Birds, people, animals.

"We are working hard on autonomous vehicles to eliminate the significant danger of human error on our roads."

"Great, what else are you working on?"

"We envision a future where everyone owns and operates aircraft."

[-]

fluteofski-@reddit

Call it an “A.I.rcraft”… print money.

[-]

Specific_Neat_5074@reddit

Why stop there, make it work on a tiered plan, the pro model lets you go up to a meter high and pro max lets you go up to 5 meters. Also, if you lose connection to the server mid flight RIP.

[-]

While normally I would agree with people who say this, especially when people try to launder these things as the new "flying car", I would say that these things might actually have a niche application as they look cheaper, lighter, smaller, and importantly quieter than helicopters and thus would probably be the Willys MB version of a helicopter. It could transport things to difficult places that might be inappropriate for a full helicopter and looks like they can be maintained rather easier than something with a T700 or T703 turbine.

[-]

HAETMACHENE@reddit

Don't you mean two times?

Helicopter need a large blades on top for lift and the smaller one in the back for stability.

Also, sure you need more rotors to get these going, but you could also make the argument that these require a smaller profile for one man to fly solo, yeah?

[-]

rawwwse@reddit

Hey hey hey, slow down ~~cowboy~~ comrade

I can see this being useful in ukraine.

Both sides alrdy use e scooters.

[-]

Old_Man_in_Basic@reddit

The most unpractical, slow, large, inefficient, bulging thing floating around in the sky, that you could hit even with a training archery kit and like 20 minutes of practice? Something that would be a massive waste of money and just get anyone killed who uses it?

[-]

PutOptions@reddit

Yeah the inertial forces of the battery pack weight is a thing, but hey, no 100LL to ignite.

[-]

Brilliant-Goal-4405@reddit

I guess the first bets could be about who dies first 🥇

[-]

FoolishAdventurer@reddit

FF1 = Flight Formula 1 Complete with "Fly to Survive" Netflix show. Get Ferrari to invest first so they can be posh about it even when they screw up their strategies every race.

Drones fly faster re harder to detect and if shot down the operator is piloting another one in no time. I mean with a person on board s huge machine like this can likely not carry much else. Bit ditch the pilot and you likely vane 70-100kg of capacity for … things.

[-]

ride_whenever@reddit

Put the remote control onto these, then you can have 70-100kg of freedom delivered “to whom it may concern”

[-]

Glasvandrare@reddit

"What do you call flying soldiers on the battlefield?"

[-]

Cyber_Fetus@reddit

But they would just fly over you, why would this be a problem?

[-]

IWasSayingBoourner@reddit

I'd rather have a whole additional dimension to avoid idiots

[-]

Rhawk187@reddit

people

That's the thing, we're going to need fully autonomy before these become daily passenger use.

[-]

seaburno@reddit

Just add a MCAS system. I hear Boeing had a good one 10 years ago that could probably be ported directly into these.

[-]

GiordanoBruno23@reddit

Adjusting yaw while texting

[-]

almostDynamic@reddit

I am 100% willing to die on one of these.

[-]

Airk640@reddit

A paintball into a rotor of your opponent would definitely end the game in your favor.

1) are useless in a low altitude regime where they can’t deploy fast enough

2) are likely to fail in the event of a spin (like one motor died).

These look exactly like certain death machines when the first thing inevitably goes wrong.

They look to have fully redundant systems, so if one simply switches off, maybe the second has enough power to land in one piece. But for example a bird can easily take out two props and then its kaput, total loss of control instantly.

DDX1837@reddit

Here's one.

Such a noble notion.

It's already a big enough fight to kick private operated vehicles out of the parts of cities where they don't belong. There is zero logical reason to tolerate city design that makes flying blenders a viable option, much less any sort of necessity.

We should take a page out the early twentieth century, and require a person on the ground with a safety flag follow along underneath wherever the albatrossless carriage is operating.

[-]

insidiousfruit@reddit

Cities are already designed for these things. They look like they would fit in a car parking spot perfectly.

[-]

lowrads@reddit

After a few years of tolerating this, police will be arresting or ticketing any pedestrians that don't use approved tunnels for crossing between buildings.

[-]

insidiousfruit@reddit

That would suck, but I also doubt that is what would happen.

[-]

lowrads@reddit

People probably found the crime of jaywalking equally ludicrous when it was introduced, but didn't mind so long as it was initially only enforced against children and minorities.

You sound like an absolutely insane psycho who is willing to kill people for fun.

[-]

GrynaiTaip@reddit

and society will have to accept that people will die

How about no.

I am not willing to die because you are flying drunk and you crash into a crowd of pedestrians.

Yes. That is true.

The failure of two motors is extremely unlikely in the absence of human error.

But you're right. If it happens you're boned.

However if this becomes popular you can engineer some safety precautions. Anything can be made relatively safe with enough iteration.

This conversation seems to ignore the origins of planes and helicopters in general. They were death traps, too, for a long time.

Formula one cars, absolutely death traps for a lot of the history of the sport. Now people crash at 300kmh go flying flipping through the air and walk out unharmed.

[-]

Spark_Ignition_6@reddit

However if this becomes popular you can engineer some safety precautions.

Not how commercial aviation works. You do the correct engineering and safety work, then you put the general public on it.

[-]

Ok-Comment-9154@reddit

Hindenburg? Titanic? Haha

Anyway you're twisting my words I never said that the popularity and wider use will come chronologically prior to the gradual engineering of safety precautions and introduction of regulations.

What I said, or meant, is that if the demand ramps up so too will regulation and safety. Just like literally any other type of vehicle which has ever been developed.

Remember we didn't need to even have seat belts in our car and cars had no crumple zones? Maybe you're too young. Millions of people have died in cars. They gave gotten way safer over the decades but people still die. People still die in trains and planes and cars, but, they get safer over time.

This is all a silly conversation anyway I don't think this becomes popular outside of some random rich dudes. There will never be the financial incentive to iterate this until it's as safe as a car. But it would definitely be possible.

You even contradict yourself in your other comment where you clearly refer to danger and re-iteration as the driver of progress in terms of safety. But here in this comment you imply that the safety comes before the public even uses the service. False. It comes with accidents and reiteration.

[-]

Spark_Ignition_6@reddit

if the demand ramps up so too will regulation and safety. Just like literally any other type of vehicle which has ever been developed. . . we didn't need to even have seat belts in our car

That wasn't because we didn't realize crashes were dangerous pre-seat belts. Seat belts were invented and available in U.S. production cars in the '50s, long before they were required in the '80s. What changed was not the feasibility of seat belts; what changed was our tolerance of needless death. Our safety standards increased.

That has already happened for aviation. The standards are already very high, and it's extremely unlikely this thing can meet them.

you clearly refer to danger and re-iteration as the driver of progress in terms of safety.

No, I was pointing out how different designs have dramatically different safety levels regardless of maintenance practices. You can't just magically make a type of aircraft super-safe once it passes some bar of popularity.

[-]

Spark_Ignition_6@reddit

The engineering challenges for a small quadcopter aren't even in the same ballpark as something like this.

Quadcopters are trivial to build and make reliable. Something 200x larger and heavier is not.

Yeah, the parts are extremely reliable. So are the parts that go into helicopters. Those don't "just drop out of the sky" either. Maybe these have a failure rate of 1 in 100,000 hours. That's stupidly reliable. But when you're flying a few million hours a year and every time one fails somebody literally dies, that becomes a different type of discussion pretty quickly.

[-]

Ok-Comment-9154@reddit

But sir that's why I spoke about heavy load drones like agri drones. I never said a small quad is the same ball park as a very large manned aircraft. Don't try make it seem like I did.

For reference, an airliners high-bypass turbofan engine failure rate is around 1 in 1,000,000 flight hours. Are these going to be as reliable as that?

No. Most likely not. That's why you have maintenance schedule like any aircraft parts. It's much cheaper to replace a rotor every X months than it is to change a massive jet engine. So it's kind of an irrelevant comparison.

It's more like changing a tire every 5 years. But even more frequently. You'd probably change motors at something like that cadence as well. And you'd of course have to keep all the components clean and maintained all the time.

[-]

Spark_Ignition_6@reddit

No. Most likely not. That's why you have maintenance schedule like any aircraft parts. It's much cheaper to replace a rotor every X months than it is to change a massive jet engine. So it's kind of an irrelevant comparison.

Increased maintenance does not fix the whole problem. Piston aircraft engines have a failure rate of 1 in 3,500 flight hours, roughly, despite seeing more maintenance than airliner engines.

If achieving extremely high reliability was just a matter of throwing more engineering at it and replacing parts appropriately, we would never have any crashes in any segment of aviation at all.

[-]

whistleridge@reddit

they really only fail due to user error

You are referring to widely tested and mature unmanned quads, that have completely different engineering requirements to those designed to be manned. The consequences of failure are much lower.

You’re also relying on anecdote because failure rates aren’t tracked with anything like the sort of precision that manned aviation failures would be. Because the stakes are so much lower, the acceptable rate for failure in unmanned quads is necessarily much higher.

If you’re in one of these and you have a bird strike, or a lightning strike, or icing, or there’s fog, or someone else in one hits you, you’re a brick, and you’re dead. There’s no chute or autorotate or glide to save you, and none of those are user error.

Yes: if you fly one of these solo on a nice clear day, your odds of it just stopping working are very low. But that’s like saying that, because you can drive very safely around an empty parking lot, cars are safe and have no issues that don’t come from user error.

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

At no point in this did I think it was a mechanical risk that would be the cause of the danger. It's the fact that this seems to be explicitly designed to basically be a flying toy for low level flight and recreational use.

I'm normally very cautious-minded, but with drones specifically, the introduction curve has so far been relatively smooth. We've been through the 'asshole flying up through clouds to 12000ft altitude' stages and drone flying in Europe is practically impossible.

The systems in these things will probably not allow their owners to fly them high, in exclusion zones, and hopefully, into their own propwash either.

There will be the odd adventurer landing into trees because they won't respect the battery level indicator, but with some kind of parachute and prop-stopping even total failure events at altitude could be relatively benign...

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

I'm not even thinking about any of that either, I'm thinking of low level aerobatics going wrong and them running into things.

This has Roy Halladay type accident written all over it, but now even more accessible to moderately rich adrenaline junkies.

[-]

PropOnTop@reddit

Sure, but the difference with drones/quadcopters is that without the software, they are basically uncontrollable for a regular person.

I'm done here.

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

Unless you're seriously expecting them to put a whole ass Airbus/Boeing style intelligent flight control system on this with full on normal law and alternate law implementation, yes, you are.

But that would be fucking insane for a GA individual mobility doctor killer startup.

[-]

ABillionBatmen@reddit

But this guy is not even concerned with that, he's concerned with how he can be concerned!

[-]

aiusernamegen@reddit

You need to be in an airpark. for RC aircraft. What will be the restrictions on these? Farms like in the video? That's agreeable. Over houses or pedestrians, hell no. They're officially missles.

[-]

Challenge-Upstairs@reddit

I don't really see the difference between this and any other ultralight. Anyone with absolutely zero training or knowledge can buy an ultralight, take off, fly (specifically restricted to low flight), and crash.

This is literally just another ultralight.

[-]

I’m good with all that. Risk is cool. We need that to innovate. Yes, a battery powered car can catch fire and lock you inside to ensure the correct level of doneness. I see no issue.

And these look fun, and allow me to pass your slow-a** hogging the passing lane. So yeah, give it to me and let me fly.

[-]

Short-Ticket-1196@reddit

Don't text and fly! Oh, and bollards are now useless so the next van attack will be something else.

[-]

Bushboy2000@reddit

Like griefers, team killers in multiplayer games ? That type

[-]

lowrads@reddit

The difference is that a helicopter still works somewhat, even when it malfunctions. They can autorotate and glide, under optimal circumstances.

You're 1000% wrong and doubling down on stupid. Impellers are far safer than the alternative, to suggest otherwise is pure ignorance.

PWC accidents have nothing to do with the supposed dangers of the blade and you are probably fully aware of that to make your (very incorrect) point.

[-]

not_ElonMusk1@reddit

I never said they weren't safer but the fact remains they can and do cause injuries and they also consist of very fast spinning blades.

My original comment was somewhat tongue in cheek but apparently your need to try and sound superior to internet strangers compelled you to comment without realising that I was clearly "taking the piss" lol

[-]

Ok-Comment-9154@reddit

Plenty of people have been fucked up badly by jet skis man.

These flying things will have rough regulations if it becomes popular.

Normal small quadcopter drones are already subject to regulations which (are supposed to) keep them well clear of people.

Just needs a gyro to keep it upright and some rockets to stop the rapid, vertical descent. /s

[-]

GarbageTheCan@reddit

Just look at people with cars on a 2d axis as en example.

[-]

noclue9000@reddit

Especially when it is not used by rich person x who bought it as a 30 000$ toy, but when it is at the third owner, Hannt been maintained and idiot cousin wants to FLy over a friend's wedding to drop roses, crashes 200kg of metal and himself falling from the 6th floor into the wedding, killing 3, maiming 8

[-]

Kamusaurio@reddit

this things are going to be as expensive as real planes

I think if they're height restricted to 30 feet, it'd about as dangerous as crashing a racing motorcycle. The height factor being mitigated by being in a racing harness inside a frame. So yes, there is the danger of serious injury and death, but we haven't banned motorcycles or motorcycle racing. Or NASCAR, or Formula One. I think the death/injury rate will be on par with these activities.

[-]

BAN_MOTORCYCLES@reddit

we haven't banned motorcycles or motorcycle racing

If the Wright brothers had posted on Reddit, would the comments be any different?

[-]

More_Nectarine@reddit

The times when a couple of deaths was considered a worthy sacrifice for science is over, at least for now.

[-]

thecmpguru@reddit

Tell that to cars in the US...

[-]

phaederus@reddit

Yes, now we do millions of deaths for the economy instead ✌🏻

[-]

GGCRX@reddit

Not really. Astronauts take an outsized risk every time they go into space. Hell, we almost lost two of 'em last year when their test-flight capsule lost a bunch of its thrusters.

The difference here is that this isn't for science, it's for doing donuts in the sky.

I'm a little mystified that there isn't at least a partial guard cage around those props. You know people are going to be landing these things off-airport where people don't know to watch for spinning props. Even cheapie drones from Best Buy have guards and you don't have to worry about lopping someone's head off with those.

Honestly, I do think the comments would be significantly different. We all understand that astronauts accept what would normally be unconscionable risk for the sake of advancing humanity. So do people in all sorts of other scientific endeavors, which early aviation definitely was, even if it wasn't nearly as professionalized as modern day science and research is.

But you're right, even bringing the Wright Brothers up here is ludicrous. The Wright Brothers were looking at making a major technical leap forward. These clowns want to build a flying jetski for people to dick around in.

[-]

grottman@reddit

Word! The wright brothers invention change the world forever. It should be compared to AI or something of that magnitude.

[-]

This is a company that wants to charge people money to operate a dangerous and unproven machine while absolving themselves of any liability for the consequences.

What do you think early aviation was like? People were charging for flights on sketchy planes and explosive LTA craft. Militaries were sending people up in crazy risky aircraft to throw grenades at each other

It’s about safety above all else without exception.

USA doesn't even require a pilot license or training for ultralights so I'm not sure how much I agree with that.

[-]

Only on aisle five.

[-]

havoc1428@reddit

Aviation is not about trends. It’s about safety above all else without exception.

To be fair, aviation as a whole wouldn't exist without people experimenting and mucking around in their backyard workshops.

[-]

silentsnip94@reddit

Almost like car racing?

[-]

angusshangus@reddit

Autogyros and ultra lights have been a thing lunatics fly for decades. This thing isn’t all that different from a safety perspective

[-]

DarkwingDawg@reddit

Eh.. for airlines, absolutely. For the regular folk, I think a less restrictive focus should be applied. Let people explore and enjoy it and, hopefully, it will grow

[-]

eatenbyagrue@reddit

Are these things incredibly safe? No. Is it possible to build very safe versions with advanced autopilot and other controls? Probably someday. Do those safe versions ever get built if we don’t first build the first attempts? No.

“Safety above all else without exception” means no flying at all. Otherwise why would I ever get into a Piper Cub.

Do these things have auto-rotation? What happens if an engine cuts out?

Not directly related but one of the first things you learn during firearms training is that the Safety is a mechanical switch and can fail. In short anything that can fail, will fail.

[-]

krodders@reddit

There are some obvious improvements that can address the safety questions.

The rotors need to be shrouded - we already see this on some helicopter tail rotors

A rotor at each corner isn't good enough for redundancy. Eight rotors will allow for a single failure, and even multiple if not all at one side. Obviously this adds to the cost

Computer enforced altitude, speed, and location restrictions will prevent reckless usage

Etc

[-]

stealthispost@reddit

you know what they say: regulations and red tape are the driving force behind innovation.

[-]

stupidperson810@reddit

I have built a couple of small drones. Not sure if these work similar but they have many single failure points. Not sure how they handle redundancy.

[-]

jwrsk@reddit

kill operators or bystanders

[-]

gw19x6@reddit

How long can they fly and what distance they are able to take?

[-]

TheDavidCall@reddit

Not sure about distance, but flight time is a little over 20 minutes.

[-]

gw19x6@reddit

Thanks

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Hawtdawgz_4@reddit

Hard pass lol

[-]

vaneeus@reddit

Leave it to reddit to seeing a cool looking flying car prototype and piss all over it for safety concerns. Every transportation invention starts out wildly unsafe. You gotta admit it's cool and you wanna fly one.

[-]

sykoKanesh@reddit

Yeah, I don't get it. This is us literally seeing the future out ahead of us. I'd bet money the military is already ALL OVER this. Getting folks in (or even out of) rough terrain they can just zip over?

Yeah, the military is definitely looking into this for small squads of specialized operators for sure.

[-]

LobsterConsultant@reddit

There no way the Jetson One will have any kind of reasonable endurance with a soldier in full battle rattle.

The company claims 20min endurance at 63mph now. That gives you a max range (without return) of 21km. Combat radius 10.5km, best-case.

Add in the 58lbs of armor and kit the average rifleman carries, and that will shave off even more range.

This thing is a jetski, not the infantry jetpack of the future.

[-]

If it could carry the weight of three people or two and some kind of flight assistance, I could see the Coast Guard being interested.

nat480L@reddit

I have a theory that he saw something like the darpa grand challenge “great robot race” on nova and when the underdog stanford won over the super funded carnegie mellon they did it with a vision-first (though crucially NOT at all vision ONLY) software first system rather than a gimbal mounted fragile multi-distance range array of laser scanners hardware-first system and also let their vehicle make pretty much all real-time decisions besides following the line of gps waypoints rather than pre-program a speed and parameters for every inch of the course like carnegie did or as he derides any other automation company that might hand-work over an area which yes, eventually with the scale of the world and how roads change would become beyond the realistic scope of manual route work keeping up, but in the meantime it could get a lot more driving data with a focus on reactive adaptation instead of also having to do complete ground up wayfinding also, and have likely a better reliability reputation but 🤷‍♀️ so along with cutting the cost of sensors it just makes too much sense that this and prbly other anecdotes of “the ‘simple’ solution making the complex solution look dumb and overkill, even if lessons from both aproches advance each other faster (as both teams in the doc express), has cemented in his mind that it doesn’t just need to work, it has to work in the coolest most impressive least “evident effort” way

also carnagie mellon only lost because their main vehicle rolled over the week before and the rebuilt scanner wasnt 100 percent so it stalled eventually, and their second they goverened to go super slow to ensure a gaurenteed finish so it couldn’t catch stanford, so its not even really anything to learn about the general superiority of either approach besides maybe the over-controlling thing which has nothing to do with the tech, though for sure stanford getting there with a lot smaller budget and team was notable, the absence of other traffic/moving obstacles, road signs, incliment weather etc. means not really anything proven fundementally, even the carnegie lead said of course eventually it needs to be completely indipentent but right now today it needs small airtight steps before worrying about all that

[-]

ouch-my-side-hurts@reddit

TL:DR?

[-]

newtostew2@reddit

Cheap 90% vision based, real-time adapting drone beat expensive 90% fancy tech scanner, pre-programmed for the course drone, but we csnt know for sure which is better, because the expensive one crashed and wasn't fully fixed.

[-]

[-]

MolassesLate4676@reddit

The sound I wake up to on a Saturday morning when someone’s cutting the lawn, how easing.

Until I look outside and realize it’s just Johnny going to get another 12 pack

[-]

Chickenbiscuitmafia@reddit

Want

[-]

Ordinary-Rain-6897@reddit

I wonder how much crosswind they can land in. Looks like itll be rough if the propellers hit the ground and shatter. A slight wind and the pilot's entire body cross section is right there to eat those fragments up.

I am using a narrower definition of "tech bro," I think. I mean a person whose contempt for anything established and desire to disrupt/destroy all things stable ("stagnant") requires no case-by-case justification because it must always be right, and whose pride and vainglory reach Thiel or Musk-like levels. This is a creature of this moment in time, not just meaning "any technophile or innovator."

They weren’t techbros, they were actual inventors who did something that had never been done before.

[-]

ClassicNetwork2141@reddit

Don't you dare.

They were pioneers of aviation. They build their own wind tunnel. They designed and tested hundreds of airfoils. They are the opposite of "tech bro", they knew more about aerodynamics then basically anyone at the time. The only people coming close were those working in Göttingen on glider flight at the time.

[-]

lycantrophee@reddit

What's more,they truly did this for the advancement of science and pioneering (someone has to,there's a reason their names are forever etched in history) instead of doing shit to convince themselves they matter.

[-]

MrNewking@reddit

Tell us you hate progress.

You mean we come into a stagnant market and bring innovation.

[-]

blueskyredmesas@reddit

'Bringing innovation' via a coked up quadcopter that does everything a helicopter does but with less parts, less efficiency and less safety margins is progress in the same way that shaking around a can of broken glass and mice just to hear it rattle is.

[-]

daddywookie@reddit

Omg you just described a guy we’re struggling with at work. He’s a tech bro without the money! Thinks he’s “disrupting” our processes in a positive way but instead is just breaking things, and then he gets grumpy and calls on us to be more open minded when we don’t back him.

[-]

noir_lord@reddit

My industry (software development) is rife with those types as you’d expect.

Fortunately I’ve been doing it long enough and good enough that I’m senior enough to in extreme cases fire them.

It is remarkable how one employee going rogue can destroy the morale and output of an entire team and past a point and with clear warnings I won’t allow that.

[-]

daddywookie@reddit

If you've been around software Dev long enough I guess you learn not to disrupt the flow unnecessarily. We're 6 months out from delivering a 5 year project. Everybody is pretty unanimous that we don't have time for his personal crusade right now. Even his executive sponsor cut the presentation off early when the room pushed back politely but firmly.

[-]

blueskyredmesas@reddit

Yeah if he's the kind of guy I think he is - or is aping the kind of people I think he is - this is intentional. "They'll never be more over the coals then they are right now, maybe I can force it."

But predictably he overplayed his hand, which is good for you and literally everybody else. All the same; this guy sounds like someone who wants any power he can get to use it for himself and his own subjective reasons rather than being interested in the health and effectiveness of the overall system.

[-]

noir_lord@reddit

Don't know your situation but that sounds like a management failure somewhere - either the team lead or his boss.

One of the things I learnt the hard way as I got promoted is that no one on a team is irreplaceable and no one on the team is more important than the team.

You can be a brilliant arsehole (or just an arsehold sometimes) but if your a net drag on the team then the door is over there - some managers are just not comfortable having the hard conversations or they "let the situation address itself" and abdicate their responsibility, I learnt not to do that but not as quickly as I'd have wished in hindsight.

RockMedic277@reddit

This is so cool! Oh shit, I hit a leaf... now I'm dead. 😵

If I'm being honest, I still want one...

[-]

fi9aro@reddit

I would be lying if I said I didn’t want to try this. Looks a bit sketchy though. This is longer a drone once you put a human inside of it.

[-]

DeathPrime@reddit

Probably the most fun 7 minutes they’ve had before the 4 hr wait to do it again for 7 more minutes

[-]

mikowave@reddit

Buy yours today, prices go up on Monday.

Oh look, FPV drone racing, but lets make it 20,000 x more expensive and dangerous!

So glad the hobby ruined so a bunch of yuppies fly through the air at 15 mph

Worldwide, "road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5–29 years." and kill 1.19 million people each year, mostly in low and middle-income nations, according to the World Health Organization. Additionally, most of the deaths in developing countries are pedestrians, passengers, and cyclists-- people are hit by cars, because of inadequate infrastructure, and are far more likely to die, because of inadequate access to healthcare.

In other words, we ought to think about how things mostly get safer in countries that can afford the luxury of regulations, to say nothing of healthcare. Overall it's going to be young people in poorer countries who are at the greatest risk of death because of vehicles that we designed. How safe is the vehicle in completely unideal conditions?

[-]

joeyjoejums@reddit

I wanna live next door to that.😆

[-]

pukeblood213@reddit

Billionaire behavior

[-]

closetsquirrel@reddit

My man, if the worst billionaires did was make wild inventions this place would actually be a better place. It's all the other shit billionaires do that's the problem.

[-]

zwifter11@reddit

Prolapsed_Marquesita@reddit

Dumb ass shit food processor tech... ancient tech, boring, overpriced.

Only good for trimming tall hedges and trees!

Watch this get banned and regulated real soon.

I've flown quite a few RC quadcopters and they're astonishingly stable. But, when something does go wrong, it's catastrophic. While I'm sure that the safeguards on a manned quad would be far better than those of a hobbyist drone, the hard truth is that at the end of the day you can only fight physics and probabilities so much. Given enough altitude and speed, a fixed wing aircraft can still be safely landed in the event of engine loss. If you lose propulsion on even a single arm on a quad, you're probably fucked. And it probably won't just fall, it'll roll all the way down. Even if you kept your ceiling at 50'-100' that would still be an awful way to go.

Having said all that, this still looks like a fuckin blast!

[-]

Whatever_Lurker@reddit

Now it’s waiting for a new Lindbergh.

[-]

soulless_ape@reddit

this needs some cage around the blades, or around the blades area and frame like bumper cars otherwise its chaos waiting to happen.

[-]

Master_Chen@reddit

I love how they’re flying just high enough where if something goes wrong they break their back or worse.

Just need to make the more stealthy “quieter”

[-]

siRcatcha@reddit

I was waiting for the next release so many years!

A guillotine that rich people willingly climb into? I'll invest.

[-]

MJP87@reddit

I'm not going to lie. These look fun, and dangerous AF. -Im a sports bike guy

But can these companies please turn their attention to saving real GA and making that welcoming and affordable.

ICON failed miserably, and all the new 600kg are pipe dreams for most common people.

-Mom, can we have Ben Quadinaros ?

No, we have some at home