DOCSLIB.ORG

The Drone Market in Japan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Drone Market in Japan www.EUbusinessinJapan.eu THE DRONE MARKET IN JAPAN September - 2016 Sven Eriksson Maths Lundin EU-JAPAN CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION - Head office in Japan EU-JAPAN CENTRE FOR INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION - OFFICE in the EU Shirokane-Takanawa Station bldg 4F Rue Marie de Bourgogne, 52/2 1-27-6 Shirokane, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0072, JAPAN B-1000 Brussels, BELGIUM Tel: +81 3 6408 0281 - Fax: +81 3 6408 0283 - [email protected] Tel : +32 2 282 0040 –Fax : +32 2 282 0045 - [email protected] http://www.eu-japan.eu / http://www.EUbusinessinJapan.eu / http://www.een-japan.eu www.EUbusinessinJapan.eu Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary / Abstract ................................................................................... 4 2. Definition ................................................................................................................... 5 3. Scope of the Report ................................................................................................... 6 4. World-wide Market.................................................................................................... 7 4.1. History .......................................................................................................................... 7 4.2. Market Trends ............................................................................................................... 7 4.3. Major Manufacturers ................................................................................................... 11 3DRobotics, US .............................................................................................................................. 11 AAI Corporation, US ....................................................................................................................... 12 CAPECON, EU ................................................................................................................................. 13 DJI, China ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Ehang UAV, China .......................................................................................................................... 13 General Atomics, US ...................................................................................................................... 13 Israel Aerospace Industry (Malat), Israel....................................................................................... 14 Northrop Grumman, US ................................................................................................................ 14 Parrot, France ................................................................................................................................ 14 Yamaha Motor Co., Japan ............................................................................................................. 15 Zipline, US ...................................................................................................................................... 15 4.4. Legislation ................................................................................................................... 15 4.5. Anti-drone Market ....................................................................................................... 16 5. Japan’s Drone Market .............................................................................................. 17 5.1. Models/Types /Consumer Models /Business models /Military Models ......................... 17 5.2. Size/Trends/Growth .................................................................................................... 18 5.3. Experiments/Test flights .............................................................................................. 20 5.4. Applications: ............................................................................................................... 20 5.4.1. Agriculture ..................................................................................................................... 20 5.4.2. Transport ....................................................................................................................... 21 5.4.3. Parcel Delivery ............................................................................................................... 21 5.4.4. Utilities........................................................................................................................... 22 5.4.5. Surveying ....................................................................................................................... 22 5.4.6. Construction .................................................................................................................. 22 5.4.7. Real Estate ..................................................................................................................... 22 5.4.8. News Media, Advertisement ......................................................................................... 23 5.4.9. Film Production ............................................................................................................. 23 5.4.10. Disaster recovery ........................................................................................................... 23 5.4.11. Security .......................................................................................................................... 24 5.4.12. Anti-drone ..................................................................................................................... 24 EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation 2 www.EUbusinessinJapan.eu 6. Main Players in Japan..................................................................................... 25 6.1. Japanese Manufacturers/Suppliers ................................................................... 25 Autonomous Control Systems Laboratory (ACSL) ......................................................................... 25 Blue Innovation ............................................................................................................................. 25 Chuo Electronics Co. ...................................................................................................................... 25 Defence Ministry ........................................................................................................................... 25 DJI Japan ........................................................................................................................................ 25 enRoute ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Fuji-Imvac ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Fujitsu ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Hirobo ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Kikuchi Seisakusho ......................................................................................................................... 26 Komatsu ......................................................................................................................................... 26 NSi Moka ....................................................................................................................................... 27 NTT Group ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Ricoh Co ......................................................................................................................................... 27 SECOM Co. ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Sony Corp. ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Yamaha Motors ............................................................................................................................. 27 6.2. Foreign Suppliers in Japan ............................................................................................ 28 7. Governmental Regulations ....................................................................................... 29 7.1. Ministries and Other Organisations in Charge of Legislation: ......................................... 29 7.2. Regulations for Usage .................................................................................................. 29 7.3. Import Tariffs .............................................................................................................. 31 8. Key Success Factors, Main Challenges and Opportunities .......................................... 32 9. Importers & Related Organisations .......................................................................... 32 10. Important Trade Fair and other events .................................................................. 33 11. Summary and Recommendations.......................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Application areas for Drones in Japan. ......................................................... 35 Appendix B: Literature
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jay Carter, Founder &
    CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES An Aerospace Research & Development Company Jay Carter, Founder & CEO CAFE Electric Aircraft Symposium www.CarterCopters.com July 23rd, 2017 Wichita©2015 CARTER AVIATIONFalls, TECHNOLOGIES,Texas LLC SR/C is a trademark of Carter Aviation Technologies, LLC1 A History of Innovation Built first gyros while still in college with father’s guidance Led to job with Bell Research & Development Steam car built by Jay and his father First car to meet original 1977 emission standards Could make a cold startup & then drive away in less than 30 seconds Founded Carter Wind Energy in 1976 Installed wind turbines from Hawaii to United Kingdom to 300 miles north of the Arctic Circle One of only two U.S. manufacturers to survive the mid ‘80s industry decline ©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 2 SR/C™ Technology Progression 2013-2014 DARPA TERN Won contract over 5 majors 2009 License Agreement with AAI, Multiple Military Concepts 2011 2017 2nd Gen First Flight Find a Manufacturing Later Demonstrated Partner and Begin 2005 L/D of 12+ Commercial Development 1998 1 st Gen 1st Gen L/D of 7.0 First flight 1994 - 1997 Analysis & Component Testing 22 years, 22 patents + 5 pending 1994 Company 11 key technical challenges overcome founded Proven technology with real flight test ©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 3 SR/C™ Technology Progression Quiet Jump Takeoff & Flyover at 600 ft agl Video also available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxOC7xtfRM ©2015 CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 4 SR/C vs. Fixed Wing • SR/C rotor very low drag by being slowed Profile HP vs.
    [Show full text]
  • SP's Airbuz June-July, 2011
    SP’s 100.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) ` An Exclusive Magazine on Civil A viation from India www.spsairbuz.net June-July, 2011 green engines INTERVIEW: PRATT & WHITNEY SLEEP ATTACK GENERAL AviatiON SHOW REPOrt: EBACE 2011 AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION RNI NUMBER: DELENG/2008/24198 47 Years of Excellence Personified 6 Aesthetically Noteworthy Publications 2.2 Million Thought-Provoking Releases 25 Million Expert Reports Voicing Industry Concerns …. aspiring beyond excellence. www.spguidepublications.com InsideAdvt A4.indd back Cover_Home second option.indd ad black.indd 1 1 4/30/201017/02/11 1:12:15 11:40 PM AM Fifty percent quieter on-wing. A 75 percent smaller noise footprint on the ground. The Pratt & Whitney PurePower® Geared Turbofan™ engine can easily surpass the most stringent noise regulations. And because it also cuts NOx emissions and reduces CO2 emissions by 3,000 tons per aircraft per year, you can practically hear airlines, airframers and the rest of the planet roar in uncompromising approval. Learn more at PurePowerEngines.com. It’s in our power.™ Compromise_SPs Air Buzz.indd 1 5/9/11 4:05 PM Client: Pratt & Whitney Commercial Engines Ad Title: PurePower - Compromise Publication: SP’s Air Buzz Trim: 210 mm x 267 mm • Bleed: 220 mm x 277 mm • Live: 180 mm x 226 mm Table of Contents SP’s An Exclusive Magazine on Civil A viation from India www.spsairbuz.net May-June, 2011 Cover: 100.00 (INDIA-BASED BUYER ONLY) Airlines have been investing green ` heavily in fuel-efficient engines INTERVIEW: PRATT & WHITNEY SLEEP ATTACK Technology
    [Show full text]
  • A Fuzzy Framework for Robust Architecture Identification in Concept Selection
    A FUZZY FRAMEWORK FOR ROBUST ARCHITECTURE IDENTIFICATION IN CONCEPT SELECTION A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty by Frank H. Patterson In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology December 2015 Copyright c 2015 by Frank H. Patterson A FUZZY FRAMEWORK FOR ROBUST ARCHITECTURE IDENTIFICATION IN CONCEPT SELECTION Approved by: Professor Daniel Schrage, Advisor Professor George Vachtsevanos School of Aerospace Engineering School of Electrical and Computer Georgia Institute of Technology Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Dimitri Mavris Dr. Sylvester Ashok School of Aerospace Engineering School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Brian German Date Approved: November 9, 2015 School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology To my growing family, Love does multiply. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Schrage for giving me the oppor- tunity to return to school for my graduate degrees. He gave me a chance when no one else would, and provided an opportunity that changed not just my career, but my entire life. Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. And many thanks to Bill McCandless for vouching for me yet again. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee for their time, help and guidance throughout this process. I owe so much to my amazing family for all they have provided me, and for their love, support and faith throughout my entire career (academic and otherwise). My deepest gratitude to my amazing wife, Martha, and my mother, without whose selfless sacrifice I would have never been able to even begin a PhD.
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Technologies for Personal Air Transport Systems1
    myCopter: Enabling Technologies for Personal Air Transport Systems1 M. Jump, G.D. Padfield, & M.D. White‡, D. Floreano, P. Fua, J.-C. Zufferey & F. Schill§, R. Siegwart & S. Bouabdallah§§, M. Decker& J. Schippl*, M. Höfinger**, F.M. Nieuwenhuizen & H.H. Bülthoff † Abstract This paper describes the European Commission Framework 7 funded project myCopter (2011-2014). The project is still at an early stage so the paper starts with the current transportation issues faced by developed countries and describes a means to solve them through the use of personal aerial transportation. The concept of personal air vehicles (PAV) is briefly reviewed and how this project intends to tackle the problem from a different perspective described. It is argued that the key reason that many PAV concepts have failed is because the operational infrastructure and socio- economic issues have not been properly addressed; rather, the start point has been the design of the vehicle itself. Some of the key aspects that would make a personal aerial transport system (PATS) viable include the required infrastructure and associated technologies, the skill levels and machine interfaces needed by the occupant or pilot and the views of society as a whole on the acceptability of such a proposition. The myCopter project will use these areas to explore the viability of PAVs within a PATS. The paper provides an overview of the project structure, the roles of the partners, and hence the available research resources, and some of the early thinking on each of the key project topic
    [Show full text]
  • Foglio A4 Proceedings
    Paper no. 122 MYCOPTER: ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES FOR PERSONAL AIR TRANSPORT 1 SYSTEMS – AN EARLY PROGRESS REPORT M. Jump, P. Perfect, G.D. Padfield, & M.D. White‡, D. Floreano, P. Fua, J.-C. Zufferey & F. Schill§, R. Siegwart & S. Bouabdallah§§, M. Decker, J. Schippl & S. Meyer*, M. Höfinger**, F.M. Nieuwenhuizen & H.H. Bülthoff † ABSTRACT This paper describes the European Commission (EC) Framework 7 funded project myCopter (2011-2014). The project is still at an early stage so the paper starts with a discussion of the current transportation issues faced, for example, by European countries and describes a means to solve them through the use of a personal aerial transportation system (PATS). The concept of personal air vehicles (PAVs) is briefly reviewed and how this project intends to tackle the problem described. It is argued that the key reason that many PAV concepts have failed is because the operational infrastructure and socio-economic issues have not been properly addressed; rather, the start point has been the design of the vehicle itself. Some of the key aspects that would make a PATS viable include the required infrastructure and associated technologies, the skill levels and machine interfaces needed by the occupant or pilot and the views of society as a whole on the acceptability of such a proposition. The myCopter project will use these areas to explore the viability of PAVs within a PATS. The paper reports upon the early progress made within the project. An initial reference set of PAV requirements has been collated. A conceptual flight simulation model capable of providing a wide range of handling qualities characteristics has been developed and its function has undergone limited verification.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Sizing of a Roadable Personal Air Vehicle Using Design Of
    Initial sizing of a roadable personal air vehicle using design of experiments for various engine types Jaeyoung Cha and Juyeol Yun Department of Aerospace Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and Ho-Yon Hwang Department of Aerospace Engineering and Convergence Engineering for Intelligence Drone, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze and compare the performances of novel roadable personal air vehicle (PAV) concepts that meet established operational requirements with different types of engines. Design/methodology/approach – The vehicle configuration was devised considering the dimensions and operational restrictions of the roads, runways and parking lots in South Korea. A folding wing design was adopted for road operations and parking. The propulsion designs considered herein use gasoline, diesel and hybrid architectures for longer-range missions. The sizing point of the roadable PAV that minimizes the wing area was selected, and the rate of climb, ground roll distance, cruise speed and service ceiling requirements were met. For various engine types and mission profiles, the performances of differently sized PAVs were compared with respect to the MTOW, wing area, wing span, thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, power-to-weight ratio, brake horsepower and fuel efficiency. Findings – Unlike automobiles, the weight penalty of the hybrid system because of the additional electrical components reduced the fuel efficiency considerably. When the four engine types were compared, matching the total engine system weight, the internal combustion (IC) engine PAVs had better fuel efficiency rates than the hybrid powered PAVs. Finally, a gasoline-powered PAV configuration was selected as the final design because it had the lowest MTOW, despite its slightly worse fuel efficiency compared to that of the diesel-powered engine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Directional Stability of Autogyros Illustrated with the Example of I-28B Experimental Autogyro
    THE DIRECTIONAL STABILITY OF AUTOGYROS ILLUSTRATED WITH THE EXAMPLE OF I-28B EXPERIMENTAL AUTOGYRO Rafał Żurawski Dawid Ulma Adam Dziubiński [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] B.Sc. Eng. M.Sc. Eng. M.Sc. Eng. Institute of Aviation Institute of Aviation Institute of Aviation Warsaw, Poland Warsaw, Poland Warsaw, Poland OVERVIEW I-28B is a new concept of autogyro designed in the Institute of Aviation. Contrary to standard solutions it has a unique upside-down v-tail that fulfils additional role of rear landing gear support. First flights revealed that this design cannot obtain a satisfying, secure level of directional stability, which forced the test pilot to land in a field near the airstrip in the third flight. The authors of this paper try to answer three questions – what happened, why it happened, and how the design needs to be improved. During work on this subject, we elaborated general rules that should be followed to obtain sufficient level of directional steadiness. have a prerotation of the rotor, in more sophisticated 1. INTRODUCTION gyrocopters an electric or pneumatic system is usually used. By definition, the autogyro, also known as gyrocopter, gyroplane or gyrodyne is an aircraft where a free spinning rotor generates lift, turning by 2. I-28B EXPERIMENTAL AUTOGYRO autorotation. [1] Unlike helicopter, forward thrust must be Autogyro I-28B was developed in the framework provided by a pusher or tractor propeller of the European project “Technology of implementing configuration. [2] in the economic practice of a new type of rotary-wing Autorotation is a complex phenomenon involving aircraft”.
    [Show full text]
  • Carter SRC Technology Primer
    SAFE, FAST, EFFICIENT A PRIMER ON CARTER SLOWED ROTOR COMPOUND (SRC) TECHNOLOGY CARTER AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES An Aerospace Research & Development Company www.CarterCopters.com SRC BENEFITS AND FEATURES Carter has accomplished what no one Speed – A slowed rotor allows the aircraft to fly up to 450 kts without else had been able to do before. Carter the advancing rotor tip speed exceeding Mach 0.95. controllably, safely and stably slowed the Cruise Efficiency – The slowed rotor at reduced pitch reduces the rotor in flight to the point that the retreating rotational drag so dramatically that its drag becomes only about 10% of blade experienced entirely reverse flow the total aircraft drag profile – basically a function the rotor wetted area. (technically known as a rotor advance ratio Vertical Takeoff and Landing – Both jump takeoff and hovering versions greater than one – or Mu > 1 – the have the ability to operate without runways at low cost, which will engineering term for a ratio of forward revolutionize regional civil, commercial, or military air transportation. airspeed to blade tip velocity). The result of Impossible blade stall – Since the wing provides the lift at cruise, the slowing the rotor so dramatically is reducing rotor does not need to provide lift and therefore there are no retreating the rotor profile drag (by the cubic root of blade stall issues as with conventional helicopters at high speed. RPM) such that it almost disappears relative No cruise rotor noise – The slowed rotor reduces the noise so to the rest of the aircraft. Since the rotor significantly that during a flyover at 600’ (200 m) above the ground, the rotor noise is insignificant compared to engine/prop noise – as quiet as provides the predominant lift for hover and a fixed wing aircraft, or even quieter using Carter propeller technology.
    [Show full text]