The sixty four thousand dollar question.... What does the pilot do if there is a dead stick on one of the rotors? Will the computer get the flying machine home OK?

All I know, or think I know, is on the video.
I see the possibility of engineering some of the high risk "Gotchas" out of the machines, and them being more "pilot friendly".....
Probably will not develop very fast unless DOD dumps a bunch of money on top of it.

They need to talk the US ARMY into it. They will all get rich fast!

It appears to be a lot quieter than the old Hueys! That's a problem that doesn't need solving....

Littlecub wrote:It appears to be a lot quieter than the old Hueys! That's a problem that doesn't need solving....

On quite day I could hear them 5 miles away coming in.

The 540 rotor system on a C, M, or AHI-G would make a double tempo whap-whap if you made a very steep energy management turn. The double tempo whap-whap would get Charlie to put his head down and quit shooting at my Scout 0H6-A Loach. I would circle the Loach at 1200,' 40 kts, and 22 lbs of torque so I could immediately roll to 90 degree bank or greater while allowing the nose to fall down onto the target, a red smoke thrown by the gunner in back of the Loach. It would be hard to get a computer to do that kind of thing.

That thing's cool! I'd park one in my backyard. It'll have to do better than 20 minutes of flight first though.

CW

It looks like a lot of added complexity and more hangar space required for storage. What problem does this design solve that offsets those downsides? Change for its own sake works in the automobile industry where different bodies are slapped on the same platform from year to year to entice new sales. That doesn't seem to be a motivation for buying flying machines. If this system doesn't solve some problem or overcome some significant limitation that existing helicopters have, then I don't understand why folks are spending their time on it. I also didn't understand why Cessna (Textron) developed the small Scorpion fighter that doesn't seem to do anything that can't be handled by existing military hardware. Different doesn't necessarily mean better. If there is some major benefit this configuration has over conventional helicopters, I'd be interested in hearing about that. A description of the problem they are solving and why this design approach is the best solution would be an interesting read. For now, this is little more than a design lark. Fun, but not meaningful.

For now, this is little more than a design lark. Fun, but not meaningful.

Yes, you might be right. That is why I placed the question mark at the end of this thread title.

That being said, I can think of a LONG list of "change/improve" goals that, a few of which cover most areas related to both operation and maintenance of helicopters of all sizes.
Maybe since I am a complete "Noob" (rating plus a bit) at flying choppers, I haven't accepted that they are "just fine" the way they are.....

Quad rotor and other multi-rotor configurations are here to stay, but probably wont emerge in the promise of "one in every garage" reality that has been the vision of so many inventors since human flight began. The sophistication and reliability of electronic control systems make this technology reasonably dependable. Batteries will improve, and electricity as a transportation fuel will likely increase. At least it isn't trying to be a car too.

As weird and difficult to maintain as current helicopter designs are, at least they can auto rotate to a landing if they lose power or something in the drivetrain fails. Quads and other copters with multiple rotors can't do that. The only way they can survive a power failure is with a ballistic parachute, and getting one of those to work with all those blades on the topside seems very challenging. I like to see real advances in technology but to succeed, new designs need to solve more problems than they create. There isn't a lot of technical information available about this design, but I don't think it passes that cost/benefit test.

The Army put ten hours of maintenance for every hour of flight to keep the Huey safe. Time life means if you don't change it when nearly new, it can take your life. Everything between the rotor and the "Jesus Nut" is guarenteed to kill you if it fails.