How do I build this? Would it be possible to make one that lasts 5 minutes?
Here's a video of it in operation, it's clearly a drone of some sort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn_afSOwmqo
>>979441
>How do I build this?
learn 2 quadcopter
>Would it be possible to make one that lasts 5 minutes?
you are probably looking at the flight time in that video
When I see these things the first thing I wonder is "why did they try to do it all electric?"
They could get something way more practical if they used gas engines for the main source of lift, and just used the electric fans for controlling the thing (pic related)
this makes way more sense since it is way easier to store energy as fuel, but gas engines don't have the instant throttle response you'd want for control purposes
~~~~~~~~
even so: powered-lift aircraft have fabulously high fuel consumption rates.
the harrier jets can fly normally for like 5 hours, or they can hover for 25 minutes,,, and that's the best that real-actual aerospace companies could manage
>>979474
>Red = electric engines for control
Unnecessary. As light as this platform is, kinesthetic control using the rider's own sense of balance by weight-shift is sufficient. They did this shit 60 years ago with gas engines only.
>>979474
I wouldn't say that hovering fixed-wing aircrafts are necessarily representative of all hovering aircraft.
I think that because there is proportionally less payload for the craft to carry, and that we don't have an unusual shape, we wouldn't see the massive fuel dump characteristic of harrier jets.
>>979474
If that worked someone would have built it by now. It would probably be unstable because the blue thrust overrides the red thrust. Also when you tilt you will lose vertical thrust that the electric has to increase to compensate so you're back to square one. Also say you're lifting an 85 kg person + 25 kg frame that's 110 kg so you would need a big engine to lift that plus itself which is likely around 50 kg and not going to make a nice slim portable board. And then there's the transmission because you can't have two separate motors the throttles won't match perfectly. Basically I think electric actually has better power to weight ratio than gas at the small scale. So better batteries are the answer. perhaps the military has something.
>>979475
That thing was slow as fuck. OP's hoverboard dude is much more nifty.
>>979475
>Unnecessary. As light as this platform is, kinesthetic control using the rider's own sense of balance by weight-shift is sufficient. They did this shit 60 years ago with gas engines only.
yea, and that's why the sky is full of them today.... [nope]
the problem with using no control system other than inertia is that there is no protection against undesirable control states.
weight-shift control can work okay if the rotors [center of lift] were placed above the guy, but it's not safe if the rotors are beneath
(and this is why hang-gliders are hang-beneath-gliders, and not stand-above-gliders)
>>979497
>If that worked someone would have built it by now.
well this is only the second quadcopter-engine-hoverboard I've seen so far. How many are there?
I think these guys used electric motors because they saw quadcopters and looked up how much thrust the bigger motors can have.
They don't have the tools or knowledge to play with ultralight engines.
>It would probably be unstable because the blue thrust overrides the red thrust. Also when you tilt you will lose vertical thrust that the electric has to increase to compensate so you're back to square one.
you seem to imply that it isn't possible to use more than one propeller?
then how come the OP's one has a bunch of propellers, and it works?
In OP's video, it looks like there are battery packs taped to the frame that the guy is standing on.
If that is true, then this thing isn't ever going to have a useful flight time with a person on it.
>>979505
>In OP's video, it looks like there are battery packs taped to the frame that the guy is standing on.
>If that is true, then this thing isn't ever going to have a useful flight time with a person on it.
This is very negative, technology does improve you know, That thing could be flying for 5-10 minutes in a few years you never know. Going to the Moon was impossible a hundred years ago...
>>979497
>That thing was slow as fuck.
Thats because it was too stable. Stable > killing yourself
>>979497
>That thing was slow as fuck. OP's hoverboard dude is much more nifty.
Not really. I haven't seen it go any faster than like 5 mph in any of the videos.
For comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3FS3D1rCos
>>979505
>yea, and that's why the sky is full of them today.... [nope]
The reason the sky isn't full of them is because they're fucking useless beyond sheer novelty. This "hoverboard" is no different.
>weight-shift control can work okay if the rotors [center of lift] were placed above the guy, but it's not safe if the rotors are beneath (and this is why hang-gliders are hang-beneath-gliders, and not stand-above-gliders)
Wrong, it works fine either way. Lrn2physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_rocket_fallacy
The Hiller platform, the Flying Pulpit and the DeLackner Aerocycle ALL worked via kinesthetic control, despite the rotor/nozzle being beneath the rider's feet in all three cases.
>>979441
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_paraglider
Pic related typically have somewhere from 30-120m of flight time.
The pack is 50-100lb so it is very reasonable to walk a short distance or get a running start for ascent. Uses real fuel and not battery shit with useless power density for human conveyance.
Typical top speed of 25-35mph in the air.
Quads are a meme, these things have been around for over a decade.
>>979573
Remember when rockets were just fireworks? Im tired of the pessimistic attitudes on the internet, if it were up to people like you technology would get nowhere. You see "novelty" I see "potential. If someone can get flight times up to 10 minutes and speeds up to 30 mph thats a 5 mile range. Thats good enough for leisure/getting across a ravine or swamp or something.
>>979597
needs a shitload of training, chute may get tangled
>>979601
>pessimistic attitudes
Dude, I'm telling you the technology already exists to do what you want, TODAY. The Pawnee had twice the range you're looking for - SIXTY YEARS AGO. That doesn't make it a practical mode of transportation, though.
If you want one, quit making excuses and build one. Just don't expect all of society to jump onboard along with you.
>>979604
>needs a shitload of training
0/10 pants on fire
look at the link IN THAT POST
"In many countries, including the United States, powered paragliding is minimally regulated and requires no license."
"U.S. pilots operate under Federal Aviation Administration regulation Part 103."
If you're unfamiliar (and if so, don't post in aviation threads) part 103 means no training, no certification, no license. Absolutely zero, the only restrictions are in places you'd also see quads (and even kites/etc) banned.
And yes, you can sit in one of thse, launch off a hill, and fly with absolutely zero training. 12yo kids do it at summer camps.
take a look at
http://hackaday.com/2016/04/14/hoverboards-are-here-if-youre-crazy-enough-to-try/
uses 4 mini jet engines
Why not just become a helicopter pilot
>>979610
It weighed 400 lbs, was hard to maneuver, was extremely loud and probably cost tens of thousands. The electric version can be carried by hand, turns easily, isn't that much louder than a normal drone and looks like it was put together with hobby parts it's clearly not the same.
>>979613
This is not a true VTOL system also it cannot be automated. What if you wanted to go straight up a cliff? What if you wanted to land in a really specific meter wide spot? What if you wanted to conduct a task in the air on a stationary object?
This is what I'm talking about, ridiculously narrow minded, unwilling to try different ways just because one already exists. Your attitudes is like saying the Harrier Jump Jet is pointless because we've already worked out how to land a plane on a aircraft carrier's short runway with wires and hooks. Just because a method works doesn't mean it's ideal, also doesn't mean an alternate method isn't worth pursuing. In engineering nothing is perfect. Paragliders have longer range but they are't VTOL, electric hoverboards have VTOL but they have short range. There are people out there who would prefer the perfect VTOL and automation over the long range. You can't satisfy the entire world market with one product.
>>979497
>If that worked someone would have built it by now.
That is one of the only truly idiotic things man can ever say. the idea that everything that can be invented already has, even in simple mechanical engineering, is completely retarded and will be false for the continuation of eternity.
>>979792
>>979787
See you in 2080 then.
You're trying to tell us that you can do this with something that weighs five pounds and fits in a backpack. Until you can do that and prove it, they will NEVER be more than a novelty. What the fuck do you do with it after you land? Push it on caster wheels to the next spot? How do you charge/fuel it if any fuel or batteries you brought with you would have had to be carried in flight and you're already near max transport weight as it is? How do you stop it from being a useless piece of dragwood after one flight?
You sound like an uneducated PopSci-reading 'futurist'.
>>979844
Not five pounds, 50 pounds maybe, you can still carry that. And your 2080 claim what do you base that upon? What was technology like 64 years ago? Technology advances exponentially. It's entirely possible that electric hoverboards can fly 10 minutes by 2020. I never said I can do it but someone will. The military probably already has the batteries or fuel cell even.
>>979839
Tell that to these guys.
>>979787
>It weighed 400 lbs
True, and this is probably where you stand to gain the most from technological/materials advances.
>was hard to maneuver
Patently false. It's maneuverability and ease of flight were two of its notable strong points.
>was extremely loud
Aircraft generally are.
>and probably cost tens of thousands.
To be fair, you can probably expect to pay $10-20k to build an electric "hoverboard" like the Omni too. Cheaper, yes, but you also pay for it in flight time.
>The electric version . . . isn't that much louder than a normal drone
It may be quieter than a gas one, but it's still a shitload noisier than a "normal drone."
>and looks like it was put together with hobby parts it's clearly not the same.
It's definitely different in many ways, that's for certain. But from a rider/controls standpoint it IS the same.
>>979881
>Technology advances exponentially.
SOME technology advances exponentially. Battery technology is not one of those technologies.
>The military probably already has the batteries
They use the same li-ion batteries everyone else uses for most applications. When that's not good enough, they use non-rechargable silver-oxide batteries (same shit that powered the lunar rover), or in extreme cases, molten salt batteries.
>I never said I can do it but someone will.
Well then fuck off. This is /diy/. If you want to masturbate to hypothetical future technology then go to /sci/ (or maybe /x/ since you seem to think the military is hiding seekrit ayylmao battery technologeez).
>>979914
>True, and this is probably where you stand to gain the most from technological/materials advances.
You trashed the portability of the electric version and now you are advocating a 400 lbs gas version?
>Patently false. It's maneuverability and ease of flight were two of its notable strong points.
Nope it was ditched because it was too stable . In forward flight it wanted to tip up due to aerodynamics.
>Aircraft generally are.
And the electric version is quieter. The less noise the better.
>Battery technology is not one of those technologies
I would just like to know where did you get your PhD in battery design to know that they will never ever be able to keep a person in the air for 15 minutes.
>Well then fuck off. This is /diy/. If you want to masturbate to hypothetical future technology then go to /sci/
I came here to find out how to make one that can fly for 3-5 minutes it's written clearly in the OP. I have met nothing but defeatist cynical attitudes. You're the one not being /diy/ the whole point of this board is to try out things.
>>979927
>You trashed the portability of the electric version and now you are advocating a 400 lbs gas version?
You're arguing with more than one person, pal.
>Nope it was ditched because it was too stable . In forward flight it wanted to tip up due to aerodynamics.
So speed = "maneuverability?" Fine, then by that reasoning it had poor "maneuverability."
>I would just like to know where did you get your PhD in battery design to know that they will never ever be able to keep a person in the air for 15 minutes.
And you know, I'm willing to bet it could with another 50-100 lbs of batteries, or a high-power 2-stroke gas generator.
>I came here to find out how to make one that can fly for 3-5 minutes it's written clearly in the OP.
And I showed you that it not only can be done, but has been done before multiple times in several different ways... yet you proceeded to dismiss it. And I'M somehow the cynical one?
>I have met nothing but defeatist cynical attitudes.
No, you just have selective hearing.
>You're the one not being /diy/ the whole point of this board is to try out things.
Not once have I told you not to try it. At most, I've merely pointed out that the practicality of this thing is rather limited. I still think it's a neat, novel machine (if only just-for-fun) and totally worth building if you're up to it.
>>979956
>And you know, I'm willing to bet it could with another 50-100 lbs of batteries
That's retarded, current battery power can't lift a 180 lb person plus 100 lb of batteries much less fly for 15x longer than that dude did, plus you would need ridiculously powerful hence heavy motors to lift all that. Why would you even suggest this? Am I even arguing with a guy who actually knows how multirotors work?
>high-power 2-stroke gas generator.
I bet you the military has something, in fact I think their Sikorsky Cypher uses hybrid technology. And remember they have fuel cells too.
>Not once have I told you not to try it. At most, I've merely pointed out that the practicality of this thing is rather limited. I still think it's a neat, novel machine (if only just-for-fun) and totally worth building if you're up to it.
All I wanted to know was what motors to choose, propeller size, lipo mAh etc. I figure that even with current battery limits perhaps a more efficient design could add a minute or two. Bigger propellers = more thrust. However all you've done is argue with me that it's pointless. This is /diy/, there are neckbeards asking how to build nuclear bunkers.
>>979475
Anyone else read the filename as "hitler flying platform"? Like the soldier was supposed to go to one of hitler's rally's and shoot him stealthily.
>>980107
Why didn't they shoot hitler?
Okay now, this is better:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview
four turbine engines, 250 horsepower each, powered by kerosene. Plus two smaller jet engines, the power of which he doesn't say in the article (I think?)
And it is even smaller than OP's example or the arcaboard (the one made from a bunch of RC ducted fans, that only floats a few inches off the ground)
I think their assertion that it takes 50 to 100 hours of flyboard experience to be a bit excessive, tho wat da fuck would I know....
Riding a unicicycle looks a lot like riding a Segway, but the Segway is vastly quicker to learn to use since it has auto-stabilization systems on it.
The unicycle takes weeks to learn, but most people can learn to ride a Segway in just a minute or two.
>>980150
It's not even real.
>>980169
Ok it's not fake but it's got 2 minute flight time. It's advantage over electric is that it's faster. Either way great effort. I just want to know how the fuck he managed to PID tune four turbojets into a quadcopter. gas turbine throttle response time is even worse than petrol engines.
All you need is 36 fans my friend
>>980150
>And it is even smaller than OP's example or the arcaboard
Well... size really matters with these sort of things. Like you pointed out, it takes roughly 1000 equivalent horsepower just to keep one dude aloft with small jets, but the Hiller platform got by with just 80 and the sizable de Lackner Aerocyle made due with just 40. Can't cheat the physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading#Power_required
>>980178
>Ok it's not fake but it's got 2 minute flight time.
10 minutes. Ten. By my reckoning, assuming the engines are crude non-afterburning turbojets, he should be burning ROUGHLY 5 pounds of fuel per minute (assuming ~1 lb/lb-hr TSFC).
>I just want to know how the fuck he managed to PID tune four turbojets into a quadcopter.
Well, judging from the statement:
>The problem is to create the algorithms, the right algorithms, to combine the intelligence in the board and in your brain
and the fact that it's predecessor (the water-jet flyboard) was fully-kinesthetic, I would venture to guess that their main issue was integrating a stabilized system that would supplement, rather than counteract, any intuitive kinesthetic control. Kinesthetic control works because the platform reacts naturally to the way you intuitively shift your weight (using the very same reflexes you use to stand). But if you throw a gyro-driven electronic stabilizer in there, it will resist this tendency unless you COMMAND it to respond to the way you lean. Realistically this means integrating pressure sensors into the footpads, similar to a Segway.
Additionally, their emphasis on the smaller auxiliary jets (and in particular, their steerable nozzles) suggests that maybe the role of the stabilizer is predominantly for yaw control (which doesn't fold so neatly into the kinesthetic control paradigm, hence the yaw vanes and tiller on the Hiller platform and probably something similar on the X-Jet as well), rather than for complete balance.
>>980095
>current battery power can't lift a 180 lb person plus 100 lb of batteries much less fly for 15x longer than that dude did, plus you would need ridiculously powerful hence heavy motors to lift all that.
I'm ballparking based off ~250 Wh/kg for current high-end li-po battery tech and a very rough estimate of power requirement (the 400 lb Hiller had 80 HP max combined power so I'm guessing maybe 25-50 kW for a lighter electric machine). Also, for what little that it's worth, it seems to check out when I correlate it to about what percentage of battery weight I need to get ~15 minutes out of an electric quadcopter.
And yes, I understand that this would probably require either custom high-power components, or a shitload of hobby-grade components to put out that kind of wattage. Even the Omni board from the OP uses equipment pretty high up the scale for "hobby-grade," and it still took eight of 'em despite having pretty much a bare minimum of battery weight aboard.
>All I wanted to know was what motors to choose, propeller size, lipo mAh etc.
Well, assuming you just want to copy the Omni as close as possible, you're going to want eight high-voltage, high-thrust direct-drive brushless outrunners - most likely, those that are generally used as electric conversions for giant-scale models - and matching ESCs as well. If you're rich and don't want to die, you'll probably be looking at something like the Hacker A150 with a 200A HV Jeti or Castle Creations esc. If you're pinching pennies, maybe something more like the Turnigy Rotomax or the Suppo 7035. Anything with a "cc" equivalent, really. Find a matching ESC and prop and make sure you have a healthy reserve of thrust available. To go with a system like this, you're probably gonna need a high-discharge, probably 12s battery good for ~1500A (so like >20,000 mAh).
OR you could go with a more-efficient geared system and huge rotors, or just use zillions of tiny motors. More than one way to skin a cat here.
>>979604
Shit, I better be on the lookout for the FAA. I've flown around on a powered parachute since I was a teenager.
The way to commercialize something like this is to advance it to a level safe and practical enough for common usage. First, start with finding lighter material for the machine all together.
Next deal with the issue of power, since the vehicle is only carrying 1 passenger you shouldn't have to have that large of an engine. Just as long as it's powerful enough to get lift off, as well as maintain speed and not consume a huge amount of fuel to do so. Perhaps like a 1000cc v twin block with a hybrid power system to help cut fuel usage.
Next, safety
As an added bonus to the fuel problem have an on board computer that will gradually ground the rider should fuel begin to gradually deplete or if they are just low.
Add some sort of Inertia control system to steer and have the on board computer manage an omnidirectional motion sensor that will help protect the rider from over steering in any direction, keep their balance and protect against the vehicle flipping upside down even after a minor collision
After that, market the hell out of it and then let the government regulate traffic.
We've had all the technology to do this for a while. All we need is someone with enough dough to sponsor as well as someone willing to put boots to ass to get it done.
>>981750
>hybrid power system to cut fuel usage
>in flight
You're that fucking hybrid drone faggot aren't you?
