Is this real? I'm very skeptical about hits being real. Veeky Forums's thoughts?

>You have to put in effort to make money
It's not just a matter of effort, but also talent and life circumstances.

>> People get more views for playing video games.
>Very rare to get a million views doing that.
Very rare to get a million views clowning around with bodged-together vehicles and goofy tools.

>>The reality is, not many people could pull this off.
>I'm working on an electric version, even simpler and safer than petrol.
Ah, this explains your warped-reality attitude. A nobody trying "the same thing" expecting to get rich off of it.

Colin Furze has amusing ideas, executes them brilliantly, uses good camerawork and editing, and acts as this very fun, distinctive, engaging character. All of these are essential to his success. Furthermore, to make money on youtube views, you don't just need one or two videos that get a lot of views, you need to crank out a stream of hits on a regular schedule.

That's why "Let's Play"ers are the biggest winners in youtube fame: they make loads of videos at little cost or effort, and people pick favorites and keep coming back to them. Of course, they have to win in the competition for viewers.

Holy shit is that dangerous. Colin furze is a cool dude, but I really worry about his safety.

At least he tucked his safety tie in so it didn't pull him into the props.

I wonder if there IS any way to control it
It just looked like he was shifting is weight around, anyone think that if the fans were angled a bit forward he could get it to go forward and he could maneuver it by leaning side to side? I feel like there's a million ways to make it better but I can't test them and I'm not an engineer

There's no reason why you can't design a hovering vehicle to be passively stable and steer it by leaning. It's been done in the past.
youtube.com/watch?v=7XzDMlhk4Sw

youtube.com/watch?v=8aVIzyWO1HE

This trash version is just getting attention because an amusing, relatable character threw it together for fun in a few weeks and presented it in an entertaining way.

Jesus fuck. He's getting crazier now that he has benefactors paying more and more money. I fucking love it.

One guy all he did was stand on a drone for 60 seconds and that netted him 8 million views. Arcaboard is even worse yet I'm pretty sure that's over a million views also. Pajeets out there are doing all kinds of crazy shit to make money while you sit back saying "meh too hard" then you have the cheek to waddle over to /pol/ to complain about them being richer than you due to some conspiracy.
He fired up a jet engine without any safety glasses. What if the thing blew up?
Vectored thrust would be the best way.
You're a retard. if it's passively stable then it cannot be easily steered. The wright brothers worked this out a hundred years ago. Everyone before them was failing because they tried to make their aircraft passively stable. Great but now it always wants to go in one straight line. Wright bros realized that having an unstable craft that needs constant pilot input is much more maneuverable. That 1950's platform met the same problem, it was designed to want to stay upright meaning the pilot had to fight it to get it to turn. This is how Veeky Forums shows it's narrow-mindedness; Someone talks about flying platforms Veeky Forums says "hurr its been done before". Not really because it failed. Redoing it now and replacing the ducted fan induced passive stability with an unducted unstable system held up with computer-controlled vectoring is a good idea. Just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

>trash version is just getting attention because

It works, has better production parts because it is the 21st century, and youtube exists now. Unlike the 1940-50s.

It isn't getting much attention at all really.

Using your body to steer it is actually the best solution. It is a lot like using a surf board in that regard; or even when steering a normal bike around sharp turns for instance. If it was very powerful and could hold extra load then yes you could put a stabilization system on it and on that a steering system. But, making something stable is often times the wrong way to go about things. Especially something like this.

>Vectored thrust would be the best way.
Fuck I can't even begin to figure out how to make that work.
I thought maybe you could tilt the front fan a little bit forward to make sure it goes forward regardless of whether or not you're leaning forward and then letting it turn left and right kinda like a motorcycle's steering
Would it work even better if it had two propellers on each engine like to give it even more lift

Except it's much harder than surfing because when you surf you're being carried by the waves and only have to worry about leaning side to side. When you start flying you'd have to worry about moving forwards which is really hard to do on top of worrying about steering.

No absolutely not. The #1 argument against these sorts of things is that they are dangerous. people can barely drive safe on the roads, imagine hundreds of these flying around a city, carnage. Complete automation is the way to go. That way it actually ends up safer than it's road counterpart.
Put paddles under the propellers and move them with servos.

Remember two propellers per engine = transmission = weight

seems a little fucking dangerous since u have a large lawn motor spinning like 1 foot from your leg

>Put paddles under the propellers and move them with servos.
No idea how that would work at all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
hence the cage

Put in computers & some fly by wire shit, thats how flying vehicles are made nowadays

Or just make them naturally stable

That cage is hardly sufficient.

Or is it?

>people can barely drive safe on the roads

user, have you gone stupid? No one will be using these on roads, ever. They will never be a viable technology. It is merely 100% cool-factor. Nothing more. You'd never get them licensed to be on a road and there will never be a mass call for such laws to come into place. No one is going to give a shit about stuff you can't carry 50lbs of groceries in or can't fly more than 100 yards.

This is because the most efficient and proper technology to move 1 person around in the air has already been made. They are called helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding. All of which are regulated and only licensed people can operate them (powered paragliding doesn't require licensing in most countries, but it is regulated in most countries).

Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.

A hoverbike is as relevant to traveling in society as a trampoline.

Kinesthetic control is easily the most intuitive means of controlling light aircraft like this.
It would work. The V-2 and SCUD missile, Hiller Flying Platform, Piasecki Airgeep, Williams X-jet and several other aircraft have already demonstrated the viability of thrust vanes for control.
You've obviously never ridden an airboat.

>One guy all he did was stand on a drone for 60 seconds and that netted him 8 million views.
Even if the revenue from 8 million views would pay for a drone you can stand on, it wouldn't leave you with big profits. You don't understand how this works. Just getting attention once isn't how you make significant amounts of money.

The peak revenue for 1 million views was about $2,000, and that was before ad blockers got popular (you get paid for people watching ads, not for your views).

>you sit back saying "meh too hard" then you have the cheek to waddle over to /pol/ to complain about them being richer than you due to some conspiracy.
You sure have a rich fantasy life.

>That 1950's platform met the same problem, it was designed to want to stay upright meaning the pilot had to fight it to get it to turn.
Nobody said that passive stability is the optimal solution, but it's a hell of a lot better than unstable and no control. This design obviously isn't going anywhere. He's made a funny video about a useless vehicle, and now he's on to the next unrelated spectacle.

Anyway, the handling characteristics weren't the fatal flaw of the flying platform (indeed, it was extremely easy to learn to fly the thing, which was the point), rather it was simple things like speed, range, flight ceiling, noise, and weight that caused its cancellation. Small ducted fans are a very inefficient way to hover. It was only good for low, slow, short-range hops, and it was a few hundred pounds and relatively delicate, so it was difficult to transport to the use site. No significant military application, and not safe enough for civilian recreational use (an engine failure would cause it to just fall).

>A heavier-than-air flying machine is impossible
>The jet engine will never be more efficient than a propeller
>Rockets won't work in space
>There's a market for maybe five computers in the world
Being cynical doesn't pay off friend. The pace of technology will march on without you.
>No one will be using these on roads
Why would you use it on the road? The whole point is to be free of roads. You have clearly never lived in a country with shit roads.
>They will never be a viable technology
Why is that, engines and batteries have the power, the only barrier is control but even that is falling doe to microprocessors
>It is merely 100% cool-factor
It amazes me that Veeky Forums is so autistic as to realize that a product doesn't have to be useful to be financially viable. Furthermore there are uses for it. If there's a use for a helicopter there's a use for a smaller cheaper version. Duh.
>This is because the most efficient and proper technology to move 1 person around in the air has already been made. They are called helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding
Again more autism. efficiency =/= better product. Smartphones are ridiculously inefficient, does 10 things at once pretty badly and with 5 hours of battery life. Compare this to the professional quality of separates and doesn't need to be charged for days. Convienience is a factor to consider. Theres a reason why barely anyone uses the machines you list, because they are inconvenient. Joe bloggs doesn't have a runway, joe bloggs doesn't want to fuck around with parachutes, joe bloggs doesn't want helicopter training
>Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.
Funny you mention quadcopters because despite RC helicopters being old as the hills and more efficient, they have never been very popular outside hobby circles while quads have exploded on the mainstream market. Why because they are simpler.

He is planning on selling an improved version and many people are interested. Dismissing ideas gets you $0, giving them a chance may get you some money. It's a no brainer which to choose.

No, user, we won't have hover bikes in the future for common transport of anything. It will always be a niche thing.

>helicopters, autogyros, and powered paragliding
>Even a quadcopter large enough to carry a human isn't a viable solution since the 3 things I listed perform far better.
This is a pretty fucking stupid claim.

Autogyros and powered paragliding obviously don't have the precision control for routine use in cities. Helicopters are better, but not by enough. They need big helipads or open fields to land in.

Fly-by-wire multicopters can have rotor-out capability (not some desperation maneuver like autorotation, but the ability to actually continue flying normally), and land in any space as big as their footprint, practically ignoring cross-wind.

It's true that they won't have the same long range or be a full replacement for helicopters, but they'll still be useful for rapid point-to-point transportation, such as emergency response, or even high-priority taxi or courier service.

>almost loses his arms an legs to two land-mowers for views on jewtube
topmost kekkeroonio

well we will see.
finally someone on my side

Then do it faggot. Build one and take video.

>Dismissing ideas gets you $0, giving them a chance may get you some money. It's a no brainer which to choose.
Dismissing ideas loses you $0, giving them a chance may cost you all your money, and in a case like this, your life.

See how this actually works?

>He is planning on selling an improved version and many people are interested.
Regardless of whether he's talking about selling it, it's never going to go anywhere.

Bodging something together for youtube views is one thing, actually bringing an aircraft to market is something very different.

Besides, this isn't even technically impressive. It's just impressive that an amateur did it on a low budget.

>such as emergency response, or even high-priority taxi or courier service.

lol so much delusion ITT.

Why is Veeky Forums so full of kids with no sense of reality at all?

>Autogyros and powered paragliding obviously don't have the precision control for routine use in cities.
"Routine use" of any aircraft in cities is a fucking retarded notion.

I will. that's why I'm defending the technology for I work on it myself. Replies such as only motivate me more.

You think I don't want it? No, I just know it won't be relevant. We've had the tech to do this for 50+ years but only DIYers in backyards do it. There's a big reason for that.

There's different levels of "routine". Helicopters are routinely used in cities for traffic reporting and some other things, almost all based on being used as a viewing platform.

Even though it would be highly advantageous to use something like a helicopter to quickly pick up injured people or deploy police officers, helicopters (especially with human pilots) aren't reliable and precise enough to be trusted flying between buildings and landing in parking lots and streets.

Multicopters are much more capable of avoiding collisions in tight spaces, with unpredictable winds, which means they'll be far more suitable for landing in cities.

Furthermore, removal of the skilled pilot and use of low-maintenance electric motors and batteries mean that they can sit on standby, ready for use at a moment's notice, at low cost.

By "routine" I don't mean, "everyone will have their own and fly in them every day", I mean they'd be common sights and used every day in cities, and over the course of their lives, most people would fly in one for one reason or another.

I already told you that the difference between now and 50 years ago is electronic control and automation. No serious company has done it because companies don't take risks with completely new far out products. If you have a million to invest do you a) manufacture a new car or b) make a flying motorbike?

>companies don't take risks with completely new far out products

They do that every year. Guess what ones become successes? The ones who make cars.

We had fly-by-wire tech 50 years ago, user. If fact, we've had it for over 80 years.

You know what m8? No point in arguing with these contrarians. They want the world to stay boring and autistic just like their textbooks. You are clearly interested in this so email [email protected] and I'll fill you in on my personal aerial vehicle research.

The only real uses I can see for this is like a marsh land but even then vehicles exist to traverse that

It is being realistic, not contrarian.

It is as useful as tanks with legs.

And it was expensive as shit, closed source and not as good as what we have today. are you seriously debating with me that computer technology isn't miles batter than what it was 50 years ago?

Here are two stories of how views such as yours hold back technology.

Repeating rifles existed since the 1850s but didn't become widely used until the 1890s. Why? Because top brass said they were unreliable and "single shot was good enough" despite soldiers who bought them out of pocket reporting spectacular success with them.

Frank Whittel came up with his jet engine ideas in the 1920s so why did the first jet plane fly in the 1940s in another country at war with his? Because the RAF ignored his idea because "propellers were good enough" and this new idea was inefficient so why bother changing? Germans had more of a can-do attitude and stole his patents. Only then did the RAF change their mind about it.

So now today you are trashing PAVs because "helicopters are good enough"? Nothing is ever good enough in the world of engineering, there is always room for improvement.

>We had fly-by-wire tech 50 years ago, user. If fact, we've had it for over 80 years.
First of all, I don't think you know what "fly-by-wire" means, if you think we've had it for over 80 years. 80 years ago was 1936. There weren't even programmable computers then.

Fly-by-wire conventionally refers to computer control, with the pilot only giving input into the flight computer. It certainly wasn't viable for any low-cost system at least until the 1980s, and didn't make low-cost systems that could surpass human pilots until the 2000s.

Conventional analog flight systems are designed around the limitations of the human pilot. They have inherent stability and relatively few control mechanisms, presenting the pilot with a relatively simple, static situation, and providing straightforward ways to control how it will change.

Drone flight systems are increasingly designed to take advantage of a fast modern computer's ability to adjust dozens of control variables in response to sensor inputs thousands of times per second.

Accordingly, the physical configuration of the drone may look strange, silly, or generally incomprehensible, yet perform in ways that a piloted vehicle just can't.

A piloted VTVL vehicle will always need sufficient landing space to drift with the changing wind, while a drone VTVL can be designed to hover rock steady in gusty conditions, and land on a dime.

>but but but

lol Okay, kid.

>So now today you are trashing PAVs because "helicopters are good enough"?

More than that. Helicopters put all "PAVs" to utter shame, even if you count in the sci-fi ones.

Just google the history of fly-by-wire. lol Tard.

stop shilling

So why are you fapping about it on an internet forum instead of designing one? You can do almost everything in software these days kid

It will be a niche thing though.

>Fly-by-wire conventionally refers to computer control,

CNC != NC != FBW != RFR

you can remote control a device without a fucking computer user, especially "by wire" contrasting "by wireless" (but don't forget analog RF too)

Fly-by-wire does conventionally refer to computerized control. That's what people use it to mean.

Anyway, we were explicitly discussing computerized control systems, so bringing up this other shit is irrelevant.

I didn't start this thread, I just got dragged into an argument.
moving the goalposts

Stop shitposting, isn't it past your bedtime?

The point is that it doesn't matter what you use. Human controlled or computer controlled. Both can work and both can work well. Only the human factor comes with fatigue and other human-related problems.

If you really want to show what this tech can do, show vids like this:
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1460967173541.webm

Then realize that a hoverbike and a quadcopter cable of carrying a human is still a crappy inefficient idea. Just use a helicopter or gyrocopter since both are already being used for the same purposes.

>Only the human factor comes with fatigue and other human-related problems.
>other human-related problems
Like a general lack of precision control and inability to compensate for gusty wind conditions to fly between buildings and land in a tight area.

>Just use a helicopter or gyrocopter
How many times do I need to explain it to you that these designs are not suitable for landing at arbitrary addresses in urban areas, even in emergencies?

You're kind of defeating your own argument. Our argument is that autonomous multirotors will finally make flight easy and personal yet you advocate machines which are not widely used by the general public thus reinforcing our point that what's currently available isn't good enough.

Our argument is that there is a niche between the car and a helicopter that is still yet to be filled but you keep harping on that the helicopter can do helicopter things better. That's great and it can keep on doing that, the PAV isn't intended to compete it's to fill a gap. Helicopters can't easily land in cities, helicopters are not autonomous, helicopters are loud, helicopters have more dangerous blades due to all the energy being in one single blade as opposed to four or eight. helicopters are more maintenance intensive and helicopters are more expensive.

As for the gyrocopter and the paraglider, one needs a runway, the other has parachutes that can get tangled in urban areas. Finally they are even worse than the helicopter because neither can hover.

The sheer fact that your machines are rarely seen in the sky is proof that they are not good enough. To be honest this argument should have ended from when i pointed out that quadcopters are way more popular than RC helicopters even though the RC helicopter is much more efficient and has been around for way longer. Youa re completely and utterly failing to appreciate the benefit of simplicity, your mind is one track and heavily autistic "efficiency! efficiency! efficiency! " again and again as if that's the be all end all of a product. I've given so many examples where something became popular despite being less efficient.

Helicopters can be autonomous. Why wouldn't a personal air vehicle be loud?

Umm... isn't most of the energy in a helicopter stored as potential energy when it's hovering in the air? Why wouldn't a human rated aircraft be maintenance intensive?

>Helicopters can be autonomous
Well where are they? if this were true then all those helicopter pilots would be out of a job.Perhaps it is possible but it's a lot more difficult than a simple direct drive quad.
>Umm... isn't most of the energy in a helicopter stored as potential energy when it's hovering in the air?
Read a book on circular motion faggot. blade kinetic energy is proportional to the square of it's radius. a helicopter blade strike is a lot more violent than a quad blade strike. Also quads can be ducted which protects the blades helicopters cannot
> Why wouldn't a human rated aircraft be maintenance intensive?
Quads use direct drive, fixed pitch. Much simpler than transmission + variable pitch

>How many times do I need to explain it to you that these designs are not suitable for landing at arbitrary addresses in urban areas, even in emergencies?

You don't know very much about copters at all.

No, I'm saying he wants a hoverbike, which isn't going to happen unless he builds it himself. There will not be some hoverbike revolution where we see them used as much as normal motor bikes and we will never see them for emergency rescue.

There is no niche between car and helicopter because the helicopter does do everything the hoverbike can do and more.

>The sheer fact that your machines are rarely seen in the sky is proof that they are not good enough.

It is because a ground vehicle is more efficient and no one really gives a shit about flying. Those who do give a shit, do fly. Those jobs that need a flying vehicle use a helicopter.

The reason I posted the webm is to show that while yes, the control system is easy as cake, it doesn't fucking matter at all because the instant you start to scale it up to human sizes you simply switch to a helicopter.

I can't even imagine how deluded you people must be to think anything a hoverbike or a quadcopter big enough to carry a human is even remotely more useful than a small helicopter.

>>Helicopters can be autonomous
>Well where are they?

youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc

Here we go with the fucking efficiency again. How can someone be this autistic?

More retarded market research.
>"because no-one is flying means no-one wants to fly"
Uh huh everyone wants to sit in traffic right? Everyone wants to fight through mud, landslides, snow and all kinds of shit out in the country right? You could have made the same retard assumption about tablets
>"everyone who wants to access the internet will use a computer therefore no-one will buy a tablet!"
That's how retarded you sound. There were people out there with nowhere to put a computer, couldn't be bothered to pay for a computer etc that now use tablets. It's called a niche. Veeky Forumss understanding of marketing is catastrophically bad.

Anyway I'm done arguing with you, the market backs me up. The volocopter just came out and already it's hugely popular proving my point that there is a market for short range multirotors.

>Unmanned
>Military
Gee, I'll go pick one up from the store right now and fly to work in it.

>volocopter

Are you an idiot? That's an electric helicopter.

>Here we go with the fucking efficiency again. How can someone be this autistic?

Oh I don't know, the fact that helicopters are better in every single way except cool factor? That might have something to do with it.

>fly an unmanned vehicle to work
>unmanned

Are you an idiot too?

>Uh huh everyone wants to sit in traffic right?

Google and Germans already have autonomous car. Which, once fully implemented with proper orchestrational systems will completely stop tings like traffic jams from happening.

it's a multirotor and flies for 20 minutes. It could have copied a "car" design by ringing the propellers around the capsule but they instead decided to closely follow the helicopter look by putting them above. Either way it's the same thing as what I am talking about and backs up what i say that there's a market for inefficient short range machines by virtue of their ease of use, low maintenance and autonomy. Congratulations on working out that multirotors, hoverbikes, whatever are all types of helicopter in the end.
>Oh I don't know, the fact that helicopters are better in every single way except cool factor? That might have something to do with it.
Well for like the third time please explain why RC quadcopters are more popular than RC helicopters?
>Are you an idiot too?
So you don't understand greentext sarcasm?

That guy is pretty famous, I don't think he needs to be shilled.

Face it you lost the argument completely and utterly. While I have given a ton of evidence of things that were inefficient, even laughed at at inception yet managed significant market share and carefully explained why helicopter, gyrocopters etc are not perfect all you have done is repeatedly shout "PAVs are dumb! PAVs are dumb! PAVs are dumb!

It is a helicopter. Which is better than a hoverbike.

The reason the rotors are the best most efficient design is because they are above the main weight. What you want to do is essentially putting the basket on top of a hot air balloon. That's how retarded a hoverbike is.

>Well for like the third time please explain why RC quadcopters are more popular than RC helicopters?
>RC

We are talking about stuff large enough to carry a human being. You can't simply scale up stuff, put humans/payload on them, and think everything is going to be the exact same. Physics doesn't work that way, rendering them far less efficient than helicopters.

I'm talking about lift efficiency. Do you even know what that is? Helicopters are better in every single way. There's nothing at all you've said to disprove that. Every bit of "evidence" posted has been to your argumentative detriment.

>You don't know very much about copters at all.
>I can't even imagine how deluded you people must be to think anything a hoverbike or a quadcopter big enough to carry a human is even remotely more useful than a small helicopter.
When you argue like this, it just shows that you can't come up with coherent objections.

A big rotor makes a vehicle easily affected by gusts of wind. A big exposed rotor with high tip speeds makes it very dangerous to nearby people.

You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter. It will simply not be as suitable for landing in tight spaces.

If you look at a "hoverbike" type of design, typically you'll see caged propellers or ducted fans, which can survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots, so it's tolerant of tight spaces in a different way.

We are talking about hoverbike vs helicopter as the main topic.

One user mentions "volocopter" as a solid rebuttal as why it is better than helicopters. Which goes right along with your argument. Unfortunately, the "volocopter" just so happens to be a helicopter too. One that has 18 electric motors on it. Which is miles better than a hoverbike in every single situation possible. Even the highly specific ones you come up with, because you keep forgetting how inefficient a hoverbike really is.

>>You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter.
youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc

>> survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots

if you're bumping into stuff, you have problems.

You aren't making very good arguments for multirotors. I am surprised you haven't made the redundancy argument.

>efficiency, efficiency, efficiency
Seriously are you autistic? We already worked out long ago that something inefficient can still be useful yet you still keep trotting out this one arguument. I don't understand what you are trying to achieve for no-one is claiming that multirotors aren't inefficient.

The volocopter is a scaled up multirotor. The omni hoverboard is also. Both carry humans.
A hoverbike is a helicopter you retard. What you think we are using anti gravity? When we say "helicopter" we mean the single rotor variant, however all craft with powered rotors fall under the helicopter umbrella. So you can't say the volocopter is better "because it's a helicopter". The hoverbike would look just like a helicopter too if he had put the two rotors above. If you think the volocopter is good then you have just admitted that you lost the argument because it is the exact radical departure from the (single rotor) helicopter that we are advocating, fully autonomous, multirotor, cheap. it has the exact same issues as the hoverbike being inefficient and short range yet it was warmly received when it was unveiled. Therefore why on earth are you arguing that if one were to put the rotors around the person instead of above to make something more akin to a bike or car this would magically make it the worst idea in the world?

>The reason the rotors are the best most efficient design is because they are above the main weight.
So basically you have no clue about this stuff.

>I'm talking about lift efficiency. Do you even know what that is? Helicopters are better in every single way.
...as long as "every single way" means "lift efficiency".

Lift efficiency is improved by having a large rotor area. To hover efficiently, you want to push a lot of air at a low speed. However, this also means it's easily influenced by the motion of the air around it, which makes conventional helicopters bad at precision flying. It also means that they have large exposed rotors with high tip speeds, which makes it dangerous to be near and intolerant of even light bumps with obstacles.

All in all, it's a very bad combination when it comes to landing, which is why helicopters are usually only landed in wide open spaces.

>the "volocopter" just so happens to be a helicopter too.
About as much as a hoverbike is.

>Uses RC as proof that human sized helicopters are easy to fly-by-wire
bet you think they can fly upside down too.

>>>You can't just add computer control to a conventionally-designed helicopter and get the same maneuverability and precision of a small-rotored multicopter.
>youtube.com/watch?v=0JL04JJjocc
You aren't stupid enough to think this is a counterargument, are you?

>>> survive some gentle bumps when maneuvering it in and out of parking spots
>if you're bumping into stuff, you have problems.
If you assume everything always goes perfectly, you're not thinking realistically.

When it comes to aircraft "inefficient" refers to lift. This translates to travel time and distance. It is extremely important. In fact it is one of the most important things about aircraft.

A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.

It seems I'm talking to someone who does not know a single thing about any aeronautical science. All the proper terms have been used to tell you why, but you keep babbling on like you don't know what they mean.

Tell that to Chuck Aaron. lol

But that is true.

>About as much as a hoverbike is.

It isn't a helicopter. Where are you getting that at?

>Lift efficiency is improved by having a large rotor area

The instant you start making it bigger to support a human, electronics, and payload it is no longer better than a helicopter.

>When it comes to aircraft "inefficient" refers to lift. This translates to travel time and distance. It is extremely important. In fact it is one of the most important things about aircraft.

Well volocopter BTFO that because it has a 20 minute flight time

>A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.
No colinfurze's hoverbike just sucks, it is entirely possible for a well designed one to fly out of ground effect. Even the omni hoverboard which just used fucking batteries managed to rise 15 feet into the air.
>It seems I'm talking to someone who does not know a single thing about any aeronautical science. All the proper terms have been used to tell you why, but you keep babbling on like you don't know what they mean.
I know what efficiency means, what is really important is that you don't know a thing about marketing. All that matters to your autistic mind is perfect aerodynamics.

>A hoverbike isn't a helicopter it is a hovercraft. Hence the "hover". It uses ground effect to maintain better efficiency. This is why the instant you try to get higher, the ground effect is negated, and you drop back down.
Jesus you're stupid.

NOBODY else here has been talking about "hoverbikes" as meaning "bike-shaped hovercraft that can't climb out of ground effect".

There's no reason that a bike-shaped multirotor can't fly higher. Yes, it's inefficient. Yes, it will therefore be relatively short-ranged. No, that doesn't mean nobody will want them for recreational use, or that they won't have any practical applications.

>Needs a highly trained stunt pilot to do
anyway back on topic
>It isn't a helicopter. Where are you getting that at?
A helicopter is anything with one or more powered rotors
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter
But for the purposes of this argument a helicopter is the thing you are defending, the single rotor variable pitch type.
>The instant you start making it bigger to support a human, electronics, and payload it is no longer better than a helicopter.
My god it's like banging my head against a brick wall
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME
I KNOW MULTIROTORS ARE LESS EFFICIENT THAN HELICOPTERS
BUT THEY CAN DO SOME THINGS MORE EASILY AND CHEAPER THAN A HELICOPTER
LIKE LAND IN A PARKING SPACE NEAR A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD WITHOUT CUTTING HER HEAD OFF
NOT NEEDING A PILOT
AND NOT COSTING A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS

>Well volocopter BTFO that because it has a 20 minute flight time

It is a helicopter though. also, 20mins of flight time is shit when you are looking for a place to land because human error fucked something up at your LZ.

>hoverbike isn't a hovercraft even though it says "hover" in the name and is only ever supposed to be "low flying" using ground effect.

Oh shit dude, really? This thread is so over. You've dropped off the deep end here.

>marketing

You mean Cool Factor? Like what was stated 50 posts ago? Yeah, hoverbikes have a much higher cool factor than helicopters. But, their many limitations won't let them become as popular as you want them to be.

>sudden realization that a hoverbike is just a hovercraft
>got rekt hard
>damage control "DAMAGE CONTROL" in all caps

Dude. I don't even.

>NOBODY else here has been talking about "hoverbikes" as meaning "bike-shaped hovercraft that can't climb out of ground effect".

Then don't use the term "hoverbike". Or did you not know what that meant?

>But for the purposes of this argument a helicopter is the thing you are defending, the single rotor variable pitch type.

No, I'm talking about helicopters in general. That includes the volocopter. Hoverbikes are not helicopters.

Lift Inefficiency also means fuel inefficiency which makes them more expensive to operate. Which is fine if you have a super cheap power source like solar powered batteries. That can lower the costs. But, the same thing can be done with a helicopter and has been done already....and it performs better than your non-ground effect hoverbike or whatever that thing has turned into now (a unicorn maybe?)

It is a helicopter though.
They are all helicopters you mongoloid. What is the difference between the Volo and the Omni? Go on tell me? Both are electric fixed pitch fly-by-wire direct drive multirotors only difference is one you stand on, the other you sit under. Totally different to the swashplate and transmission mechanical joystick controlled machine you are defending.
> because human error fucked something up at your LZ.
There's no human error because it's autonomous and you would fly with some reserve power.
>hoverbike isn't a hovercraft even though it says "hover" in the name and is only ever supposed to be "low flying" using ground effect.
First of all do hoverboards hover? Second of all you are assuming hoverbikes are hovercraft after seeing a few budget demonstrations.
>But, their many limitations won't let them become as popular as you want them to be.
Well we will just have to sit back and see how well the Volo and Omni do.

...

>No, I'm talking about helicopters in general. That includes the volocopter. Hoverbikes are not helicopters.
You're cherrypicking, your moving the goalposts you're doing all kinds of autist shit to avoid the fact that the success of the Volocopter kills your argument dead. The Omni hoverboard flew as high as the Volocopter did and even had less rotors so it was ironically more efficient as well. Just because it has the word hover in id doesn't mean it's a GEV
>Lift Inefficiency also means fuel inefficiency which makes them more expensive to operate
First of all why are you still harping on about efficiency? Secondly you save on maintenance costs and the one off purchase costs. finally 20 minutes of electric power isn't that expensive.

Anyway If you throw out one more efficiency based argument I am just going to ignore it. we have already said a million times that this isn't a significant concern from a sales perspective. You don't have any other arguments apart from "it's inefficient"

Fucking autists man.They're stuck in their world of numbers, can't comprehend market trends and niches.

>There's no human error

You doubt the power of stupidity?

>It is a helicopter though.

lol No. In no definition is a hoverbike a helicopter. Just use a car. If you want to fly, use an actual helicopter. We all know what a hoverbike is, except you.

>one you stand on

That's a "man blender". A completely worthless invention that heralds the stupidity of the Engineering class when left to their own devices. Given how deadly you think single rotor helicopters are around little children in a parking lot, you may be horrified when someone lands on a child with this thing and it becomes confetti.

>the other you sit under

This is a correct and more stable design that is properly engineered.

That isn't cherry picking, that's repeating the same thing 20 times in the same thread and someone else moving goalposts to suit their ignorance.

Volocopter is a helicopter. LOL

>Omni hoverboard

That's not a hoverboard, it doesn't rely on ground effect.

Good luck getting 20 more minutes of charge time while stuck in pattern waiting for shit to clear in the LZ during an emergency.

You're just an ignorant dumbshit that knows fucking nothing about aircraft, real world markets, real world trends, and thinks a "niche" is something big.

I can tell you one thing. Pro-hoverbike people are right up there with the flatearth, pyramid power, perpetual motion and overunity crowd.

>"man blender"
Chicken wire doesn't exist right?
>This is a correct and more stable design that is properly engineered.
You claim to be an engineering genius yet spout the pendulum rocket fallacy? The Omni board was perfectly stable.
>That isn't cherry picking, that's repeating the same thing 20 times in the same thread and someone else moving goalposts to suit their ignorance
And i told you 20 fucking times that inefficiency doesn't fucking matter yet you still repeat "inefficiency" like a fucking autist
>That's not a hoverboard, it doesn't rely on ground effect.
It's a board you hover on, ground effect has nothing to do with it.
>I can tell you one thing. Pro-hoverbike people are right up there with the flatearth, pyramid power, perpetual motion and overunity crowd.
Okay kid.

fuck man I'm gonna remember this, when i sell my first hoverbike I'll remember when Veeky Forums told me that the idea was pyramid power-tier tinfoil bullshit

>inefficiency doesn't fucking matter

Laughable. Really.

>hoverboard

It really is just a coolfactor name they gave it. It really isn't a hoverboard.

>I'm working on an electric version, even simpler and safer than petrol.
>when i sell my first hoverbike

Pics of what you have made so far?

>Veeky Forums told me that the idea was pyramid power-tier tinfoil bullshit

English not your first language or do you have bad reading comprehension? The statement said that you are like people who believe in that stuff. Ergo, you are completely ignorant, nay willfully ignorant.