
SureFly –  a personal helicopter designed for safe and easy flight - prostoalex
http://workhorse.com/surefly
======
oliv__
A part of me thinks this is really cool tech and it would be amazing for
anyone to be able to just hop aboard their personal helicopter and fly
wherever they want, but then another part of me thinks of the future this
would create, skies no longer clear, filled with objects buzzing around and
what hell that would be, on top of the already stressful and crazy life we
have now.

It's the kind of situation where I think I'd actually rather the tech never
exist.

~~~
rkagerer
I empathize but I think that attitude is an artifact of the age we grew up in.
I'm sure equestrians felt the same way when those rackety automobile
contraptions started zooming around.

~~~
dantillberg
I think everyone must have felt this way about automobiles. And by and large,
it's worked out just as horribly as they imagined: our communities are divided
by dangerous moats we call "roads" \-- death traps which we must painstakingly
teach our children to avoid, if we dare let our children wander outside on
their own anywhere near them in the first place.

~~~
cal5k
I don't get the point - are you suggesting we'd be better off without
automobiles? Would we go back to horses? What about global logistics?
Agriculture?

~~~
nine_k
We'd be better off with dense cities where automobile is not the primary means
of transportation. Like e.g. NYC or many European cities.

Cars and large trucks should _mostly_ belong to highways and country roads.

~~~
ghaff
NYC is a _very_ far way from being a carless paradise. Yes, lots of people
walk or take transit. But, especially in Manhattan, many streets are choked
for a good chunk of the day.

~~~
Retric
Far more people use the subway than drive to work.

Only 28% of people in NYC commute by car/truck/van. 55% take public transit
and 10% walk, 1% bike, 4% work from home, and 2% take a Taxi or other.
[https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-
commute](https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-york-commute)

PS: The van thing is also closer to a bus than a private car.

------
advisedwang
I'm very skeptical of their claims of "unparalleled safety". Thanks to
"autorotation"[1] regular helicopters can safely land in most situations even
with complete power failure. The claims of safety of this craft seems to
derive from N+1 battery redundancy which isn't that impressive. They say they
have 8 independent motors, but don't say how many are needed to stay aloft.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation)

~~~
neurotech1
Small "personal" helicopters like the Robinson R22 are quite difficult to
autorotate safely in a real emergency, due to low rotor inertia. [0]

For the SureFly, Hypothetically if loss of several motors caused the aircraft
to be unable to maintain altitude, the aircraft would not suddenly drop like a
brick, but drift down to a controlled landing.

[0]
[http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/robinson-r22](http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/robinson-r22)

~~~
pdelbarba
No, worse. That thing would turn into the tumble dryer from hell with partial
power. It has no blade pitch control (like a helicopter does), requiring power
on the motors in all four corners to maintain stability.

The real emergency situation to worry about would be a total power failure.
Failure of the individual electric motors will likely be _extremely_ rare but
a battery fire or controller failure could send this thing falling like a rock
due to the lack of auto-rotation. It has a BRS chute but that won't do
anything in the critical ~500ft band above ground level, too low to deploy
normally. Additionally, I hope they've figured out how to guarantee safe chute
deployment while inverted because of the tendency to tumble with no/partial
power.

~~~
pc86
BRS parachutes have been tested as low as 260' AGL at 187 knots (several times
faster than this craft would ever go) and individuals have reported successful
deployments below 100' AGL[0] The question of course is how quickly it can be
deployed in this craft as the vertical speed will likely be much faster than a
Cessna or Cirrus in the event of total power failure.

[0] [https://www.flyingmag.com/g00/how-it-works-brs-aircraft-
para...](https://www.flyingmag.com/g00/how-it-works-brs-aircraft-parachute)

~~~
pdelbarba
I can't imagine an inverted deployment at 100' would end well...

------
_ph_
For drone-style helicopters, I find the Volocopter
([https://www.volocopter.com/de/](https://www.volocopter.com/de/)) the most
intriguing concept. The designers of the Volocopter took extreme care for
redundancy. It can keep flying with up to 6 of the 18 rotors failing. Even the
electric system and the controls have multiple redundancies. The first craft
already got licensed for flying in Germany.

~~~
FabHK
Much prefer the Volocopter as well. Better redundancy, further down the line
(manned flights since 2016, negotiations with regulators progressing), not
vapourware, more visually pleasing (though that's subjective, obviously).

In this design, I like the compactness (foldability), counterrotating rotors
(for efficiency), the fact that the rotors are not in knee-height (like in
this eHang 184 abomination), and the electric/fuel hybrid system.

BTW, I like PEVA as a name for this type of vehicle: Personal electric VTOL
aircraft.

EDIT to add: Volocopter and eHang 184 have been around for years, and SureFly
"reinvented" the helicopter? Right...

------
eddyg
Video "tour" here (still doesn't show it flying):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhiaxMiRuY&t=19s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhiaxMiRuY&t=19s)

Also, the inaugural flight at CES was scrapped due to a "light sprinkling" of
rain:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42616034](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42616034)

~~~
asciimo
It's frustrating, and a bit strange, that there's no (easy to find) video of
it in flight.

------
owenversteeg
Couple of people mentioning the Robinson R22 (a 2-seater small helicopter that
costs about $280k.) I didn't see any mentions of the Yo-Yo 222 though, which
seems very interesting and only costs €135k. The SureFly is substantially
slower and has a lower payload compared to both.

It's worth noting, though, that any small aircraft will have very similar
payloads (300-400 lbs max.) This will almost certainly not get better in the
near future, even with battery improvements (you'll note that all current
light aircraft, including this one, are gasoline powered.) Speed is also
difficult to increase for VTOL aircraft like this one.

I build custom VTOL (and sometimes horizontal) aircraft, typically electric,
usually smaller than this one. If anyone else here builds VTOL aircraft/large
drones, send me an email! I'd be curious to talk to other HNers doing the same
thing. (And if you're just curious about the subject in general, feel free to
send me an email also - it's in my profile.)

------
dmitrygr
> 1 hour of fuel

> 70 mph speed

This means that the maximum legal range with FAA-mandated fuel reserves is 46
miles (assuming no wind). Also despite shots of it on a driveway, it would
most likely be impossible to actually take off or land on your driveway due to
local ordinances in most cities. Oh and it doesn't appear to be properly
equipped for IFR, so clear weather operation only.

~~~
danaliv
Rotorcraft fuel requirements are different from airplanes. Under VFR it's
first intended point plus 20 minutes, day or night.

~~~
dmitrygr
thanks, will edit

------
JoeAltmaier
Flying fixed-pitch copters is risky. The question is: more risky than driving
in traffic? More than taking the bus or swimming or eating fatty foods or a
hundred other things we do without blinking?

Still, it'll have to have a measured safety record before I'd want to fly it.
Better yet, automate it to go from heliport to heliport in a crowded city, a
sort of aero-lyft. So I don't have the chance to screw anything up. Because
I'm thinking the human operator is going to be the root of any accident stats.
Imagine a swarm of these over your city, with humans in control.

~~~
jachee
I think it'd be interesting if it were semi-automated. For example: Get in,
start it up, hit the "Go" button, and it automatically hovers vertically to
minimum cruising height (i.e. above all the houses, trees, power lines) before
granting further control to the pilot^Wuser. Then, either GPS-powered
destination selection or mobility with computer-stabilized limited degrees of
freedom.

The fewer decisions the human in the seat has to make, the safer they are.

------
hangonhn
Can anyone verify if this thing is actually built and not just some rendering?
The shallows in some of their pictures don't seem right so I was wondering if
those are pictures of an actual craft or just a Photoshop.

~~~
Hasz
There is a video of it at a trade show on YouTube. The craft definitely
exists, whether or not it flies is a different question.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-3jDTibSQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll-3jDTibSQ)

------
Animats
Yet another really big personal quadrotor-type drone. Its a lot like the eHang
184, from 2016.[1] That flies, but they don't trust it with a live passenger
yet.

Here's one with a passenger, but they don't want to get any altitude.[2] There
are five or six projects like this. Few have flown with a human on board yet.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPARvS31Oq0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPARvS31Oq0)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3pi4HfQ0Gc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3pi4HfQ0Gc)

~~~
zaroth
If they wanted to prove the design, why can't they offer package delivery
services with the drones and ramp up volume to at least 100 flights a day
until it's proven?!

If they've proven it works, they should get the money necessary to test it and
deploy it. They need to _get to market_ and see if it sells.

I think the problem is crashing over populated areas, even if it's not
occupied? Hard to make deliveries if you can't fly over actual people.

But in any case, let me know when they are doing at least 10 flights _per day_
(no days off for bad weather, they should be testing in multiple locations and
climates too).

~~~
nradov
It would be difficult to get FAA approval to offer cargo delivery services
with a large drone due to the risk it would pose to manned light aircraft
flying under VFR. They would have to carve out controlled airspace in a
specific area and temporarily ban VFR flights there.

------
wanderfowl
Wait:

\- Curb Weight: 1100lbs

\- Max Takeoff Weight: 1500lbs

So... you, your passenger, and any cargo combined can't weigh more than 400
pounds? That's a pretty serious limit for people hoping to transport multiple
adults. And "precision agriculture" or the sorts of practical uses they
discuss all go right out the window.

~~~
throwawayjava
The BMI chart maxes out healthy weights at 192. So unless you have two NBA
players or something, it should work well for most but perhaps not all healthy
people.

~~~
Amorymeltzer
Average weights (no median, sorry) from the CDC
([https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-
measurements.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm)):

>Men: 195.7 pounds

>Women: 168.5 pounds

So this could carry an average man, average woman, and under 36 pounds. At
that point, the weight of your clothing or a bottle of wine becomes _very_
important.

~~~
throwawayjava
Yes, I did say _healthy_ , which a good half of the USA isn't.

but that still implies a 100m person market, _just_ in the USA, and people in
other developed countries tend to be closer to the "healthy" range. There are
lots of healthy people out there.

In short, I don't think this will be the make-or-break for flying cars...

~~~
cryptoz
> a 100m person market

No, not really. Only extremely wealthy people can buy this. It's more like a
10,000 to 100,000 person market in the US I would guess.

------
dzhiurgis
I thought gasoline turbine generators are sort of here (used in hybrid buses),
womder why they stuck with piston generator.

Also, any ideas what battery pack you’d need to do the same 70miles?

~~~
bergesenha
My best guess is fuel efficiency at small size scales and is probably the same
reason that make them economical in large buses, but not small cars. The usual
intuition is explained using the Reynolds number, a dimensionless quantity
that can help to predict the possibility of maintaining laminar flow or wether
the flow breaks down into turbulence in the generator, drastically reducing
efficiency in the compression-combustion-expansion cycle. As a side note, when
I did a type rating on the Eurocopter AS350, I learned that the gas turbine
could also run on normal automobile gasoline instead of Jet-A 1 for a limited
amount of time in emergencies with drastically reduced limits on altitude,
torque etc...

~~~
Zak
It's my understanding that most gas turbine engines can be convinced to run on
a _wide_ range of flammable liquids, with some impact to performance and
longevity. That the AS350 is actually designed to do so is interesting.

------
mannykannot
It is cute to show it in a parking lot, but with those unprotected blades it
is unlikely you will be able to operate it anywhere but on an airfield,
helipad or private land, for safety reasons. And with four sets of contra-
rotating blades (small, therefore turning fast) and a gasoline engine, it will
be noisy as hell.

------
ggg9990
Guaranteed vaporware. If these guys had even a fraction of a clue they would
have gone with a 6 rotor design.

~~~
asterius
I'm almost sure this is a champion satirical comment.

------
iamleppert
I'm skeptical of a company that is doing so many different projects, and none
of them seem particularly well developed, far along, or consistent within the
framework of some core vision.

That being said, I'm jealous. Where do people actually get money to finance
these pet projects?

------
Shivetya
dumb question, but why would it not be a good idea to enclose the blades so
anyone walking up to it won't be hurt? (just a simply loop / bumper
arrangement?

on a side note, I hope to be around where a Blade Runner like Spinner is a
thing or at least a possibility

------
SideburnsOfDoom
What is the benefit of more, smaller rotor blades over fewer, larger ones?

I thought that the area of air that the blades worked on scaled with pi-r-
squared, which favours fewer larger rotor blades, as seen on most helicopters?

~~~
codeduck
I can't think of any benefits of this layout other than reducing the size of
the landing field you'll need. And I guess less complexity on the part of the
rotors, no tail rotor with associated dangers etc.

I can think of some significant downsides though.

1\. This is fixed pitch, not collective pitch. That means any change in the
attitude of the aircraft requires one or more sets of rotors to change their
speed of rotation. This means that you need top notch electronic control
systems, gyros etc. to mediate between pilot input and what the aircraft does.
These electronic systems are sensitive and fragile and degrade with time. And
when they let go, it's spectacular.

2\. A loss of any one of the 8 motors is a Jesus Christ, yank the ballistic
parachute moment. This is likely a hull-loss event as there will be all sorts
of load-bearing parts with the job of absorbing the opening shock of the
parachute. These will at minimum require inspection prior to the aircraft
being certified airworthy again.

3\. related to 2 above, this aircraft has no capacity for autorotation
whatsoever. A traditional rotary-wing helicopter with collective pitch can
autorotate safely in to a controlled landing in the event of an engine
failure. If you lose an engine in this, and your ballistic chute tangles or
doesn't deploy properly, you are proper fucked.

It's cool, and quad-copters are fantastic cargo and gp platforms. But I would
never fly in one.

~~~
dreamcompiler
Expanding on your point #1: The inertia of large props means they can't change
speed quickly, so there will be lag in the control inputs. (In toy
quadcopters, electric motor torque is so high vs prop inertia that lag is a
non-issue.) Collective pitch controls don't exhibit this lag. Electronic
controls can compensate for inertia lag to some extent, but they have to be
carefully designed using control theory, and if they fail the copter will
likely be uncontrollable.

------
ravitation
Just reading through the _about_ page... Where is the aircraft/rotorcraft
experience in upper management? There are _many_ reasons that helicopters are
dominant at the scale of human transport (some of which have been brought up
in this comment thread) and multicopters are prevalent at smaller (drone-size)
scales...

All of this is to say I'm extremely skeptical.

~~~
asterius
All that is missing is mention of blockchain.

------
bparsons
The fully electric Lilium out of Germany is a far more interesting project.
Without a gas engine, the noise and cost problems are greatly mitigated.

I don't know how far away it is from commercialization, but it would appear
that the the proof of concept is coming along nicely.

[https://lilium.com/](https://lilium.com/)

------
JoblessWonder
Most of the work of the helicopters I see involve long flight times and/or the
ability to carry some sort of not-insignificant payload
(camera/sensors/pesticides/people).

This doesn't seem to address either of those situations very well. And with 1
seat to sell, you aren't going to be getting many short charter flights.

~~~
JasonFruit
The rest of your comment seems right to me, but the title says "personal
helicopter"; charter flights are not personal use.

------
frisco
Is there any data on the sound profile of this thing? As the rotors become
smaller the disc loading increases, making them much louder and more shrill.
If that's effectively mitigated here, this looks really cool; if not, I think
it will be hard to negotiate take off and landing rights with most
communities.

~~~
asterius
As well as being higher pitched, contra-rotating designs also produce more
noise.

The sound field is non-uniform (mostly axial), and there are claims of being
able to reduce it through special phasing of the two rotors, using different
numbers of blades on each, etc. But I wouldn't be particularly hopeful.

------
euyyn
How am I supposed to "store it inside a standard garage" if it doesn't have
wheels to move it in?

~~~
foxyv
A lot of light helicopters are transported on dollies or trailers.

~~~
nradov
Robinson light helicopters have mounting points on the skids where you can
temporarily attach small wheels to move them around on the ground.

------
bri3d
Why this and not single-rotor collective pitch? There's no good explanation in
the marketing material.

~~~
FabHK
That's the whole point of these drone-like copters: instead of one engine and
main rotor with mechanically complicated collective pitch, you have many
fixed-pitch variable speed rotors sitting directly on an electric motor. The
complexity thus wanders from hardware to control software.

~~~
bri3d
Having written both (albeit only at a hobby scale), I'd argue that the control
software for a collective-pitch helicopter is substantially more complex than
for a quadcopter, and especially this style of over/under counter-rotating
octocopter. To me this almost seems like an effort to simplify the automation
and control software at the expense of safety and efficiency.

I do agree that the mechanicals are much simpler. I can see some maintenance
and inspection safety gains but the airframe as a whole seems more dangerous.
The over/under counterrotating prop design is both inefficient and prone to
cascading failures mandating deployment of the airframe parachute.

~~~
FabHK
Interesting. Now, clearly, humans can (with considerable training) fly
helicopters with controls that influence the mechanics fairly directly
(cyclic, collective, rudder, thrust).

Can humans fly quadcopters with controls that influence the mechanics fairly
directly, or do they always require mediation via complicated control
software?

Come to think of it, presumably you can (as you have 4df in the controls, and
you could have rotors next to each other rotate in opposite direction, and
then control the sum of all speeds (=height), sum of left vs sum of right
(=lateral movement), sum of front vs sum of back (=forward movement), and sum
of diagonal 1 vs sum of diagonal 2 (=rotation) independently, thus translating
human inputs into your 4df. Nice!)

> simplify the automation and control software at the expense of safety and
> efficiency.

At any rate, I continue to think that the much simpler mechanics and motors
are the main drivers. Let's see how the accident rates turn out, but I'm
optimistic.

> The over/under counterrotating prop design is both inefficient

How is it inefficient? I understand that over/under counterrotating props are
more efficient, inducing less air rotation.

------
rkagerer
Neat!

Although I think it only goes about half the speed, half the flight ceiling
and a third the range of an average helicopter. Maybe if these guys get some
market traction a ton of other entrants will come and the dream of personal
flight will finally “take off”.

I wonder what maintenance requirements will be like.

------
fao_
> target price: $200,000

That's 148,019.4 GBP. The average wage here corrected for a proper living
standard is about 22,000 GBP give or take.

If everybody that could afford this took that money and gave it to homeless
foundations, what a world we could live in...

~~~
Edmond
price could go down if more affluent people buy, eventually it can become
something the average people could "afford"...there are of course other
arguments against everyone owning their own flying machine.

~~~
fao_
Is that even the ethical approach here, though. If you can afford a flying
machine, you can afford to keep a roof over a family for 3 years (Assuming two
earners earning 22,000 GBP / year (Which is far more than my parents ever
earned in their lives)). Or you could pay 6 people's expenses off for a year.

If you have that much disposable income, and you spend all of it on something
that benefits only yourself, what does that say about you as a person?

------
Avshalom
2 props per arm, contra rotating. Eight motors...Gasoline Piston Engine drives
dual generators...Dual Lithium Battery Pack...Full computer and electrical
system redundancy...Ballistic Parachute...

for simplicity

------
rwbcxrz
> Flight ceiling: 4000ft

I’m wondering if that’s the absolute service ceiling or it’s legal operational
ceiling due to its classification.

I suppose they won’t be selling them in Denver if it’s the former.

~~~
danaliv
I don't recall there being anything special about 4000' from a regulatory
perspective so I suspect that's the service ceiling.

------
inamberclad
I'm always extremely skeptical of these things. The engineering is difficult,
but the person at the controls is an even larger problem.

------
timtas
“One hour of flight time available per tank of gasoline”

So like what, $70 round trip commute? Hmm.

------
foxyv
I have to say, I've never worried about being hit by a helicopter while riding
my bicycle.

------
ourmandave
Is this the next Uber vehicle?

Or Amazon delivery "drone"?

------
twobyfour
So what sort of fuel mileage does it get?

------
clebio
Well that's going to kill someone.

------
nkkollaw
So cool, it looks like a huge drone.

------
659087
As both a rotorcraft and fixed wing pilot, I really don't want this to
succeed. Most people have no business on the road, let alone in the sky.

That's without even getting into the safety issues with this thing that are
being conveniently glossed over in the marketing material, which would lead
anyone who didn't know better to think a BRS is some kind of foolproof sure
thing.

------
baybal2
electric transmission vs mechanical and 8 tiny inefficient props?

1 hour flight with 30kg of fuel?

I can make something more efficient in a garage...

~~~
asterius
Well, Colin Furze can make it in his garage.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxxPyaAT1k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxxPyaAT1k)

