World’s largest multirotor makes successful maiden flight
suasnews.com
suasnews.com
[1] earthroamer.com
Needs some jets strapped to it, wired to a button labeled 'Ludicrous Speed'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOvoO-6nWQ (action at 37 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXfK4ypirI
They can be dangerous...
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...
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).
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.
> 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.
>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.
This one might be even larger, it's kind of a hybrid configuration though.
Also, isn't a Chinook technically a multirotor?
I expect we'll see more and more of this. Military stuff aside, they could be useful for early fire detection in high risk areas of CA, etc.
They're a lot larger than I thought after seeing that photo you linked to. I always assumed they were the size of a small car or even smaller.
I think they're also combined with the boomerang shooter detection system, and probably other sensors to give troops as much data as possible (wind speeds for shooting would probably be helpful).
Also, the chrome version (with solar panels on top!) http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/lighter-than-air-v...
The Chinook is a crazy machine, but does not have much in common with a quadrotor except for the very minor feature of having more than 1 rotor.
I have a huge interest in drones (as I'm sure many of us do) and think it would be really neat to have a personal drone that can follow us around, can do random tasks, and maybe even defend/guard us if necessary. I doubt someone would mug a person with a drone following them.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airdroids/the-pocket-dr...
Which is one reason to focus on military first.
Its not really "reuse for different purpose" when you also sell the same thing to civilian customers who have the same kind of needs.
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?
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.
... I mean or not but it's a trillion dollars or so a year you can't cut spending without destroying the entire state of new mexico.
Wait...