With an airframe built entirely of carbon fiber, Hexa weights in only at 464 lbs. in total with batteries installed and is compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification so no pilot's license is required to fly. Under Part 103- Powered Vehicles. A powered ultralight cannot be operated under Part 103 when it has an empty weight of 254 pounds or has a fuel capacity exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; is capable of more than 55 knots airspeed at full power in level flight and has a power-off stall speed which exceeds 24 knots. In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs., and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment.
Regarding the EVTOL, isn't 464lbs way above part 103's 254lbs limit? or has FAA let them discard the battery weight? but even then it seems it wouldn't qualify.
I hate to be dismissive of any flight technology developmental progress, BUT ... I must criticize the depicted EVTOL as a farce, a parody of the freedom which is represented by the capability of flight. A flight duration of only a few minutes may have been acceptable to the Wright brothers more than a century ago, but even they did not settle for that limitation for very long -- and certainly would not have considered it a commercializable product. We have seen men walk on the moon. We have flown a drone helicopter over Mars. We have had private travelers both men and women circumnavigate the globe. Hence this "manned drone" that can't even make it to the boundaries of an airport must be considered a very poor excuse for a very expensive flying machine.
Pretty sure there were the same or similar dismissive comments back in the day when they learned of the Wright flight. Some probably questioning the sanity of the Wrights. Luckily forward thinking individuals continued to move the technology forward, sometimes incrementally.
we are 120 years AFTER the invention of the "moden" day propellor. All this is is a re-invention of a propellor. We've had "drones" for 70 years, LARGE drones, capable of carrying 7 people or more. We've made "0/0" automatic landings since Jimmy Doolittle did it in a B-25?. This is just "propellor reinvention", absolutely nothing new. You'll know we advanced after 75 years when it doesn't have a propellor or a jet engine. Sorry to "pop" this "hype bubble".
we are 120 years AFTER the invention of the "modern" day propellor. All this is is a re-invention of a propellor. We've had "drones" for 70 years, LARGE drones, capable of carrying 7 people or more. We've made "0/0" automatic landings since Jimmy Doolittle did it in a B-25?. This is just "propellor reinvention", absolutely nothing new. You'll know we advanced after 75 years when it doesn't have a propellor, battery, solar or a jet engine. Sorry to "pop" this "hype bubble".
With an airframe built entirely of carbon fiber, Hexa weights in only at 464 lbs. in total with batteries installed and is compliant with the FAA's Powered Ultralight classification so no pilot's license is required to fly. Under Part 103- Powered Vehicles. A powered ultralight cannot be operated under
Part 103 when it has an empty weight of 254 pounds or has a fuel capacity
exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; is capable of more than 55 knots airspeed at full power
in level flight and has a power-off stall speed which exceeds 24 knots. In the U.S., Hexa is approved for flight under FAR Part 103. Hexa conforms to the FAA’s Powered Ultralight classification for which FAA certification is not required or available. The base weight limit for Powered Ultralights is 254 lbs., and Hexa utilizes additional weight allowances for floats and safety equipment.
Regarding the EVTOL, isn't 464lbs way above part 103's 254lbs limit? or has FAA let them discard the battery weight? but even then it seems it wouldn't qualify.
So the EVTOL is a carnival ride?
I hate to be dismissive of any flight technology developmental progress, BUT ... I must criticize the depicted EVTOL as a farce, a parody of the freedom which is represented by the capability of flight. A flight duration of only a few minutes may have been acceptable to the Wright brothers more than a century ago, but even they did not settle for that limitation for very long -- and certainly would not have considered it a commercializable product. We have seen men walk on the moon. We have flown a drone helicopter over Mars. We have had private travelers both men and women circumnavigate the globe. Hence this "manned drone" that can't even make it to the boundaries of an airport must be considered a very poor excuse for a very expensive flying machine.
Pretty sure there were the same or similar dismissive comments back in the day when they learned of the Wright flight. Some probably questioning the sanity of the Wrights. Luckily forward thinking individuals continued to move the technology forward, sometimes incrementally.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first steps.
we are 120 years AFTER the invention of the "moden" day propellor. All this is is a re-invention of a propellor. We've had "drones" for 70 years, LARGE drones, capable of carrying 7 people or more. We've made "0/0" automatic landings since Jimmy Doolittle did it in a B-25?. This is just "propellor reinvention", absolutely nothing new. You'll know we advanced after 75 years when it doesn't have a propellor or a jet engine. Sorry to "pop" this "hype bubble".
we are 120 years AFTER the invention of the "modern" day propellor. All this is is a re-invention of a propellor. We've had "drones" for 70 years, LARGE drones, capable of carrying 7 people or more. We've made "0/0" automatic landings since Jimmy Doolittle did it in a B-25?. This is just "propellor reinvention", absolutely nothing new. You'll know we advanced after 75 years when it doesn't have a propellor, battery, solar or a jet engine. Sorry to "pop" this "hype bubble".