, batteries don't scale well, and combustion engines have slower throttle response (not to mention hundreds of moving parts that eliminate the simplicity advantage).

twic• 12 years ago

I wonder if anyone's looked into turbo-electric power trains for helicopters. They work well enough in ships and trains. There might be all sorts of reasons they wouldn't work in a helicopter, though.

A turbo-electric drive wouldn't magically achieve a faster throttle response, but it might make it faster to shift the power from one rotor to another, which might be what's really needed.

jessriedel2• 12 years ago

That doesn't help too much. You're mostly just stating advantages/disadvantages of one design over the other, without explaining why this should be correlated so very strongly with manual/autonomous control.

Autonomous helicopters are multi-rotor for simplicity and reliability

Simplicity (less upkeep) and reliability (safety) seem more important for expensive, manned helicopters! So this argument, on its face, contradicts what we actually see. The only argument working in the right direction is something like "simplicity for tiny vehicles (which are necessarily unmanned) is important because number/complexity of parts makes up a larger fraction of total cost compared to large vehicles where raw materials dominate".

Piloted multirotors aren't as popular because they need computer control to be stable

Large helicopters are expensive. The computers necessary to stabilize them are going to be just a tiny cost. On the other hand, for a drone the computers could be a sizeable fraction of the price. So, again, this argument appears to go against reality.

batteries don't scale well,

Then why is this truck-sized vehicle (presumably using internal combustion) a multi-rotor?

and combustion engines have slower throttle response

Ok, so this is close to an answer. The (weak) argument would be "humans want quick throttle response but robots don't much care". But this isn't too convincing, as I could easily see it being true that humans are better able than robots at compensating for slow responses.

htns• 12 years ago

The article says

The patented AT Transformer technology combines the capabilities of a helicopter, such as the ability to take off and land anywhere, with the capabilities of an off-road automobile.

I'm no expert, but it's clear the design was driven by very different requirements than a classic helicopter. Maybe there were many fancy considerations, or maybe they just slapped something together on the basis that bolting 3+ rotors to any old brick will give it flight and great maneuverability.

Serow225• 12 years ago

I'm surprised that those engines have fast enough delta-input to delta-thrust response to make it reasonably responsive?

World’s largest multirotor makes successful maiden flight

Related Stories