It was quieter than I expected, even from a couple hundred meters away. Once it was further away it probably dropped to around 60dB, but the frequency (pitch) of the sound was still distinct and therefore remained noticeable above the background noise of the port.
My preconceived expectations of a drone flight also left me caught off guard by the larger moment of inertia. The cargo bay "swayed" during the flight instead of making instantaneous and zippy corrections that I've become accustomed to seeing small drones perform. Looked super alien.
Here’s example comparing a typical 2 (or 3) blade 5” prop to an 8 blade on a drone. The 8 blade is smaller, 3” i believe, with similar performance but a major difference in sound.
Here’s another one with two 8’s stacked on each motor.
Also for all the time spent developing the aircraft and the importance that perception plays in selling it you would think they might have put a little more effort in figuring out how to efficiently load it. That was torture watching haha.
(wtf Apple, the ’haha’ in my last sentence autocorrected to ‘gays’?!? I wonder what i haven’t caught)
Made me chuckle :)
More blades means more drag.
Why does it have to be in a cabin, even lifted up into it, while most pallets/boxes are shrink-wrapped already?
If avoiding shrink wrapping because plastics, use standardized hoods with deposit, if you have to. Works for pallets/boxes already.
They could do with the net, like shown there anyways.
Also some lighter mechanism which goes into the pallet/box from below, since they are standardized. Or good old rope/chains/somesuch.
Lastly, why the EFFING EFF is he wearing a helmet while riding a Cargo-TRI-Cycle, which won't go above 25kph ever?
Also: Can I have one with joystick to sit in? *g*
IMO, holding customers to a higher standard of weatherproofing is a non-starter. Adoption of drone transport will be more popular if customers can basically assume the weather exposure is the same as with conventional transport.
Also I know about the winds because I live in HH and bicycle there all the time ;)
Shouldn't really matter when you think about what even things like Ardupilot or similar firmware for drones can do to stabilize flight in all sorts of situations.
It's just a matter of scale. And that thing has way more propellers to dynamically counteract any imbalances than the small hobbyist things.
I don't know. It looks overdesigned to me. Form should follow function. In vague comparison this looks like the first railroad wagons for passengers still somehow looking like horse-drawn chariots. Makes no sense to me.
source: I have moved a lot of pallets of things, shrink wrap is not for safety it is for convenience. Getting off axis at all with shrink wrap results in failure. (this is why lifting pallets with a skidsteer is much riskier than with a forklift where the pallet is always horizontal.)
I also have moved countless pallets and boxes a really loong time ago for about a year. In an eight (metric) ton forklift, going up to 12 meters high, and up to 35kph fast. Needing a change of batteries by another forklift every other half of the shift ;>
(You can make arguments that the multi rotor approach has lower maintenance needs than swashplate-based conventional helicopters, besides the use of electricity instead of hydrocarbons… these all potentially allow lower operating costs. And the higher pitch sound of multi rotors travels less far than low frequency of helicopter blades.)
It seems like maybe there is a niche for very large fixed-pitch propeller vehicles like quadrotors but at that scale why stick with fixed pitch at all? You could still have variable pitch rotors with variable speed drivers and get the best of both worlds, like a Kaplan turbine in hydraulics, but in reverse.
Electric cargo vehicles are neat, and maybe the loss in efficiency is acceptable, but you undeniably lose efficiency with a fixed rotor design.
That’s a huge reason why existing vertical lift doesn’t use multiple rotors. Electric motors using high energy magnets, modern solid state power controllers, and modern batteries are only just now becoming available & only now are they starting to impact the aviation trade space.
Future: order on your phone, get it flown out to the work site.
I predict that drone delivery will never be used for heavy, low value items like sheet rock. The costs of flight will remain too high even with better batteries. If delivery drones are used at all it will be for small, high value items like medical supplies, electronics, cooked food, and toiletries.
Obviously the shape of the "cargo bay" would need redesigned, and you'd need to add weight for chairs, doors, safety stuff etc, but could it still transport 1 or maybe 2 people?
2) swashplate-based means more maintenance, low frequency sound that travels further.
3) Not commercially available. It’s for military use primarily.
When people (EDIT: i.e. normies) use drone in this context, they’re talking about multi rotor electric vehicles that have less maintenance (in principle) than conventional helicopters.
The Yamaha Fazer gasoline powered helicopter is commercially available. They specifically label it as a "drone".
If we are talking about efficiency at longer distances with VTOL capability, then convertiplanes are more efficient than helicopters.
I myself researched how to detect quadcopter failure, and land them in a less catastrophic way. The easiest way to survive a single motor failure, is to spiral your way down at full motor torque, but it will not save you from an electrical failure in the main DC-DC — where they most often occur.
Instead of improving public transportation, goods on the rails, improving bicycle infrastructure, lots of effort is put into crowding the skys, too.
All pushed by a blatantly incompetent minister who was fantasizing about "air taxis" and how they will improve our life, while rural Germany is still stuck on < 16 MBit internet connections.
It's all just a giant clusterfuck with setting the wrong priorities.
Instead of inventing the future, we want to maintain the past.
That’s why Tesla was invented in the States and China has brought our Transrapid to the market.
We used to be a people of inventors who embraced the possibilities that technology provides to shape the future. That’s why the automobile was invented here. The bicycle. And so much more.
Today we just want to faster Internet to consume American Services even faster.
Why not push what we have to the limits, gladly in innovative ways, instead of adding just another half-baked layer?
> Today we just want to faster Internet to consume American Services even faster.
Nah... I want faster internet so I can work from home in a rural area and don't have to spend a third of my income on rent, because I need to live close to my work because we don't have cheap and fast public transportation.
Improving infrastructure might increase your personal efficiency. It won't help innovation in any way.
PS: A great example how infrastructure is irrelevant can be seen in this Ted Talk. It compares India and China after WWII.
Making no revenue? Not really suitable because it has almost no space for luggage,
which passengers from the airport tend to carry with them?
Also I am still unaware of any larger testtrack for the 'updated' thing the media is so extatic about.
That is just one private company trying to get investments.
Which they probably won't get, except if the Zentralkommitee would maybe pushing it.
Which seems unlikely, because why they didn't extend the Shanghai line as planned, then?
I mean, I don't really care because it won't happen here anyways.
But don't say brought to market until they have at least an Emsland equivalent test track,
and actually shown the 600kph they say 'Yes! Yes! We can do!' and rave about all the times.
None of this has happened so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I feel your comment is misguided and frankly clueless.
Research into point-to-point logistics has been a thing for the past decade thanks to developments in drones. One of their main markets is actually under-developed regions where investing in infrastructure is outright impossible. Another important market is actually automating parts of the logistics chain and removing people from the process.
What this newspiece shows is the last decade or so of research coming to fruition. It's incomprehensible how you're criticizing autonomous drones as being "maintaining the past" but presenting tech from the 1960s that has virtually no commercial viability or practical use as being "the future".
I was criticizing OPs lack of enthusiasm for them. He/She is comparing faster Internet and better bicycle roads to a highly innovative idea of drone logistics.
Want to pull fibre under the road? 18 months planning permissions. Dig ditches in rural areas? Well, some of the locals don’t like the noise or mud on the road, tough luck. They object and the whole process extends by months. Want to replace the roof? Better make sure you don’t make it higher than what local code allows! And use the same colour for the tiles… New road? 2 years. Improving drainage? 2 years. Everyone has something to say, everyone can object and block the nice things for everybody else.
These will hit the same issues. People will complain about noise or just simply drones flying above. Soon it will turn out they can’t fly here, or there, or from there, or to there.
Germany already has outstanding roadway and railway infrastructure. DB, the parent company of DB Schenker, operates their ICEs in Germany and across Europe as well, and the only reason they can go at speeds up to 300km/h is the fact that they did all the right things putting together their highspeed rail network.
I suggest you take a look to the amount of work, both technical and political, that is required to get a single railway line out of the paper and into the real world. This is something that in some cases requires even diplomatic work.
The problem here in Germany is that they take an absurd amount of time for ANY road work. I've seen roads blocked for years, just to widen the sidewalk. In other countries I've lived in, these get done ASAP.
Blame the entire politics of the last 40 years, beginning with Kohl who tore down the fiber projects in favor of cable TV to counter "left-wing", government critical public TV, over Schröder who auctioned off the UMTS licenses for nearly 50 billion € in 2000 to achieve the infamous "schwarze Null" budget, to Merkel who broke one promise after another to bring Germany up to speed.