Slashdot Mirror

Look at the Mosquito aviation stuff: http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/mosqspec.asp
1 hour endurance at 70mph at 5 gph. 1/3 the horsepower and higher cruise speed.
The mosquito costs $30K. for a kit, 200 hours build time.

People build helicopters rather than lift-jets because moving a large volume of air slowly is more efficient than moving a small volume of air quickly. (force is goes as (M/s)*V, power as (M/s)*V^2).

A compact jet pack you could wear would be great, the this isn't it.

I don't doubt that a superior athlete, such as the one you mention, could do better; but the power output figure provided really underscores how questionably qualified humans are for this sort of job.

Among the very lightest(manned) helicopters, are the 'ultralights' designed to be cheaper and more broadly accessible by falling below certain thresholds of size and performance that attract more FAA scrutiny. Outside of RC hobby circles, these are about the least powerful, most stripped down, helicopters you can buy. this one, for instance, sports a 45kW engine with an endurance time of ~60 minutes. Looking at the engine specs that's all in a 40kg package(not counting the 5 gallons of gas, which ostensibly provide slightly over an hour of flight time).

Humans do have a lot going for them: self-repairing, edible, refuel on commonly available materials, excellent natural language parsing; but even world-class athletes whose performance I will never have a hope of touching are just not very powerful compared to even quite modest engines.

a. It isn't a new kind of engine. It is using a standard piston engine. It is a new kind of impeller, rotor,
b. Propeller engines can't hover? What? I guess you have never seen a helicopter? Or any 3d model aircraft? Or ever been to an air show and seen a and Extra hang on it's prop? With a high enough power to weight ratio yes they can and do. And of course the V-22 Osprey does it on a regular basis.
c. Trusting up? Talk about being of very limited value. Just going to zero lift on landing is usually good enough. Using engine power to pin the craft to the ground has very limited utility.

Over all this is mildly interesting and could be really good for drones that need to fly in areas too tight for rotors. The claims of high lift and other claims are really out there. The performance is rather unspectacular. Here is a home built aircraft you can buy that has less then half the HP and carries a much bigger payload. http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/specs.asp

The Mosquito still looks like a better idea. It's probably cheaper, and it will autorotate and thus be a lot more survivable if the engine goes out.

On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot. It looks easier to fly. There are no rotors exposed which makes it safer in tightly constrained environments; but the other safety factors probably outweigh.

I don't see myself going up in either one; but if it were a choice, I'd go with the little chopper.

Don't know about the flying car, but here's an ultralight helicopter.

His new machine is intended to fly at fifteen feet. Sounds like ground effect to me.

I don't know about the power though. A Bell 47 had a piston engine that wasn't too big, a couple of hundred HP. OTOH, he's talking about using a motorbike engine for his next try. That's ultralight territory for sure. It can be done though. Here's an example I googled: http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/index.asp Also remember that iirc a Bell Jet Ranger only gets about 400 HP on the shaft.

One question: A regular 'copter controls the tail rotor with the pedals. He doesn't mention pedals. How do you think he controls the tail rotor? Does he control the tail rotor?

You can buy an ultralight helicopter for $35,000 built. Who needs a flying car?

... And NO pilot's license required! Kudos to Canadian technology!

http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/index.a sp

~m