How many people have to get hurt before they make shrouded propellers compulsory?

"The drawbacks? Well, a huge increase in mechanical complexity, flammable liquid on board, lots of heat, and the simple fact that gas engines are poorly suited to the job of stabilizing a flying platform. They're comparatively slow to respond to throttle inputs, which is a big deal when you've got a flight controller trying to make hundreds of speed adjustments a second to keep the thing horizontal in the air. Plus, throttle adjustments generate different amounts of power depending on how fast they're running, due to the fact that gas engines have weird power output curves."
Some statements are silly and some are downright ludicrous. Gas Engines are poorly suited?? Slow to respond? Tell that to an Apache Helicopter pilot. Flammable liquids? You mean like 99.9999% of ALL THE OTHER CARS AND AIRPLANES IN THE WORLD?
Come on! I expect better!

Shrouded propellers? I often wondered about that on a number of twin engine airplanes that I flew in. A broken propeller could potentially come right through the cockpit. But it never happened and the only propellers that did break were the old wood ones on single engine planes. I also noted his lack of a crash helmet but then everyone has a different tolerance to danger. My test pilot Father who flew daily for over 50 years had an interesting saying. He would rather land a plane on fire than bail out. Strangely, with over 20,000 hours and millions of miles of flight, he was deathly afraid of heights and could not climb up a ladder more than a few steps. In a jet airplane up to 50,000 feet he was fearless.

GREAT FUN!
That said, I suspect that the tendency to turn one way over the other has more to do with the fact that the props are all turning in the same direction.
Also, I would prefer to have the props above head level- a hanging seat seems to me more stable.
And the NOISE! How about a hybrid system- a gas generator driving electric motors?

Got to appreciate the guy to work on old school tech in modern form. I bet he himself knows that exposed props are not a good idea. This one is for his own pleasure for sure.

Hi: Gasoline has a much higher energy content per pound than a battery. That's why planes use hydrocarbon fuel. The Solar Impulse is not a practical airplane.
George Rolls, part of Rolls Royce, died when the "improvement" he made to his Wright Flyer failed.
The "simple seat" seems designed to be a crash protection device.
Shrouded propellers are not so much to contain prop fragments as to prevent the Cuisinart effect.

If the 'cockpit' was fitted with wheels, it would resemble a Victorian invalid carriage. Small two stroke engines can be terribly unreliable. I hope it doesn't end up needing the wheels!

Shine on you crazy diamond!!!!

by the Sound it feels like motors are rotating at different speeds. add two thruster motors at the two back cornets of the setup with individual speed control in foot and directional control in the hand and you are done. also lower the seat for balance. Great Job no doubt.

I am truly amazed someone took the time to write about this man's amazing feat, and bash him all in one. I'm sure the first aircraft build had some flaws along with safety issues. However, hats off to this gentleman for his creation. I agree, batteries weigh too much, and I would feel safer with gas engines. I like the fact the man used r/c controls and did this all on his own. Simple, effective, and a success. Now he has a working proto type to make improvements on, and all the writer whom covered his story has is a keyboard and a negative attitude.