>>8129097>It was mostly a good discussion of multirotor pros and consthese were established 30 posts into the thread, afterwards it was just a constant repitition of the same thing worded differently
>I don't know why you keep equating this discussion to meme threads>the thing posted by OP is clearly a serious product with aims for safe autonomous travelthe only thing OP actually did was provide a correct explanation as to why electric engine multirotors are so simple to control
everything else is handwavy oneliners stacked on top of each other
fuel consumption? "just go hybrid" (???)
safety? "it will end up being safer than a road car"
licensing/certification? "just go somewhere with lax laws, also AUTOMATION" (as if such a thing as lax laws exist in aviation, also see
>>8127304)
manned >pilot< required? see above, but also "the US is not the world"
insurance cost? "when nobody crashes it will go down" (maximum kek)
materials? "my stress test says wood will hold up" (not a word about safety margins or what stress test he actually refers to, could be static for all we know)
and then we get to gems like multirotors with small props being capable of autorotating, which is completely wrong due to the inherent lack of prop inertia, the same lack of inertia that makes steering via engine voltage modulation possible in the first place
or a supposed production cost of 5000 bucks
because apparently a product only costs the sum of its parts if you buy them straight from amazon, plus assembly
no testing costs
no commercial licensing costs for components purchased from 3rd parties
no certification costs for getting it approved by [aviation agency of the country you're selling it in]
no maintenance costs
his posts are handwavy as fuck and his production cost estimate reeks of napkin math
but apparently we'll all see his great innovation in october...
if only we could put bets on this, I'd put down a couple of grand no questions asked
>inb4contrarian>inb4urjustjealous 
