Not sure how maintenance of dumb electric multirotor engines can be more expensive than the maintenance of a cyclic / collective & anti torque gearbox for a single rotor. But willing to learn.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Not sure how maintenance of dumb electric multirotor engines can be more expensive than the maintenance of a cyclic / collective & anti torque gearbox for a single rotor. But willing to learn.
I would guess because there are more of them?
There are 8 motors, and they are not cheap. A few AMU’s a piece (remember, we’re not in toyland here…)
They have a life-limitation much lower than ICU’s because the tech is still in its infancy.
There’s no easy rebuild process atm because it is still new, so you basically have to swap out with new unis.
If you were in an experimental, you could theoretically have the motors rebuilt, but we’re still in early days…
So, 8x a few AMU (could be up to 6-10 AMU per motor, depending) plus 8x props and 8x control units.
Life-limited, that’s a lot of AMUs…
Plus, the service interval doesn’t help.
I worked for a company that developed and sold a mid-sized drone (25Kg MTOW) for geospatial applications, and the OPEX was close to a Robbie 22/44.
The advantages of drones are: noise, size, and theoretically propulsion redundancy.
I’d prefer to step into a Volocopter, as its design is centered around redundancy and loss of propulsion systems…
The reality for typical UAV-style designs, is that propulsion system loss hasn’t really been solved yet, although Universities are working on it and the results aren’t something I’d like to experience in a full-scale ‘UAV’ :)
Have fun practicing this “Engine Loss” exercise…
So what you are saying that a technology in its infancy has costs similar if not lower than one that is 50years old?
I think the “propulsion loss” scarecrow that is bandied about is very effectively solved by the embedded parachute. No need to practice anything other than pushing a button… seems feasible.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
very effectively solved by the embedded parachute.
Not quite what I wrote…
For a 25Kg drone, the cost of operation was the same as for a light aircraft with a MTOW of 1100Kg.
That’s a pretty substantial difference.
Perhaps the mass-manufacture of large-scale Multi-Rotor Aircraft will make maintenance cheaper.
You’re right about a safety ’chute. Good point.
Hopefully this will be figured out! I’d love to have a multi-rotor to fly directly from my house to wherever…
Really looking forward to that reality!
Somehow I suspect they’ll require the pilot to have a Helo license though :(
New category of license perhaps? MultiRotor…
Airbus tests “optionally-piloted” VSR-700, for eventual deployment aboard French Navy ships.
http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/06/VSR700.html
The gap between light GA “technology” and current designs is becoming more and more of a yawning chasm.
Unable to Buy U.S. Military Drones, Allies Place Orders With China
Interestingly enough the Chinese drone is more performant and cheaper than its US ancestor.
As an alternative to individual setting of the amp draw on each engine (we could even repurpose an EDM monitor for that, with four little levers, I wonder why no one thought of that straightforward control loop) – you can now wave at the drone.
AF wrote:
DJI has introduced geofencing built-in to all their new systems. The Drone landing on the White House lawn last summer is what brought about the action…
In Germany, the control zones under supervision of DFS have a general clearance for drones, as long as you don’t touch the 1.5km perimeter around the airport and stay below a certain altitude. I.e. the CTR is not “off-limits” to drones. Even the ones where the general clearance doesn’t exist, you can call them up and get a clearance of course, similar to a VFR flight.
My Mavic warns me inside the CTR, but doesn’t prevent me from flying.
