Electric Multicopter With Human Pilot - That's Some Risky Flying (Video)

Recent test flight of the e-volo multicopter with real human pilot  (photo: e-volo)

 
For more crazy stuff, check out the German HexaKopter video from February 2010

 
 Oh sure, at first glance this 16-motor (electric) multicopter aircraft from the German company e-volo is pretty cool looking with an actual human pilot onboard, but I have to say I think we are at an important crossroads with the future of flying machine design, and I think we're taking the wrong road. I could be wrong here, but the idea of using 100% thrust-vectoring to achieve flight is very high risk... in fact I'd say it's just too risky. And it's not just the thrust-vectoring element that concerns me, more on that in a minute.

 Don't misunderstand, I think there's a lot of promise with what's been done here, I just don't think human beings with souls should be onboard. (Feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether humans without souls should be flying one of these!) The positive here is that we see a large-scale and very practical multicopter with a significant payload capacity, which means that the UAV applications for these kind of machines continues to widen. However, having just said that, the same risks that make this too risky in my mind for humans on board mostly still apply to having lots of these things flying unmanned overhead. So I guess I'm conflicted about the real practicality of the direction we're headed. And if I'm concerned about all this, can you imagine what the fine folks at the FAA are thinking?!

 The primary things that really concern me are the reliance on electrical systems and computer control to keep us alive when we're off the ground... well, that and the lack of a wing of some sort that can still provide lift when all power has been lost. Now there's no doubt that aircraft like the General Dynamics F-16 ushered in a whole new era of electric and computer control back in the mid 1970's, and they've been very successful. But, much the same way that the Boeing 787 now relies very heavily on computer control, these kinds of aircraft have billions in research behind them, millions in production costs, and a vast amount of system redundancy.

 Small general aviation flying machines don't have that luxury. And while I understand how reliable the transmitters, receivers and servos are with modern RC aircraft, the truth is that these systems do sometimes fail. And when you add the wild, ongoing dream (pushed by Popular Mechanics and Popular Science) that someday the average guy is gonna have some sort of flying machine, I turn and run the other way. Have you been paying attention to how ignorant, dumb and/or stupid the average guy is these days? I don't mean this to be a put down to the average guy on the street, but I sincerely hope we don't ever try to get these people into the pilot's seat of a flying machine. Maybe you weren't around in the 80's when ultralights began attracting massive numbers of non-pilots. I was, and I remember a lot of people died because they had very little idea what they were doing, but they had affordable and relatively easy access to a flying machine.

 And then you've got that lack-of-a-wing issue. I'm a fan of BRS systems, and I'm glad that we have them available, but when you have an aircraft that HAS to go the route of a BRS when all power is lost, I think you've traveled down the wrong road. This is where I hit a hurdle with the Martin Jetpack as well. Would I fly one if given the opportunity? I think so. But that doesn't change my thought that I hope they don't become popular. I just think there's too much at risk overall.

 There's no doubt that I don't have all the answers here, but I'm a really strong believer in making inexepensive aircraft as low tech as possible when it comes to the systems that simply have to work to keep you alive. You just can't beat the reliability of cables and pushrods to drive the control surfaces or other critical systems. I'll admit that I've dreamed many times about what simple fly-by-wire systems would do for making a homebuilt aircraft much easier to build, and for adding some slick programmability, but I keep coming back to the unacceptable risk of failure.

 And flying without a wing, (fixed, rotary, inflated or whatever else) with 100% reliance on thrust-vectoring seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The public perception of aircraft safety is a really big issue going forward. I hope we're very careful about which road we take into the future.

What do you think?