.jpg)
Let's explain the rationale behind this.
Prior to the introduction of the jet-turbine, helicopters did not have the option to mount the motor on the roof, where with the exception of the Robison R66 it has remained ever since. The object lesson of helicopter design throughout its evolution is therefore that (a) the ideal place for rotors is the overhead and (b) the ideal place for motors is the overhead.
People-carrying drones, however, don't come awfully light. This is principally because what you have gained in terms of weight-savings from the power of electric motors, you have generally lost in replacing high-density fuel i.e. kerosene, with battery-packs.
To support a sizeable drone at two metres you would therefore need a substantial structure (phone-box as originally conceived), besides an extensive undercarriage to stop it from toppling.
The 'method and means' above solves each problem at a stroke.
At the same time it preserves a unique selling point ~ ours a flat-pack flying machine and yours not ~ because the columns can be inserted individually into the base from above, through the four channels in the drone included in its centre-section with that in view.
Expert UAV builders caution that the drone will be insufficient manoeuvrable in view of its low-pitched centre of gravity ~ but by and large we have progressed more often with expert advice having been ignored, than with it having been acknowledged.
Let's start building.
