# Ehang unveils drone that can carry a human



## johnbr (Jan 8, 2016)

CES 2016: Ehang unveils drone that can carry a human | Watch the video - Yahoo News 

Passenger-Carrying EHang 184 Drone Unveiled At CES - NBC News


----------



## stona (Jan 8, 2016)

I can see the CAA here in the UK being over the moon about something like that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jan 8, 2016)

Saw it on BBC News a day or so ago, and it was mentioned that they're already forbidden in some countries.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2016)

So the drone flies sideways?


----------



## Airframes (Jan 8, 2016)

The nav lamps would suggest that, but no, I'm sure it goes the right way.


----------



## T Bolt (Jan 8, 2016)

Maybe the nav lamps switch from red to green depending on which direction it's flying in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 8, 2016)

I still think I'd prefer a small aircraft or helicopter than that. 

You can see why it would be banned if you don't need a licence to fly it...


----------



## mikewint (Jan 8, 2016)

Silly question: Who flies it?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2016)

mikewint said:


> Silly question: Who flies it?



What is Chinese for footman or butler?


----------



## mikewint (Jan 9, 2016)

If the person inside flies it then it really isn't a drone, right?


----------



## Airframes (Jan 9, 2016)

According to the PR blurb etc, it's computer-programmed by the 'passenger', who can then sit back and 'enjoy the flight'.
Fine, but what happens if/when an obstruction is encountered, or a course deviation required for any reason ?
I like the idea (and to be honest, I'd like one !), but I think some form of manual control, or at least over-ride is required - which then means instruction in it's use, and a pilot's licence, probably rotary wing, is required.
Given the relatively low cost of the machine, even if 'normal' flight rules and licences are required, then it's not a bad bit of kit - if the above 'manual' control is incorporated.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 9, 2016)

$200,000-$300,000 is a relatively low cost for a 1 passenger aircraft with a 23 minute endurance ???


----------



## Shinpachi (Jan 9, 2016)

A good looking machine but I think they only want to take our attention as they usually do by launching a magnificent-look project regardless whether it can be realized or not.
In last July, China launched a big girls unit "56 Flowers" declaring proudly "This will beat Japanese AKB48 soon!" but no more news are coming up since then.
We have a proverb "Saying is always free of charge" and my new proverb will be "Listen to them well but do not waste your time".
I don't hate the 56 Flowers though.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_METBXaluUI_


----------



## Wildcat (Jan 9, 2016)

Made in China... good luck ever getting me in one.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 9, 2016)

Must admit, I hadn't noticed the flight endurance time !
I was thinking in terms of the cost of a small, 2 seat helicopter, such as the Robinson, and its running costs - more expensive than the drone appears to be.
As Shinpachi noted though, it looks good, but we'll probably never see it again. However, I would think that similar, manually controlled vehicles, with bigger capacity and a realistic flight endurance, will come along at some time in the future - probably from Japan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 10, 2016)

Me seemeth to me that we're back to the flying car concept. Consider todays traffic and accidents and all the cretins out there that cant control their vehicles in two dimensions. Do you *really* want gammy and gampap plus teeny-bopper and one-more-for-the-road zooming around in *three dimensions* over your house. We can't automate 2-D highways yet


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2016)

dunno Mike, I think they (the Chinese) are on the right track.

*IF* this mode of transportation were to be used, I suspect it will be at a time when specific corridors (flight routes) would be established, that these "hover cars" would follow - altitude, corridor, ingress/egress corridor traffic and flight spacing.

At the present time, these can't be arbitrarily "flown" like an automobile and are intended to follow the path that the GPS dictates (no cutting through parking lots, no flying across private property, etc.) sort of like current GPS does for driving routes.

The only foreseeable problem, would be congestion if they were allowed to be privately owned, instead of being commercial like a Taxi service or airport/venue shuttle.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 10, 2016)

Wildcat said:


> Made in China... good luck ever getting me in one.



You've obviously never seen a Chinese aircraft... Or done business in China. A good rule for doing business in China seems to be that if you beat them down on price, they'll just match the quality to the price you pay.

The NZ Rules will allow this sort of operation, as long as you have a way to integrate it into the traffic safely, which as far as I'm aware hasn't been demonstrated, even with military drones. I think this will be their biggest hurdle.

That and those props don't look big enough.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 10, 2016)

Dave unless and until anything of this ilk can be automated with multiple fail-safes, I don't see it happening. Initially cars were tough to start, stop, and steer and roads were dirt tracks. Only a few were capable of even starting the old T's and the 1:1 steering was a bear to control. Thus a small market. In order to sell more vehicles and attract the less capable, manufactures made vehicles easier to start (electric starting), stop, steer (power), enclosed bodies with heat and air-conditioning, entertainment systems (cause getting there alive isn't enough to prevent boredom). Not enough: well we now have vehicles that park themselves (God knows how difficult it is to back AND make two turns); vehicles that look back and to the side (very difficult to TURN your head before pulling out or to look BEHIND you before backing); Keyless locks and ignition (gomer can't remember where he put the keys an hour ago), AND vehicles that stop themselves (heck, you really don't expect me to continually look FORWARD, too, do you). Heck, if you can wipe the drool off your chin you too can have 2000lbs of steel going down the road at 70mph. Thus:
In 2014, 32,719 people died in car accidents. These are what you want zooming around in another dimension?

Look at small aircraft the "general aviation" category. There are multiple regulations controlling pilots and aircraft maintenance in addition to a nation-wide control and tracking system yet in 2014, while no one died on a US commercial carrier, 252 died in small, privately owned aircraft. Doesn't sound like very many compared to cars, but consider that in 2013 there were roughly 200,000 General Aviation craft to 256,000,000 registered vehicles, 185,000,000 of them passenger cars. Roughly 925 more cars than planes. Applying that data to these drones we'd expect that with auto drivers zooming around in the 3rd dimension with their drones we'd expect to see 233,100 deaths from crashes.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2016)

does no one else see a CoG issue with this toy, any loss of lift anywhere will have it wanting to start rolling, a loss of a rotor only feet off the ground would land you on your head.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> does no one else see a CoG issue with this toy, any loss of lift anywhere will have it wanting to start rolling, a loss of a rotor only feet off the ground would land you on your head.



It would depend on how the rotors are set up - if they are independently powered (top and bottom) then it would be possible to increase power on the one that didn't fail to compensate, or decrease power to the opposite rotor to achieve balance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2016)

Mike - That's why I think that autonomous "drone" vehicles most likely will be used for a specific transportation purpose and not private transportation. And like I mentioned earlier, these "drones" would be allocated to a specific corridor (min/max altitude and specific route) as well as a timed "enter/exit/spacing" algorithm that the "drones" follow - no user input available. Think of it kind of like an aerial "People Mover".

In a private application, there are just too many people and too many things that can go wrong. The futuristic idea of air-mobile private vehicles belongs in the realm of the Jetson's and the Fifth Element.

As it is, places like New York, London and such are relatively congested with vehicle traffic until you compare them to the brutal traffic of Beijing, Singapore and any large city in India. There's just no way that the the idea of multi-level traffic with air-mobile vehicles is possible.

I suspect that in the next several decades, private vehicles (of any form - except bicycles or similar) will be phased out in favor of mass transit (of various means) for any of the large cities of earth. This of course excludes rural areas.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2016)

In my disinterested life there seems to have been a lot of people on the edges of stardom and also many in the military and civilian transport who have died in helicopter accidents. That is with a high level of training and regulation, I feel something like this toy would create mayhem.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 10, 2016)

I think it may end up something like the Moller flying car.

On the cover of Popular Science, and dozens of other publications, big promises for over 30 years. Finally got it off the ground sometimes after 2000, safety tied to a crane ( for insurance purposes, it was said) never got it over 15 feet. Been investigated for fraud a few times.
So many wild claims, less than 500 hp out of 4 wankel rotaries was going to put 4 passengers over 300 mph, and 800 miles.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 11, 2016)

That gadget would be great for emergency rescue where a helicopter could not land.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 11, 2016)

These multiple rotor vehicles are MUCH more stable and easier to fly than your standard helo. Now I do not have anything full-sized but I have both RC Helos and the quad- and hex-copter. The hex- is the easiest to fly and very stable even in wind conditions so I can easily see full-sized versions being used in tight situations.
I can also see a Johnny Cab-type version for moving people around cities using roof-top helo pads. The BIG BUT is the control system and all the What-Ifs


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 20, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> That and those props don't look big enough.



the prop isn't much smaller than those used on ultralight ac which have a empty weight of 254#......and it does have 8 of them. i didn't look at the specs to see what it weighs in at. i am impressed with the size of the 4 electric motors that are able to make it fly.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 20, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> the prop isn't much smaller than those used on ultralight ac which have a empty weight of 254#......and it does have 8 of them. i didn't look at the specs to see what it weighs in at. i am impressed with the size of the 4 electric motors that are able to make it fly.


Yeah, but you can't compare a prop with a rotor size-wise. rough calculations show (based on a 4ft dia rotor and 660lbs max weight) a disc loading of 3.3lb/sqft, comparable with a B206 at 4 lbs/sqft, so they probably are big enough.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 24, 2016)

do rotors have a twist to them like a standard prop?


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 25, 2016)

Not that I've ever seen, but they've got other problems due to this, such as retreating blade stall, flapping, etc. they also run at a constant speed. This would use variable rotor speed to vary the amount of lift provided. Helicopter rotors vary the blade angle.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 25, 2016)

Larger unmanned drones are being used by farmers in Australia to carry out the traditional daily rounds, checking and filming at predetermined waypoints....things like fences, gates, water supply, feed stations, crop irrigation and the like. The GPS positional gadgetry is more accurate than manual control helos, cost a fraction to run, and have a much lower accident rate than manned a/c doing the same tasks. The anti collision techs in these things, bad weather monitoring etc are all ahead of manned flight eqivalents. Manual control will be available to these new manned drones the chinese are designing, but apparently only to land the thing safely. The thing would need a major systems failure to try to land you on a wall or a cliff, or even fly in dangerous weather. The local software packages will not allow you to program a flight into or near, or from a flight path, and other drones will be aware of other drones airborne and nearby.

In the event of a failure of one rotor, the software and the hardware can land you safely.

Is there a risk with these things? Unquestionably. If they take off, some will get killed eventually, just the same as people get killed all the time building and flying any ultralight.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qah8oIzCwk_


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 26, 2016)

So, if the person on board can take control, is it still a drone/UAS/RPAS?

It wouldn't be accepted as such here in NZ, the CAA have publicly stated that.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 26, 2016)

This guy gives some theory behind this rapidly changing technology


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ErEBkj_3PY_


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2016)

You would of thought there would have to be a manual override otherwise when it all goes tits up your just a little up shit creek and you may have left the paddle behind...


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 26, 2016)

Yep, but if you're not trained - that could just make matters worse.

If you are trained and capable of operating it, then you're called a pilot.


----------

