The EHang 184 was shown off in Las Vegas yesterday (6 January) and really set tongues wagging. Essentially a pumped-up quadcopter, the 184 seats one person, with room for a backpack.

It has a reading light, air conditioning and all you, the passenger, has to do is tap on the Microsoft Surface tablet mounted inside, with ‘take off’ and ‘land’ your only options. Were commands to fail, a central control system would land the drone safely.

Quite why something like this exists is up for debate but, from watching the company’s launch video, it’s clear that personal tragedies from flight crashes inspired this bizarre, futuristic and safety-driven concept.

The EHang 184 takes two hours to charge, which seems remarkable as my Samsung Galaxy Tab A takes more than that. For that amount of juice, the manufacturers claim you can get 23 minutes in the air, with the EHang 184 supporting up to 220 pounds of weight.

It is designed to fly about 1,000 to 1,650 feet off the ground with a maximum altitude of 11,500 feet and top speed of 63mph.

According to The Guardian, EHang co-founder and CFO Shang Hsiao said the company hopes to sell the device for between $200,000-$300,000, starting sometime this year.

However the regulatory environment for drones of all sizes is in flux, and varies from state to state. “The whole world never had something like this before,” he said.

For safety quibbles, EHang’s chief marketing officer Derrick Xiong maintains that even were three of the propellor legs to fail, the final one could still land you safely, and pretty roughly. And when you reel in those four propellor legs it can fit in a regular carpark space.

How weird would it be to see the rooftop of every multi-storey carpark filled up with these critters?

EHang, the maker of the Ghost Drone just launched something at CES 2016 which might get a lot of folks excited. It’s basically a manned version of a traditional drone UAV called EHang 184 that provides means of personal transportation for a single passenger weighing not more than 100 kilograms or 220 pounds.

So first of all it’s not going to be the choice of NFL linemen because this maximum payload is for the passenger and personal belongings (luggage) combined. So a reasonable sized person would not be able to fly it having boots on :). The 184 was named for ‘one’ passenger, ‘eight’ propellers, and ‘four’ arms.

The EHang 184 is very similar to a multicopter UAV with an X8 configuration. If you are not sure what the different configurations mean, check out our post. Obviously, a manned multicopter that would be trusted to carry a passenger can not be a quadcopter because if only one motor would malfunction, the vehicle would fall to the ground like a brick. Guaranteed.

Actually, the X8 configuration is very dear to me as that is what we use in film making (feel free to check out Aircamfilm on FB). Imagine two quadcopters placed on top of each other. The X8 configuration features 8 rotors placed on four arms so it combines the maneuverability and agility of a quadcopter with the redundancy of an octocopter.

Safety

So the X8 configuration is a good choice but only if configured right because I could not find any information as to how the ESC-s are placed and how many separate controllers are used, what type they are, etc. EHang does say that there are “multiple backups” in place, but what they mean is unclear. The key here is to have separate boards of redundancy where both controllers and ESCs are backed up by fallback systems.

In that case, theoretically even 4 of the 8 rotors can stop and the vehicle could be able to land safely. EHang’s CEO mentioned in an interview that even if 6 motors would fail on 3 of the arms, the AAV (Autonomous Aerial Vehicles) would be able to “spiral to the ground” safely. Well, that sounds kind of scary, doubt that it would not result in anything anyone can survive. The manufacturer says that “the 184 AAV is embedded with Ehangen fail safe system” which suggests that they designed their own solution. Hope they release more information on that.

At the same time, unlike winged aircraft multirotors do not have a gliding capability and that could be a concern. I guess EHang could mount an automatically deploying parachute like a BRS chute to let the vehicle ascend safely. But if there is no such system involved and the passenger has to bail due to a malfunction, the 8 rotors being right next to the doors is a bit of a concern. I am no aircraft designer, but it would seem reasonable to place the rotor blades above the craft for added security. Placing the rotors up high would also prevent bystanders from getting injured while takeoff and landing.

Prop guards have been used on multirotors for quite some time. For example the Hoverbike is designed to have them. Why the EHang 184’s are not equipped with ducted motors is also an interesting question. It could be my ignorance and I am sure the guys over at EHang have considered that but would love to find out what the reason is.

Safety

The 184 will have a 23 minute flight time roughly allowing a 10 mile flight as announced at CES this week. Whether that, combined with a 2-4 hour charging time is sufficient for day-to-day use depends on the owner’s personal situation, but to me it seems a little too limited. Information is scarce at this time as to the type of battery the 184 will use, but the flight time suggests Lithium Polymer and that could also be a concern to be honest.

LiPo batteries are great, most UAVs use them, but they have to be handled correctly and tend to lose voltage suddenly in certain conditions such as cold weather. How you store and deplete them is also an issue, check out our guide on LiPo battery care.

Being zero emission is all great, but EHang should consider other power supply options like hybrid power (just an idea) in order to make the EHang 184 a reasonable alternative to small helicopters.

EHang 184 Control Mechanism

Now this is where it gets really scary. Reports from the EHang booth at CES say that the “pilot” or better say passenger in the cockpit will not have a chance to fly the aircraft or take over controls from the autonomous system. Well, not being able to fly the aircraft is a problem because it takes away most of the fun I would imagine owners could have owning this puppy.

A system similar to waypoint flying in UAVs that simply takes you to a desired location by just clicking on it on Google Maps sounds great as an option. But only as an option. Not the only way to fly the aircraft. I know not all possible future users are multirotor fanatics but I am quite sure that the first people to get one of these would be them. And not letting them fly the damn thing seems like a really bad idea.

EHang 184 Pricing

Accorcing to reports, the 184 will cost between $200.000 – $300.000. Now a small but proven helicopter such as the Robinson R44 Raven I costs $355.000 brand new. It has a 350 mile range and can transport 3 passengers at 4000 feet. Ok, it is more expensive to operate probably, but the 184 must be a hell of a lot cheaper to manufacture too. So the pricing seems to be a little extreme.