>>2060009
range and speed will be shit. It's a toy, not /n/

>>2060013
And bikes are /toy/s

>>2060009
What failsafe features do these things have? Parachutes would probably only be good at altitudes above 100m no?
And you cant glide down like a helicopter in case of an engine failure.
Are they literally deathtraps if something happens at 10-50m?

why are zoomers and techbros so OBSESSED with the quadrotor form factor? what was wrong with one big rotor and a cyclic/collective control?

>>2060052
>Are they literally deathtraps if something happens at 10-50m?
yeah but so are helicopters

>>2060067
>why are zoomers and techbros so OBSESSED with the quadrotor form factor? what was wrong with one big rotor and a cyclic/collective control?
Quadcopters are more responsive and easier to control because they allow you to remove unnecessary control surfaces and replace larger single rotors with 4 smaller rotors that don't carry as much momentum. The only reason they haven't been feasible until recently is because they generally need flight computers to maintain stability
>yeah but so are helicopters
Helicopters can autorotate on engine out though so they can still potentially land safely, I don't think quadcopters can do this though because the rotors are too small

>>2060038
>most efficient machine on the planet is a "toy"

>>2063996
>efficiency is when you waste valuable and scarce manpower on toys because you're too gay stupid to comprehend how wasteful and useless it is

>>2060009
Insisting these being purely battery powered will forever hold them back. Putting a small bike engine as a generator would greatly improve flight time and sustained peak power