Two seat helicopter build.

I agree that the current technology is lending it self to make full size quad copters more practical than ever before. The common trend I am seeing is that the marketing is aimed toward short distance travel. This does not surprise me as it takes a lot of wattage to put one of those into the air. Also, having four small rotor units will not be as efficient as a single rotor system (from what I recall).

So, it basically comes down to what the intended purpose is for the machine. I don't have any use for a design like that as I want to have a helicopter that can give me 3+hrs flight time for X-country purposes. I don't see something like a super sized quad copter fitting the bill. Also, that thing looks like a shoe, lol. :D

call me old school.
 
I was actually calling Bob old school. LOL
 
Hopefully the weather improves in the next few weeks and I can put some more build content on this thread.
 
It is a quad copter. I don't think we are far away from seeing this as a practical vehicle. It will occur overseas first.


Robert
OK, we have a large drone. That is not such a leap. They work, and they are becoming more prevalent.

This drone has a (single) seat in it. That means they are pitching it as a passenger carrying aircraft, and what's more, a remote control passenger aircraft. It has a huge uphill climb ahead to make it so.

First, the weight of the missing (single) passenger is probably half or more the weight of the aircraft we are looking at. And we are only looking at a very short out and return flight. More range equals more batteries, more power, more weight. Those numbers add up and each addition requires other additions through scaling. The size, power, and cost keeps going up.

We are looking at an aircraft with 8 propellers/rotors in 4 locations where people can walk into them easily, or the remote control motors started while persons are standing next to the props. There are at least 4 motors. What happens if one fails in flight? Or just one rotor fails from a bird strike?

From what we were seeing, the flight was not autonomous, but rather remote controlled. The data link would need to be considerably more robust than my cell phone is. Providing that level of reliable communication infrastructure over the entire vertical and horizontal area that the drones might want to fly in would be immensely costly. Cell towers expect you to be on the ground.

I am just warming up with the issues I see here. Yes, gee whiz and all that, but I think we will be waiting a very long time before these drones replace the family car, especially when you also factor in strong winds, snow, ice, thunderstorms, electrical grid failure, and much, much more reality.

The answers to all that are money, huge money, and real signs that it is more practical than other transportation options and affordable enough to reach a large enough scale to reach a critical mass toward success.

Is it technologically possible? Sure it is. Is it likely to be ubiquitous in the next decade or so? I think it unlikely. The high threshold of investment needed to achieve success would probably not be underwritten by the relatively few wealthy players who would have to completely fund the startup.

Finally, why not just take a self driving and dirt cheap Uber land vehicle (which is for sure coming very soon) and play with your phone? This aircraft is not a sexy sports car aircraft, it is a tiny air taxi with no pilot, going through turbulent air. Uber will be more comfortable, safer, and you can take more people and baggage. It is easy to stop for lunch and a restroom.

My prediction is that you will see autonomous and remote controlled (redundant) heavy freight aircraft in the very near future carrying freight for Amazon, Fedex, UPS,, and the other likely suspects. I am quite sure that is being seriously talked about right now, and the current infrastructure will not need a sea change to allow it. The money is there. The only issues that will stop that from happening very soon are human, not technological. If big money pushes it hard enough, it WILL happen.

OK. I am done with my off group topic rant. Back to machining...
 
I really like what the designers did with this scaled down rotor head. The lead-lag system is simple, yet very effective. Same thing goes for the flapping hinges that are located near the center of the hub.

rotor head.jpg
 
first off the "workhorse drone copter" i believe has 2 seats but i doesn't care how many (i''m not getting emotional over it)- i think i saw them in a video.

as far as the question about post heating welds: today i met with my long time 2 wheel knobby tire friend that manufactures helicopters and i posed the question to him - he confirmed that they tig and post heat everything. i asked about gas welding and i think he said no post heated needed with gas welding but we got distracted about that time
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it were me, I would TIG weld it. The level of control vs MIG is significant IMHO.
 
4130 really just likes to cool down slow so the welds don't get brittle. So, if you TIG weld with it, then just slowly let off the pedal and slowly fan the heat around the weld until the ionized gas totally disappears. Doing that will likely not require post heating with a gas torch. The gas torch will basically do the same thing; heat up an area and cause it to cool slower.
 
I've seen pics of tube fuselages and engine mounts being arc welded during WW2. But as far as I know standard good practice has always been oxy/acetylene. If you did it with tig and then had to then go around and anneal with with a gas torch, would there be a real advantage?
 
There would not be any real advantage in TIG welding it. I simply don't have an acetylene unit. TIG welding is perfectly acceptable as long as the welds are allowed to slowly cool. So, running a pedal is a must if TIG is to be used with no post heating.
 
Back
Top