If what the video shows is true, it appears to be easy to fly. Would you try it?

Website: https://www.opener.aero/

 

Edited July 17, 20187 yr by VeryBumpy

That is way too cool!

• No pilot license required, its considered an ultralight it seems.
• 25 mile range so 13 miles one way.
• 62mph speed.
• Its ability to land/takeoff in water would be a huge plus for me.

 

Put on a very fast opening ballistic chute and I'd like to own one.

If used as a 'communter vehicle' I would suppose one could arrange for a battery recharge at their work location for the return flight.

To be perfectly honest however, it is unlikely to ever be more than yet another rich person's personal toy...

Really cool! I want one!!!

 

Vic

Release date?!😁

CBS new video on this stated the price will be of an expensive SUV, so what $60k?

This would make for an interesting fishing boat. Just go over the island and dam instead of around them.

I do not think this will ever come to fruition, good media byte to try to get investors onboard, but I am dubious about the useful load and empty weight of this aircraft, if it can really meet part 103 specs.  The Aerolite 103 (modeled in Xplane11) is about the only factory made ultralight that meets part 103 specs with their smallest motor (http://www.uflyit.com/aerolite103main.htm).  And the Aerplite 103. is a lot cheaper, coming in around 15K, I know the man who builds it, Dennis Carley, I flew in his Zenair once in Daland Florida where he builds the Aerolite.

Xplane11 does a great job with the Aerolite 103.  Better yet are trikes that can be towed behind a car, I've flown trikes and they are a safer way to fly part 103, I even created one for FSX/P3D, here in Avsim's library.   I fly it in P3D all the time, I made it because of the absence of ultralights in the sims.  And powered parachutes are even better for something you can throw in the back of a truck or SUV and fly away, and much safer and cheaper than even trikes and the Aerolite 103 and far cheaper than this aircraft.

John

I predicted before watching the video that it would have a music soundtrack and wouldn't show how loud it is. Yep, prediction success. 

I've been saying for a while now, that the noise pollution factor will be a major roadblock for these things. If your'e hiking a nice wilderness or rural area like that couple at the beginning, is this what you really want to see and more importantly hear flying overhead? There's a reason why ATVs and jet skis are banned in some wilderness areas. 

Someone made another point about these things somewhere, I think it might have been on pprune. To get the weight down far enough to make it work at all, those cockpits are just thin, minimalist shells. No creature comforts like insulation, heating, or air conditioning that wealthy buyers are used to in the SUVs or conventional aircraft. They're not going to be fun to fly on a hot or cold day.

That probably won't be enough to prevent some early adopters. I think what will limit acceptance will be the combination of noise pollution regulations and ATC restrictions, so they can only be flown in very limited areas. 

P.S. right now I'm listening to a neighbor running a gas weed trimmer outside my window. A little annoying, but I've done the same with my own weed trimmer. And that's nowhere near as annoying as the sound of one of these things. Let's see one, just ONE of these promotional videos without a music track, showing what they actually sound like. There's a reason why they don't do that!

21 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I predicted before watching the video that it would have a music soundtrack and wouldn't show how loud it is. Yep, prediction success. 

I've been saying for a while now, that the noise pollution factor will be a major roadblock for these things. If your'e hiking a nice wilderness or rural area like that couple at the beginning, is this what you really want to see and more importantly hear flying overhead? There's a reason why ATVs and jet skis are banned in some wilderness areas. 

Someone made another point about these things somewhere, I think it might have been on pprune. To get the weight down far enough to make it work at all, those cockpits are just thin, minimalist shells. No creature comforts like insulation, heating, or air conditioning that wealthy buyers are used to in the SUVs or conventional aircraft. They're not going to be fun to fly on a hot or cold day.

That probably won't be enough to prevent some early adopters. I think what will limit acceptance will be the combination of noise pollution regulations and ATC restrictions, so they can only be flown in very limited areas. 

P.S. right now I'm listening to a neighbor running a gas weed trimmer outside my window. A little annoying, but I've done the same with my own weed trimmer. And that's nowhere near as annoying as the sound of one of these things. Let's see one, just ONE of these promotional videos without a music track, showing what they actually sound like. There's a reason why they don't do that!

Ultralights are not supposed to be flown over congested areas, not only for the reasons you mention, it is simply the law and given their poor safety record in the hands of inexperienced, low time pilots, you do not want one of these things landing on your roof or in your backyard.  As they say, the difference between men and boys, is the price of their toys.   I see it as a pricey gimic, cheaper in parts to produce than an "average SUV", with a cheap, unreliable two stroke motor most likely.

John

23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I predicted before watching the video that it would have a music soundtrack and wouldn't show how loud it is. Yep, prediction success. 

 

This will give you how loud it will be, and this is with one electric motor.

https://youtu.be/DhKTCbbqbaE?t=44s

24 minutes ago, TuFun said:

This will give you how loud it will be, and this is with one electric motor.

https://youtu.be/DhKTCbbqbaE?t=44s

Yeah, that's more like it.

It's also a reminder about the downwash hazard. I suspect the promo video showing a person in the cockpit landing on grass isn't showing the actual downwash. The moving grass underneath looks like CGi effect, not what you'd expect with rotor wash supporting a 200 lb. payload plus the weight of the airframe, motors, and batteries.

I've spent a few hundred hours in helicopters doing aerial photography gigs. That's more rotor wash than these things, but it's still something you learn to respect with loose objects, gravel, rocks etc. when landing on anything but dry pavement. It won't be safe for bystanders if these new flying cars are landing anywhere off piste.

The website states 72 decibles at 150ft.

Edited July 20, 20187 yr by JB3DG

5 hours ago, JB3DG said:

The website states 72 decibles at 150ft.

That's pretty loud, considering this distance is roughly the width of an American  football field, and these things may not be permitted to fly much higher by ATC or safety-related restrictions. 

Here's an interesting quote about helicopter noise from a hearing health site: 

"According to the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the difference in sound level of a helicopter flying at 500 feet and at 1,000 feet is nine decibels — dropping from 87 dB to 78 dB. That effectively reduces by half the impact of the resultant noise.  HAI notes that to meet the generally acceptable criterion of 65 dB, helicopters should fly at altitudes no less than 1,000 feet."

Notice the 65 dB criterion there. And also...

"Helicopters rank especially high in causing undesirable noise. Eight different studies have found that the annoyance created by a helicopter does not correlate with the decibels it registers. The helicopter’s unique sound, created by blade vortex interaction, causes people to rate its sound level as much as 10 dB’s higher than it actually registers, doubling the noise impact. This would place perceived helicopter noise at around 97 dB, or a whopping 30 dB’s over the generally accepted noise level of residential areas."

That's an interesting point about the quality of noise, not just the dB levels. If you've ever heard the buzz of a small camera drone, imagine scaling that up as a continuous sound. Then imagine a dozen or so of these things flying a programmed route nearby, and what that will sound like.

As much as I can see the potential thrill from the pilot (or passive passenger) perspective, I don't think the noise will be accepted in most urban and suburban environments. Maybe for remote non-wilderness areas, farms, and some specialized uses. But I don't think it will be successful as general transportation, even if the costs come down. 

On 7/18/2018 at 11:25 AM, Paraffin said:

To get the weight down far enough to make it work at all, those cockpits are just thin, minimalist shells. No creature comforts like insulation, heating, or air conditioning that wealthy buyers are used to in the SUVs or conventional aircraft. They're not going to be fun to fly on a hot or cold day. 

I don't disagree with your post, but I'm curious what private plane's you've been flying that have installed, working A/C.  I can count on less than one hand the different ones I've flown where it's installed and working:  An SR22, and a Cessna 340.  The majority of the GA fleet in the states (and I'm assuming the rest of the world) don't have A/C.  Even on, say, the Piper's that originally came with it, it's usually removed to save the weight.  Heat is another story...I don't think I've flown a single airplane without heat (for obvious reasons).

Edited July 20, 20187 yr by ACR
Grammar, clarity.