> Check in at the LIFT location coming soon to your city. Before your first flight, you'll sign a waiver and watch our orientation and safety videos.
> ...
> When in Beginner mode, you will go through an on-screen tutorial - learning maneuvers just like in the simulator. After the tutorial, you will be free to fly around the designated, geofenced flight area for the remainder of your 8-15 minute flight. Build flight experience and unlock Sport and Group flying modes.
It is exempt from license requirements, not FAA regulations. Ultralights and paragliders are the same way. Most anyone can buy and fly a powered or unpowered ultralight without a license as long as they comply with the FAA's strict regulations:
It's a powered ultralight aircraft, which is covered under part 103 of the FAA regulations.
There are no licensing, knowledge, age, experience, or medical requirements for pilots of ultralights.
For the aircraft itself there are no certification standards, other than it has to meet the definition of a powered ultralight. That is:
-only one seat
-is only used for recreational or sport flying
-does not have an airworthiness certificate
-weighs less that 254 pounds empty (not counting safety equipment and floats)
-has a maximum fuel capacity of 5 gallons
-does not exceed 63 mph in level flight at full power
-power off stall speed does not exceed 28 mph
Ultralights can only be flown between sunrise and sunset, unless they have an anti-collision light visible for 3 miles and are in uncontrolled airspace in which they can fly 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.
They cannot be flown over any congested area or over an open air assembly of people.
I don't see how that fits under 254 pounds, unless they stretch the meaning of safety equipment. Most ultralights I've seen are the thinnest scaffolding for a wing or parachute holding a tiny engine and a seat. Maybe the materials are some new composite?
I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average? Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight" towards my design?
The FARs make no provision to exclude the weight of anything other than safety equipment (to include floatation). The battery weights don’t count only so long as they’re left behind.
it's the "empty" part. I assume the 5 gallons of fuel are not included in the 254 lbs, just the fuel container. They could argue a battery's weight shouldn't be included because it's fuel. I doubt they'd be successful, but I don't know. If they are, then you take that to an extreme and make a cockpit frame out of batteries, and you got a frame for no "weight cost".
If the batteries are removable and can only be charged outside the drone, then I can see the argument for not counting them as part of the empty plane (since they are something you put in to fly, analogous to aviation fuel). But I don't think that argument would fly once the batteries have a structural purpose.
> In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment.
They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
I wouldn't fuck with the FAA, their interpretation of what they say is what's really the law, not what's written in the FAR.
About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.
This seems wild to me (I believe you, it's just wild). A quadcopter has to be registered above 250 grams, this requirement goes away if there's a human inside?? Feels like this area between an unmanned drone and the smallest manned airplane is missing regulation.
Not every space needs to be regulated. Presently, ultra lights aren't crowded and adhere to rules. Once people want to use these to simplify their commutes it will become a regulated space.
While true in the general sense, I specifically think this particular space should be. This is an insane device to sell to someone without requiring any licensing or training. I honestly feel the same way about my 249g drone, to a lesser extent--I should have needed to prove that I'm not an idiot before firing it up, but I didn't have to. I both injured myself and lost the drone because I actually am an idiot. I can't imagine what kind of mess I could get into with this size of device.
i think it makes sense that there's a lot of regulation in an industry where products are widely available, and there's not a lot of regulation in an industry where products don't exist beyond a few isolated prototypes.
this seems like an example of regulatory systems working in a sane way. regulation should follow reality, not lead it.
not allowing anything to exist until there is regulation specifically allowing that thing to exist sounds like an excellent way to stifle all innovation and experimentation in the world.
Its remote controlled as well as being locally piloted. Its a drone that happens to also have local controls.
“Every second of your flight is monitored by our highly trained and licensed primary and secondary flight controllers, with whom you’ll have radio communication who and can take over remote control of your aircraft at any time, if necessary.”
A decade ago 8-15 minutes on an electric aircraft like this would be impossible. A decade from now we’ll be to an hour, which I’m sure would cover 99% of cases unless you really want to be droning state to state haha
> A decade ago 8-15 minutes on an electric aircraft like this would be impossible. A decade from now we’ll be to an hour, which I’m sure would cover 99% of cases unless you really want to be droning state to state haha
Be careful about projecting from hype directed at investors but not actually publicly available.
I mean, if we projected from Moller skycar PR from the 1990s on (when it was heavily marketed to investors and first made available for preorders) the sky would be filled with personal VTOLs today.
Moller goes back much further than the 1990s. Here's the product brochure from 1974.[1] Full-scale production in 1976! Called "Discojet Corporation" back then.
I'm just wondering how the hell the couple are going to exit the Discojet vehicle?
Just thinking about the sheer amount of energy required to lift two adults, especially when that Discojet was rotary-engine powered. I came unstuck as a small child in the early 80s trying to make a drone after watching Runaway (1984). I quickly realized I could never generate enough thrust with the parts I had to lift the vehicle AND its power source and had to settle for a very disappointing tethered craft.
I have no interest in this device or what they promise, I'm just projecting based on the technological advancements I've experienced in my (relatively) short life.
Yeah, it says "LIFT doesn't sell aircraft, we're the first company in the world to offer electric multi-rotor flying as an experience". Their marketing is also to investors and they might sell aircraft in the future but right now it's just short supervised (ground station) flights.
San Franciscans are already upset about the Cruise cars[1]; can't wait to see how delighted they'll be to see/hear these loud drones buzzing around over the City.
Super wobbly. Looks like the structure holding the rotors together has a lot of flex in it. Makes my engineering brain panic.
I could see this being a rescue device for difficult terrain where a helicopter can't fit.
Recently some coast guard pilots had to risk their lives to save a dog on a hard to reach beach. This thing could have zipped into a tighter space than a chopper and been out in under 15 minutes.
Is many small propellers really more efficient than few big ones? Even if they didn't want to make a mini-helicopter, they could've also went with a 3-4 rotor design.
I'd assume it's more about redundancy - 1/18 failed motors vs 1/4 would be much safer to land. Also means the replacement motors would be cheaper (individually). Like the starship booster.
And having more redundancy presumably means you can build each one cheaper and don't have to inspect them as much.
Smallish helicopters aren't that expensive. Maintenance and fuel are though. Going electric already helps with the fuel, going for many motors helps with the maintenance.
I worked in this space for years. The answer is no. If you evolve a multirotor design to be more and more efficient you will end up with fewer, larger rotors, until the time comes that you require variable pitch to have sufficient control bandwidth. At which point you have a helo.
You can take it a step further and have a counterweighted single blade propeller, which is the most efficient.
That being said, this is only aero efficiency. Once you start to add electric motor efficiency, things get interesting. To generate thrust with lower number of blades you need to have large torque torque to put into the prop , which means the motor has to be a low Kv (Kv = rpm/volt, and a low Kv means a high Kt where Kt = torque/amp), to keep the current lower to lessen electrical power losses. Or use a reduction gearbox. Both of the above necessitate a bigger package and more weight, which requires more thrust, and so on.
There is a place in this design space where having multiple rotors is actually more efficient for the overall flight envelope.
Others have built human-scale multirotor electric aircraft. eHang has been demoing theirs for years.[1] eHang has 16 motors and 16 props. They've been through a few iterations on the design, so they're past the prototype stage. But they seem to be kind of stuck. These drone-based things are so limited in range due to battery capacity and weight constraints that they are not yet useful.
Aviation Week and AAM have a "reality index" for companies in this space. Currently, Joby Aviation and Volocopter lead, followed by a three-way tie between Archer Aviation, Beta Technologies and EHang.[2]
Joby [3] is a 6-prop tilt rotor with a minimal wing. It can take off and land vertically, but flies more like an ordinary aircraft. This takes less energy than helicopter mode. Joby's range record is 151 miles in a 77 minute flight, going round and round over an airport. This is a complicated aircraft and takes a skilled pilot plus considerable computer power.
Volocopter [4] has 2 seats, 18 props, and really good renders on their web site.
They're demoing at the Paris Air Show, starting tomorrow. They're working, slowly, towards type certification in Europe, then certification as an air carrier. Range limit maybe 60 miles.
There's still the clown car of the industry - Moller. Real Soon Now for over 50 years.[5] Apparently "inactive", but the web site is still up. They once did get a prototype, running on a large number of small Wankel engines, to hover while connected to a crane for backup.
I’ve often wondered if smallish internal combustion engines (with variable pitch propellers presumably) could increase range at the cost of some weight. Maybe someone familiar with the trade offs could comment?
Well yes, helicopters with internal combustion engines have been working fine for a while now. But if the engine is mechanically coupled to the rotor then it will need variable pitch blades in order to maintain control. Combustion engines can't change speed as quickly as electric motors can.
What you say about helicopters not being able to change speed on the rotor and requiring blade pitch is true, but at the size of helicopters, it has far less to do with the speed at which the engine can change RPMs as just pure inertia of the giant helicopter blade. I am a helicopter pilot, and I can generally adjust the speed of the engine much more rapidly than the rotor speed itself adjusts. I suspect that's a large part of the reason for the multiple rotors on this drone. If they get larger, you're no longer able to rapidly adjust the speed of it just from pure inertia.
There's also the Jetson One, which looks real, and they're also accepting orders.
..Although I'm not sure I would feel safe flying a 4 rotor thing. Well, they're 8 but in 4 pairs on the same axis; a big enough bird or a hit on something hard enough would probably destroy 2 propellers at the same time, and the aircraft is rated for sustaining the loss of only one. Cool nonetheless.
If this isn't a scam it's bullshit, for a number of reasons:
- in the cities of developed countries is forbidden to fly drones so big almost everywhere;
- in the same cities is forbidden to fly or landing ultralight plane ;
- this vehicle falls in both the previous categories, so that photos in urban areas are bullshit : you can't use that to go to the office and no cities will give the authorisation to rent that stuff as electric bike to everyone. That will never happen !
- How you can possibly guarantee the security with that kind of vehicle around, against criminal and terrorist ? Providing Stinger Missiles and Apache helicopters to the police ? Shooting down drones with machine guns inside the city in WWI style duels ? Oh, please ! :-)
- I imagine flock of this toys, piloted by drunken pilots, raining down Saturday night ! :-)
That admitting that this project is feasible: observing the photos of that vehicle, I can not see space for the batteries because, as described in the specs, it should float, so the landing support should be empty to guarantee buoyancy, they say batteries are far from the pilot to guarantee thermal protection, so they can't be under the seat and above the cabin should be the "ballistic parachute". So where are they ? In the pylons of the motors ? But in that case they won't be easily interchangeable are declared in the specs ! And that magic "hybrid technology" that should solve all the autonomy problems? No details at all , another red flag. So the photos of the "prototype" IMHO are more a Photoshop exercise than reality.
According to this video [0], each motor has its own battery. So presumably they're in the cylindrical enclosures under each motor (it briefly shows one being replaced).
I just saw the video, I think that's plausible and notably the test flight seems last only few minutes without the magic "hybrid technology" they mention in the presentation, as expected. I agree with one think the guy says in the video, the only purpose of that machine is to make people enjoy the thrill of flight, aka amusement parks.
81 comments
[ 6.1 ms ] story [ 76.4 ms ] threadCurious how this is exempt from FAA regulations.
It looks neat and all, but it goes without saying... what could possibly go wrong?!
> Check in at the LIFT location coming soon to your city. Before your first flight, you'll sign a waiver and watch our orientation and safety videos.
> ...
> When in Beginner mode, you will go through an on-screen tutorial - learning maneuvers just like in the simulator. After the tutorial, you will be free to fly around the designated, geofenced flight area for the remainder of your 8-15 minute flight. Build flight experience and unlock Sport and Group flying modes.
edit:
Looks like this is just their 1st step: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKs0k7LCM8
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aviation-interests/ultralights/getti...
There are no licensing, knowledge, age, experience, or medical requirements for pilots of ultralights.
For the aircraft itself there are no certification standards, other than it has to meet the definition of a powered ultralight. That is:
Ultralights can only be flown between sunrise and sunset, unless they have an anti-collision light visible for 3 miles and are in uncontrolled airspace in which they can fly 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.They cannot be flown over any congested area or over an open air assembly of people.
I'm also curious how the FAA will determine max fuel capacity for an electric aircraft. Does battery weight count in the "empty" calculation? Is there an amp-hour-to-gallon average? Could I make a frame out of batteries to get "free weight" towards my design?
You are free to weigh an electric airplane with the battery discharged, just as you can an ultralight without fuel in it.
[0] https://www.liftaircraft.com/aircraft
> In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs, and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment.
They may be arguing that the weight of the landing gear counts as floats, which might be true. They may also be wishfully interpreting the FARs and on schedule to learn an expensive lesson in due time. (If so, they wouldn’t be the first startup to pretend the FARs said something other than they did.)
About 30 years ago a pilot in a floatplane was on step as he went under a bridge (he was still in the water, but the floats ride closer to the surface than when it's at near-idle speeds). When the FAA somehow got wind of this, they really put the screws on him because in their interpretation he was flying under the bridge (very illegal), even though he wasn't airborne. Nowhere to my knowledge did the FARs make this distinction between floating and flying. You'd think in a case like this they'd let it go, maybe update the rules to clarify, but they really went after him for it.
(Not an endorsement, it looks like investor story time to me, just that they still have a pretty solid incentive to not kill people)
Large boats are like this too (over 80ft requires salaried captain though).
this seems like an example of regulatory systems working in a sane way. regulation should follow reality, not lead it.
There was a push, years back, to not use the word, but eventually everyone caved.
This thing is just a beefcake of a quadcopter, sorta, so I'm not surprised to see that word thrown around.
Also, the company doesn't seem to use that word on the homepage, at least.
Its remote controlled as well as being locally piloted. Its a drone that happens to also have local controls.
“Every second of your flight is monitored by our highly trained and licensed primary and secondary flight controllers, with whom you’ll have radio communication who and can take over remote control of your aircraft at any time, if necessary.”
It looks like a (huge) drone so it's called a drone.
We badly need a battery revolution...
(Or Tesla-style power-beaming)
Be careful about projecting from hype directed at investors but not actually publicly available.
I mean, if we projected from Moller skycar PR from the 1990s on (when it was heavily marketed to investors and first made available for preorders) the sky would be filled with personal VTOLs today.
[1] http://downside.com/scams/moller/
Just thinking about the sheer amount of energy required to lift two adults, especially when that Discojet was rotary-engine powered. I came unstuck as a small child in the early 80s trying to make a drone after watching Runaway (1984). I quickly realized I could never generate enough thrust with the parts I had to lift the vehicle AND its power source and had to settle for a very disappointing tethered craft.
> What’s the maximum distance you expect HEXA to be able to fly with this hybrid version?
> a. 60-90 miles in 60 minutes
source: https://www.liftaircraft.com/_files/ugd/ce21ec_0e727e43682b4...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/onlyinbritain/getty-...
Too sad the marketing bullshit obfuscate what is the target here.
Seems like that is their target.
I thought that would be obvious… so side question: how would you have phrased it?
[1] https://twitter.com/Cruise/status/1667549213557927936
I could see this being a rescue device for difficult terrain where a helicopter can't fit.
Recently some coast guard pilots had to risk their lives to save a dog on a hard to reach beach. This thing could have zipped into a tighter space than a chopper and been out in under 15 minutes.
think palm tree vs oak tree in the wind
Smallish helicopters aren't that expensive. Maintenance and fuel are though. Going electric already helps with the fuel, going for many motors helps with the maintenance.
The range of an electric helicopter is going to make it impractical, and I doubt that's going to change any time soon.
Gas stores energy in 100x less weight than lithium ion. Electric motors are 2x more efficient.
You're still going to need space and weight for ~50x more battery, which is hard to come by...
That being said, this is only aero efficiency. Once you start to add electric motor efficiency, things get interesting. To generate thrust with lower number of blades you need to have large torque torque to put into the prop , which means the motor has to be a low Kv (Kv = rpm/volt, and a low Kv means a high Kt where Kt = torque/amp), to keep the current lower to lessen electrical power losses. Or use a reduction gearbox. Both of the above necessitate a bigger package and more weight, which requires more thrust, and so on.
There is a place in this design space where having multiple rotors is actually more efficient for the overall flight envelope.
Others have built human-scale multirotor electric aircraft. eHang has been demoing theirs for years.[1] eHang has 16 motors and 16 props. They've been through a few iterations on the design, so they're past the prototype stage. But they seem to be kind of stuck. These drone-based things are so limited in range due to battery capacity and weight constraints that they are not yet useful.
Aviation Week and AAM have a "reality index" for companies in this space. Currently, Joby Aviation and Volocopter lead, followed by a three-way tie between Archer Aviation, Beta Technologies and EHang.[2]
Joby [3] is a 6-prop tilt rotor with a minimal wing. It can take off and land vertically, but flies more like an ordinary aircraft. This takes less energy than helicopter mode. Joby's range record is 151 miles in a 77 minute flight, going round and round over an airport. This is a complicated aircraft and takes a skilled pilot plus considerable computer power.
Volocopter [4] has 2 seats, 18 props, and really good renders on their web site. They're demoing at the Paris Air Show, starting tomorrow. They're working, slowly, towards type certification in Europe, then certification as an air carrier. Range limit maybe 60 miles.
There's still the clown car of the industry - Moller. Real Soon Now for over 50 years.[5] Apparently "inactive", but the web site is still up. They once did get a prototype, running on a large number of small Wankel engines, to hover while connected to a crane for backup.
[1] https://www.ehang.com/
[2] https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/advanced-air-mobility/lea...
[3] https://www.jobyaviation.com/
[5] https://moller.com/
[4] https://www.volocopter.com/
..Although I'm not sure I would feel safe flying a 4 rotor thing. Well, they're 8 but in 4 pairs on the same axis; a big enough bird or a hit on something hard enough would probably destroy 2 propellers at the same time, and the aircraft is rated for sustaining the loss of only one. Cool nonetheless.
https://jetson.com/jetson-one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAVwYIvmNEM
Very strange vibes indeed.
- in the cities of developed countries is forbidden to fly drones so big almost everywhere;
- in the same cities is forbidden to fly or landing ultralight plane ;
- this vehicle falls in both the previous categories, so that photos in urban areas are bullshit : you can't use that to go to the office and no cities will give the authorisation to rent that stuff as electric bike to everyone. That will never happen !
- How you can possibly guarantee the security with that kind of vehicle around, against criminal and terrorist ? Providing Stinger Missiles and Apache helicopters to the police ? Shooting down drones with machine guns inside the city in WWI style duels ? Oh, please ! :-)
- I imagine flock of this toys, piloted by drunken pilots, raining down Saturday night ! :-)
That admitting that this project is feasible: observing the photos of that vehicle, I can not see space for the batteries because, as described in the specs, it should float, so the landing support should be empty to guarantee buoyancy, they say batteries are far from the pilot to guarantee thermal protection, so they can't be under the seat and above the cabin should be the "ballistic parachute". So where are they ? In the pylons of the motors ? But in that case they won't be easily interchangeable are declared in the specs ! And that magic "hybrid technology" that should solve all the autonomy problems? No details at all , another red flag. So the photos of the "prototype" IMHO are more a Photoshop exercise than reality.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKs0k7LCM8