My Octocopter Project!

cranialrectosis

Faster than a speeding face plant!
Mentor
If I could only choose the three I think I would be inclined to want the + or the X. Simply because eventually I would want to pilot the thing and the straight puts a motor and rotor in the way.
 
We realize what we are doing is ahead of and beyond the available "consumer" flight controllers, educational research, as is with the ArduPilot Project. Again, you maybe assuming to much.

Sir, I recognize immediately where the diagrams came from.

Frame layout, motor direction, flight controller orientation, programming configuration, visual layout, maintenance feasibility, all have nothing to do with General Aviation safety standards.

What I am interested in seeing is the engineering criteria for the safety rating. I would like to evaluate that, please. And not just a general outline. I would like to evaluate the math being used to arrive at the specific rating, what vehicles were tested, and their specs, under what conditions, and review the flight logs and airframe strain gauge data from the FM tests.

That would be impossible to post here. If you have a Google Drive or something where I could get the data to review it, I would be willing to look it over, and that would work. This is the kind of work I do. PM me.
 

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
+ and x

If I could only choose the three I think I would be inclined to want the + or the X. Simply because eventually I would want to pilot the thing and the straight puts a motor and rotor in the way.

Yes, that is technically the best view layout for the pilot, but from our mockups of the vehicle, the pilot really doesn't even notice the blade shadows, at least that is the common response we have found. We thought it would matter, but once we sat in the seat, you don't really even notice them, but the + and x, just seems more better!
 
Last edited:

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
Sir, I recognize immediately where the diagrams came from.

Frame layout, motor direction, flight controller orientation, programming configuration, visual layout, maintenance feasibility, all have nothing to do with General Aviation safety standards.

What I am interested in seeing is the engineering criteria for the safety rating. I would like to evaluate that, please. And not just a general outline. I would like to evaluate the math being used to arrive at the specific rating, what vehicles were tested, and their specs, under what conditions, and review the flight logs and airframe strain gauge data from the FM tests.

That would be impossible to post here. If you have a Google Drive or something where I could get the data to review it, I would be willing to look it over, and that would work. This is the kind of work I do. PM me.

The research data we have collected about multirotor design, building, programming, and safety, is proprietary and will not be released, although we are working with the FAA to set the safety standards for RPVs and PAVs. We will be releasing the plans to the people who have, are, and will be funding this project, as we do with ALL of our projects.

ALL of that has to do with Airworthiness (Safety of Flight, General Aerospace Safety Standards) General Aviation Safety Standards, and FAILURE MODE AVOIDANCE for any Air Vehicle! Or at least NASA, DOD, DARPA, FAA, DOT, FCC, and a couple of other three letter windbreaker wearing agencies seem to think so.

So again, we ask you, which (of the three layouts) from your view, would be the best?
 

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
UPDATE: The NAME!

Hi,

Due to popular appeal the "NAME" of the veeeeeeehicul will be: VOLKSCOPTER! It is a "thing" with us! So without further delay, we introduce to you: VOLKSCOPTER!

PMR01.gif

Oh, and we do not mean this heeeeelowcopper!

VC01.jpg

VC02.jpg

Although, this will probably be our "NEXT" project!
 
Last edited:

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
TOO COMPLICATED!

Hi,

We like this copper too......

VC05 Hiller-XH-44-Drawing.jpg

but were sitting and thinking, you know I can't just buy the materials and parts to build something like this without a SHOP! That is when it struck us, that's why we wanted to build a Manned Multirotor (MMR) (PAV). We can order the parts we need and get the building materials locally, build it in our garage, roll it out and fly it! NOOOooo License NEEDED! It is the HOLY GRAIL of Personal Air Vehicles!

So pSSSSsssSST to all the negative nellies out there! We are Amuuuurrrrr - I - CAN!

We have finished a 1/4 scale version of the VOLKSCOPTER! It FLYS as advertised! We started with the Octo s (straight), because with all the research, it has the highest SAFETY RATING and REDUNDANCY RATING. It is programmed like a + and a x, which acts like and gives 3 engines to each axis, and we get 2 engine out together landing ability, 3 engine out together is 50/50, 5 engine out depending on the out, 6 out time to hit "THE BIG RED BUTTON" (safety chute)!

We built another "TOP" testing the Octo + and Octo x, for some reason we like the way it looks, it may wind up that in the final analysis the Octo s, maybe "technically" better, but any of these layouts can be used to build a SAFE vehicle for personal flight! It then comes down to YOUR CHOICE as to the version you want to build! We really can't believe how simple these things are compared to a helicopter or a plane! Multirotors may do to Private Aviation, what foam, electric motors, and electronics have done to RC! SAVEUM and TAKEUM to the NEXT LEVEL! This is YUUUUUUGE!

We have purchased the materials for the full size version.......stay tuned!

Oh, here is a view of VOLKSCOPTER in the Octo + and x configuration!

PMR01A.gif
 
Last edited:

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
Thanks for Subscribing!

this looks like an incredible project. sorry i can not contribute but i do wish you the best and im totally subscribing to this thread right now!

Noooo Proooblemo! Well it really ain't ROCKET SCIENCE! But, it is amazing that there aren't a lot of "VIABLE" PMRs out there yet. The ONLY one we have seen which sealed the deal that we were going to make one, was Flying KXYZ on YouTube. This guy has already built over SIX DIFFERENT flying personal multirotors!

Thanks for following or subscribing! We will keep at it!
 

Daniel Kezar

Ultimate Cheap Skate
Noooo Proooblemo! Well it really ain't ROCKET SCIENCE! But, it is amazing that there aren't a lot of "VIABLE" PMRs out there yet. The ONLY one we have seen which sealed the deal that we were going to make one, was Flying KXYZ on YouTube. This guy has already built over SIX DIFFERENT flying personal multirotors!

Thanks for following or subscribing! We will keep at it!

i only saw that one guy that used a ton of smaller motos all hooked together. does "PMR" stand for personal multirotor?
 

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
PMR = Personal Multi Roter!

i only saw that one guy that used a ton of smaller motos all hooked together. does "PMR" stand for personal multirotor?

Yes, we have seen that one, heck we have seen them all! While it's cool, it isn't a "VIABLE" design to promote PMRs. Yes, PMR stands for Personal Multi Rotor! We are trying to build the "HOLY GRAIL" version of a PMR! One that will inspire or allow "MILLIONS" of Americans (and people around the WORLD) that, "hey, I want one, and I CAN ACTUALLY (AFFORD) BUILD one in my garage!" And, we are going to force the creation of "REASONABLE REGULATION" and integration of these doodads into being, so that they are no harder than a car to own and operate! This is AMUURRRICA!

We are talking with "Walmart" to see if they can put a PMR Landing Space in there parking lots! A first step in INTEGRATION!

I just noticed I misspelled Rotor in the title! ONID!
 
Last edited:

Daniel Kezar

Ultimate Cheap Skate
Yes, we have seen that one, heck we have seen them all! While it's cool, it isn't a "VIABLE" design to promote PMRs. Yes, PMR stands for Personal Multi Rotor! We are trying to build the "HOLY GRAIL" version of a PMR! One that will inspire or allow "MILLIONS" of Americans (and people around the WORLD) that, "hey, I want one, and I CAN ACTUALLY (AFFORD) BUILD one in my garage!" And, we are going to force the creation of "REASONABLE REGULATION" and integration of these doodads into being, so that they are no harder than a car to own and operate! This is AMUURRRICA!

We are talking with "Walmart" to see if they can put a PMR Landing Space in there parking lots! A first step in INTEGRATION!

I just noticed I misspelled Rotor in the title! ONID!

AWESOME! what is the early estimate for the cost of buying one? im guessing around 10k?
 

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
COST to BUILD or BUY!

AWESOME! what is the early estimate for the cost of buying one? im guessing around 10k?

Hi,

GREAT QUESTION! We will not be selling them, we just design, build, test, and implement them, we do it for our own benefit, if someone wants to buy or use the design and technology they can! This is for public education and information!

We don't like to get stuck in the production, we are DOERS and then we move on to the next project!

We will be releasing the plans so you can build it yourself in your GARAGE, and that will be UNDER 8-10K! The equivalent a "USED CAR".

A "commercial" model would be dependent on the bells and whistles that are attached, but realistically, the base model would be the equivalent of an ECONOMY CAR 10K maybe to 15-20K. The price from there is dependent on the company name you buy from.......VW, Mercedes, Lincoln, etc. HINT!

The main thing here is to show that a VIABLE PERSONAL MULTI ROTOR can be built in your garage, and flown SAFELY in OUR SKYS! We are TAKEN the world KICKIN AND SCREAMIN to the NEXT LEVEL! In a good way! Hopefully......Maybe.....Anyway!

We found a supplier for the T6061 Aluminum Frame Materials! WOOHOO!
 
Last edited:
Here is your personal aircraft, already built, Type Certified and legal to fly. Very nice helicopter. I got 12.8 hours in a G2 - they been Type Certified in the US since 2015 and are now in common use at flight training schools in lieu of the venerable R22

http://coptering.com/pdf/cabri-g2-eng.pdf

The reason it is so expensive? A little formality called Type Certification. The manned multi-rotor advocates really don't get it, and obviously have no experience with real world general aviation. Sort of reminiscent of the early days of aviation when everybody was going to have one parked in their driveway. Never happened and never will with manned drones either. And it has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with regulation, training to fly it, and certification. There is no such thing as a cheap Type Certified aircraft. It costs $50,000-57,000 JUST to get a rotor wing rating for a private pilot to fly one.

Good luck with all that.
 

Daniel Kezar

Ultimate Cheap Skate
Here is your personal aircraft, already built, Type Certified and legal to fly. Very nice helicopter. I got 12.8 hours in a G2 - they been Type Certified in the US since 2015 and are now in common use at flight training schools in lieu of the venerable R22

http://coptering.com/pdf/cabri-g2-eng.pdf

The reason it is so expensive? A little formality called Type Certification. The manned multi-rotor advocates really don't get it, and obviously have no experience with real world general aviation. Sort of reminiscent of the early days of aviation when everybody was going to have one parked in their driveway. Never happened and never will with manned drones either. And it has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with regulation, training to fly it, and certification. There is no such thing as a cheap Type Certified aircraft. It costs $50,000-57,000 JUST to get a rotor wing rating for a private pilot to fly one.

Good luck with all that.

you have crushed my dreams.......


lol.
 

VolksRocket

Rocket Scientist
You missed the point!

Here is your personal aircraft, already built, Type Certified and legal to fly. Very nice helicopter. I got 12.8 hours in a G2 - they been Type Certified in the US since 2015 and are now in common use at flight training schools in lieu of the venerable R22

http://coptering.com/pdf/cabri-g2-eng.pdf

The reason it is so expensive? A little formality called Type Certification. The manned multi-rotor advocates really don't get it, and obviously have no experience with real world general aviation. Sort of reminiscent of the early days of aviation when everybody was going to have one parked in their driveway. Never happened and never will with manned drones either. And it has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with regulation, training to fly it, and certification. There is no such thing as a cheap Type Certified aircraft. It costs $50,000-57,000 JUST to get a rotor wing rating for a private pilot to fly one.

Good luck with all that.

No one cares what your "opinion" is, you don't know what you are talking about, you are the one who is uneducated about general aviation and regulation. We are already flying the prototype, within regulations that already exist, so it would be best if you take your negative nelly attitude somewhere else! If you have nothing good to say.......just go away!