I promise I will not keep reporting futuristic eVTOLS or multicopters. However, since the Jetson One article went over better than expected and since I’ve focused mainly on Part 103-sized multicopters, how about one that is LSA-sized?
I still would not follow one multicopter article with another except for developer Doron Merdinger, saying this, “Suggested [selling price is] $135,000 to $150,000.” That got my attention. From what I’ve seen so far, any eVTOL larger/heavier than a Part 103 entry is way, way more expensive.
Beyond that come air taxies… 4-6-8 seater urban air transport aircraft. Those I will never report as they are commercial by design and cost far beyond any Sport Pilot’s budget. In addition, it could be years before they actually enter the market.
Can Doroni Do It?
However, a two-seater, ducted-fan, LSA-like aircraft with a 500 pound payload for $135-150,000 could actually be something some readers might consider. So, here’s a brief update on Doroni.
No one commenting on Jetson One or the other Part 103 multicopters I’ve reported mentioned a need for a second seat. Many said that a 20-minute range was not enough but no one seemed to care that it was for solo flight only. Based in Coral Springs, Florida, Doroni Aerospace wants to let you take a passenger with you or carry a couple hundred pounds of other payload. If it actually came to market at LSA prices, is this of interest?
For the record, I will note that in 1999, Cirrus offered their first SR20 at $139,000. It’s now a multiple of that with top-end models reaching nearly $1 million. In the LSA market, Icon’s A5 also came to market at $139,000 and is now around $350,000. So, perhaps (probably?) Doroni’s $135-150,000 forecast will also be short-lived. However, if they somehow could retain that price, would that be of interest to any current Sport Pilots? Only each one of you know the answer.
Doroni Details
FutureFlight.aero reported, “Doroni H1 is an electrically-powered. two-seat eVTOL vehicle with four ducted fans fitted in a main wing and canard, and a pair of small pusherprops at the rear of the fuselage.” Each ducted fan location houses two electric motors spinning counter-rotating props. H1’s main application is personal transportation, but the company also sees a potential for future light freight deliveries.
Doroni Aerospace stated, “The aircraft will have a range of around 60 miles, a cruise speed of 100 mph, and a top speed of 140 mph.” H1 is compact enough to store and recharge in a two-car garage and light enough to be towed by the family sedan.
The aircraft boasts a 500-pound capacity (what I’d call “payload”) and may be flown by an onboard pilot or remotely controlled. The company offers payload and passenger options:
- Pilot and passenger
- Pilot and 200-pounds of cargo
- Up to 500 pounds of cargo with pilotless delivery
Safety is addressed with features such as: programmed emergency landing protocols, an energy-dissipating body, multiple redundancies, air bag, ballistic parachute, and multiple anti-collision sensors. H1 is, Doroni explains, “a smart vehicle with advanced electronics, GPS, laser [range finders], cameras, a barometer, and accelerometers.”
Doroni Aerospace is “expected to complete construction of a full-scale prototype by June 2022, with a view to starting flight testing by the end of the year,” wrote FutureFlight.aero.
A major difference between the usual multicopter and Doroni is the ducted fan design.
Ducted Fan Configuration
By reducing propeller blade tip losses, a ducted fan can be more efficient in producing thrust than a non-ducted propeller of similar diameter, that is, while producing a similar amount of thrust, a ducted fan can use a much smaller diameter than a free propeller, allowing for more compact equipment. Given their enclosure, they can also be safer than a free-spinning prop.
Ducted fans are also quieter than propellers: they shield the blade noise and reduce the intensity of the tip vortices. This is important for neighbor relations (especially when your unusual aircraft will also attract more than a usual share of attention).
Here’s a big point in favor of Doroni’s use of ducting: Ducted fans can allow for a limited amount of thrust vectoring, something for which normal propellers are not well suited.
The original Doroni (notice their logo) was very simple but used the ducted fan technology.
Smaller props housed in ducting require high revolutions and minimal vibration but those parameters are easier to achieve with electric motor propulsion. Naturally precision ducting adds manufacturing challenges and adds complexity compared to simpler multicopter approaches.
On projects as diverse as the Martin Jetpack (company now defunct) or a modern airship, ducting has proven workable. Honestly, I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of this in eVTOL designs.
The fact is that ducted fan technology is not universally applauded. Some say they are less not more efficient. Yet a related configuration that has wide appeal is high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines that are used on nearly all airliners.
That’s It for Now
I’m done writing about multicopters for now though I may cover more as interesting designs emerge. Many proponents and industry observers predict huge revenues for such aircraft. Perhaps, but as the old saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” We will see which of these exotic designs succeed in the marketplace.
The future is devilishly hard to predict. Remember Atari, Compac, Radio Shack, Commodore? These were all big brands in the early days of personal computers a few decades back. None exist today.
As someone still thinking about getting my ticket, yes, I would consider this, but not at this range. That’s the ongoing issue with electric flight, range. 60 miles just doesn’t cut it, but given they’ve mostly resolved the range issue in cars, at some point with new battery tech they’ll resolve it for aircraft too. Current lithium technology adds too much weight for any kind of meaningful range numbers in aircraft. Once that’s resolved, between building say a Safari or Rotor X two-heli and buying one of these for around the same money, this is probably the safer, more reliable, less expensive to maintain option.
One thing I’d like to point out though, the comment above “Just point the nose down and land” doesn’t really hold much water when you’re flying over the Sierras to Tahoe. I’ll take the ballistic chute thank you very much. Why would you NOT want that if it’s an option? Anything that provides another margin of safety, especially something that could mean the difference between life and death when you’re not fortunate enough to be flying over miles of flat land with multiple landing options is a wise choice IMHO.
Dan J. U r the best. Drones with and without pilots will catch on like wildfire. Keep us posted.
Without a pilot? Mostly only non pilots want to fly drones? Take a look at Opener.aero. Best single place evtol available!!! When a production run is started, Opener says the price of their BlackFly will be that of an SUV! Others have estimated the price of their 100 or so up front prototypes may go for up to $150,000; too much for me. So like most people I am waiting for a production run of their foreign version BlackFly with a 40 mile range via 8 each 12 KWH batteries for US use; one battery for each motor; a biplane with 4 each propellers and motors on each wing. Opener BlackFly is being licensed under Part 103 as a special ultra light; empty weight 343 pounds plus up to a 200 pound pilot; fully tested with 35,000 plus test flying hours. Whenever Opener starts selling the version with the 12 KWH batteries; that will be an extraordinary day! No answer from Opener when that will be. Or: wait, wait, wait!!! Part 103 is in the process of going to ASTM for reviews of aircraft that must be docile; and then to the FAA. (See editorial comment below.) The BlackFly has a triple redundant software system for control. No word yet if that also includes triple hardware redundancy. Opener has made 7 ballistic parachute tests with the BlackFly which seems ridiculous; with 8 each propellers, motors, and batteries. The Blackfly is supposed to fly with 6 of the 8 systems in operation. Which should make the ballistic parachute a non starter. But no word yet from Opener on the ballistic parachute. I am thinking the FAA or non pilots at ASTM insisted on the ballistic parachute tests. So anyone who wants a ballistic parachute can get one. As someone who has been flying for over 50 years and have done at least several dead stick landings for each BFR; or probably around 75 dead stick landings; a parachute is silly and for novices only. Just point the nose down and land; the wing loading of the Blackfly appears to be around 2.8 PSF or similar to a glider. Or no reason for a parachute.
But, I appear to be in a minority opinion so far; which is dismaying. Or require all novices to do dead stick landings in both the simulator and other trainers so they can decide if they want a parachute. Seems like a no brainer to me! Forget parachutes; should be just not applicable for anything licensed under Part 103 with a wing loading similar to a glider. Let me know what you think of the BlackFly at my email: tdwelander@gmail.com
One editorial observation on Terry‘s comment: Part 103 has nothing whatsoever to do with ASTM. ASTM is not looking at Part 103 approval nor has ASTM given any instructions to Opener or any other Part 103 producer about how they should proceed.
In order to determine if Blackfly qualifies as an Part 103 ultralight vehicle, Opener must complete the forms in AC 103–7 and preferably have those reviewed by an independent technical standards committee …but none of this has anything to do with ASTM.
You said in your talk everything can change. So now saying ASTM will not be part of Part 103 is mystifying. The appearance is based on MOSAIC that all technical small aircraft issues and reviews will be done by ASTM committees; not the FAA. Especially when Opener themselves say they are following ASTM standards for their Part 103 certification. So what ever direction the FAA is giving Opener; it does not appear to match what you have said here. I also presume all technical standards committees used by the FAA will have to have ASTM standards as their basis; if not already and previously. A presumption on my part; but based on your talk; ASTM will be the center of FAA technical universe going forward and especially after the end of 2023. But as you have stated; everything is so fluid at the FAA based on MOSAIC, it is impossible to know what is precisely going on. Opener has not mentioned FAA forms AC 103-7 anywhere; but I presume that they have already made this form presentation to the FAA because they say they are selling the Blackfly soon. They were selling this fall; and previously said they were selling in 2019. So the selling notion appears to outside their control. Thanks.
All talks I have given have clearly stated that changes in Part 103 are unlikely, but mentioning Part 103 in a talk about Mosaic merely addresses questions that inevitably arise during many of these talks. I repeat ASTM has nothing to do with Part 103.
The ASTM F37 committee was formed to create industry consensus standards for Light-Sport Aircraft, not Part 103. It has been so successful the idea has been broadened, via Mosaic, to eventually reach a much wider group of aircraft, but not Part 103.
AC 103–7 is guidance for FAA field officials to determine if a Part 103 vehicle successfully meets the regulation (FAR Part 103, not that for Light-Sport Aircraft). As reported for Lift Aircraft and their Hexa, if a company plans to operate under Part 103 they should use guidelines in AC 103–7 to demonstrate their vehicle meets Part 103 regulation. Opener may certainly say they will use LSA standards in the development of a Part 103 vehicle, in the way that some LSA companies say they use Part 23 rules in creating their aircraft. However, no Part 103 producer has an obligation to meet ASTM standards.
Thanks. I believe the most accurate word is currently. The FAA is great at looking at anything or everything to everything else whether it appears related or not. Or, the FAA decides what is related to what in making their certifications. So saying part 103 does not currently require reference to ASTM standards; I can agree with you; having recently read part 103; no mention of ASTMs in part 103 and as you have stated part 103 will not be changed by the FAA. I am taking your word for this; as MOSAIC appears so overwhelming that part 103 could be changed adding ASTM standards to part 103 certification. Except that part 103 aircraft are meant to be the origination of simplicity and reliability; which suggests to me ASTM standards would only get in the way as a bureaucratic tool that is not needed for part 103. Or even the FAA understands that commerce needs in its basic form to be as unregulated as society will allow. Freedom of expression, part of the Bill of Rights, trumps regulation as shown by part 103; but is probably another court action waiting to happen.
I agree with much you had to say in that message and I would only add that with the Mosaic NPRM needing to be out in a matter of months, and with airlines, 5G, and other matters, FAA simply will not expend the resources to do much, if anything, with Part 103 in the foreseeable future. Honestly, I hope they do not. Part 103 does not need bureaucratic decision making, IMHO.
How much does it cost, to purchase and maintain? How much are annual inspections, and insurance? When are they available in Central Florida?
Your questions are somewhat ahead of reality as they have not yet flown the aircraft they designed. I would suggest you get on the company‘s email list so they can keep you aware.
I can only assume you have never owned a small aircraft. If you had, you would have an idea of what insurance, annual inspections, and maintenance costs would be! Based on the size and complexity of the aircraft; best guesses based on my experience: Insurance around $500 to $1000 per year, liability coverage only; Annual Inspection should be under $1000; based on size; maintenance will likely depend on radios and transponder. If forgone and flying only in class E & G airspace with only and ELT battery to replace every two years; then maintenance should be near 0 dollars and within a warranty period; somewhere between 2 years and 5 years; and maybe an extended warranty can be purchased. Motors, batteries, and propellers do fail; but in this instance; highly unlikely. The Doroni has not been tested; so it will likely be at least 5 years before it is available; unless you want an experimental version! I recommend against an experimental version; just too dangerous with the flight envelope not fully explored and documented. As Mr. Johnson has said; your questions are way ahead of the curve; but I have provided you with estimates based on my 50 plus years aviation experience. I do try to keep people happy who ask honest questions. As an experimental; the greatest chance of a problem would likely be banging up the craft inadvertently; happens regularly with experimentals. Around 400 per year according to the NTSB. Hull insurance on most experimentals is worse than helicopter insurance; or few people purchase hull insurance on experimentals and why a fully developed aircraft is much, much better. Hull insurance is then affordable! So when that inadvertent hull damage occurs; at least some of the cost would be paid by the insurance company.
Impressive, but without complex electronics it looks like stability will be an issue. Seems like designs with the props above the fuselage like a traditional helicopter would have better inflight stability.
When the software is sufficiently robust, these vehicles may be the safest aircraft in the sky. …when.
When the engine or motor stops, what happens? Glide? I think not. Parachute I would guess? I like things that glide when the power is off.
Everyone does like eVTOLs that can glide with the power off or gone. And wings with low wing loading then is essential to dead stick glide like a glider. But, even propellers only; if at least 6 propellers and motors; with 2 each non functional; the eVTOL should still fly! Assuming independent systems that continue to operate when one or two have stopped. Parachutes are more dangerous than they appear because their lines can be entangled or cut off in the props; even with the props covered. Deploying a parachute in a high updraft condition could suck the lines into the propellers; another reason why a parachute is too risky. The Doroni has 4 paired propellers; which suggest it will continue to fly on 6 functional ones. So look for an eVTOL with wings! My preference is the Opener.aero Blackfly because I agree with you; gliding is essential in any new aircraft. And forget parachutes; just too dangerous.
They could buy a $30 drone from Amazon and repurpose the onboard 6-axis gyro for stabilization, or get really fancy and use an iPhone! Or they could spend a decade and tens of millions of dollars over engineering it. So I suppose the answer is clear, time to call the investors.
Inexpensive equals simplicity and why you are unlikely to see a gyro in any Part 103 aircraft. I have now had over the last 5 years 3 iPhones; most unreliable devices ever invented. So to make any comparison of iPhones to any aircraft which must be super reliable is just silly; sorry. No one in small aircraft overspends on engineering; in my experience; because aircraft are still hand-made like Rolls Royces and why they cost big dollars compared to autos. The bottom line is always front and center. And $30 drones can never be compared to aircraft that real people fly in because $30 drones are not reliable either. Going through someone’s windows is a real possibility with $30 drones. And why $30 drones are banned by most cities except in designated locations. You are taking your life into your hands flying a $30 drone because your neighbors will have the police after you; if you are not flying in a designated location.
Unreliable is an understatement. I’ve had drones fall out of the sky when they were no more than 50 feet away and supposedly have half mile range. But…for $30 some of them are actually quite good, when they work that is. If VTOL aircraft were to go mainstream I think you will definitely have gyros and autopilot’s with the ability to keep level attitude and hold altitude. Altitude separation will be very important and there won’t be enough ATC to handle it, let alone pilot’s with the skill to follow instructions.
Mike, Opener has not said or showed how they keep stability in the Blackfly software. Could be 3 separate gyros; or could be tiny cameras with a reference to horizontal; or some combination; or even a bubble level that is referenced by a camera to the software; probably what ever is lightest and takes up the least amount of space. My experience in light fixed wing aircraft: the least reliable instrument is the gyro horizon. I do not trust it and probably most pilots do not trust the gyro horizon either. Your view of class E & G airspace is not reality. It is class E & G airspace because it is almost never used by aircraft. Aircraft separation by see and avoid will not change in class E & G airspace. As airspace become busier, the FAA changes the airspace to a higher class D. Or certain locations, urban in particular, where close encounters of aircraft have occurred repeatedly; the FAA will change the airspace to class D. Also, think of the interstate highway system and city roads and the billion or so vehicles on them nearly every day. Now think of the entire US airspace less the 2% class B; C; and D locations and you have the entire land mass of the US less that 2%. Or more than enough class E & G airspace will always exist for evtol and other aircraft not needing to get close to each other; or not needing ATC. In 120 years of flight; around 200,000 small aircraft have been manufactured. So even if automated auto manufacturing can be brought to aircraft standards; at least a million times the number of autos could fit in the air without the chance of collision based on current aircraft separation rules. One other detail, in the US around half million pilots are licensed and that many again on the rest of the planet. Or, the level of training necessary to become a pilot is substantial and outside the capability of a good portion of the population. The US pilot population at 0.3% nominally of the US population; even if it grew to 30% of the US population or 100 times; would still be only 50 million rated pilots; or a third of the current auto licensed drivers in the US. Or simply, it is not possible to saturate class E & G airspace in the US. Class E & G airspace appears safe forever. The above facts will not likely change. Meaning the only chance of change would be politics. And the pilot congressional caucus with AOPA and other flying organizations help has been expert at keeping politics out of airspace regulations so far; and no change is expected. I believe about one third of congress has the training and ability to fly themselves; and why changing airspace rules significantly will never happen. Or talking of ATC in class E & G airspace is a never, never, never! Based on my info above.
I think mankind is doing good leaps and bounds. Beautiful machine. It will be great when the regular Joe can afford to buy it. You people are doing great work.
Oh, come on !!!
All of them keep saying, “SIMPLE,” “SAFE,” “AFFORDABLE,” without any numbers, and BTW does that look even remotely affordable?
Use on a daily commute? And just how long before some uniformed official comes calling with a list of restrictions?
Get real.
Will G.
Can you imagine the chaos that these could lead to if they become available to the masses. Just think if thousands were commuting to work in the cities in peak hours every day. A great concept but I don’t think it would be a good idea for the masses.
The Opener BlackFly has 35,000 test flying hours; and the FAA or other sources are still getting in the way of production. Opener says they are selling soon whenever that is; and initially said they were selling last fall. So a concept vehicle like Doroni; until it has multi thousand test flying hours; is just a curiosity. Most people; once they dig into the details; do not want to be experimental test pilots; or purchase an experimental aircraft kit. I look forward to hearing from Doroni whenever they have over 10,000 test flying hours; when ever the Doroni flight envelope is fully developed and fully known. Opener says the BlackFly will sell for the price of an SUV; meaning to me the Doroni will never be competitive with the Opener BlackFly.
Every VTOL with spinning props exposed will NEVER do what people want it to do: like land in an unsecure location. This is getting much closer to restricting dogs and light debris from coming in contact with the blades.
In support of open dialogue, I will let this comment go public. However Larry is very much an expert in light aviation and is allowed to express his opinion. —DJ
Why is that? You write like an expert without offering any explanation for your opinions! My experience is 180 degrees different than yours; and I have been in aviation for 50 plus years!!! Making your opinions useless to me! Worse, false information to the public and making you a public enemy! Take your negative erroneous thinking and put it where the sun does not shine!!! You are a very annoying person offering up very erroneous opinions!!! I suggest you look at the Opener.aero BlackFly videos before you shoot your pen off again and aggravate numerous people. The videos prove you do not know what you are talking about. Are you 18 going on 12 to be so wrongly opinionated????? Inquiring and knowledgeable minds want to know!!! So we can ostracize you for shooting your pen off erroneously!!! Larry, one name only explains everything; doesn’t it!!! Hiding from the public and operating as a public enemy!!!! It is better to just stay out of the public rather than shoot your pen off with falsities!! Fair warning for being so offensive and such an idiot!!!
It’s Larry Mednick, 9,000-hour aircraft designer and instructor. I also spent about 3 hours with one of the designers of the Black Fly and have seen it fly in person.
Now what is it that you disagree with?
If anyone thinks setting down anything with spinning props in a parking lot or someone’s driveway is acceptable, that person does not understand the severity of the situation.
Private property that is clear of people, dogs, kites, footballs, garbage bags, etc., is acceptable for use with eVTOLS using unguarded props.
It is simple. Every type certificated aircraft has open propellers. Only less than a handful of experimental aircraft have enclosed propellers. People walk on aircraft ramps every day all over the world around or near taxing aircraft or aircraft running; their propellers turning. Open propellers are how small aircraft work! While I appreciate your back tracking on part of what you previously erroneous said; I guess we can chock it up to engaging pen before mind on your part. We all do it from time to time. Sorry I got on your case. But, initially it was way, way off; and a big detriment to all open propeller aircraft. Thanks for the part retraction in any case. Also props make noise; and everyone knows this. Or it is almost near impossible for anyone who hears or sees a moving propeller to walk into or near a rotating propeller. Any time at Oshkosh Airventure with aircraft in big numbers coming and going all day; except during the airshow; proves this. You certainly must have been to Oshkosh Airventure sometime in the past and walked the flight line. I believe now one must be a pilot or in the accompaniment of a pilot to walk the Oshkosh Airventure flight line. Thanks for the response.
I didn’t retract anything. Maybe you should try reading things twice before typing anything.
And it is simple. Type certified aircraft are used in SECURE areas like airports and private property, not Walmart and driveways in neighborhoods.
You still do not know what you are talking about. All but 200 or so of the 5000 US airports are class E; meaning no Security. Where all part 103 pilots will be flying in class E and G. Your little world is offensive and so are you. But it does not matter because the world takes care of people who do not understand what is going on; like you. And it should be obvious, most of the type certificated aircraft also fly at class E airports.
Secure area means fenced off and someone is controlling who is there. So in other words when I am landing at a Class E airport there are not people walking across the runway. And in that case the runway is a designated landing zone. If the words secure and unsecure can have multiple meanings, you need to use your brain to try and figure out which meaning is being used by the author. Now just because you didn’t understand, and everyone else including the author of this article did, does not make it anyone else’s fault you didn’t understand. Now I have explained it to you and you either understand, don’t understand or don’t want to understand. Either way everyone else does.
As previously stated, private property is not open to people just walking through. Private property is the best location for an evtol and all evtol aircraft; assuming they the have the width of road traffic; 13 feet in the case of the Opener Blackfly. Walking onto private property without permission; one can be escorted off by police or any authority with the strength to do it. I understand better than you evidently; to take the time to refute most of what you have stated. And evidently, I will put my training and experience up against yours and any three people you know anytime. Keep it up coming! Though saying I do not understand is saying you don’t understand. Because I know what you have stated and what you have stated originally makes no sense based on my responses to you. All the best in any case; even though you appear lost; which will hurt you eventually. And maybe an additional 200 of the 5000 airports that have airline service and are class E airports have fencing. Or probably 4200 airports in the US do not having fencing; and do not need fencing because they are generally in rural areas. It is up to the pilot to insure the runway is clear before landing; meaning making a pass over the runway before actually landing. It is in the FARs this way. Meaning you have not examined actual conditions and still do not know what you are talking about. At least over a half dozen times in the last 20 years I have overflown a rural runway to get the deer off the runway; a necessity for all rural runways and anyone who flys regularly knows this. Your focus on people is not where the problem is located in rural areas where at least 4200 of the 5000 US airports are located. It is with large animals. Please do some research instead of bantering with me.
I currently have 2 friends that have walked into a spinning propeller and they were both pilots. Dogs on the other hand and stupid kids with footballs may not try to avoid the spinning props at all.
So back to my first comment…
Knowing and talking about foolish people is never something to talk about. Ask any New Yorker, fools exist on every street corner. And trying to protect fools based on long standing safety methods is not possible. And creating artificial road blocks based on foolish people will get you less than nothing. Likely a spot in an insane asylum. In my experience; anywhere that is considered less safe in the work place which to me means anywhere public; and most work places; people must take either an MSHA safety course or an OSHA safety course. If you have ever flown into Oshkosh Airventure; you know that EAA or the FAA or both require a safety briefing before leaving. The point is public places are less safe than private places where people are not invited. Meaning to me and most people, all private places are safer than any public place. To me this is a no brainer and is probably a no brainer for most people. And why your argument makes no sense. You have the story backwards based on how safety practices are implemented in society; at public places only. And why flying from a private location is inherently safer than any public location or any class B through E airport.
My dog likes to try and bite my model airplanes when they are flying. Until you can train all dogs not to do so you can NEVER takeoff and land from an UNSECURE location. You mentioned Oshkosh… you mentioned the flight line. That’s what a fence is doing there. They are making a secured location. I can only assume you didn’t understand my first comment. Hopefully you understand now. If not, re-read it once and for all, because it is a fact.
You are so confused no point exists in continuing this conversation. Dogs or any other animal that stray onto active runways are dead animals; just like on highways. A week does not go by where I do not see a dead animal on a highway. No animal has the rights of a person. Fences are not used to keep animals out; animals ignore fences. So you are still clueless. I am sorry for you and am sorry I have had to refute nearly everything you have stated; so people at this website know how clueless you are.
Range is still really short. I think the big question will be how the FAA regulates it. Will the pilot feature be allowed? How picky will they be about “business use.” Where will we be able to use it? Airports and rural areas only? I think this type of design is more for practical use such as commuting and running errands rather than recreational use. Just my opinion.
You pose good and valid questions, Andy. Regarding just the regulation question, we may know a lot more after the Mosaic rule comes out …I predict at Oshkosh 2022, so in just a few months. That regulation has our focus on its LSA portion, but this sprawling rule could also encompass aircraft like the Doroni H1.
Cool! Looking for updates, etc.
Given the funds, this is probably the first quad I would consider. I’d of course like to see a greater range, but this could be great for shortening long commutes to work, for example. A truly useful quad.