GET IN TOUCH Contact us on info@higheye.com 🌍 www.higheye.com FOLLOW US Get updates or reach out to get updates on our Social Media Profiles! ✅ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/high... ✅ Twitter: twitter.com/EyeAviation ✅ Facebook:facebook.com/higheye ✅ Instagram: instagram.com/higheye.nl
Congratulations to High Eye's amazing team for their high quality and highly capable multi-mission HEF 32. ParaZero is proud to support it with the SafeAir recovery suite.
So whats the advantage of this over say a multirotor? This has to be way more expensive and more maintence with a gas engine. Just wondering the thought behind this.
Gas engines can provide more power and endurance than electric motors for the weight of fuel that they use. The biggest downside of electric aircraft is the massive weight in batteries that they have to carry - we're at a point where it's quite hard to increase battery density any more than we already have, so to have more power you need a bigger battery, which weighs more. As for multirotor vs rotary-wing, it is likely the result of the first decision - it is quite difficult to have a gas-powered multirotor, not only because you need to have 4 engines, but that gas engines simply do not have the fine-tuned, ultra-fast power response that electric motors have. Multirotors control themselves by varying the RPM of their various motors to shift their center of thrust and thus cause a rotation. Gas engines are sluggish to respond to throttle changes - with a rotary-wing, this isn't really a problem, as the control is maintained by the collective and cyclic (which changes the pitch of the blades to increase or decrease thrust as they rotate). Collective and cyclic can easily be controlled with servos, so that combined with the greater endurance of the gas engine make it the better choice in this scenario. Yes, optimally a battery-powered craft would be preferred as motors require far less maintenance, however we simply haven't gotten the tech down for large-scale, heavy-lift, long-endurance operations without sacrificing much of the payload capacity or increasing the craft's weight or volume. Engineering is finicky in that way - it's all about trade-offs.
This makes no sense. This unit requires massive controlling system which isn't the case with modern technology. There are units out there that do full autonomy and beyond line of site with GPS guidance that are being controlled with a tablet or phone. This is already very old and outdated.
You compare this unique professional uav with a hobby drone, but look at the specs like payload, flight time, etc. (what is line of site by the way? Do you mean sight?)
This isn't some toy drone, it's a UAV. Full-sized UAVs almost always have a large ground station - tablets are simply showing the downlink from it, but they have to get that downlink from a re-broadcast from the control station, and they cannot control it from the tablet. You especially cannot control a UAV over the horizon with a tablet - tablets only have a range of a few hundred feet, not the miles and miles required for this. While it still needs to have line of sight connection with the transmission antenna, this is very, very, very common, even with today's UAVs. You will only have satellite-based control with massive UAVs such as the MQ-9 Reaper or RQ-4 Global Hawk. UAVs that two people can carry typically use line-of-sight radio control because, quite simply, it's far cheaper and far less complicated, and the endurance of the UAV makes satellite-based control rather useless and redundant considering its overall maximum range. Look up any actual industry UAV platform, and it will always have a control station. Also, this _has_ full autonomy - it can take off, land, and navigate by itself. The physical controls are there for manual overrides if they want to get a closer look. Plus, it has GPS on it - that dome atop the propeller is the GPS antenna. So, no, this isn't old or outdated. This is what 95% of the UAVs on the commercial and industrial market are like.
The Airboxer is not a toy drone. Hence, it can lift up to 7 kg of payload while having an endurance of 3 hours. This UAV can be used by e.g. the coast guard or the navy to complete a certain mission.
GET IN TOUCH
Contact us on info@higheye.com
🌍 www.higheye.com
FOLLOW US
Get updates or reach out to get updates on our Social Media Profiles!
✅ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/high...
✅ Twitter: twitter.com/EyeAviation
✅ Facebook:facebook.com/higheye
✅ Instagram: instagram.com/higheye.nl
what fantastic technology. greetings from Australia
Thank you, Zed! Do you have experience with UAVs? 🚁 Best regards, Philipp
Congratulations to High Eye's amazing team for their high quality and highly capable multi-mission HEF 32. ParaZero is proud to support it with the SafeAir recovery suite.
Thank you Oren
Se ve realmente genial ! Además com un diseño muy lindo 😉
It looks very promising RPAS. Small size, VTOL with long range, long flight time, multi payload configurations in a IP67 package.
Wow ! It's a compact and multi-function VTOL. Amazing drone~ Good luck !
Good Job!
Thank you!
Wow, fantastic Work. Thumb up.
Thank you! 🚁
Why do u dramatize so much ..whit such moving camera and music...etc etc??
That's really quite impressive!!!
Happy to hear!
That thing is huge !!!
1661 X 539 X 600 mm to be exact 🚁✔
So whats the advantage of this over say a multirotor? This has to be way more expensive and more maintence with a gas engine. Just wondering the thought behind this.
Jackal incorrect, a single rotor traditional helicopter will be more efficient than a similar sized multi-rotor.
Gas engines can provide more power and endurance than electric motors for the weight of fuel that they use. The biggest downside of electric aircraft is the massive weight in batteries that they have to carry - we're at a point where it's quite hard to increase battery density any more than we already have, so to have more power you need a bigger battery, which weighs more.
As for multirotor vs rotary-wing, it is likely the result of the first decision - it is quite difficult to have a gas-powered multirotor, not only because you need to have 4 engines, but that gas engines simply do not have the fine-tuned, ultra-fast power response that electric motors have. Multirotors control themselves by varying the RPM of their various motors to shift their center of thrust and thus cause a rotation. Gas engines are sluggish to respond to throttle changes - with a rotary-wing, this isn't really a problem, as the control is maintained by the collective and cyclic (which changes the pitch of the blades to increase or decrease thrust as they rotate). Collective and cyclic can easily be controlled with servos, so that combined with the greater endurance of the gas engine make it the better choice in this scenario.
Yes, optimally a battery-powered craft would be preferred as motors require far less maintenance, however we simply haven't gotten the tech down for large-scale, heavy-lift, long-endurance operations without sacrificing much of the payload capacity or increasing the craft's weight or volume. Engineering is finicky in that way - it's all about trade-offs.
it looks awsome!
Thank you!!
Took a look at the website but no price tag tho 😔
For price enquiries please contact info@higheye.com
I LOVE IT
So do we! :)
HOW MUCH IS IT ???
WHERE CAN WE ORDER ???….
have a look at the website www.higheye.nl
I will , Thank you for the replay :)
@@yoshidatsuyoshi6864 I would imagine quite expensive.
how much the price...? and how to order it...?
www.higheye.nl
thank you
Price?
How much price
For price enquiries please contact info@higheye.com
This makes no sense. This unit requires massive controlling system which isn't the case with modern technology. There are units out there that do full autonomy and beyond line of site with GPS guidance that are being controlled with a tablet or phone. This is already very old and outdated.
You compare this unique professional uav with a hobby drone, but look at the specs like payload, flight time, etc. (what is line of site by the way? Do you mean sight?)
This isn't some toy drone, it's a UAV. Full-sized UAVs almost always have a large ground station - tablets are simply showing the downlink from it, but they have to get that downlink from a re-broadcast from the control station, and they cannot control it from the tablet. You especially cannot control a UAV over the horizon with a tablet - tablets only have a range of a few hundred feet, not the miles and miles required for this. While it still needs to have line of sight connection with the transmission antenna, this is very, very, very common, even with today's UAVs. You will only have satellite-based control with massive UAVs such as the MQ-9 Reaper or RQ-4 Global Hawk. UAVs that two people can carry typically use line-of-sight radio control because, quite simply, it's far cheaper and far less complicated, and the endurance of the UAV makes satellite-based control rather useless and redundant considering its overall maximum range.
Look up any actual industry UAV platform, and it will always have a control station.
Also, this _has_ full autonomy - it can take off, land, and navigate by itself. The physical controls are there for manual overrides if they want to get a closer look. Plus, it has GPS on it - that dome atop the propeller is the GPS antenna.
So, no, this isn't old or outdated. This is what 95% of the UAVs on the commercial and industrial market are like.
The Airboxer is not a toy drone. Hence, it can lift up to 7 kg of payload while having an endurance of 3 hours. This UAV can be used by e.g. the coast guard or the navy to complete a certain mission.