Rotor Technologies launches production of R550X autonomous helicopter | Hacker News Reader

Rotor Technologies launches production of R550X autonomous helicopter

futureflight.aero

47 pointsrbanffy18 comments

>Rotor is not the only company looking to introduce autonomous flight control systems for helicopters, although it could be the first to have an uncrewed helicopter available for commercial use.

I think this has to be wrong about it being the first for commercial use but I am willing to be wrong in my assumption. Several years ago I watched an unmanned helicopter fly past my property less than 200 feet altitude and less than a half mile away. It was flying the route that I knew to be the proposed route for a bypass around my town and there was a small plane like a Cessna circling as it flew along. I know that it was unmanned because there was no windshield or cabin. It looked to be sized like a two-seater. I tried to get a photo but by the time the camera started it had flown far enough that you couldn't make out the fact that there was no cabin or cockpit or windshield. I had the feeling it was mapping the route as it flew. That bypass is now open, right along the path that chopper flew. These guys can be the second but they can't be the first.

Did it look like this by any chance? https://newatlas.com/schiebel-next-generation-uav-camcopter/...

From memory, it was larger. From my vantage point it appeared to be a full size helicopter that could carry a pilot and co-pilot if there had been a cockpit. The shape was similar to the one in this article but from memory the underside was flatter instead of bulbous. I immediately went online once it was out of range and searched for anything about unmanned helicopters, drone helicopters, autonomous helicopter, etc and couldn't find anything that looked exactly like it though I did find a similar body on a Bell helicopter. I assumed it had to be one of theirs since they manufacture them about an hour more or less away from where I live.

There is a chance that it was closer in size to the one pictured in your article. If that were true and I had/have missed on my estimates of the range/altitude then the path it flew would have been following a high-voltage powerline path that was put in as they constructed this highway bypass following the same general path across the landscape. There are lots of things that I can be wrong about on any given day and this is certainly one of them.

If you work with Schiebel do you know what colors they use one theirs?

I just searched again and found several autonomous helicopters available now. I guess the technology moves quickly once you nail down the flight software. I had a sense that the Cessna was tracking the drone helicopter to make sure it had no issues since they flew along above it in gentle loops along the same path as if they were keeping it in sight.

There could have been a drone pilot in that Cessna.

This is true. I suspect that someone in the plane had the responsibility of insuring that the drone helicopter did not stray from its path or run into problems.

Yamaha has been selling uncrewed helicopters for several years to do agricultural spraying. These are remote piloted, not autonomous.

https://www.yamahamotorsports.com/Precision-Agriculture.php

That's interesting. It isn't like the one I saw though. It is too small and the wrong shape. I see from a current search that there are several players in the drone helicopter business with similar business models - agriculture, infrastructure monitoring/maintenance, military, etc.

Maybe the first commercial autonomous helicopter but not the first ever: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8C_Fire_Sc...

Curious about who is liable in the event of a crash. Could anyone chime in and explain?

Depending on the circumstances the operating company, the maintainer company, the manufacturing company or the design company can be liable.

Why do you feel the helicopter being uncrewed makes this situation more complicated from a liability standpoint?

No dead pilot to blame? That's about the only thing I can think of.

Besides the safety aspects, they'll be loud noise polluters wherever they operate.

I hope aircraft like these won't be used gratuitously (like most TV news channel helicopter flights are here). Including not for rich-people taxis.

> 100LL low-lead aviation gasoline

It's absurd that it's legal to bring a new product to market burning a fuel with such well studied negative impacts on human development. Yes it's an existing airframe and other stuff, but enough has changed that I'd expect it to not get to emit lead into the environment.

My understanding is that it's not a technology problem, but a regulation problem. The FAA does not make it easy to get approval for unleaded fuel.

Sort-of untrue now. There have been obstacles and there are now mostly supplier problems. There's presently UL94 available and G100UL that no one can get because no one makes it outside of GAMI in Oklahoma.

This is a modded Robinson 44. Is the Robinson certified for unleaded?

Preach. TEL is awful and studies have shown elevated lead levels in children near RHV. Where 1x0LL has been banned, the tendency has been to go to UL94 (STC & MoGas). The main barrier to another option, G100UL, that complies with ASTM D910 100LL, is that it hasn't been deployed anywhere, there's no fuel supplier (Chevron or GAMI), and it requires an STC for owners. Honestly, I don't see them ever deploying it.

100LL for the entire west coast is made only by Chevron and only in Richmond, CA. California's legislature may decide to ban TEL's use in fuel manufacturing, which would end LL in the western half of the US.

PS: My cousin owns a bunch of helicopters, airports, hangars, heliports, and fuel bunkers.

These currently burn leaded gas. This company is building machines that will barf lead into the air you breathe and onto the crops you eat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com