Drones with 2000lb caring capacity planned for China's version of Amazon

canadian1969

canadian1969

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
what's the difference between a drone that can carry a ton of crap and a flying car? Other than a windshield and a comfy chair, that is?
Click to expand...
Probably an extra 2000 lbs minimum, the human, plus the space required to carry them, all the additional structural support, more weight means more fuel, bigger engines etc etc. The reason we dont have flying cars (and this has been a thing my entire life) is that engine size/weight to thrust ratios didnt work. However I hear Porche is about to get into the flying car game. Its been a suckers bet for the last 50 years. I think there are like 4-5 actual working flying cars, never anything mass producible afaik.

What does worry me is how easy a delivery system it would be for 2000lbs of something explosive or flammable. These drones are a super bad idea. Mark my words people are going to be shooting them out of the sky.

here is one strategy. get a high powered laser coupled with a directional signal jammer. Both of which you can buy or build. So long as you are charged, within range and on its flight path all you would have to do is keep the device pointed at the drone long enough to blind its camera and interfere with its controller until it crashes. Go get it , pull its battery take it apart and sell it + cargo on the darkmarkets. #simples
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
canadian1969 said:
Probably an extra 2000 lbs minimum, the human, plus the space required to carry them, all the additional structural support, more weight means more fuel, bigger engines etc etc. The reason we dont have flying cars (and this has been a thing my entire life) is that engine size/weight to thrust ratios didnt work. However I hear Porche is about to get into the flying car game. Its been a suckers bet for the last 50 years. I think there are like 4-5 actual working flying cars, never anything mass producible afaik.

What does worry me is how easy a delivery system it would be for 2000lbs of something explosive or flammable. These drones are a super bad idea. Mark my words people are going to be shooting them out of the sky.

here is one strategy. get a high powered laser coupled with a directional signal jammer. Both of which you can buy or build. So long as you are charged, within range and on its flight path all you would have to do is keep the device pointed at the drone long enough to blind its camera and interfere with its controller until it crashes. Go get it , pull its battery take it apart and sell it + cargo on the darkmarkets. #simples
Click to expand...
2000 lbs of carrying capacity (fuel and structure is already included) is plenty for 4 people.

The barrier to flying cars is legal, not technological.

Just like anything else humans build, drones can certainly be put to inimical uses, and in fact ISIS used off the shelf hobby drones against enemy forces- including Americans- years ago.

I bet it will fit in a 2 car garage and take off and land in my driveway. If it carries 4, flies by wire and has a range of 250 miles, it would hit all five of my personal criteria for a practical flying car.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Safety. Air traffic. Regulations. Cost. Training. Economic unless The big 3 auto companies gets to make them.

Other than that. Is there a popular mechanics DIY article? I’m in.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Safety. Air traffic. Regulations. Cost. Training. Economic unless The big 3 auto companies gets to make them.

Other than that. Is there a popular mechanics DIY article? I’m in.
Click to expand...
Most conventional aircraft are made by hand and no airplane in history has yet had a production run of more than 44,000 odd units. Aircraft manufacture is still a very bespoke business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft

The reason I'm holding out for VTOL is safety. The reason I'm holding out for fly by wire and computer aided stability is safety.

Drones are getting us there- and there's no reason a big drone can't use the same chassis as a flying car. That would go a long way towards generating the economies of scale needed to drive down cost.

The first personal computers were not very powerful, had limited applications and they were expensive. As the market developed, they got better and cheaper. Flat panel televisions did the same. Most technologies follow the same cost and performance vs time curve, flying cars will be no different.

I think we're getting close.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Most conventional aircraft are made by hand and no airplane in history has yet had a production run of more than 44,000 odd units. Aircraft manufacture is still a very bespoke business.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft

The reason I'm holding out for VTOL is safety. The reason I'm holding out for fly by wire and computer aided stability is safety.

Drones are getting us there- and there's no reason a big drone can't use the same chassis as a flying car. That would go a long way towards generating the economies of scale needed to drive down cost.

The first personal computers were not very powerful, had limited applications and they were expensive. As the market developed, they got better and cheaper. Flat panel televisions did the same. Most technologies follow the same cost and performance vs time curve, flying cars will be no different.

I think we're getting close.
Click to expand...

Think Bladerunner for a 3 dimensional grid of traffic.

Be pretty great out here in the country though.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Think Bladerunner for a 3 dimensional grid of traffic.

Be pretty great out here in the country though.
Click to expand...
Something like that. I had an idea for a three dimensional traffic pattern that specified direction of travel for each altitude, such that stacked on top of one another it looked like a spiral. Each direction would be associated several altitudes, higher ones being reserved higher speeds. Since the pattern would be set from ground control and broadcast via a radio based wifi it could vary in response to terrain, conditions, even traffic.

Because traffic could climb or descend the spiral pattern at each to their own pace, many different kinds of aircraft could coexist. Since climbing and descending would always be turning the same way, flight and spacing and traffic avoidance would be intuitive. Because aircraft could fly directly to their destinations density would be minimised.

Emergencies causing aircraft to leave the standard pattern would be immediately recognizable and the traffic control system would be able to quickly alert nearby traffic digitally via the wifi system.

I haven't had the chance to discuss this idea with anyone with relevant experience yet, I'd like to have it critiqued to see whether it's a viable approach.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Something like that. I had an idea for a three dimensional traffic pattern that specified direction of travel for each altitude, such that stacked on top of one another it looked like a spiral. Each direction would be associated several altitudes, higher ones being reserved higher speeds. Since the pattern would be set from ground control and broadcast via a radio based wifi it could vary in response to terrain, conditions, even traffic.

Because traffic could climb or descend the spiral pattern at each to their own pace, many different kinds of aircraft could coexist. Since climbing and descending would always be turning the same way, flight and spacing and traffic avoidance would be intuitive. Because aircraft could fly directly to their destinations density would be minimised.

Emergencies causing aircraft to leave the standard pattern would be immediately recognizable and the traffic control system would be able to quickly alert nearby traffic digitally via the wifi system.

I haven't had the chance to discuss this idea with anyone with relevant experience yet, I'd like to have it critiqued to see whether it's a viable approach.
Click to expand...

You sure have put a lot more thought into this than I expected. With the steady growth of population we may need what you suggest soon.

Trucks are 50k already. And are out of most people’s credit range. This tech may only be available to the rich to get out of standstill traffic for a long time if it becomes a product.

Cadillac Flyskalade. 150k. 0% financing available for 120 months :-)

Buy and fly is their new catch phrase. I like it!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
You sure have put a lot more thought into this than I expected. With the steady growth of population we may need what you suggest soon.

Trucks are 50k already. And are out of most people’s credit range. This tech may only be available to the rich to get out of standstill traffic for a long time if it becomes a product.

Cadillac Flyskalade. 150k. 0% financing available for 120 months :-)

Buy and fly is their new catch phrase. I like it!
Click to expand...
People already drop $250k on 'entry level' supercars like Ferrari 488 or McLaren 570s. And then trade them in after a year or two.

The attraction of a flying car would be the ability to use its full performance potential while simultaneously saving time. That's a heady mix for the well heeled and busy.
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
Can't wait for personal transportation drones.
I imagine a little pod you get into and then get delivered to your destination.
The slightly cramped conditions made up for by the reduced time of traveling as the crow flies.
You can make a swarm with your family.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
Can't wait for personal transportation drones.
I imagine a little pod you get into and then get delivered to your destination.
The slightly cramped conditions made up for by the reduced time of traveling as the crow flies.
You can make a swarm with your family.
Click to expand...
I see no reason why one would need to be cramped in a tiny space inside?
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
Well, it takes a lot of energy to move something by air as there is less traction on the air than say on the road.
So it would be pretty expensive energy wise to move something big and heavy. I would prefer a more torpedo-like cocoon that can inflate balloons and deploy parachutes and encase the occupant in static energy absorbing foam in case of motor failure.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
Well, it takes a lot of energy to move something by air as there is less traction on the air than say on the road.
So it would be pretty expensive energy wise to move something big and heavy. I would prefer a more torpedo-like cocoon that can inflate balloons and deploy parachutes and encase the occupant in static energy absorbing foam in case of motor failure.
Click to expand...
Too bad the energy absorbing foam won't stop your internal organs from destroying themselves against the inside your body on impact.

I prefer redundant safety systems, tends to be a lot less dramatic.

Personally, I'd much rather have a comfy chair and a mimosa while I'm enjoying the view than be cramped up in a torpedo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top