From the POV of someone adjacent to defense stuff, the DoD has been in a bit of a tech-curious analysis cycle. They're probably not interested in putting guns on this thing as currently outfitted, but rather they want to see if this novel approach has any potential applications worth further developing. It's not a particularly capable system, but the USAF and USN are currently looking at a whole slew of VTOL systems and this one is both much simpler and much cheaper than any of them. If an arrangement like this is fielded it's probably not as a human rated system but as a large forward deployed combat or logistics drone.
Putting ~500lbs of explosives in it might be cool, it would probably be more aerodynamically stable at speed than those fpv quad copters and the vertical takeoff capability and increased range compared to a quad slinging a mortar round seem interesting.. though something engineered for that specific purpose rather than to carry a human occupant would probably be more fit.
I think there is a place for close air support drone between small drones and attack helicopter and fighters. VTOL means that it can operate close to the troops.
500 lbs means that it can carry rockets (which are now guided), small missiles like Hellfire, and small bombs like SDB.
The smaller size, maneuverability, and stand-off range should make it less vulnerable to MANPADs.
They're doing some sort of voodoo for this to be part 103. It's significantly overweight, so they classified it as amphibious. Yet there's no demonstration of those capabilities. Even so, they must be pretty generous with their safety equipment weight exclusions as it's still damn heavy.
It would be nice if they would allow electric part 103 to use a credit of the max fuel load of a gas powered 103 to offset battery weight. I have no idea if that's involved here. But I do see a discrepancy that empty vs gross weight is about a 250 lb difference but they state a max pilot weight of 200 lb.
Ultralight base allowable empty weight: 254 lbs
Allowance for wing outrigger floats 10lbs x 4(?) 40 lbs*
Allowance for whole aircraft parachute 24 lbs
Allowance for amphibious fuselage 30 lbs x 1 30 lbs
Allowable empty weight 348 lbs
The way its written, looks like they could take up to 120 lbs for floats, but only needed 10 to make the cutoff.
Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass. It only specs empty weight with an allowance for fuel. To your point, battery technology gets no credit.
Interesting, I wasn't able to find that video on their site or YouTube. I did see that the water landing capability is advertised as being for emergencies only on their site. Perhaps that's why it's not prominent. Definitely bending the rules (not necessarily a bad thing in this case) if the manufacturer says not to use it as amphibious and the regulations require it to be capable of repeated takeoffs and landings from water. Technically the FAA can ask you to demonstrate the amphibious capabilities. What do you say to them, I'm not allowed to per the manufacturer?
"Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass."
My point wasn't about part 103 but about a discrepancy in their advertised numbers. Looks like there are a bunch of different numbers out there since it was still experimental. It seems the website officially lists 348 lbs empty weight and 220 lbs pilot max weight.
348 lbs is the max you listed, and the empty weight listed on their site. They are right at the limit.
> Shortly after Pivotal officially launched sales of its single-seat personal aerial vehicle—a recreational eVTOL aircraft that requires no license to fly—the company’s “tilt-aircraft” architecture has garnered some attention from the U.S. Air Force. ... Recreational pilots (licensed or not) can order the Pivotal Helix aircraft online at a starting price of $190,000. Because the aircraft complies with the FAA’s Part 103 rules for ultralight aircraft, operators do not need a pilot’s license to legally fly it
Consider the problem you're trying to solve first. Generally speaking, your problem would be better served by a type of aircraft (or non-aircraft approach) that already exists.
Getting a IR lock might be challenging on a hot day, and it's probably not very big on a radar. Imaging sensors and, hell, sound, would both be useful for targeting.
Hitting anything at altitude and moving with small arms is a waste of ammo almost all the time. You would need big energy (7.62 NATO or above) plus a little mount with a tracking system plus precision servos, all locked down on something that doesn't move much. It's a lot of kit to carry around.
But, regardless, that thing is dead meat. Electric drive drones everywhere today means AA platforms like Gepard/Cheetah, ZSUs, and similar have returned to the battlefield in force.
Those rapid fire cannons . . ok, basically, explosive shells and soft skinned vehicles like this are a terrible combination, due to how detonations affect flexy materials like this.
We saw this in WW2, when the otherwise-incredibly-durable[1] soft-skinned Wellington bombers and Hurricanes started eating cannon shells from new mods of fighters. The brisance of the explosive shells did a tremendous amount of damage, which sucked, because the Wimpy was frickin' awesome, IMO the most successful medium (but kinda heavy) bomber design of the war. Metal-skinned aircraft still got shredded, but the damage was a lot less - like a LOT a lot, it's hard to overstate what it did to the geodetic frame on a Wimpy - and frag didn't go as far.
[1] Wellingtons could eat infinity bullets, as even if they knocked out a strut, it's a geodetic structure - there's thousands more struts to go, and they share the load. Cannon rounds . . ah, sad Wimpy trumpet sounds
I think it's even vulnerable to small arms fire. It's slow, low altitude, has miniscule range, and is manned, making it a much bigger target than drones.
It doesn't have to be that way though. Look at this like a PoC. Drop the electrics and the batteries in favor of regular motors, drop the pilot in favor of remote control or self-flying, and you have a vehicle that might be great for logistics in heavily mined areas. Mines are something that we've seen a lot in the war in Ukraine, some estimate that with modern technology it will take hundreds of years to demine what the Russians have put down. So having ways to avoid that to an extent could be extremely lucrative.
This looks like one of the least battle-hardened devices ever developed. That thick watermelon seed shape from the side looks like shooting fish in a barrel.
Readit News
Battles are won with guns; wars with logistics.
500 lbs means that it can carry rockets (which are now guided), small missiles like Hellfire, and small bombs like SDB.
The smaller size, maneuverability, and stand-off range should make it less vulnerable to MANPADs.
And at $200k a pop it's practically disposable!
It would be nice if they would allow electric part 103 to use a credit of the max fuel load of a gas powered 103 to offset battery weight. I have no idea if that's involved here. But I do see a discrepancy that empty vs gross weight is about a 250 lb difference but they state a max pilot weight of 200 lb.
Ultralight base allowable empty weight: 254 lbs Allowance for wing outrigger floats 10lbs x 4(?) 40 lbs* Allowance for whole aircraft parachute 24 lbs Allowance for amphibious fuselage 30 lbs x 1 30 lbs Allowable empty weight 348 lbs
The way its written, looks like they could take up to 120 lbs for floats, but only needed 10 to make the cutoff.
Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass. It only specs empty weight with an allowance for fuel. To your point, battery technology gets no credit.
They posted a video on linkedin showing waterborne take offs and landings (see it about 45s into the video). https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165474...
"Part 103 makes no discrimination about operator mass."
My point wasn't about part 103 but about a discrepancy in their advertised numbers. Looks like there are a bunch of different numbers out there since it was still experimental. It seems the website officially lists 348 lbs empty weight and 220 lbs pilot max weight.
348 lbs is the max you listed, and the empty weight listed on their site. They are right at the limit.
I was really surprised that was possible, but this seems to describe the regulatory situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aircraft_(United_St....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle
Hitting anything at altitude and moving with small arms is a waste of ammo almost all the time. You would need big energy (7.62 NATO or above) plus a little mount with a tracking system plus precision servos, all locked down on something that doesn't move much. It's a lot of kit to carry around.
But, regardless, that thing is dead meat. Electric drive drones everywhere today means AA platforms like Gepard/Cheetah, ZSUs, and similar have returned to the battlefield in force.
Those rapid fire cannons . . ok, basically, explosive shells and soft skinned vehicles like this are a terrible combination, due to how detonations affect flexy materials like this.
We saw this in WW2, when the otherwise-incredibly-durable[1] soft-skinned Wellington bombers and Hurricanes started eating cannon shells from new mods of fighters. The brisance of the explosive shells did a tremendous amount of damage, which sucked, because the Wimpy was frickin' awesome, IMO the most successful medium (but kinda heavy) bomber design of the war. Metal-skinned aircraft still got shredded, but the damage was a lot less - like a LOT a lot, it's hard to overstate what it did to the geodetic frame on a Wimpy - and frag didn't go as far.
[1] Wellingtons could eat infinity bullets, as even if they knocked out a strut, it's a geodetic structure - there's thousands more struts to go, and they share the load. Cannon rounds . . ah, sad Wimpy trumpet sounds
all those right angles and exposed props make me think otherwise
Deleted Comment