New Year Re: solutions

We'll put what we have currently left, right and centre-stage in the course of 2023. I'm aware that I've tried any number of ways to configure a drone around my person, this being the conclusion, but I don't over-emphasise what went prior. Considering fellow pioneers like Vertical in the UK, who'd guess from the website that they started with a multicopter, before crashing it and starting afresh... or that Volocopter would sprout wings in an effort to follow the same trend?

Fact is though, if you're going to build a flying taxi it needs literally to go beyond as far as range is concerned; which is why many such efforts (Ehang's 216 the exception) are evolving in much the same way as the leader of that pack in the shape of Joby. Which, let's not forget, was built on the back of sales of the altogether more down-to-earth Gorillapod.

For all of the teams to last the course have produced any number of iterations, which is why I don't highlight prior art on the website. Iteration is the way of design, few of us realising the Spitfire went through any number of iterations prior to its first flight  or as many after. As is the case with icons like a Spitfire or Concorde, however, there appears like Elvis to be just one of them.

Accordingly here's the current state of play appearing in the website, and its reasons:

      Fly half-scale model empty, 1st quarter.

     Build full-scale mock-up, 1st quarter. 

     Fly full-scale model & dummy, 2nd quarter.

     Fly full-scale model & ballast, 3rd quarter.

     Fly full-scale model & test-pilot, 4th quarter.

For we've only the materials currently to fly an empty phone-box. We could do so with a mannekin by additional motors, rotors and ESCs though the money ~ yours or mine ~ is better spent elsewhere... nobody doubts in 2023 that a large quad of this kind flying without a passenger could not do so with.

What will be more inspiring is seeing the same thing rendered at full-scale in the form of a mock-up ~ it's the same reason for instance that auto-makers build concept-cars that appear at places like the Geneva motor-show in order to get the juices flowing. There is no reason therefore why this should not be conducted in parallel with flying at sub-scale.

(Don't know why Blogger adjusted the line-spacing ~ doubtless due the import of that schedule ~ but then perfect is ever the enemy of the good).

At the same time there's no rush to fit eight motors when four will do, as any number of projects out there ~ like the jet-powered efforts of Yves Rossy, Franky Zapata and Richard Browning ~ are vulnerable to engine failure (and all three suffered dunkings as a consequence).

But does that put us off?